Okay, so there have been a few "10th is on the way" topics, and as most of you know, my ability to participate in those is limited, because I actually like 9th, and I'm probably one of only a handful of people who wish that 10th wasn't coming.

But regardless of what I want, 10th IS coming- it's only a matter of when.

So given that, I'm wondering what folks think we will get as new factions in 10th.

Emperor's Children, I'd say are virtually guaranteed. But beyond that?

PenitentJake wrote:
Okay, so there have been a few "10th is on the way" topics, and as most of you know, my ability to participate in those is limited, because I actually like 9th, and I'm probably one of only a handful of people who wish that 10th wasn't coming.

But regardless of what I want, 10th IS coming- it's only a matter of when.

So given that, I'm wondering what folks think we will get as new factions in 10th.

Emperor's Children, I'd say are virtually guaranteed. But beyond that?

Squats are coming.

Kroot might make a comeback?

 Amishprn86 wrote:
Squats are coming.

For 9th (along with World Eaters).

Well considering GW is clearly fleshing out Chaos to have 1 army per god with a mortal and demon core then completing that would be a clear must.

After that for a new force I'd like to see something like the Tau Auxiliaries. An army which features Kroot as perhaps a core part of the army, but then uses a lot of different xenos species in other roles. Basically going right back to what Tau were clearly originally designed to be, but using Kroot as the core instead of the Crisis suit force.

That way GW gets to have al ot of creative freedom in creating various minor races to join the Tau and it doesn't bloat the core Tau army.

Exactly like how Genestealer Cults being their own army means they don't bloat the Tyranid faction.






After that - EXODITES
As much as I'd love to see a new Xenos race rice up, I'd freaking love GW to actually make an Exodites army. Not just keep mentioning them in lore videos; not keep teasing them in snippets here and there (Warhammer + video that didn't feature 1 dinosaur* ). Actually make models and put them on the table. I want dinosaurs ridden by space elves with lasers in space and all.










* It was an awesome production don't get me wrong, its great. It just didn't really have anything that really screams Exodites

Personally I'd stop adding factions. There are far too many as it is and it's only adding bloat and making everyone's codexes suffer. What i would do is spend an edition fleshing out existing stuff and getting everyone up to snuff, then think about more new factions in 11th.

Emperors Children, Exodites, Hrud, Traitor Guard (+/- tie ups with Dark Mech).

Its a fair shout whether this is desirable as against having more waves for existing armies. But equally new is new.

 Togusa wrote:
Personally I'd stop adding factions. There are far too many as it is and it's only adding bloat and making everyone's codexes suffer. What i would do is spend an edition fleshing out existing stuff and getting everyone up to snuff, then think about more new factions in 11th.

This. Squats are inevitable I guess but no new factions. And stop giving each color of space marines its own book FFS.

After 30 years I think GW balance is as good as it will get until their current writers all retire and new blood comes in. So I'm all for more factions. It won't make the balance any worse.

I could get behind not giving every marine force its own book, but that boat has already sailed long long ago. Plus I'd rather GW added new factions instead of messing around making every faction follow marines with subfaction books and the like.



Plus armies like Tyranids are already very well rounded. Yes there's room for a few more things, but by and large its getting harder to add things that don't start tripping up over things that are already there. When you reach that point you start to do 2 things in my view

1) You resculpt existing models. Updating them with new looks, improved models and perhaps a few new weapon types

2) You add new armies. Because you don't need to add another 10 Tyranid types; you don't need to bloat them out. So you add a new faction with those 10 production slots and create something new and fresh

 Overread wrote:
After 30 years I think GW balance is as good as it will get until their current writers all retire and new blood comes in. So I'm all for more factions. It won't make the balance any worse.

I could get behind not giving every marine force its own book, but that boat has already sailed long long ago. Plus I'd rather GW added new factions instead of messing around making every faction follow marines with subfaction books and the like.



Plus armies like Tyranids are already very well rounded. Yes there's room for a few more things, but by and large its getting harder to add things that don't start tripping up over things that are already there. When you reach that point you start to do 2 things in my view

1) You resculpt existing models. Updating them with new looks, improved models and perhaps a few new weapon types

2) You add new armies. Because you don't need to add another 10 Tyranid types; you don't need to bloat them out. So you add a new faction with those 10 production slots and create something new and fresh

My quip about new factions isn't limited to better rules, but also to the fact that they tend to split factions into "wave" releases which makes things worse.

Lumineth, DoK, and Soulblight in AoS are excellent examples of this. Especially Soulblight who feel like a very unfinished faction, missing a lot of units which will no doubt show up in wave 2 in 23-24. They did this for GSC, Custodes, and Primaris Marines, CSM and Eldar. There is just too much stuff for them to release it all in a 12 month cycle.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Vatsetis wrote:


And perhaps a Female Space Marine codex will finally make 40K more inclusive.

How does having a male only faction make 40K less inclusive?

There are women in Chaos, Eldar, Dark Eldar, and Tau. Necrons and Tyranids are genderless, with some characters presenting as masculine. Orks are genderless, and sexless. Sisters of Battle are an entire army of only women. There are women assassins, Slaanesh (trans representation) and lots more female characters spread out over most of the other factions. Keeping the lore for marines as it is does nothing to help/hurt anyone. There is no reason to do it. As I have said before in the past, many times when I see folks asking for female marines, what they are really wanting is "boob plate" armored marines, because of sex fetishization of women. There is no reason to say that your marines don't have women in those shells, we don't need to see massive honkers for that.

Don't, it's bait. All you'll do is get the thread locked.

 Togusa wrote:
How does having a male only faction make 40K less inclusive?

Because he's a troll who, after exhausting his list of hyperbolic comparisons involving painting, has apparently decided to start trolling other threads. Female space marines are just something he thinks will get a reaction.

But, to be fair, space marines aren't just a male-only faction. They're the faction in 40k that gets an overwhelming majority of the attention, both on the tabletop and in the fluff/marketing/etc, while everyone else gets treated as NPC factions. If GW stopped favoring marines so blatantly having one all-male faction wouldn't be a problem, but unfortunately that's not the world we live in.

Too many factions as it is, roll all eldar into one book, and marines, and chaos, 1 book each, not 1 weird book with all three in.

 Overread wrote:
Well considering GW is clearly fleshing out Chaos to have 1 army per god with a mortal and demon core then completing that would be a clear must.

After that for a new force I'd like to see something like the Tau Auxiliaries. An army which features Kroot as perhaps a core part of the army, but then uses a lot of different xenos species in other roles. Basically going right back to what Tau were clearly originally designed to be, but using Kroot as the core instead of the Crisis suit force.

That way GW gets to have al ot of creative freedom in creating various minor races to join the Tau and it doesn't bloat the core Tau army.

Exactly like how Genestealer Cults being their own army means they don't bloat the Tyranid faction.

After that - EXODITES
As much as I'd love to see a new Xenos race rice up, I'd freaking love GW to actually make an Exodites army. Not just keep mentioning them in lore videos; not keep teasing them in snippets here and there (Warhammer + video that didn't feature 1 dinosaur* ). Actually make models and put them on the table. I want dinosaurs ridden by space elves with lasers in space and all.

