Switch Theme:

Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit  [RSS] 

no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/21 13:24:53


Post by: xerxeskingofking


ok, original article here:

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2022/01/21/war-zone-nachmund-grand-tournament-mission-pack-means-new-tactical-challenges-and-more-exciting-games/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=warhammer-40,000&utm_content=gtmissionarticle210122&fbclid=IwAR3hU2tQNvFRZrZJwXNb15P8655Mgf6b0COR2F1SFsG0v-rzLcExdLyaLYg


of note, and reason for the title,is the following:

The biggest change to list building are selectable sub-faction keywords such as <Chapter>. Originally these were picked on a unit-by-unit basis, so squads and Detachments could come from different subfactions. This selection is now made when you start to build your list, and the sub-faction you choose now replaces every example of that keyword – meaning your whole army now has to come from the same grouping.


ergo, no mixed cults thousand sons, no multi brotherhood grey knights, etc.

Additionally, thier is now rule stating that you must pick 2 secondary objectives form the GT pack, so no more marines double dipping with 'dex and supplement.


thiers also a change to fortiifcation rules to let you remove terrain to fit one into your deployment zone.


what are everyones thoughts on this? for some armies its a non-issue, but for others it really screws their current meta builds.



no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/21 13:31:05


Post by: Overread


I think its sensible.

Age of Sigmar already runs like that with you having one army and one faction choice within that army (core army or subfaction).


I think it cuts out a load of min-maxing elements in building an army and makes people commit to a subfaction as an army rather than just min maxing out a generic army.

It will change the meta for some armies, but it shouldn't break them.


It will also mean that unit stats are more easily communicated and recalled during the game as the whole army will be under one subfaction set of rules not multiple.


Fortification rules seem to be sensible too as GW has pushed for more and more "faction" terrain types and has often made them rather large; which can be impractical to impossible to fit on some pre-designed tables. So in a formal setting its good to have a rule that does let you move/remove terrain to fit part of your army and faction on the table instead of having to lose it.


no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/21 13:42:42


Post by: Spoletta


Some AoS faction terrain already behave like that.

Maybe that we will finally see this stuff on the table.


no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/21 13:49:32


Post by: Blackie


Good change. Mixing chapters/equivalents is nothing more than a lame gamey mechanic and I'm glad it's gone from matched play.


no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/21 13:55:15


Post by: Platuan4th


https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/802968.page

Maybe we shouldn't have two of the same thread right next to each other?


no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/21 14:01:51


Post by: Breton


 Blackie wrote:
Good change. Mixing chapters/equivalents is nothing more than a lame gamey mechanic and I'm glad it's gone from matched play.


With that said another Chapter Trait just for paint job crusading/multi chapter armies wouldn't be unwelcome - like that Grey Shields thing they had in Indomitus. Where you can paint up an Imperial Fists That, an Ultramarines This, and a Dark Angels Something Else Entirely but they get this "Crusader Army" CT - at that fluff wise it's different, but rules wise it's not soup, just paint job.


no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/21 14:03:56


Post by: The_Real_Chris


Maybe rename this for fortifications?

Because I have some seriously large terrain pieces. Sadly I note it is only one terrain piece, still should allow for a fair bit more flexibility.


no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/21 14:05:27


Post by: Platuan4th


Breton wrote:
 Blackie wrote:
Good change. Mixing chapters/equivalents is nothing more than a lame gamey mechanic and I'm glad it's gone from matched play.


With that said another Chapter Trait just for paint job crusading/multi chapter armies wouldn't be unwelcome - like that Grey Shields thing they had in Indomitus. Where you can paint up an Imperial Fists That, an Ultramarines This, and a Dark Angels Something Else Entirely but they get this "Crusader Army" CT - at that fluff wise it's different, but rules wise it's not soup, just paint job.


The new Vanguard Army of Renown they teased mentions it replaces your CT, so having an Army of Renown like that isn't out of the question.


no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/21 14:07:56


Post by: The_Real_Chris


And someone remind me, does a fortification have to be fully within my deployment zone?


no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/21 14:17:46


Post by: Crispy78


So... How does that work for Dark Eldar and their multiple patrols style of deployment?


no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/21 14:23:38


Post by: Platuan4th


Crispy78 wrote:
So... How does that work for Dark Eldar and their multiple patrols style of deployment?


Each of the 3 styles have different Keywords. You can still have one of each Keyword type, you just can't do 2 different Covens anymore.


no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/21 15:51:07


Post by: jeff white


I think that encouraging people to replace terrain pieces with what are effectively units which are buildings etc makes 40k on the tabletop too much like 40k Dawn of War or some rts video bs. Sure, such a thing can be interesting when associated with a mission or narrative scenario etc but as a standard way to play, no thanks.

As for not mixing units re "soup" this may be a good thing, but my expectation is that it is more noise and will not improve the game or the hobby, only add wrinkles of change so that hobbyists are forced to buy new units to fill out collections that had otherwise used mixed units for play.

Personally, I think that "armies" like Custodes and Harlequins should NOT be stand alone forces, ever, not even close, and the same really for SoB. IMHO, these should be subfactions which need help from e.g. Imp Guard or CWE in order to wage war i.e. fill out 2000pt full armies. Custodes IMHO should not be anywhere near a tyranid, for example, unless there is some scenario whereby GSC infiltrates a holy reliquery too closely associated with Terra to ignore the possible invasion threat, something like that maybe, but otherwise, such factions whould be relegated to sub-faction status whereby they might fill in some unit selections for affiliated main forces without necessary penalty depending on the scenario. For instance, Harlies discover that Crons are getting too close to a webway entrance that is critical for resources used also by a CW, so they alert the CWE of the threat and accompany them to the battlefield, again without penalty. There would seem to be a number of ways that such a constraint might be implemented that remains flexible enough to accommodate varied model collections, but... heck, now that different weapons do different things by way of strategems, rather than simply by being different weapons and performing differently on the battlefield, I have been thinking that GW has zero idea how to make a decent game system, and are rather focused on how to trick out edition after edition with new card packs and gamey nast until frankly more serious hobbyists lose interest. The rest will split their time between MtG and the GW equivalent, as the actual models and the actual battlefield mean less and less.


no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/21 16:06:42


Post by: The_Real_Chris


On the point around small forces (Custodes, Harlequins, Deathwatch etc.) being stand alone... well 40k is at most company level. They should be able to rustle up such forces even if at larger scales they would be an allied detachment.


no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/21 16:34:06


Post by: Overread


I think there are some cases where GW has tried to make a small force stand alone and have had to pull back - eg the Inquisition. However in most cases its where they've taken a niche of an army that already exists and tried to flesh it out into a fully army, but not given them enough models.


The lore is actually not a barrier at all as that can change on a whim. The barrier is the variety of models on offer. Ergo can a player build a varied, diverse and functional army of Custodes is more important than if the lore (at any one point in time) allows that army to be fielded.

Because after that what we play on the tabletop is nuts - we have heroes going against heroes who are generations apart; lightyears away from each other; who would never EVER fight each other. We have generals who would be miles behind the front lines; on the front lines; we have artillery and aircraft and tanks and support and troops and all mashed in together. The lore just doesn't work


The important thing is really if the army works on the tabletop and is fun. Sometimes armies are split out but don't have enough - eg the Imperium had the Inquisition and the Eldar have Harliquins - both are tiny model ranges in general and whilst they "can" field an army only of their own models; its a very limited range of choices compared to a "normal" force. At which point they either spam set units or they ally in a side force. GW can bring those sub-armies back into the fold (which they have done for both) or they can make them stand alone even more. Such as they did with Genestealer Cults who, at launch, were mostly Imperial troops with a few themed leader models and infantry blocks. Now they are a diverse force that doesn't really lean on the Imperial model line at all and I'd wager as their line steadily expands they'll move more and more away from it. They've gone from corrupted Imperial Guard to a force of uprising miners and industrial workers (for the most part visually speaking).



no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/21 16:36:38


Post by: H.B.M.C.


But Brood Brothers weren't cut from the book due to fluff changing or because there's now "more" in the GSC range. They were cut because GW don't sell Brood Brother kits outside of a single conversion sprue. The decision, like all their rule decisions, were based entirely upon the plastic sprues they sell.

It's got absolutely feth all to do with balance, fluff or anything else. It's just an extension of no model/no rule.



no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/21 16:41:05


Post by: Overread


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
But Brood Brothers weren't cut from the book due to fluff changing. They were cut because GW don't sell Brood Brother kits outside of a single conversion sprue.



Aye, the fluff didn't change, but the army on the tabletop did change. Heck you can still split in a lot of Imperial stuff if you want.

My point is that at launch GSC were basically Imperial Guard with a few extra options and conversions. They were in effect a sub-faction of the Imperial Guard.


At that stage GW could have retired them into fully a subfaction force; or they could have added to them to make them more diverse as a model range to stand on their own.


In the case of the GSC they went for the latter; in the case of the Inquisition and Harlies they've gone for the former. Of course going back into an army isn't the end, GW might just not see Harlies being added too in a significant way over the next 1-2 editions worth of releases; but you never know a few additional models and a second wave and they could splinter out again in the future.



In short my point is that sub-faction forces that "deserve" to be full armies is, again, based more on the model range than on the lore. SoB could have been a sub-faction force at one stage; same as Custodes. However both (esp Sisters) have now fleshed out into their own unique army. There's too many models, too many choices and too much internal structure to make them a sub-force even if the lore allowed for it (which it honestly doesn't really).


no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/21 17:00:56


Post by: Captain Joystick


 jeff white wrote:
I think that encouraging people to replace terrain pieces with what are effectively units which are buildings etc makes 40k on the tabletop too much like 40k Dawn of War or some rts video bs. Sure, such a thing can be interesting when associated with a mission or narrative scenario etc but as a standard way to play, no thanks.


I get where you're coming from here, but GW has been trying to sell fortifications for editions on end at this point and the fact that they were almost guaranteed to be unplayable on a board with the prescribed amount of terrain was a problem that needs to be addressed since they keep forgetting about it between game systems and editions.


 jeff white wrote:
Personally, I think that "armies" like Custodes and Harlequins should NOT be stand alone forces, ever, not even close, and the same really for SoB. IMHO, these should be subfactions which need help from e.g. Imp Guard or CWE in order to wage war i.e. fill out 2000pt full armies. Custodes IMHO should not be anywhere near a tyranid, for example, unless there is some scenario whereby GSC infiltrates a holy reliquery too closely associated with Terra to ignore the possible invasion threat, something like that maybe, but otherwise, such factions whould be relegated to sub-faction status whereby they might fill in some unit selections for affiliated main forces without necessary penalty depending on the scenario. For instance, Harlies discover that Crons are getting too close to a webway entrance that is critical for resources used also by a CW, so they alert the CWE of the threat and accompany them to the battlefield, again without penalty.


SoB only really take this kind of roll in Guard books, your idea for Custodes used to describe Grey Knights pretty well though.


no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/21 17:53:03


Post by: ccs


I think that terrain change should be:
1) per Fortification unit taken - to account for somebody taking the full network of 3. Granted, an unlikely occurrence, but still....
2) Just a general errata to the fortification rules & not tied to 2022 matched play.


no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/21 18:01:55


Post by: PenitentJake


 jeff white wrote:

Personally, I think that "armies" like Custodes and Harlequins should NOT be stand alone forces, ever, not even close, and the same really for SoB. IMHO, these should be subfactions which need help from e.g. Imp Guard or CWE in order to wage war i.e. fill out 2000pt full armies. Custodes IMHO should not be anywhere near a tyranid, for example, unless there is some scenario whereby GSC infiltrates a holy reliquery too closely associated with Terra to ignore the possible invasion threat, something like that maybe, but otherwise, such factions whould be relegated to sub-faction status whereby they might fill in some unit selections for affiliated main forces without necessary penalty depending on the scenario. For instance, Harlies discover that Crons are getting too close to a webway entrance that is critical for resources used also by a CW, so they alert the CWE of the threat and accompany them to the battlefield, again without penalty.


Well Jeff, to put it succinctly, you're wrong.

First: The 9th edition of the game provides support for games at 500 and 1k points. Whether or not you can make a 2k army out of it is no longer a factor in determining whether or not a faction should get its own book and be a real force.

Second: The detachment system already does allow exactly what you're talking about in the last two lines of your post. Outside of the new GT 2022 Mission Pack, the draw backs were: pay CP for the additional detachment and lose faction purity bonus. No need to re-invent the wheel.

Third: Some fluff has been updated now that 40k is not taking place in a static setting. The Indomitus Crusade is cannon now, so whether or not Custodes make sense as an army is a decision that must be made within that context. Morven Vahl is now the Abbess of BOTH Sororitas convents AND a High Lord of Terra, and she is actively involved in promotion wars of faith across the galaxy. And Harlequins, like all Eldar, have had to reconsider the old ways in like of the Ynarri.

Now sure, you can argue that the new fluff doesn't meet with your standards; you can speculate that the fluff ONLY exists to justify the models/ dexes and revenue; you can argue that YOU think 40k should have continued to exist frozen in a static setting forever. Those are valid opinions.

Fourth: I don't want to go backwards and lose things that some players want because people who preferred other editions of the game, or who prefer balance at any cost think it should be so. Quite frankly, it was the return of the GSC at the tag end of 7th that brought me back to this game, and the revamp of the sisters range that kept me. The new factions, which you don't think deserve to be here, might be one of the reasons 8th outsold all previous versions of the game and 9th outsold 8th.

If YOU don't like Harlies, or Custodes, or GSC or SOB don't f*&^ing play them. Proposing that they should be taken away from those who DO play them is pretty offensive- though I acknowledge that likely wasn't your intention.


no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/21 18:24:20


Post by: Gert


What I would be interested to know is how much of an impact this has on the average player (i.e. your local store goers or gaming groups). Personally, I only run single faction armies anyway just for less bookkeeping, and all the peeps in my group run the same.


no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/21 18:36:56


Post by: Overread


It might not have much impact, but it stops the trickle down impact from the tournamnets


It might also start to stop the creep of "paint influences gameplay" rules which have been slipping into some event packs. Ergo the "if you painted using X Subfaction scheme you must use only that subfaction.


With multi-subfaction this gets confusing if they've all the same scheme; however if you have only one per army/player then the paint scheme no longer matters as you don't have to tell different units apart from each other at the army level.


no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/21 18:42:39


Post by: PenitentJake


It won't affect me because I play only Crusade and only with a like minded group. Multi-subfaction and even multifaction armies are not uncommon in the campaign, but it's all story-based, so game events drive army composition.

That said, I am curious to see the text of the rule, because I want to confirm that it is worded in such a way that it unambiguously applies ONLY to matched play. The Warcom article seems to indicat that it may be a part of the Muster Armies rules: if so, mission achieved- every mode of play has its own unique rules for mustering armies.


no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/21 18:58:10


Post by: Rihgu


PenitentJake wrote:
It won't affect me because I play only Crusade and only with a like minded group. Multi-subfaction and even multifaction armies are not uncommon in the campaign, but it's all story-based, so game events drive army composition.

That said, I am curious to see the text of the rule, because I want to confirm that it is worded in such a way that it unambiguously applies ONLY to matched play. The Warcom article seems to indicat that it may be a part of the Muster Armies rules: if so, mission achieved- every mode of play has its own unique rules for mustering armies.


From an early access/leaked/pre-release book
Spoiler:


no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/21 19:10:42


Post by: LunarSol


I would MUCH rather see Guard/Marines mix than mixing chapters.


no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/21 19:27:10


Post by: princeyg


I...quite like these changes overall..I think....

As a Tyranid player, I'll be sad to see my trusty support detachment of Kronos go, but i can still use it in narrative games.

Losing multiple sub-factions hurts, but I think it will definitely have a positive impact on the tournament scene eventually. Every sub-faction has its things that its good or bad at, so this amplifies the importance of that choice.

P.S. i also like how this makes the Drukhari "realspace raid" detachment even more unique, a sit now seem to be the only way of getting multiple subfaction bonuses in the game

I am all for restrictions that make a player have to live with the downsides of a particular subfaction instead of simply covering it by taking a second (or third) detachment of something else (see hive guard kronos as mentioned above) as this places more of an emphasis on good generalship and skill rather than list building.

Am i sad i can't take my dark angel/space wolf
"Lion and the Wolf" themed army to a tournament?

No, not really.

I know I'm about to get pillioried by many for what I'm about to say, but when It comes to competitive play LESS IS MORE (as in army building options) because I beleive it then becomes more about how you play with what you have rather than just being about what you have, requiring better generalship on the table.

The BIG caveat to this of course, is GW being able to (as i now call it) "pull a GSC" and make each subfaction seem viable and have a different emphasis on playstyle without there being obviously trash options. This is reliant on the GW rules team (yes...i know..i know....)

Fortification change is ok I suppose, but as the only fortification I own is a Sporocyst which does not want to be deployed in my own zone its a bit "meh" for me.

Could be useful for any Imp players wanting to use some buildings/gun emplacements etc though.

Can't comment on objective changes until I have seen them all.

I



no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/21 19:30:00


Post by: ERJAK


 Gert wrote:
What I would be interested to know is how much of an impact this has on the average player (i.e. your local store goers or gaming groups). Personally, I only run single faction armies anyway just for less bookkeeping, and all the peeps in my group run the same.


It mostly depends on what factions they play. The vast majority of Sisters of Battle players played 2 factions because the rules were simple to remember (shoot stuff shoot better, fight stuff fight better) and because it was massively superior to running mono-faction.

This combine with the point hikes will likely mean you'll see this less (and by this, I mean Sisters of Battle.)


no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/21 19:34:01


Post by: xerxeskingofking


With regards to dark eldar, correct me if i am wrong, but since they have both <kabal> and <wych cult> they could still take both, since they are different selectable keywords?


no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/21 19:34:34


Post by: Rihgu


xerxeskingofking wrote:
With regards to dark eldar, correct me if i am wrong, but since they have both <kabal> and <wych cult> they could still take both, since they are different selectable keywords?


Correct.


no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/21 20:23:18


Post by: princeyg


xerxeskingofking wrote:
With regards to dark eldar, correct me if i am wrong, but since they have both <kabal> and <wych cult> they could still take both, since they are different selectable keywords?


Yep, turns out I hadn't fully understood what they were saying. but yes, drukhari could still take say 3 patrols rather than a realspace raid.


no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/21 20:50:26


Post by: oni


My opinion of the current mission design aside... These changes are good.


no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/21 21:22:21


Post by: Leo_the_Rat


Just a question but IIRC the DE codex has a specific detachment (raiders of deep space or some such). The detachment has its own layout and as such wouldn't be effected by a change in the general format for a patrol. There would have to be a specific statement saying that the general change effects that specific chart since, at least to me, that chart is outside the normal rules/bounds of army building.

It's the same thing as all marines get 2 wounds except chaos marines. They have to wait for their own codex to update. Or, all melta weapons get D d6+2 at half range except eldar melta weapons which need their own special rule. My point being that GW makes tons of rules that only effect specific things until they get around to changing all the aspects of that thing.


no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/21 22:00:11


Post by: jeff white


PenitentJake wrote:
Spoiler:
 jeff white wrote:

Personally, I think that "armies" like Custodes and Harlequins should NOT be stand alone forces, ever, not even close, and the same really for SoB. IMHO, these should be subfactions which need help from e.g. Imp Guard or CWE in order to wage war i.e. fill out 2000pt full armies. Custodes IMHO should not be anywhere near a tyranid, for example, unless there is some scenario whereby GSC infiltrates a holy reliquery too closely associated with Terra to ignore the possible invasion threat, something like that maybe, but otherwise, such factions whould be relegated to sub-faction status whereby they might fill in some unit selections for affiliated main forces without necessary penalty depending on the scenario. For instance, Harlies discover that Crons are getting too close to a webway entrance that is critical for resources used also by a CW, so they alert the CWE of the threat and accompany them to the battlefield, again without penalty.


Well Jeff, to put it succinctly, you're wrong.

First: The 9th edition of the game provides support for games at 500 and 1k points. Whether or not you can make a 2k army out of it is no longer a factor in determining whether or not a faction should get its own book and be a real force.

Second: The detachment system already does allow exactly what you're talking about in the last two lines of your post. Outside of the new GT 2022 Mission Pack, the draw backs were: pay CP for the additional detachment and lose faction purity bonus. No need to re-invent the wheel.

Third: Some fluff has been updated now that 40k is not taking place in a static setting. The Indomitus Crusade is cannon now, so whether or not Custodes make sense as an army is a decision that must be made within that context. Morven Vahl is now the Abbess of BOTH Sororitas convents AND a High Lord of Terra, and she is actively involved in promotion wars of faith across the galaxy. And Harlequins, like all Eldar, have had to reconsider the old ways in like of the Ynarri.

Now sure, you can argue that the new fluff doesn't meet with your standards; you can speculate that the fluff ONLY exists to justify the models/ dexes and revenue; you can argue that YOU think 40k should have continued to exist frozen in a static setting forever. Those are valid opinions.

Fourth: I don't want to go backwards and lose things that some players want because people who preferred other editions of the game, or who prefer balance at any cost think it should be so. Quite frankly, it was the return of the GSC at the tag end of 7th that brought me back to this game, and the revamp of the sisters range that kept me. The new factions, which you don't think deserve to be here, might be one of the reasons 8th outsold all previous versions of the game and 9th outsold 8th.

If YOU don't like Harlies, or Custodes, or GSC or SOB don't f*&^ing play them. Proposing that they should be taken away from those who DO play them is pretty offensive- though I acknowledge that likely wasn't your intention.

Did you even read my post? Not well, apparently. Dude, I own a growing SoB collection partly of metals that I have carted to four different countries over the course of almost thirty years, and harlies were amongst my first models also metal along with CWE same story, not cheap to ship from the States to Korea to Holland and now to Portugal… GSC is in my shopping cart, so to speak, but I put my time into orks and now chaos marines… oh, and I have been collecting inquisition for as long and have built an imp guard collection to support both SoB and Inqu and eventually chaos and much later gsc… that is the long term plan.

Dude, srsly, you are wrong. And more than factually, I mean you are offensively morally wrong. Next time read the post before you start smacking people around maybe?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 LunarSol wrote:
I would MUCH rather see Guard/Marines mix than mixing chapters.

Me too.


no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/21 22:11:38


Post by: PenitentJake


Leo_the_Rat wrote:
Just a question but IIRC the DE codex has a specific detachment (raiders of deep space or some such). The detachment has its own layout and as such wouldn't be effected by a change in the general format for a patrol. There would have to be a specific statement saying that the general change effects that specific chart since, at least to me, that chart is outside the normal rules/bounds of army building.


You are correct- the Realspace Raid detachment can actually be ANY type of detachment. It must include:

- An archon warlord
- One unit of Kabalites
- A succubus
- One Wych unit
- A Haemonculus
- One unit of Wracks

If it has all of those things, it's a Realspace Raid, regardless of what type of detachment it is. All the Kabbals in it get the Kabal Obsession; all the Cults get the Cult Obsession, and all the Covens get the Coven Obsession. It is unaffected by any rules changes, whether to Patrol composition or subfaction Soup.

The OTHER way to play DE is Raiding Force:

Here, you take as many patrols as game size allows. Each Patrol is either Kabal, Cult, or Coven at your discretion, and they all get the appropriate Obsession.

This WILL be affected by rules changes:
- you can still do this, but you may only bring detachments belonging to a single Kabal, a single Cult and a single Coven.
- each of these detachments will also be affected by any changes to the composition of Patrols

Rihgu wrote:
PenitentJake wrote:


From an early access/leaked/pre-release book
Spoiler:


Thanks Rihgu- exactly what I needed to see. No way to mistake that for something that applies to multiple game modes. Happy about that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 jeff white wrote:

Did you even read my post? Not well, apparently.


Yes I did. Here is the part of that post where you said that Custodes, Harlequins, GSC and Sisters of Battle should not exist as stand alone armies:

 jeff white wrote:


Personally, I think that "armies" like Custodes and Harlequins should NOT be stand alone forces, ever, not even close, and the same really for SoB. IMHO, these should be subfactions which need help from e.g. Imp Guard or CWE in order to wage war i.e. fill out 2000pt full armies.


It is nice that you like Harlies, have played them forever. I'm surprised you're of the opinion that they shouldn't be playable as a standalone 2k force, but according to the quote, you are.

I am surprised that you are considering buying GSC; who are you planning to ally them with (as the quote above CLEARLY indicates that you don't think they should be a stand alone army)?

You and I both like mixed Inquisition/ guard/ sisters... But I believe Sisters SHOULD be able to be played on their own if a player chooses; according to the quoted text, you're not sure about that... Though it does seem like they might come closer to that standard for you than Harlies or GSC.

Now, I'm gonna walk my post back a bit, because you're right- it didn't live up to my usual standards of diplomacy, and you seem like a decent enough dude, so leading with "you're wrong" and dropping the F-bomb was probably a bit much.

And clearly what I should have closed with is:

If you believe these eccentric and awesome little armies that we both love should only be playable if they have helpers from another list- I totally support that, and you SHOULD be able to do that, because it is fluffy AND cool. However, I feel it's equally cool and fluffy to play them as stand alone armies, and I find it odd that there are people who think I should not be able to do that. I think all the other players who play these factions as stand-alone armies probably feel the same way.

Again, sorry to be rude in my original response- uncalled for.


no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/21 23:32:45


Post by: alextroy


PenitentJake wrote:
Leo_the_Rat wrote:
Just a question but IIRC the DE codex has a specific detachment (raiders of deep space or some such). The detachment has its own layout and as such wouldn't be effected by a change in the general format for a patrol. There would have to be a specific statement saying that the general change effects that specific chart since, at least to me, that chart is outside the normal rules/bounds of army building.


You are correct- the Realspace Raid detachment can actually be ANY type of detachment. It must include:

- An archon warlord
- One unit of Kabalites
- A succubus
- One Wych unit
- A Haemonculus
- One unit of Wracks

If it has all of those things, it's a Realspace Raid, regardless of what type of detachment it is. All the Kabbals in it get the Kabal Obsession; all the Cults get the Cult Obsession, and all the Covens get the Coven Obsession. It is unaffected by any rules changes, whether to Patrol composition or subfaction Soup.

The OTHER way to play DE is Raiding Force:

Here, you take as many patrols as game size allows. Each Patrol is either Kabal, Cult, or Coven at your discretion, and they all get the appropriate Obsession.

This WILL be affected by rules changes:
- you can still do this, but you may only bring detachments belonging to a single Kabal, a single Cult and a single Coven.
- each of these detachments will also be affected by any changes to the composition of Patrols
To get this clear, all Drukhari detachments are equally impacted by the Keyword Replacement rule. All Drukhari detachments have the Raiding Forces rule. All Drukhari armies will be limited to having 1 Kabal, 1 Cult, and 1 Coven units within them.

Note that while a Realspace Raid Detachment can technically be any detachment, only a Battalion or Brigade has the 3 HQ Slots needed to meet the qualifications.

Also, you can use any detachment via Raiding Forces, you just don't get the changed Command Cost of 0 CP unless all the detachments are Patrols.

So it is perfectly legal to field a Realspace Raid Battalion and a Haemonculus Coven Battalion in the same army. Just know that all the Coven units in both detachments will be from the same Coven under the WZN:GTMP.


no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/22 00:15:05


Post by: carlos13th


I just want to be able to play a decent inquisition focused force


no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/22 00:41:36


Post by: Verthane


This change is fine for armies like Grey Knights where all of the subfactions look the same, but really sucks for Space Marines...I have over 3000 points of Space Marines, but because I chose for artistic reasons to paint up different chapters, I now have an illegal army. I'm not going to say "those models that are clearly Space Wolves are pretending to be Salamanders". I'm sure some folks would though - if that works for you and your opponents then great.


no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/22 00:58:30


Post by: Unit1126PLL


 carlos13th wrote:
I just want to be able to play a decent inquisition focused force


Yeah this does kinda punch Ordo in the gut, at least if you wanted a real Conclave with every Ordo participating.


no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/22 01:47:42


Post by: Overread


 Verthane wrote:
This change is fine for armies like Grey Knights where all of the subfactions look the same, but really sucks for Space Marines...I have over 3000 points of Space Marines, but because I chose for artistic reasons to paint up different chapters, I now have an illegal army. I'm not going to say "those models that are clearly Space Wolves are pretending to be Salamanders". I'm sure some folks would though - if that works for you and your opponents then great.


