So floating around the rumor mill is a leak that claims there will be no more subfaction soup. We don't have precise wording, but it sounds something like any replaceable tags like <REGIMENT> have to be the same throughout so Cadians and Scions are a thing, but Cadians and Tallarn are not.
Pros
- No more confusing armies where similarly painted models have different rules
- No more smoothing out a subfaction weakness
Cons
- Some subfactions are better than others
- Less choice
Unknown
- Does this apply to faction soup ( e.g. Knights and Admech )
Now this will obviously be a GT rule, but as we know it will flow into other games. This is a slap to GK, Sisters, and potentially DE ( among others ). There's been something in the rumor mill on DE along these lines where they can do one Coven, one Kabal, and one Cult. This doesn't break the army, but it potentially stops Artists and Dark Tech in the same army.
On other piece is that detachments ( aside from Battalion and Brigade ) are losing slots. So the Patrol loses a FA and Heavy slot ( presumed ). This would make this harder for DE to bring lots of Talos / Cronos and is a nerf in general to specialized armies.
Obviously this is all up in the air, but what do you think? Good, bad, indifferent? Does this mess your list up or would you prefer it? In what other ways do you see this affecting the game?
It's GW selling a solution to a problem that they made, that is implemented in the dumbest way possible.
Judging by the points changes they're ALSO not even considering how this impacts the factions as a whole.
I hope everybody who plays against SoB routinely is ready to see nothing but Bloody rose ever again because if that supplement is even AS mediocre as the OoML one was, it'll be the only build anyone's going to see for 6 months.
If it's as garbage as it looks like it is...well, it was nice being a good army for a while.
On other piece is that detachments ( aside from Battalion and Brigade ) are losing slots. So the Patrol loses a FA and Heavy slot ( presumed ). This would make this harder for DE to bring lots of Talos / Cronos and is a nerf in general to specialized armies.
Obviously this is all up in the air, but what do you think? Good, bad, indifferent? Does this mess your list up or would you prefer it? In what other ways do you see this affecting the game?
On other piece is that detachments ( aside from Battalion and Brigade ) are losing slots. So the Patrol loses a FA and Heavy slot ( presumed ). This would make this harder for DE to bring lots of Talos / Cronos and is a nerf in general to specialized armies.
Obviously this is all up in the air, but what do you think? Good, bad, indifferent? Does this mess your list up or would you prefer it? In what other ways do you see this affecting the game?
ERJAK wrote: It's GW selling a solution to a problem that they made, that is implemented in the dumbest way possible.
Judging by the points changes they're ALSO not even considering how this impacts the factions as a whole.
I hope everybody who plays against SoB routinely is ready to see nothing but Bloody rose ever again because if that supplement is even AS mediocre as the OoML one was, it'll be the only build anyone's going to see for 6 months.
If it's as garbage as it looks like it is...well, it was nice being a good army for a while.
A buddy of mine is one of the top 10 SoB players in the ITC or whatever its called, hes already declared the faction dead with the consensus of most of the others in the top 10. Dunno if that really means anything, but these are supposedly the "experts" in the faction so it seems legit.
ERJAK wrote: It's GW selling a solution to a problem that they made, that is implemented in the dumbest way possible.
Judging by the points changes they're ALSO not even considering how this impacts the factions as a whole.
I hope everybody who plays against SoB routinely is ready to see nothing but Bloody rose ever again because if that supplement is even AS mediocre as the OoML one was, it'll be the only build anyone's going to see for 6 months.
If it's as garbage as it looks like it is...well, it was nice being a good army for a while.
A buddy of mine is one of the top 10 SoB players in the ITC or whatever its called, hes already declared the faction dead with the consensus of most of the others in the top 10. Dunno if that really means anything, but these are supposedly the "experts" in the faction so it seems legit.
Yeah, I don't like these changes, and I'm disturbed that a GT Mission Pack is making changes to rules which are shared between multiple modes of play, because unless GW specifically says that it only affects matched, then a case can be made that RAW, it will affect everything even though the book is called GT Mission Pack.
A similar example: in the Crusade rules, it specifically states that Chaos, Imperium, Aeldari and Tyranid are factions... and yet this doesn't mean much, because the rules in the dexes don't acknowledge this in any way. Even though Crusade says Imperium is a faction, the dex says if I bring both sisters and marines to a Crusade battle, it still breaks purity bonuses.
Mission packs and single mode supplements shouldn't modify rules that are common to multiple modes of play. It's easy to read that RO3 is a matched play rule; it's harder to know whether a patrol detachment in Matched has a different composition that a patrol detachment in Crusade unless the text explicitly states one way or the other.
First they gakked up the whole idea of an ally chart, then made it vastly impractical to ally different factions within the same faction, now we can’t even have some Freebootas providing some fire support for some goffs.
Going by the last 2 dex released, I think that what is going to happen is slightly different.
All these rules that require all models in your army to be from the same faction, will now require you to have the same subfaction.
This means that everyone is going the SM/Necron/GSC/Custodes way.
This means for example that if you mix Ebon Chalice and Bloody rose units in the same army, you lose the miracles.
Personally I do like it. It reduces the gap between optimized and non optimized lists.
Many players felt "forced" to play multiple hyve fleets/orders/forge worlds, because it was just better, but it completely breaks the concept of the armies.
By the way, you forgot TS in the list of factions which really suffer from this.
Now this will obviously be a GT rule, but as we know it will flow into other games. This is a slap to GK, Sisters, and potentially DE ( among others ). There's been something in the rumor mill on DE along these lines where they can do one Coven, one Kabal, and one Cult. This doesn't break the army, but it potentially stops Artists and Dark Tech in the same army.
On other piece is that detachments ( aside from Battalion and Brigade ) are losing slots. So the Patrol loses a FA and Heavy slot ( presumed ). This would make this harder for DE to bring lots of Talos / Cronos and is a nerf in general to specialized armies.
If coven spam is so problematic and something that is not considered to be how the army should play just put a cap like they did with ork bikes. 1 unit of cronos and 1 unit of talos at most, per army. It's still 6 pain engines allowed which is a lot of pain engines. Preventing a guy fielding one talos and one cronos in the same detachment seems rather silly.
Hmm. We'll have to see how exactly "no sub-faction soup" works before we can judge that move. Everything having to be <WHATEVER> is a lot different than just losing your purity bonus.
That change to Patrols will hurt though. No more Patrol + SHAD for me. Here's hoping for some price cuts for some CSM units so I can make a functional Battalion + SHAD. Would be nice if they'd move Dreadclaws from FA to Dedicated Transport were they belong too.
Rumour is no subfaction souping. Haven't seen max 1 detachment rumour anywhere...
You can remove(or nerf) subfaction souping while keeping multiple detachments. battalion+patrol of valorous heart is different to battalion of ardent shroud and patrol of bloody rose.
I think making patrols less versatile is a good thing, there was just not enough reason to take any other detachment. You now need to bring the 3 CP detachments instead of 3x patrols.
I'm of mixed feeling for the sub-faction thing. It makes perfect sense from a gameplay point of view, there is too much cherry picking the best sub-faction for each unit/for the best stratagems going on. Cracking down on that is good for the game.
However, I'm not a huge fan if this is being outright disallowed instead of allowed with drawbacks like allies (DG+nurgle daemons, for example) are.
Some factions are already mono-dimensional such as the Marine chapters.
Others like Drukhari and GK are not and they seem to get nerved heavily.
I can live with it although I only play competitively.
Jidmah wrote: I think making patrols less versatile is a good thing, there was just not enough reason to take any other detachment. You now need to bring the 3 CP detachments instead of 3x patrols.
I'm of mixed feeling for the sub-faction thing. It makes perfect sense from a gameplay point of view, there is too much cherry picking the best sub-faction for each unit/for the best stratagems going on. Cracking down on that is good for the game.
However, I'm not a huge fan if this is being outright disallowed instead of allowed with drawbacks like allies (DG+nurgle daemons, for example) are.
+1 to this
Also, for everyone crying that this "kills" certain factions, isn't this a case of a rising tide lifts all boats, or rather a falling tide lowers all boats? Sure your SoB list is now invalid, but so is the scary nids and orks list it would have to face! It'll re-set the meta but its not like the armies least affected by this are the ones winning all the comps?
wuestenfux wrote: Some factions are already mono-dimensional such as the Marine chapters.
Others like Drukhari and GK are not and they seem to get nerved heavily.
I can live with it although I only play competitively.
Well. At least you PRETEND to play competively Nobody in the world plays competive 40k.
Also, for everyone crying that this "kills" certain factions, isn't this a case of a rising tide lifts all boats, or rather a falling tide lowers all boats? Sure your SoB list is now invalid, but so is the scary nids and orks list it would have to face! It'll re-set the meta but its not like the armies least affected by this are the ones winning all the comps?
This does basically nothing to most Crusher Stampede Tyranid lists, which tend to run a single detachment. And which also just sweeped most tournaments recent.
By comparison this guts any Daemons list which combines a Slaanesh detachment with a mixed detachment, which mosts lists trying to be competitive do.
It is disingenuous or ignorant to insinuate this is a change that affects everyone equally. My Daemons army will feel this change a lot more than my Custodes one.
wuestenfux wrote: Some factions are already mono-dimensional such as the Marine chapters.
Others like Drukhari and GK are not and they seem to get nerved heavily.
I can live with it although I only play competitively.
Well. At least you PRETEND to play competively Nobody in the world plays competive 40k.
You're right, ''competively'' is not possible.
At least, I pretend...
Big fan of one chapter tactic per army - in principle at least. I feel it should have been the case from the get go. Then you can (theoretically - whether GW bother is another question) balance the various subfactions on the assumption players will have X or Y, rather than inevitably taking the best of both worlds.
Detachment changes potentially more of an issue. It did seem a bit too flexible that Patrol+X almost always gave you more slots than you'd ever need. Equally however I'm not sure a more restrictive system (see lengthy threads) improves the game. Some leaning for people to take a battalion isn't the worst thing in the world.
Jidmah wrote: I think making patrols less versatile is a good thing, there was just not enough reason to take any other detachment. You now need to bring the 3 CP detachments instead of 3x patrols.
It's a good job GW hasn't built an entire faction around taking multiple patrols in lieu of normal detachments, otherwise players of said faction might be really fething annoyed by this change.
Tyel wrote: Big fan of one chapter tactic per army - in principle at least. I feel it should have been the case from the get go. Then you can (theoretically - whether GW bother is another question) balance the various subfactions on the assumption players will have X or Y, rather than inevitably taking the best of both worlds.
Detachment changes potentially more of an issue. It did seem a bit too flexible that Patrol+X almost always gave you more slots than you'd ever need. Equally however I'm not sure a more restrictive system (see lengthy threads) improves the game. Some leaning for people to take a battalion isn't the worst thing in the world.
Funny thing is that this WAS the case from the get go.
Marines are limited to one subfaction.
Necrons are limited to one subfaction.
Then in typical GW fashion, the design changed mid way and the next dexes could mix subfactions.
For some reason, GW decided to go back to it in the more recent dexes, so GSC and Custodes cannot mix subfactions.
Now, according to this rumor, GW for the first time in years has decided to actually fix the mess they made and are retroactively updating the other dexes to follow the correct design.
This does basically nothing to most Crusher Stampede Tyranid lists, which tend to run a single detachment. And which also just sweeped most tournaments recent.
By comparison this guts any Daemons list which combines a Slaanesh detachment with a mixed detachment, which mosts lists trying to be competitive do.
It is disingenuous or ignorant to insinuate this is a change that affects everyone equally. My Daemons army will feel this change a lot more than my Custodes one.
I'd argue that the crusher stampede only "swept" recent tournaments because it is new and people aren't sure how to deal with it. But you're right about deamons, I hadn't thought about them. Hopefully they would get an exception to this when their new codex drops later this year? Although now that I think about it, it would be best to exempt all 8th edition codexs from this restriction?
Tyel wrote: Big fan of one chapter tactic per army - in principle at least. I feel it should have been the case from the get go. Then you can (theoretically - whether GW bother is another question) balance the various subfactions on the assumption players will have X or Y, rather than inevitably taking the best of both worlds.
Detachment changes potentially more of an issue. It did seem a bit too flexible that Patrol+X almost always gave you more slots than you'd ever need. Equally however I'm not sure a more restrictive system (see lengthy threads) improves the game. Some leaning for people to take a battalion isn't the worst thing in the world.
Funny thing is that this WAS the case from the get go.
Marines are limited to one subfaction.
Necrons are limited to one subfaction.
Then in typical GW fashion, the design changed mid way and the next dexes could mix subfactions.
For some reason, GW decided to go back to it in the more recent dexes, so GSC and Custodes cannot mix subfactions.
Now, according to this rumor, GW for the first time in years has decided to actually fix the mess they made and are retroactively updating the other dexes to follow the correct design.
How will the rule with subfactions be implemented?
Having the faction keywords in common?
Jidmah wrote: I think making patrols less versatile is a good thing, there was just not enough reason to take any other detachment. You now need to bring the 3 CP detachments instead of 3x patrols.
It's a good job GW hasn't built an entire faction around taking multiple patrols in lieu of normal detachments, otherwise players of said faction might be really fething annoyed by this change.
Are we talking about the faction that is literally dominating both casual and tournaments because of how versatile patrols are?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Void__Dragon wrote: By comparison this guts any Daemons list which combines a Slaanesh detachment with a mixed detachment, which mosts lists trying to be competitive do.
It is disingenuous or ignorant to insinuate this is a change that affects everyone equally. My Daemons army will feel this change a lot more than my Custodes one.
No matter how this is implemented, chaos alignments should not be considered subfaction rules, period.
Who this affects and how depends on exactly how it limits subfaction soup. If all it does is remove mono-faction bonuses, then 8th edition codexes won't be affected. If it limits you to one faction trait and one set of warlord traits, relics and, most importantly, strategems, then it affects almost everyone.
Back in the old days Daemons did not get along. I can't remember if you couldn't have different types in the same army or you had to roll to see if they fought each other rather than the enemy (like the old ork rule).
Spoletta wrote: Going by the last 2 dex released, I think that what is going to happen is slightly different.
All these rules that require all models in your army to be from the same faction, will now require you to have the same subfaction.
This means that everyone is going the SM/Necron/GSC/Custodes way.
This means for example that if you mix Ebon Chalice and Bloody rose units in the same army, you lose the miracles.
Personally I do like it. It reduces the gap between optimized and non optimized lists.
Many players felt "forced" to play multiple hyve fleets/orders/forge worlds, because it was just better, but it completely breaks the concept of the armies.
By the way, you forgot TS in the list of factions which really suffer from this.
That does make sense - allow it, but with penalty. I think I'd prefer that option.
Spoletta wrote: Going by the last 2 dex released, I think that what is going to happen is slightly different.
All these rules that require all models in your army to be from the same faction, will now require you to have the same subfaction.
This means that everyone is going the SM/Necron/GSC/Custodes way.
This means for example that if you mix Ebon Chalice and Bloody rose units in the same army, you lose the miracles.
Personally I do like it. It reduces the gap between optimized and non optimized lists. Many players felt "forced" to play multiple hyve fleets/orders/forge worlds, because it was just better, but it completely breaks the concept of the armies.
By the way, you forgot TS in the list of factions which really suffer from this.
That does make sense - allow it, but with penalty. I think I'd prefer that option.
The problem is that it's implemented without thought to how drastically different the effect on different factions are.
For Sisters of Battle you have to choose between: Not having any shooting ability, not having any melee ability, OR not having Miracle dice. Which basically means you can pull miracle dice out of the codex because (especially considering you only get like...3 useful dice per game after the nerfs) there's no possible way being able to guarantee a paltry handful of die rolls over the course of the game is going to be better than actually being able to participate in all 3 phases.
Then look at Ironhands. What exactly is a competitive Ironhands list (who are currently doing significantly better than Sisters are) losing here? The answer is literally nothing. They are completely unaffected by these rules changes.
Specifically addressing the gap between optimized and non-optimized lists, that's only true if only ONE codex is being played. The second you have SoB going up against BT or IH or any of the other inherently mono-subfaction armies, the gap gets WIDER.
Jidmah wrote: I think making patrols less versatile is a good thing, there was just not enough reason to take any other detachment. You now need to bring the 3 CP detachments instead of 3x patrols.
I'm of mixed feeling for the sub-faction thing. It makes perfect sense from a gameplay point of view, there is too much cherry picking the best sub-faction for each unit/for the best stratagems going on. Cracking down on that is good for the game.
However, I'm not a huge fan if this is being outright disallowed instead of allowed with drawbacks like allies (DG+nurgle daemons, for example) are.
+1 to this
Also, for everyone crying that this "kills" certain factions, isn't this a case of a rising tide lifts all boats, or rather a falling tide lowers all boats? Sure your SoB list is now invalid, but so is the scary nids and orks list it would have to face! It'll re-set the meta but its not like the armies least affected by this are the ones winning all the comps?
This is blatantly false.
IH and BT are top tier armies scoring lots of wins currently. Same with Crusher Stampede Nids.
What IH list does this hurt? What about BT? What scary BT list can't you run? What Crusher Stampede list isn't full leviathan? Custodes are quietly doing extremely well in tournaments and their new book is not only designed around only using one subfaction, but got a swath of point drops before it even comes out.
It's not 'falling tide lowers all ships' it's 'crazy day at the stock market, hope you invested in mono-faction books'. Some factions, like a lot of chaos soup lists, won't have a decent mono-option to fall back on and will fall through the floor. Other factions are maybe only 5-10% weaker in their pure lists but will likely still end up in a bad position relative to armies that are totally unaffected.
Then look at Ironhands. What exactly is a competitive Ironhands list (who are currently doing significantly better than Sisters are) losing here? The answer is literally nothing. They are completely unaffected by these rules changes.
I guess it will be implemented by the Faction Keywords.
For Marines: Imperium, Astartes, <Chapter>.
If so, they will not loose anything.
Then look at Ironhands. What exactly is a competitive Ironhands list (who are currently doing significantly better than Sisters are) losing here? The answer is literally nothing. They are completely unaffected by these rules changes.
I guess it will be implemented by the Faction Keywords.
For Marines: Imperium, Astartes, <Chapter>.
If so, they will not loose anything.
Then look at Ironhands. What exactly is a competitive Ironhands list (who are currently doing significantly better than Sisters are) losing here? The answer is literally nothing. They are completely unaffected by these rules changes.
I guess it will be implemented by the Faction Keywords.
For Marines: Imperium, Astartes, <Chapter>.
If so, they will not loose anything.
Which is bad.
It will take the sting out of a few armies, like Drukhari or GK (with their Brotherhoods; if so, only one GMNDK will be allowed).
The problem is that it's implemented without thought to how drastically different the effect on different factions are.
For Sisters of Battle you have to choose between: Not having any shooting ability, not having any melee ability, OR not having Miracle dice. Which basically means you can pull miracle dice out of the codex because (especially considering you only get like...3 useful dice per game after the nerfs) there's no possible way being able to guarantee a paltry handful of die rolls over the course of the game is going to be better than actually being able to participate in all 3 phases.
Then look at Ironhands. What exactly is a competitive Ironhands list (who are currently doing significantly better than Sisters are) losing here? The answer is literally nothing. They are completely unaffected by these rules changes.
Specifically addressing the gap between optimized and non-optimized lists, that's only true if only ONE codex is being played. The second you have SoB going up against BT or IH or any of the other inherently mono-subfaction armies, the gap gets WIDER.
IH isn't lighting the world on fire through RR1s on heavies for a turn. This guy recently went 3-0-2 with high scores and didn't abuse bodyguard. This list has been available all edition, but is now suddenly winning games.
Also Sisters are 52% 6 week WR and IH are 55% ( BT are 53% ). I wouldn't call that significantly better. Additionally, Sisters took 5% of top tables with 16 players and IH took 3% of top with 12 players.
IH certainly doesn't lose here, but I don't think the changes would catapult them out of the reach of Sisters especially if it opens up room for armies to compete more efficiently against higher tiers.