* It was an awesome production don't get me wrong, its great. It just didn't really have anything that really screams Exodites

I agree with all of that. EC are probably happening. I'd love rules for tau auxiliaries that embrace a bunch of minor species (that was one of the main selling points to me when I first heard about tau).

Exodites seem like a pretty obvious option that would also potentially have a pretty unique playstyle; 40k doesn't really have a cavalry heavy army (outside of certain SW and daemon builds). Seeing what an army of fast, squishy dragon knights that aren't a disposable horde like gaunts looks like could be really interesting. The biggest hurdle I see for Exodites is similar to that of GSC. They pretty much stick to their own planets, so it's hard to have them fighting against all the other factions without their maiden world somehow getting devastated while also letting players maintain a since of continuity for their characters. Maybe they would work well with something like the Wandering Players rule harlequins have. So you could fluff them as a small force temporarily traveling with your craftworlders or joining up with the ynnari or whatever.

You could even *gasp* include them in that tau auxiliaries book and say that a few maiden worlds have opted to grace the tau with their assistance and powerful mind science in exchange for protection and agreeable terms regarding a tau presence on their planets. After all, exodites are presumably aware that the galaxy is full of planet-wrecking dangers that are just too big for one planet's defenders to stand against. And they also probably know that craftworlds can't always be available to back them up.

 Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:

 Togusa wrote:
How does having a male only faction make 40K less inclusive?

Because he's a troll who, after exhausting his list of hyperbolic comparisons involving painting, has apparently decided to start trolling other threads. Female space marines are just something he thinks will get a reaction.

But, to be fair, space marines aren't just a male-only faction. They're the faction in 40k that gets an overwhelming majority of the attention, both on the tabletop and in the fluff/marketing/etc, while everyone else gets treated as NPC factions. If GW stopped favoring marines so blatantly having one all-male faction wouldn't be a problem, but unfortunately that's not the world we live in.

"Et tu Brute"... And some people thought that ShasO and Vatsetis were indeed the same person.

Yes, I recognice that mentioning FSM was a boutade... That dosent turn me into a Troll.

But people must recognize that a Kroot Cannibal Empire that wipes out the Taus is a good idea, right?

beast_gts wrote:
Kroot might make a comeback?

 Amishprn86 wrote:
Squats are coming.

For 9th (along with World Eaters).

How do we know they are not being designed for 10th right now?

Vatsetis wrote:


But people must recognize that a Kroot Cannibal Empire that wipes out the Taus is a good idea, right?

{Shrugs} So long as the Tau remain a playable faction.

 Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:

 Togusa wrote:
Personally I'd stop adding factions. There are far too many as it is and it's only adding bloat and making everyone's codexes suffer. What i would do is spend an edition fleshing out existing stuff and getting everyone up to snuff, then think about more new factions in 11th.

This. Squats are inevitable I guess but no new factions. And stop giving each color of space marines its own book FFS.

We still new the traitor guard faction back.

I would love a real Corsairs army back.... PS these new corsairs while are cool are not the same at all in any way and should not have been called corsairs they are so different, just call them Outcasts.

Heck lets have an Outcasts book and put Ynnari in it where it belongs!!!

 Amishprn86 wrote:

beast_gts wrote:
Kroot might make a comeback?

 Amishprn86 wrote:
Squats are coming.

For 9th (along with World Eaters).

How do we know they are not being designed for 10th right now?

Oh, GW will absolutely claim that they were. But they're on the same time frame as the squats (later this year, matter of months*), because they've repeatedly told us that.


*barring delays, which seem inevitable at the moment. But the design work has been done and book is done or being finalized now.

Female Squats. Female Custodes. Female Orks. Female Necrons. Female Knights.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Female Knights.

I'm now imagining the Knight models, but with Boob Plate for some reason.

I want Emperor's Children as a fully fledged force. Exodites would be cool as well.

I'd also like regular Chaos Space Marines and regular Eldar to be finished.

 Overread wrote:
After 30 years I think GW balance is as good as it will get until their current writers all retire and new blood comes in.

That's a sad indictment of 40k...

 Amishprn86 wrote:
I would love a real Corsairs army back.... PS these new corsairs while are cool are not the same at all in any way and should not have been called corsairs they are so different, just call them Outcasts.

Heck lets have an Outcasts book and put Ynnari in it where it belongs!!!

7th edition corsairs basically had the best version of chapter tactics, and then GW killed them and gave less cool knock-off versions of their rules to everyone else.

As someone who plays ALL THE ELVES, I'm kind of enjoying getting the rules for all the eldar except drukkhari in a single book. But I'd be down for an Agents of the Aeldari book that contained harlequins, ynnari, exodites, corsairs, maybe white seers... But yeah. I miss the jetpack pirates too.

 Wyldhunt wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
I would love a real Corsairs army back.... PS these new corsairs while are cool are not the same at all in any way and should not have been called corsairs they are so different, just call them Outcasts.

Heck lets have an Outcasts book and put Ynnari in it where it belongs!!!

7th edition corsairs basically had the best version of chapter tactics, and then GW killed them and gave less cool knock-off versions of their rules to everyone else.

As someone who plays ALL THE ELVES, I'm kind of enjoying getting the rules for all the eldar except drukkhari in a single book. But I'd be down for an Agents of the Aeldari book that contained harlequins, ynnari, exodites, corsairs, maybe white seers... But yeah. I miss the jetpack pirates too.

Yep, by far my top codex of all time. A Outcasts/Agents Aeldari book should be a thin for sure.

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Female Knights.

I'm now imagining the Knight models, but with Boob Plate for some reason.

The leader of my Chaos Knights is female. I used the Canis Rex shell so I could model her canopy open.

The Canis Rex model is a blessing. I really want an Ork riding in there.

You're all thinking too small. Instead of a church on it's shoulders, I WANT A BARBY DREAM HOUSE IMPERATOR TITAN...

Well since you asked, I'll put in a vote for the 2 I've wanted since 1995:

Codex Imperial Agents - Inquisition, Arbites, Assassins, Navy, Rogue Traders, PDF, Citizens Crusades, Imperial Agricultural Assessment Service, roll in Custodes and Silent Sisters too. Playable as it's own army or as Imperial allies.

Codex Mercenaries - Space Pirates, minor Xenos races, crazy warp entities, horrors from the Dark Age of Technology and whatever else comes to mind.

 Togusa wrote:
Personally I'd stop adding factions. There are far too many as it is and it's only adding bloat and making everyone's codexes suffer. What i would do is spend an edition fleshing out existing stuff and getting everyone up to snuff, then think about more new factions in 11th.

Yeah that would be logical. I still want my Agents and Mercs though


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Overread wrote:
After 30 years I think GW balance is as good as it will get until their current writers all retire and new blood comes in. So I'm all for more factions. It won't make the balance any worse.

Well if they're really paying them GBP25k I can't imagine anyone sticking around too long.