In fairness Space Marines are somewhat the exception because their "subfactions" are fully fledged armies with subfactions of their own and unique models produced by GW. Sure they do share a lot of the same common core models, but almost no other army has the sub-faction diversity in model range that Space Marines have.


no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/22 01:50:23


Post by: JohnHwangDD


 Overread wrote:
It might also start to stop the creep of "paint influences gameplay" rules which have been slipping into some event packs. Ergo the "if you painted using X Subfaction scheme you must use only that subfaction.


Except that is good rules. An army that is painted to exactly match a subfaction should only be allowed to play as that subfaction, or at the generic Codex version, but never as a different subfaction. A fully-modeled, fully-painted 13th Space Wolf army should never be allowed to play as Blood Angels, much less Dark Angels; however, playing as generic Space Marines should be acceptable. Players should not be able to visually confuse their opponent at the metagame level.

In the case of a SM army painted as several different subfactions for variety's sake, they could be fielded en masse as generic Space Marines. Same with an IG remnants army consisting of units from several subfactions fighting as generic Imperial Guard. And so forth. IOW an army with a squad of Salamanders, a squad of Dark Angels, and a squad of Blood Angels fights at the lowest common denominator as generic Space Marines. Similarly a mixed IG Regiment of Tallarn, Vostroyans, Krieg, Catachan, Tanith, Mordians and Praetorians fighting as generic Guard.


no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/22 01:52:45


Post by: Verthane


 Overread wrote:


In fairness Space Marines are somewhat the exception because their "subfactions" are fully fledged armies with subfactions of their own and unique models produced by GW. Sure they do share a lot of the same common core models, but almost no other army has the sub-faction diversity in model range that Space Marines have.


No disagreement there. It sucks to have an entire army made illegal overnight, though. Feels like overreaction on my part. Now I have a set of bad choices -- never play that army again, play it as a "counts as/proxy" army, or go out and buy and paint a whole bunch more models to make one of the chapters up to size for games, or repaint existing models that I've painted and that I like.

Grey Knights or Sisters of Battle players have no such problems (unless I'm just blissfully unaware of some minor armor markings that designate what subfaction they belong to, but it certainly isn't as major as "repaint the model").


no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/22 02:04:14


Post by: Crimson


 JohnHwangDD wrote:
 Overread wrote:
It might also start to stop the creep of "paint influences gameplay" rules which have been slipping into some event packs. Ergo the "if you painted using X Subfaction scheme you must use only that subfaction.


Except that is good rules. An army that is painted to exactly match a subfaction should only be allowed to play as that subfaction, or at the generic Codex version, but never as a different subfaction. A fully-modeled, fully-painted 13th Space Wolf army should never be allowed to play as Blood Angels, much less Dark Angels; however, playing as generic Space Marines should be acceptable. Players should not be able to visually confuse their opponent at the metagame level.

In the case of a SM army painted as several different subfactions for variety's sake, they could be fielded en masse as generic Space Marines. Same with an IG remnants army consisting of units from several subfactions fighting as generic Imperial Guard. And so forth. IOW an army with a squad of Salamanders, a squad of Dark Angels, and a squad of Blood Angels fights at the lowest common denominator as generic Space Marines. Similarly a mixed IG Regiment of Tallarn, Vostroyans, Krieg, Catachan, Tanith, Mordians and Praetorians fighting as generic Guard.


There are no "generic Space Marines". They always have a chapter trait.


no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/22 02:05:03


Post by: Overread


 JohnHwangDD wrote:
 Overread wrote:
It might also start to stop the creep of "paint influences gameplay" rules which have been slipping into some event packs. Ergo the "if you painted using X Subfaction scheme you must use only that subfaction.


Except that is good rules. An army that is painted to exactly match a subfaction should only be allowed to play as that subfaction, or at the generic Codex version, but never as a different subfaction. A fully-modeled, fully-painted 13th Space Wolf army should never be allowed to play as Blood Angels, much less Dark Angels; however, playing as generic Space Marines should be acceptable. Players should not be able to visually confuse their opponent at the metagame level.


Space Marines are the exception because their sub-factions are basically akin to full armies because of unique models. Most Space Wolves armies won't just have core space marines, but unique wolves models and perhaps shoulder guards and more. So its a lot more than just the paint on the armour.



That said I do 100% think that paint should not matter. Outside of Space Marines almost every other subfaction is little more than half a paragraph of rules variation; with no unique models (a few exceptions eg when the new Eldar codex drops Harliquins will be one such example, though that's more likely going to be them limited ot just Harly models instead of models that can only be taken in a Harly unit). And I'd wager that, again, outside of Marines, most people haven't got a clue about official paint schemes. Even Marines are a basic "White Scars are white; Ultramarines are Blue; Space Wolves are light blue" kind of understanding. Heck jump over to Age of Sigmar and the Daughters of Khaine have several subfactions where the only difference is a slightly different shade of red paint. That's it - that's the only real difference in the schemes.


Again I don't think its fair nor valid that if a person wants to build a close combat army and picks the close combat focused subfaction; that they should then be forced to rebuild and repaint an entire army just to then build a ranged army using the ranged subfaction rules.



Again Marines are different because their subfactions are fully fledged armies with subfaction forces within them; with unique models and upgrades and more. Bit again if their Spacewolves army is all bright red should that really matter one bit? It's only bad if they've clearly got space wovles only models (eg a wolf riders or the sledge) that they are using as proxies - and even then that comes under the proxy aspect of if your opponent is fine with it you're fine; but not in a competitive tournament.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Crimson wrote:
 JohnHwangDD wrote:
 Overread wrote:
It might also start to stop the creep of "paint influences gameplay" rules which have been slipping into some event packs. Ergo the "if you painted using X Subfaction scheme you must use only that subfaction.


Except that is good rules. An army that is painted to exactly match a subfaction should only be allowed to play as that subfaction, or at the generic Codex version, but never as a different subfaction. A fully-modeled, fully-painted 13th Space Wolf army should never be allowed to play as Blood Angels, much less Dark Angels; however, playing as generic Space Marines should be acceptable. Players should not be able to visually confuse their opponent at the metagame level.

In the case of a SM army painted as several different subfactions for variety's sake, they could be fielded en masse as generic Space Marines. Same with an IG remnants army consisting of units from several subfactions fighting as generic Imperial Guard. And so forth. IOW an army with a squad of Salamanders, a squad of Dark Angels, and a squad of Blood Angels fights at the lowest common denominator as generic Space Marines. Similarly a mixed IG Regiment of Tallarn, Vostroyans, Krieg, Catachan, Tanith, Mordians and Praetorians fighting as generic Guard.


There are no "generic Space Marines". They always have a chapter trait.


True true, though I tend to think of Ultra Marines as the "generic" as they are the ones that GW uses as the bog-standard marines.


no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/22 02:12:41


Post by: Nevelon


 JohnHwangDD wrote:
 Overread wrote:
It might also start to stop the creep of "paint influences gameplay" rules which have been slipping into some event packs. Ergo the "if you painted using X Subfaction scheme you must use only that subfaction.


Except that is good rules. An army that is painted to exactly match a subfaction should only be allowed to play as that subfaction, or at the generic Codex version, but never as a different subfaction. A fully-modeled, fully-painted 13th Space Wolf army should never be allowed to play as Blood Angels, much less Dark Angels; however, playing as generic Space Marines should be acceptable. Players should not be able to visually confuse their opponent at the metagame level.

In the case of a SM army painted as several different subfactions for variety's sake, they could be fielded en masse as generic Space Marines. Same with an IG remnants army consisting of units from several subfactions fighting as generic Imperial Guard. And so forth. IOW an army with a squad of Salamanders, a squad of Dark Angels, and a squad of Blood Angels fights at the lowest common denominator as generic Space Marines. Similarly a mixed IG Regiment of Tallarn, Vostroyans, Krieg, Catachan, Tanith, Mordians and Praetorians fighting as generic Guard.


My one issue with this is that it punishes people who paint. I like my ultramarines. Why should a member of the Grey Legions be able to pick and choose, while I am locked into my chapter tactics? Even if my specific list would benefit from another? And if you enforce it for marines, you should do the same for other armies. Even if most people could not tell the difference between most sub-factions.

I get that WYSWYG is not just wargear options. You see blue, you expect them to fall back and shoot and a Ld bonus. You see red, you expect choppy. But if you pick one CT for your whole army, and don’t need to point out specific units using different rules, that’s not an unreasonable counts-as IMHO.


no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/22 02:23:00


Post by: ccs


 Verthane wrote:
This change is fine for armies like Grey Knights where all of the subfactions look the same, but really sucks for Space Marines...I have over 3000 points of Space Marines, but because I chose for artistic reasons to paint up different chapters, I now have an illegal army. I'm not going to say "those models that are clearly Space Wolves are pretending to be Salamanders". I'm sure some folks would though - if that works for you and your opponents then great.


No you don't.

The solution is simple: Just don't play in a "War Zone Nachmund: Grand Tournament" game.
That page is quite explicitly clear that that's the rules for how you play that particular type of game. It does not say "These are the rules for Matched Play". It says: "A War Zone Nachmund: Grand Tournament game is waged by following the sequence below:" Hell, your only options game size are either an Incursion or Strike Force game.

All WZ:N:GT games may be Matched Play, but not all Matched Play need be WZ:N:GT....


no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/22 02:34:16


Post by: Verthane


ccs wrote:
 Verthane wrote:
This change is fine for armies like Grey Knights where all of the subfactions look the same, but really sucks for Space Marines...I have over 3000 points of Space Marines, but because I chose for artistic reasons to paint up different chapters, I now have an illegal army. I'm not going to say "those models that are clearly Space Wolves are pretending to be Salamanders". I'm sure some folks would though - if that works for you and your opponents then great.


No you don't.

The solution is simple: Just don't play in a "War Zone Nachmund: Grand Tournament" game.
That page is quite explicitly clear that that's the rules for how you play that particular type of game. It does not say "These are the rules for Matched Play". It says: "A War Zone Nachmund: Grand Tournament game is waged by following the sequence below:" Hell, your only options game size are either an Incursion or Strike Force game.

All WZ:N:GT games may be Matched Play, but not all Matched Play need be WZ:N:GT....


Wonderful! I'll get right on convincing the tournament organizers in my state not to hold War Zone Nachmund tournaments!


no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/22 03:04:25


Post by: H.B.M.C.


You have to be naive not to see that these will be standard event rules within 3.7 nanoseconds of the book's release. It doesn't matter one whit that the book says "War Zone Nachmund tournaments".

I thought about the armies I play, and realised that I never mix types of armies because, generally speaking, all my armies have their own backstory and are usually just one thing (my Iron Paladins use the White Scar rules, my Ultramarines are Ultramarines, my Guard are Cadians, etc.).

Except... my Chaos.

I mix'n'match different Chaos Legions/Renegade Chapters because that's the background of my army - a Khorne-leaning army of Renegades that is backed up by smaller warbands of Death Guard, Thousand Sons, Word Bearers, Iron Warriors and Alpha Legion as they all flocked towards the Daemon Prince that leads the overall army.

This change instantly makes my Chaos army illegal. GW Tzscrews over Chaos once again...

I also very much dislike the idea of mono-Clan Ork armies.


no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/22 03:17:50


Post by: the_scotsman


 jeff white wrote:

Personally, I think that "armies" like Custodes and Harlequins should NOT be stand alone forces, ever, not even close, and the same really for SoB. IMHO, these should be subfactions which need help from e.g. Imp Guard or CWE in order to wage war i.e. fill out 2000pt full armies.


So, presumably if you feel this way about SoB, a military force that numbers in the billions, and Harlequins, of which there are unspecified quantities, surely you feel that Space Marines which are an order of magnitude less numerous should be held to the same standard?

Or alternatively, maybe you should feth off and let people play with their armies, and you play with yours?


no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/22 03:23:55


Post by: Void__Dragon


Glad to know that at least my personal subfaction mixing army (Daemons) don't appear to be affected by this but this is a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.



no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/22 04:14:42


Post by: Breton


 Overread wrote:
It might not have much impact, but it stops the trickle down impact from the tournamnets


It might also start to stop the creep of "paint influences gameplay" rules which have been slipping into some event packs. Ergo the "if you painted using X Subfaction scheme you must use only that subfaction.


With multi-subfaction this gets confusing if they've all the same scheme; however if you have only one per army/player then the paint scheme no longer matters as you don't have to tell different units apart from each other at the army level.


That's coming from GW, so I doubt that's changing. In the past Marneus Calgar, Asmodai, Lemartes, and all the rest could come from their actual chapter or a successor chapter, but no more. GW hasn't come out and said that Blood Angels models must be painted Blood Red or close there-to but that's the next step and players/etc are just getting ahead of GW.


no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/22 08:48:31


Post by: Sim-Life


 Void__Dragon wrote:
Glad to know that at least my personal subfaction mixing army (Daemons) don't appear to be affected by this but this is a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.



IMO it was a problem because it added more book keeping. 40k has enough to keep track of without trying to remember multiple unique specific subfaction rules/strats/wargears/warlord traits and which units they applied to.


no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/22 09:37:15


Post by: Blackie


 Verthane wrote:
This change is fine for armies like Grey Knights where all of the subfactions look the same, but really sucks for Space Marines...I have over 3000 points of Space Marines, but because I chose for artistic reasons to paint up different chapters, I now have an illegal army. I'm not going to say "those models that are clearly Space Wolves are pretending to be Salamanders". I'm sure some folks would though - if that works for you and your opponents then great.


In almost 23 years of playing 40k I've never seen a SM army mixing two chapters.

And unless the units you have are really chapter locked ones like Wulfen or TWC no one would complain if you play a SM list with models painted in different colour but under the same chapter's rules. Playing SM painted in different colours is definitely not illegal.


no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/22 10:04:00


Post by: Dysartes


 Verthane wrote:
Grey Knights or Sisters of Battle players have no such problems (unless I'm just blissfully unaware of some minor armor markings that designate what subfaction they belong to, but it certainly isn't as major as "repaint the model").

Just to quickly address this one - I'm not enough of a GK expert to be able to tell you how/if the Brotherhoods are distinguished from each other, but there are fairly distinctive colour schemes for the six major Orders of the Sisters of Battle.


no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/22 12:03:33


Post by: H.B.M.C.


The problem with a ruling like this is it means that GW are now adding absolute tons of rules complexity to their Codices, the majority of which you can't even use.

Take Thousand Sons.

They have 9 - nine! - and now you can't use 8 of them in your games. 88.88... % of your faction-based rules are simply not applicable to any army you make. And it's not like Space Marines, where there is a distinct difference between a White Scar, an Iron Hand, and an Imperial Fist. Thousand Sons Cults are still Thousand Sons.

Why have these endless fething rules if you're going to make a change that prevents the majority of them from being used in every game.



no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/22 12:37:06


Post by: alextroy


Because they don't make options for you to use them all at the same time. Complaining that you can't use all the subfactions of an army in the same game is like complaining that you can't get all the flavors of ice cream in your cup at the same time.


no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/22 12:41:33


Post by: Overread


I fail to see the problem - subfactions within a codex/supplement are typically pretty short modifiers that benefit specific tactical choices. They aren't entire new armies (mostly, there's a few exceptions and that's mostly cutting down options on what units they can take or which form the core of the army). It's bonuses to close combat or ranged or such so you just take one and the bulk of the codex is still used.


no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/22 13:11:39


Post by: Geifer


 Blackie wrote:
 Verthane wrote:
This change is fine for armies like Grey Knights where all of the subfactions look the same, but really sucks for Space Marines...I have over 3000 points of Space Marines, but because I chose for artistic reasons to paint up different chapters, I now have an illegal army. I'm not going to say "those models that are clearly Space Wolves are pretending to be Salamanders". I'm sure some folks would though - if that works for you and your opponents then great.


In almost 23 years of playing 40k I've never seen a SM army mixing two chapters.

And unless the units you have are really chapter locked ones like Wulfen or TWC no one would complain if you play a SM list with models painted in different colour but under the same chapter's rules. Playing SM painted in different colours is definitely not illegal.


I occasionally played Marine crusade forces instead of mono-chapter armies back in the day. The idea of a crusade force made up of units from a variety of chapters was encouraged in an article in one of my first White Dwarfs, back in 2nd ed. The idea appealed to me. I never collected a crusade army specifically, but made sure that the basing of my various chapters matched so that I could use them as such in addition to their normal role in their respective armies. I'll attach a (bad) picture of a crusade force I played in a 5th ed tournament.

Rules have always been a bit of an issue in this regard. Basically if you wanted to do that in 3rd ed to 5th, you either played vanilla Marines for simplicity or picked one of the other codices because you wanted to add a specific unit from that and then made the best of the choices you had. 6th ed onward, and before that 2nd ed, made it easier to include some chapter's special units (like say a combined Space Wolves and Dark Angels force with their respective units). It's never been a big deal keeping their rules sorted out until GW went bonkers with all those layered rules.

It's one of the bigger downsides of the recent focus on bespoke rules (with a side order of no model, no rules, but let's not get into that). If a Space Marine can't just be a Space Marine anymore, but has to have half a dozen layers of rules to tell you he's a White Consul in Phobos armor with slightly different bolter A and a spooky mask and not a Black Consul in Phobos armor with slightly different bolter B and a not very spooky helmet. You have to keep track of a lot more in a game that already has tons to keep track of without the help. Cutting down on extra rules is probably good for the game, but unfortunately also impacts some combined forces that have been in the background for ages, and that some players chose to play and now can't to the same extent as before.

[Thumb - Marine Tournament Army 170109.JPG]


no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/22 13:39:11


Post by: carldooley


Can someone still bring an unbound list to tournaments? Only worry about the new rules if you like having a CP pool at the start of the game...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Except... my Chaos.

I mix'n'match different Chaos Legions/Renegade Chapters because that's the background of my army - a Khorne-leaning army of Renegades that is backed up by smaller warbands of Death Guard, Thousand Sons, Word Bearers, Iron Warriors and Alpha Legion as they all flocked towards the Daemon Prince that leads the overall army.

This change instantly makes my Chaos army illegal. GW Tzscrews over Chaos once again...


I think that the core of this idea is still workable, but say you take a detachment of say a Battalion of CSM, a Patrol of TSons, and a Patrol of Deathguard?
3 detachments is legal over 1k points (and how would you work this at less anyway?).

Personally, I have been building auxiliaries for my knights, which I only started as an OPFOR for my Tau. I have TSons for when I run them as Chaos, I have Deathwatch for when I want to run them as IK, and I am building a swarm army of cultists and scum that are built chaosy but will fit better in the TOE as AM.


no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/22 14:07:16


Post by: H.B.M.C.


 alextroy wrote:
Because they don't make options for you to use them all at the same time. Complaining that you can't use all the subfactions of an army in the same game is like complaining that you can't get all the flavors of ice cream in your cup at the same time.
That's a terrible analogy.

It's not even about not being able to use all of them. You can't even use two.


no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/22 14:31:38


Post by: _SeeD_


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
 alextroy wrote:
Because they don't make options for you to use them all at the same time. Complaining that you can't use all the subfactions of an army in the same game is like complaining that you can't get all the flavors of ice cream in your cup at the same time.
That's a terrible analogy.

It's not even about not being able to use all of them. You can't even use two.

um


no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/22 14:32:50


Post by: Voss


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
You have to be naive not to see that these will be standard event rules within 3.7 nanoseconds of the book's release. It doesn't matter one whit that the book says "War Zone Nachmund tournaments".

I thought about the armies I play, and realised that I never mix types of armies because, generally speaking, all my armies have their own backstory and are usually just one thing (my Iron Paladins use the White Scar rules, my Ultramarines are Ultramarines, my Guard are Cadians, etc.).

Except... my Chaos.

I mix'n'match different Chaos Legions/Renegade Chapters because that's the background of my army - a Khorne-leaning army of Renegades that is backed up by smaller warbands of Death Guard, Thousand Sons, Word Bearers, Iron Warriors and Alpha Legion as they all flocked towards the Daemon Prince that leads the overall army.

This change instantly makes my Chaos army illegal. GW Tzscrews over Chaos once again...


Its not illegal, it just has to settle for one set of special rules rather than... six. They're Renegades, so everything gets the charge bonus or whatever it is now.


no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/22 14:47:36


Post by: Irbis


 Verthane wrote:
This change is fine for armies like Grey Knights where all of the subfactions look the same, but really sucks for Space Marines...I have over 3000 points of Space Marines, but because I chose for artistic reasons to paint up different chapters, I now have an illegal army. I'm not going to say "those models that are clearly Space Wolves are pretending to be Salamanders". I'm sure some folks would though - if that works for you and your opponents then great.

Illegal how? Just tell your opponent 'my whole army uses Salamander rules'. There, simple, case closed. Much easier for your opponent too.

It's pretty much what I did with my DW after the gak supplement turned the army into stinking pile of garbage . DW Intercessors are now Veteran Intercessors and DW dreads are now Venerable Dreads in my SM army (though it helps I painted the shoulders using my main chapter). Funnily enough, running them like this gave my DW units more fluffy rules than running them as actual DW

 Verthane wrote:
Grey Knights or Sisters of Battle players have no such problems (unless I'm just blissfully unaware of some minor armor markings that designate what subfaction they belong to, but it certainly isn't as major as "repaint the model").

GK have companies (and unlike SM, they can't fall back on 'invented/lookalike successor' excuse) and SoB have orders, so it's the same, really.

 Overread wrote:
Outside of Space Marines almost every other subfaction is little more than half a paragraph of rules variation; with no unique models

*cough* special characters *cough* entire Krieg/Ynnari range *cough*

Heck jump over to Age of Sigmar and the Daughters of Khaine have several subfactions where the only difference is a slightly different shade of red paint. That's it - that's the only real difference in the schemes.

Unless you play Stormcast, as for some reason virtually every single named character belongs to one specific subfaction so if you pick anything else your army book suddenly has 10+ entries less...

 Blackie wrote:
In almost 23 years of playing 40k I've never seen a SM army mixing two chapters.

You're lucky then, as through the entire 8th edition, every single WAAC type army mixed 3 or more (which was hard to keep track of even if they were painted differently instead of usual WAAC grey tide type, but downright impossible if said army went full munchkin and cherrypicked 3 different minmaxed successors). You must have a good meta.


no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/22 14:53:54


Post by: carldooley


You folks realize that this was a conscious sales decision from GW? Give it 6 months to a year, and the pendulum will swing back, allowing you to soup again.

Look at it from GW's perspective. We'll all (okay not everyone but a lot) will convert our entire collections to a single scheme, then who'd want to repaint their models vs buying new when the pendulum swings?


no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/22 15:03:10


Post by: Ordana


 carldooley wrote:
You folks realize that this was a conscious sales decision from GW? Give it 6 months to a year, and the pendulum will swing back, allowing you to soup again.

Look at it from GW's perspective. We'll all (okay not everyone but a lot) will convert our entire collections to a single scheme, then who'd want to repaint their models vs buying new when the pendulum swings?
No, this is GW forcing its vision upon the game, they don't want you to mix and match the best sub-factions in a list, so they ban it. They want you to make choices, not grab everything.

Not every design decision GW makes has to be done to maximize profit.


no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/22 15:04:54


Post by: Gert


God forbid the company that produces the rules and game control the rules and game. That's just wild.


no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/22 15:08:21


Post by: Tyel


I think this has been done because lots of players have said multi-chapter selection is lame. Mainly because it inevitably results in solved lists - i.e. Take X & Y in detachment Z, take A and B in detachment C.

Its possible they'll change it back if lots of players write in to say they preferred the old system. But I'm not sure they will.


no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/22 15:10:35


Post by: carldooley


 Ordana wrote:
They want you to make choices, not grab everything.

Looks to the Detachment Rules, looks to the Unbound rules......Looks to GW's stock price and sales model...
'Yeah, I'm going to disagree with you there...'


no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/22 15:15:03


Post by: Overread


GW balance is far too random to be linked directly to sales. For every choice they make that seems to encourage sales they make others that discourage sales.


Asides which many forget that 1 army per player was how things used to be for a very long time; the idea of mixing and matching subfactions is a very new idea all told.


no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/22 15:18:21


Post by: carldooley


 Overread wrote:
GW balance is far too random to be linked directly to sales.

Looks to (Tau) Codex (spoilers) that is about to be released, looks to what's sold out 'temporarily' on their online store...
Yeah, I'm going to disagree here too...


no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/22 15:21:12


Post by: Leo_the_Rat


Didn't GW already have a "play the paint scheme on your marines" rule in place for Gamesday UK? So that if your marines were painted blue then they had to be Ultras, if they were painted red then they had to be Blood Angels and, if they were dark green they had to be Dark Angels, etc.. Forcing everyone there to, effectively, either buy new marines to mix their armies or play just one chapter. This just seems like a logical, from their perspective, progression of their policies.


no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/22 15:30:10


Post by: TangoTwoBravo


 Verthane wrote:
This change is fine for armies like Grey Knights where all of the subfactions look the same, but really sucks for Space Marines...I have over 3000 points of Space Marines, but because I chose for artistic reasons to paint up different chapters, I now have an illegal army. I'm not going to say "those models that are clearly Space Wolves are pretending to be Salamanders". I'm sure some folks would though - if that works for you and your opponents then great.


It does suck when your current or favourite army is invalidated for competitive play. I will offer, though, that mixed Chapter armies have not really been a thing in 9th competitively. It was seen sometimes in 8th, but I haven't seen on the table since 9th dropped. Additionally, the various rules brought in by some Tournament Organizers to enforce "paint=rules" are less necessary now. Hipster rules brought in to stop "Chapter jumping" will still be a thing, but there is no need anymore for clarity if a Space Marine army has models painted in different Chapter livery. At a tourney using GT2022 those models will all be one faction - Warhammer World events, though, do indeed mandate rules=paint. I understand and respect that you are unwilling to say that your Space Wolves are Salamanders for a game.



no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/22 15:50:28


Post by: H.B.M.C.


Voss wrote:
Its not illegal, it just has to settle for one set of special rules rather than... six. They're Renegades, so everything gets the charge bonus or whatever it is now.
Can my Alpha Legion be Alpha Legion alongside my Iron Warriors?


no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/22 15:56:42


Post by: Voss


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Voss wrote:
Its not illegal, it just has to settle for one set of special rules rather than... six. They're Renegades, so everything gets the charge bonus or whatever it is now.
Can my Alpha Legion be Alpha Legion alongside my Iron Warriors?

Sure.

Unless by 'faction identity' you mean 'have more special rules and strats,' but those just sound like game mechanics to me, and I don't care what color your models are.


no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/22 16:01:56


Post by: H.B.M.C.


Sure used a lot of words there to say "No".


no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/22 16:31:52


Post by: Voss


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Sure used a lot of words there to say "No".


Ok, since yes is no... so if someone is exclusively shooting at you from close range and the Alpha Legion rules no longer have any game effect, does that mean they're also no longer Alpha Legion? If the enemy is never in cover, are your Iron Warriors never Iron Warriors?


no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/22 16:38:23


Post by: Crimson


Subfaction traits were a mistake. They simply make balancing impossible.