Spoiler:
++ Battalion Detachment 0CP (Imperium - Adeptus Astartes - Iron Hands) [100 PL, 7CP, 2,000pts] ++
+ Configuration +
**Chapter Selector**: Iron Hands
Battle Size [12CP]: 3. Strike Force (101-200 Total PL / 1001-2000 Points)
Detachment Command Cost
+ Stratagems +
Strategem: Relics of the Chapter [-1CP]: Number of Extra Relics
+ No Force Org Slot +
Servitors [2 PL, 30pts]: 4x Servo-arm
+ HQ +
Lieutenants [5 PL, 90pts]
. Primaris Lieutenant: Rites of War, The Tempered Helm, Warlord
. . Neo-volkite pistol, Master-crafted power sword and Storm Shield: Neo-volkite pistol
Primaris Techmarine [5 PL, 100pts]: Chapter Command: Master of the Forge, The Ironstone
I really don't like the changes. I've been a "Many small armies" player since returning to the game in 8th. Many small factions got smashed by army purity. Now many small subfactions is getting smashed. An entire way of engaging with the hobby has been eliminated. And again, the most frustrating part for me is that ignores the design of 9th edition's multimodal approach to the game. It's a Matched play rule that also affects Crusade and Open. That isn't supposed to happen.
Every campaign book gives a list of the forces that participate in the conflict. Never in history has this list been a single Chaos Faction, a single Xenos Faction, a single Imperial Faction and only a single subfaction in each of those. But even though it's in the fluff pages of every campaign book ever made, you can't play it on the table cuz balance.
No more exciting missions of "Hey guard, you've gotta hold the line until the Marines can break the orbital blockade and drop pod assault in turn 3."
No more justification for supreme commanders, whose fluff purpose is ostensibly to lead mixed sub-factions. They still exist, but honestly, why do you need or want an abbess on a battlefield for only one subfaction which has its own cannoness superior? It's WAY more fluffy for her to be there if there are multiple Orders present.
Chaos Warband? What is that- they've never existed in the fluff. Every battle Chaos has ever fought has always been fought by a force strictly organized by faction and subfaction. We all know the 13th Black Crusade was just Abby and his boys, right?
Honestly, the cinematic moments and story potential people are willing to sacrifice in the name of balance- it boggles my mind. I know I'm a minority among forum users for playing 40k like a large scale RPG rather than a war game, but that's what Crusade was supposed to be. You want bland but balanced boredom? Fine- keep it in Matched play where it belongs.
The flipside is that if Chaos ends up being the only over-faction that's allowed to ignore both army and subfaction purity restrictions, it will finally feel chaotic. But people are so damn twisted about balance at any cost that they probably won't let that go through either.
The problem is that it's implemented without thought to how drastically different the effect on different factions are.
For Sisters of Battle you have to choose between: Not having any shooting ability, not having any melee ability, OR not having Miracle dice. Which basically means you can pull miracle dice out of the codex because (especially considering you only get like...3 useful dice per game after the nerfs) there's no possible way being able to guarantee a paltry handful of die rolls over the course of the game is going to be better than actually being able to participate in all 3 phases.
Then look at Ironhands. What exactly is a competitive Ironhands list (who are currently doing significantly better than Sisters are) losing here? The answer is literally nothing. They are completely unaffected by these rules changes.
Specifically addressing the gap between optimized and non-optimized lists, that's only true if only ONE codex is being played. The second you have SoB going up against BT or IH or any of the other inherently mono-subfaction armies, the gap gets WIDER.
IH isn't lighting the world on fire through RR1s on heavies for a turn. This guy recently went 3-0-2 with high scores and didn't abuse bodyguard. This list has been available all edition, but is now suddenly winning games.
Also Sisters are 52% 6 week WR and IH are 55% ( BT are 53% ). I wouldn't call that significantly better. Additionally, Sisters took 5% of top tables with 16 players and IH took 3% of top with 12 players.
IH certainly doesn't lose here, but I don't think the changes would catapult them out of the reach of Sisters especially if it opens up room for armies to compete more efficiently against higher tiers.
Spoiler:
++ Battalion Detachment 0CP (Imperium - Adeptus Astartes - Iron Hands) [100 PL, 7CP, 2,000pts] ++
+ Configuration +
**Chapter Selector**: Iron Hands
Battle Size [12CP]: 3. Strike Force (101-200 Total PL / 1001-2000 Points)
Detachment Command Cost
+ Stratagems +
Strategem: Relics of the Chapter [-1CP]: Number of Extra Relics
+ No Force Org Slot +
Servitors [2 PL, 30pts]: 4x Servo-arm
+ HQ +
Lieutenants [5 PL, 90pts] . Primaris Lieutenant: Rites of War, The Tempered Helm, Warlord . . Neo-volkite pistol, Master-crafted power sword and Storm Shield: Neo-volkite pistol
Primaris Techmarine [5 PL, 100pts]: Chapter Command: Master of the Forge, The Ironstone
Fire Raptor Gunship [22 PL, -1CP, 400pts] . Two quad heavy bolters: 2x Quad heavy bolter . Two twin hellstrike launchers
++ Total: [100 PL, 7CP, 2,000pts] ++
So the summation of all of that is that IH and BT are definitely doing better than SoB currently, now we can argue semantics about what "Significant" is.
You aIso haven't explained HOW it would open up room for more armies to compete. IH, BT, and Nids are all tier 1 factions right now that are totally unaffected by the change. DE are S tier and the general consensus is that they'll receive an exemption to this rule due to how their army construction works.
DA, SW, DW, and Custodes don't care about subfaction rules at all either. So out of the 14 books in the top 3 tiers of Goonhammer's ratings, only 5; Orkz, GK, SoB, Admech and Tsons care about the subfaction changes. GK and Tson being only mildly inconvenienced by them.
Really all it's going to do is shuffle some armies out of tier one and then tighten the remaining tier 1's noose on the rest of the meta.
Jidmah wrote: I think making patrols less versatile is a good thing, there was just not enough reason to take any other detachment. You now need to bring the 3 CP detachments instead of 3x patrols.
Depending upon what you want to run (or don't want to run), there's already a very good reason to take the 3CP detachments.
It means you don't have to waste pts/pl/time/$ on stuff you don't want. Just spend a few CP & be done with it.
For example: I have no desire, or intention, to own - or ever play - even a single Drukhari warrior, Wych, or Wrack. Won't do it. But 3cp? Let's me field a Drukhari force.
From what I've seen: not letting GK play more than one grandmaster is going to hurt them big time... possibly more than anyone else.
Even in small games, it's not uncommon to see the triple grandmaster (that sounds like a band name) and so I think that people are going to have to seriously rethink how they build that faction.
Spoletta wrote: Reminder to everyone that these changes come together with a point rebalance, so talking these in relation to the current meta is completely useless.
Orks for example are seeing extensive nerfs to their main build.
Not completely useless: We know that Orkz are seeing significant nerfs (assuming you're correct) and sisters are seeing minor nerfs (in terms of points) we also know that both of those factions are significantly hampered by not being able to mix subfactions.
Add in historical precedent and we can conclude with around 70% certainty that GW will miss the mark on their nerfs because they didn't consider the knock-on effect of the subfaction change.
Logical conclusion: Factions that currently mix subfactions frequently will come out of the update in a worse spot than intended because GW doesn't know what they're doing.
So the summation of all of that is that IH and BT are definitely doing better than SoB currently, now we can argue semantics about what "Significant" is.
You aIso haven't explained HOW it would open up room for more armies to compete. IH, BT, and Nids are all tier 1 factions right now that are totally unaffected by the change. DE are S tier and the general consensus is that they'll receive an exemption to this rule due to how their army construction works.
DA, SW, DW, and Custodes don't care about subfaction rules at all either. So out of the 14 books in the top 3 tiers of Goonhammer's ratings, only 5; Orkz, GK, SoB, Admech and Tsons care about the subfaction changes. GK and Tson being only mildly inconvenienced by them.
Really all it's going to do is shuffle some armies out of tier one and then tighten the remaining tier 1's noose on the rest of the meta.
Definitely? Those numbers fluctuate all the time - especially depending on who has played the army recently. Being within 3% is so close as to not even be notable.
For example when looking at just last week Sisters were 54%, IH was 44%, and BT was 50%. Sisters are rather more consistent than most armies and marines for the past 6 months have largely been unremarkable.
Hang on...I'm going to go write a script and see if I can cobble together some data.
So the summation of all of that is that IH and BT are definitely doing better than SoB currently, now we can argue semantics about what "Significant" is.
You aIso haven't explained HOW it would open up room for more armies to compete. IH, BT, and Nids are all tier 1 factions right now that are totally unaffected by the change. DE are S tier and the general consensus is that they'll receive an exemption to this rule due to how their army construction works.
DA, SW, DW, and Custodes don't care about subfaction rules at all either. So out of the 14 books in the top 3 tiers of Goonhammer's ratings, only 5; Orkz, GK, SoB, Admech and Tsons care about the subfaction changes. GK and Tson being only mildly inconvenienced by them.
Really all it's going to do is shuffle some armies out of tier one and then tighten the remaining tier 1's noose on the rest of the meta.
Definitely? Those numbers fluctuate all the time - especially depending on who has played the army recently. Being within 3% is so close as to not even be notable.
For example when looking at just last week Sisters were 54%, IH was 44%, and BT was 50%. Sisters are rather more consistent than most armies and marines for the past 6 months have largely been unremarkable.
Hang on...I'm going to go write a script and see if I can cobble together some data.
When you get done with that, let me know how this change opens up more room for armies to compete when 9 of the top 14 armies are completely unaffected?
H.B.M.C. wrote: What specific problem are GW attempting to fix with this change?
This is another issue. There isn't a problem. Only certain factions bother souping at all and those who do soup are represented all the way up and down the tier chart.
It's a hamfisted solution to something only GW seems to think even IS a problem.
Drukhari are being slaughtered by the detachment changes.
They are virtually guaranteed to have a partial exception- they'll still be able to combine Kabals, Cults and Covens, but only one of each. Otherwise the codex literally doesn't work. As opposed to the way so many people use the term "unplayable" to describe a thing which is merely sub-optimal or inefficient, the Drukhari dex would literally be unplayable. What that means, as others have said, is that the impact of this rule on the top ranking faction will be little to nothing.
Which is 100% guaranteed to not affect Crusade at all, where other changes might. This is my only issue with these rules- sure I disagree with them on principle, but if they only affect Matched, it won't touch me because I don't play Matched. That is the way these things are supposed to work. Unfortunately the other changes affect things that are common to all modes of play, so there's no guarantee I walk away unaffected.
H.B.M.C. wrote: What specific problem are GW attempting to fix with this change?
My guess is the problem of a specific subsection of the community that hates "cherry picked" detachments.
Casual players are a blight.
Nah, for something to get action like this - assuming it actually happens - it's further evidence of the insidious poison of the tournament side of things spreading into the wider game.
@PenitentJake - is the one GMNDK per sub-faction keyword thing written into the rules for the GK, or is that your position based on the background? I haven't picked up the 9th book for GK yet to check. If it's written in stone, does it apply to GM outside of NDK as well?
H.B.M.C. wrote: What specific problem are GW attempting to fix with this change?
My guess is the problem of a specific subsection of the community that hates "cherry picked" detachments.
Casual players are a blight.
Nah, for something to get action like this - assuming it actually happens - it's further evidence of the insidious poison of the tournament side of things spreading into the wider game.
@PenitentJake - is the one GMNDK per sub-faction keyword thing written into the rules for the GK, or is that your position based on the background? I haven't picked up the 9th book for GK yet to check. If it's written in stone, does it apply to GM outside of NDK as well?
Rules like these are made to appease the casual playerbase. No tournament player cares about souping subfactions.
I agree with previous posters who have said it messes with the fluff and each faction is different. Models come from the fulff and the rules are written for the models, so rules writers have a one step disconnect from the fluff and pressure to balance, is why it may happen imo.
It will never be balanced, it just needs to feel right.
TBH being able to cherrypick subfactions kinda deludes the reason alltogether for subfactions to exist.
But in most books subfactions are a joke, instead of being different subtle ways to play the army they are "the shooting subfaction" "the meele subfaction" and you end up with X units only being usable in one subfaction and the unit being balanced by its use in that one subfaction.
H.B.M.C. wrote: What specific problem are GW attempting to fix with this change?
If I were to speculate, I'd say balance and unit value.
It's hard to provide a balanced model value when you only see the unit in its best light in an army where all model are seen in their best light. Nobody wants GW to assign points value to a unit based on its subfaction. At least forcing you to use only one subfaction then you have the balance between models that are better in that subfaction with those that are not as good or worst under that subfaction.
I dunno. This just seems like another "This specific army/unit is causing a problem, so let's change the rules for everyone!" situation like the aircraft 'fix' from a few weeks back.
H.B.M.C. wrote: I dunno. This just seems like another "This specific army/unit is causing a problem, so let's change the rules for everyone!" situation like the aircraft 'fix' from a few weeks back.
H.B.M.C. wrote: I dunno. This just seems like another "This specific army/unit is causing a problem, so let's change the rules for everyone!" situation like the aircraft 'fix' from a few weeks back.
Planes got what they deserved friend.
Ah yes, glad to see all these
Dark talon
Corvus blackstar
Voidraven bomber
Harpy
Razorwingjetfighter
razorshark
stormraven
valkyrie
crimson hunter
stormwolf
stormfang
hive crone
hemlock wraithfighters
nephilim
sun shark
heldrake
night scythe
stormtalon
stormhawk
nerfed those were really dominating and oppressive.
Just giving an appropriate points cost to the Archaeopter and Dakkajet was the correct fix, shame GW couldnt just do that.
The previous problems of planes being un-hittable was already fixed with 9th restricting modifiers
Really? Lot of Scion Air-Cav armies out there defining the current meta? Are there big examples of Craftworld Air Forces ruling tournaments with turn 1 wins? Was there a plague of Stormravens and Stormhawks dominating the tournament scene that I wasn't aware of? Mass Crone and Harpy formations eating too much biomass for players to handle? Were massed wings of Sun Sharks and Razorsharks leaving so few alive that the Tau can't spread The Greater Good?
I doubt it.
AdMech and Ork flyers were busted. Rather than fixing these, they decided to take a sledgehammer approach to the situation and fethed everyone else over in the process.
@PenitentJake - is the one GMNDK per sub-faction keyword thing written into the rules for the GK, or is that your position based on the background? I haven't picked up the 9th book for GK yet to check. If it's written in stone, does it apply to GM outside of NDK as well?
To be honest, I don't have the 9th GK dex yet.
But the GM in GMNDK stands for Grand Master. There is only one Grand Master per brotherhood. It's the same way you can't field two Chapter Masters in a Marine army- each Chapter only has one master.
Now you are right, having not actually read the codex, I can't say this for sure. But I don't think the four or five other people who have posted that only one can be used would have done so if it wasn't true. I chose to respond to the question because no one else had. I'm sure someone who actually has the dex can confirm it beyond the shadow of a doubt, but I'm as positive as I could be that this is the issue everyone's writing about.
H.B.M.C. wrote: What specific problem are GW attempting to fix with this change?
This is another issue. There isn't a problem. Only certain factions bother souping at all and those who do soup are represented all the way up and down the tier chart.
It's a hamfisted solution to something only GW seems to think even IS a problem.
So the summation of all of that is that IH and BT are definitely doing better than SoB currently, now we can argue semantics about what "Significant" is.
You aIso haven't explained HOW it would open up room for more armies to compete. IH, BT, and Nids are all tier 1 factions right now that are totally unaffected by the change. DE are S tier and the general consensus is that they'll receive an exemption to this rule due to how their army construction works.
DA, SW, DW, and Custodes don't care about subfaction rules at all either. So out of the 14 books in the top 3 tiers of Goonhammer's ratings, only 5; Orkz, GK, SoB, Admech and Tsons care about the subfaction changes. GK and Tson being only mildly inconvenienced by them.
Really all it's going to do is shuffle some armies out of tier one and then tighten the remaining tier 1's noose on the rest of the meta.
Definitely? Those numbers fluctuate all the time - especially depending on who has played the army recently. Being within 3% is so close as to not even be notable.
For example when looking at just last week Sisters were 54%, IH was 44%, and BT was 50%. Sisters are rather more consistent than most armies and marines for the past 6 months have largely been unremarkable.
Hang on...I'm going to go write a script and see if I can cobble together some data.
When you get done with that, let me know how this change opens up more room for armies to compete when 9 of the top 14 armies are completely unaffected?
I made a script to scrape all the data from BCP. I chose tournaments with at least 16 players and 12/1 through now for this particular exercise ( typical reporting is on GT level events only ). There's probably some noise I have to clean up, but it looks to me that Sisters have absolutely no problem with GK, Ork soup, IH, BT, or Nids.
The majority of losses for Sisters comes from DE ( surprise! ), Goffs, DG, SW, Marine soup, and Daemons. This seems to tell me that Sisters struggle against some of the more melee forward armies, but most of the meta armies you're worried about are not the problem.
We have no idea of the true scope of these changes and the resulting outcome, but if DE gets tweaked the most by this then it's probably a wash for Sisters. Goffs and Freebooterz armies will stretch further, but they're a minority of lists it seems - not sure what the Goff lists look like, but I'm sure point adjustments are coming for Wazboms.
I'm going to clean this up and make the reporting easier and add the ability to see W/L by round for more granularity as well as running this for something like August through now.
12/1 to now
Spoiler:
11/13 to now ( about when Dataslate would have been used ) - SW get smoothed out a ton, GK has a 2 win advantage, and tied against the best army in the game. I'm going to run this for 28 player tournaments only. This total WR is like 57% so I want to get closer to the figure presented in recent trends.
Spoiler:
Updating
11/13 to now for 28 player and above -- 56% WR. I'm just not feeling the concern for Sisters here, but I'll spend time vetting the data.
Spoiler:
Ok, so, discrepancies are because I had removed mirror matches. I'll have to think of how to process those, because there's a lot of risk of over-counter the way their website works.
Drukhari are being slaughtered by the detachment changes.
They are virtually guaranteed to have a partial exception- they'll still be able to combine Kabals, Cults and Covens, but only one of each. Otherwise the codex literally doesn't work. As opposed to the way so many people use the term "unplayable" to describe a thing which is merely sub-optimal or inefficient, the Drukhari dex would literally be unplayable. What that means, as others have said, is that the impact of this rule on the top ranking faction will be little to nothing.
.
You are thinking about the Real Space Raid, which for sure will remain, no need of an exception. It uses Cabal, Cult and Coven, not 3 flavors of Cabal, so no problems there. You won't be able to slot Strife cults into other cult detachments though.
In any case, Real Space Raids are not the competitive lists of DE, they are good and can play decently well, but the strenght of that factions lies elsewhere.
In particular it lies in the coven lists.
According to the rumors, those are being hit twice by these changes. FIrst they will not be able to mix 2 different covens, which is the popular set up right now.
Secondly, if the patrols get limited to a single heavy slot, those lists are severely impacted.
So as you can see, these changes are impacting the top ranking faction the most.
Which means that as I was saying, any prediction based on current rankings is completely void.
nerfed those were really dominating and oppressive.
Just giving an appropriate points cost to the Archaeopter and Dakkajet was the correct fix, shame GW couldnt just do that.
The previous problems of planes being un-hittable was already fixed with 9th restricting modifiers
You can't give appropriate points costs to planes friend. They are almost always either not worth taking or completely oppressive. Which is why limiting the amount of planes an army can have was the only option.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
H.B.M.C. wrote: Really? Lot of Scion Air-Cav armies out there defining the current meta? Are there big examples of Craftworld Air Forces ruling tournaments with turn 1 wins? Was there a plague of Stormravens and Stormhawks dominating the tournament scene that I wasn't aware of? Mass Crone and Harpy formations eating too much biomass for players to handle? Were massed wings of Sun Sharks and Razorsharks leaving so few alive that the Tau can't spread The Greater Good?
I doubt it.
AdMech and Ork flyers were busted. Rather than fixing these, they decided to take a sledgehammer approach to the situation and fethed everyone else over in the process.
Read above. The only army I would even entertain giving access to exemptions toward the plane limit are Scions, because their planes are just glorified transports. If some other army had planes that operated similarly maybe them too.
nerfed those were really dominating and oppressive.
Just giving an appropriate points cost to the Archaeopter and Dakkajet was the correct fix, shame GW couldnt just do that.
The previous problems of planes being un-hittable was already fixed with 9th restricting modifiers
Don't be like that - most of the models on that list have been a problem at some point in time in the past. Massed fliers have been a problem that GW has played whack-a-mole with since 6th and the have finally provided a solution that works for all of them.
The issue with GMNDK is that only one per subfaction exists.
So if you can't take more than one subfaction, you only get one GMNDK.
Isn't it 1 per detachment like space marine captains, sisters of battle canoness or pretty much every other 1 per restriction? Are GK's even more limited?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
H.B.M.C. wrote: What specific problem are GW attempting to fix with this change?
Answer me this:
How is argent shroud retributor and bloody rose retributor supposed to be balanced? If game is balanced those should be equally viable options.
Why only one is seen though?