Yeah love of the game makes you feel good but it don't pay the rent or the bills (especially if you have kids).

Some really good thoughts in here, and I want to reply to everyone, but it's late so I'm going to try and keep it general.

Over on B&C there was some talk about an exodite rumour, and I think Valrak was involved? But the rumour was a vague one- it didn't specify 9th or 10th, and it didn't specify whether it was an army with a stand alone dex or just a kit or two.

I've also thought that development of Corsairs and Kroot for KT were intended as foundations for further development. I would not be surprised to see both Corsair and Kroot offerings expanded, even if they don't become full dexes.

Another collection that could easily be assembled into a dex from largely existing models is Agents of the Imperium- we'll have inquisitors, assassins, rogue traders, and navy. If they added 3-4 kits to various Agent ranges, they could really build something cool.

 Amishprn86 wrote:

beast_gts wrote:
Kroot might make a comeback?

 Amishprn86 wrote:
Squats are coming.

For 9th (along with World Eaters).

How do we know they are not being designed for 10th right now?

They wouldn't be previewing them now if they are coming year later so theyy are coming in 9e

 Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:

 Togusa wrote:
Personally I'd stop adding factions. There are far too many as it is and it's only adding bloat and making everyone's codexes suffer. What i would do is spend an edition fleshing out existing stuff and getting everyone up to snuff, then think about more new factions in 11th.

This. Squats are inevitable I guess but no new factions. And stop giving each color of space marines its own book FFS.

The big question here is if there are any colours left that don't have their own book yet. We have black, blue, grey, red, green, black again, white, silver, green again, gold, even more black, and yellow (with me probably missing some) but where are pink, orange, purple, polka dots, and all those other options?

PenitentJake wrote:
Some really good thoughts in here, and I want to reply to everyone, but it's late so I'm going to try and keep it general.

Over on B&C there was some talk about an exodite rumour, and I think Valrak was involved? But the rumour was a vague one- it didn't specify 9th or 10th, and it didn't specify whether it was an army with a stand alone dex or just a kit or two.

I've also thought that development of Corsairs and Kroot for KT were intended as foundations for further development. I would not be surprised to see both Corsair and Kroot offerings expanded, even if they don't become full dexes.

Another collection that could easily be assembled into a dex from largely existing models is Agents of the Imperium- we'll have inquisitors, assassins, rogue traders, and navy. If they added 3-4 kits to various Agent ranges, they could really build something cool.

With 10e around the corner and 2 new armies(we and squats) coming dlready plus daemon/ig codexes safe to say army slots for 9e are filled. Gw usually doesn't release codexes right before new ed so march exodides can be ruled out. End of edition is supplement time.

tneva82 wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:
Some really good thoughts in here, and I want to reply to everyone, but it's late so I'm going to try and keep it general.

Over on B&C there was some talk about an exodite rumour, and I think Valrak was involved? But the rumour was a vague one- it didn't specify 9th or 10th, and it didn't specify whether it was an army with a stand alone dex or just a kit or two.

I've also thought that development of Corsairs and Kroot for KT were intended as foundations for further development. I would not be surprised to see both Corsair and Kroot offerings expanded, even if they don't become full dexes.

Another collection that could easily be assembled into a dex from largely existing models is Agents of the Imperium- we'll have inquisitors, assassins, rogue traders, and navy. If they added 3-4 kits to various Agent ranges, they could really build something cool.

With 10e around the corner and 2 new armies(we and squats) coming dlready plus daemon/ig codexes safe to say army slots for 9e are filled. Gw usually doesn't release codexes right before new ed so march exodides can be ruled out. End of edition is supplement time.

Off topic, just notice you are 21k posts, i've never seen that title before and I've been here for a long time lol.

 Dolnikan wrote:
but where are pink, orange, purple, polka dots, and all those other options?

Emperor's Children, come on now.

A new "Rainbow Marine" inclusive faction that accepts former loyal and heretic Astartes into their ranks and fights solely for Astartes Supremacy over the Galaxy... Their "legion" simbol yould be a Unicorn or a Bear.

PD: Rainbow marines core comes from the 2 lost legions that were in fact exiled to the intergalactic void for "****" and have now returned to take the Galaxy to the pre Heresy Situation.

Instead of adding new factions, 40k needs existing factions to be merged together.


Space Marines, Blood Angels, Dark Angels, Space Wolves, Deathwatch, Black Templars

Knights, Chaos Knights

Chaos Space Marines, Death Guard, Thousand Sons, (World Eaters)

 Lord Damocles wrote:
Instead of adding new factions, 40k needs existing factions to be merged together.


Space Marines, Blood Angels, Dark Angels, Space Wolves, Deathwatch, Black Templars

Knights, Chaos Knights

Chaos Space Marines, Death Guard, Thousand Sons, (World Eaters)

...no.

 Lord Damocles wrote:
Instead of adding new factions, 40k needs existing factions to be merged together.


Space Marines, Blood Angels, Dark Angels, Space Wolves, Deathwatch, Black Templars

Knights, Chaos Knights

Chaos Space Marines, Death Guard, Thousand Sons, (World Eaters)

Better to Reduce it to "codex adeptus astartes" and "codex Npc" withva hard cap of 100 dataaheets and 10 sub factionsceach.

I do think that we need to reduce the amount of codexes, and a lot of factions can just be subfactions, like the Astartes thing earlier. I think most of chaos could fit within one space marine codex, and I feel the divide between daemons and mortals is odd.

It seems that OG and numarines will be split. Good! I will never own a numarine, and am happy for a hard fork.

About new factions, I wish GW would do the core factions well first, before introducing more opportunities to eff things up, and do things poorly...

I think all codexes should be treated the same as the Guard Codex. You get one book, and sub factions are just a different paint scheme, set of strats, and relics. Remove all Sub Faction specific bonuses. Get rid of red thirst, Templar Vows, Sons of the Lion, all of it.

All sub factions get access to all units in the dex, and they just get to pick and choose what chapter buffs they get at army creation. So you can have All Red Space Marines that can run Wulfen with Red Thirst.

Also, COMPLETELY TRASH DOCTRINES.

 Dysartes wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:
Instead of adding new factions, 40k needs existing factions to be merged together.


Space Marines, Blood Angels, Dark Angels, Space Wolves, Deathwatch, Black Templars

Knights, Chaos Knights

Chaos Space Marines, Death Guard, Thousand Sons, (World Eaters)

...no.

Why? Separation of the Legions was one of the worst things to happen. The inconsistency between rules is honestly mind blowing.

Because Space Wolves should play differently to Blood Angels. Iron Warriors should play differently to Night Lords.

The units and weapons which the player includes in their army, and the platstyle they adopt would make different colours of Marines play differently.

An Iron Priest having to take an ice pistol instead of standard Techmarine gear does not a meaningful difference make.