Do you balance a melee marine unit based on its effectiveness when it has the red marine trait or when it has not? Whatever you do, the unit is now unbalanced if it has a different trait.


no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/22 16:52:33


Post by: Wayniac


I'm glad it's gone. Souping subfactioms like that was cancer


no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/22 17:21:16


Post by: vipoid


 Crimson wrote:
Subfaction traits were a mistake. They simply make balancing impossible.


There are elements of subfactions that I like but overall I agree.

At the very least, I think it's a shame that they're all just pure buffs - rather than, say, each having positives and drawbacks to emphasise not only the strengths of given subfactions but also their weaknesses.

(And yes, I'm aware GW would probably screw it up so that some subfactions ended up with super-bonuses and meaningless drawbacks. I just think it would have been better than all buffs all the time.)



no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/22 17:23:36


Post by: Tyel


 Crimson wrote:
Subfaction traits were a mistake. They simply make balancing impossible.

Do you balance a melee marine unit based on its effectiveness when it has the red marine trait or when it has not? Whatever you do, the unit is now unbalanced if it has a different trait.


Not necessarily, because people take different things in their lists.
The issue isn't whether a melee marine with the red trait is balanced against a melee marine with the blue trait - but compared to a shooty marine with the blue trait.

Look at say GSC. Obviously its still early days and things may change when the rubber hits the road - but there is quite a debate over which cult is best, because most cults help lots of different aspects of the army. Best list/best cult is therefore more of a debate than the traditional "make the stabby bits red and the shooty bits blue, then call it a gg" we have seen previously.


no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/22 18:35:02


Post by: ERJAK


 Ordana wrote:
 carldooley wrote:
You folks realize that this was a conscious sales decision from GW? Give it 6 months to a year, and the pendulum will swing back, allowing you to soup again.

Look at it from GW's perspective. We'll all (okay not everyone but a lot) will convert our entire collections to a single scheme, then who'd want to repaint their models vs buying new when the pendulum swings?
No, this is GW forcing its vision upon the game, they don't want you to mix and match the best sub-factions in a list, so they ban it. They want you to make choices, not grab everything.

Not every design decision GW makes has to be done to maximize profit.


That's fair. They're perfectly capable of making asinine, stupid decisions that negatively impact the game without chasing dollar signs at all.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 vipoid wrote:
 Crimson wrote:
Subfaction traits were a mistake. They simply make balancing impossible.


There are elements of subfactions that I like but overall I agree.

At the very least, I think it's a shame that they're all just pure buffs - rather than, say, each having positives and drawbacks to emphasise not only the strengths of given subfactions but also their weaknesses.

(And yes, I'm aware GW would probably screw it up so that some subfactions ended up with super-bonuses and meaningless drawbacks. I just think it would have been better than all buffs all the time.)



Yunno what would alleviate the subfaction balancing issue? If there was some way that you could pay some sort of cost (CP maybe?) in order to take multiple subfaction traits. That way, units always benefit from their best subfaction trait and the whole army can be balanced around that.

It's a wild idea but it just might work.


no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/22 19:18:43


Post by: Daedalus81


 carldooley wrote:
 Overread wrote:
GW balance is far too random to be linked directly to sales.

Looks to (Tau) Codex (spoilers) that is about to be released, looks to what's sold out 'temporarily' on their online store...
Yeah, I'm going to disagree here too...


Hammerheads are not sold out in the US. Or the UK, Germany, Canada...

Again... the monthly sales for GW is like £32M right now. 56% of that is to Trade accounts, which buy at 50% of MSRP. So they're selling £48M in product. 1,000 players buying 3 Hammerheads each is £112K or WELL less than 1% of their sales in a month.

And in case you were wondering - there won't be anywhere near 1,000 T'au players in tournaments in the coming months. If you even look at LVO there are more Custodes players than most armies even through they aren't a meta pick ( yet ), because they're notoriously easy to buy into and tavel with.







no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/22 20:25:07


Post by: Dysartes


Wayniac wrote:
I'm glad it's gone. Souping subfactioms like that was cancer

No, not at all - you may not have found the combinations pleasant, but as far as I'm aware no-one has died of playing against a list with multiple subfactions.


no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/22 20:36:30


Post by: Siegfriedfr


That's a good thing, subfaction soup should basically only be allowed in narrative games.


no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/22 21:14:24


Post by: Luke_Prowler


Siegfriedfr wrote:
That's a good thing, subfaction soup should basically only be allowed in narrative games.

Soo, what interesting thing should Matched Play have to encourage people to play it, then?


no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/22 21:17:23


Post by: Kanluwen


 Luke_Prowler wrote:
Siegfriedfr wrote:
That's a good thing, subfaction soup should basically only be allowed in narrative games.

Soo, what interesting thing should Matched Play have to encourage people to play it, then?

Drama?

Anyways, in an ideal world we would see more things like the Torchbearer Crusade list from WD466. It was designed for Crusade and blended several factions together in an interesting manner.


no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/22 21:25:57


Post by: Platuan4th


 Luke_Prowler wrote:
Siegfriedfr wrote:
That's a good thing, subfaction soup should basically only be allowed in narrative games.

Soo, what interesting thing should Matched Play have to encourage people to play it, then?


Balance.


no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/22 21:38:41


Post by: Kanluwen


 Platuan4th wrote:
 Luke_Prowler wrote:
Siegfriedfr wrote:
That's a good thing, subfaction soup should basically only be allowed in narrative games.

Soo, what interesting thing should Matched Play have to encourage people to play it, then?


Balance.

Sorry, that only works when people actually are interested in true balance. Rather than the facade of balance that Matched Play/tournaments present.


no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/22 21:43:48


Post by: Unit1126PLL


 Platuan4th wrote:
 Luke_Prowler wrote:
Siegfriedfr wrote:
That's a good thing, subfaction soup should basically only be allowed in narrative games.

Soo, what interesting thing should Matched Play have to encourage people to play it, then?


Balance.


Narrative games should be balanced too, imo. Though more through asymmetric objectives rather than through actual victory.

Consider Thermopylae. A "lost" battle (from a purely military perspective, one side was wiped out and delayed the other side only slightly). But a memorable battle that any narrative player would be happy to say they were on the losing side of. Because the victory conditions for the Spartans weren't "have a regular field battle" and they knew it in advance.


no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/22 22:25:42


Post by: JohnHwangDD


 Irbis wrote:
 Verthane wrote:
This change is fine for armies like Grey Knights where all of the subfactions look the same, but really sucks for Space Marines...I have over 3000 points of Space Marines, but because I chose for artistic reasons to paint up different chapters, I now have an illegal army. I'm not going to say "those models that are clearly Space Wolves are pretending to be Salamanders". I'm sure some folks would though - if that works for you and your opponents then great.

Illegal how? Just tell your opponent 'my whole army uses Salamander rules'. There, simple, case closed. Much easier for your opponent too.


If I roll up with what a 13th Company of Space Wolves painted and modeled by 'Eavy Metal, such that every model is using SW-unique bits throughout, not a single bit of generic SM anywhere to be seen, then my opponent has every right to expect it to play as 13th Company. When the models are that distinctive, saying 'my Space Wolf army counts as Salamanders' is a clear violation of both the spirit and letter of WYSIWYG, and no different than saying 'my Eldar army counts as Salamanders.'

It's not easier for the opponent, because they are playing against a proxy army when they shouldn't have to. It's a visual misdirection and confusion for those players who are invested into the interaction of lore and rules, knowing in detail what 13th Company looks like and how it's supposed to play. Such misdirection is a bigger harm to high level players and has absolutely no place in any tournament setting. At a minimum, such players should be ZERO'd for painting (not WYSIWYG) and potentially sanctioned on the tabletop when they do something that doesn't match how the model would perform. As an opponent, I do not want to play against an army that forces me to remember that it's not what it looks like. If were still playing competitively, and I had to play against such an army, I would automatically ZERO their Sports and Painting scores.

GW really should force players to play as what they've painted. If someone paints as Blood Angels, then they need to play as Blood Angels, simple as that. If they want to play as something else, and don't want to buy a a new army, then they can repaint their army.


no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/22 22:36:03


Post by: Mr Morden


GW really should force players to play as what they've painted. If someone paints as Blood Angels, then they need to play as Blood Angels, simple as that. If they want to play as something else, and don't want to buy a a new army,


Really? Force Players....maybe I am getting old but that sounds like just a sad thing to say and think.

I have maybe a dozen armies but I would not expect this from an opponent - especially given the vast cost of armies.

Proxy models/armies - pretty much fine.



no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/22 22:46:12


Post by: JohnHwangDD


In competitive Tournament play, with an entry fee and prizes that have monetary value?

Force WYSIWYG or else refund-and-refuse.


no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/22 23:39:40


Post by: PenitentJake


 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Narrative games should be balanced too, imo. Though more through asymmetric objectives rather than through actual victory.

Consider Thermopylae. A "lost" battle (from a purely military perspective, one side was wiped out and delayed the other side only slightly). But a memorable battle that any narrative player would be happy to say they were on the losing side of. Because the victory conditions for the Spartans weren't "have a regular field battle" and they knew it in advance.


This happens to me all the time, as I tend to prioritize the Agendas over the objectives.

In fluff terms, it emphasizes the small, but specialized and seasoned nature of the armies in the campaign; each of these units may be redeployed across the territories controlled by their factions, and many of the forces in detachments can also be called upon to act as Kill Teams.

In game terms, it means I get XP for multiple units, but that my RP acquisition slows down. Agendas can also really drive a story- completion of particular Agendas or Sec Op will might cause an enemy to select a particular agenda for a subsequent battle. If you've got a GM, they can link advancement of the narrative to win/loss on some missions, or to the completion of specific Agendas or Spec Ops on others.





no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/22 23:41:32


Post by: Platuan4th


 Kanluwen wrote:
 Platuan4th wrote:
 Luke_Prowler wrote:
Siegfriedfr wrote:
That's a good thing, subfaction soup should basically only be allowed in narrative games.

Soo, what interesting thing should Matched Play have to encourage people to play it, then?


Balance.

Sorry, that only works when people actually are interested in true balance. Rather than the facade of balance that Matched Play/tournaments present.


It was a tongue in cheek answer. Why do you need an "interesting thing" to play Matched Play when it's already the most common way people play?


no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/22 23:44:06


Post by: deviantduck


Your point makes sense for Space Wolves pretending to be Ultramarines, because of the physical different models. But not Iron Hands being played as Ultramarines. The color scheme there makes no difference.


no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/23 00:08:21


Post by: JNAProductions


 deviantduck wrote:
Your point makes sense for Space Wolves pretending to be Ultramarines, because of the physical different models. But not Iron Hands being played as Ultramarines. The color scheme there makes no difference.
And, hell, a Marine on a bike is still a Marine on a bike, whether they've got omegas, wolf pelts, or cybernetics.

It's not like you'd mistake it for a different unit-and if your opponent tells you, right off the bat, "I'm using this army as White Scars right now," that's not a hard thing to remember.

You're within your rights to deny someone a game for being not WYSIWYG, even in paint schemes-but don't say that EVERYONE has to feel the same.


no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/23 00:26:00


Post by: ERJAK


 JohnHwangDD wrote:
In competitive Tournament play, with an entry fee and prizes that have monetary value?

Force WYSIWYG or else refund-and-refuse.


They do, but they use the competitive value of WYSIWYG, which for 40k is 'Units is on the right size base and holding the right gun'

Matt Root won the LVO with an Ork Admech army.

(Which is its own kettle of fish. Multiple people accused him of using it to obfuscate and that his printed guide to the army was done as a 'see guys, I'm NOT modeling for advantage, wink:wink:nudge:nudge)


no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/23 00:29:25


Post by: Dysartes


 JohnHwangDD wrote:
In competitive Tournament play, with an entry fee and prizes that have monetary value?

Force WYSIWYG or else refund-and-refuse.

Before you try enforcing paint schemes, let's get "bringing the actual rules for your army, via first-party sources" enforced by TOs, shall we?

ERJAK wrote:
Matt Root won the LVO with an Ork Admech army.

(Which is its own kettle of fish. Multiple people accused him of using it to obfuscate and that his printed guide to the army was done as a 'see guys, I'm NOT modeling for advantage, wink:wink:nudge:nudge)

Got a link to any pictures of this army, ERJAK? Sounds an interesting counts-as piece, but I'm curious how far he went with making it feel suitable.


no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/23 01:02:30


Post by: deviantduck


 Dysartes wrote:
 JohnHwangDD wrote:
In competitive Tournament play, with an entry fee and prizes that have monetary value?

Force WYSIWYG or else refund-and-refuse.

Before you try enforcing paint schemes, let's get "bringing the actual rules for your army, via first-party sources" enforced by TOs, shall we?

ERJAK wrote:
Matt Root won the LVO with an Ork Admech army.

(Which is its own kettle of fish. Multiple people accused him of using it to obfuscate and that his printed guide to the army was done as a 'see guys, I'm NOT modeling for advantage, wink:wink:nudge:nudge)

Got a link to any pictures of this army, ERJAK? Sounds an interesting counts-as piece, but I'm curious how far he went with making it feel suitable.
I was at that LVO and played a game 2 tables down. There's no way I would have known what was what.

At the same LVO, my first opponent proxied these as Magnus and Lord o' Change.
Spoiler:


no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/23 01:24:25


Post by: H.B.M.C.


 Crimson wrote:
Subfaction traits were a mistake. They simply make balancing impossible.
So you're against Space Marine Chapters having their own rules? Chaos Legions? Craftworlds? Ork Clans? Hive Fleets?

Voss wrote:
Ok, since yes is no... so if someone is exclusively shooting at you from close range and the Alpha Legion rules no longer have any game effect, does that mean they're also no longer Alpha Legion? If the enemy is never in cover, are your Iron Warriors never Iron Warriors?
The thing is, if I bring both, only one of them has their rules, the other one gets the other one's rules.

So the answer to my question was: "No".

You can't obfuscate or bloviate a different answer by moving the goalposts around like you have in the quote above.

ERJAK wrote:
Yunno what would alleviate the subfaction balancing issue? If there was some way that you could pay some sort of cost (CP maybe?) in order to take multiple subfaction traits. That way, units always benefit from their best subfaction trait and the whole army can be balanced around that.
So you mean, like, expending an abstracted strategic resource to bring in forces from two different armies, something that might reduce the army's overall cohesion - something that said abstracted strategic resource could represent quite well - rather than spending it on things like Smoke Launchers and Meltabombs?

Getouttatown!

 Dysartes wrote:
Before you try enforcing paint schemes, let's get "bringing the actual rules for your army, via first-party sources" enforced by TOs, shall we?
People using printouts and Battlescribe really annoys you for some reason.

It's a weird pet-peeve.





no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/23 01:31:54


Post by: Leo_the_Rat


@deviantduck- That's kind of disappointing. I would have thought that Front Line Gaming would disallow proxies of that nature. I mean it's one thing to say that Eldrad is just a generic Farseer but it's another thing to say that this coke can is a drop pod and the sprite can is a predator tank. I just strikes me as being unprofessional to allow that sort of behavior in an event of that caliber.


no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/23 01:37:25


Post by: Crimson


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
So you're against Space Marine Chapters having their own rules? Chaos Legions? Craftworlds? Ork Clans? Hive Fleets?

Yes. It is just unneeded layer of rules bloat. Some things can just be fluff and paint.

EDIT: There could be some bespoke units, and characters, relics and stratagems, but that's different. There doesn't need to be subfaction trait to be applied to every unit.



no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/23 01:38:55


Post by: H.B.M.C.


 Crimson wrote:
Yes. It is just unneeded layer of rules bloat. Some things can just fluff and paint.
So all Space Marines should be the same? No Blood Angels? No Space Wolves? No Black Templars?


no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/23 01:43:54


Post by: TheBestBucketHead


I'm fine with rules for subfactions, but I'd prefer they be mostly stuff like altering what slots certain units take, or how many they can take, rather than just making certain things stronger. This may not be the best example, but I recently got into WHFB 6th, and if I run a Clan Skryre army, Warp Lightning Cannons, Warplock Jezzails, and Poisoned Wind Bombadiers become more common, while I lose most of my access to Plague Monks and such, so I have to rely more on my weapons, and less on pure melee prowess. It's a similar thing for Vampire Counts, where Von Carstein vampires can take human militia into battle if you run their subfaction, while a Necromancer army gets all their undead units slighly cheaper, because they lose access to everything else.

Plus, Infinity, my favorite skirmish game, does this exact thing with their subfactions, where it's defined entirely by which units you can take, and almost nothing else.

But I do understand the appeal of having rules for different subfactions be represented via changing certain rules, or adding some to units. I personally just don't like how 40k does it.


no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/23 01:48:17


Post by: Crimson


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
 Crimson wrote:
Yes. It is just unneeded layer of rules bloat. Some things can just fluff and paint.
So all Space Marines should be the same? No Blood Angels? No Space Wolves? No Black Templars?


Like I said in the edit there could be stuff like some bespoke units characters, relics and stratagems, but there doesn't need to be subfaction trait to be applied to every unit.

And for several editions most armies didn't have subfaction rules. People still played different hive fleets, craftworlds etc, they just chose the units they felt were appropriate for the army's theme, and painted them in correct colours. And it was perfectly fine. More than fine; it was preferable to the current layered rules bloat and balancing nightmare.


no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/23 01:48:25


Post by: Insularum


Despite the obvious good intentions in an area that needs improving, these changes are pretty weird - I wonder how long before a sweeping array of FAQs are going to land?

No more Imperial soup - but also no more Imperial Agents (funny given there is a new Inquisitor model about to be released, that no one can use without a mono-ordo 1k+ Inquisition army).
No more Aeldari soup - but apparently also no Ynnari at all (no common allowable keywords between the mandatory named characters and other codex eldar I think).
No more Tyranids soup - AM Brood Brothers are a bit weird now as they specifically have rules saying you can ignore the lack of common faction keyword.
No more sub-factions in a detachment - Ork specialist mobs are dead, not sure if any other factions also have a keyword-swap mechanic like that (maybe Disciples of Belakor with chaos marines?).


no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/23 02:16:27


Post by: JohnHwangDD


 deviantduck wrote:
 JohnHwangDD wrote:
In competitive Tournament play, with an entry fee and prizes that have monetary value?

Force WYSIWYG or else refund-and-refuse.


At the same LVO, my first opponent proxied these as Magnus and Lord o' Change.
Spoiler:


Non-WYSIWYG Proxies. Remove from table and do forfeit the points. ZERO Sports, ZERO Paint.


no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/23 02:25:09


Post by: carldooley


 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Non-WYSIWYG Proxies. Remove from table and do forfeit the points. ZERO Sports, ZERO Paint.

You must be an absolute treat to play against. I once showed up with a full WYSIWYG army to what I thought was a WYSIWYG tourney (it was in the PUBLISHED RULES for the event) to have someone come off the street and borrow a bunch of random models off the store's shelves to run an army in the event. The TO shrugged.

But it was how I got games at the time, so I shrugged too.


no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/23 02:33:16


Post by: PenitentJake


 Insularum wrote:

No more Imperial soup - but also no more Imperial Agents (funny given there is a new Inquisitor model about to be released, that no one can use without a mono-ordo 1k+ Inquisition army).


Have you seen a leak that I haven't?

These rules don't seem to interfere with Imperial Agents, as their selectable keyword (Ordo) will not match the selectable Keyword of the host army (Chapter, Order, Regiment etc.)- in the same way the rules prevent DE armies from taking two different Kabal Patrols, but not from taking one Kabal Patrol and one Cult Patrol.

Unless you've seen the rules and he doesn't have the Imperial Agent Keyword, or he has specific datacard restrictions.


no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/23 02:36:38


Post by: Platuan4th


PenitentJake wrote:
 Insularum wrote:

No more Imperial soup - but also no more Imperial Agents (funny given there is a new Inquisitor model about to be released, that no one can use without a mono-ordo 1k+ Inquisition army).


Have you seen a leak that I haven't?

These rules don't seem to interfere with Imperial Agents, as their selectable keyword (Ordo) will not match the selectable Keyword of the host army (Chapter, Order, Regiment etc.)- in the same way the rules prevent DE armies from taking two different Kabal Patrols, but not from taking one Kabal Patrol and one Cult Patrol.

Unless you've seen the rules and he doesn't have the Imperial Agent Keyword, or he has specific datacard restrictions.


See the statement they made right before that:

I wonder how long before a sweeping array of FAQs are going to land?


no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/23 02:38:38


Post by: Daedalus81


Spoiler:
 deviantduck wrote:
 Dysartes wrote:
 JohnHwangDD wrote:
In competitive Tournament play, with an entry fee and prizes that have monetary value?

Force WYSIWYG or else refund-and-refuse.

Before you try enforcing paint schemes, let's get "bringing the actual rules for your army, via first-party sources" enforced by TOs, shall we?

ERJAK wrote:
Matt Root won the LVO with an Ork Admech army.

(Which is its own kettle of fish. Multiple people accused him of using it to obfuscate and that his printed guide to the army was done as a 'see guys, I'm NOT modeling for advantage, wink:wink:nudge:nudge)

Got a link to any pictures of this army, ERJAK? Sounds an interesting counts-as piece, but I'm curious how far he went with making it feel suitable.
I was at that LVO and played a game 2 tables down. There's no way I would have known what was what.

At the same LVO, my first opponent proxied these as Magnus and Lord o' Change.
[spoiler]
[/spoiler]

How in the hell did the judges approve that?


no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/23 03:16:37


Post by: H.B.M.C.


 Crimson wrote:
Like I said in the edit there could be stuff like some bespoke units characters, relics and stratagems, but there doesn't need to be subfaction trait to be applied to every unit.

And for several editions most armies didn't have subfaction rules. People still played different hive fleets, craftworlds etc, they just chose the units they felt were appropriate for the army's theme, and painted them in correct colours. And it was perfectly fine. More than fine; it was preferable to the current layered rules bloat and balancing nightmare.
Well there are consolidationists, and then there's you I guess.

Your ideas are anti-choice and anti-fun.


no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/23 04:09:43


Post by: Voss


 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Voss wrote:
Ok, since yes is no... so if someone is exclusively shooting at you from close range and the Alpha Legion rules no longer have any game effect, does that mean they're also no longer Alpha Legion? If the enemy is never in cover, are your Iron Warriors never Iron Warriors?
The thing is, if I bring both, only one of them has their rules, the other one gets the other one's rules.

So the answer to my question was: "No".

You can't obfuscate or bloviate a different answer by moving the goalposts around like you have in the quote above.

Nope. I was just trying to figure out if you think (sub)faction identity is 100% about having special rules, and nothing else. Apparently it is.

For me, it ranges from a neat perk to pure bloat (leaning very much toward pure bloat at the moment), most of which are nonsensical. Nothing about the alpha legion is about being harder to hit at half the max range of the average firearm. Nothing about Iron Warriors dictates their ability to shoot around trees real good.

I was perfectly happy playing most editions without this crap, so, its kind of whatever. I certainly prefer nothing to 'play argent shroud if you want shooty sisters and play bloody rose if you play melee sisters, final destination, no drawbacks or thought required.'

Playing army for theme and feel rather than 'what special rules makes this specific build better for free' seems far better in terms of choice AND fun.


no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/23 05:33:13


Post by: Galef


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
 Crimson wrote:
Like I said in the edit there could be stuff like some bespoke units characters, relics and stratagems, but there doesn't need to be subfaction trait to be applied to every unit.

And for several editions most armies didn't have subfaction rules. People still played different hive fleets, craftworlds etc, they just chose the units they felt were appropriate for the army's theme, and painted them in correct colours. And it was perfectly fine. More than fine; it was preferable to the current layered rules bloat and balancing nightmare.
Well there are consolidationists, and then there's you I guess.

Your ideas are anti-choice and anti-fun.
I'm with Crimson on this. Having played since 4th ed, subfaction RULES are still relatively new and unnecessary.
Back in the day, if you wanted a Salamanders army, just take plenty of Flamers and meltas.
You want a Saim-hann Eldar list? Jetbikes, jetbikes everywhere!

In 4th-7th ed there were plenty of choices that could give your army a fun theme beyond just a paint scheme.
And since there were completely different books for Blood/Dark Angels, Wolves, etc there was plenty of "flavor" for Marine Chapters without having to give extra rules for all the "vanilla" Chapters.

Another problem with sub-faction rules is that they will never be balanced internally. There will always be 1-2 that are clearly better. Like Alaitoc in 8th. As someone who played Saim-hann for theme since 4th, that gave me 2 really hard choices:
A) purposefully handicap myself by NOT being Alaitoc or
B) betray years of theme building/painting and jump the band wagon to play Alaitoc and have to repaint my army to reduce the funny looks I'd get for playing "red" Alaitoc.

Subfaction rules are fun, but I'd prefer to see them be a Narrative only thing. Matched play needs to have less intricacies that can be exploited.

-


no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/23 05:38:25


Post by: JohnHwangDD


 carldooley wrote:
 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Non-WYSIWYG Proxies. Remove from table and do forfeit the points. ZERO Sports, ZERO Paint.

You must be an absolute treat to play against.

I once showed up with a full WYSIWYG army to what I thought was a WYSIWYG tourney (it was in the PUBLISHED RULES for the event) to have someone come off the street and borrow a bunch of random models off the store's shelves to run an army in the event. The TO shrugged.


I am.

In your anecdote, it's not my fault that the TO can't run their tournament properly.

You're basically arguing that one idiot failing to do their job is somehow significant.
____

 Galef wrote:
Having played since 4th ed, subfaction RULES are still relatively new and unnecessary.

Subfaction rules are fun, but I'd prefer to see them be a Narrative only thing. Matched play needs to have less intricacies that can be exploited.


Totally agreed! There's no need for complexity, and if we get to the heart of Narrative play, it's even easier to say "take whatever you feel you can justify for the scenario." IOW, Narrative play has basically no rules at all, because it's totally OK for things to be unbalanced as part of the story.




no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/23 05:38:46


Post by: ERJAK


Voss wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Voss wrote:
Ok, since yes is no... so if someone is exclusively shooting at you from close range and the Alpha Legion rules no longer have any game effect, does that mean they're also no longer Alpha Legion? If the enemy is never in cover, are your Iron Warriors never Iron Warriors?
The thing is, if I bring both, only one of them has their rules, the other one gets the other one's rules.

So the answer to my question was: "No".

You can't obfuscate or bloviate a different answer by moving the goalposts around like you have in the quote above.

Nope. I was just trying to figure out if you think (sub)faction identity is 100% about having special rules, and nothing else. Apparently it is.

For me, it ranges from a neat perk to pure bloat (leaning very much toward pure bloat at the moment), most of which are nonsensical. Nothing about the alpha legion is about being harder to hit at half the max range of the average firearm. Nothing about Iron Warriors dictates their ability to shoot around trees real good.

I was perfectly happy playing most editions without this crap, so, its kind of whatever. I certainly prefer nothing to 'play argent shroud if you want shooty sisters and play bloody rose if you play melee sisters, final destination, no drawbacks or thought required.'

Playing army for theme and feel rather than 'what special rules makes this specific build better for free' seems far better in terms of choice AND fun.


Unless you don't care about theme?

Your enjoyment of play in 40k is absolutely NOT any more valid or righteous because you focus on narrative, presentation, and/or lore more than you focus on gameplay.

People in the 40k community get this insane idea that enjoying the game FOR the game is this inherently inferior level of participation than narratively focused play. As if you bringing poorly constructed armies and giving your Characters names makes you a more enlightened being.

It doesn't, it's just another (perfectly valid) way to play.

The only time this becomes a problem is when the two groups are forced to intermix. Narrative players forced to play competitively minded players and vice versa frequently ends in frustration for both parties. Good, interesting, friendly games can be had but it can go badly, fast.

When narrative players walk away with a sour taste its because they believe that their opponent was behaving in an exploitative way. Which is true in some cases but the majority of the time it comes down to their own deliberate choice to favor theme over efficiency, which is NOT the competitive player's fault.