Subfactions are bad for game balance to begin with. Cherry picking is even worse. As long as either exist game balance is joke. But at least cherry picking removal reduces imbalance a bit.
The issue with GMNDK is that only one per subfaction exists.
So if you can't take more than one subfaction, you only get one GMNDK.
Isn't it 1 per detachment like space marine captains, sisters of battle canoness or pretty much every other 1 per restriction? Are GK's even more limited?
Yes, they have a special limitation, since they are actually named characters which GW was too lazy to name.
Void__Dragon wrote: You can't give appropriate points costs to planes friend. They are almost always either not worth taking or completely oppressive. Which is why limiting the amount of planes an army can have was the only option.
That which is presented without evidence...
And please stop saying "friend" like that. It makes you come across as incredibly patronising.
Void__Dragon wrote: The only army I would even entertain giving access to exemptions toward the plane limit are Scions, because their planes are just glorified transports.
So you're allowing for the possibility that a blanket solution to a specific problem may now have been the right answer?
tneva82 wrote: How is argent shroud retributor and bloody rose retributor supposed to be balanced? If game is balanced those should be equally viable options. Why only one is seen though?
I am unfamiliar with their rules. Sisters remain one of the armies in 40k that I do not play.
However, from what you are describing, it would appear that one sub-faction has a rule that cause a problem, so the proper way to fix that would be to fix that specific sub-faction and not completely change how sub-factions operate across the entire game.
You fix specific problems with specific solutions. Not with general game-changing ones.
tneva82 wrote: Subfactions are bad for game balance to begin with.
To repeat what I said above: That which is presented without evidence...
"Chapter tactics" etc etc were a mistake imo. If you ask me, a better way to tighten things up for matched/competitive play would be to remove them entirely, and keep the flavour rules for narrative game and/or chill people who can be trusted to behave.
Nazrak wrote: "Chapter tactics" etc etc were a mistake imo. If you ask me, a better way to tighten things up for matched/competitive play would be to remove them entirely, and keep the flavour rules for narrative game and/or chill people who can be trusted to behave.
They're a good idea poorly implemented. Like most of GWs ideas. The subfaction rules should effect army composition IMO, not just stack more rules onto things. If they wrote the books so that only basic Troops choices had the <Core> keyword and then subfactions added the <Core> keyword to certain non-Troop units it would be much less of an issue.
I'm biased because I'm one of them - but I think GW know there are a range of people who are relatively casual in terms of the game, they aren't aiming to win their local GT or anything like that, who like variety in list building - but equally don't like playing stuff which is obviously worse than the alternative.
Chapter Tactics were - imo anyway - meant to unlock alternate ways of playing your army. This doesn't work if the "solution" is to have one detachment of X with the pro-X bonuses, and another detachment of Y with the pro-Y bonuses and doing anything else is obviously statistically inferior.
H.B.M.C. wrote: On one hand, never made much sense to me for Tyranids of two different Hive Fleets to be in the same place.
On the other hand, I have Tallarns and Mordians, and idea of running them at the same time as distinct entities appeals to me.
On some level running Tallarns and Mordians together should just be cosmetic and you pick one or the other as the dominant. On another level, they SHOULD have rules for fluffy but otherwise <KEYWORD> breaking armies. Windriders of Saim-Hann, Death/Raven/Combi-wing, The way WAAGH!'s were - Orks are the ones who got boned the hardest by turning their unit types into faction keywords - I think Orks should be the other way around, they lose rules when they DON'T have each faction type. Or, you know turn the factions back into units and come up with better factions that tickle those units in different ways. I'd say make the units and the factions overlapping but distinctly different. If you have a Deathskull warboss, you can have everything else, but THESE changes happen to assorted unit. If you have a Goff warlord all of THOSE changes happen to each unit and THESE/THOSE changes subtly influence the various units into harmony with the warboss. Sometimes worse, sometimes better sometimes worse and better but always towards the theme (not necessarily IN theme just assisting it- the Deathskull Lootas might get even shootier in a Goff army because even the shooty units get more punchy and orks need SOME shooting)
The issue with GMNDK is that only one per subfaction exists.
So if you can't take more than one subfaction, you only get one GMNDK.
Isn't it 1 per detachment like space marine captains, sisters of battle canoness or pretty much every other 1 per restriction? Are GK's even more limited?
Yes, they have a special limitation, since they are actually named characters which GW was too lazy to name.
Spoletta, I'm not sure why you said yes, because the part about GM's being similar to named characters is correct, which means your answer to tneva82 should have been no- you can't take two GMNDK's from the same brotherhood even if you put them in separate detachments, because each brotherhood only has one Grand Master- just like you can't take two Dantes by putting them in separate detachments because only one Dante exists.
Grand Masters are unique: only one exists per brotherhood. That character is the supreme leader of that brotherhood. The head honcho. Because there are 9 brotherhoods, there are nine of these dudes. In the entire universe. Now yes, technically that does mean you CAN take two GMNDK's- one in each detachment, but since they all have to be from different brotherhoods, every detachment will now lose it's special brotherhood power because of the changes. This is the part that has GK players so upset- they used to be able to take Brotherhood A in one Patrol and Brotherhood B in another and include a GMNDK in each WITHOUT losing the Brotherhood power of each detachment. Now they can't. If you want your army to have Brotherhood abilities, it can only include a single Brotherhood, which means you can only include one GMNDK because again.... And I can not stress this enough: ONLY ONE PER BROTHERHOOD EXISTS.
If more than one per brotherhood existed they would not be called GRAND masters: they would be Co-Masters.
You are thinking about the Real Space Raid, which for sure will remain, no need of an exception. It uses Cabal, Cult and Coven, not 3 flavors of Cabal, so no problems there. You won't be able to slot Strife cults into other cult detachments though.
Nope- wasn't thinking about Realspace raids. Was thinking about armies that include One Kabal Patrol, One Cult Patrol and One Coven Patrol. Those ARE technically three different sub-faction detachments. But GW will make an exception to allow them to be fielded this way, because if they didn't it would break the dex and make Realspace Raids the ONLY viable option.
In any case, Real Space Raids are not the competitive lists of DE, they are good and can play decently well, but the strenght of that factions lies elsewhere.
In particular it lies in the coven lists.
According to the rumors, those are being hit twice by these changes. FIrst they will not be able to mix 2 different covens, which is the popular set up right now.
I was unaware that a double coven was so popular; since they fixed liquifier guns, my assumption was that Dark Technomancers were no longer so flavour of the month. If having two different Covens really is a huge factor to their success, then yes, you're right, the change will affect that aspect of the army. I don't actually play competitively; in my campaign, there is more than one Coven... But the commander of the DE army is only going to pick whichever Coven proves itself to be the best, so his army is only going to include a single Coven detachment.
Secondly, if the patrols get limited to a single heavy slot, those lists are severely impacted.
And yes- you're definitely right here. I forgot about this part of the change- and it will hit DE hardest. There are some other armies that used to run double patrols, but very few (other than DE) ever ran triples.
So as you can see, these changes are impacting the top ranking faction the most.
This IS still debatable. You're definitely right that it hits them harder than I thought it did. But DE lists WILL still be able to include One Kabal Patrol, One Cult Patrol, and One Coven Patrol without penalty- almost guaranteed. Whereas Sister will NOT be able to include One Argent Shroud Patrol, and One Bloody Rose Patrol.
Which means that as I was saying, any prediction based on current rankings is completely void.
I've always agreed with this; there are so many moving parts in 9th that I've always believed that it's almost impossible to make predictions about what will happen until the books are in our hands and it's actually happening.
While I get GW’s desire to have tabletop armies match the fluff, I don’t think these kinds of changes are conducive for creating balance across the game.
The problem is that reducing army choice also reduces the ability for armies to overcome the strongest options. To those paying attention to win rate % , the numbers in 9th are significantly worse than those in 8th outside of few outlier months. Reason for this is because weaker armies could use more powerful specialized units/ psychic powers/ army rules/etc from other factions to plug areas they needed help in. For example, Blood angles where a horrible army in 8th, but plenty of imperial factions could use their smash captains to help with their CC deficiency. This helped allow weaker armies like sisters, space marines (pre 2.0), and ad-mech to show up in tournament placings from time to time.
By removing these options/making their cost too high, GW is allowing armies with best general rules to take over. That or armies with specific broken rules/combos. This makes balancing tough because nerfing broken combos/rules can leave an armies that relied on them too weak since they may not have enough else to fall back on (ad-mech).On the other hand it might take an extreme number of nerfs to get an army to a fair spot (drukhari).
Removing sub-faction soup is just another version of this. With this change I expect armies will have far less variance in what sub-faction traits they take. Additionally, we will see armies with better general traits box out armies with more specialized/ less strong ones far more frequently. Will this always be the case? Obviously no. Custodes as example have a variety of strong sub-faction options to choose from. However, GW is now forcing themselves to ensure that armies’ sub-faction traits are more generally good across from he the board for things to stay balanced. How many of you trust GW to be consistently good at this?
Also, I don't think that an exception is needed. Having a cabal, a cult and a coven will simply not run into that limitation. It is not 3 istances of the same tag, like 3 different <Regiment>, it is actually 3 different tags. I don't see it being limited.
The problem is that reducing army choice also reduces the ability for armies to overcome the strongest options. To those paying attention to win rate % , the numbers in 9th are significantly worse than those in 8th outside of few outlier months. Reason for this is because weaker armies could use more powerful specialized units/ psychic powers/ army rules/etc from other factions to plug areas they needed help in. For example, Blood angles where a horrible army in 8th, but plenty of imperial factions could use their smash captains to help with their CC deficiency. This helped allow weaker armies like sisters, space marines (pre 2.0), and ad-mech to show up in tournament placings from time to time.
Another interesting argument for armies with more than less variety.
Mono-subfactions may eventually have less variety based on the model range.
E.g. I'm looking at Iyanden. Besides poets and philosphers aka Guardians there will be only Wraith constructs and tanks to choose from.
Nazrak wrote: "Chapter tactics" etc etc were a mistake imo. If you ask me, a better way to tighten things up for matched/competitive play would be to remove them entirely, and keep the flavour rules for narrative game and/or chill people who can be trusted to behave.
I mean, as a DE player I certainly miss the days when my army functioned as a cohesive whole, rather than a disjointed mess of micro-subfactions with no ability to share buffs (or even detachments) and barely any options between them.
However, I realise that this is a special case so other factions may have different views.
Though, as someone who also plays Necrons, I'd be wholly in favour of removing their chapter tactics equivalent just so I no longer have to remember all the stupid names, which are like Egyptian by way of Harry Potter.
Sim-Life wrote: They're a good idea poorly implemented. Like most of GWs ideas. The subfaction rules should effect army composition IMO, not just stack more rules onto things. If they wrote the books so that only basic Troops choices had the <Core> keyword and then subfactions added the <Core> keyword to certain non-Troop units it would be much less of an issue.
In theory I like this idea.
In practise, I suspect it would just lead to a 'rich get richer' problem. For example, when you look at the SM codex and its 4 trillion units, there are probably a fair few interesting CORE combinations to be made to give each subfaction a reasonably different theme and playstyle.
Now try doing the same for Harlequins, which have all of 8 units (4 of them characters and 1 a dedicated transport). Assuming Troupes are always CORE, that give you all of 2 combinations - you can have Skyweavers as CORE or you can have Voidweavers as CORE.
H.B.M.C. wrote: I doubt GW cares about "tier lists". Certainly not as much as some people do.
Probably not.
But GW cares about sales.
If the Tier list is mixed up, players reorganized their armies and therefore buy different units.
The tippy top of tournament players switch armies. Those players have obscene collections through winning tournaments or borrowing models. Others are rarely crazy enough to drop money on whole new armies. The vast majority of people do not any of that.
What gets people to buy more models? New models and updated rules.
I mean, as a DE player I certainly miss the days when my army functioned as a cohesive whole, rather than a disjointed mess of micro-subfactions with no ability to share buffs (or even detachments) and barely any options between them.
GW has always had the Rubber Band problem. They always snap back too far. They've more or less figured out how to get people to play the mission, now they just need to apply the same solution to army building while re-injecting fluffy not power soup. They spent entire editions trying to beat people into making the armies they wanted to see. Then they rubber-banded into formation-based Monte Haul syndrome to try and bribe us into it. With Missions they've both in moderation. They reward people who play the missions, and added enough variation and secondaries you're intruiged by the mission and can usually find enough secondaries to sate your plastic blood lust. Apply that to Army Comp and the secondaries just get better too.
Really? Lot of Scion Air-Cav armies out there defining the current meta? Are there big examples of Craftworld Air Forces ruling tournaments with turn 1 wins? Was there a plague of Stormravens and Stormhawks dominating the tournament scene that I wasn't aware of? Mass Crone and Harpy formations eating too much biomass for players to handle? Were massed wings of Sun Sharks and Razorsharks leaving so few alive that the Tau can't spread The Greater Good?
I doubt it.
AdMech and Ork flyers were busted. Rather than fixing these, they decided to take a sledgehammer approach to the situation and fethed everyone else over in the process.
Not even all ork flyers, just the wazbomm really. Dakkajet was something that needed a Freebootas buggy list to work, and honestly even then it was strong, not broken. Try taking a bomma, they’re terrible.
I like sub-factions. They add flavour and variety. This is a miniatures game where we collect and paint our models from the rich background of 40K.
I also think that in a Matched Play game you should only have one sub-faction. There will always be exceptions - no issues, for instance, with an Imperial Knight in an Astra Militarum force. We should remove, however, the ability to cherrypick sub-factions to gain a variety of benefits/ avoid drawbacks. Make a decision and stick with it!
TangoTwoBravo wrote: I like sub-factions. They add flavour and variety. This is a miniatures game where we collect and paint our models from the rich background of 40K.
I also think that in a Matched Play game you should only have one sub-faction. There will always be exceptions - no issues, for instance, with an Imperial Knight in an Astra Militarum force. We should remove, however, the ability to cherrypick sub-factions to gain a variety of benefits/ avoid drawbacks. Make a decision and stick with it!
If you can't mix subfactions, you can't mix. No freaking exceptions (for Matched Play). Imperials already have the lion's share of options and choice.
I would think a nice compromise would be something like this-
You can take as many subfactions as your Codex <Keyword> allows but you may only use the rules from 1 of your subfactions and only on their units. So if you want to mix your marines and guard that's fine but either you have a marine or a guard special rule. Or you could say that you only get the benefits of your designated Army Commander and any unitls that would normally be found under him. (Fluffwise you can say that the overall commander is only familiar with his training and therefore the other subfaction's abilities are not used to their fullest).
Subfactions are bad for game balance to begin with.
Ok, remove them all then. Marines don't get a special exemption. One Necron army, One Space Marine army, One Alderi army.
Unironically yes. I feel like you're trying to be facetious but for a majority of 40k's there were almost no subfactions (different flavours of space marines not withstanding) and people were perfectly happy representing subfactions via list composition and paint schemes.
Subfactions are bad for game balance to begin with.
Ok, remove them all then. Marines don't get a special exemption. One Necron army, One Space Marine army, One Alderi army.
Unironically yes. I feel like you're trying to be facetious but for a majority of 40k's there were almost no subfactions (different flavours of space marines not withstanding) and people were perfectly happy representing subfactions via list composition and paint schemes.
Not being facetious.
If different Tomb Words, etc don't get special flavours, neither do Marines. If we want to make Matched Play as fair as we can, that's it.
Subfactions are bad for game balance to begin with.
Ok, remove them all then. Marines don't get a special exemption. One Necron army, One Space Marine army, One Alderi army.
Unironically yes. I feel like you're trying to be facetious but for a majority of 40k's there were almost no subfactions (different flavours of space marines not withstanding) and people were perfectly happy representing subfactions via list composition and paint schemes.
Not being facetious.
If different Tomb Words, etc don't get special flavours, neither do Marines. If we want to make Matched Play as fair as we can, that's it.
OK - lots going on here.
There have been distinct Codexes for Dark Angels, Blood Angels, Space Wolves and Ultramarines since 2nd Ed. They are are part of the game. I am happy to see other factions get their sub-factions.
I think you are shooting at the wrong target. I said I am fine with Imperial Knights being in an Astra Militarum list. I didn't say you should be able to mix Dark Angels and Blood Angels in the same list. There are likely other reasonable exceptions out there for Matched Play: Cults and Covens for instance but not two Covens.
SW were the first 'dex in 2nd edition, even - Ultramarines and Angels of Death followed later.
GSC and Ad Mech featured in Codex: Imperialis and the Black Book for the edition, with GSC also showing up in the Tyranids book IIRC. Harlequins were in the Eldar 'dex.
Necrons barely made it into the edition, and Dark Eldar and Tau were nary a twinkle in a designer's eye at the time. Given manufacturing at the time, Knights of any form were Right Out.
Subfactions are bad for game balance to begin with.
Ok, remove them all then. Marines don't get a special exemption. One Necron army, One Space Marine army, One Alderi army.
Unironically yes. I feel like you're trying to be facetious but for a majority of 40k's there were almost no subfactions (different flavours of space marines not withstanding) and people were perfectly happy representing subfactions via list composition and paint schemes.
Not being facetious.
If different Tomb Words, etc don't get special flavours, neither do Marines. If we want to make Matched Play as fair as we can, that's it.
OK - lots going on here.
There have been distinct Codexes for Dark Angels, Blood Angels, Space Wolves and Ultramarines since 2nd Ed. They are are part of the game. I am happy to see other factions get their sub-factions.
I think you are shooting at the wrong target. I said I am fine with Imperial Knights being in an Astra Militarum list. I didn't say you should be able to mix Dark Angels and Blood Angels in the same list. There are likely other reasonable exceptions out there for Matched Play: Cults and Covens for instance but not two Covens.
One marine codex for all marines. All chapter specific units go to legends. If you want to represent different space marine subfactions, do so through paint schemes and list composition.
ERJAK wrote: One marine codex for all marines. All chapter specific units go to legends. If you want to represent different space marine subfactions, do so through paint schemes and list composition.
Fixed it for you. Chapter specific units just need a rebrand to be usable by anyone. Surely Blood Angels aren't the only Chapter in the galaxy to use Librarian Dreadnoughts? Or Space Wolves the only ones who make use of monsters as steeds?
Sub-factions have been a fun part of 40k ever since. Not everybody got developed enough to have enough fans for sub-factions, but that is a different story.
tneva82 wrote: How is argent shroud retributor and bloody rose retributor supposed to be balanced? If game is balanced those should be equally viable options. Why only one is seen though?
I am unfamiliar with their rules. Sisters remain one of the armies in 40k that I do not play.
However, from what you are describing, it would appear that one sub-faction has a rule that cause a problem, so the proper way to fix that would be to fix that specific sub-faction and not completely change how sub-factions operate across the entire game.
You fix specific problems with specific solutions. Not with general game-changing ones.
This is a case of subfaction rules that allow you to push your army into a specific style of play being better for some units than others. Argent Shroud (Counts as Remains Stationary when you make a Normal Move or Advance; Unit may re-roll one Wound Roll when it attacks) Retributors (aka Sisters Devastators) are better than Bloody Rose Retributors (If your unit Charge/Were Charged/Heroic Intervention gains +1 Attack and an additional -1 AP on melee attacks) are not equal. They will never be equal short of totally eliminating their subfaction bonus. However, the same bonuses that make AS better than BS for Retributors make Repentia (no ranged weapons with Power Fist) better for BS than AS.
Providing balanced point values for these the army when you can reasonably expect to see both in the same army with the same subfaction trait (so the better of the two balances out the worst) is a lot easier than when you expect to see Argent Shroud Retributors and Bloody Rose Repentia in the same army.
Yeah, you can eliminate the subfaction traits to make everything balanced. Then you get blander armies that are easier to solve for the best lists.
tneva82 wrote: How is argent shroud retributor and bloody rose retributor supposed to be balanced? If game is balanced those should be equally viable options. Why only one is seen though?
I am unfamiliar with their rules. Sisters remain one of the armies in 40k that I do not play.
However, from what you are describing, it would appear that one sub-faction has a rule that cause a problem, so the proper way to fix that would be to fix that specific sub-faction and not completely change how sub-factions operate across the entire game.
You fix specific problems with specific solutions. Not with general game-changing ones.
This is a case of subfaction rules that allow you to push your army into a specific style of play being better for some units than others. Argent Shroud (Counts as Remains Stationary when you make a Normal Move or Advance; Unit may re-roll one Wound Roll when it attacks) Retributors (aka Sisters Devastators) are better than Bloody Rose Retributors (If your unit Charge/Were Charged/Heroic Intervention gains +1 Attack and an additional -1 AP on melee attacks) are not equal. They will never be equal short of totally eliminating their subfaction bonus. However, the same bonuses that make AS better than BS for Retributors make Repentia (no ranged weapons with Power Fist) better for BS than AS.