I disagree. They all follow to varying extent, the codex astartes. Some more, some less, but they all train in Bolters, Blade, and Shock assault tactics. No chapter has no idea how to use a thunder hammer or drop pod for instance. All know the basic tenets of team and squad based tactical combat strategy. Some dabble in warp craft, some forbid it. But they all know what it is, and how to protect against it/defeat it.
Space Wolves are to Astartes as DKoK are to the Guard. They have a very silly and iconic look, that is completely foolish. Really, you're riding horses/Wolves into combat? What is this, the Czech cavalry charges of WW2 against German Tanks?

In my dumb and wrong opinion, Space Wolves don't exist. They are dumb, silly, and the start of all the worst parts about Nu40k lore. It's a Willy Wonka Army. It's completely silly and pointless. and completely makes a mockery of what semblance of lore actually remains.

They have become so sperated from the pack at this point they should be a stand alone faction, ala GK. No one else gets the weapons they use, no one else can run the units they use. Just make them a seperate faction ala GK and make everyone else just SPACE MARINE CODEX

The only problems I have with marines are

1) Having every legion as its own book and army with unique models means 40K has a lot of armies, many of which run with exceptionally similar styles and themes.

Yes they've grown apart over time, but it means there's a lot of model releases that are just "marines" and to me it eats into the creativity and potential creativity of the 40K setting and team.

2) Primaris being released alongside marines within the same army. I'd kind of wish that Primaris had either been a separate legion of their own or had simply replaced the models and were the next "version" of marines in style and sculpt.

Having them alongside in the same armies feels very rough and clunky. Because you've got 1 army which kind of has mirror options visually, thematically and in stats alongside each other.

It's "messy" and kind of feels like its a really slow burn way to "remove" classic marines at some stage. Or at least was hoped to be and then GW realised that was nuts marketing and abandoned it and now you've got two armies smushed together.






Still we've had some pretty epic updates as of late to Xenos armies, even Eldar have had some love.

The Scrimbo Bimblo

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Because Space Wolves should play differently to Blood Angels. Iron Warriors should play differently to Night Lords.

That doesn't mean needing separate codices and supplements.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Because Space Wolves should play differently to Blood Angels. Iron Warriors should play differently to Night Lords.

That's true, but it's also true of damn near every faction in the game. Saim-Hann should play differently to Iyanden. Speed Freeks should play differently to Snakebites, Tallarn should play differently to Mordian should play differently to Steel Legion, every Hive Fleet should play differently to every other Hive Fleet and to earlier versions of itself due to the hyperevolution...if everyone else can get by with a single codex (plus or minus a supplement or two), why do Space Marines "need" full codices for each Chapter/Legion?

.if everyone else can get by with a single codex (plus or minus a supplement or two), why do Space Marines "need" full codices for each Chapter/Legion?

More interesting to people playing the game. It is like dudes who do football earn more money then those that do curling


Automatically Appended Next Post:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Because Space Wolves should play differently to Blood Angels. Iron Warriors should play differently to Night Lords.

That doesn't mean needing separate codices and supplements.

It does with the way GW writes rules. If all marines were to be in a single book, the space marine codex would have 600 pages with 200 of them being art. But yeah in general it would be better if a space wolves or blood angles player could just play with a blood angle or SW codex, and not be tied to a space marine codex just in case GW decides to add new primaris models half in to an edition.

 waefre_1 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Because Space Wolves should play differently to Blood Angels. Iron Warriors should play differently to Night Lords.

That's true, but it's also true of damn near every faction in the game. Saim-Hann should play differently to Iyanden. Speed Freeks should play differently to Snakebites, Tallarn should play differently to Mordian should play differently to Steel Legion, every Hive Fleet should play differently to every other Hive Fleet and to earlier versions of itself due to the hyperevolution...if everyone else can get by with a single codex (plus or minus a supplement or two), why do Space Marines "need" full codices for each Chapter/Legion?

The problem here is that the old school subfactions(which DA, BA, and Space Wolves, and even Ultramarines if we go old school) have all legion specific units. If all get access to all then we have a codex with 120+ datasheets which is an unfathomable amount of datasheets. Just to make sense of it there would need to be a huge culling of the lines with old datasheets being sunsetted before combining the books.

Most of the subfactions you mention have not had a lot of special case units made for them which makes it easy for them to remain in their respective books. Even if GW did try to branch out in previous editions with Iyanden.

To be fair a lot of the older lines could do with a proper culling.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Because Space Wolves should play differently to Blood Angels. Iron Warriors should play differently to Night Lords.

I agree 100%...

As long as Bloody Rose and OoOML also continue to play differently, as well as the Cult of the Four Armed Emperor and the Pauper Princes... etc.

And I think that's where the problem comes in, because a lot of folks who dislike the current game due to its cognitive load feel like taking away subfaction distinctions is a good step to getting there.

But now that we've ALL got it, if anyone loses it, then EVERYONE should lose it.

Personally, I'd prefer to see subfaction rules remain... But that's just personal preference.

Dark Mechanicum and Traitor Guard would be cool, as well as of course the Emperor's Children which is bound to come sooner or later. That being said, I would much rather GW focus on two things before moving on to anything new:

1. Replacing all old models, especially resin and metal ones, with new, plastic models.
2. Creating accessory and weapons packs for a variety of different factions. The big Space Marine chapters get accessories for both Firstborn and Primaris, while other factions hardly get any at all. Also, weapons sprues and equipment sprues (e.g., jump packs) could allow GW to keep the 'no model, no rule' policy while also allowing players to keep all of their old loadouts.

I think GW needs to dedicate a significant amount of time and energy to fully supporting the factions and the units we have now rather than putting out new factions while leaving the old ones only partially supported.

 Eldarsif wrote:

 waefre_1 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Because Space Wolves should play differently to Blood Angels. Iron Warriors should play differently to Night Lords.

That's true, but it's also true of damn near every faction in the game. Saim-Hann should play differently to Iyanden. Speed Freeks should play differently to Snakebites, Tallarn should play differently to Mordian should play differently to Steel Legion, every Hive Fleet should play differently to every other Hive Fleet and to earlier versions of itself due to the hyperevolution...if everyone else can get by with a single codex (plus or minus a supplement or two), why do Space Marines "need" full codices for each Chapter/Legion?

The problem here is that the old school subfactions(which DA, BA, and Space Wolves, and even Ultramarines if we go old school) have all legion specific units. If all get access to all then we have a codex with 120+ datasheets which is an unfathomable amount of datasheets. Just to make sense of it there would need to be a huge culling of the lines with old datasheets being sunsetted before combining the books.

Most of the subfactions you mention have not had a lot of special case units made for them which makes it easy for them to remain in their respective books. Even if GW did try to branch out in previous editions with Iyanden.

To be fair a lot of the older lines could do with a proper culling.

I hate to be the one to tell you this, but not everything needs a separate unit entry. That's how we ended up with 3 Land Raiders instead of just one entry with "Pick your guns".

Most variant Chapter-specific units either aren't meaningfully different, have no reason to be Chapter-locked to begin with, or only exist in their current form in order to make [colour] Marines more different from generic.

 waefre_1 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Because Space Wolves should play differently to Blood Angels. Iron Warriors should play differently to Night Lords.