When competitive players walk away from negative games like this, the feeling is often that their time was wasted. That the narrative player didn't "try". Or in more extreme cases it can be a sense that the opponent brought it on themselves. A sort of 'well what did you expect?' They went into the game with different goals.


no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/23 05:50:38


Post by: JohnHwangDD


I agree that Narrative and Matched have completely different goals.


no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/23 05:57:37


Post by: ERJAK


 Galef wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
 Crimson wrote:
Like I said in the edit there could be stuff like some bespoke units characters, relics and stratagems, but there doesn't need to be subfaction trait to be applied to every unit.

And for several editions most armies didn't have subfaction rules. People still played different hive fleets, craftworlds etc, they just chose the units they felt were appropriate for the army's theme, and painted them in correct colours. And it was perfectly fine. More than fine; it was preferable to the current layered rules bloat and balancing nightmare.
Well there are consolidationists, and then there's you I guess.

Your ideas are anti-choice and anti-fun.
I'm with Crimson on this. Having played since 4th ed, subfaction RULES are still relatively new and unnecessary.
Back in the day, if you wanted a Salamanders army, just take plenty of Flamers and meltas.
You want a Saim-hann Eldar list? Jetbikes, jetbikes everywhere!

In 4th-7th ed there were plenty of choices that could give your army a fun theme beyond just a paint scheme.
And since there were completely different books for Blood/Dark Angels, Wolves, etc there was plenty of "flavor" for Marine Chapters without having to give extra rules for all the "vanilla" Chapters.

Another problem with sub-faction rules is that they will never be balanced internally. There will always be 1-2 that are clearly better. Like Alaitoc in 8th. As someone who played Saim-hann for theme since 4th, that gave me 2 really hard choices:
A) purposefully handicap myself by NOT being Alaitoc or
B) betray years of theme building/painting and jump the band wagon to play Alaitoc and have to repaint my army to reduce the funny looks I'd get for playing "red" Alaitoc.

Subfaction rules are fun, but I'd prefer to see them be a Narrative only thing. Matched play needs to have less intricacies that can be exploited.

-


7th edition had full subfaction rules for marines. White scars on bikes and in vehicles could scout move. Ultramarines got combat doctrines.

Also, in practice, not having any kind of internal faction rules variation means you're relying entirely on GW's datasheet balancing. Which as we can see from the most recent CA is utter garbage.

That's actually something I've been thinking about a lot lately. GW needs their games to be highly complex with as many moving parts as possible. Why?

So that they can get enough right accidentally to create something usable. GW isn't competent enough to handle a simple game. The last time they tried to make a simple game, they ended with rules about losing if you knelt on the floor and rerolls based on if you had a mustache.


no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/23 07:23:49


Post by: H.B.M.C.


Voss wrote:
Playing army for theme and feel rather than 'what special rules makes this specific build better for free' seems far better in terms of choice AND fun.
And I don't think the two are mutually exclusive. I'm predominantly a narrative player. The rules I want the most in the entire world are my damned Tyranid Crusade rules.

But I love having the ability to play different Chapters/Legions/Craftworlds and have them actually represented within the rules of the game. I despite 'counts as'.

If there are balance problems with one faction making Unit X good, and another faction making Unit Y good, so you take small armies of both, then fix that imbalance. The answer is not to simply remove all factions in the game. Talk about a pile-driver to put a brad nail into place...


no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/23 07:26:51


Post by: Racerguy180


ERJAK wrote:

People in the 40k community get this insane idea that enjoying the game FOR the game is this inherently inferior level of participation than narratively focused play.


Enjoying the game for the game would make more sense if it was a good one.

It's not like GW don't know how to write a good game system(cough...Titanicus...cough...Necromunda). They are actively not writing a good one for the express purpose to make you buy the maximum amount of books and models as often as possible. With the smallest amount of capital investment to the company.

I enjoy the game for what it is, a toolbox to build a mutually enjoyable and cinematic experience for those involved. I also pay GW what their (40k) rules are worth...absolutely nothing.


no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/23 08:58:44


Post by: Breton


 Geifer wrote:
 Blackie wrote:
 Verthane wrote:
This change is fine for armies like Grey Knights where all of the subfactions look the same, but really sucks for Space Marines...I have over 3000 points of Space Marines, but because I chose for artistic reasons to paint up different chapters, I now have an illegal army. I'm not going to say "those models that are clearly Space Wolves are pretending to be Salamanders". I'm sure some folks would though - if that works for you and your opponents then great.


In almost 23 years of playing 40k I've never seen a SM army mixing two chapters.

And unless the units you have are really chapter locked ones like Wulfen or TWC no one would complain if you play a SM list with models painted in different colour but under the same chapter's rules. Playing SM painted in different colours is definitely not illegal.


I occasionally played Marine crusade forces instead of mono-chapter armies back in the day. The idea of a crusade force made up of units from a variety of chapters was encouraged in an article in one of my first White Dwarfs, back in 2nd ed. The idea appealed to me. I never collected a crusade army specifically, but made sure that the basing of my various chapters matched so that I could use them as such in addition to their normal role in their respective armies. I'll attach a (bad) picture of a crusade force I played in a 5th ed tournament.

Rules have always been a bit of an issue in this regard. Basically if you wanted to do that in 3rd ed to 5th, you either played vanilla Marines for simplicity or picked one of the other codices because you wanted to add a specific unit from that and then made the best of the choices you had. 6th ed onward, and before that 2nd ed, made it easier to include some chapter's special units (like say a combined Space Wolves and Dark Angels force with their respective units). It's never been a big deal keeping their rules sorted out until GW went bonkers with all those layered rules.

It's one of the bigger downsides of the recent focus on bespoke rules (with a side order of no model, no rules, but let's not get into that). If a Space Marine can't just be a Space Marine anymore, but has to have half a dozen layers of rules to tell you he's a White Consul in Phobos armor with slightly different bolter A and a spooky mask and not a Black Consul in Phobos armor with slightly different bolter B and a not very spooky helmet. You have to keep track of a lot more in a game that already has tons to keep track of without the help. Cutting down on extra rules is probably good for the game, but unfortunately also impacts some combined forces that have been in the background for ages, and that some players chose to play and now can't to the same extent as before.


For a little while at least you should be able to do the Indomitus Crusaders Specialist Detach, but its pretty much Primaris only, and probably also not going to be around much longer.


no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/23 09:01:20


Post by: wuestenfux


In view of GK, a GK army will consist of only one detachment in the future.
This is really a downside.
So you need to play at least GK Strike units.


no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/23 09:09:29


Post by: Breton


ERJAK wrote:


7th edition had full subfaction rules for marines. White scars on bikes and in vehicles could scout move. Ultramarines got combat doctrines.

Also, in practice, not having any kind of internal faction rules variation means you're relying entirely on GW's datasheet balancing. Which as we can see from the most recent CA is utter garbage.

That's actually something I've been thinking about a lot lately. GW needs their games to be highly complex with as many moving parts as possible. Why?

So that they can get enough right accidentally to create something usable. GW isn't competent enough to handle a simple game. The last time they tried to make a simple game, they ended with rules about losing if you knelt on the floor and rerolls based on if you had a mustache.


Don't forget in 5th?? 6th?? You could put Sammael as the HQ in a Detach and all Ravenwing Assault Squads (6 Bikes, an Attack Bike, and a Speeder _____) counted as a troop choice (thus getting ObSec in addition to other benefits. You could put Belial in a Detach and all Terminator _____ were troops. I suspect they had similar list building shenanigans/swaps for Saim-Hann Wind Rider squadrons.


no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/23 09:20:43


Post by: Insularum


PenitentJake wrote:
 Insularum wrote:

No more Imperial soup - but also no more Imperial Agents (funny given there is a new Inquisitor model about to be released, that no one can use without a mono-ordo 1k+ Inquisition army).


Have you seen a leak that I haven't?

These rules don't seem to interfere with Imperial Agents, as their selectable keyword (Ordo) will not match the selectable Keyword of the host army (Chapter, Order, Regiment etc.)- in the same way the rules prevent DE armies from taking two different Kabal Patrols, but not from taking one Kabal Patrol and one Cult Patrol.

Unless you've seen the rules and he doesn't have the Imperial Agent Keyword, or he has specific datacard restrictions.

Rules screenshot is in spoilers on page1.

To be compliant with new rules you must:
1. Pick the same <FACTION> on selectable options (you are correct here that an Imperial Agent is not affected).
2. You must also share a faction keyword accross your entire army, that is not one like Imperial - this is what bans Assassins and the like as it the only point in common.


no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/23 09:56:34


Post by: Esmer


 deviantduck wrote:
 Dysartes wrote:
 JohnHwangDD wrote:
In competitive Tournament play, with an entry fee and prizes that have monetary value?

Force WYSIWYG or else refund-and-refuse.

Before you try enforcing paint schemes, let's get "bringing the actual rules for your army, via first-party sources" enforced by TOs, shall we?

ERJAK wrote:
Matt Root won the LVO with an Ork Admech army.

(Which is its own kettle of fish. Multiple people accused him of using it to obfuscate and that his printed guide to the army was done as a 'see guys, I'm NOT modeling for advantage, wink:wink:nudge:nudge)

Got a link to any pictures of this army, ERJAK? Sounds an interesting counts-as piece, but I'm curious how far he went with making it feel suitable.
I was at that LVO and played a game 2 tables down. There's no way I would have known what was what.

At the same LVO, my first opponent proxied these as Magnus and Lord o' Change.
Spoiler:


This reminded me of the one time in 8th edition (where you actually could and wanted to have as many souped detachments as possible for additional CP) where my opponent turned up with a 2000 points army of uniformly painted Cadians and was like "these models and vehicles are Cadians, those models and vehicles are Catachans and finally that bunch of units over there is Armageddon".

Though the example in the quote is probably still worse.


no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/23 10:22:30


Post by: vict0988


 wuestenfux wrote:
In view of GK, a GK army will consist of only one detachment in the future.
This is really a downside.
So you need to play at least GK Strike units.

What prevents you from having two GK Detachments or using Terminators as Troops?


no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/23 10:58:02


Post by: Dysartes


deviantduck wrote:I was at that LVO and played a game 2 tables down. There's no way I would have known what was what.

At the same LVO, my first opponent proxied these as Magnus and Lord o' Change.
Spoiler:

Assuming the proxies are the right way around, I sort of see Magnus' wings on the first one, but they're not clear at all. I'd've been reluctant to approve them if I were the TO, though I appreciate the effort/thought someone seems to have put into that force (especially if the rest of the army was converted as well).

H.B.M.C. wrote:
 Dysartes wrote:
Before you try enforcing paint schemes, let's get "bringing the actual rules for your army, via first-party sources" enforced by TOs, shall we?
People using printouts and Battlescribe really annoys you for some reason.

It's a weird pet-peeve.

Having a problem with widespread piracy - and using either of those two without owning the appropriate sources yourself would be piracy - makes me weird? Good to know.


no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/23 12:24:17


Post by: vict0988


So it wouldn't be a problem for you if they had proof of purchase on their phone?


no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/23 12:53:28


Post by: Arbitrator


 Dysartes wrote:

Having a problem with widespread piracy - and using either of those two without owning the appropriate sources yourself would be piracy - makes me weird? Good to know.

Won't someone please think of the billion pound profit company?!

Seriously if some people using pirated/printed rules bothers you that much I suggest you find some real problems to get upset about.


no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/23 13:01:04


Post by: Gert


Pot. Kettle. Have you met?


no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/23 13:07:54


Post by: Tyel


 Esmer wrote:
This reminded me of the one time in 8th edition (where you actually could and wanted to have as many souped detachments as possible for additional CP) where my opponent turned up with a 2000 points army of uniformly painted Cadians and was like "these models and vehicles are Cadians, those models and vehicles are Catachans and finally that bunch of units over there is Armageddon".

Though the example in the quote is probably still worse.


I think its always going to depend on your motivation.

I wouldn't complain - but in some ways I'm much more hostile to people playing scarcely battle ready painted models with different coloured base rims to indicate their special rules than a fully converted army.
Mainly because with the former, at some point you might as well just be playing with tokens. Any illusion of magic is sort of left behind.

But yeah, I feel in any half serious tournament people should be able to identify what is what at a glance.
I think you can find Root's army online. From a glance you'd have no idea what faction he was playing never mind what any models were meant to be.


no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/23 13:32:35


Post by: Platuan4th


 Galef wrote:
I'm with Crimson on this. Having played since 4th ed, subfaction RULES are still relatively new and unnecessary.
Back in the day, if you wanted a Salamanders army, just take plenty of Flamers and meltas.
You want a Saim-hann Eldar list? Jetbikes, jetbikes everywhere!


Having played in 3rd(starting in 2nd), back in the day both of those armies had their own supplement rules. Salamanders had their own psychic power, their own wargear(including one that let them ignore Instant Death), I3, and a couple other rules(IIRC, they could force opponents to play one more round beyond the random roll). Saim-hann as well had a number of rules that differentiated them from "normal" Eldar including moving Jetbikes to Troops.

Subfaction rules are way older than you think.


no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/23 13:36:41


Post by: Leo_the_Rat


Here's a picture of Root's "Ad mech" army from the LVO:

https://www.frontlinegaming.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Matt-Roots-army.jpg

All I can say is, "WTF!? If I had to face that there's no way I could decode which model is what and still concentrate on my own tactics and the time I had to play. This would slow my play to a crawl. And the worst part is I don't really play a lot, I can only imagine how off putting this would be for a "serious" competitor.


no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/23 13:52:53


Post by: Gert


So the Knight is surely a Knight, right? The rest of that is so clearly Orks. If someone plopped that in front of me and said it was a Mechanicus army I'd laugh.


no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/23 13:55:48


Post by: Overread


Yeah it looks nicely converted, but yeah its orks. I don't see enough "mechanicus" design elements to make it easy to tell what is what as a mechanicus.


Now I've seen people take totally daft converted armies to events like My Little Pony in Warmachine and such - however they are so "far out there" that it sort of works. But a converted ork appearing army in a game that has orks which is then a mechanicus army kinda just seems "wrong".

Perhaps its easier to tell in person, but eh I have to somewhat agree its not something I'd expect to see at a tournament as a counts-as force. Casual play sure, but at a competitive event perhaps its pushing things a bit too far.


no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/23 13:57:00


Post by: Gert


Why is there a Space Marine with some Gors in the corner? The more I look at this the worse it gets knowing its supposed to be an Admech army.


no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/23 14:35:30


Post by: H.B.M.C.


 Dysartes wrote:
Having a problem with widespread piracy - and using either of those two without owning the appropriate sources yourself would be piracy - makes me weird? Good to know.
Calling Battlescribe 'piracy' is a bit of a stretch.


no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/23 15:12:42


Post by: Platuan4th


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
 Dysartes wrote:
Having a problem with widespread piracy - and using either of those two without owning the appropriate sources yourself would be piracy - makes me weird? Good to know.
Calling Battlescribe 'piracy' is a bit of a stretch.


Wonder how Dysartes feels about how Wolflair makes its money.


no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/23 15:12:50


Post by: Da Boss


I don't really understand stuff like the Ad Mech Ork proxies shown above. If you want to play Orks with a tech bent, make a list around big meks, stompas, gorkanauts, dreads and kans and lootas and all that. Orks have loads of options for a scrap-tech army.

Ad Mech to Dark Mech makes sense to me, because that's a background faction that has no representation in the rules, but tech-orks absolutely do have representation in the rules.

Seems like this only happens because Ad Mech are really strong rules wise?


no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/23 15:45:45


Post by: Leo_the_Rat


My opinion just based on first impression is that the reason he was allowed to use that proxy army is that he is friends with/or aquainted with some if not all of the people at Frontline Games. It's really shameful that that sort of army was allowed to be used the way it was. It certainly turned me off from wanting to play at the LVO even though I had considered it for a few years before all this Covid.


no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/23 16:15:19


Post by: TangoTwoBravo


 Insularum wrote:
PenitentJake wrote:
 Insularum wrote:

No more Imperial soup - but also no more Imperial Agents (funny given there is a new Inquisitor model about to be released, that no one can use without a mono-ordo 1k+ Inquisition army).


Have you seen a leak that I haven't?

These rules don't seem to interfere with Imperial Agents, as their selectable keyword (Ordo) will not match the selectable Keyword of the host army (Chapter, Order, Regiment etc.)- in the same way the rules prevent DE armies from taking two different Kabal Patrols, but not from taking one Kabal Patrol and one Cult Patrol.

Unless you've seen the rules and he doesn't have the Imperial Agent Keyword, or he has specific datacard restrictions.

Rules screenshot is in spoilers on page1.

To be compliant with new rules you must:
1. Pick the same <FACTION> on selectable options (you are correct here that an Imperial Agent is not affected).
2. You must also share a faction keyword accross your entire army, that is not one like Imperial - this is what bans Assassins and the like as it the only point in common.


Your parse is not what the Muster Armies portion says in the spoiler.

The statement "All of the units in each Detachment in your Battle-Forged army must have at least one Faction keyword in common, and this keyword cannot be Chaos, Imperial etc" is unchanged since the 9th Edition Matched Play Mission Pack in the BRB. It does not mean that all of the units in your army must have at least one Faction keyword in common that cannot be Chaos, Imperial etc; it means that the units in each detachment must have more than Imperial etc. Way back at the start of 8th you could have Soup Detachments where the Detachment itself could be mixed: this rule prevents that and has been in effect for some time in various guises. It has been the same since the start of 9th.

In accordance with the 9th ed original BRB Battle Forged rules (which are not reprinted in the Mission Packs but must be read in conjunction with them), all of the units in your army must share one Faction keyword (page 245). So you could have had a Detachment of Ultramarines, a Detachment of Cadians and a Detachment of Catachans. They shared a Faction keyword to be in the same army, and each Detachment has a common keyword that is more than just Imperium. The same principle extended to Eldar armies etc.

With the GT 2022 Mission Pack you can still have an army with a Detachment of Ultramarines and two Detachments of Cadians (not that you would). What you cannot do now is have a Detachment of Cadians and a Detachment of Catachans in the same army.

Its a bit convoluted!

So if you want to bring your favourite army from your favourite BL book that has Space Marines and Imperial Guard fighting together you can do it (not that you would to be competitive). What you cannot do now is cherry pick sub-faction Detachments from the same faction to put together a "dream team."

(edited last line for clarity!)


no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/23 16:21:43


Post by: alextroy


Adding to what TangoTwoBravo noted, there are many units that come with their own rules that allow them to be taken within a detachment despite not having the normally required matching keyword. Thus Agents of the Imperium and Ynnari are still completely legal per those rules.


no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/23 17:17:09


Post by: shortymcnostrill


 Arbitrator wrote:
 Dysartes wrote:

Having a problem with widespread piracy - and using either of those two without owning the appropriate sources yourself would be piracy - makes me weird? Good to know.

Won't someone please think of the billion pound profit company?!

Seriously if some people using pirated/printed rules bothers you that much I suggest you find some real problems to get upset about.

It's rare for me to actually audibly laugh at something I read on the interwebs, but this got me. Have an exalt, whatever those do.


no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/23 17:25:25


Post by: Unit1126PLL


ERJAK wrote:

Unless you don't care about theme?

Your enjoyment of play in 40k is absolutely NOT any more valid or righteous because you focus on narrative, presentation, and/or lore more than you focus on gameplay.

People in the 40k community get this insane idea that enjoying the game FOR the game is this inherently inferior level of participation than narratively focused play. As if you bringing poorly constructed armies and giving your Characters names makes you a more enlightened being.

It doesn't, it's just another (perfectly valid) way to play.

The only time this becomes a problem is when the two groups are forced to intermix. Narrative players forced to play competitively minded players and vice versa frequently ends in frustration for both parties. Good, interesting, friendly games can be had but it can go badly, fast.

When narrative players walk away with a sour taste its because they believe that their opponent was behaving in an exploitative way. Which is true in some cases but the majority of the time it comes down to their own deliberate choice to favor theme over efficiency, which is NOT the competitive player's fault.

When competitive players walk away from negative games like this, the feeling is often that their time was wasted. That the narrative player didn't "try". Or in more extreme cases it can be a sense that the opponent brought it on themselves. A sort of 'well what did you expect?' They went into the game with different goals.


To be fair, 40k is a genuinely gakky game for competition.

40k is more like an MMO than it is like StarCraft, Counter-Strike or League of Legends (in that achieving competitive balance is a fairly low priority compared to other things for the game designers). When was the last time you saw an MMO competitive PVP tournament with prize money?

From this narrative player's perspective, competitive players feel a bit like they are trying to do competitive PVP in D&D 3.5. talk about a waste of time!


no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/23 17:40:46


Post by: TangoTwoBravo


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
ERJAK wrote:

Unless you don't care about theme?

Your enjoyment of play in 40k is absolutely NOT any more valid or righteous because you focus on narrative, presentation, and/or lore more than you focus on gameplay.

People in the 40k community get this insane idea that enjoying the game FOR the game is this inherently inferior level of participation than narratively focused play. As if you bringing poorly constructed armies and giving your Characters names makes you a more enlightened being.

It doesn't, it's just another (perfectly valid) way to play.

The only time this becomes a problem is when the two groups are forced to intermix. Narrative players forced to play competitively minded players and vice versa frequently ends in frustration for both parties. Good, interesting, friendly games can be had but it can go badly, fast.

When narrative players walk away with a sour taste its because they believe that their opponent was behaving in an exploitative way. Which is true in some cases but the majority of the time it comes down to their own deliberate choice to favor theme over efficiency, which is NOT the competitive player's fault.

When competitive players walk away from negative games like this, the feeling is often that their time was wasted. That the narrative player didn't "try". Or in more extreme cases it can be a sense that the opponent brought it on themselves. A sort of 'well what did you expect?' They went into the game with different goals.


To be fair, 40k is a genuinely gakky game for competition.

40k is more like an MMO than it is like StarCraft, Counter-Strike or League of Legends (in that achieving competitive balance is a fairly low priority compared to other things for the game designers). When was the last time you saw an MMO competitive PVP tournament with prize money?

From this narrative player's perspective, competitive players feel a bit like they are trying to do competitive PVP in D&D 3.5. talk about a waste of time!


So they are trying to have fun wrong? I think that it is up to them to decide if they are wasting their time. Maybe people enjoy playing "competitively", and unless they are busting into your narrative game I don't see the problem.

Narrative works great when you have two like-minded players. I tend to find, though, that there are barriers to this. People have a different narrative vision, which make it hard, but not impossible, to find common ground. The more specific the narrative requirements of a player the harder it is to find that common ground. I can have great "narrative games" with my son or close friends. At the FLGS on 40K Saturday, though, it is Matched Play under GT conditions unless otherwise specified. Various narrative campaigns have begun with great intentions and foundered after two weeks at my FLGS over the years. Pick-up games under tourney (Matched Play) conditions, though, have been the staple of our games.

Competitive matched play, for all of its flaws and imperfections, does provide a common framework, a lingua franca, for gamers to play without having to work too hard finding that common ground. A stranger and I may have different views on what makes a good game of 40K, but we can meet at the FLGS and have a game of Matched Play without too much negotiation. Matched Play bridges our vision of the game with an attempt at fairness at the core. It is not always successful, but at least we can blame the game designers instead of each other if there is a problem!


no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/23 17:45:46


Post by: ZebioLizard2


 Galef wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
 Crimson wrote:
Like I said in the edit there could be stuff like some bespoke units characters, relics and stratagems, but there doesn't need to be subfaction trait to be applied to every unit.

And for several editions most armies didn't have subfaction rules. People still played different hive fleets, craftworlds etc, they just chose the units they felt were appropriate for the army's theme, and painted them in correct colours. And it was perfectly fine. More than fine; it was preferable to the current layered rules bloat and balancing nightmare.
Well there are consolidationists, and then there's you I guess.

Your ideas are anti-choice and anti-fun.
I'm with Crimson on this. Having played since 4th ed, subfaction RULES are still relatively new and unnecessary.
Back in the day, if you wanted a Salamanders army, just take plenty of Flamers and meltas.
You want a Saim-hann Eldar list? Jetbikes, jetbikes everywhere!

-
It seems there was a 3rd edition subfaction list for Salamanders and entire lists for Chaos, Eldar, and some others like some Imperial Guard. Funny that! It seems like 4th edition was just a mistake that curtailed a lot of fun rules.


no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/23 18:22:09


Post by: deviantduck


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
When was the last time you saw an MMO competitive PVP tournament with prize money?

From this narrative player's perspective, competitive players feel a bit like they are trying to do competitive PVP in D&D 3.5. talk about a waste of time!
I'll just go ahead and put this here. https://worldofwarcraft.com/en-us/esports/arena


no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/23 18:23:42


Post by: Unit1126PLL


Fair enough! You can compete in anything, it is true.


no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/23 18:27:58


Post by: Hecaton


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
From this narrative player's perspective, competitive players feel a bit like they are trying to do competitive PVP in D&D 3.5. talk about a waste of time!


We actually did that for a while... when you're a teenager this stuff makes more sense lol


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
It seems there was a 3rd edition subfaction list for Salamanders and entire lists for Chaos, Eldar, and some others like some Imperial Guard. Funny that! It seems like 4th edition was just a mistake that curtailed a lot of fun rules.


While the 3.5 Chaos codex had some balance issues, it was amazing for customizability and flavor.


no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/23 18:31:43


Post by: Unit1126PLL


Hecaton wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
From this narrative player's perspective, competitive players feel a bit like they are trying to do competitive PVP in D&D 3.5. talk about a waste of time!


We actually did that for a while... when you're a teenager this stuff makes more sense lol


I have done it before as well, also as a teenager. It is why I chose that example - turned out to be a colossal waste of time when the "best build" was found. All the skill in the world meant nothing against a stealth-wizard.


no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/23 18:36:56


Post by: Verthane


 JohnHwangDD wrote:
 Irbis wrote:
 Verthane wrote:
This change is fine for armies like Grey Knights where all of the subfactions look the same, but really sucks for Space Marines...I have over 3000 points of Space Marines, but because I chose for artistic reasons to paint up different chapters, I now have an illegal army. I'm not going to say "those models that are clearly Space Wolves are pretending to be Salamanders". I'm sure some folks would though - if that works for you and your opponents then great.

Illegal how? Just tell your opponent 'my whole army uses Salamander rules'. There, simple, case closed. Much easier for your opponent too.


If I roll up with what a 13th Company of Space Wolves painted and modeled by 'Eavy Metal, such that every model is using SW-unique bits throughout, not a single bit of generic SM anywhere to be seen, then my opponent has every right to expect it to play as 13th Company. When the models are that distinctive, saying 'my Space Wolf army counts as Salamanders' is a clear violation of both the spirit and letter of WYSIWYG, and no different than saying 'my Eldar army counts as Salamanders.'

It's not easier for the opponent, because they are playing against a proxy army when they shouldn't have to. It's a visual misdirection and confusion for those players who are invested into the interaction of lore and rules, knowing in detail what 13th Company looks like and how it's supposed to play. Such misdirection is a bigger harm to high level players and has absolutely no place in any tournament setting. At a minimum, such players should be ZERO'd for painting (not WYSIWYG) and potentially sanctioned on the tabletop when they do something that doesn't match how the model would perform. As an opponent, I do not want to play against an army that forces me to remember that it's not what it looks like. If were still playing competitively, and I had to play against such an army, I would automatically ZERO their Sports and Painting scores.

GW really should force players to play as what they've painted. If someone paints as Blood Angels, then they need to play as Blood Angels, simple as that. If they want to play as something else, and don't want to buy a a new army, then they can repaint their army.