Providing balanced point values for these the army when you can reasonably expect to see both in the same army with the same subfaction trait (so the better of the two balances out the worst) is a lot easier than when you expect to see Argent Shroud Retributors and Bloody Rose Repentia in the same army.
Yeah, you can eliminate the subfaction traits to make everything balanced. Then you get blander armies that are easier to solve for the best lists.
In circumstances where you're forced to take units that are meant for one subfaction in another subfaction, it's quite painful. Being forced to take retributors in Bloody Rose because they're the only even mediocre shooting in the army is painful when you know just how much better they'd be as Argent Shroud. Being forced to take Argent Shroud Zephyrim because they're the only decent option for fast objective contesting is painful when you know how much more effective they'd be as bloody rose.
List building goes from being 'What cool thing should I bring?!' to 'How few of these garbage units must I drag along to avoid essentially locking myself out of either the shooting or combat phase?'
Anecdotally, I've been working on pure bloody rose lists, figuring that there's an off chance the supplement might not be totally unplayable garbage (it will be) and you end up needing to take roughly 400pts of sub-par Retributors because investing those points into what bloody rose wants to do, i.e. melee everything, results in an army that has the shooting power of Chaos Daemons with none of the speed. The book is DESIGNED for these factions to work together and just suddenly going 'nope, can't do that anymore' is a massive kick in the nads.
ERJAK wrote: List building goes from being 'What cool thing should I bring?!' to 'How few of these garbage units must I drag along to avoid essentially locking myself out of either the shooting or combat phase?'
Which is why just suddenly ditching subfaction mixing is just the dumbest thing GW have done this edition.
You could look at it that way. You could otherwise take the perspective that you have to be more careful in how you build your list instead of just selecting all the best combinations available.
- +1A +1AP on your best melee and remain stationary and reroll a h/w on your best shooting, but no miracle dice
- +1A +1AP on your best melee and miracle dice
- remain stationary and reroll a h/w on your best shooting and miracle dice
That, to me, seems like more nuanced decision making than what came before. Is it all going to work universally? Not likely. There's a ton of moving parts and there will be winners and losers, no doubt, but I'm willing to see it play out.
- +1A +1AP on your best melee and remain stationary and reroll a h/w on your best shooting, but no miracle dice
- +1A +1AP on your best melee and miracle dice
- remain stationary and reroll a h/w on your best shooting and miracle dice
That, to me, seems like more nuanced decision making than what came before. Is it all going to work universally? Not likely. There's a ton of moving parts and there will be winners and losers, no doubt, but I'm willing to see it play out.
Usually it feels like you and I are on the same page Daed, or at least in the same neighbourhood. And you are right that it's a more nuanced decision... But the problem is that not all factions have to make similar "more nuanced decisions" as a result of this change. As mentioned numerous times in the thread, there are five or so factions who this REALLY hurts and it doesn't really touch anyone else.
As you know if you read my posts, it ain't gonna make a huge difference to me because my group is going to do what we want to do no matter what the book says. But I did build a huge fluffy campaign involving all six Orders of the Sororitas hunting the relics that each of them carry in the Triumph of Saint Katherine and then fight their way across the galaxy to meet with these relics to form the first ever Triumph in the history of the Imperium. It was going to be absolutely EPIC, fluffy as F%&^ and until these ridiculous sacrifices in the name of balance, 100% book legal.
We're already invested, and the ball is already rolling, so I think we're going full steam ahead regardless, but I pity all the other players who, for example, want to tell da story of da greatest Waaagh in da history of da Galuxy wif da warboss who unites all da klans against da humies! Because multi-sub armies are baked into every page of the lore for some factions, and Matched play books are supposed to change matched play rules only.
Messing with detachment rules is a game level change, not a modal change. Now there is still the vague hope that GW very explicitly states "Crusade players can ignore anything and everything in this book."
There's also a chance that all chaos factions will receive exemptions from these rules in their fluff, because of all the factions they are the ones for whom this makes the least sense given 30 years of established lore.
But barring those two slim possibilities, you've just watched every Crusade group that happens to be less open minded than mine lose access to dozens if not hundreds of possible story hooks for the sake of tweaking the results in a few ridiculous overhyped tournaments in which far less than a tenth of the player base for this game will EVER participate.
FFS, I can barely afford to play 40k- you think I'm hopping on a plane to get to one of the what, two dozen cities in the entire world that actually host GT's? During Covid?
Leave my stories the F&^* alone.
(Sorry to swear at you bro- that's not actually what I'm doing- I'm merely expressing frustration with the ideas represented by these changes, and unfortunately I'm replying to ALL the posts that support these ideas, but only actually quoting yours. Usually I'm capable of greater diplomacy, but Matched play has grown a little too big for its britches and is now messing with MY game.)
tneva82 wrote: How is argent shroud retributor and bloody rose retributor supposed to be balanced? If game is balanced those should be equally viable options. Why only one is seen though?
I am unfamiliar with their rules. Sisters remain one of the armies in 40k that I do not play.
However, from what you are describing, it would appear that one sub-faction has a rule that cause a problem, so the proper way to fix that would be to fix that specific sub-faction and not completely change how sub-factions operate across the entire game.
You fix specific problems with specific solutions. Not with general game-changing ones.
This is a case of subfaction rules that allow you to push your army into a specific style of play being better for some units than others. Argent Shroud (Counts as Remains Stationary when you make a Normal Move or Advance; Unit may re-roll one Wound Roll when it attacks) Retributors (aka Sisters Devastators) are better than Bloody Rose Retributors (If your unit Charge/Were Charged/Heroic Intervention gains +1 Attack and an additional -1 AP on melee attacks) are not equal. They will never be equal short of totally eliminating their subfaction bonus. However, the same bonuses that make AS better than BS for Retributors make Repentia (no ranged weapons with Power Fist) better for BS than AS.
Providing balanced point values for these the army when you can reasonably expect to see both in the same army with the same subfaction trait (so the better of the two balances out the worst) is a lot easier than when you expect to see Argent Shroud Retributors and Bloody Rose Repentia in the same army.
Yeah, you can eliminate the subfaction traits to make everything balanced. Then you get blander armies that are easier to solve for the best lists.
In circumstances where you're forced to take units that are meant for one subfaction in another subfaction, it's quite painful. Being forced to take retributors in Bloody Rose because they're the only even mediocre shooting in the army is painful when you know just how much better they'd be as Argent Shroud. Being forced to take Argent Shroud Zephyrim because they're the only decent option for fast objective contesting is painful when you know how much more effective they'd be as bloody rose.
List building goes from being 'What cool thing should I bring?!' to 'How few of these garbage units must I drag along to avoid essentially locking myself out of either the shooting or combat phase?'
Anecdotally, I've been working on pure bloody rose lists, figuring that there's an off chance the supplement might not be totally unplayable garbage (it will be) and you end up needing to take roughly 400pts of sub-par Retributors because investing those points into what bloody rose wants to do, i.e. melee everything, results in an army that has the shooting power of Chaos Daemons with none of the speed. The book is DESIGNED for these factions to work together and just suddenly going 'nope, can't do that anymore' is a massive kick in the nads.
I think you are 100% wrong on your analysis here. I sincerely doubt GW designed any of it's armies with the idea that the player should divide up their armies into small subfactions pieces to maximize the effectiveness of every unit by giving them the best subfaction. Rather, they designed for the subfaction rules to make the the same armies play with a different flavor that favors certain styles of play.
- +1A +1AP on your best melee and remain stationary and reroll a h/w on your best shooting, but no miracle dice
- +1A +1AP on your best melee and miracle dice
- remain stationary and reroll a h/w on your best shooting and miracle dice
That, to me, seems like more nuanced decision making than what came before. Is it all going to work universally? Not likely. There's a ton of moving parts and there will be winners and losers, no doubt, but I'm willing to see it play out.
Usually it feels like you and I are on the same page Daed, or at least in the same neighbourhood. And you are right that it's a more nuanced decision... But the problem is that not all factions have to make similar "more nuanced decisions" as a result of this change. As mentioned numerous times in the thread, there are five or so factions who this REALLY hurts and it doesn't really touch anyone else.
As you know if you read my posts, it ain't gonna make a huge difference to me because my group is going to do what we want to do no matter what the book says. But I did build a huge fluffy campaign involving all six Orders of the Sororitas hunting the relics that each of them carry in the Triumph of Saint Katherine and then fight their way across the galaxy to meet with these relics to form the first ever Triumph in the history of the Imperium. It was going to be absolutely EPIC, fluffy as F%&^ and until these ridiculous sacrifices in the name of balance, 100% book legal.
We're already invested, and the ball is already rolling, so I think we're going full steam ahead regardless, but I pity all the other players who, for example, want to tell da story of da greatest Waaagh in da history of da Galuxy wif da warboss who unites all da klans against da humies! Because multi-sub armies are baked into every page of the lore for some factions, and Matched play books are supposed to change matched play rules only.
Messing with detachment rules is a game level change, not a modal change. Now there is still the vague hope that GW very explicitly states "Crusade players can ignore anything and everything in this book."
There's also a chance that all chaos factions will receive exemptions from these rules in their fluff, because of all the factions they are the ones for whom this makes the least sense given 30 years of established lore.
But barring those two slim possibilities, you've just watched every Crusade group that happens to be less open minded than mine lose access to dozens if not hundreds of possible story hooks for the sake of tweaking the results in a few ridiculous overhyped tournaments in which far less than a tenth of the player base for this game will EVER participate.
FFS, I can barely afford to play 40k- you think I'm hopping on a plane to get to one of the what, two dozen cities in the entire world that actually host GT's? During Covid?
Leave my stories the F&^* alone.
(Sorry to swear at you bro- that's not actually what I'm doing- I'm merely expressing frustration with the ideas represented by these changes, and unfortunately I'm replying to ALL the posts that support these ideas, but only actually quoting yours. Usually I'm capable of greater diplomacy, but Matched play has grown a little too big for its britches and is now messing with MY game.)
Maybe my memory is bad, but weren't this changes supposedly for the Grand Tournament pack, not Matched Play in general? It would have zero impact on Crusade in that case.
Leo_the_Rat wrote: I would think a nice compromise would be something like this-
You can take as many subfactions as your Codex <Keyword> allows but you may only use the rules from 1 of your subfactions and only on their units. So if you want to mix your marines and guard that's fine but either you have a marine or a guard special rule. Or you could say that you only get the benefits of your designated Army Commander and any unitls that would normally be found under him. (Fluffwise you can say that the overall commander is only familiar with his training and therefore the other subfaction's abilities are not used to their fullest).
Funny enough that's about how it works in aos with allies. Allies don't get their faction things. Also coalition units are thing who are bit better than allies(they benefit from host army rules. Albeit this would feel odd in 40k. Ig with doctrines?-)
Jidmah wrote: I think making patrols less versatile is a good thing, there was just not enough reason to take any other detachment. You now need to bring the 3 CP detachments instead of 3x patrols.
It's a good job GW hasn't built an entire faction around taking multiple patrols in lieu of normal detachments, otherwise players of said faction might be really fething annoyed by this change.
wuestenfux wrote: Some factions are already mono-dimensional such as the Marine chapters.
Others like Drukhari and GK are not and they seem to get nerved heavily.
I can live with it although I only play competitively.
Well. At least you PRETEND to play competively Nobody in the world plays competive 40k.
- +1A +1AP on your best melee and remain stationary and reroll a h/w on your best shooting, but no miracle dice
- +1A +1AP on your best melee and miracle dice
- remain stationary and reroll a h/w on your best shooting and miracle dice
That, to me, seems like more nuanced decision making than what came before. Is it all going to work universally? Not likely. There's a ton of moving parts and there will be winners and losers, no doubt, but I'm willing to see it play out.
Usually it feels like you and I are on the same page Daed, or at least in the same neighbourhood. And you are right that it's a more nuanced decision... But the problem is that not all factions have to make similar "more nuanced decisions" as a result of this change. As mentioned numerous times in the thread, there are five or so factions who this REALLY hurts and it doesn't really touch anyone else.
As you know if you read my posts, it ain't gonna make a huge difference to me because my group is going to do what we want to do no matter what the book says. But I did build a huge fluffy campaign involving all six Orders of the Sororitas hunting the relics that each of them carry in the Triumph of Saint Katherine and then fight their way across the galaxy to meet with these relics to form the first ever Triumph in the history of the Imperium. It was going to be absolutely EPIC, fluffy as F%&^ and until these ridiculous sacrifices in the name of balance, 100% book legal.
We're already invested, and the ball is already rolling, so I think we're going full steam ahead regardless, but I pity all the other players who, for example, want to tell da story of da greatest Waaagh in da history of da Galuxy wif da warboss who unites all da klans against da humies! Because multi-sub armies are baked into every page of the lore for some factions, and Matched play books are supposed to change matched play rules only.
Messing with detachment rules is a game level change, not a modal change. Now there is still the vague hope that GW very explicitly states "Crusade players can ignore anything and everything in this book."
There's also a chance that all chaos factions will receive exemptions from these rules in their fluff, because of all the factions they are the ones for whom this makes the least sense given 30 years of established lore.
But barring those two slim possibilities, you've just watched every Crusade group that happens to be less open minded than mine lose access to dozens if not hundreds of possible story hooks for the sake of tweaking the results in a few ridiculous overhyped tournaments in which far less than a tenth of the player base for this game will EVER participate.
FFS, I can barely afford to play 40k- you think I'm hopping on a plane to get to one of the what, two dozen cities in the entire world that actually host GT's? During Covid?
Leave my stories the F&^* alone.
(Sorry to swear at you bro- that's not actually what I'm doing- I'm merely expressing frustration with the ideas represented by these changes, and unfortunately I'm replying to ALL the posts that support these ideas, but only actually quoting yours. Usually I'm capable of greater diplomacy, but Matched play has grown a little too big for its britches and is now messing with MY game.)
Those rules are on the GT mission pack.
Are you playing crusade games in GT Events? No? Then why do you care about a rule that is applied only to matched play and only to a part of the matched play games?
The game has 3 ways of play.
Open
Narrative, which includes crusade
Matched, which inclused GT
Why do you worry about a GT rule having effect on your crusade games?
H.B.M.C. wrote: I dunno. This just seems like another "This specific army/unit is causing a problem, so let's change the rules for everyone!" situation like the aircraft 'fix' from a few weeks back.
Planes got what they deserved friend.
Ah yes, glad to see all these
Dark talon
Corvus blackstar
Voidraven bomber
Harpy
Razorwingjetfighter
razorshark
stormraven
valkyrie
crimson hunter
stormwolf
stormfang
hive crone
hemlock wraithfighters
nephilim
sun shark
heldrake
night scythe
stormtalon
stormhawk
nerfed those were really dominating and oppressive.
Just giving an appropriate points cost to the Archaeopter and Dakkajet was the correct fix, shame GW couldnt just do that.
The previous problems of planes being un-hittable was already fixed with 9th restricting modifiers
None of these models was nerfed. It's the possible spam of those models that was nerfed, which in most cases was never a reasonable chance anyway. Two stormwolfs cost 700+ points.
About the new changes I like the fact that armies should be mono-subfaction. Bringing two subfactions only to maximize the bonuses feels too gamey. I don't see any issue in a mono order SoB army for example. And two of the same kind of subfactions for drukhari was lame.
It's the possible loss of slots in detachments that worries me a little bit, it's something that takes away choices. Now mid tier units might not see the table if the player can't spare slots, only the best ones would be maxed out.
Jidmah wrote: I think making patrols less versatile is a good thing, there was just not enough reason to take any other detachment. You now need to bring the 3 CP detachments instead of 3x patrols.
It's a good job GW hasn't built an entire faction around taking multiple patrols in lieu of normal detachments, otherwise players of said faction might be really fething annoyed by this change.
wuestenfux wrote: Some factions are already mono-dimensional such as the Marine chapters.
Others like Drukhari and GK are not and they seem to get nerved heavily.
I can live with it although I only play competitively.
Well. At least you PRETEND to play competively Nobody in the world plays competive 40k.
what? are you living in 2010?
You seriouly think gw games can be played competively? For that player skill would need to be deciding factor.
Sleeping is more competive than gw games.
Only noobs think gw games are competive. As is level of skill needed　is about 3rd grader. 1st grader can already solve the best army list.
Gw games are beer&pretzel by definition. Kids might think it's competive...until they read rules.
Spoletta wrote: Why do you worry about a GT rule having effect on your crusade games?
You'd have to be quite naive not to realise that what happens in tournaments eventually metastasises and spreads to the rest of the community.
Blackie wrote: None of these models was nerfed. It's the possible spam of those models that was nerfed, which in most cases was never a reasonable chance anyway.
They applied a mass change to the entire game to fix a problem specific to a few aircraft. That's a nerf no matter what weaselly 'but ackshually!' way you want to wriggle out of it.
There really is nothing stopping local scenes from just adopting the new missions and secondaries without any of the extra detachment and subfaction changes. This is sort of how 40k is generally played; the rules really are more like guidelines. Even in local RTT's we've often fudged the terrain rules to apply more Obscuring keywords to terrain pieces if we feel the board looks a bit sparse in that respect, so if you're just playing a normal matched play game, and not something that is explicitly competitive tournament practice, I don't see why you can't just have a conversation with your opponent and adapt the rules as you see fit.
In general though I do agree that the subfaction and patrol changes are solutions to problems that didn't exist. It is completely unnecessary and misses the forest for the trees.
Spoletta wrote: Why do you worry about a GT rule having effect on your crusade games?
You'd have to be quite naive not to realise that what happens in tournaments eventually metastasises and spreads to the rest of the community.
Blackie wrote: None of these models was nerfed. It's the possible spam of those models that was nerfed, which in most cases was never a reasonable chance anyway.
They applied a mass change to the entire game to fix a problem specific to a few aircraft. That's a nerf no matter what weaselly 'but ackshually!' way you want to wriggle out of it.
It's a nerf only for those who wanted to play 3+ of them. Which weren't many. Sometimes due to high point costs of the units, think about the stormwolf or stormfang gunship, they couldn't do it anyway. The vast majority of the players who were bringing those models has not been affected at all by that change, that's why I can't consider it a nerf to those units. It's a nerf to some specific (skew) lists.
Spoletta wrote: Why do you worry about a GT rule having effect on your crusade games?
You'd have to be quite naive not to realise that what happens in tournaments eventually metastasises and spreads to the rest of the community.
Read what he asked.
He isn't worried that a matched play rule somehow ends in his crusade.
He only wants GW to say that those rules are for matched play only, which is exactly what is says.
Blackie wrote: It's a nerf only for those who wanted to play 3+ of them. Which weren't many.
That doesn't counter what I said at all. You're bad at this.
Blackie wrote: It's a nerf to some specific (skew) lists.
It's a nerf to anyone who wanted to bring more than 2 aircraft of any type in any army, stemming from a problem with a select few specific units from two different Codices.
If someone gets a papercut you don't saw off both their arms to prevent the other fingers from getting cut. This is the what GW does.
Spoletta wrote: He only wants GW to say that those rules are for matched play only, which is exactly what is says.
And what we're saying is that it doesn't matter what GW says, because for so many around the world tournament play is synonymous with "regular pick up games", so whatever the tournament crowd adopts is eventually (and usually quite quickly) applied for normal games.
And none of this would be a problem if GW didn't use a massive sledgehammer to fix what only requires a tiny hammer.
Blackie wrote: It's a nerf only for those who wanted to play 3+ of them. Which weren't many.
That doesn't counter what I said at all. You're bad at this.
Blackie wrote: It's a nerf to some specific (skew) lists.
It's a nerf to anyone who wanted to bring more than 2 aircraft of any type in any army, stemming from a problem with a select few specific units from two different Codices.
If someone gets a papercut you don't saw off both their arms to prevent the other fingers from getting cut. This is the what GW does.
It does counter what you said. Because, as you also admitted, that change affects players who want to bring more than 2 flyers, it doesn't affect the flyers. Dakkajets and Wazboms are still pretty good and pretty common, they aren't less powerful now. They just can't be spammed.
I don't think there are many flyers that were good in 3+, and now are bad since they can't be more than 2. I can't think of a single model actually. That's what I'm saying. And that's why I argued that that change is not a nerf to those flyers, unless being unable to bring 3+ of them makes them worse. It's just a nerf to some specific lists, which were either OP or too uncommon to be actually relevant in matched play (in fact they're still legal outside that format), rather than units. Most, if not all, of the flyers listed in the post I quoted before were already typically played in lists with less than 3 flyers.