That's true, but it's also true of damn near every faction in the game. Saim-Hann should play differently to Iyanden. Speed Freeks should play differently to Snakebites, Tallarn should play differently to Mordian should play differently to Steel Legion, every Hive Fleet should play differently to every other Hive Fleet and to earlier versions of itself due to the hyperevolution...if everyone else can get by with a single codex (plus or minus a supplement or two), why do Space Marines "need" full codices for each Chapter/Legion?

Because Astartes need to be a snowflake treatment or else people might realise that tjey are quite irrelevant in the setting even doe the are the franchise poster boys.

EviscerationPlague wrote:
That doesn't mean needing separate codices and supplements.

What you said made it sound as there should be one Marine list and one Chaos list and that's it. No way to differentiate between any Chapter/Legion.

If this is not what you meant, then fine, but there are a bunch of extreme consolidationists here who would see 40k turned to a permanent state of grey, with any and all colour exorcised in the pursuit of streamlining.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
That doesn't mean needing separate codices and supplements.

What you said made it sound as there should be one Marine list and one Chaos list and that's it. No way to differentiate between any Chapter/Legion.

If this is not what you meant, then fine, but there are a bunch of extreme consolidationists here who would see 40k turned to a permanent state of grey, with any and all colour exorcised in the pursuit of streamlining.

There SHOULD be one Marine list. If you consolidate the appropriate profiles and make certain things generic, it would legit be smooth.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
That doesn't mean needing separate codices and supplements.

What you said made it sound as there should be one Marine list and one Chaos list and that's it. No way to differentiate between any Chapter/Legion.

If this is not what you meant, then fine, but there are a bunch of extreme consolidationists here who would see 40k turned to a permanent state of grey, with any and all colour exorcised in the pursuit of streamlining.

Nah. You can keep colors. Just there isn't much point in pretending Grey Hunters aren't tactical squads, Deathwing Kinghts aren't just terminators with stormshields and Crusader squads aren't some weird blender of scouts, tacticals and assault squads.
There's no benefit from differentiating this level of trivia at this level. Most of its cultural stuff that doesn't matter on the table.

It'd be like mandating that the Welsh and Scottish Rugby teams have one player dressed differently, because somehow that 'shows their nationality.'

Traitor Guard would be nice.

Also, Chaos Necrons.

Voss wrote:
... Just there isn't much point in pretending Grey Hunters aren't tactical squads...

But they aren't just tactical squads...

Voss wrote:
... Deathwing Kinghts aren't just terminators with stormshields...

But they aren't just Terminators with Storm Shields...

Voss wrote:
... and Crusader squads aren't some weird blender of scouts, tacticals and assault squads...

They're the most unique of the three you've singled out.

Voss wrote:
There's no benefit from differentiating this level of trivia at this level. Most of its cultural stuff that doesn't matter on the table.

It's not cultural. It's organisational. They do not fight the same. They have units that are unique to them.

Voss wrote:
It'd be like mandating that the Welsh and Scottish Rugby teams have one player dressed differently, because somehow that 'shows their nationality.'

More like if the Welsh team had two men on horseback and you said that they couldn't because they're just the same as the really fast guys on the Scottish team.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Voss wrote:
... Just there isn't much point in pretending Grey Hunters aren't tactical squads...

But they aren't just tactical squads...

Voss wrote:
... Deathwing Kinghts aren't just terminators with stormshields...

But they aren't just Terminators with Storm Shields...

Voss wrote:
... and Crusader squads aren't some weird blender of scouts, tacticals and assault squads...

They're the most unique of the three you've singled out.

Voss wrote:
There's no benefit from differentiating this level of trivia at this level. Most of its cultural stuff that doesn't matter on the table.

It's not cultural. It's organisational. They do not fight the same. They have units that are unique to them.

Voss wrote:
It'd be like mandating that the Welsh and Scottish Rugby teams have one player dressed differently, because somehow that 'shows their nationality.'

More like if the Welsh team had two men on horseback and you said that they couldn't because they're just the same as the really fast guys on the Scottish team.

LOL and those units really aren't unique. To honestly pretend Deathwing Knights aren't just Assault Terminators is ridiculous. The Mace LITERALLY has the same stats as the Thunderhammer. LITERALLY. Uou have an attachment to a paint scheme.

Regular termintors don't have a flail of absolution or a weapon that works the same they have no super human physilogy always on, they can't deny the witch, they don't auto pass morale. Even one of those rules would be more then just paint.

Same way TWC or DA raven knights aren't just bikers etc.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Eldarsif wrote:

 waefre_1 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Because Space Wolves should play differently to Blood Angels. Iron Warriors should play differently to Night Lords.

That's true, but it's also true of damn near every faction in the game. Saim-Hann should play differently to Iyanden. Speed Freeks should play differently to Snakebites, Tallarn should play differently to Mordian should play differently to Steel Legion, every Hive Fleet should play differently to every other Hive Fleet and to earlier versions of itself due to the hyperevolution...if everyone else can get by with a single codex (plus or minus a supplement or two), why do Space Marines "need" full codices for each Chapter/Legion?

The problem here is that the old school subfactions(which DA, BA, and Space Wolves, and even Ultramarines if we go old school) have all legion specific units. If all get access to all then we have a codex with 120+ datasheets which is an unfathomable amount of datasheets. Just to make sense of it there would need to be a huge culling of the lines with old datasheets being sunsetted before combining the books.

Most of the subfactions you mention have not had a lot of special case units made for them which makes it easy for them to remain in their respective books. Even if GW did try to branch out in previous editions with Iyanden.

To be fair a lot of the older lines could do with a proper culling.

I hate to be the one to tell you this, but not everything needs a separate unit entry. That's how we ended up with 3 Land Raiders instead of just one entry with "Pick your guns".

Even if datasheets were merged into just weapon options it would still mean that there are too many options for a single army to make all those options meaningful, especially with those N number of bolter variants*. Many of the older armies, especially space marines, need to start sunsetting units and GW needs to stop adding new units and perhaps instead focusing on newer and cooler sculpts for existing things they want to keep.

* Seriously, there are more bolter variants than some armies have models.

Karol wrote:
Regular termintors don't have a flail of absolution or a weapon that works the same they have no super human physilogy always on, they can't deny the witch, they don't auto pass morale. Even one of those rules would be more then just paint.

Same way TWC or DA raven knights aren't just bikers etc.

There are so many ways this could be dealt with, without needing separate supplements for every SM chapter. You can have DA Terminators pay more points to get the permanent Transhuman, and have it as a condition of the Chapter tactic. You can do a similar thing to turn regular bikes into Ravenwing. You can decide that losing the flail weapon they get is a small price to pay for the benefits of consolidation. It didn't even exist until 8th edition anyway, and DA players didn't seem to be complaining about it.