I agree, it absolutely shouldn't be done. Which is why I'm so pissed that my army is now illegal. There wasn't anything cancerous about using tactical marines and terminators from two or three different chapters together (tacticals aren't competitive in any chapter at all, and terminators only in Dark Angels, of which I have zero!), but 'ere we go lad your army can't be used. Hope you buy our Chapter Approved book!


no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/23 18:43:24


Post by: carldooley


That moment when you realize that people are complaining about building lists in the same way I have since 3rd.


no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/23 19:56:58


Post by: Void__Dragon


 Gert wrote:
Pot. Kettle. Have you met?


Elaborate on how this is an example of pot meets kettle my friend.


no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/23 20:42:33


Post by: JohnHwangDD


 Verthane wrote:
 JohnHwangDD wrote:
If I roll up with what a 13th Company of Space Wolves painted and modeled by 'Eavy Metal, such that every model is using SW-unique bits throughout, not a single bit of generic SM anywhere to be seen, then my opponent has every right to expect it to play as 13th Company. When the models are that distinctive, saying 'my Space Wolf army counts as Salamanders' is a clear violation of both the spirit and letter of WYSIWYG, and no different than saying 'my Eldar army counts as Salamanders.'

It's not easier for the opponent, because they are playing against a proxy army when they shouldn't have to. It's a visual misdirection and confusion for those players who are invested into the interaction of lore and rules, knowing in detail what 13th Company looks like and how it's supposed to play. Such misdirection is a bigger harm to high level players and has absolutely no place in any tournament setting. At a minimum, such players should be ZERO'd for painting (not WYSIWYG) and potentially sanctioned on the tabletop when they do something that doesn't match how the model would perform. As an opponent, I do not want to play against an army that forces me to remember that it's not what it looks like. If were still playing competitively, and I had to play against such an army, I would automatically ZERO their Sports and Painting scores.

GW really should force players to play as what they've painted. If someone paints as Blood Angels, then they need to play as Blood Angels, simple as that. If they want to play as something else, and don't want to buy a a new army, then they can repaint their army.


I agree, it absolutely shouldn't be done. Which is why I'm so pissed that my army is now illegal. There wasn't anything cancerous about using tactical marines and terminators from two or three different chapters together (tacticals aren't competitive in any chapter at all, and terminators only in Dark Angels, of which I have zero!), but 'ere we go lad your army can't be used. Hope you buy our Chapter Approved book!


It's unfortunate, but at least your army is still playable in non-Tournament games.

I've had multiple armies dropped entirely, as in bought models, and then no rules whatsoever in the subsequent editions. It's been at least a decade since Dogs of War went from having a WFB 5th Edition Army Book, to a woefully underpowered WFB 6th-7th Edition Ravening Hordes pamphlet, to formal desupport in 8th Edition; they simply do not exist as a playable anything in Age of Sigmar. My Kroot suffered a similar fate, but I was lucky enough to sell them off. Since then, I've stopped buying GW and shrunk my armies.

If I were in your shoes, I'd look to reconfigure the army via sales & trades.


no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/23 21:51:14


Post by: redux


Well, it looks like I'm going to be tossing my "That's so Raven" list in the bin. Sad that Raven Guard and Raven Wing can't play together.


no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/23 21:56:31


Post by: ERJAK


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Hecaton wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
From this narrative player's perspective, competitive players feel a bit like they are trying to do competitive PVP in D&D 3.5. talk about a waste of time!


We actually did that for a while... when you're a teenager this stuff makes more sense lol


I have done it before as well, also as a teenager. It is why I chose that example - turned out to be a colossal waste of time when the "best build" was found. All the skill in the world meant nothing against a stealth-wizard.


To be perfectly honest, narrative play seems like a giant waste of time to me. If you want to write fanfic, there are much cheaper ways to go about it.


no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/23 22:24:54


Post by: Unit1126PLL


ERJAK wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Hecaton wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
From this narrative player's perspective, competitive players feel a bit like they are trying to do competitive PVP in D&D 3.5. talk about a waste of time!


We actually did that for a while... when you're a teenager this stuff makes more sense lol


I have done it before as well, also as a teenager. It is why I chose that example - turned out to be a colossal waste of time when the "best build" was found. All the skill in the world meant nothing against a stealth-wizard.


To be perfectly honest, narrative play seems like a giant waste of time to me. If you want to write fanfic, there are much cheaper ways to go about it.


Well, yes, but the point isn't to write my story that I want to tell. Rather, it is to collaboratively write a story with a group, incorporating randomness and (ostensibly) ensuring some amount of faithfulness to the original universe (assuming the rules truly reflect what actually would occur).

You know, kinda like D&D.


no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/24 01:42:00


Post by: Gert


 Void__Dragon wrote:

Elaborate on how this is an example of pot meets kettle my friend.

We're talking about people arguing over rules for a game of toy soldiers. Anyone telling anyone else to find "real" things to be mad about needs to take a look in the mirror.


no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/24 02:35:06


Post by: AegisFate


 Da Boss wrote:
I don't really understand stuff like the Ad Mech Ork proxies shown above. If you want to play Orks with a tech bent, make a list around big meks, stompas, gorkanauts, dreads and kans and lootas and all that. Orks have loads of options for a scrap-tech army.

Ad Mech to Dark Mech makes sense to me, because that's a background faction that has no representation in the rules, but tech-orks absolutely do have representation in the rules.

Seems like this only happens because Ad Mech are really strong rules wise?


From what I recall of this army back when I thankfully didn't play against it at a local RTT that we happened to be reporting ITC points back in the halcyon days of 7th edition, it was War Convocation so he was doing it purely for all the special rules and bonuses. Further continuing along that track as well, ironically he cheated in that selfsame event because he didn't even confirm the Acastus Porphyrion had released rules and didn't realize the battlescribe data file had a transcribed profile someone took from a picture from a sheet of paper at a FW Open Day.


no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/24 03:15:14


Post by: Kanluwen


...and that the War Convocation literally couldn't frigging take any of those special Knights.


no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/24 05:12:58


Post by: Void__Dragon


 Gert wrote:

We're talking about people arguing over rules for a game of toy soldiers. Anyone telling anyone else to find "real" things to be mad about needs to take a look in the mirror.


No my friend, you are. As far as I could tell that is just about his only post in this thread, so how can you insinuate he's a hypocrite?

Furthermore, your assertion only works if one assumes that "arguing over toy soldiers" and " shilling for a multi-billion dollar company because they are losing money from customers who refuse to be nickel-and-dimed" are equally trivial. I'd assert they are not, the latter is a far more trivial activity tbh.


no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/24 05:18:32


Post by: FabricatorGeneralMike


Leo_the_Rat wrote:
Here's a picture of Root's "Ad mech" army from the LVO:

https://www.frontlinegaming.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Matt-Roots-army.jpg

All I can say is, "WTF!? If I had to face that there's no way I could decode which model is what and still concentrate on my own tactics and the time I had to play. This would slow my play to a crawl. And the worst part is I don't really play a lot, I can only imagine how off putting this would be for a "serious" competitor.


I really really hope that Lucius Warhound is 3d printed or 'paperhammer'.... sad to think if that was a legit FW/ resin model. Yup if I was playing against that army in a turney I would go cool painting and conversions.... 0 comp and call a TO over and go WTF rly?


no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/24 05:18:36


Post by: Hecaton


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I have done it before as well, also as a teenager. It is why I chose that example - turned out to be a colossal waste of time when the "best build" was found. All the skill in the world meant nothing against a stealth-wizard.


Well I mean optimally the best build was a really sneaky character with a Murlynd's Spoon. Win via starvation.


no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/24 10:37:18


Post by: Gert


 Void__Dragon wrote:

No my friend, you are. As far as I could tell that is just about his only post in this thread, so how can you insinuate he's a hypocrite?

Furthermore, your assertion only works if one assumes that "arguing over toy soldiers" and " shilling for a multi-billion dollar company because they are losing money from customers who refuse to be nickel-and-dimed" are equally trivial. I'd assert they are not, the latter is a far more trivial activity tbh.

If they specifically came into this thread just to have a go at someone who doesn't want to break the law, I would argue they need to take their own advice.
And for the record Dystartes wasn't "shilling" for GW, although that you see their post as such tells me a lot about you. Battlescribe makes mistakes constantly with its rules content and secondhand rules grabs aren't always accurate. A friend of mine once went online for the 5th Ed Warlord Titan rules, despite me having the Apoc book with said rules, and used a datasheet that listed all of the Warlords characteristics and weapon profiles as better than they actually were (i.e. BS 10 compared to like 5 or guns having double the shots). An event I'm going to this year has made it explicitly clear that all rules must be from firsthand sources as secondhand sources have proven to cause a lot of rules mistakes in their previous events. Even ignoring all of that, piracy is a crime and although it's not enforced at all, Dakka also has a rule against promoting piracy.


no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/24 18:13:42


Post by: Galef


 Platuan4th wrote:
 Galef wrote:
I'm with Crimson on this. Having played since 4th ed, subfaction RULES are still relatively new and unnecessary.
Back in the day, if you wanted a Salamanders army, just take plenty of Flamers and meltas.
You want a Saim-hann Eldar list? Jetbikes, jetbikes everywhere!


Having played in 3rd(starting in 2nd), back in the day both of those armies had their own supplement rules. Salamanders had their own psychic power, their own wargear(including one that let them ignore Instant Death), I3, and a couple other rules(IIRC, they could force opponents to play one more round beyond the random roll). Saim-hann as well had a number of rules that differentiated them from "normal" Eldar including moving Jetbikes to Troops.

Subfaction rules are way older than you think.
You should know what I mean. Sure there's been a handful of books released over past editions to give a bit of flavor to a FEW factions.
By the 4th ed Eldar codex all those Saim-hann special rules were gone.

In any case, is was not the STANDARD for every Codex to include a minimum of 5 subfactions (which is what I am saying should go, btw)
If you played Eldar, it was just Eldar. Not Alaitoc or Saim-hann by rules, but by paint job.
If you played Codex Marines, it was just that. There was no discernable difference between UMs, Sallies or White Scars other than the units you wanted to bring for theme only.
If you wanted to play "special" Marines, there were whole other Codices for that (BA/DA/SW etc).

I'm not opposed to themed Armies, but the implementation of those themes shouldn't give any in-game advantage over other themes. But that's exactly what has happened.

-


no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/24 19:04:32


Post by: VladimirHerzog


"Chapter" fluff should come from the units you chose to include in your list IMO.

Wanna play Iron hands, Iyanden, load on up on Dreadnoughts/Wraiths
Wanna play White scars/Saim-hann, load up on bikes
Wanna play Raven guard/Alaitoc, load up on Scouts/Rangers

There is no need to get completely different army rules just because of what flavor of paint you picked. Removing subfactions would also help making the game actually balanceable (who am i kidding, its GW, even if the game only had a single unit, they'd find a way to feth up balance)


no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/24 19:08:29


Post by: Galef


 VladimirHerzog wrote:
"Chapter" fluff should come from the units you chose to include in your list IMO.

Wanna play Iron hands, Iyandem, load on up on Dreadnoughts/Wraiths
Wanna play White scars/Saim-hann, load up on bikes
Wanna play Raven guard/Alaitoc, load up on Scouts/Rangers

There is no need to get completely different army rules just because of what flavor of paint you picked. Removing subfactions would also help making the game actually balanceable (who am i kidding, its GW, even if the game only had a single unit, they'd find a way to feth up balance)


BINGO!

-


no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/24 19:11:15


Post by: Ventus


 Gert wrote:
An event I'm going to this year has made it explicitly clear that all rules must be from firsthand sources as secondhand sources have proven to cause a lot of rules mistakes in their previous events.


An interesting problem. Can you even count stuff like GW's app as a first hand source? Historically it's been riddled with errors, certainly far more than on Wahapedia (Battlescribe is obviously just a dumpster fire if you're using it for rules, but why would you). Even paper books aren't trustworthy if you don't have the mandatory appended FAQ.


no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/24 19:11:57


Post by: Rihgu


It's also possible to play a faction without self-flanderizing it to mean "spam one specific unit category".

White Scars with 2 tactical squads in rhinos, a tactical squad in a drop pod, an assault squad, a big bike squad and an attack bike is just as valid as
"LOL White Scars love bikes, me take 400 bikes"


no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/24 19:19:33


Post by: VladimirHerzog


Rihgu wrote:
It's also possible to play a faction without self-flanderizing it to mean "spam one specific unit category".

White Scars with 2 tactical squads in rhinos, a tactical squad in a drop pod, an assault squad, a big bike squad and an attack bike is just as valid as
"LOL White Scars love bikes, me take 400 bikes"


well yeah, but i reduced it to one unit just to make the point obvious. Clearly the list you present is a white scars list, no question about it.
It doesn't NEED advance+charge to feel like white scars


no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/24 19:37:16


Post by: Gert


 Ventus wrote:
An interesting problem. Can you even count stuff like GW's app as a first hand source? Historically it's been riddled with errors, certainly far more than on Wahapedia (Battlescribe is obviously just a dumpster fire if you're using it for rules, but why would you). Even paper books aren't trustworthy if you don't have the mandatory appended FAQ.

I have no data to back up whether or not GW's apps have more issues than a website that pirates the rules and I doubt anyone else does either.
I prefer my opponents to have hard copies of their rules to hand as it's more appropriate IMO to ask to see a rulebook than it is to handle a personal device.
People use Battlescribe because they use it to make lists with the idea being that they have one-stop access to their list + army rules. I know I've used it previously before switching back to books as a personal choice.
With regards to books, if you're using them in anything more than a supremely casual environment then I've found that people use the FAQs anyway. It's a bit weird that you would say that the books containing the rules aren't trustworthy because they *might* contain errors yet the second-hand sources that copy directly from these books seemingly are trustworthy. Regardless, the event in question mandates all rules must be the up to date copy and all players should have relevant FAQ documents. It's a non-issue.
I don't really care that much about whether or not people choose to use digital or physical rules, although it would be my preference that the rules were sourced legally and not from a second-hand source.


no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/24 20:19:03


Post by: ZebioLizard2


 Galef wrote:
 Platuan4th wrote:
 Galef wrote:
I'm with Crimson on this. Having played since 4th ed, subfaction RULES are still relatively new and unnecessary.
Back in the day, if you wanted a Salamanders army, just take plenty of Flamers and meltas.
You want a Saim-hann Eldar list? Jetbikes, jetbikes everywhere!


Having played in 3rd(starting in 2nd), back in the day both of those armies had their own supplement rules. Salamanders had their own psychic power, their own wargear(including one that let them ignore Instant Death), I3, and a couple other rules(IIRC, they could force opponents to play one more round beyond the random roll). Saim-hann as well had a number of rules that differentiated them from "normal" Eldar including moving Jetbikes to Troops.

Subfaction rules are way older than you think.
You should know what I mean. Sure there's been a handful of books released over past editions to give a bit of flavor to a FEW factions.
By the 4th ed Eldar codex all those Saim-hann special rules were gone.
And it was the wrong choice, and they've changed the implementation since. From 5th editions rather atrocious Special Characters = Chapter to finally giving proper rules down the line through various books to finally implementation through proper codex then supplements

4th editions awful codex mistakes is not to be shared. It is the edition of the Gav Thorpe Chaos Dex afterall.


no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/24 21:10:18


Post by: ZebioLizard2



As far Dakka having a rule against promoting piracy, where? I actually looked for it last night but couldn't find it.

https://www.dakkadakka.com/core/forum_rules.jsp

Can you?

The dakka forums are growing faster and faster and are the bread and butter of the website. They still maintain quality and a fair level of freedom compared to many other forums. Our most popular forum is News and Rumours, but Dakka Discussions and 40k army lists are very popular too. There are some important rules to consider (no spam, no swearing, no piracy) but everybody gets on well enough thanks to our great moderation team.


If you go to the main page and look to the left. I'm sure there's going to be some pedantry against promoting vs actual piracy but I just wanted to point out where it was.


no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/24 21:18:50


Post by: Leo_the_Rat


@void dragon- why don't you take your argument with girt out of this thread? It has noting to do with the topic and it just clutters things up for the rest of us.


no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/24 22:22:09


Post by: H.B.M.C.


 VladimirHerzog wrote:
Wanna play Iron hands, Iyanden, load on up on Dreadnoughts/Wraiths
Wanna play White scars/Saim-hann, load up on bikes
Wanna play Raven guard/Alaitoc, load up on Scouts/Rangers
'Counts As' is bull gak.

The game is better when different factions are actually different factions, and not just paint jobs.


no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/24 22:35:39


Post by: JNAProductions


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
 VladimirHerzog wrote:
Wanna play Iron hands, Iyanden, load on up on Dreadnoughts/Wraiths
Wanna play White scars/Saim-hann, load up on bikes
Wanna play Raven guard/Alaitoc, load up on Scouts/Rangers
'Counts As' is bull gak.

The game is better when different factions are actually different factions, and not just paint jobs.
Since when are Tyranids and Marines identical?

Or do you mean White Scars, of which there are about 1-2,000 in the Galaxy, should play massively different from Ultramarines, of which there’s a similar amount?


no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/24 22:37:46


Post by: H.B.M.C.


That's a terrible argument. Try again.


no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/24 22:40:57


Post by: JNAProductions


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
That's a terrible argument. Try again.
Why?

What makes it a bad argument?

I like subfaction rules. But I don’t dismiss arguments against them out of hand-and Marines are LEAST deserving of them, because there’s literally less Marines in the Galaxy than soldiers on real Earth.


no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/24 22:45:34


Post by: H.B.M.C.


Marines are the stars of the show. The fluff considerations that there are a tiny amount of them are irrelevant to the game, especially given that the fluff spends more time emphasising just how many different types of Marine there are, rather than their abundance (or lack thereof).

Marines have been set up to come in all sorts of flavours, with endless and colourful designs.

But there's only 1000 Ultramarines and 1000 Salamanders and 1000 Blood Angels, so... let's all make them vanilla.

No.

These are the main characters. These are 'Your Dudes' more than any other faction in the game. The fact that there are so many different types is an argument in favour of making them different - certainly more than any Hive Fleet or Guard Regiment.

Sorry, but as someone who lived through the terror of 3.5 Chaos to 4th 'Chaos', I find the calls for "no subfactions" from people here to be utterly repugnant, and the attempted justifications for said faction removal to be completely devoid of merit.



no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/24 22:47:25


Post by: JNAProductions


It’s possible to say “I disagree” without saying “You’re wrong” you know.

Again-I like subfaction rules. They should be done better, but conceptually, I think they’re good. But that’s an OPINION. Other people feel differently-and they’re not wrong to feel that way.


no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/24 23:01:04


Post by: ZebioLizard2


I'm the sort that feels there should be more subfaction rules. Main dudes for space marines or not. Every faction should feel like someones main faction if they're getting a bit of focus. Though I do know this has some issues with some groups like Custodes.


no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/24 23:01:27


Post by: Voss


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Marines are the stars of the show. The fluff considerations that there are a tiny amount of them are irrelevant to the game, especially given that the fluff spends more time emphasising just how many different types of Marine there are, rather than their abundance (or lack thereof).

Marines have been set up to come in all sorts of flavours, with endless and colourful designs.

But there's only 1000 Ultramarines and 1000 Salamanders and 1000 Blood Angels, so... let's all make them vanilla.

No.

These are the main characters. These are 'Your Dudes' more than any other faction in the game. The fact that there are so many different types is an argument in favour of making them different - certainly more than any Hive Fleet or Guard Regiment.

Sorry, but as someone who lived through the terror of 3.5 Chaos to 4th 'Chaos', I find the calls for "no subfactions" from people here to be utterly repugnant, and the attempted justifications for said faction removal to be completely devoid of merit.


Yeah, I don't agree at all. The special rules 'necessity' makes them much less 'your dudes,' not more. Or at least less 'my dudes.' My first space marines were Dark Angels (in their proper Black) and Space Wolves- back when the rules were exactly the same as every other chapter. So my forces were _mine_. I did all the lifting for what made them tick and what made them an army- GW just provide a suggested paint job.
Since then they've been Flanderized, afflicted with special rules and made absurdly unrecognizable. Multiple times. They aren't my armies any more, they're just bad jokes. And a lot of that is the special rules bloat that has accumulated over the years, and turned them into weird mockeries of someone else's ideas.

Pass.


no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/24 23:12:58


Post by: H.B.M.C.


And I think that's nonsense.

Differentiating Marines - and this applies to Chaos Marines as well - is a big appeal of the game. You're playing things that are different to one another.

I see it as no different to Craftworlds or Ork Clans.

As for Flanderisation? That's the Wolves and partially the Blood Angels, and not a fault of the rules, but the fault of the fluff writers who couldn't get the "OMG! WOLVES!" crap out of their head and went too far. I don't think that's a big enough problem to dump the entire system and return everything to bland, generic, flavourless 'counts as' armies.

Yeah. Feth that noise...



no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/24 23:15:53


Post by: alextroy


VladimirHerzog wrote:"Chapter" fluff should come from the units you chose to include in your list IMO.

Wanna play Iron hands, Iyanden, load on up on Dreadnoughts/Wraiths
Wanna play White scars/Saim-hann, load up on bikes
Wanna play Raven guard/Alaitoc, load up on Scouts/Rangers

There is no need to get completely different army rules just because of what flavor of paint you picked. Removing subfactions would also help making the game actually balanceable (who am i kidding, its GW, even if the game only had a single unit, they'd find a way to feth up balance)
You, sir, have missed the point of subfaction rules. It can't be as simple as "if you like that subfaction then pick these units" because the point is the different subfactions actually prosecute war a bit differently. Let's take this example:
Rihgu wrote:IWhite Scars with 2 tactical squads in rhinos, a tactical squad in a drop pod, an assault squad, a big bike squad and an attack bike
While this does lean into the White Scars method of mobile warfare, this would not be an invalid force for most chapters of space marines. But should these identical forces hit the battlefield, how a White Scars force acts would be much different from an Ultramarines or an Iron Hands force. That is what the subfaction rules are trying to capture.

  • White Scars will quickly get to grips with the enemy while using hit and run tactics to avoid being bogged down by the enemy
  • Ultramarines will execute a disciplined attacked, steadily moving into an optimal attack position and then using squad tactics to fall back as necessary to frustrate the enemy counter-offensive.
  • Iron Hands will use their resilience to weather the storm of their opponents attacks while destroying them.

  • Without subfaction traits, you can't really get that difference on the battlefield while using the same units. IMO this is why GW has decided to ban multiple subfactions in competitive play. The rules were created for thematic gameplay purposes, not for power. Allowing multiple subfactions allowed the players to concentrate on the power rather than the theme.


    no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/24 23:21:45


    Post by: Galef


    I feel like I should clarify my point a bit.
    I also like subfaction rules. My son uses Salamanders and I use a custom Craftworld.

    But we play for fun. We aren't trying to build the absolute best lists to utterly crush one another.

    I haven't played competitively since 7th ed. Mostly because of other life stuff, but now it's because there's just TOO MUCH in the game to ever be confident again.
    I'm ok with losing more than half the games I play, but never because I was blindsided by rules I had no idea existed. And there are now entire ARMY Factions that didn't exist back in 7th.
    I worked really hard in 5th, 6th and 7th to accumulate a decent knowledge of the game, including what other factions were capable of. 8th/9th pretty much invalidated all that effort and I don't have time anymore to start over.

    Competitive play is literally "off the table" for me as a result. Winning is no longer about who has the most well built list, tactics and experience with said list/tactics, but about who can keep up with all the newest hotness.

    Subfaction rules are just a part of the bloat. I was accustomed to 20ish Armies to keep track of. But with subfactions, there are now hundreds.
    That's fine for a small group of players who are going to face the same handful of those over and over.
    But for tournament play that just becomes real work or else you'll lose every game.

    So when I say "I think subfaction rules should be gone", I really mean for competitive/matched/tournament play. Not only is it easier to balance factions when there is LESS to account for (rock/paper/scissors is balanced specifically for this reason), but competitive players will still find broken combos to exploit, so it's not like they'll miss some extra rules that were meant to only add flavor in the first place

    Narrative/Crusade games among friends is perfectly fine to have a bunch of extra fluffy rules to play with.

    -


    no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/24 23:31:41


    Post by: TheBestBucketHead


    I'm of the opinion that subfaction rules shouldn't make certain units better in one subfaction over the other. Different is fine, but I'd prefer it be based around what and how much they can take, like making bikers troops for instance, but making them different is fine. I despise just making units better for being one subfaction or another.

    In Infinity, I can run a vanilla combined army list using whatever models I want, but am seriously limited to how many I can bring, but I can take big leaders called the Aspects. If I run, say, the Shasvastii, I can run a whole bunch of extra guerilla warfare, invisible, camouflaged units with smoke and visor tactics that I would be severely limited on with the vanilla army, but now I can't take Daturazi Witch Soldiers, with a chain gun for auto hits, decent melee, and an extra impetuous order, and I can't take the Avatar, the big, half a list Aspect, that is the toughest and most expensive model in the game.

    This is achieved by having variety in the units you can bring in the main faction, but limiting all but the most basic to be very few in numbers, and then allowing the subfaction to shine.


    no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/25 00:41:04


    Post by: JohnHwangDD


     VladimirHerzog wrote:
    "Chapter" fluff should come from the units you chose to include in your list IMO.

    Wanna play Iron hands, Iyanden, load on up on Dreadnoughts/Wraiths
    Wanna play White scars/Saim-hann, load up on bikes
    Wanna play Raven guard/Alaitoc, load up on Scouts/Rangers

    There is no need to get completely different army rules just because of what flavor of paint you picked. Removing subfactions would also help making the game actually balanceable (who am i kidding, its GW, even if the game only had a single unit, they'd find a way to feth up balance)


    If it were me, I'd have subfactions go back to tweaking the FOC as was typical in the 3E-5E Codices. That seemed to work just fine!

    As far as balance goes, someone will always be the best, and someone will always be the worst. That's how things are. Having several dozen only makes it that much more difficult to minimize the spread between the best and worst.


    no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/25 00:52:42


    Post by: H.B.M.C.


     JohnHwangDD wrote:
    That seemed to work just fine!
    Did it?

    I seem to recall people having a lot of problems with the Iron Warriors.


    no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/25 01:25:01


    Post by: Daedalus81


    Speaking of subfactions -- CSM leaks!

    No marks to be seen, so a bit of sad panda, but the rest looks spiffy. Alpha Legion are conspicuously absent.

    Spoiler:
    Take it with a grain of salt, but some potential CSM leaks have finally been posted on the Bolter and Chainsword forums:

    (Edited for formatting and readability)

    "Ok so here is a bunch of info I managed to come by from secure sources:

    CSM Doctrine:

    Exact same thing as SM, except replace +1AP with exploding 6s (unmodified hits)

    Icons:

    Vengeance: +1 Combat Attrition

    Wrath: +1AP melee

    Flame: +1AP shooting

    Excess: +1 to hit in melee

    Despair: 6s to hit automatically wound



    All legions are getting 6 warlord traits, 8 relics, and 8 stratagems



    Legion traits: (Supposedly apply to all units)

    Nightlords:

    -2LD & -1CA @ 9''

    +1 to advance & +1 to charge

    +1 to wound when using a pistol/assault/melee against a unit that is below half strength or below LD 6



    Iron Warriors:

    Ignores cover

    Reduce AP1/2 by 1

    +1 to wound using heavy/grenade against vehicles/buildings/units in cover

    Word Bearers:

    Charges/Heroic Intervention = reroll hits

    5+++ vs MW

    When using a pistol/assault/melee, 6s to wound cause 1MW (capped @ 3MW per unit)



    Black Legion:

    Ignore Combat Attrition

    +1 to hit after charging or shooting closest unit

    Rapid fire/assault/pistol cause exploding 5s to hit



    Emperor's Children (4chain leak, not from my sources)

    in the book

    have a way of consistently hitting on 2s (even with thunder hammers)

    World Eaters

    Not in the codex

    Datasheet info:

    Chosen

    3w

    can use Thunder Hammer

    Mutilators

    no longer in the book

    Warp Talons

    2w

    lost cancel overwatch

    gained no fallback

    5a (these are total with claws)

    Raptors

    still have the -1LD aura

    +2a

    Obliterators

    can shoot units that are in engagement range with them (like wraithguard)

    in melee they have powerfists without the -1 to hit

    3 different shooting profiles

    Havocs

    exactly the same as right now but 2w

    Stratagems

    something to ignore invuls (4chan leak, so take with a grain of salt, leak said EC chosen could destory custodes hitting with TH on a 2+ and with strat ignore invul saves)

    NL deepstrike strat for jump packs, DS turn 1

    NL vox scream disables AURAS

    Other:

    IW ectoplasma forgefiend can hit on 2+ and does flat 4 damage

    New cultist unit HQ

    New mutant cultists

    No hateful assault, +1 attack to profile for all "


    no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/25 01:38:59


    Post by: Hecaton


     Daedalus81 wrote:
    Speaking of subfactions -- CSM leaks!