I also disagree about the papercut example. There's a lot of people who don't like things like flyers or superheavies in regular 40k games and constantly remind that to GW. So with that change they got two birds with one stone: on one hand they provided some balance but they also made most of the playerbase happy with a cap on units that aren't loved, especially when spammed. If 3 LoWs becomes common in competitive games, outside knights of course, GW will cap them as well, no doubt. As tons of players would start demanding it. At the moment there's no need to because LoWs cost a lot of points and that alone is enough to prevent people spamming them too frequently.
Blackie wrote: It's a nerf only for those who wanted to play 3+ of them. Which weren't many.
That doesn't counter what I said at all. You're bad at this.
Blackie wrote: It's a nerf to some specific (skew) lists.
It's a nerf to anyone who wanted to bring more than 2 aircraft of any type in any army, stemming from a problem with a select few specific units from two different Codices.
If someone gets a papercut you don't saw off both their arms to prevent the other fingers from getting cut. This is the what GW does.
Spoletta wrote: He only wants GW to say that those rules are for matched play only, which is exactly what is says.
And what we're saying is that it doesn't matter what GW says, because for so many around the world tournament play is synonymous with "regular pick up games", so whatever the tournament crowd adopts is eventually (and usually quite quickly) applied for normal games.
And none of this would be a problem if GW didn't use a massive sledgehammer to fix what only requires a tiny hammer.
He literally said that if that rule was limited to matched play it would be fine!
Read what other say and don't force your opinions on others!
Jidmah wrote: I think making patrols less versatile is a good thing, there was just not enough reason to take any other detachment. You now need to bring the 3 CP detachments instead of 3x patrols.
It's a good job GW hasn't built an entire faction around taking multiple patrols in lieu of normal detachments, otherwise players of said faction might be really fething annoyed by this change.
wuestenfux wrote: Some factions are already mono-dimensional such as the Marine chapters.
Others like Drukhari and GK are not and they seem to get nerved heavily.
I can live with it although I only play competitively.
Well. At least you PRETEND to play competively Nobody in the world plays competive 40k.
what? are you living in 2010?
You seriouly think gw games can be played competively? For that player skill would need to be deciding factor.
Sleeping is more competive than gw games.
Only noobs think gw games are competive. As is level of skill needed　is about 3rd grader. 1st grader can already solve the best army list.
Gw games are beer&pretzel by definition. Kids might think it's competive...until they read rules.
GW games can absolutely be played competitively. They just aren't good competitive games.
Jidmah wrote: I think making patrols less versatile is a good thing, there was just not enough reason to take any other detachment. You now need to bring the 3 CP detachments instead of 3x patrols.
It's a good job GW hasn't built an entire faction around taking multiple patrols in lieu of normal detachments, otherwise players of said faction might be really fething annoyed by this change.
wuestenfux wrote: Some factions are already mono-dimensional such as the Marine chapters.
Others like Drukhari and GK are not and they seem to get nerved heavily.
I can live with it although I only play competitively.
Well. At least you PRETEND to play competively Nobody in the world plays competive 40k.
what? are you living in 2010?
You seriouly think gw games can be played competively? For that player skill would need to be deciding factor.
Sleeping is more competive than gw games.
Only noobs think gw games are competive. As is level of skill needed　is about 3rd grader. 1st grader can already solve the best army list.
Gw games are beer&pretzel by definition. Kids might think it's competive...until they read rules.
GW games can absolutely be played competitively. They just aren't good competitive games.
Seconded.
Balance issues. Rule design. Mechanics change from edition to edition, from codex to codex. Codex creep.
Too many issues for a game with a big revenue.
He literally said that if that rule was limited to matched play it would be fine!
Read what other say and don't force your opinions on others!
Since I think this is about my posts in this thread, I thought I'd jump in and clarify- Spoletta is pretty much correct with regards to what I said, but HBMC's point is still very valid. Let me break it down:
I know that the 2022 GT Mission Pack is ostensibly a Matched Play resource, and that as such it SHOULD theoretically only affect Matched play. There are several posters in this thread who have expressed this, as a way of reassuring me that my Crusade games are safe from any changes that this book imposes. I WANT to believe this; it is my preferred interpretation.
The problem is that detachment rules- both the composition of detachments and the rules for mixing subfactions within them- are not actually rules that appear in the Matched section of the book(s). Detachments are common to both Crusade and Matched. I fear that a change to a shared rule will actually have a RAW effect on any game mode in which the modified rule is used, regardless of what type of book the rule comes from. I further worry that it is actually GW's INTENTION to use this Mission Pack to modify the core game- and if I can fear this, there will be others who absolutely embrace it.
In order to make it perfectly clear to the player base, GW can do one of two things: they can, in an introduction to the book, explicitly state that any rules adjustments in the book are intended for matched play only. Even if they do that, there are still going to be people who say "It's confusing and stupid that a patrol detachment in a Crusade game contains an extra heavy slot and an extra fast attack slot" - heck, I'm one of those people, despite the fact that this is the best case scenario for me. As many of you know by now, I have some armies that I was never planning on raising above 25 PL, and the flexibility of the previous Patrol composition allowed me to tell a significant number of stories that the current Patrol composition would not allow.
GW's other option, which is far stronger, is to include clarification in the rule itself that it applies only to matched. This allows for hybrid solutions: they could for example, say "Yes, we are modifying patrols for all modes of play (Boo! Hiss!) BUT at least in Crusade games, you won't have to put up with unfluffy mono-subfaction nonsense (Yay!)". But it also does THE best job to removing ambiguity about the precise application of changes to shared rules.
Now, just because Spoletta is correct about his interpretation of what I said, HBMC's point is still valid, and it does tie in to my fears about RAI arguments if GW isn't absolutely clear about this. There will be people who favour balance as their highest priority who allow that to impact their interpretation in a RAI argument that arises from a 25PL Crusade game where GSC saboteurs are trying to blow up the sister's holy motorcade and they want to bring enough Exorcists in a patrol to accurately recreate that part of the story on the table-top. There are going to be people who CHOOSE to kill that story regardless of what GW says cuz balance (which is clearly ridiculous, but it will happen- and I think THAT is HBMC's point).
And for those of you trying to reassure me that if it's a Matched Play book, it's content automatically applies only to matched, you still have to acknowledge that this IS a real shift in scope for a Mission Pack. To my knowledge (which is admittedly imperfect as I don't own them all) no mission pack has ever sought to modify a multimodal, shared rule. It's all been very clear that their content was either optional (think Tactical Deployment) or intended only for a given mode.
You may be right, PenitentJake, but my impression from the rumor post was that changes to subfaction usage and detachment are specific to the Mission Pack itself rather than to Matched Play in general or Battle Forged Army construction. Time will tell.
Jidmah wrote: I think making patrols less versatile is a good thing, there was just not enough reason to take any other detachment. You now need to bring the 3 CP detachments instead of 3x patrols.
It's a good job GW hasn't built an entire faction around taking multiple patrols in lieu of normal detachments, otherwise players of said faction might be really fething annoyed by this change.
wuestenfux wrote: Some factions are already mono-dimensional such as the Marine chapters. Others like Drukhari and GK are not and they seem to get nerved heavily. I can live with it although I only play competitively.
Well. At least you PRETEND to play competively Nobody in the world plays competive 40k.
what? are you living in 2010?
You seriouly think gw games can be played competively? For that player skill would need to be deciding factor.
Sleeping is more competive than gw games.
Only noobs think gw games are competive. As is level of skill needed　is about 3rd grader. 1st grader can already solve the best army list.
Gw games are beer&pretzel by definition. Kids might think it's competive...until they read rules.
How many big tournaments have you won then?
Tough talk coming from someone who apparently isn't even at third grade level.
The only people who say that skill isn't at least A major factor in winning 40k are people who need an excuse for why they lose so often.
If one is terribad at army-building, or builds to priorities other than victory, then their tactical skill can struggle to make up for it.
Top players combine tactical skill and skill in army list construction to win. The cheating scandals besmirch this slightly but I generally think most aren't cheaters!
alextroy wrote: You may be right, PenitentJake, but my impression from the rumor post was that changes to subfaction usage and detachment are specific to the Mission Pack itself rather than to Matched Play in general or Battle Forged Army construction. Time will tell.
Very cool- this is a possibility I hadn't even considered.
It's also a good reminder that there's another MP on the way 6 months after this, and anything could change again.
If one is terribad at army-building, or builds to priorities other than victory, then their tactical skill can struggle to make up for it.
Top players combine tactical skill and skill in army list construction to win. The cheating scandals besmirch this slightly but I generally think most aren't cheaters!
In my opinion, for WH40k, list building should be the skill to build an army that enables you to win the game with your tactical skill.
List building should not be able to win the game by itself - because why even bother playing the game if it has been decided before the first miniature moved?
Of course, you can always lose the game at the list building stage. For example, if you are lacking the means to handle armor, no amount of tactical skill will make up for that.
I know that many don't like to admit it because it means that if they lose they can't blame it on the faction, but right now the player makes a lot of difference.
Spoletta wrote: 40K is much more than list building right now.
I know that many don't like to admit it because it means that if they lose they can't blame it on the faction, but right now the player makes a lot of difference.
Ah, the good old "it isn't bad you just aren't playing it right" excuse. I love it just as much as I love other such classic terrible arguments such as "How do you know its bad if you don't play it?" and "why do you still play it if you don't enjoy it"?.
Spoletta wrote: 40K is much more than list building right now.
I know that many don't like to admit it because it means that if they lose they can't blame it on the faction, but right now the player makes a lot of difference.
Well, some players can for sure blame their faction, as especially 8th edition codices require you to own and play a very specific set of models in order to have any shot at winning.
For most 9th edition codices, I would agree though. There still is the issue that the power level of semi-casual level armies of some armies like drukhari or TS are almost at tournament levels. A thematic TAC army drawn from a codex like marines or necrons really has issues to defeat those unless the skill gap between players is immense.
Most of those "excuses" are actually the player's fault.
"It isn't bad, you just aren't playing it right": it is very possible to be mislead in the first place and pick up a wrong game. I mean someone might want a tactical balanced tabletop game which works with a limited cool collection of miniatures and then choses 40k, which has never been and never will be the kind of game that player was seeking. Then it is true that the player isn't playing it right. Competitive 40k doesn't really work good for random pick up games between players with limited collections, it works well when the players have the chance to bring whatever they want. Tournament data proves that that kind of environment works pretty well. It works equally well when players can fix their lists before starting to play in order to achieve more balance. Not everyone wants to play like that or can afford chasing the top choices, finding the right group of players is crucial for 40k as there are many ways to play it, so "you just aren't playing right" is definitely not an excuse but something that might be very true.
"How do you know it's bad if you don't play it?": there are people who just believe whatever they want to believe. If their trusty source says X they believe X. That's pretty common for a lot of things, not necessarily 40k. Something that involves so many parts like 40k must be experienced to understand its flaws. Otherwise it's just repeating stuff like parrots.
"Why do you still play if you don't enjoy it?": this is beyond my comprehension honestly. Why would someone play a game he/she doesn't enjoy really is beyond me. And I refuse to believe that playing tabletop games causes addition.
I would add "why do you keep complaining about a game you admit you're not playing / you haven't played in a long time?"
As always, there's a silent majority who's enjoying the game and buys miniatures (hence why GW keeps making money) and a vocal minority who keeps complaining about a game they don't like nor play.
The thing that used to disappoint me in earlier editions (and still does at the moment) is that fluffy lists aren't always congruent with good lists.
I don't think an army of all cultists with no anti-tank should be able to win. But I do think a cultist-themed army that goes out of its way to make subpar choices to preserve the theme should still win (via having subpar "trap" choices not exist).
9th is actually pretty damn good in this regard imo.
Nazrak wrote: "Chapter tactics" etc etc were a mistake imo. If you ask me, a better way to tighten things up for matched/competitive play would be to remove them entirely, and keep the flavour rules for narrative game and/or chill people who can be trusted to behave.
Yep. Subfaction rules that boost certain units literally make balancing impossible. It is pretty obvious.
Aenar wrote: I would add "why do you keep complaining about a game you admit you're not playing / you haven't played in a long time?"
As always, there's a silent majority who's enjoying the game and buys miniatures (hence why GW keeps making money) and a vocal minority who keeps complaining about a game they don't like nor play.
Why do you play a game you don't care enough about to critique or improve? The vocal minority that insists on no complaints* is just weird to me.
*except, of course, complaining about complaints. That is obviously fine and not a waste of time at all.
Ah, the good old "it isn't bad you just aren't playing it right" excuse. I love it just as much as I love other such classic terrible arguments such as "How do you know its bad if you don't play it?" and "why do you still play it if you don't enjoy it"?.
THAT is a valid question.
And it has very few valid answers - of wich the common answers of sunk cost & "bad gaming is better than no gaming" aren't.
Ah, the good old "it isn't bad you just aren't playing it right" excuse. I love it just as much as I love other such classic terrible arguments such as "How do you know its bad if you don't play it?" and "why do you still play it if you don't enjoy it"?.
Ah, the good old "it isn't bad you just aren't playing it right" excuse. I love it just as much as I love other such classic terrible arguments such as "How do you know its bad if you don't play it?" and "why do you still play it if you don't enjoy it"?.
"bad gaming is better than no gaming" aren't.
Pray tell why is that not valid?
Hitting your head against the wall because it feels better when you stop is not a good reason to hit your head against the wall
Ah, the good old "it isn't bad you just aren't playing it right" excuse. I love it just as much as I love other such classic terrible arguments such as "How do you know its bad if you don't play it?" and "why do you still play it if you don't enjoy it"?.
"bad gaming is better than no gaming" aren't.
Pray tell why is that not valid?
Hitting your head against the wall because it feels better when you stop is not a good reason to hit your head against the wall
How about an honest answer to the question rather than a strawman?
Having a fun social experience playing a game with your group is still fun, even if the game isn't perfect. No point in burning everything down just because it isn't 'just so.'
40K is generally a 2 player game. If you don't enjoy the game, there has to be other options for social interaction with 1 person than a game you don't enjoy. I have a friend who stopped playing 40K for a good spell because he just didn't enjoy the game. He finally abandoned his army for one with a radically different playstyle (Space Marines to Tyranids) and now at least has fun.
So yes, my response may have been in the form of a joke, but it isn't invalid. Why do something you don't have fun doing when you can do nothing and at least not be aggravated?
alextroy wrote: 40K is generally a 2 player game. If you don't enjoy the game, there has to be other options for social interaction with 1 person than a game you don't enjoy. I have a friend who stopped playing 40K for a good spell because he just didn't enjoy the game. He finally abandoned his army for one with a radically different playstyle (Space Marines to Tyranids) and now at least has fun.
So yes, my response may have been in the form of a joke, but it isn't invalid. Why do something you don't have fun doing when you can do nothing and at least not be aggravated?
Why are you framing this as 'bad game= no fun EVER?' You're presupposing a lot and creating an answer no one said.
You've never watched a bad movie and still enjoyed yourself? Read a bad book and had fun picking it apart? Went to a restaurant you didn't like, but still had a good time?
The attitude you're suggesting is healthier strikes me as problematic- 'if it isn't perfect, just leave.' But the world isn't ever perfect, and constantly abandoning everything isn't a workable solution.
Why do you play a game you don't care enough about to critique or improve? The vocal minority that insists on no complaints* is just weird to me.
Not sure that's what was said. I play 40k regularly-ish but still complain about the boatload of rules I have to remember for my Deathwatch and regularly end up with close to my starting number of Command Points because I forget Stratagems exist. It doesn't mean I don't enjoy playing the game. Just because people enjoy something doesn't mean they love it 100% without reservation. For example:
I love Destiny 2. The gunplay is great, the locations are amazing, the classes are fun to play and overall it's an enjoyable game. That being said the balance is awful for PvP and a bunch of content requires you to have friends to play with.
alextroy wrote: 40K is generally a 2 player game. If you don't enjoy the game, there has to be other options for social interaction with 1 person than a game you don't enjoy. I have a friend who stopped playing 40K for a good spell because he just didn't enjoy the game. He finally abandoned his army for one with a radically different playstyle (Space Marines to Tyranids) and now at least has fun.
So yes, my response may have been in the form of a joke, but it isn't invalid. Why do something you don't have fun doing when you can do nothing and at least not be aggravated?
Why are you framing this as 'bad game= no fun EVER?' You're presupposing a lot and creating an answer no one said.
You've never watched a bad movie and still enjoyed yourself? Read a bad book and had fun picking it apart? Went to a restaurant you didn't like, but still had a good time?
The attitude you're suggesting is healthier strikes me as problematic- 'if it isn't perfect, just leave.' But the world isn't ever perfect, and constantly abandoning everything isn't a workable solution.
We seem to be on different wavelengths. I was responding to:
and "why do you still play it if you don't enjoy it"?.
"bad gaming is better than no gaming" aren't.
Pray tell why is that not valid?
Focusing on not enjoying playing the game, not thinking the game was bad but still worth playing. IMO playing a game you don't enjoy to hang with your buds is a bad reason to play a game. Better to hang and let them play so you don't allow the bad game to ruin enjoying your friends.
So if the game is good enough, but not excellent, enjoy hanging with your friends and tossing around the dice. There is a reason many call 40K a beer and pretzels game. It's not a great game, but it's good as an excuse to hang out.
Ah, the good old "it isn't bad you just aren't playing it right" excuse. I love it just as much as I love other such classic terrible arguments such as "How do you know its bad if you don't play it?" and "why do you still play it if you don't enjoy it"?.
"bad gaming is better than no gaming" aren't.
Pray tell why is that not valid?
Unless there's some sort of requirement to play (for ex; the one guy who worked at the FLGS really doesn't like Sigmar - but it was his actual job to demo games & round out brackets for league play if there were an odd #), why would you willingly waste your free time doing something you don't enjoy?
If you already know it'll be a bad experience, & it's optional to participate, then skip doing it. Just go find something to do that you do enjoy.
If you insist upon playing games you don't enjoy? Then that's on you & please don't regale the rest of us with your sob story of how you didn't have fun.
Ah, the good old "it isn't bad you just aren't playing it right" excuse. I love it just as much as I love other such classic terrible arguments such as "How do you know its bad if you don't play it?" and "why do you still play it if you don't enjoy it"?.
"bad gaming is better than no gaming" aren't.
Pray tell why is that not valid?
Unless there's some sort of requirement to play (for ex; the one guy who worked at the FLGS really doesn't like Sigmar - but it was his actual job to demo games & round out brackets for league play if there were an odd #), why would you willingly waste your free time doing something you don't enjoy?
If you already know it'll be a bad experience, & it's optional to participate, then skip doing it. Just go find something to do that you do enjoy.
If you insist upon playing games you don't enjoy? Then that's on you & please don't regale the rest of us with your sob story of how you didn't have fun.
Well here's an example from my actual life.
I have a friend who lives about 50 minutes drive away. We all live in a rural county so aside from some extraordinary luck of one guy who lives 5 minutes up the road almost everyone I know who plays 40k is at least 20 minutes drive away. Anyway, this guy loves GW games and will only play GW games. I do not like 40k currently, but it's all he'll play. He's also got 3 kids, I have no money for petrol to make the nearly 2 hour round trip or space to host games. The ONLY way I'd get time to see this friend is in the context of playing a 40k game because if he gets the 4ish hours free he wants to enact his hobby.
So should I just never see this friend again because I don't enjoy 40k?
Blackie wrote:"It isn't bad, you just aren't playing it right": it is very possible to be mislead in the first place and pick up a wrong game. I mean someone might want a tactical balanced tabletop game which works with a limited cool collection of miniatures and then choses 40k, which has never been and never will be the kind of game that player was seeking. Then it is true that the player isn't playing it right.
No, because GW isn't willing to admit that 40k isn't that game. It's not the player's fault for being mislead by the company.
Blackie wrote:"How do you know it's bad if you don't play it?": there are people who just believe whatever they want to believe. If their trusty source says X they believe X. That's pretty common for a lot of things, not necessarily 40k. Something that involves so many parts like 40k must be experienced to understand its flaws. Otherwise it's just repeating stuff like parrots.
If the same people who said "How do you know it's bad if you don't play it?" would admit that they were wrong when it was actually put on the table, but instead they retreat behind even more tortuous excuses. It's more likely to be bad-faith attempts to argue away fundamental imbalance and designer bias for different factions.