Or you can include all the special chapters in one supplement, instead of 9 (or is it 11?). The vast majority of them are a single special character and yet more WLT, strats and psychic powers that we don't need. Even the unique units and characters probably take up less than 5 or 6 pages per chapter. The Deathwatch supplement is tiny in terms of rules content, for example. You have 2 characters, 5 units and a few pages detailing crating Kill Teams and Specialisms. You could copy all of that to a single, slightly larger supplement with all the special SM stuff in it and lose very little.

That's assuming you want to keep that level of uniqueness for each Chapter. There's no reason you need to do that. Every other Codex in the game manages to include sub-factions that have differences in playstyle but still use the same Codex. The same can easily be true of SM.

Invalidating people's collections would be quite a risky move though.(related to idea of sunsetting units)

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Voss wrote:
... Just there isn't much point in pretending Grey Hunters aren't tactical squads...

But they aren't just tactical squads...

They are, though. You're mistaking current weapon options for meaningful difference.
Are chaos marines hauling around a completely different unit now that their special and heavy weapons have to be different? Its the same design philosophy...

Voss wrote:
... and Crusader squads aren't some weird blender of scouts, tacticals and assault squads...

They're the most unique of the three you've singled out.

Yes, they are. And a mashup of other datasheets isn't that unique!

Voss wrote:
There's no benefit from differentiating this level of trivia at this level. Most of its cultural stuff that doesn't matter on the table.

It's not cultural. It's organisational. They do not fight the same. They have units that are unique to them.

Sometimes. And sometimes those 'unique' units get shuffled off to everybody in the next cycle. But when they remain they're mostly just weapon swaps.


The biggest problem with your position is that this:

but there are a bunch of extreme consolidationists here who would see 40k turned to a permanent state of grey, with any and all colour exorcised in the pursuit of streamlining.

is better served by the _current_ state of affairs. Paint your armies grey or off color and just switch them around according to what you field. Lots of tanks: iron hands! Lots of bolters; they're imperial fists now! Lots of Bikes: obviously Ravenwing. Color = rules bonuses (ie, 'chapter flavor') actively encourages not having a faction identity far more than consolidation. The one time I knew people who were really attached to _their_ chapter? Rogue Trader, when the color didn't make any difference. The flavor was all in the background and the mind, not in how they benefit from the rules. (and how they'll abandon it for something that supports them better in the next go-around).

Voss wrote:
The flavor was all in the background and the mind, not in how they benefit from the rules. (and how they'll abandon it for something that supports them better in the next go-around).

My issue with all of this is that I'm not reading a book, I'm playing a game, and flavour that exists only in my mind actually isn't flavour at all- it's just imagination that has no impact upon the game.

If I want an imagination day, I'll read. But when I'm playing a game, rules are a part of the art form that I am exploring, and I expect them to reflect the fighting style of the force I've invested in, and distinguish it from the forces that others have chose to invest in.

I think we should have additional bonuses individual units or models can buy, or better gear, such as veteran traits, where you could give your Terminator squad permanent Transhuman, and have subfactions listed as usually taking specific traits and combinations. Just add extra gear to this list, and bravo, subfactions and custom subfactions.

Voss wrote:

Voss wrote:
... and Crusader squads aren't some weird blender of scouts, tacticals and assault squads...

They're the most unique of the three you've singled out.

Yes, they are. And a mashup of other datasheets isn't that unique!

True, therefore we need to axe every Space Marine power armour model ever since they're just a mashup of every other power armour marine ever.
Same with the Terminators
While we're at it, all ork boy variants are just mashups of each other, so we can mash them all together.
Celestians and Dominions are literally made from the same box as Battle Sisters, so they can get culled for being just Battle-Sisters-but-not-troops.
Imperial Guard can have all their flak infantry consolidated for the same reason.
Ad Infinitum.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:

Voss wrote:

Voss wrote:
... and Crusader squads aren't some weird blender of scouts, tacticals and assault squads...

They're the most unique of the three you've singled out.

Yes, they are. And a mashup of other datasheets isn't that unique!

True, therefore we need to axe every Space Marine power armour model ever since they're just a mashup of every other power armour marine ever.
Same with the Terminators
While we're at it, all ork boy variants are just mashups of each other, so we can mash them all together.
Celestians and Dominions are literally made from the same box as Battle Sisters, so they can get culled for being just Battle-Sisters-but-not-troops.
Imperial Guard can have all their flak infantry consolidated for the same reason.
Ad Infinitum.

Yes we need to axe two of the three Terminator Datasheets. Finally someone gets it.

Voss wrote:
The biggest problem with your position is that is better served by the _current_ state of affairs. Paint your armies grey or off color and just switch them around according to what you field. Lots of tanks: iron hands! Lots of bolters; they're imperial fists now! Lots of Bikes: obviously Ravenwing. Color = rules bonuses (ie, 'chapter flavor') actively encourages not having a faction identity far more than consolidation. The one time I knew people who were really attached to _their_ chapter? Rogue Trader, when the color didn't make any difference. The flavor was all in the background and the mind, not in how they benefit from the rules. (and how they'll abandon it for something that supports them better in the next go-around).

Only if you're a meta-chasing loony.

Some of us pick an army and stick with it, regardless of colour-schemes or the rules other factions have.

The problem with your position is that you're just looking at rules, and not the armies those rules belong to.

I don't see why you can't just have an entry for your special snowflake unit in the codex that has the appropriate Chapter Keyword.

Then the Dark Angels can have their snowflake Terminators without having a whole book dedicated to them.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:
I think we should have additional bonuses individual units or models can buy, or better gear, such as veteran traits, where you could give your Terminator squad permanent Transhuman, and have subfactions listed as usually taking specific traits and combinations. Just add extra gear to this list, and bravo, subfactions and custom subfactions.

I think the 3.5 ed Imperial Guard codex did something like that. There was a list of regiments and what they preferred to field.

Darn it people we are enjoying adding new armies to the game not trying to remove the marines

Focus people focus!!

 Overread wrote:
Darn it people we are enjoying adding new armies to the game not trying to remove the marines

Focus people focus!!

Knowing GW, the new faction will be marines
Unless I'm mistaken, Iron Hands don't have their own book complete with Terminator variant #8 and bolter variant #69.

PenitentJake wrote:

Voss wrote:
The flavor was all in the background and the mind, not in how they benefit from the rules. (and how they'll abandon it for something that supports them better in the next go-around).

My issue with all of this is that I'm not reading a book, I'm playing a game, and flavour that exists only in my mind actually isn't flavour at all- it's just imagination that has no impact upon the game.

If I want an imagination day, I'll read. But when I'm playing a game, rules are a part of the art form that I am exploring, and I expect them to reflect the fighting style of the force I've invested in, and distinguish it from the forces that others have chose to invest in.

A well-designed Codex would allow armies to be constructed that are balanced and represent the major sub-factions and their way of fighting. You don't need a special rule to tell you your army is Bloody Rose if the design of the Codex allows you to field units representative of that sub-faction. Then it's just down to player choice to represent their sub-faction appropriately.

Slipspace wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:

Voss wrote:
The flavor was all in the background and the mind, not in how they benefit from the rules. (and how they'll abandon it for something that supports them better in the next go-around).