    No marks to be seen, so a bit of sad panda, but the rest looks spiffy. Alpha Legion are conspicuously absent.

    Spoiler:
    Take it with a grain of salt, but some potential CSM leaks have finally been posted on the Bolter and Chainsword forums:

    (Edited for formatting and readability)

    "Ok so here is a bunch of info I managed to come by from secure sources:

    CSM Doctrine:

    Exact same thing as SM, except replace +1AP with exploding 6s (unmodified hits)

    Icons:

    Vengeance: +1 Combat Attrition

    Wrath: +1AP melee

    Flame: +1AP shooting

    Excess: +1 to hit in melee

    Despair: 6s to hit automatically wound



    All legions are getting 6 warlord traits, 8 relics, and 8 stratagems



    Legion traits: (Supposedly apply to all units)

    Nightlords:

    -2LD & -1CA @ 9''

    +1 to advance & +1 to charge

    +1 to wound when using a pistol/assault/melee against a unit that is below half strength or below LD 6



    Iron Warriors:

    Ignores cover

    Reduce AP1/2 by 1

    +1 to wound using heavy/grenade against vehicles/buildings/units in cover

    Word Bearers:

    Charges/Heroic Intervention = reroll hits

    5+++ vs MW

    When using a pistol/assault/melee, 6s to wound cause 1MW (capped @ 3MW per unit)



    Black Legion:

    Ignore Combat Attrition

    +1 to hit after charging or shooting closest unit

    Rapid fire/assault/pistol cause exploding 5s to hit



    Emperor's Children (4chain leak, not from my sources)

    in the book

    have a way of consistently hitting on 2s (even with thunder hammers)

    World Eaters

    Not in the codex

    Datasheet info:

    Chosen

    3w

    can use Thunder Hammer

    Mutilators

    no longer in the book

    Warp Talons

    2w

    lost cancel overwatch

    gained no fallback

    5a (these are total with claws)

    Raptors

    still have the -1LD aura

    +2a

    Obliterators

    can shoot units that are in engagement range with them (like wraithguard)

    in melee they have powerfists without the -1 to hit

    3 different shooting profiles

    Havocs

    exactly the same as right now but 2w

    Stratagems

    something to ignore invuls (4chan leak, so take with a grain of salt, leak said EC chosen could destory custodes hitting with TH on a 2+ and with strat ignore invul saves)

    NL deepstrike strat for jump packs, DS turn 1

    NL vox scream disables AURAS

    Other:

    IW ectoplasma forgefiend can hit on 2+ and does flat 4 damage

    New cultist unit HQ

    New mutant cultists

    No hateful assault, +1 attack to profile for all "


    So are World Eaters.


    no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/25 01:58:42


    Post by: H.B.M.C.


    But Emperor's Children aren't, which is a problem.


    no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/25 02:22:57


    Post by: Eldenfirefly


     Daedalus81 wrote:
    Speaking of subfactions -- CSM leaks!

    No marks to be seen, so a bit of sad panda, but the rest looks spiffy. Alpha Legion are conspicuously absent.

    Spoiler:
    Take it with a grain of salt, but some potential CSM leaks have finally been posted on the Bolter and Chainsword forums:

    (Edited for formatting and readability)

    "Ok so here is a bunch of info I managed to come by from secure sources:

    CSM Doctrine:

    Exact same thing as SM, except replace +1AP with exploding 6s (unmodified hits)

    Icons:

    Vengeance: +1 Combat Attrition

    Wrath: +1AP melee

    Flame: +1AP shooting

    Excess: +1 to hit in melee

    Despair: 6s to hit automatically wound



    All legions are getting 6 warlord traits, 8 relics, and 8 stratagems



    Legion traits: (Supposedly apply to all units)

    Nightlords:

    -2LD & -1CA @ 9''

    +1 to advance & +1 to charge

    +1 to wound when using a pistol/assault/melee against a unit that is below half strength or below LD 6



    Iron Warriors:

    Ignores cover

    Reduce AP1/2 by 1

    +1 to wound using heavy/grenade against vehicles/buildings/units in cover

    Word Bearers:

    Charges/Heroic Intervention = reroll hits

    5+++ vs MW

    When using a pistol/assault/melee, 6s to wound cause 1MW (capped @ 3MW per unit)



    Black Legion:

    Ignore Combat Attrition

    +1 to hit after charging or shooting closest unit

    Rapid fire/assault/pistol cause exploding 5s to hit



    Emperor's Children (4chain leak, not from my sources)

    in the book

    have a way of consistently hitting on 2s (even with thunder hammers)

    World Eaters

    Not in the codex

    Datasheet info:

    Chosen

    3w

    can use Thunder Hammer

    Mutilators

    no longer in the book

    Warp Talons

    2w

    lost cancel overwatch

    gained no fallback

    5a (these are total with claws)

    Raptors

    still have the -1LD aura

    +2a

    Obliterators

    can shoot units that are in engagement range with them (like wraithguard)

    in melee they have powerfists without the -1 to hit

    3 different shooting profiles

    Havocs

    exactly the same as right now but 2w

    Stratagems

    something to ignore invuls (4chan leak, so take with a grain of salt, leak said EC chosen could destory custodes hitting with TH on a 2+ and with strat ignore invul saves)

    NL deepstrike strat for jump packs, DS turn 1

    NL vox scream disables AURAS

    Other:

    IW ectoplasma forgefiend can hit on 2+ and does flat 4 damage

    New cultist unit HQ

    New mutant cultists

    No hateful assault, +1 attack to profile for all "


    Looks spicy!!!! Me likes!


    no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/25 04:22:27


    Post by: PenitentJake


    Well, I'm going to wade in in general terms:

    Personally I like faction traits and subfaction traits for all, and I think the game loses a lot by not having them. BUT, as others have said, I see other folks point of view too... With the caveat that with or without differentiation, all factions should be equal. No difference between Order of our Martyred Lady and Bloody Rose? Conceptually, sure... But it only works if there's also no difference between Blood Angels and Space Wolves.

    If you're gonna have bespoke content for marines, you're gonna have it for everyone.

    And again, I think the BEST solution, the one that keeps as many players as possible happy is do whatever you have to do to create 40k Tournament edition where balance is the highest priority. Go ahead- curtail or eliminate subfaction rules and strats. Kick flyers and knights out of this version of the game. But leave the other modes of play intact.

    Now that my general comments are over, I want to address this post in particular:

    Voss wrote:
    [
    Yeah, I don't agree at all. The special rules 'necessity' makes them much less 'your dudes,' not more. Or at least less 'my dudes.' My first space marines were Dark Angels (in their proper Black) and Space Wolves- back when the rules were exactly the same as every other chapter. So my forces were _mine_. I did all the lifting for what made them tick and what made them an army- GW just provide a suggested paint job.
    Since then they've been Flanderized, afflicted with special rules and made absurdly unrecognizable. Multiple times. They aren't my armies any more, they're just bad jokes. And a lot of that is the special rules bloat that has accumulated over the years, and turned them into weird mockeries of someone else's ideas.

    Pass.


    The reason I wanted to address this is that the only edition of the game in history where Dark Angels and Space Wolves were the same was Rogue Trader, because they got bespoke dexes in 2nd ed and have had them ever since (though Dark Angels did share their first dex with Blood Angels). Furthermore, Deathwing fluff and company composition variations actually began with Space Hulk DURING Rogue Trader... So this idea the Space Marines were identical for more than a wink in the lifespan of this game is a bit off base.

    Now it IS true that for the early editions, MOST of the difference were based either on:1) Army composition (FOC exceptions), 2) Bespoke Units and 3) Different Loadouts
    rather than the full suite of differentiation we have today. It's also fair to point out that a decent chunk of 2nd existed BEFORE those bespoke dexes were produced. These factors means the point isn't ENTIRELY off the mark... But given that all but one edition of the game has given at least three of the SM Chapters bespoke dexes, I do think it's somewhat disingenuous to say that there was any significant period of time when marines didn't have more differentiation than every other faction in the game.

    As for whether or not the current suite of rules does reflect the lore of the faction or subfaction, or facilitates making your dudes YOUR DUDES, well it's certainly true that some factions and subfactions do that better than others. But I'd also like to point out that your interpretation of what YOUR DUDES means in the context of this game might be worth examining.

    For example, I've had to IMAGINE what the differences between Order of Our Martyred Lady and the Order of the Bloody Rose are for two decades. In that time of having no other choice but to make it all up in my head with no way but houserules to express it on the table, it's entirely possible that I have envisioned things that the creators of the game never imagined. And now, when they publish rules to reflect that, my errors of interpretation or imagination might lead me to expect that the rules would be different than what they are. And I can draw a line in the sand and say "I, who invented neither the Order of Our Martyred Lady nor the Order of the Bloody Rose, knows better than the people who DID invent those factions how they should behave on the table." The other route is to say "Obviously it's their IP, so if they say this is how the army should behave, then it is."

    There is a third road- it's the nuanced one that walks the middle road; it says neither "These Rules Are All Gak" nor "These Rules Are All The Best Thing Ever" but rather, it examines each of the bespoke rules a separate entity, finding instances where each conforms with both previous rules and established lore and where it deviates and decides based on that analysis whether a given rule is appropriate or not.

    That's the path I tend to to walk, because no answer is ever truly as simple as you can make it in a forum post.

    Anyway, just my two cents.


    no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/25 04:44:56


    Post by: Unit1126PLL


     H.B.M.C. wrote:
    Marines are the stars of the show. The fluff considerations that there are a tiny amount of them are irrelevant to the game, especially given that the fluff spends more time emphasising just how many different types of Marine there are, rather than their abundance (or lack thereof).

    Marines have been set up to come in all sorts of flavours, with endless and colourful designs.

    But there's only 1000 Ultramarines and 1000 Salamanders and 1000 Blood Angels, so... let's all make them vanilla.

    No.

    These are the main characters. These are 'Your Dudes' more than any other faction in the game. The fact that there are so many different types is an argument in favour of making them different - certainly more than any Hive Fleet or Guard Regiment.

    Sorry, but as someone who lived through the terror of 3.5 Chaos to 4th 'Chaos', I find the calls for "no subfactions" from people here to be utterly repugnant, and the attempted justifications for said faction removal to be completely devoid of merit.



    Wow that went turbo "shut up npc factions, Marines are the main characters of this multi-faction PVP game" in zero seconds flat.

    I don't think I have ever seen a better example of why non-marine players roll their eyes at Marine players.


    no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/25 04:57:22


    Post by: H.B.M.C.


     Unit1126PLL wrote:
    Wow that went turbo "shut up npc factions, Marines are the main characters of this multi-faction PVP game" in zero seconds flat.
    Only if you wilfully misinterpret what I wrote.

    My argument should be taken in the context of why Marines should have sub-factions, but not in the notion that they should and others should not. They all should*. I mean, FFS, did you somehow miss these statements?
     H.B.M.C. wrote:
    I mix'n'match different Chaos Legions/Renegade Chapters because that's the background of my army - a Khorne-leaning army of Renegades that is backed up by smaller warbands of Death Guard, Thousand Sons, Word Bearers, Iron Warriors and Alpha Legion as they all flocked towards the Daemon Prince that leads the overall army.
     H.B.M.C. wrote:
    I also very much dislike the idea of mono-Clan Ork armies.
     H.B.M.C. wrote:
    But I love having the ability to play different Chapters/Legions/Craftworlds and have them actually represented within the rules of the game. I despise 'counts as'.
     H.B.M.C. wrote:
    The game is better when different factions are actually different factions, and not just paint jobs.
     H.B.M.C. wrote:
    Differentiating Marines - and this applies to Chaos Marines as well - is a big appeal of the game. You're playing things that are different to one another. I see it as no different to Craftworlds or Ork Clans.
    If I didn't make my position clear enough then sure, that's on me, but again, the only way I see someone being able to reach the conclusion you did is if you misconstrued what I said on purpose.

    And, BTW, I am a non-Marine player. I have an army of just about every race in 40k. It's quicker to list the factions I don't play and it is the ones I do. I even have a fething Tau army, despite the disrespect** I show them. So don't try to try to tar me with the brush of just being a "Marine player".



    *Except Tau, because duh!
    **Completely justified disrespect!


    no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/25 05:09:28


    Post by: Breton


     JNAProductions wrote:


    Or do you mean White Scars, of which there are about 1-2,000 in the Galaxy, should play massively different from Ultramarines, of which there’s a similar amount?


    As both a theoretical and a practical, YES! Even the Codex chapters should play massively (depending on your definition of massively) different from each other. In a way, Speed Freaks and White Scars should play more alike than and .

    Between Chapter Tactics/Doctrines, and stratagems, they're already leaning that way. Just lean into it. And this is a generic mechanic that works for all armies. A couple what are they called "Super Doctrines" that are now often detachment abilities with battleforged Chapter Tactics requirements... a couple pre-game stratagems to shift basics around to match theme, a couple setup strats, and a couple in game strats. White Scars: For some number X CP, another some number Y Dedicated Transports and contents/Bikes/Attack Bikes/Outriders/ATVs can now Out Flank. Dark Angels already have specialist detachments (which cost CP) to give Ravenwing and Deathwing Objective Secured for a fluffy but non-standard FOC army. For UM, I don't really know - probably some number X CP to make some number Y Veteran Intercessors Troops Choices. Not something I'd thought about before and there isn't a glaring Generic SM thing for the Generic SM Chapter to turn up to 11 standing out to me. In Game strats are mostly already out there. Make <Chapter Flavor Doctrine> active this turn. Stuff like that.


    Automatically Appended Next Post:
    PenitentJake wrote:


    If you're gonna have bespoke content for marines, you're gonna have it for everyone.


    One of the reasons I generally try and pull a Xenos into the comparisons - so that point isn't lost. The same system tools that should give you a Deathwing/Ravenwing army should also give you a Wind Riders of Saim-Hann, or a White Scars Biker/transport Out Flanking encirclement army should give you an Ork Speedfreaks Mob. This should cost a couple CP during list building either through a White Scar specific strat, or the CP cost of a Specialist (second) Detach for Deathwing/Ravenwing.


    no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/25 05:47:34


    Post by: Void__Dragon


     JNAProductions wrote:
     H.B.M.C. wrote:
    That's a terrible argument. Try again.
    Why?

    What makes it a bad argument?

    I like subfaction rules. But I don’t dismiss arguments against them out of hand-and Marines are LEAST deserving of them, because there’s literally less Marines in the Galaxy than soldiers on real Earth.


    Well I mean, it's a bad argument because whether there being a thousand marines to a chapter or four hundred billion has absolutely no bearing on how different two different chapters might play/fight. Unless you're saying that their lack of numbers in the fluff means they don't deserve to have such notably different rules? I'd argue that's also frankly kind of irrelevant, because Marines might be few in number but there isn't really any disputing that they are the posterboys of the setting and the most popular faction. Them being small in number in the fluff doesn't matter much when they are easily the most-collected army in real life imo.


    no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/25 05:50:08


    Post by: Gadzilla666


    ZebioLizard2 wrote:
    Spoiler:
     Galef wrote:
     Platuan4th wrote:
     Galef wrote:
    I'm with Crimson on this. Having played since 4th ed, subfaction RULES are still relatively new and unnecessary.
    Back in the day, if you wanted a Salamanders army, just take plenty of Flamers and meltas.
    You want a Saim-hann Eldar list? Jetbikes, jetbikes everywhere!


    Having played in 3rd(starting in 2nd), back in the day both of those armies had their own supplement rules. Salamanders had their own psychic power, their own wargear(including one that let them ignore Instant Death), I3, and a couple other rules(IIRC, they could force opponents to play one more round beyond the random roll). Saim-hann as well had a number of rules that differentiated them from "normal" Eldar including moving Jetbikes to Troops.

    Subfaction rules are way older than you think.
    You should know what I mean. Sure there's been a handful of books released over past editions to give a bit of flavor to a FEW factions.
    By the 4th ed Eldar codex all those Saim-hann special rules were gone.

    And it was the wrong choice, and they've changed the implementation since. From 5th editions rather atrocious Special Characters = Chapter to finally giving proper rules down the line through various books to finally implementation through proper codex then supplements

    4th editions awful codex mistakes is not to be shared. It is the edition of the Gav Thorpe Chaos Dex afterall.

    The "4th edition" CSM codex was really the 5th edition codex. We used 3.5 for the majority of 4th, and other factions had similar support for sub-factions, like loyalists with their traits + disadvantages system. 5th is when the "streamlining" rot set in. Well, for at least the first few codexes at least. Then came Grey Knights.

    H.B.M.C. wrote:Sorry, but as someone who lived through the terror of 3.5 Chaos to 4th 'Chaos', I find the calls for "no subfactions" from people here to be utterly repugnant, and the attempted justifications for said faction removal to be completely devoid of merit.


    Same. I've had enough of "everyone is just Black Legion". The 4th edition CSM codex did more damage to the faction than anything before or after, and we're still suffering from its effects.

    H.B.M.C. wrote:
     JohnHwangDD wrote:
    That seemed to work just fine!
    Did it?

    I seem to recall people having a lot of problems with the Iron Warriors.

    The Iron Warriors FOC shenanigans wouldn't have been a problem if Obliterators had been HS instead of Elites. That's what broke that list. 4 HS options + 3 Obliterator squads was ridiculous. Obliterators have been HS in every other codex, and they should have been HS in 3.5 as well. That's what ultimately stacked the deck for Iron Warriors.


    no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/25 07:47:13


    Post by: Blackie


     H.B.M.C. wrote:
    And I think that's nonsense.

    Differentiating Marines - and this applies to Chaos Marines as well - is a big appeal of the game. You're playing things that are different to one another.



    100% this. When litterally everyone owns some kind of marines differentiating them is the key to keep things healthy and not ultra boring.

    The concept of subfactions for all armies is IMHO one of the best features of 8th-9th edition.


    no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/25 10:19:08


    Post by: JohnHwangDD


     Gadzilla666 wrote:
    The Iron Warriors FOC shenanigans wouldn't have been a problem if Obliterators had been HS instead of Elites. That's what broke that list. 4 HS options + 3 Obliterator squads was ridiculous. Obliterators have been HS in every other codex, and they should have been HS in 3.5 as well. That's what ultimately stacked the deck for Iron Warriors.


    Meh. My Eldar never had a problem with IW. Back then, I was running a nearly-optimal Eldar list and had a lot of practice dismantling those sorts of Marines that filled the meta. If it were up to me, I'd also have put Obies in HS.


    no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/25 11:10:02


    Post by: wuestenfux


    Subfaction rules have different impacts to different factions.
    Marines are just restricted to chapters which is perfectly fine.
    However, GK is restricted to just ONE detachment which makes list building rather restrictive.
    And how about real space raid for Drukhari?


    no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/25 11:54:53


    Post by: Spoletta


     wuestenfux wrote:
    Subfaction rules have different impacts to different factions.
    Marines are just restricted to chapters which is perfectly fine.
    However, GK is restricted to just ONE detachment which makes list building rather restrictive.
    And how about real space raid for Drukhari?


    GK are not limited to one single detachment, they can play as many detachments as they want as long as they are all from the same brotherhood.

    Real space raid are not affected by this change. You can play a Kabal, a Cult and a Coven in the same army without issues.
    What you can't do is play 2 different Covens.


    no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/25 12:53:04


    Post by: G00fySmiley


    I honestly think this is one of the better changes that GW could do for the game after thinking about it, it keeps getting more and more complex with individual factions within codexes and its harder and harder for your opponent to know what your army does. So many people talk about thier areas being matched play only using only current tournament formatting for terrain, scenarios etc. Personally that's not my prefered method of play, but in that kind of a meta i am unsure how people would get new players, seems a big turnoff to have to keep track of all of that after a demo game i would probably walk away and be like ... too complex back to PC gaming.

    I honestly hope 10th edition does tone down these special faction within faction rules and brings the sort of special sauce into making individual units better. As an example say you had a faction special where heavy weapons can move then shoot normally... how about just give that to a few units across armies liek devastators, heavy weapons teams, dark reapers etc. then its like a "oh that is one of those units that can do that" instead of 10 different sub factions having a specific buff through a hq, relic or strategem to do that.


    no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/25 13:06:42


    Post by: xerxeskingofking


    Voss wrote:

    Yeah, I don't agree at all. The special rules 'necessity' makes them much less 'your dudes,' not more. Or at least less 'my dudes.' My first space marines were Dark Angels (in their proper Black) and Space Wolves- back when the rules were exactly the same as every other chapter. So my forces were _mine_. I did all the lifting for what made them tick and what made them an army- GW just provide a suggested paint job.
    Since then they've been Flanderized, afflicted with special rules and made absurdly unrecognizable. Multiple times. They aren't my armies any more, they're just bad jokes. And a lot of that is the special rules bloat that has accumulated over the years, and turned them into weird mockeries of someone else's ideas.

    Pass.



    you know space wolves and dark angels have basically never been pure codex marines? like, they've had codex separate to codex: space marines for longer than codex: space marines has been a thing*? unless you've been playing since the rogue trader days of the late 80s they've been "special" and not used the standard marine rules, and frankly rogue trader is was so different that now its hard to make meaningful comparisons. marines weren't gene-engineered, Leman Russ was just Some Dude and not a demi-god son of the emperor, etc.



    *the 1st codex: space marines named as such was in 3rd edition. the 2nd edition "codex chapters" book was Codex: Ultramarines, and space wolves had thier own codex in 2nd, while dark angels shared thier 2nd editon book with blood angels in codex: angels of death.


    no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/25 13:27:33


    Post by: wuestenfux



    GK are not limited to one single detachment, they can play as many detachments as they want as long as they are all from the same brotherhood.

    Right.
    Following the wording in the codex, playing more than one detachment with the same BROTHERHOOD keyword is perfectly fine.
    But each GM or BC must be from a different brotherhood.


    no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/25 13:32:44


    Post by: Platuan4th


    xerxeskingofking wrote:

    *the 1st codex: space marines named as such was in 3rd edition. the 2nd edition "codex chapters" book was Codex: Ultramarines, and space wolves had thier own codex in 2nd, while dark angels shared thier 2nd editon book with blood angels in codex: angles of death.


    And Codex: Space Wolves was released before Codex: Ultramarines at that.


    no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/25 14:39:31


    Post by: Sunny Side Up


     wuestenfux wrote:

    GK are not limited to one single detachment, they can play as many detachments as they want as long as they are all from the same brotherhood.

    Right.
    Following the wording in the codex, playing more than one detachment with the same BROTHERHOOD keyword is perfectly fine.
    But each GM or BC must be from a different brotherhood.


    Which is the same for Marines, Drukhari, etc.. . Each Chapter Master/Show Stealer/etc.. must be from a different chapter/wych cult. Etc.. i.e. in CA22 only one in matched play.

    Hell, GSC unit-Upgrades are just flat-out one-per army even without the matched-play/GT22 restriction of only one sub-faction and apply in Crusade, etc.. , where Grey Knights, Marines, Drukhari, etc.. have no such restriction.



    no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/26 07:47:13


    Post by: Blackie


     wuestenfux wrote:
    Subfaction rules have different impacts to different factions.
    Marines are just restricted to chapters which is perfectly fine.
    However, GK is restricted to just ONE detachment which makes list building rather restrictive.


    Not really. GK don't need more slots than a battallion could provide them considering how much their units cost and how they are well spread across all the roles. They can perfectly work with max 3 HQs, FA and HS while elites are up to 6 in a battallion.


    no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/26 08:05:10


    Post by: Stormonu


     jeff white wrote:

    Personally, I think that "armies" like Custodes and Harlequins should NOT be stand alone forces, ever, not even close, and the same really for SoB. IMHO, these should be subfactions which need help from e.g. Imp Guard or CWE in order to wage war i.e. fill out 2000pt full armies. Custodes IMHO should not be anywhere near a tyranid, for example, unless there is some scenario whereby GSC infiltrates a holy reliquery too closely associated with Terra to ignore the possible invasion threat, something like that maybe, but otherwise, such factions whould be relegated to sub-faction status whereby they might fill in some unit selections for affiliated main forces without necessary penalty depending on the scenario. For instance, Harlies discover that Crons are getting too close to a webway entrance that is critical for resources used also by a CW, so they alert the CWE of the threat and accompany them to the battlefield, again without penalty. There would seem to be a number of ways that such a constraint might be implemented that remains flexible enough to accommodate varied model collections, but... heck, now that different weapons do different things by way of strategems, rather than simply by being different weapons and performing differently on the battlefield, I have been thinking that GW has zero idea how to make a decent game system, and are rather focused on how to trick out edition after edition with new card packs and gamey nast until frankly more serious hobbyists lose interest. The rest will split their time between MtG and the GW equivalent, as the actual models and the actual battlefield mean less and less.


    I agree. An imperial army should be nothing but Imperial Guard, with the option for Space Marines as an elite choice. These troops are so rare, there shouldn't be more than a squad or two of them in a battle in any given place!


    no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/26 08:28:58


    Post by: tneva82


     alextroy wrote:

    Without subfaction traits, you can't really get that difference on the battlefield while using the same units. IMO this is why GW has decided to ban multiple subfactions in competitive play. The rules were created for thematic gameplay purposes, not for power. Allowing multiple subfactions allowed the players to concentrate on the power rather than the theme.


    Yet it's still all about power. People will just focus on units that maximise subfaction rules and ignore units that don't benefit from it leading to very unthematic looking armies.

    If you give free bonuses it a) will create unthematic armies b) break the balance.

    But it sells models. Broken balance helps sales.


    no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/26 10:25:47


    Post by: Breton


     Stormonu wrote:
     jeff white wrote:

    Personally, I think that "armies" like Custodes and Harlequins should NOT be stand alone forces, ever, not even close, and the same really for SoB. IMHO, these should be subfactions which need help from e.g. Imp Guard or CWE in order to wage war i.e. fill out 2000pt full armies. Custodes IMHO should not be anywhere near a tyranid, for example, unless there is some scenario whereby GSC infiltrates a holy reliquery too closely associated with Terra to ignore the possible invasion threat, something like that maybe, but otherwise, such factions whould be relegated to sub-faction status whereby they might fill in some unit selections for affiliated main forces without necessary penalty depending on the scenario. For instance, Harlies discover that Crons are getting too close to a webway entrance that is critical for resources used also by a CW, so they alert the CWE of the threat and accompany them to the battlefield, again without penalty. There would seem to be a number of ways that such a constraint might be implemented that remains flexible enough to accommodate varied model collections, but... heck, now that different weapons do different things by way of strategems, rather than simply by being different weapons and performing differently on the battlefield, I have been thinking that GW has zero idea how to make a decent game system, and are rather focused on how to trick out edition after edition with new card packs and gamey nast until frankly more serious hobbyists lose interest. The rest will split their time between MtG and the GW equivalent, as the actual models and the actual battlefield mean less and less.