Blackie wrote:"Why do you still play if you don't enjoy it?": this is beyond my comprehension honestly. Why would someone play a game he/she doesn't enjoy really is beyond me. And I refuse to believe that playing tabletop games causes addition.
The problem is that it's the miniatures game with the highest market penetration, and not due to any good quality of the game itself. There are better games out there, but not as many people play them.
Spoletta wrote: This isn't the first time that the GT mission pack introduced changes to the detachments.
CA2021 made some changes to the Super heavy auxiliary detachments.
Are you using those in your crusade games?
I actually don't own any superheavy models yet, so I haven't been impacted.
I remember vaguely the changes- if I recall correctly, the changes were generally seen as improvements that made the detachments easier to use. I had forgotten they came via GT Mission pack. And there you have it- if THOSE changes were regarded as impacting the game and not merely matched play RAW, these rules will be too.
I lack those analytics skills, but a read through the latest Goonhammer recap of top lists for the week's events shows that lists with two sub-factions feature quite a bit (Grey Knights, TSons, Sisters). It would seem that the designers don't want this and are going to take steps. For quite some time the various Space Marines have had to be mono-subfaction to gain Chapter Tactics etc, so this move makes sense.
Make a decision with your list and accept the opportunity cost of picking the sub-faction that appeals to you.
Playing a narrative campaign with like-minded friends? Do what you want! Going to a tourney? Mono sub-faction it is. Seems like a good move to me.
I wonder if they're going to include the detachment rules in the latest iteration of the GT pack. That's an annoying thing to leave out, and probably a big part of the reason people overlook the 'no detachment abilities' thing.
Jidmah wrote: Yep, the only real way to find rules these days is using a searchable database with all the rules in it, which is sadly not provided by GW.
Imagine if warhammer+ had something as convenient as wahapedia in it lmao.
The fact that even big streamers openly use wahapedia instead of figuring out where their rules are is golden
Galas wrote: Most of my group would not be playing without Wahapedia TBH.
People at my LGS used to but after constant "Thats not the rules anymore, check on wahapedia to see the updated one" i converted most of them.
Without Waha and Battlescribe, i would not be playing 40k
At this point I'm quite sure that GW lets them be because they are more useful than harmful.
Players have this need of an hard copy of the rules to feel legit in using them, then just scrap them and use those 2 sources.
No profit lost for GW with all the advantages to customer satisfaction.
Spoletta wrote: At this point I'm quite sure that GW lets them be because they are more useful than harmful.
Players have this need of an hard copy of the rules to feel legit in using them, then just scrap them and use those 2 sources.
No profit lost for GW with all the advantages to customer satisfaction.
Idk, but i know most in-store players at my LGS just stopped purchasing codexes in favor of waha. And the store has a single GT pack for the missions that everyone can use
Without Waha and Battlescribe, i would not be playing 40k
How legal are these sites?
Wahapedia is clearly not legal (but its russian so good luck enforcing it),
Battlescribe itself is legal but the community putting GW's stuff in it most probably isnt
Either way, i don't care, they're convenient and IMO a necessity. Every wargame should have at the very least a free online list builder. Ideally rules in an up to date PDF too.
The core Battlescribe engine, as it is just providing a mechanism to build an army list without having the mechanics for specific games built in, is fine. It also doesn't seem to have been updated for over 2 years at this point.
The community-generated data files for specific games may breach IP law - I'm not an IP lawyer, so I'm not going to make a definitive claim - but I'd argue are either immoral or unethical, especially if you're using material for which you have not paid the creator of the game for.
As an example, if I were to use it to build a Dark Eldar list, that would be bad, as I don't own the Dark Eldar book. If I were to build a Death Guard or Space Marine list, I'm probably OK, as I've got the current books for those factions.
Fair use is a tricky beast at the best of times, though, so I'd say it's generally safer to avoid use cases which rely on it.
And streamers/YouTubers who are promoting either of the above really shouldn't be getting promo material from GW, given their examples are encouraging people not to buy stuff from GW.
Without promoting piracy its reasonable to say GW would almost certainly be served by facilitating easy access to the rules.
A system where the rules are spread over dozens of publications - and FAQs - isn't overly convenient for anyone and it is a potential barrier to people playing the game.
Admittedly there may be cost implications of giving the rules away for free, as the number of people buying codexes, chapter approveds, grand tournament packs etc etc would likely decline significantly. But then its possible people would use the money they would have spent on such to buy more plastic for their respective piles of shame.
Most folk will not concern themselves with legality, what is convenience is always more important. HOWEVER, if the company can offer a service that is both legal and convenient, people will flock to it.
We've seen this before with Napster and itunes. If GW could get their arse in gear and make the 40k app as good as Waha, it'll quickly overtake it in popularity. Even if a fee is attached (as long as its reasonable)
honestly, GW should straight up copy how wahapedia works, its probably the most convenient way to filter their mess of releases. Being able to go on a unit's datasheet and see right there what all the possible stratagems that you can use on them is huge. Hovering on Keywords to see what unit has them while reading Abilities is also huge, its all so convenient.
So obviously GW won't ever implement something like that
If they would at least upgrade Sisters(with a Codex by GW blatantly written in a way to encourage mixed subfactions) for example in a notable way, instead of nerfing them even further with completely laughable point drops in exchange(it will still pretty much nobody play Paragons and absolutely nobody will play the tanks competetively, cause they are still all pretty much just overcosted garbage from a competetive viewpoint).
But no, Sisters aren't even an actual Top Tier army anymore and are one of the factions that get hit the hardest by this and GW is apparently yet again too incompetent to make up for that in any way let alone to use a reasonable and cautious approach with such a huge rules change. And Sisters are really just one of the most notable examples.
Spoletta wrote: Reminder to everyone that these changes come together with a point rebalance, so talking these in relation to the current meta is completely useless.
Orks for example are seeing extensive nerfs to their main build.
The leaked point changes straight up make it even worse for Sisters, and i'm not even sure what insane point changes it needs to finally get Drukhari under control if they get somewhat excluded from the rule.
alextroy wrote: I think you are 100% wrong on your analysis here. I sincerely doubt GW designed any of it's armies with the idea that the player should divide up their armies into small subfactions pieces to maximize the effectiveness of every unit by giving them the best subfaction. Rather, they designed for the subfaction rules to make the the same armies play with a different flavor that favors certain styles of play.
That's theoretically possible, but would practically mean GW are so incredibly incompetent that they somehow didn't realize that pretty much everything about the Sisters Codex screams: MIX SUBFACTIONS.
H.B.M.C. wrote: I think Alex is right: GW did not design the sub-factions to be mixed. They designed them to make individual armies play differently to one another.
Of course, GW play a very different 40k to the rest of us, so is it any wonder they didn't realise how what they wrote actually worked?
I mean just read the Sister Codex, you don't even need to play Sisters or have much experience to see the obvious(it could be barely any less subtle, hell and even beyond that specific Codex Sisters are neither as cheap as Guard nor as Elite as Marines therefore it's pretty much part of their core design to need highly effective specialized units to begin with). But the sad part is, i wouldn't even be too surprised if GW really would be that incompetent(there was just this little hope that they've gained at least some minor competence in recent years).
Maybe their intent was that certain Orders would be better suited to a specific play-style, and that your army would consist of the units that fit that playstyle, and not that people would just take everything, and split them off into the Orders that fit the unit types being chosen.
But then maybe if theFOC actually meant somethingand you couldn't just addmore detachments totake as muchof anything you wantthen this wouldn't reallybe a problem inthe first place...
H.B.M.C. wrote: Maybe their intent was that certain Orders would be better suited to a specific play-style, and that your army would consist of the units that fit that playstyle, and not that people would just take everything, and split them off into the Orders that fit the unit types being chosen.
Thats most probably what happened tbh. GW doesnt MinMax their lists when testing, that much has been obvious for a while
H.B.M.C. wrote: I think Alex is right: GW did not design the sub-factions to be mixed. They designed them to make individual armies play differently to one another.
Of course, GW play a very different 40k to the rest of us, so is it any wonder they didn't realise how what they wrote actually worked?
I mean just read the Sister Codex, you don't even need to play Sisters or have much experience to see the obvious(it could be barely any less subtle, hell and even beyond that specific Codex Sisters are neither as cheap as Guard nor as Elite as Marines therefore it's pretty much part of their core design to need highly effective specialized units to begin with). But the sad part is, i wouldn't even be too surprised if GW really would be that incompetent(there was just this little hope that they've gained at least some minor competence in recent years).
Recent years includes the 8th edition Iron Hands FAQ of 'We did not intend our rules to be used this way.' It was an entire paragraph of, essentially, 'what we wrote wasn't what we meant, and everyone should have realized that and feel bad for using the rules as we wrote them.'
Between stacking DR and double feel no pain, what they wrote was just crazy, and yes, incompetent. And then there was the Salamanders strat that made a unit make nearby units untargetable, and you could hide the first unit so nothing in that part of the board could be shot.
I didn't bother looking it up, but I remember a Warcom article about Supreme Commanders, and what they were intended to do. If I'm not mistaken, it explicitly said they were designed to lead mixed subfaction armies. Could be wrong on that front, of course.
But I don't think anyone can really read descriptions of what a Waaagh is and assume they are intended to be mon-subfaction affairs.
Ditto for chaos.
And again, every campaign book ever created has a list of allied forces that includes not only multiple subfactions, but multiple factions. I think there's a lot of evidence that GW DID intend this, but they've changed their minds, likely to keep tournament play more balanced and less complex... though, as others have mentioned, this won't really help achieve better balance because it doesn't affect all factions, or even all of the factions who need it most.
But I don't think anyone can really read descriptions of what a Waaagh is and assume they are intended to be mon-subfaction affairs.
Ditto for chaos.
This is my concern. I'm a Chaos Daemons player and mixed god armies are so common in the fluff as to be unremarkable. Now if I want to take a Slaanesh detachment (which almost every Daemons army that wants to be competitive does), I just can't.
This is my concern. I'm a Chaos Daemons player and mixed god armies are so common in the fluff as to be unremarkable. Now if I want to take a Slaanesh detachment (which almost every Daemons army that wants to be competitive does), I just can't.
One of the things I had hypothesized about was that maybe Chaos armies, as part of their suite of army rules, may get a specific exemption in order to reflect that they are... You know, chaotic?
Perhaps this change is being implemented specifically so that Chaos armies get to feel special. This kind of blending is even more common in fluff and background for chaos than it is for Orks.
It's a long shot, but who knows? Personally, that will still bug me; I'm always going to think everyone should be able to do this. But it would be something, and certainly would make chaos unique.
But I don't think anyone can really read descriptions of what a Waaagh is and assume they are intended to be mon-subfaction affairs.
Ditto for chaos.
This is my concern. I'm a Chaos Daemons player and mixed god armies are so common in the fluff as to be unremarkable. Now if I want to take a Slaanesh detachment (which almost every Daemons army that wants to be competitive does), I just can't.
The Daemons Codex is pretty old at that point. GW will probably give them some similar mechanic to Dark Eldar so that you can ally within the Codex. But they'll make it harder to ally with CSM, which sucks for monogod lists.
Either way I don't think my gaming group will care or even notice that change since nobody is interested in the tournament books.
PenitentJake wrote: I didn't bother looking it up, but I remember a Warcom article about Supreme Commanders, and what they were intended to do. If I'm not mistaken, it explicitly said they were designed to lead mixed subfaction armies. Could be wrong on that front, of course.
But I don't think anyone can really read descriptions of what a Waaagh is and assume they are intended to be mon-subfaction affairs.
Ditto for chaos.
And again, every campaign book ever created has a list of allied forces that includes not only multiple subfactions, but multiple factions. I think there's a lot of evidence that GW DID intend this, but they've changed their minds, likely to keep tournament play more balanced and less complex... though, as others have mentioned, this won't really help achieve better balance because it doesn't affect all factions, or even all of the factions who need it most.
Orks are an exception. They are the most fluff compliant faction when it comes to mixing clans. That's what they do.
And in fact they will be the only post CA faction who can mix subfactions.
Post CA mixing subfactions will make you lose your purity bonus... which orks have never had.
But I don't think anyone can really read descriptions of what a Waaagh is and assume they are intended to be mon-subfaction affairs.
Ditto for chaos.
This is my concern. I'm a Chaos Daemons player and mixed god armies are so common in the fluff as to be unremarkable. Now if I want to take a Slaanesh detachment (which almost every Daemons army that wants to be competitive does), I just can't.
Daemons are an 8th edition army which doesn't have a purity bonus. They will not be impacted by these changes.
Have we even seen the actual rule? Kind of hard to say will they lose it or not from just the original rumour. Or whether there will be faq's accompanying the rule.
As it is rumour has been interpreted as no mixing whatsoever, losing bonuses and max 1 detachment period. All which fullfills original rumour(no subfaction soup) but different style Which is it?
tneva82 wrote: Have we even seen the actual rule? Kind of hard to say will they lose it or not from just the original rumour. Or whether there will be faq's accompanying the rule.
As it is rumour has been interpreted as no mixing whatsoever, losing bonuses and max 1 detachment period. All which fullfills original rumour(no subfaction soup) but different style Which is it?
^^^^This. We still don't know how this will be implemented. And remember, the first "no mixing subfactions" shot has already been fired: against CSM with the "psychic powers only work for the same <LEGION> as the psycker" rule change. But mixing CSM + daemons through summoning has been protected through the "units brought in from Reserves after deployment don't break purity bonuses" rule.
Another shot is on new CA with faction specific secondaries only available for pure armies...but does suggest there's way to still mix though. There would be no point for GT pack specific limitation for those if GT pack would flat out forbid it.
GW wants fluffy mixed sub factions played by casual players. GW doesn't want competitive min-maxed mixed sub factions winning all the tournaments.
I mean, the super shooty faction that wants to leaf blow the enemies off the board isn't supposed to be able to pay 2CP and suddenly also have absolute melee murder machines. The downside of just paying 2CP to get that might be just too little.
GW could implement the pure-faction rule by spending say 3 CP to play a non-pure faction.
Something like this would make more sense than restricting to pure factions ab initio.
Pretty sure it would be a restriction for matched play only, a format that openly aims to achieve the highest level of balance possible as it's meant for competitive gaming, rather than encouraging "fun" builds.
Fluffy armies would still exist of course, people really need to understand that there isn't only a single way to play 40k.
Blackie wrote: Pretty sure it would be a restriction for matched play only, a format that openly aims to achieve the highest level of balance possible as it's meant for competitive gaming, rather than encouraging "fun" builds.
Fluffy armies would still exist of course, people really need to understand that there isn't only a single way to play 40k.
And you need to understand that most people don't care and will stick to Matched play as the main way to play. When it was introduced in 8th the Rule Of Three was tournament only and just a suggestion rather than a strict rule, but it IMMEDIATELY became a codified rule within the community as far as they were concerned. What happens in Matched/Tournament play becomes the norm for the vast majority of players, saying "well this doesn't effect me or mine" doesn't add anything to the discussion.
Spoletta wrote: Orks are an exception. They are the most fluff compliant faction when it comes to mixing clans. That's what they do.
And in fact they will be the only post CA faction who can mix subfactions.
Post CA mixing subfactions will make you lose your purity bonus... which orks have never had.
Well, orks also don't gain a whole lot from mixing clans anyways, as clan relic and stratagem are tied to your warboss, most auras and powers are clan-locked and two of the best clans, freebootas and bloodaxes, are better off as mono-clan anyways.
Sure, you could make all your melee units goff and your shooting units deff skulls or bloodaxe, but in general you go all in one strategy anyways.
Blackie wrote: Pretty sure it would be a restriction for matched play only, a format that openly aims to achieve the highest level of balance possible as it's meant for competitive gaming, rather than encouraging "fun" builds.
Fluffy armies would still exist of course, people really need to understand that there isn't only a single way to play 40k.
And you need to understand that most people don't care and will stick to Matched play as the main way to play. When it was introduced in 8th the Rule Of Three was tournament only and just a suggestion rather than a strict rule, but it IMMEDIATELY became a codified rule within the community as far as they were concerned. What happens in Matched/Tournament play becomes the norm for the vast majority of players, saying "well this doesn't effect me or mine" doesn't add anything to the discussion.
Yet, somehow the detachment limitation released at the same time as the Ro3 rarely did see any use outside of tournaments.
It's almost as if people decide what to adapt based on whether it does fix things they perceive as a problems or not.
I'm still mad about not being able to mix Ork clans in the same detachmenttbh but I guess it was inevitable since the cherry-picking hyper-optimisers would ruin it for the rest of us.
Automatically Appended Next Post: The main problem with all this stuff is that as it started with Chapter Tactics, that became the template for all the other subfaction rules, regardless of whether or not those subfactions are actually analogous to SM Chapters in the fluff – Ork Clans, for example, very much not being.
Automatically Appended Next Post: (In case anyone's interested, my other spicy sub-faction take is that mixing Khorne/Slaanesh or Tzeentch/Nurgle in the same army should have you thrown out of and barred from whatever venue/event you're playing in, but maybe I'm showing my age there)
Blackie wrote: Pretty sure it would be a restriction for matched play only, a format that openly aims to achieve the highest level of balance possible as it's meant for competitive gaming, rather than encouraging "fun" builds.
Fluffy armies would still exist of course, people really need to understand that there isn't only a single way to play 40k.
And you need to understand that most people don't care and will stick to Matched play as the main way to play. When it was introduced in 8th the Rule Of Three was tournament only and just a suggestion rather than a strict rule, but it IMMEDIATELY became a codified rule within the community as far as they were concerned. What happens in Matched/Tournament play becomes the norm for the vast majority of players, saying "well this doesn't effect me or mine" doesn't add anything to the discussion.
Well, the vast majority of players doesn't use "fluffy" armies though, but more or less optimized collections of the models they own. The vast majority of those who go multi-subfaction does that to get an advantage, not because it looks cool. It's a gamey mechanic that has little to do with fluff, and I'm glad if it's gone from competitive play.
People who bring fluffy armies typically belong to a crowd that doesn't care for matched play restrictions. Something that affects one every thousand players doesn't add anything to the discussion as well .
Blackie wrote: Well, the vast majority of players doesn't use "fluffy" armies though, but more or less optimized collections of the models they own. The vast majority of those who go multi-subfaction does that to get an advantage, not because it looks cool. It's a gamey mechanic that has little to do with fluff, and I'm glad if it's gone from competitive play.
If we're talking tournaments (and/or "competitive" play), though, that's exactly where this sort of gamey mechanic should appear - it's generally where you'll find people who care more for the game than the background, after all.
Blackie wrote: Well, the vast majority of players doesn't use "fluffy" armies though, but more or less optimized collections of the models they own. The vast majority of those who go multi-subfaction does that to get an advantage, not because it looks cool. It's a gamey mechanic that has little to do with fluff, and I'm glad if it's gone from competitive play.
If we're talking tournaments (and/or "competitive" play), though, that's exactly where this sort of gamey mechanic should appear - it's generally where you'll find people who care more for the game than the background, after all.
Not "should" but "would". That's why people shouldn't care if those mechanics go away, resulting in a more balanced game.
Yeah, I see Blackie's point. With some exceptions (see Penitent Jake's example), most narrative players I have seen tend to stick to a single subfaction.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Yeah, I see Blackie's point. With some exceptions (see Penitent Jake's example), most narrative players I have seen tend to stick to a single subfaction.
I've made the same experience - and of those who don't, they rarely care for losing bonuses or didn't get any to begin with because they are running a unit of GK terminators, an assassin, an inquisitor and Canis Rex as part of their DKOK army.
My army was painted so that each units would be wearing the colors of the clan they most likely would be drawn from - lootas are deff skulls, shoota boyz are bad moons, trukk boyz are evil suns and so on. If I had multiple units I would make each unit of a different clan. With 8th I just decided that the warlord's clan decides what tactics are used for everyone. Cherry picking without blowing my opponent's mind simply isn't possible, and honestly doesn't add anything to the game.
Mixing subfactions most seems generally more power-gamey than mixing regular factions. I get wanting to use a wide variety of different models in one army, I want that too and that's why I like allies. But subfactions are mostly just same models painted differently (though there are exceptions like Daemons) and most of the time you could use those models together under same rules. You can use your yellow marine models and blue marine models together by just using blue marine rules, so the purpose of different rules is mostly just extra power.
tneva82 wrote: Have we even seen the actual rule? Kind of hard to say will they lose it or not from just the original rumour. Or whether there will be faq's accompanying the rule.
As it is rumour has been interpreted as no mixing whatsoever, losing bonuses and max 1 detachment period. All which fullfills original rumour(no subfaction soup) but different style Which is it?