My issue with all of this is that I'm not reading a book, I'm playing a game, and flavour that exists only in my mind actually isn't flavour at all- it's just imagination that has no impact upon the game.

If I want an imagination day, I'll read. But when I'm playing a game, rules are a part of the art form that I am exploring, and I expect them to reflect the fighting style of the force I've invested in, and distinguish it from the forces that others have chose to invest in.

A well-designed Codex would allow armies to be constructed that are balanced and represent the major sub-factions and their way of fighting. You don't need a special rule to tell you your army is Bloody Rose if the design of the Codex allows you to field units representative of that sub-faction. Then it's just down to player choice to represent their sub-faction appropriately.

Sub faction rules aren't the problem, special snowflake unit rules are.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Voss wrote:
The biggest problem with your position is that is better served by the _current_ state of affairs. Paint your armies grey or off color and just switch them around according to what you field. Lots of tanks: iron hands! Lots of bolters; they're imperial fists now! Lots of Bikes: obviously Ravenwing. Color = rules bonuses (ie, 'chapter flavor') actively encourages not having a faction identity far more than consolidation. The one time I knew people who were really attached to _their_ chapter? Rogue Trader, when the color didn't make any difference. The flavor was all in the background and the mind, not in how they benefit from the rules. (and how they'll abandon it for something that supports them better in the next go-around).

Only if you're a meta-chasing loony.

Some of us pick an army and stick with it, regardless of colour-schemes or the rules other factions have.

The problem with your position is that you're just looking at rules, and not the armies those rules belong to.

So you should agree having three separate unit entries for Terminators is silly.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Voss wrote:
The biggest problem with your position is that is better served by the _current_ state of affairs. Paint your armies grey or off color and just switch them around according to what you field. Lots of tanks: iron hands! Lots of bolters; they're imperial fists now! Lots of Bikes: obviously Ravenwing. Color = rules bonuses (ie, 'chapter flavor') actively encourages not having a faction identity far more than consolidation. The one time I knew people who were really attached to _their_ chapter? Rogue Trader, when the color didn't make any difference. The flavor was all in the background and the mind, not in how they benefit from the rules. (and how they'll abandon it for something that supports them better in the next go-around).

Only if you're a meta-chasing loony.

Some of us pick an army and stick with it, regardless of colour-schemes or the rules other factions have.

The problem with your position is that you're just looking at rules, and not the armies those rules belong to.

Right. That is the problem. The armies don't exist. Only the subfaction rules that have supplanted them.

Its weird to insist that other people are meta-chasing but that subfactions have to have rules benefits to be worthwhile.

PenitentJake wrote:My issue with all of this is that I'm not reading a book, I'm playing a game, and flavour that exists only in my mind actually isn't flavour at all- it's just imagination that has no impact upon the game.

If I want an imagination day, I'll read. But when I'm playing a game, rules are a part of the art form that I am exploring, and I expect them to reflect the fighting style of the force I've invested in, and distinguish it from the forces that others have chose to invest in.

Well the first part sounds like a you problem that nothing can help with, sorry. If your red jump pack guys wound more often than your grey jump pack guys that hit more often, and that's somehow meaningful to you, I don't know what to say.

As to the second... ok, I'll bite. What part of the iron hands replacement of the flesh means their tanks are more durable? What about the Imperial Fist siege specialty makes them able to double shot infantry on exploding sixes? What part of White Scars predisposition to cavalry makes their infantry run into combat faster and shoot meltaguns better? These rules absolutely don't reflect a fighting style. They're just bloated bonuses for chosing unit types to min/max army composition at the list building stage.

And from a completely different direction (art form!), its weird that subfactions have to have rules benefits to be worthwhile.

Voss wrote:
What part of the iron hands replacement of the flesh means their tanks are more durable?

The Iron Hands actually align quite closely with the Adeptus Mechanicus with regards to the veneration of machines and machine spirits. They are more well-versed as a Chapter in the cants and rituals of the Machine God and their vehicles are often given unique upgrades by their Mechanicus allies to make them more effective in combat.

What about the Imperial Fist siege specialty makes them able to double shot infantry on exploding sixes?

The Imperial Fists place special emphasis on the use of Bolt weapons as the bread and butter of the Astartes arsenal. While all Astartes are effective with their use, the Imperial Fists go above and beyond with their drills to ensure maximum combat efficiency with the most common weapon in a Space Marine's arsenal.

What part of White Scars predisposition to cavalry makes their infantry run into combat faster and shoot meltaguns better?

The White Scars emulate the great Chogorian legend, Lightning McQueen. Ahem. The tribes of Chogoris place emphasis on closing with the enemy as quickly as possible to engage them in combat, the White Scars take this creed and apply it to their method of warfare. They place emphasis on weapons that are more useful when the charge hits home, such as Meltaguns.

Fun fact: Literally all of this is explained in each Chapter Tactic blurb in the Marine Codex

These rules absolutely don't reflect a fighting style. They're just bloated bonuses for chosing unit types to min/max army composition at the list building stage.

Yeah all those people taking Bolter armed units to min/max the Imperial Fists Chapter Tactic. How dare they use any unit with a Bolt weapon. /s

Voss wrote:

Well the first part sounds like a you problem that nothing can help with, sorry. If your red jump pack guys wound more often than your grey jump pack guys that hit more often, and that's somehow meaningful to you, I don't know what to say.

Well the fact that one hits more often suggests that they focus on high volume fire and quick shots, while the other focusses on taking the time to aim for the squishy bits...

And the point is that because there are rules for those things, it is a more effective way to represent this in the game rather than just saying "These guys focus on high volume and quick shots, while those guys take the time aim for vulnerable targets"... And then representing both armies with exactly the same rules so that the "Aiming for vulnerable areas" is just something you say that has Zero impact on the game... And if you can't see that then I don't know what to say to you.

Voss wrote:

As to the second... ok, I'll bite. What part of the iron hands replacement of the flesh means their tanks are more durable? What about the Imperial Fist siege specialty makes them able to double shot infantry on exploding sixes? What part of White Scars predisposition to cavalry makes their infantry run into combat faster and shoot meltaguns better? These rules absolutely don't reflect a fighting style. They're just bloated bonuses for chosing unit types to min/max army composition at the list building stage.

And from a completely different direction (art form!), its weird that subfactions have to have rules benefits to be worthwhile.

The only Marines I've ever been interested in are the Chambers Militant, so I'm not really qualified to answer, but I'll assume Gert covered it.

I will, however, say that whether or not GW has scored a hit with every subfaction rule is not the issue- the misses can be debated on their own individually. As I understand it, this conversation is about whether or not rules to distinguish subfactions from each other should exist at all.

Clan Skryre in WHFB 6th feels a lot more like a proper subfaction to me than anything I've ever done in 40k. The difference is that Skryre doesn't get special bonuses to hit. They get more access to certain units and less access to others.

Dark Ravens! The Blood ravens and Dark Angels have a successor baby together, and it's got no BACK FLIPPING TERMINATORS. Just good old fashioned battle brothers.