    I agree. An imperial army should be nothing but Imperial Guard, with the option for Space Marines as an elite choice. These troops are so rare, there shouldn't be more than a squad or two of them in a battle in any given place!


    I disagree with why, but yes some of the factions aren't really fleshed out enough for my tastes. Custodes don't have enough data sheets. Genestealer Cults could use some more as well. Probably other factions too. I think the Primaris movement was twofold. I think they wanted to retcon the Marines to change their stat lines etc. I also wonder if it wasn't Step 1 for Sisters revival with the Castigator release. They were already using the Rhino Hull for their vehicles. They can get the Rhino hull out of Space Marines by going Primaris, and the Land Raider hull and Contemptors then become Custodes only if/when they squat the First Born. I think that was the plan, but they were scared off by the outrage. It may still be the plan but between the outrage and what I'm betting is a gigantic drop off in First Born sales (Pandemic plus avoiding buyer's remorse) they have at least delayed it so they're not sitting on all that merch forever.


    no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/26 10:36:54


    Post by: vict0988


    tneva82 wrote:
     alextroy wrote:

    Without subfaction traits, you can't really get that difference on the battlefield while using the same units. IMO this is why GW has decided to ban multiple subfactions in competitive play. The rules were created for thematic gameplay purposes, not for power. Allowing multiple subfactions allowed the players to concentrate on the power rather than the theme.


    Yet it's still all about power. People will just focus on units that maximise subfaction rules and ignore units that don't benefit from it leading to very unthematic looking armies.

    If you give free bonuses it a) will create unthematic armies b) break the balance.

    But it sells models. Broken balance helps sales.

    Except that nobody is going to buy Scouts, nobody is going to buy Salamander Outriders... Perfect imbalance leads to sales. If the meta is Eradicators and each faction has counters for Eradicators then people buy those counters, the meta adjusts, Eradicators stop being meta and the Eradicator counters stop being meta leading to people buying new minis again until people get everything for a faction. All GW has to do to create perfect imbalance is do their best job at making the game balanced, because perfect balance is impossible with all the different stats that are in the game, perfect imbalance does not mean "herpaderp me make Eradicators OP now" or "durr what's playtesting?".


    no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/26 14:16:00


    Post by: PenitentJake


     wuestenfux wrote:

    However, GK is restricted to just ONE detachment which makes list building rather restrictive.


    What? Take as many detachments as you want. Only one GM, only one BC, sure, but there are other HQ choices in the book. If I was running two battalions, I'd put the GM in charage of one with a Librarian for back up, and the BC in charge of the the other- maybe with another Librarian, but maybe a techmarine or champion. Feels fluffier than putting both of the head honchos in one basket.

     wuestenfux wrote:

    And how about real space raid for Drukhari?


    Unaffected, as Cult/ Kabal/ Coven are still different selectable keywords. In fact, I'm not sure you were ever able to take more than one Kabal, one Cult or one Coven in an RSR. The rules are a little murkier than the rules for Raiding Forces.


    no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/26 14:38:02


    Post by: carldooley


    PenitentJake wrote:
     wuestenfux wrote:

    However, GK is restricted to just ONE detachment which makes list building rather restrictive.


    What? Take as many detachments as you want. Only one GM, only one BC, sure, but there are other HQ choices in the book. If I was running two battalions, I'd put the GM in charage of one with a Librarian for back up, and the BC in charge of the the other- maybe with another Librarian, but maybe a techmarine or champion. Feels fluffier than putting both of the head honchos in one basket.


    Or you could run unbound.
    Personally I stick to detachments, but as I tend to burn most of my CPs in list construction... ...well it is something to consider.

    Actually, that raises a question. If I build an unbound list does everything have to start on the board, as putting things into reserve tends to have a CP cost?


    no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/26 15:33:03


    Post by: wuestenfux


     vict0988 wrote:
    tneva82 wrote:
     alextroy wrote:

    Without subfaction traits, you can't really get that difference on the battlefield while using the same units. IMO this is why GW has decided to ban multiple subfactions in competitive play. The rules were created for thematic gameplay purposes, not for power. Allowing multiple subfactions allowed the players to concentrate on the power rather than the theme.


    Yet it's still all about power. People will just focus on units that maximise subfaction rules and ignore units that don't benefit from it leading to very unthematic looking armies.

    If you give free bonuses it a) will create unthematic armies b) break the balance.

    But it sells models. Broken balance helps sales.

    Except that nobody is going to buy Scouts, nobody is going to buy Salamander Outriders... Perfect imbalance leads to sales. If the meta is Eradicators and each faction has counters for Eradicators then people buy those counters, the meta adjusts, Eradicators stop being meta and the Eradicator counters stop being meta leading to people buying new minis again until people get everything for a faction. All GW has to do to create perfect imbalance is do their best job at making the game balanced, because perfect balance is impossible with all the different stats that are in the game, perfect imbalance does not mean "herpaderp me make Eradicators OP now" or "durr what's playtesting?".


    Perfect imbalances on a half-year bases.
    Shifting from one local optimum to another one triggers a meta change and forces comp. players to adapt their armies accordingly.
    A perfect situation for GW to increase the revenue.


    no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/26 16:18:31


    Post by: Spoletta


    That's isn't half bad honestly.

    To reach this perfect imbalance they needed to reach a good enough balance first. Not perfect, but good enough that changing something has a cascade effect on what is good and what is not (for top level of competition).

    The most oppressive list of 9th edition (Admech) suffered a 10% point nerf and is now not even a blip on the competitive radar.

    200 points. 10%. That's all it took.

    In previous editions there were armies that could fight 2 other armies at the same time and still win.

    Sure, now if you want to play at top levels and always squeeze that few % of win rate then you have to pay for the privilege.

    Considering though that competitive players are a very minimal part of the players, I don't see an issue with that.


    no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/01/26 16:52:08


    Post by: vict0988


    Let's not forget the errata nerfs AdMech got.

    A 200 point advantage before the game begins quickly turns into a 300 point advantage turn 1, 500 point advantage turn 2 and a tabling turn 3.


    no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/02/02 09:38:23


    Post by: SYKOJAK


    I am of the opinion, that it only matters when it comes to mixed subfactions, is when folks proxy models. So long as each detachment within an Army list has a single subfaction, it is no bother. It is when they proxy models for whatever reason, and start by taking subfaction that are clearly painted in a certain aesthetic, then using said detachment for another subfaction is where things get confusing and beardy game play comes into play.


    no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/02/02 20:28:24


    Post by: Hecaton


    Spoletta wrote:
    That's isn't half bad honestly.

    To reach this perfect imbalance they needed to reach a good enough balance first. Not perfect, but good enough that changing something has a cascade effect on what is good and what is not (for top level of competition).

    The most oppressive list of 9th edition (Admech) suffered a 10% point nerf and is now not even a blip on the competitive radar.

    200 points. 10%. That's all it took.

    In previous editions there were armies that could fight 2 other armies at the same time and still win.

    Sure, now if you want to play at top levels and always squeeze that few % of win rate then you have to pay for the privilege.

    Considering though that competitive players are a very minimal part of the players, I don't see an issue with that.


    This post didn't age well.


    no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/02/02 20:46:44


    Post by: Ordana


    Hecaton wrote:
    Spoletta wrote:
    That's isn't half bad honestly.

    To reach this perfect imbalance they needed to reach a good enough balance first. Not perfect, but good enough that changing something has a cascade effect on what is good and what is not (for top level of competition).

    The most oppressive list of 9th edition (Admech) suffered a 10% point nerf and is now not even a blip on the competitive radar.

    200 points. 10%. That's all it took.

    In previous editions there were armies that could fight 2 other armies at the same time and still win.

    Sure, now if you want to play at top levels and always squeeze that few % of win rate then you have to pay for the privilege.

    Considering though that competitive players are a very minimal part of the players, I don't see an issue with that.


    This post didn't age well.
    Admech didn't win LVO.
    Siegler did, the man is on a whole different level.


    no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/02/03 00:31:41


    Post by: Jarms48


    I do wish GW gave some "approved" ways to soup that suited the lore, such as:

    Imperial Knights:
    - Questor Mechanicus being able to more seemlessly soup with Ad-Mech. Knight of the Cog should be some kind of buff to individual knights.
    - Questor Imperialis being able to seemlessly soup with any other Imperium faction (no Ad-Mech soup).
    - Single Freeblade's in a super-heavy auxiliary detachment being able to soup with any Imperium faction.

    Chaos Knights:
    - As above, except for chaos factions.

    Chaos Daemons:
    - There should be greater support again for things like Death Guard and Thousand Sons to soup with the daemons of their patron gods.

    Imperial Guard:
    - There needs to be some kind of exception to allow mixing different regiments. It's incredibly lore friendly, the Imperial Guard do deploy in massed army groups consisting of many regiments. Something like Raiding Forces for DE.
    - Option for things like Gue'vesa or Traitor Guard similar to Brood Brothers.
    - Option for something like Inquisitorial Storm Troopers for Scions to be used directly with the Inquisition.






    Automatically Appended Next Post:
     Ordana wrote:
    Admech didn't win LVO.
    Siegler did, the man is on a whole different level.


    This, Siegler is the man that won with the old Tau codex. He's probably the best 40k player currently.


    no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/02/03 01:49:59


    Post by: Table


    Well, new rules really hurt all of my 1ksons lists, and not sure we needed the hit. Anyhow, all this is going to do is so we only see meta sub-factions instead of a panoply. I know every list Ill be running will have one cult over and over and over.

    Now you can say this is my choice. And it is. But when building to win games ( not WAAC, otherwise id be picking up Tau rail guns) your choices are already anemic with most factions. This just makes it worse.


    no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/02/03 03:30:26


    Post by: PenitentJake


    This Siegler fellow you speak of seems to have been granted almost supernatural power.

    I have alerted the Ordo Hereticus of the Inquisition about potential witchery and I am certain that in the not too distant future, the shall be a =][= REDACTED =][=


    no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/02/03 03:38:47


    Post by: Hecaton


     Ordana wrote:
    Admech didn't win LVO.
    Siegler did, the man is on a whole different level.


    There's limits to what player skill can achieve, lol.


    no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/02/03 04:05:30


    Post by: tneva82


     Ordana wrote:
    Hecaton wrote:
    Spoletta wrote:
    That's isn't half bad honestly.

    To reach this perfect imbalance they needed to reach a good enough balance first. Not perfect, but good enough that changing something has a cascade effect on what is good and what is not (for top level of competition).

    The most oppressive list of 9th edition (Admech) suffered a 10% point nerf and is now not even a blip on the competitive radar.

    200 points. 10%. That's all it took.

    In previous editions there were armies that could fight 2 other armies at the same time and still win.

    Sure, now if you want to play at top levels and always squeeze that few % of win rate then you have to pay for the privilege.

    Considering though that competitive players are a very minimal part of the players, I don't see an issue with that.


    This post didn't age well.
    Admech didn't win LVO.
    Siegler did, the man is on a whole different level.


    His faction was admech...so you are wrong as usual.


    no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/02/03 04:11:51


    Post by: Unit1126PLL


    Yeah, and it is a gnarly list as well. My YouTube recommendations played a review of it during my painting today, and it essentially was a list of ridiculous synergies to make gigantic Ranger blocks hit on a 2+ with +1 to wound, AP -3, and rerolling 1s to hit and to wound. Dude was knocking out tanks with infantry rifles.

    Siegler is a great Warhammer player, arguably the best in the world. Some of that greatness is in play, for sure, but some of it is also that he is fantastic at writing lists.


    no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/02/03 04:19:11


    Post by: Jarms48


     Unit1126PLL wrote:
    Yeah, and it is a gnarly list as well. My YouTube recommendations played a review of it during my painting today, and it essentially was a list of ridiculous synergies to make gigantic Ranger blocks hit on a 2+ with +1 to wound, AP -3, and rerolling 1s to hit and to wound. Dude was knocking out tanks with infantry rifles.


    This is exactly how I play my Scions. 18 squads of Scions, each 10 models strong. Have a Tempestor Prime issue FRFSRF, then have him with Laurels of Command to stack EPS for full RR against vehicles and monsters. It's quite deadly.


    no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/02/03 05:36:26


    Post by: alextroy


    tneva82 wrote:
     Ordana wrote:
    Hecaton wrote:
    Spoletta wrote:
    That's isn't half bad honestly.

    To reach this perfect imbalance they needed to reach a good enough balance first. Not perfect, but good enough that changing something has a cascade effect on what is good and what is not (for top level of competition).

    The most oppressive list of 9th edition (Admech) suffered a 10% point nerf and is now not even a blip on the competitive radar.

    200 points. 10%. That's all it took.

    In previous editions there were armies that could fight 2 other armies at the same time and still win.

    Sure, now if you want to play at top levels and always squeeze that few % of win rate then you have to pay for the privilege.

    Considering though that competitive players are a very minimal part of the players, I don't see an issue with that.


    This post didn't age well.
    Admech didn't win LVO.
    Siegler did, the man is on a whole different level.


    His faction was admech...so you are wrong as usual.
    I love it when people totally miss the point. Siegler was 1st place with his Skitari list. The other 6-0/5-0-1 list for the tournament were 3 Custodes, 4 Drukari, 3 Tyranid (Force of the Hivemind), an Orks, and a Grey Knights list. The next best placement for a AdMech list was 68th place out of 768 players with only 2 AM list going 5-1. So it wasn't the list or the faction, it was the player running it that mattered.


    no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/02/03 06:42:13


    Post by: RegularGuy


    Jarms48 wrote:
    I do wish GW gave some "approved" ways to soup that suited the lore, such as:

    Imperial Knights:
    - Questor Mechanicus being able to more seemlessly soup with Ad-Mech. Knight of the Cog should be some kind of buff to individual knights.
    - Questor Imperialis being able to seemlessly soup with any other Imperium faction (no Ad-Mech soup).
    - Single Freeblade's in a super-heavy auxiliary detachment being able to soup with any Imperium faction.

    Chaos Knights:
    - As above, except for chaos factions.

    Chaos Daemons:
    - There should be greater support again for things like Death Guard and Thousand Sons to soup with the daemons of their patron gods.

    Imperial Guard:
    - There needs to be some kind of exception to allow mixing different regiments. It's incredibly lore friendly, the Imperial Guard do deploy in massed army groups consisting of many regiments. Something like Raiding Forces for DE.
    - Option for things like Gue'vesa or Traitor Guard similar to Brood Brothers.
    - Option for something like Inquisitorial Storm Troopers for Scions to be used directly with the Inquisition.






    Automatically Appended Next Post:
     Ordana wrote:
    Admech didn't win LVO.
    Siegler did, the man is on a whole different level.


    This, Siegler is the man that won with the old Tau codex. He's probably the best 40k player currently.


    Ok so I'm slow here. Do I read that right as no Cadian detachment in same army as Catachan or other? Boring if so.



    no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/02/03 07:05:35


    Post by: Hecaton


     alextroy wrote:
    I love it when people totally miss the point. Siegler was 1st place with his Skitari list. The other 6-0/5-0-1 list for the tournament were 3 Custodes, 4 Drukari, 3 Tyranid (Force of the Hivemind), an Orks, and a Grey Knights list. The next best placement for a AdMech list was 68th place out of 768 players with only 2 AM list going 5-1. So it wasn't the list or the faction, it was the player running it that mattered.


    Was anyone else running his list?


    no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/02/03 07:09:16


    Post by: Breton


     RegularGuy wrote:


    Ok so I'm slow here. Do I read that right as no Cadian detachment in same army as Catachan or other? Boring if so.



    Mostly, and yeah. But moreso, No Cult of the Mortal Wounds Thousand Sons with Cult of the Witchfire Storms Thousand Sons. (I'm making up the cults, obviously) - as long as the models are distinct the problem is rarely Cadians and Catachans having to share a latrine, the issue is This TKS gets this special rule and that TKS gets that Special rule - but nobody can tell them apart.

    I'd like to see Orks and Guard both get a similar subfaction system where they can take all their "tribal" models but their subfaction is based on their Warlord. For Orks it would still be Clans - if your WL is Goff this happens to these units, if he's Evil Sunz, that happens to those units. For Guard it can be some sort of War College subfaction. If your warlord is a Tank Commander this happens, if he's an Imperial Officer that happens.


    no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/02/03 07:14:33


    Post by: Spoletta


    Hecaton wrote:
     alextroy wrote:
    I love it when people totally miss the point. Siegler was 1st place with his Skitari list. The other 6-0/5-0-1 list for the tournament were 3 Custodes, 4 Drukari, 3 Tyranid (Force of the Hivemind), an Orks, and a Grey Knights list. The next best placement for a AdMech list was 68th place out of 768 players with only 2 AM list going 5-1. So it wasn't the list or the faction, it was the player running it that mattered.


    Was anyone else running his list?


    It's the standard AM competitive list with minor variations.


    no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/02/03 09:17:11


    Post by: Void__Dragon


    tneva82 wrote:

    His faction was admech...so you are wrong as usual.


    A word of advice friend, if English isn't your first language and as such you lack the ability to pick up on the subtleties of conversations in English you should probably be a little more careful when condescending to others while speaking the language. In the future you might avoid embarrassing situations like this where you attempt to gotcha someone only to make yourself look foolish and socially awkward.


    no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/02/03 10:58:43


    Post by: sanguine40k


    Hecaton wrote:
     Ordana wrote:
    Admech didn't win LVO.
    Siegler did, the man is on a whole different level.


    There's limits to what player skill can achieve, lol.


    Yeah, which is why Siegler went AdMech instead of old Tau...


    no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/02/03 11:04:13


    Post by: Ordana


    Table wrote:
    Well, new rules really hurt all of my 1ksons lists, and not sure we needed the hit. Anyhow, all this is going to do is so we only see meta sub-factions instead of a panoply. I know every list Ill be running will have one cult over and over and over.

    Now you can say this is my choice. And it is. But when building to win games ( not WAAC, otherwise id be picking up Tau rail guns) your choices are already anemic with most factions. This just makes it worse.
    yes, instead of multiple meta sub-factions where you just pick the best of everything you now have to pick 1 meta sub-faction. How terrible.

    All that massive spread of possiblities, totally not like 95% ran the same 2 cults right?


    no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/02/03 12:53:21


    Post by: H.B.M.C.


     Ordana wrote:
    yes, instead of multiple meta sub-factions where you just pick the best of everything you now have to pick 1 meta sub-faction. How terrible.
    Seems weird that GW would write an army that can't use 8/9ths of its options in each game.

    Almost as if they attempted to use a one-size-fits-all approach to fix a problem more prevalent in more specific armies.


    no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/02/03 13:20:51


    Post by: Ordana


     H.B.M.C. wrote:
     Ordana wrote:
    yes, instead of multiple meta sub-factions where you just pick the best of everything you now have to pick 1 meta sub-faction. How terrible.
    Seems weird that GW would write an army that can't use 8/9ths of its options in each game.

    Almost as if they attempted to use a one-size-fits-all approach to fix a problem more prevalent in more specific armies.
    its almost as if the entire army building process is about making choices...

    First they banned faction souping within detachments, then they strongly discourages faction souping outside of detachments (via via you only get this if mono-faction buffs) and now they are banning sub-faction souping.
    Its almost as if this is a clear design line that GW has taken. Outside of a very small group of mostly lore based factions GW wants your army to be 1 force. Not a mix where you pick a little bit of what is best from everything.


    no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/02/03 13:49:12


    Post by: Overread


    Which is honestly just returning to how the game and armies always used to be. It also fits with how GW sells and markets the various armies as well.

    You rarely see them showing off a Space Marine force that is anything but one single faction at a time; same for most other armies.


    Again for the most part most armies are 1 faction and of that faction 1 subgrouping if there are any subgroups present (or if they've a defined enough visual identity to be told apart from each other).


    no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/02/03 14:44:19


    Post by: PenitentJake


     Overread wrote:
    Which is honestly just returning to how the game and armies always used to be. It also fits with how GW sells and markets the various armies as well.

    You rarely see them showing off a Space Marine force that is anything but one single faction at a time; same for most other armies.


    Again for the most part most armies are 1 faction and of that faction 1 subgrouping if there are any subgroups present (or if they've a defined enough visual identity to be told apart from each other).


    Just a heads up:

    The video trailer that introduced this edition should marines, sisters and guard fighting against crons.

    Vigilus Alone contains rules for War of Faith armies, which combine Sisters, Marines and Guard; White Dwarf published rules for Torchbearer Fleets which blend Custodes, Primaris and Admech.

    Eldar soup Light, Dark or even a blend of the two is all the rage.

    So there certainly are approved soup formats, but rarely those which allow you to mix multiple subfactions of a single type (ie. feel free to take a coven a cult and a kabal, but not a cabal and two cults).

    In fact it will be interesting to see whether Troupes of Harlequins continue to exist, or whether a Harlequin is just a Harlequin again when the new dex comes. Or if a Corsair is just going to be a Corsair (I don't know them well enough to know if they had subfactions to begin with- certainly the Ynarri did not).


    no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/02/03 15:19:53


    Post by: PaddyMick


    Apologies if this has been mentioned already, but can I take a Battalion of <REGIMENT> and a patrol of <TEMPESTUS REGIMENT> still?


    no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/02/03 15:20:45


    Post by: Rihgu


     PaddyMick wrote:
    Apologies if this has been mentioned already, but can I take a Battalion of <REGIMENT> and a patrol of <TEMPESTUS REGIMENT> still?

    Yes.


    no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/02/03 17:47:18


    Post by: Overread


    PenitentJake wrote:
     Overread wrote:
    Which is honestly just returning to how the game and armies always used to be. It also fits with how GW sells and markets the various armies as well.

    You rarely see them showing off a Space Marine force that is anything but one single faction at a time; same for most other armies.


    Again for the most part most armies are 1 faction and of that faction 1 subgrouping if there are any subgroups present (or if they've a defined enough visual identity to be told apart from each other).


    Just a heads up:

    The video trailer that introduced this edition should marines, sisters and guard fighting against crons.

    Vigilus Alone contains rules for War of Faith armies, which combine Sisters, Marines and Guard; White Dwarf published rules for Torchbearer Fleets which blend Custodes, Primaris and Admech.

    Eldar soup Light, Dark or even a blend of the two is all the rage.

    So there certainly are approved soup formats, but rarely those which allow you to mix multiple subfactions of a single type (ie. feel free to take a coven a cult and a kabal, but not a cabal and two cults).

    In fact it will be interesting to see whether Troupes of Harlequins continue to exist, or whether a Harlequin is just a Harlequin again when the new dex comes. Or if a Corsair is just going to be a Corsair (I don't know them well enough to know if they had subfactions to begin with- certainly the Ynarri did not).


    Very true, but often as not when GW shows two or three armies working together they often stand apart visually. Each one has its own paint scheme they aren't on single army sharing the same paint scheme or such. It really is more a case of showing "this is 3 armies together as a joint force" rather than "this is one army comprised of multiple different subgroupings".

    Of course with Yinnari being by default DE and CE together it kind of breaks that ,but even then a lot of the time the two forces have distinct paintwork.

    And yep its never done with subfactions.

    I think its just part of GW reinforcing the visual style and design of armies which is part of army design and balance. It's part of thinking about what armies should look like on the tabletop; how they'd like them to look and how they then go through and market them and such.


    no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/02/03 18:04:56


    Post by: ERJAK


    tneva82 wrote:
     Ordana wrote:
    Hecaton wrote:
    Spoletta wrote:
    That's isn't half bad honestly.

    To reach this perfect imbalance they needed to reach a good enough balance first. Not perfect, but good enough that changing something has a cascade effect on what is good and what is not (for top level of competition).

    The most oppressive list of 9th edition (Admech) suffered a 10% point nerf and is now not even a blip on the competitive radar.

    200 points. 10%. That's all it took.

    In previous editions there were armies that could fight 2 other armies at the same time and still win.

    Sure, now if you want to play at top levels and always squeeze that few % of win rate then you have to pay for the privilege.

    Considering though that competitive players are a very minimal part of the players, I don't see an issue with that.


    This post didn't age well.
    Admech didn't win LVO.
    Siegler did, the man is on a whole different level.


    His faction was admech...so you are wrong as usual.


    You missed the point so badly I could hear the Woosh from Bolter and Chainsword.


    no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/02/03 18:41:17


    Post by: Void__Dragon


     Ordana wrote:
    yes, instead of multiple meta sub-factions where you just pick the best of everything you now have to pick 1 meta sub-faction. How terrible.

    All that massive spread of possiblities, totally not like 95% ran the same 2 cults right?


    It's pretty terrible if you want to play Thousand Sons competitively to have your best (possibly only viable) build removed when your army was at best merely pretty decent and all the best armies do not give a single gak about this change yeah.

    All these disingenuous arguments neatly take pains to not acknowledge the simple fact that for a lot of armies this change was just a pretty significant nerf. Mostly to armies that didn't really need one. So why should anyone like this change? To fit your arbitrary idea of what an army should look like?


    no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/02/03 18:51:26


    Post by: Overread


    If a majority of armies experience a rule change that results in them having weaker performance than before that suggests that the games overall balance has shifted down a gear and that now that is the new level playing field and that a few armies simply need to be brought down to that level.


    And yes the preconception of "what an army should look like" isn't just a random thing. It's something GW builds into the balance, into the marketing, into the stories, artwork and more. How an army is presented, how it looks, how if functions is VERY much an important thing. This doesn't mean it always works nor that every army follows it to the letter (you don't see marine players only taking 1 tactical squad whilst the Tyranid player takes up the entire space on their deployment with gaunts)


    no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/02/03 18:55:32


    Post by: ERJAK


     H.B.M.C. wrote:
     Ordana wrote:
    yes, instead of multiple meta sub-factions where you just pick the best of everything you now have to pick 1 meta sub-faction. How terrible.
    Seems weird that GW would write an army that can't use 8/9ths of its options in each game.

    Almost as if they attempted to use a one-size-fits-all approach to fix a problem more prevalent in more specific armies.


    It wasn't even a problem, in reality it was a SOLUTION.

    How do you balance the points of a shooting model when in one list it always counts as stationary, even after an advance, and in another it doesn't?

    How do you balance the points of a melee model when in one list it had +1 attack and -1AP and in another, it doesn't?

    You make it so it can always use it's best trait.

    Before, they adjusted retributors assuming they were always going to be Argent Shroud and Repentia assuming they were always going to be Bloody Rose. How do you do that now? How do you make a Repentia worth taking as Argent Shroud, without completely breaking it in Bloody Rose? How do you make Argent Shroud good at all when all of your melee options are costed assuming they'll be Bloody Rose (which they are) and all of your shooting options are costed as if they'll be Argent Shroud supported by Bloody Rose? Sisters don't have the output to function without at least a 2 to 1 ratio of melee to shooting. Imagine trying to go toe to toe with new Tau when your point for point your second best shooting unit is Morvenn Vahl with her whopping 2 Krak Missiles.

    Retributors, despite still seeing a lot of play, aren't good in Bloody Rose. They're not even really that good in Argent Shroud after the...8 or 9 nerfs they've taken now. They're just necessary. The only reason people still take retributors in bloody rose is because the army isn't fast enough, survivable enough, or killy enough to forgo shooting completely. If we had our own version of Thunderwolf Cav or a delivery system better than a crappy Rhino, we wouldn't bother with shooting at all.

    Now, thanks to this bone-headed rule, even if they manage to find a decent balance point EXTERNALLY for Sisters, there's no way to do so and also have decent balance INTERNALLY. There's now no way to make Argent Shorud, Ebon Chalice, or Sacred Rose viable options without also pushing VH, BR, and OoML.

    Of course, after every competitive list going up roughly 100 points (with the mono-faction builds actually going up MORE on average than the old mixed builds) I'm pretty sure we'll just have to settle for ANY strategy to be decent.