^^^^This. We still don't know how this will be implemented. And remember, the first "no mixing subfactions" shot has already been fired: against CSM with the "psychic powers only work for the same <LEGION> as the psycker" rule change. But mixing CSM + daemons through summoning has been protected through the "units brought in from Reserves after deployment don't break purity bonuses" rule.
God, GW, just make summoning be "You may include any <CHAOS DEMONS> unit in your <HERETIC ASTARTES> detachment without breaking bonuses" (i'd even settle for a poxwalker/tzaangor restriction on it).
Let me bring Tzeentch demons with Thousand sons FFS
tneva82 wrote: Have we even seen the actual rule? Kind of hard to say will they lose it or not from just the original rumour. Or whether there will be faq's accompanying the rule.
As it is rumour has been interpreted as no mixing whatsoever, losing bonuses and max 1 detachment period. All which fullfills original rumour(no subfaction soup) but different style Which is it?
^^^^This. We still don't know how this will be implemented. And remember, the first "no mixing subfactions" shot has already been fired: against CSM with the "psychic powers only work for the same <LEGION> as the psycker" rule change. But mixing CSM + daemons through summoning has been protected through the "units brought in from Reserves after deployment don't break purity bonuses" rule.
God, GW, just make summoning be "You may include any <CHAOS DEMONS> unit in your <HERETIC ASTARTES> detachment without breaking bonuses" (i'd even settle for a poxwalker/tzaangor restriction on it).
Let me bring Tzeentch demons with Thousand sons FFS
You can, you just need to summon them. And that's nothing new, CSM have needed either summoning or possession to get daemons since at least 2nd edition.
You can, you just need to summon them. And that's nothing new, CSM have needed either summoning or possession to get daemons since at least 2nd edition.
i don't want to have to take a risk to bring them in, the summoning rule right now is sooo underwhelming, theres a reason its almost never used.
Making it so the summoning is now only a fluff explanation for soup (which it already is but with a chance of failure) seems fitting.
"For every character with a mark of chaos, you may include one unit from the Chaos Demons codex with the same allegiance without breaking purity bonuses"
so now you get characters that can still move and you can bring bigger units/squads of demons that summoning usually would let you.
But I don't think anyone can really read descriptions of what a Waaagh is and assume they are intended to be mon-subfaction affairs.
Ditto for chaos.
This is my concern. I'm a Chaos Daemons player and mixed god armies are so common in the fluff as to be unremarkable. Now if I want to take a Slaanesh detachment (which almost every Daemons army that wants to be competitive does), I just can't.
I imagine it will be revealed Friday, but this doesn't affect Daemons as they do not have replaceable keywords.
I'd be fine with an Agents of the Imperium style rule that lets you take one single Daemon unit in a TSons, DG or CSM detachment. You don't need loads of Daemons running around, but just slipping one into a no force org slot like an Inquisitor/Assassin would be cool.
You can, you just need to summon them. And that's nothing new, CSM have needed either summoning or possession to get daemons since at least 2nd edition.
i don't want to have to take a risk to bring them in, the summoning rule right now is sooo underwhelming, theres a reason its almost never used.
Making it so the summoning is now only a fluff explanation for soup (which it already is but with a chance of failure) seems fitting.
"For every character with a mark of chaos, you may include one unit from the Chaos Demons codex with the same allegiance without breaking purity bonuses"
so now you get characters that can still move and you can bring bigger units/squads of demons that summoning usually would let you.
Or, they could just fix the summoning mechanic. Summoning used to be pretty powerful back when it worked right. Just removing the restriction on moving would go a long way.
But I don't think anyone can really read descriptions of what a Waaagh is and assume they are intended to be mon-subfaction affairs.
Ditto for chaos.
This is my concern. I'm a Chaos Daemons player and mixed god armies are so common in the fluff as to be unremarkable. Now if I want to take a Slaanesh detachment (which almost every Daemons army that wants to be competitive does), I just can't.
I imagine it will be revealed Friday, but this doesn't affect Daemons as they do not have replaceable keywords.
They do ACKCHUALLY, Furies and demon princes can be in any allegiance
Or, they could just fix the summoning mechanic. Summoning used to be pretty powerful back when it worked right. Just removing the restriction on moving would go a long way.
Thats what i'm suggesting, just that the "summonning" happens on the list building phase
You seriouly think gw games can be played competively? For that player skill would need to be deciding factor.
Sleeping is more competive than gw games.
Only noobs think gw games are competive. As is level of skill needed　is about 3rd grader. 1st grader can already solve the best army list.
Gw games are beer&pretzel by definition. Kids might think it's competive...until they read rules.
INSULT REMOVED - GROW UP FOR ONCE
Anyone can copy paste lists. In fact plenty do. There's a reason the same people keep topping events even in the mirror matches. There's also reasons their lists keep changing
and evolving too, because no the most optimal list isn't that obvious, nor is it static, depends on the event and the meta. But a pro like you would already know that right?
Nitro Zeus wrote: Anyone can copy paste lists. In fact plenty do. There's a reason the same people keep topping events even in the mirror matches. There's also reasons their lists keep changing
and evolving too, because no the most optimal list isn't that obvious, nor is it static, depends on the event and the meta. But a pro like you would already know that right?
That's such a big factor in squeaking out that last little hair of top table performance. If you're only knowledgeable enough to netlist, you will always be on the receiving end of meta changes, never the guy with the counter-meta picks or new tech adapting to the field. You'll literally be meta-chasing, and that might work occasionally (and will certainly work for bullying casuals) but it will never get you to the top.
I actually really miss being viable to take guard + basically any other imperial faction. I also miss the flavor of taking occult chaos space marine legion + flavored daemons, like tsosn + tzeentzch daemons.
I think GW should have trimmed it and correct it rather then just outright shoot it down.
I actually really miss being viable to take guard + basically any other imperial faction. I also miss the flavor of taking occult chaos space marine legion + flavored daemons, like tsosn + tzeentzch daemons.
I think GW should have trimmed it and correct it rather then just outright shoot it down.
same, i actually really liked my 6th edition orks and chaos list, it was freeboota orks acting as mercenaries (they were primary faction) for a random black legion lower level officer (had names but its been a while) let me have some good ranged weapons to open vehicles to up for the orks to assault, good fun, wasn't some tournament level netlist, just something i enjoyed piloting, if i recall GW then in 7th decided no allies for orks even though they are wierdly one of the few factions that would do mercenary work for literally anybody for the right amount of scrap, hel its cannon that even the imperium has used orks when its suites them.
I actually really miss being viable to take guard + basically any other imperial faction. I also miss the flavor of taking occult chaos space marine legion + flavored daemons, like tsosn + tzeentzch daemons.
I think GW should have trimmed it and correct it rather then just outright shoot it down.
Same here fluff-wise. It matched a lot of Black Library stories where a unit of space marines assists a guard platoon. Also it justified buying a small squad of X here and there. No doubt it was exploited and ruined game play.
I actually really miss being viable to take guard + basically any other imperial faction. I also miss the flavor of taking occult chaos space marine legion + flavored daemons, like tsosn + tzeentzch daemons.
I think GW should have trimmed it and correct it rather then just outright shoot it down.
Probably not actually that unpopular. I agree. I love mixed armies, and GW (as usual) overcorrected. Changing the detachments to cost CP instead of giving CP was probably enough to make soup balanced, they didn't need to introduce monoarmy bonuses on top of that.
Same here fluff-wise. It matched a lot of Black Library stories where a unit of space marines assists a guard platoon. Also it justified buying a small squad of X here and there.
Yeah, definitely. I used to buy more models when the souping was more viable. If I liked some unit in some imperial or eldar army, I could just buy it and knew I could ally it with my other stuff.
NinthMusketeer wrote: Same reason as 9" deep strike--sometimes fluff needs to compromise with gameplay.
Exactly, rules are abstractions that need to compromise with gameplay. Do you want allies? Sure, but you also get a drawback in return.
Might even represent the fact that mixed up forces aren't optimized and somehow improvised as members from different forces might not fight with consolidate tactics and synergies, which makes them lose some efficiency, aka some faction bonus are negated.
Maybe it's not the best way to deal with allies, but it has to be some drawback to balance the fact that some armies can bring allies, some can choose from an almost infinite array of allies, and others can't bring allies at all.
Spoletta wrote: Yeah, but nothing stops you from having Cadians and Ultramarines, since one is <Chapter> and the other is <Regiment>.
This. You can still soup, you just can't single book soup if everything shares the same replaceable keyword.
for some armies that makes sense, like hive fleets fighting together abotu the closest is the one fighting chaos where other hive fleets will leave them biomass since chaos doe snot leave behind biomass. For other armies liek orks, the orks are literally a society of mixed clans, eldar craftworlds have and do work together to goals, imperial guard detachments specifically work together as a way to fight cult incusion etc.
I know that it is awful late in this thread to have this question, but explain something to me:
For those of us who run a Super Heavy Auxiliary Detachment out of the same book as another detachment, say baneblades and an infantry regiment; Would we be stuck running both without any regiment bonuses as a SHAD precludes the selection, or does this new rule override that BRB rule?
carldooley wrote: I know that it is awful late in this thread to have this question, but explain something to me:
For those of us who run a Super Heavy Auxiliary Detachment out of the same book as another detachment, say baneblades and an infantry regiment; Would we be stuck running both without any regiment bonuses as a SHAD precludes the selection, or does this new rule override that BRB rule?
Neither. Your Baneblade has the <REGIMENT> keyword, it just doesn't get to benefit from your regiment's faction trait. That's how it already works.
Blackie wrote: Might even represent the fact that mixed up forces aren't optimized and somehow improvised as members from different forces might not fight with consolidate tactics and synergies, which makes them lose some efficiency, aka some faction bonus are negated.
Sisters losing their faith because allies are on the field sounds wrong, but having fewer Command Points to work with to represent reduced command efficiency seems perfect. I'd say a CP tax would have been a much better way to handle mixed armies than losing faction traits, let alone the outright ban on mixing subfactions that GW is now going with.
In older editions the cost of taking allies was that you had to meet minimum requirements of a second FOC, so min 1 HQ + 2 Troops before you could get into any of the spicy stuff. Easy to add some Tactical Marines to your Guard, but you couldn't just soup tanks in.
But here we are once again, having the unlimited freedom of free-form army composition constrained by sledgehammer solutions in the name of tournament balance, and sucks to suck for casual players.
carldooley wrote: I know that it is awful late in this thread to have this question, but explain something to me:
For those of us who run a Super Heavy Auxiliary Detachment out of the same book as another detachment, say baneblades and an infantry regiment; Would we be stuck running both without any regiment bonuses as a SHAD precludes the selection, or does this new rule override that BRB rule?
While we'd probably need to read the book to be sure, based on the new article it looks like your entire army is given the regiment value you decide and it simply applies to any detachments in your army. You don't get the +2 CP bonus for having the same regiment as your Warlord if the baneblade doesn't have <regiment> (does it? Can't remember!), but if you spend CP on a stratagem to give it <regiment> I think it evens out?
Baneblades have the <REGIMENT> keyword. It's right there on the datasheet. They just don't get Regimental Traits unless you take the appropriate Tank Ace ability.
It'll be interesting to see the exact wording when the book comes out - hopefully this sledgehammer strike is restricted specifically to "matched play games using these scenarios", rather than game-wide.
Would mean that this could be reverted with the next scenario pack.
catbarf wrote: But here we are once again, having the unlimited freedom of free-form army composition constrained by sledgehammer solutions in the name of tournament balance, and sucks to suck for casual players.
For what its worth I think simplifying the tournament format in this way could help GW balance that scene out a bit, they clearly build their codexes with mono-dex, mono-faction armies in mind and this at least helps even out imperium and xenos players a bit. (What this means for Brood Brothers, I don't know.)
Locking down the hardcore tournament scene may also give them more wiggle room in the 'more ways to play' space, since a slightly more open casual matched play setting that allows souping and mixed factions is probably closer to what people like in a casual friendly game space rather than open play.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gadzilla666 wrote: Baneblades have the <REGIMENT> keyword. It's right there on the datasheet. They just don't get Regimental Traits unless you take the appropriate Tank Ace ability.
Fair enough. Either way, the infantry will still have access to their Regimental Traits without losing them.
It means nothing for Brood Brothers because they have a different Keyword(that has already been replaced) from GSC units. Once again, this only prevents SINGLE <KEYWORD> sub-faction mixing.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Baneblades have the <REGIMENT> keyword. It's right there on the datasheet. They just don't get Regimental Traits unless you take the appropriate Tank Ace ability.
But on the bright side, it sounds like you can get some CP back for matching.
Dysartes wrote: It'll be interesting to see the exact wording when the book comes out - hopefully this sledgehammer strike is restricted specifically to "matched play games using these scenarios", rather than game-wide.
Would mean that this could be reverted with the next scenario pack.
That chaotic churn between CA volumes is already a possibility. The only thing new is the speed it happens at.
GW giveth, GW taketh away, and you all cheer for "balance". And 6 months from now you'll do it again.
So if I am reading the preview correctly, I think we have workable set of restrictions?
Let's say I want to have a Detachment of Iron Hands and a Detachment of White Scars. It was already very punishing from a sub-faction trait perspective in 9th, but it is now impossible in GT 22 play to do so as those datasheets both have the <Chapter>. I could, however, have a detachment of Cadians and a Detachment of White Scars as they do not share a replaceable <keyword>. You probably wouldn't do such a mix anyway, but hey.
Let's say I play Astra Militarum. I can no longer have a Detachment of Cadians and a Detachment of Catachans as those various datasheets share a replaceable <Regiment> keyword. Seems fair. I could, however, have a Detachment of Lambdan Lions (Scions) and a Detachment of Cadians as their datasheets do not share a replaceable <Keyword>. I could not, however, have an army with a Detachment of Kappic Eagles and a Detachment of Lambdan Lions since Scions gained a replaceable <Tempestus Regiment> keyword in their Psychic Awakening book.
So there is still some room for flavour but not the same level of cherry-picking from the same faction that we had before. Also nothing stopping two like-minded hard-core casual players from doing what they want with their game. Just don't rock up to a tourney using the GT22 pack without understanding and following the restrictions.
Eldenfirefly wrote: So... is it still possible to soup two different codex together? Say I soup chaos knights and death guard together. Is that still allowed?
Blackie wrote: Might even represent the fact that mixed up forces aren't optimized and somehow improvised as members from different forces might not fight with consolidate tactics and synergies, which makes them lose some efficiency, aka some faction bonus are negated.
Sisters losing their faith because allies are on the field sounds wrong, but having fewer Command Points to work with to represent reduced command efficiency seems perfect. I'd say a CP tax would have been a much better way to handle mixed armies than losing faction traits, let alone the outright ban on mixing subfactions that GW is now going with.
In older editions the cost of taking allies was that you had to meet minimum requirements of a second FOC, so min 1 HQ + 2 Troops before you could get into any of the spicy stuff. Easy to add some Tactical Marines to your Guard, but you couldn't just soup tanks in.
But here we are once again, having the unlimited freedom of free-form army composition constrained by sledgehammer solutions in the name of tournament balance, and sucks to suck for casual players.
'
The problem has become that not all armies have equal power in stratagems. DE are strong, because theirs are so friggin' good and they get no list building penalties. Orks just don't give a gak about strats at all and just dump into other avenues.
DE are going to dodge this with a Real Space Raid battalion though. It will take Dark Tech out of the mix, but it will still be a strong list.
Blackie wrote: Might even represent the fact that mixed up forces aren't optimized and somehow improvised as members from different forces might not fight with consolidate tactics and synergies, which makes them lose some efficiency, aka some faction bonus are negated.
Sisters losing their faith because allies are on the field sounds wrong, but having fewer Command Points to work with to represent reduced command efficiency seems perfect. I'd say a CP tax would have been a much better way to handle mixed armies than losing faction traits, let alone the outright ban on mixing subfactions that GW is now going with.
In older editions the cost of taking allies was that you had to meet minimum requirements of a second FOC, so min 1 HQ + 2 Troops before you could get into any of the spicy stuff. Easy to add some Tactical Marines to your Guard, but you couldn't just soup tanks in.
But here we are once again, having the unlimited freedom of free-form army composition constrained by sledgehammer solutions in the name of tournament balance, and sucks to suck for casual players.
'
The problem has become that not all armies have equal power in stratagems. DE are strong, because theirs are so friggin' good and they get no list building penalties. Orks just don't give a gak about strats at all and just dump into other avenues.
DE are going to dodge this with a Real Space Raid battalion though. It will take Dark Tech out of the mix, but it will still be a strong list.
Real Space raid received a huge nerf at the same time though.
DE are not dodging this nerf.
There are TWO rules for DE that are relevant in the context of this discussion.
RAIDING FORCES:
- every detachment must be a patrol (hit by patrol composition changes)
- because <kabal>, <cult> and <coven> are defferent selectable keywords, you can still take one of each, but ONLY one of each
REALSPACE RAID:
- a single detachment of any type that contains a Warlord Archon, a Succubus, a Haemonculus plus at least one unit of Kabalite, Cultist and Coven troops.
- all kabalites get the kabal obsession, all cults get their obsession and all covens get theirs
- unaffected by patrol composition changes, and still uses separate selectable keywords, hence mostly unaffected by subfaction changes as well
catbarf wrote: But here we are once again, having the unlimited freedom of free-form army composition constrained by sledgehammer solutions in the name of tournament balance, and sucks to suck for casual players.
For what its worth I think simplifying the tournament format in this way could help GW balance that scene out a bit, they clearly build their codexes with mono-dex, mono-faction armies in mind and this at least helps even out imperium and xenos players a bit. (What this means for Brood Brothers, I don't know.)
Locking down the hardcore tournament scene may also give them more wiggle room in the 'more ways to play' space, since a slightly more open casual matched play setting that allows souping and mixed factions is probably closer to what people like in a casual friendly game space rather than open play.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gadzilla666 wrote: Baneblades have the <REGIMENT> keyword. It's right there on the datasheet. They just don't get Regimental Traits unless you take the appropriate Tank Ace ability.
Fair enough. Either way, the infantry will still have access to their Regimental Traits without losing them.
This requires GW to both care AND be competent in making changes though. Something they haven't historically demonstrated.
Gene St. Ealer wrote:Wait, what's the huge nerf for Realspace Raid?
Spoletta wrote:It's made of patrols.
Patrols are rumored to be limited to 1 HS and 1 FA.
PenitentJake wrote:To clarify DE:
There are TWO rules for DE that are relevant in the context of this discussion.
RAIDING FORCES:
- every detachment must be a patrol (hit by patrol composition changes)
- because <kabal>, <cult> and <coven> are defferent selectable keywords, you can still take one of each, but ONLY one of each
REALSPACE RAID:
- a single detachment of any type that contains a Warlord Archon, a Succubus, a Haemonculus plus at least one unit of Kabalite, Cultist and Coven troops.
- all kabalites get the kabal obsession, all cults get their obsession and all covens get theirs
- unaffected by patrol composition changes, and still uses separate selectable keywords, hence mostly unaffected by subfaction changes as well
Right, well...I guess it's a wash. If they go battalion they have only 3 FA and 3 HS -- the same as if 3 patrols with only 1 FA and HS each.
In any case I played Thicc City in the battalion config. No Dark Tech, but it was still just stupid durable and I couldn't get LOS on the Talos fast enough.
Blackie wrote: Might even represent the fact that mixed up forces aren't optimized and somehow improvised as members from different forces might not fight with consolidate tactics and synergies, which makes them lose some efficiency, aka some faction bonus are negated.
Sisters losing their faith because allies are on the field sounds wrong, but having fewer Command Points to work with to represent reduced command efficiency seems perfect. I'd say a CP tax would have been a much better way to handle mixed armies than losing faction traits, let alone the outright ban on mixing subfactions that GW is now going with.
In older editions the cost of taking allies was that you had to meet minimum requirements of a second FOC, so min 1 HQ + 2 Troops before you could get into any of the spicy stuff. Easy to add some Tactical Marines to your Guard, but you couldn't just soup tanks in.
But here we are once again, having the unlimited freedom of free-form army composition constrained by sledgehammer solutions in the name of tournament balance, and sucks to suck for casual players.
Problem is losing a few CP might not be a significant drawback for some armies. Especially if they have tools to regain CPs later. Being forced to take unwanted trash units can be a solution, but I think the majority would rather lose some rules than being forced to play unwanted stuff.
Mixing orders, klans, equivalents from the same book is not common for casual players who typically paint their miniatures with the same colour scheme, it's super common for competitive ones instead who mix up orders/equivalents just to get appropriate buffs to all their units.
Problem is losing a few CP might not be a significant drawback for some armies. Especially if they have tools to regain CPs later. Being forced to take unwanted trash units can be a solution, but I think the majority would rather lose some rules than being forced to play unwanted stuff.
Mixing orders, klans, equivalents from the same book is not common for casual players who typically paint their miniatures with the same colour scheme, it's super common for competitive ones instead who mix up orders/equivalents just to get appropriate buffs to all their units.
Its funny, and maybe I read too many of the books, but I have far less problems with subfaction than I do cross faction soup. Even then if they're Battle Brothers (IG/SM or Mech/IG/SM etc - I'd prefer GW figure out how to make it work with a minor to no penalty than just prohibiting it. Kind of like they do now with the DA Wings. If you make a Raven+Deathwing army you take a small CP hit. At the same time, you basically end up with an Adeptus Custodes Army that... takes a CP hit - which doesn't seem right. Either make a new Battalion size Detach with plenty of Elite, FA, no Troop, limited HS choice, or let all the Outrider/Vanguard detach that qualify as the speciality detach refund their CP costs. I'd go with the first one because the second would require too much IF-THEN-ELSE conditioning to prevent abuse - Something like 2-3HQ, 3-8 Elite, 0Troop, 3-8FA, 0-2 HS 0-2 Flyers, with CP Cost/Refund of 3, all units must have Deathwing or Ravenwing keywords. that basically merges the Outrider and Vanguard Detach, doesn't give an extra HQ, no greenwing hole patching, still allows for landraiders, Stormravens, Dreads and Ravenwing flyers. The logical conclusion to what GW is currently doing would prohibit Raven and Death Wings from showing up together. The other thing I don't like about what GW is doing is they're trying to pound Clans/Septs/etc into Chapter Tactics holes. The Ork Horde is multi-clan with the units being clan flavored. Deathskull Lootas. Goff Skarboyz. Evil Sun Buggies. Instead of turning making them go mono-clan, they should have just gotten a list of what happens to each of those units when you have a specific clan kulture or something- with a few units prohibited to each Clan due to animosity. The point is Space Marines and Space Orks have very different flavor and should use a different mechanic in army building.
Daedalus81 wrote:The problem has become that not all armies have equal power in stratagems.
Blackie wrote:Problem is losing a few CP might not be a significant drawback for some armies.
Well, using a new method of representing command inefficiency rather than the command mechanic already in the game because they botched its implementation is very GW, I'll give you that.
In a sane world I think the solution here would be to ensure every faction has useful stratagems and cares about loss of CP, not abandon that mechanic and take away subfaction traits instead.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Blackie wrote: Mixing orders, klans, equivalents from the same book is not common for casual players who typically paint their miniatures with the same colour scheme, it's super common for competitive ones instead who mix up orders/equivalents just to get appropriate buffs to all their units.
Also, I think you underestimate how many casual players collect variations of the same faction. In my local group one guy has both Cadians and Elysians, another has both Bad Moons and Deathskulls, and a third has Ultramarines and Retributors. Some players like different aspects of a faction and collect sub-forces to focus on different elements, or have an existing collection in one scheme but then branch out into a new scheme as they collect newer models. A couple of these guys I know started branching out specifically because they were so easy to soup together and play a larger game. Kinda sucks that now they have to be all played as the same subfaction now.
Daedalus81 wrote:The problem has become that not all armies have equal power in stratagems.
Blackie wrote:Problem is losing a few CP might not be a significant drawback for some armies.
Well, using a new method of representing command inefficiency rather than the command mechanic already in the game because they botched its implementation is very GW, I'll give you that.
In a sane world I think the solution here would be to ensure every faction has useful stratagems and cares about loss of CP, not abandon that mechanic and take away subfaction traits instead.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Blackie wrote: Mixing orders, klans, equivalents from the same book is not common for casual players who typically paint their miniatures with the same colour scheme, it's super common for competitive ones instead who mix up orders/equivalents just to get appropriate buffs to all their units.
Also, I think you underestimate how many casual players collect variations of the same faction. In my local group one guy has both Cadians and Elysians, another has both Bad Moons and Deathskulls, and a third has Ultramarines and Retributors. Some players like different aspects of a faction and collect sub-forces to focus on different elements, or have an existing collection in one scheme but then branch out into a new scheme as they collect newer models. A couple of these guys I know started branching out specifically because they were so easy to soup together and play a larger game. Kinda sucks that now they have to be all played as the same subfaction now.
Not to beat a dead horse, but the simplest solution is probably to make a soup Chapter Tactic/etc One that specifically allows subfaction soup but replaces all the sub faction conflicts with a new one specifically designed for sub faction soup. Basically, creating a sub faction soup sub faction.
For example - in the next Codex:Space Marines another section like the Chapter Specific Supplements that borrows heavily from - but is fully fleshed out - the Indomitus Crusaders Specialist Detachment from Vigilus - Call it Crusader Army - with a page of relics, a page of warlord traits, a couple pages of stratagems (hitting all of the generic chapter specifics like extra warlord trait(s) and such) This would cross a lot of t's and dot a lot of i's - giving the main Codex a "sample" supplement, allowing controlled subfaction soup for people who want to soup more than they want to min-max, and so on.
Also, I think you underestimate how many casual players collect variations of the same faction. In my local group one guy has both Cadians and Elysians, another has both Bad Moons and Deathskulls, and a third has Ultramarines and Retributors. Some players like different aspects of a faction and collect sub-forces to focus on different elements, or have an existing collection in one scheme but then branch out into a new scheme as they collect newer models. A couple of these guys I know started branching out specifically because they were so easy to soup together and play a larger game. Kinda sucks that now they have to be all played as the same subfaction now.
I also have orks painted with different colour schemes, but it doesn't mean that they belong to different subfactions. They're all orks. In fact it's even fluffy that former members of different klans are now gathered under the same dominant klan.
Cadians and elysians? They both can be run as part of the same astra militarum army. Make elysians veterans, or just regular infantries like the cadians. Retributors? What are those, an unknown SM chapter? Good, they can all be played as part of the same chapter. Again, colour scheme doesn't matter for the rules, it's perfectly fine to have yellow ultramarines if someone loves to paint yellow dudes and wants to use the ultramarines rules and/or paint ultramarines named characters in yellow. If they're sororitas retributors still no problem, SM and sister can be mixed up as usual.
Issues are armies with wulfen and death company, ravenwing bikes or calgar for example. Those are chapter locked units, no matter how they are painted. And those collections are incredibly rare, that's my point.
Blackie wrote: Again, colour scheme doesn't matter for the rules, it's perfectly fine to have yellow ultramarines if someone loves to paint yellow dudes and wants to use the ultramarines rules and/or paint ultramarines named characters in yellow.
I would agree with this wholeheartedly if GW hadn't decided, with 8th, that actually color scheme really does matter for the rules, and then doubled down by setting expectations that models will be played as the subfactions they are painted as.
In any case, I don't think anyone needs to be told that they can just proxy Elysians as Cadians and keep playing, it's just lame to shoehorn distinct forces (that previously may not have played the same) into a single subfaction.
catbarf wrote: I would agree with this wholeheartedly if GW hadn't decided, with 8th, that actually color scheme really does matter for the rules, and then doubled down by setting expectations that models will be played as the subfactions they are painted as.
In any case, I don't think anyone needs to be told that they can just proxy Elysians as Cadians and keep playing, it's just lame to shoehorn distinct forces (that previously may not have played the same) into a single subfaction.
I don't see the problem with the way the subfactions work in relation to paint scheme mostly because painting your Space Marines blue doesn't make them Ultramarines, it makes them blue Space Marines. If however, you paint Ultramarines with the appropriate Chapter emblem and markings, then you should be expected to use them as Ultramarines unless you have specifically agreed with your opponent that this is not the case.
Of course there is the issue of colour schemes looking extremely similar. For example, the Angels of Penance look almost identical to the Imperial Fists official scheme.
Spoiler:
Spoiler:
In this situation though, all it would take is a short conversation explaining what your army is, which IMO should be what people are doing anyway.
But just so it's clear, this is the exact wording that the Warhamer World Modelling Guidelines have with regards to paintschemes:
For example, if you have painted your models as Salamanders, your army must have the Salamanders keyword or if you have
painted your models as Hammers of Sigmar they must use the relevant Command Trait, Artefact of Power etc.
If you have created your own Chapter/Hive Fleet/Sept/Stormhost/ etc and they are painted in your own unique colour scheme,
then you may give them any keyword that you wish.
GW isn't forcing anyone to do anything except in very specific circumstances in the case of Chapter specific Warlord Traits, Relics and Stratagems where you are supposed to pick a Successor Chapters parent Chapter if it is known (i.e. Angels Encarmine uses Blood Angels gubbins or Genesis Chapter uses Ultramarines gubbins). There's enough generic stuff in the Codex anyway that this shouldn't even be an issue.
TLDR, subfactions aren't as messy as people make them out to be.
Gert wrote: If however, you paint Ultramarines with the appropriate Chapter emblem and markings, then you should be expected to use them as Ultramarines unless you have specifically agreed with your opponent that this is not the case.
If you have blue Marines with Roman motifs and Ultramarines iconography you are expected to play those as Ultramarines. If you have green Marines with dragon scale and Salamanders banners you are expected to field them as Salamanders. If you have both you now have to decide which of those is 'actually' your army and explain to your opponent that you're proxying half your force as the other subfaction. Or not play.
I don't think it's 'messy'; it's not hard to remember the whole army is Ultramarines. I find it frustrating that in a game where GW has firmly established for two editions now that different aesthetics of the same models get different rules- and that models with a recognizable aesthetic are expected to be played under their bespoke rules- they've made a mid-edition listbuilding change that forces players to either proxy with rules that don't fit part of their collection, or leave that part at home.
It veers into stupidity when you can mix Guard, Marines, Knights, Sisters, and AdMech in a single army and that's just fine, but god forbid you have two different chapters on the field at once. It's so clearly a tournament rule to curb min-maxing, but I haven't seen any indication so far that it's a tournament-only change.
If you have blue Marines with Roman motifs and Ultramarines iconography you are expected to play those as Ultramarines. If you have green Marines with dragon scale and Salamanders banners you are expected to field them as Salamanders. If you have both you now have to decide which of those is 'actually' your army and explain to your opponent that you're proxying half your force as the other subfaction. Or not play.
I do just want to check something here, where does it say in the rules that your army must be the one it is painted as? I know its a rule for WHW events and I would assume most others but is there an explicit rule in the 40k Rulebook or a Codex that says your subfaction must match the paintjob of the models you are using?
I don't think it's 'messy'; it's not hard to remember the whole army is Ultramarines. I find it frustrating that in a game where GW has firmly established for two editions now that different aesthetics of the same models get different rules- and that models with a recognizable aesthetic are expected to be played under their bespoke rules- they've made a mid-edition listbuilding change that forces players to either proxy with rules that don't fit part of their collection, or leave that part at home.
I mean it's a balance thing, clearly. Same thing happened when detachments had to share more than one Keyword in common and it couldn't be <Imperium>, <Chaos>, or <Aeldar> (with caveats on certain things like Inquisitors and Ynarri) because things like Malefic Lord spam were happening. You can be annoyed that it happened but if I'm in a competitive setting, I would expect it to be fair and not just favour people who play FOTM armies.
It veers into stupidity when you can mix Guard, Marines, Knights, Sisters, and AdMech in a single army and that's just fine, but god forbid you have two different chapters on the field at once. It's so clearly a tournament rule to curb min-maxing, but I haven't seen any indication so far that it's a tournament-only change.
Agree to disagree TBH.
Backspacehacker wrote: What's funny is canonically guard have to deploy multiple regiments when off world, aside from krieg.
So technically speaking GW is screwing up their own lore
The Krieg regiments are still deployed alongside others in major warzones, y'know like Octarius, the thing they were just in. Regardless a 40k battle doesn't automatically represent a full theatre of war plus Rules =/= Background.
It can be but for as many examples of Regiments working together, there are as many of them working alone or only with other Regiments of their world (i.e. Cadian 8th, 42nd, and 5th Armoured).
Look I'm very much a background person, I could not care less about competitive play or even winning a game. But if a problem in the competitive circuit is that certain subfactions are proving to be very good and bottling out lists that are mono-faction, then I really don't see the problem.
Breton wrote: Not to beat a dead horse, but the simplest solution is probably to make a soup Chapter Tactic/etc One that specifically allows subfaction soup but replaces all the sub faction conflicts with a new one specifically designed for sub faction soup. Basically, creating a sub faction soup sub faction.
For example - in the next Codex:Space Marines another section like the Chapter Specific Supplements that borrows heavily from - but is fully fleshed out - the Indomitus Crusaders Specialist Detachment from Vigilus - Call it Crusader Army - with a page of relics, a page of warlord traits, a couple pages of stratagems (hitting all of the generic chapter specifics like extra warlord trait(s) and such) This would cross a lot of t's and dot a lot of i's - giving the main Codex a "sample" supplement, allowing controlled subfaction soup for people who want to soup more than they want to min-max, and so on.
I'm on the other side of that fence. I think it anything GW should loosen the factions and soup ability. If you look at how AoS does it, it's great, like you can make super fluffy, fun, and competitive lists. Like with tzeentzch, you get to tap into daemons, slaves to darkness, deciples of tzeentzch, you can do the same thing with other chaos gods and you end up with a lot of fun and good lists.
I feel like if GW put that effort forward in 40k they could get an euqally solid mix of units.
At least when it comes to normal soups, subfaction soups I understand the need but at the same time, eh.
With AoS there are restrictions and limitations though. Only 1 in every 4 units in any God marked army can be StD and I'm fairly certain the Mortal and Daemon subfactions still buff certain their respective units although I am basing this off my experience with Ogors i.e. Winterbite only effects Beastclaw and Meatfist only effects Gutbusters.
Gert wrote:I do just want to check something here, where does it say in the rules that your army must be the one it is painted as? I know its a rule for WHW events and I would assume most others but is there an explicit rule in the 40k Rulebook or a Codex that says your subfaction must match the paintjob of the models you are using?
There are a whole host of social conventions that go into this game that aren't explicitly in the rules. Playing your army as the subfaction it's painted as (if it's explicit) is pretty common in my experience, and there's a stigma of meta-chasing to having what is clearly an Ultramarines army but playing it as Iron Hands.
Either way, it's not particularly fun to have an Ultramarines force you painted as Ultramarines and enjoy playing as Ultramarines but have to run them as a different subfaction if they're part of a larger army. The whole point of the 8th/9th Ed FOC is to permit flexibility like that.
Gert wrote:I mean it's a balance thing, clearly.
Of course it is. But there are a bunch of ways they could have disadvantaged soup while still leaving it as an option for casual play (like they have with every faction with a mono-faction bonus), and instead they've chosen the sledgehammer solution of banning it outright.
I would love to see a tight, restrictive, condensed, pared-down Matched Play ruleset that strips out the options and combos that represent balance issues while leaving Narrative/Open free for casual players with all the freedom they could want. But the general community seems to have decided that all play must be Matched Play and it looks like GW is following suit.
I think someone in this thread posted the actual rules, and it does VERY clearly state in the text itself that the rule applies in Matched Play Nachmund games.
And I breathed a HUGE sigh of relief. The actual text of the rule leaves no doubt that it only applies to the missions in the book.
Now it's true that many players in stores are going to insist on using it because it is THE competitive Mission Pack for this season. But if you ever play a game that ISN'T one of those GT 2022 S1 missions, you could literally show people the line in the rules that says limitations on subfaction soup should not be applied to the battle.
They made it a lot clearer than I expected them to. So Crusaders? Open Players? People sticking to last year's GT Mission Pack? Don't sweat it. It doesn't affect you. If someone says it does, they're wrong.
PenitentJake wrote: I think someone in this thread posted the actual rules, and it does VERY clearly state in the text itself that the rule applies in Matched Play Nachmund games.
And I breathed a HUGE sigh of relief. The actual text of the rule leaves no doubt that it only applies to the missions in the book.
Just like Rule of 3, which was once a tournament only rule.
So yes, they did make it clear, as you said, but as others have said, that won't matter. The tournament scene is like the creep in Starcraft. It spreads and spreads and infests everything.
PenitentJake wrote: I think someone in this thread posted the actual rules, and it does VERY clearly state in the text itself that the rule applies in Matched Play Nachmund games.
And I breathed a HUGE sigh of relief. The actual text of the rule leaves no doubt that it only applies to the missions in the book.
Just like Rule of 3, which was once a tournament only rule.
So yes, they did make it clear, as you said, but as others have said, that won't matter. The tournament scene is like the creep in Starcraft. It spreads and spreads and infests everything.
Well, I generally don't play in public spaces, so I don't know how easy it is or isn't to negotiate with unreasonable people. But simply: if the mission you are playing is from the new book, you're stuck playing it. If it isn't, they are obligated to show you the rule in a book that you are using in order to enforce the rule. And yeah, if I did play in stores, and somebody pushed me on this, yes I would walk away.
I think Ro3 is a bit different because it's in the Matched Play Section of the BRB which means it would apply to all Matched Play Mission Packs.
PenitentJake wrote: Well, I generally don't play in public spaces, so I don't know how easy it is or isn't to negotiate with unreasonable people.
If they're unreasonable, I'd presume it wouldn't be easy.
But in all seriousness, the issue isn't so much someone being reasonable or unreasonable. It's more about the 'standing rules' for pick-up games. If every pick-up game starts with an arduous "Do we use this, or do we use that? What about this, or this?" conversation (doesn't even have to be an argument) then you'll end up wasting a lot of (presumably limited) time in the store. This is what I mean about the spread of tournament 'stuff'. This is a new tournament rule, so a store might just apply it as a blanket rule (or people may just assume it is) because it's the newest 'done thing' and it saves time from turning the first phase of any pick-up game of 40k into a settlement agreement.
PenitentJake wrote: I think Ro3 is a bit different because it's in the Matched Play Section of the BRB which means it would apply to all Matched Play Mission Packs.
You're right, it is, but my point was that it didn't start that way*. It started as an optional tournament rule, but it seeped into the common consciousness and so many people treated it as just a normal rule, even though it was (like this new rule) very clearly defined as to when and where it applied. The amount of times I would see people in tactics or army lists threads going "Umm, you're army is, like, illegal n'stuff. Like, Ro3 dude!" (not sure why they spoke like a 90's kid, but whatever) was crazy.
I can happen with stuff like this. Hell, 40k's whole current mission structure is taken straight from tournaments. They infest everything.
*It actually started as GW's sledgehammer attempt to fix a specific problem relating to Flyrant spam, but rather than fix the issue (Supreme Command Detachments) they just decided to do it to everything. Like their recent aircraft ban. So frustrating, given we know they know how to make specific changes that address problems (like the Ork buggy one) rather than simply going "HULK SMASH!" and changing the general rules whenever a situation arises.
Unlike in matched play and its variants, mixing sub-faction in one crusade force is already a conscious decision to massively shoot yourself in the foot rules-wise. Many games are played with just a single detachment and even if they are not, you would still be quite limited in how you can build your army without losing your sub-faction bonus.
Backspacehacker wrote: What's funny is canonically guard have to deploy multiple regiments when off world, aside from krieg.
So technically speaking GW is screwing up their own lore
Not really, they've also said that this is just a small section of a much larger battlefield. So, this section might have a Cadian Regiment, or a Salamander's company while next door is a Valhallans Regiment or a Blood Angels Company.
This rule isn't meant to respect fluff.
This rule is meant to simplify list building and most importantly list explanation and presentation.
When you face an army with 3 different subfactions, it becomes very hard to follow what is what. They first tried to tackle this by forcing a different paint job on the detachments, which honestly wasn't a good solution and was very hard to enforce.
Now they are outright banning it.
It has nothing to do with fluff, it is only for this specific set of missions.
Sure, it may creep into other games, but that's a problem between yourself and your community.
Jidmah wrote: This "cancer" will creep into all game modes, right?
... I never said all game 'modes'. I said pick-up games.
That means a matched play game, not a narrative game or an open game as those, by definition, either require planning or the agreement of all players beforehand. Pick-up games, by their very nature, are just that: Pick-up and go. That's why matched play fits that bill, because it's a set of rules that is there and standing and ready to go. And it gets influenced by the tournament crowd, which is why everyone thought Rule of 3 was actually a rule in 8th, when it wasn't...
*exhales*
Y'know what? I already explained this. If you didn't understand it then, you're not going to understand it now. I'm not going to write another wall'o'text.
things up for everyone.
Nobody in the world plays competive 