    I know other armies are still in a worse spot than we are (for now) but no one else, not even deathguard or Tsons, got as savage a beating out of this CA2022 as we did. If they hit the bodyguard rules too, we'll be down where guard is. No offense guard players.


    Automatically Appended Next Post:
     Overread wrote:
    If a majority of armies experience a rule change that results in them having weaker performance than before that suggests that the games overall balance has shifted down a gear and that now that is the new level playing field and that a few armies simply need to be brought down to that level.


    And yes the preconception of "what an army should look like" isn't just a random thing. It's something GW builds into the balance, into the marketing, into the stories, artwork and more. How an army is presented, how it looks, how if functions is VERY much an important thing. This doesn't mean it always works nor that every army follows it to the letter (you don't see marine players only taking 1 tactical squad whilst the Tyranid player takes up the entire space on their deployment with gaunts)


    The majority of armies are space marines. Space marines saw no change in performance from the subfaction rules. So that's already not correct.

    You also have different severity of impact for the relatively few armies that WERE affected. Drukhari technically took a nerf, just an incredibly minor one. Orkz took more of a nerf, but several of their best builds are untouched. Deathguard were more impacted by their point hikes. Grey Knights lose 1 GM Dreadknight but are otherwise most likely fine (the Tau book will be a bigger problem for them than the subfaction rules), Tsons and Sisters are both massively impacted.

    So the end result isn't the overall balance shifting down a gear, it's big gaps opening up in the middle as some armies fall down a lot and some armies only fall down a little. Hell, if anything the Custodes, Tau, and Eldar books are almost certainly going to shift balance back UP a gear. There's just less armies that can match them now.

    GW can't keep together a coherent idea of what a 40k army should look like across two paragraphs in the same book. Their codex design has always been so unbelievably scattershot that saying they 'build what an army is supposed to look like into the balance' is demonstrably false (Bark Bark Star probably being the seminal example), the marketing makes it look like Epic or Kill team with barely anything coming close to the scale standard 40k is actually fought at, the stories are also almost always killteam or Epic size and are NOT consistent in how they portray the factions even a little bit. It's actually even worse with the art-work.

    I agree that how an army is presented is a very important thing, but it's far worse than 'doesn't always work'. It's ' failure to create any consistent narrative through-line to build forces by, in addition to complete failure to reflect ANY of the inconsistent depictions on the tabletop'.



    no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/02/03 19:21:17


    Post by: PaddyMick


    Rihgu wrote:
     PaddyMick wrote:
    Apologies if this has been mentioned already, but can I take a Battalion of <REGIMENT> and a patrol of <TEMPESTUS REGIMENT> still?

    Yes.


    Ta

    Overall i like the rule, however 'a warband is made of many clans': I wish they had left in an option to mix different sub-factions within the same detachment, so you don't get the special rules benefits, but you do get to field whatever models and fluff you want, even at tournaments.


    no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/02/03 22:12:43


    Post by: Dai


    Making ork clans the chapter tactic equivalent was always a bit off to me. Sure they could have thought of something else. Its become an anti fluff rule for the orks now which i am very much against


    no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/02/03 22:23:25


    Post by: H.B.M.C.


     Ordana wrote:
    its almost as if the entire army building process is about making choices...
    And again, it seems odd that they'd go to the trouble of adding that much choice in newer books and then gating off so much of it.

    And if army building was really about choice the FOC would actually mean something and you wouldn't be able to pay some abstracted strategic resource to get more slots of whatever you need.

     Ordana wrote:
    Outside of a very small group of mostly lore based factions GW wants your army to be 1 force. Not a mix where you pick a little bit of what is best from everything.
    Well, they do now. They were fine with it before they realised their rules don't work.


    no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/02/03 22:27:37


    Post by: Void__Dragon


     Overread wrote:
    If a majority of armies


    Gonna be honest friend, no one should read your post past this point because you've already predicated it on false information.

    The majority of armies first of all are Space Marines, and this change does nothing to them. Same with Custodes, who look to be a rising star in the metagame.

    Even discounting by far the most popular army chassis in the game, looking at LVO there is exactly one army that made it into the top eight that this affects. Every other army either went mono-subfaction or was allowed to soup them like doing Covens with Kabal.

    The only truly tier 1 factions this has any significant effect on are Grey Knights, Orks (and only specific builds, several tournament-winning builds go unscathed), and Leviathan/Kronos Tyranids (ditto, with Crusher Stampede being mono-subfaction). I think some Drukhari builds once went double Kabal but I don't think that's been common for a little while.

    It is largely tier 2 or lower factions who feel the hit. Sisters of Battle, Thousand Sons, some Admech lists (no I don't care that Siegler won with them), some Chaos Knights lists. Sisters of Battle in particular have to endure the double whammy of almost all of their builds being removed along with a bunch of bizarre point nerfs to their actual good units to compensate for their bad datasheets getting point buffs. This doesn't shift balance down a gear, it just widens the gulf between factions that was already there.

    And it is arbitrary. Are you going to claim different regiments of guardsmen fighting together is not true to the lore? What about the Thousand Sons? The majority of their stories where they are the focus feature them on several occasions bringing the band back together and operating at full strength. Why is Magnus the Red now incapable of doing something as mundane as leading a force consisting of two different Cults? It is completely arbitrary, and why bring up balance at all when only like one army that's going to really feel this change is a possible balance concern?


    no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/02/03 22:27:44


    Post by: Some_Call_Me_Tim


    I honestly don’t even get the problem. “Commander, higher ups say that we aren’t allowed to split companies, the assault troopers must stay with the artillery guns.” That doesn’t make sense, I feel like they’d promote splitting it up, you’d have to buy more paints at least.


    no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/02/03 22:32:37


    Post by: RegularGuy


    Breton wrote:
     RegularGuy wrote:


    Ok so I'm slow here. Do I read that right as no Cadian detachment in same army as Catachan or other? Boring if so.



    Mostly, and yeah. But moreso, No Cult of the Mortal Wounds Thousand Sons with Cult of the Witchfire Storms Thousand Sons. (I'm making up the cults, obviously) - as long as the models are distinct the problem is rarely Cadians and Catachans having to share a latrine, the issue is This TKS gets this special rule and that TKS gets that Special rule - but nobody can tell them apart.

    I'd like to see Orks and Guard both get a similar subfaction system where they can take all their "tribal" models but their subfaction is based on their Warlord. For Orks it would still be Clans - if your WL is Goff this happens to these units, if he's Evil Sunz, that happens to those units. For Guard it can be some sort of War College subfaction. If your warlord is a Tank Commander this happens, if he's an Imperial Officer that happens.


    Well what's interesting is this. If the interpretation is that if you pick Catachan as <Regiment> all guard in your army MUST be catachan (e.g. no Cadians in same army), there's still a gateway via Psychic Awakening: Greater Good to have mixed trait groups. Greater Good says "If your chose regiment does not have an associated Regimental Doctrine in Codex: Astra Militarum, you can create its regimental doctrine by selecting two rules from the following list..."

    So if you don't pick a codex regiment, does it seem your regiment is "Astra Militarium" or blank? It doesn't seem say between the books what they key word is when you don't pick a defined regiment.

    Thus, you could take perhaps a battalion of guardsmen with Disciplined Shooters and Wilderness Survivors, and then a spearhead with traits Gunnery Experts and Jury Rigged Repairs since neither of these select a specific key word for <Regiment>, but you could not combine Cadain, or Catachan with each other, or with one of the custom regiments (Since even a null <Regiment> key word would be different than the other named regiment).

    Perhaps I'm over thinking this or still misunderstand.




    no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/02/03 22:47:15


    Post by: H.B.M.C.


     Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote:
    I honestly don’t even get the problem. “Commander, higher ups say that we aren’t allowed to split companies, the assault troopers must stay with the artillery guns.” That doesn’t make sense, I feel like they’d promote splitting it up, you’d have to buy more paints at least.
    You can't mix Ork Clanz. That seems wrong to me.


    no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/02/03 22:54:36


    Post by: Gert


     RegularGuy wrote:

    Well what's interesting is this. If the interpretation is that if you pick Catachan as <Regiment> all guard in your army MUST be catachan (e.g. no Cadians in same army), there's still a gateway via Psychic Awakening: Greater Good to have mixed trait groups. Greater Good says "If your chose regiment does not have an associated Regimental Doctrine in Codex: Astra Militarum, you can create its regimental doctrine by selecting two rules from the following list..."

    So if you don't pick a codex regiment, does it seem your regiment is "Astra Militarium" or blank? It doesn't seem say between the books what they key word is when you don't pick a defined regiment.

    Thus, you could take perhaps a battalion of guardsmen with Disciplined Shooters and Wilderness Survivors, and then a spearhead with traits Gunnery Experts and Jury Rigged Repairs since neither of these select a specific key word for <Regiment>, but you could not combine Cadain, or Catachan with each other, or with one of the custom regiments (Since even a null <Regiment> key word would be different than the other named regiment).

    Perhaps I'm over thinking this or still misunderstand.

    You swap out the <Regiment> Keyword for your Regiments name and then pick the traits you want. Same as Successor Chapters.
    So for example, if you pick Tanith 1st as your <Regiment> Keyword, there is no associated Regimental Trait in Codex: Astra Militarum. You then go to The Greater Good and select which Traits you would like your Keyword to associate with. You cannot have more than the set amount for these traits per <Regiment> Keyword so you cannot use the example you crafted.


    no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/02/03 22:55:22


    Post by: ccs


     RegularGuy wrote:
    Breton wrote:
     RegularGuy wrote:


    Ok so I'm slow here. Do I read that right as no Cadian detachment in same army as Catachan or other? Boring if so.



    Mostly, and yeah. But moreso, No Cult of the Mortal Wounds Thousand Sons with Cult of the Witchfire Storms Thousand Sons. (I'm making up the cults, obviously) - as long as the models are distinct the problem is rarely Cadians and Catachans having to share a latrine, the issue is This TKS gets this special rule and that TKS gets that Special rule - but nobody can tell them apart.

    I'd like to see Orks and Guard both get a similar subfaction system where they can take all their "tribal" models but their subfaction is based on their Warlord. For Orks it would still be Clans - if your WL is Goff this happens to these units, if he's Evil Sunz, that happens to those units. For Guard it can be some sort of War College subfaction. If your warlord is a Tank Commander this happens, if he's an Imperial Officer that happens.


    Well what's interesting is this. If the interpretation is that if you pick Catachan as <Regiment> all guard in your army MUST be catachan (e.g. no Cadians in same army), there's still a gateway via Psychic Awakening: Greater Good to have mixed trait groups. Greater Good says "If your chose regiment does not have an associated Regimental Doctrine in Codex: Astra Militarum, you can create its regimental doctrine by selecting two rules from the following list..."

    So if you don't pick a codex regiment, does it seem your regiment is "Astra Militarium" or blank? It doesn't seem say between the books what they key word is when you don't pick a defined regiment.

    Thus, you could take perhaps a battalion of guardsmen with Disciplined Shooters and Wilderness Survivors, and then a spearhead with traits Gunnery Experts and Jury Rigged Repairs since neither of these select a specific key word for <Regiment>, but you could not combine Cadain, or Catachan with each other, or with one of the custom regiments (Since even a null <Regiment> key word would be different than the other named regiment).

    Perhaps I'm over thinking this or still misunderstand.


    You still misunderstand. You substitute your own made up word in place of {Cadian} etc.


    no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/02/03 22:58:29


    Post by: Ordana


    And no you don't get to make 2 sub factions named <totally not cadians> and give them different traits. They would be different sub factions under the established rules.


    no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/02/03 23:11:31


    Post by: alextroy


    ERJAK wrote:
    How do you balance the points of a shooting model when in one list it always counts as stationary, even after an advance, and in another it doesn't?

    How do you balance the points of a melee model when in one list it had +1 attack and -1AP and in another, it doesn't?

    You make it so it can always use it's best trait.
    The way to balance how some subfaction traits are better for some models is to make them unit rules instead? I ask because that is the only way it can always use the best trait is for it to not be a trait at all.

    Now if you mean a unit should be point balanced with its best trait in mind, you are committing point assignment malpractice. Given the choice between a unit being stronger than it's points value in 1-2 out of 6 traits versus being weaker in 4-5 of the traits, you should error towards it being stronger less often. That's rewards the player for making good choices rather than punishing them for making less then optimal choices. This is bad only when you can make too many good choices while ignoring the less optimal ones. Allowing you to only take one trait generally requires you to make some less optimal choices to have an overall effective list.


    no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/02/04 03:22:41


    Post by: Hecaton


    Spoletta wrote:
    It's the standard AM competitive list with minor variations.


    So he optimized it past everyone else. Got it.


    no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/02/04 05:15:42


    Post by: Spoletta


    Hecaton wrote:
    Spoletta wrote:
    It's the standard AM competitive list with minor variations.


    So he optimized it past everyone else. Got it.


    Yep, list building indeed did him little good.

    He is simply that good of a player.


    no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/02/04 05:51:08


    Post by: Hecaton


    Spoletta wrote:
    Hecaton wrote:
    Spoletta wrote:
    It's the standard AM competitive list with minor variations.


    So he optimized it past everyone else. Got it.


    Yep, list building indeed did him little good.

    He is simply that good of a player.


    You say that, but I doubt it.


    no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/02/04 11:34:41


    Post by: Blackie


     H.B.M.C. wrote:
     Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote:
    I honestly don’t even get the problem. “Commander, higher ups say that we aren’t allowed to split companies, the assault troopers must stay with the artillery guns.” That doesn’t make sense, I feel like they’d promote splitting it up, you’d have to buy more paints at least.
    You can't mix Ork Clanz. That seems wrong to me.


    Fluffwise you can justify it by saying that the dominant klan gathered orks from different klans merging them into their klan. Those orks still have their colours on, but only because orks don't really wear proper uniforms and don't bother replacing them with the new ones . It makes sense that an evil sunz ork fighting under a goff leader becomes a goff himself.

    If there's one army whose paintjob should be completely irrelevant ruleswise that's orks!


    no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/02/04 11:54:56


    Post by: The_Real_Chris


     Void__Dragon wrote:
    And it is arbitrary. Are you going to claim different regiments of guardsmen fighting together is not true to the lore? What about the Thousand Sons? The majority of their stories where they are the focus feature them on several occasions bringing the band back together and operating at full strength. Why is Magnus the Red now incapable of doing something as mundane as leading a force consisting of two different Cults? It is completely arbitrary, and why bring up balance at all when only like one army that's going to really feel this change is a possible balance concern?


    I think that is an example of how some of the 'universal' rules make little sense in certain armies. In this case the detachment system. They are already piling on exceptions. How hard would it have been to have the detachment system in each codex with any changes as necessary? Would speed up referencing stuff but of course GW hates the 'one book one army' approach...

    And you already paid a very heavy CP tax (which I still think is just no fun for little balance benefit).

    Changing the CP tax for different armies could have worked with their theme and for something like guard say an extra -1CP per different regiment to reflect the command and control issues from different regiments would have been good. Hell different regiments could give you a different CP starting amount (Cadians +1, Catchans -1 for example).


    no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/02/04 12:05:46


    Post by: Spoletta


    Or...

    People learn to use GT rules for GT uses and don't try to fit them into narrative games where the imposed restrictions don't make much sense?

    Especially since that one isn't even a GT generic rule, but a special rule of the missions presented in that book?


    no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/02/04 12:27:58


    Post by: The_Real_Chris


    So many people like I, attend clubs once a week or fortnight where the majority of 40k players wish to attend one or more tournaments in a year. As a consequence they only wish to play the tourney rules to get used to them.

    I actually have more chance of playing a different game than I do a non tourney style game of 40k. So I play a lot of other games.


    no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/02/04 12:32:18


    Post by: PaddyMick


    Yes but GT players also want their rules to make sense narratively.


    no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/02/04 12:45:44


    Post by: Ordana


    Spoletta wrote:
    Or...

    People learn to use GT rules for GT uses and don't try to fit them into narrative games where the imposed restrictions don't make much sense?

    Especially since that one isn't even a GT generic rule, but a special rule of the missions presented in that book?
    people default to standardized sets (like the GT rules) because its easier to get others to agree to an outside system then it is to convince them to play 'your' rules.

    There is absolutely no reason for your group to use these limits if they don't want to.


    no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/02/04 15:09:48


    Post by: Eldarsif


     alextroy wrote:
    ERJAK wrote:
    How do you balance the points of a shooting model when in one list it always counts as stationary, even after an advance, and in another it doesn't?

    How do you balance the points of a melee model when in one list it had +1 attack and -1AP and in another, it doesn't?

    You make it so it can always use it's best trait.
    The way to balance how some subfaction traits are better for some models is to make them unit rules instead? I ask because that is the only way it can always use the best trait is for it to not be a trait at all.

    Now if you mean a unit should be point balanced with its best trait in mind, you are committing point assignment malpractice. Given the choice between a unit being stronger than it's points value in 1-2 out of 6 traits versus being weaker in 4-5 of the traits, you should error towards it being stronger less often. That's rewards the player for making good choices rather than punishing them for making less then optimal choices. This is bad only when you can make too many good choices while ignoring the less optimal ones. Allowing you to only take one trait generally requires you to make some less optimal choices to have an overall effective list.


    Subfactions have honestly always been problematic as they can wildly change how an army works. I remember in 8th when everyone took Alaitoc because of the -1 to hit(that was stackable then). There was just no reason take another.

    Personally I just feel that GW needs to either scale down their subfaction bonuses or stick to a single theme as it is nigh impossible to balance around wildly different gameplay faction mechanics unless they start to release individual points for each subfaction.


    no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/02/04 15:32:51


    Post by: Overread


     Eldarsif wrote:
     alextroy wrote:
    ERJAK wrote:
    How do you balance the points of a shooting model when in one list it always counts as stationary, even after an advance, and in another it doesn't?

    How do you balance the points of a melee model when in one list it had +1 attack and -1AP and in another, it doesn't?

    You make it so it can always use it's best trait.
    The way to balance how some subfaction traits are better for some models is to make them unit rules instead? I ask because that is the only way it can always use the best trait is for it to not be a trait at all.

    Now if you mean a unit should be point balanced with its best trait in mind, you are committing point assignment malpractice. Given the choice between a unit being stronger than it's points value in 1-2 out of 6 traits versus being weaker in 4-5 of the traits, you should error towards it being stronger less often. That's rewards the player for making good choices rather than punishing them for making less then optimal choices. This is bad only when you can make too many good choices while ignoring the less optimal ones. Allowing you to only take one trait generally requires you to make some less optimal choices to have an overall effective list.


    Subfactions have honestly always been problematic as they can wildly change how an army works. I remember in 8th when everyone took Alaitoc because of the -1 to hit(that was stackable then). There was just no reason take another.

    Personally I just feel that GW needs to either scale down their subfaction bonuses or stick to a single theme as it is nigh impossible to balance around wildly different gameplay faction mechanics unless they start to release individual points for each subfaction.


    AoS was the same, Ossiarchs had one which gave a +1 to every single save across the whole army. This is in an army that already had a lot of really good saves. There was just no reason to take any other subfaction as +1 save outweighed all other bonuses


    no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/02/04 16:22:32


    Post by: Eldarsif


     Overread wrote:


    *snip*

    AoS was the same, Ossiarchs had one which gave a +1 to every single save across the whole army. This is in an army that already had a lot of really good saves. There was just no reason to take any other subfaction as +1 save outweighed all other bonuses


    Pepperidge Farm remembers.

    Which shows how problematic these subfactions can be. The bonuses need to be so miniscule that they can't have too much effect or GW simply needs to treat every subfaction to a separate supplement with its own printed costs.

    As much as I loved the idea of subfaction bonuses originally I personally loathe them now.


    no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/02/04 16:23:28


    Post by: Daedalus81


    Spoletta wrote:
    Hecaton wrote:
    Spoletta wrote:
    It's the standard AM competitive list with minor variations.


    So he optimized it past everyone else. Got it.


    Yep, list building indeed did him little good.

    He is simply that good of a player.


    There's a lot going on with the Siegler win.

    Top players choose the faction they think they can win with most easily. The nerfs made that calculation less simple.

    Siegler is still functioning within the "physics" of 40K. He still has to play the missions and he does that exceedingly well. Other people can place with Admech - they just don't want to bother. It's an expensive army and switching units around takes a long time for most people.

    I'd have to repull the query, but when I looked at the BCP data of something like 1,000 Admech players about 50% of them haven't played since the dataslate. ~20% kept playing them, 20% jumped to a meta army, and 10% jumped to some other army.


    no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/02/04 16:56:24


    Post by: alextroy


     Overread wrote:
     Eldarsif wrote:
     alextroy wrote:
    ERJAK wrote:
    How do you balance the points of a shooting model when in one list it always counts as stationary, even after an advance, and in another it doesn't?

    How do you balance the points of a melee model when in one list it had +1 attack and -1AP and in another, it doesn't?

    You make it so it can always use it's best trait.
    The way to balance how some subfaction traits are better for some models is to make them unit rules instead? I ask because that is the only way it can always use the best trait is for it to not be a trait at all.

    Now if you mean a unit should be point balanced with its best trait in mind, you are committing point assignment malpractice. Given the choice between a unit being stronger than it's points value in 1-2 out of 6 traits versus being weaker in 4-5 of the traits, you should error towards it being stronger less often. That's rewards the player for making good choices rather than punishing them for making less then optimal choices. This is bad only when you can make too many good choices while ignoring the less optimal ones. Allowing you to only take one trait generally requires you to make some less optimal choices to have an overall effective list.


    Subfactions have honestly always been problematic as they can wildly change how an army works. I remember in 8th when everyone took Alaitoc because of the -1 to hit(that was stackable then). There was just no reason take another.

    Personally I just feel that GW needs to either scale down their subfaction bonuses or stick to a single theme as it is nigh impossible to balance around wildly different gameplay faction mechanics unless they start to release individual points for each subfaction.


    AoS was the same, Ossiarchs had one which gave a +1 to every single save across the whole army. This is in an army that already had a lot of really good saves. There was just no reason to take any other subfaction as +1 save outweighed all other bonuses
    GW being bad a subfaction bonuses doesn’t make them bad. It just means GW need to do more work.


    no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/02/04 18:47:03


    Post by: Eldarsif


     alextroy wrote:
    GW being bad a subfaction bonuses doesn’t make them bad. It just means GW need to do more work.


    The problem is that they've been bad at it for 2 editions in 40k and at least 1 in AoS(we need more AoS books to make judgement). The thing is they don't know how to scale down the subfaction traits and instead make 1(2 if we are lucky) so decisively better that you would be a fool to go for anything else.

    The problem with subfactions is that you either make them so unimportant that they don't matter(making them essentially very non-defining) or you make so defining that one rises up as the best. If they want defining traits they seriously need to have separate costs for each sub-factions to make them sensible in the macro scale.


    no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/02/04 18:59:56


    Post by: Overread


    At which point every army is trying to copy-cat space marines and then it gets REALLY Messy.


    It would also start to dilute army profiles even more if every army had the super good close combat subfaction and the super good ranged subfaction and the super good magic/psy subfaction etc...

    It would actually lean closer toward a models-agnostic game system.



    I think subfactions can have weight in subtle ways, its just about GW not putting in the "this is the no brainer choice" option in the list. +1 to save is a no brainer in a wargame on basically any army.




    The biggest thing is that GW just doesn't seem interested/skilled in aiming for a flat level playing field of balance with minor exceptions. They always lean toward extremes of either too much or too little. They also have the issue that every single edition re-writes a lot of the core of the game so they can't polish things edition to edition because the field of play changes. They just about get the hang of an edition before its all change.



    If they improved feedback and interaction with beta-testers (ergo don't just send pre-written armies, send the whole book); if they improved the pay and support their rules writers had and perhaps even pushed toward writing most of the rules in advance of a release so that even if the books come out staggered; they are all working from the same base-line.


    GW is like Cheddar Cheese with rules. Overall its nice, but the holes are big and obvious most of the time.


    no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/02/05 04:33:22


    Post by: Breton


     Blackie wrote:
     H.B.M.C. wrote:
     Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote:
    I honestly don’t even get the problem. “Commander, higher ups say that we aren’t allowed to split companies, the assault troopers must stay with the artillery guns.” That doesn’t make sense, I feel like they’d promote splitting it up, you’d have to buy more paints at least.
    You can't mix Ork Clanz. That seems wrong to me.


    Fluffwise you can justify it by saying that the dominant klan gathered orks from different klans merging them into their klan. Those orks still have their colours on, but only because orks don't really wear proper uniforms and don't bother replacing them with the new ones . It makes sense that an evil sunz ork fighting under a goff leader becomes a goff himself.

    If there's one army whose paintjob should be completely irrelevant ruleswise that's orks!


    The other thing people are missing is that GW has said that the battles we fight are just one small piece of a larger war. They didn't do subfactions right for some armies - especially orks and guard - But their description of our battles is basically a strategic point held by the Cadian 327th against an assault from just a small Goff portion of the WAAGH! At the same time the Space Wolves were going after a Genestealer cult, the Sisters and Guard were fighting some Orks, while the White Scars were taking on Speedkult orks elsewhere, and the Ravenwing were off on one of their agendas, and Marneus was duelling Abbadon


    no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/02/05 04:58:40


    Post by: PenitentJake


    Breton wrote:

    The other thing people are missing is that GW has said that the battles we fight are just one small piece of a larger war. They didn't do subfactions right for some armies - especially orks and guard - But their description of our battles is basically a strategic point held by the Cadian 327th against an assault from just a small Goff portion of the WAAGH! At the same time the Space Wolves were going after a Genestealer cult, the Sisters and Guard were fighting some Orks, while the White Scars were taking on Speedkult orks elsewhere, and the Ravenwing were off on one of their agendas, and Marneus was duelling Abbadon


    Certainly this is true of a great many battles in the 40k lore- maybe even most of the battles.

    But the fact that Torchbearer Fleet and War of Faith Crusade rules exist very clearly communicates that sometimes armies of multiple factions do fight side by side by side to achieve shared objectives.

    What's missing is the similar rules for some of the other factions. I fully expect guard and chaos to have exceptions.

    Either way, this change is very, very specifically a Nachmund Gauntlet Matched play game rule. If you take a Matched play mission from any other book, the rule literally does not exist. If you play Crusade or open, the rule literally does not exist. I was extremely worried before we saw the actual details of the way this change was implemented, because it had the potential to be written in such a way that it impacted the entire game. As it turns out, the way the rule was implemented limits it's impat even beyond what I had seen as a best case scenario.


    no more mixed subfactions @ 2022/02/05 05:15:18


    Post by: Voss


    Breton wrote:
     Blackie wrote:
     H.B.M.C. wrote:
     Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote:
    I honestly don’t even get the problem. “Commander, higher ups say that we aren’t allowed to split companies, the assault troopers must stay with the artillery guns.” That doesn’t make sense, I feel like they’d promote splitting it up, you’d have to buy more paints at least.
    You can't mix Ork Clanz. That seems wrong to me.


    Fluffwise you can justify it by saying that the dominant klan gathered orks from different klans merging them into their klan. Those orks still have their colours on, but only because orks don't really wear proper uniforms and don't bother replacing them with the new ones . It makes sense that an evil sunz ork fighting under a goff leader becomes a goff himself.

    If there's one army whose paintjob should be completely irrelevant ruleswise that's orks!


    The other thing people are missing is that GW has said that the battles we fight are just one small piece of a larger war.


    I love that people say GW says this*. But it often isn't reflected in the fluff or novels. They happily have small warbands and teams operating on their own all the time.


    *in some books they have said something like it (though the only one where I _know_ they said it is an old edition of fantasy). But the actual statement is closer to 'One can imagine that the armies fighting on the tabletop are just a small piece...'