Dark Mech. Is probably the only faction GW could make that would prompt me to buy a whole new army. That said, I would rather they just make them a sub faction of CSM.

Karol wrote:
Regular termintors don't have a flail of absolution or a weapon that works the same they have no super human physilogy always on, they can't deny the witch, they don't auto pass morale. Even one of those rules would be more then just paint.

Same way TWC or DA raven knights aren't just bikers etc.

Why would Dark Angels be the only Marines who's physiology... works... all the... time..? That makes no sense on the face of it.
Why can Dark Angels deny psychic powers better than anybody else? How come that didn't used to be in the Knights' rules?
Why would Terminators in bone armour be braver than Terminators in red armour or black armour?
Were Deathwing not Deathwing before they had all of these extra rules bodged on?

Remember originally these background and rules were made up to make difference. Previously in 2nd edition days, Blood Angels were just red Marines. Then they gradually introduced more rules such as for Death Company and so on.

If GW wanted they could just as easily do something similar for Craftworld Saim-hann like what they did in 3rd edition and have a Wild Rider Chieftain and his Wild Rider unit. Then in a few years time people would be saying how Codex Saim-hann should totally exist separately because how else could they reflect the differences and how their Wild Riders are so different from the Windriders of other Craftworlds.

These differences were all introduced at some point by GW, and then rules followed. GW can always fold them back.

It's a bit of a double standard to argue that this small group of 1000 red Marines is so very different from those 1000 green Marines as to warrant separate Codices for each, while a Craftworld of puritanical adherents to the Path (Alaitoc) is similar enough to a Craftworld that is wild and loose with the Path (Saim-hann) to both be represented with just one Codex.

Back in 3rd edition days, I posted this hypothetical: Their favored colors are red, black, and white. They have fast vehicles. They have blood rituals involving drinking of blood. Who am I talking about? Blood Angels or Saim-hann? If the former deserves a Codex, surely the latter does as well?

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:
Clan Skryre in WHFB 6th feels a lot more like a proper subfaction to me than anything I've ever done in 40k. The difference is that Skryre doesn't get special bonuses to hit. They get more access to certain units and less access to others.

Dark Elves could field a Witch Cult army without any bonuses or extra special rules and it worked quite well. Fragile as hell but it hit like a ton of bricks. That's what good army design looks like - viable options to allow fluffy builds without the need for special rules to differentiate the exact way in which this close combat focussed Chapter is different to the other close combat focussed chapter.

Werent dark elfs, just like demons, undead and high elfs in fatasy ? Always one of the more powerful books there were. That is like saying that harlequins have a good design, because they work both as part of CWE and as a solo army. The majority of armies in w40k do not have the core or basic unit rules to carry a themed list without special rule. An army of just termintors without inner circle rules is just a very bad space marine army.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lord Damocles wrote:

Why would Dark Angels be the only Marines who's physiology... works... all the... time..? That makes no sense on the face of it.
Why can Dark Angels deny psychic powers better than anybody else? How come that didn't used to be in the Knights' rules?
Why would Terminators in bone armour be braver than Terminators in red armour or black armour?
Were Deathwing not Deathwing before they had all of these extra rules bodged on?

I think you are mixing up lore with rules. GW knows that DW is a thing. That there are DA players who don't want to play other wing armies, and buy DA specificaly to play a DW army. GW also knows that termintors are what they are, specialy at the time the DA codex came out. So in order to make the playstyle viable, they knew they had to give DW special rules.

Same way they know that Sang Guard aren't just gold painted VanVets, that people have whole collections and armies based around them or jump pack geared BA units.

PenitentJake wrote:

Voss wrote:

Well the first part sounds like a you problem that nothing can help with, sorry. If your red jump pack guys wound more often than your grey jump pack guys that hit more often, and that's somehow meaningful to you, I don't know what to say.

Well the fact that one hits more often suggests that they focus on high volume fire and quick shots, while the other focusses on taking the time to aim for the squishy bits...

And the point is that because there are rules for those things, it is a more effective way to represent this in the game rather than just saying "These guys focus on high volume and quick shots, while those guys take the time aim for vulnerable targets"... And then representing both armies with exactly the same rules so that the "Aiming for vulnerable areas" is just something you say that has Zero impact on the game... And if you can't see that then I don't know what to say to you.

Considering its melee only and they're both using the same brand of chainsword, and neither is known for either type of fighting style... OK then. Thanks for proving my point. This 'rules lore' (both the stuff you just made up and the actual lore you seem to know nothing about) is obviously 'super important'

40k needs a faction based around cave men riding dinosaurs. Representation from the Savage Worlds galaxy would be awesome, like Spear and Fang.

Voss wrote:

Considering its melee only and they're both using the same brand of chainsword, and neither is known for either type of fighting style... OK then. Thanks for proving my point. This 'rules lore' (both the stuff you just made up and the actual lore you seem to know nothing about) is obviously 'super important'

So when I respond to posts, I'm not always in the place where books are, and I don't always double check. If the rules we're talking are melee only, then you also failed to mention that in the post I was responding to- I took exactly what you gave me, interpreted a possible meaning to these rules, and put that back out there with the explanation that "merely saying a thing about your army because it's in the fluff doesn't ACTUALLY reflect the fluff when nothing happens on the table" - that point stands, regardless of the specific rules in question.

And again, yes, it is debatable whether or not a specific subfaction's rules actually match the fluff- I certainly agree that GW does a better job with some subfactions than others, and yes, that can be problematic... But that's still not what we've actually been exchanging posts about. This set of posts have been about whether or not subfaction rules should exist at all.

In my opinion, they should. Because SAYING your subfaction are better shooters is not the same as them actually BEING better shooters... or whatever specific rule we happen to be discussing.

As for the folks who have pointed out that older versions of the game expressed subfaction identities via unit selection... Yes, I remember that- I was there too, and at the time, it didn't seem like a bad way to do it. These days though, having seen the alternative, I'm not sure the old way was better- granting Obsec to a unit that doesn't normally have it to reflect a subfaction's background is fine, but it's a slippery slope if we start talking about restricting access to unit types in addition to that. It feels like a greater flanderization to me to say "You can't take X unit because you are subfaction Y" than it does to say "Because you are subfaction Y, all your units can do this thing in addition to the other stuff that all member of the faction are able to do."

PenitentJake wrote:

Voss wrote:

Considering its melee only and they're both using the same brand of chainsword, and neither is known for either type of fighting style... OK then. Thanks for proving my point. This 'rules lore' (both the stuff you just made up and the actual lore you seem to know nothing about) is obviously 'super important'

So when I respond to posts, I'm not always in the place where books are, and I don't always double check. If the rules we're talking are melee only, then you also failed to mention that in the post I was responding to- I took exactly what you gave me, interpreted a possible meaning to these rules, and put that back out there with the explanation that "merely saying a thing about your army because it's in the fluff doesn't ACTUALLY reflect the fluff when nothing happens on the table" - that point stands, regardless of the specific rules in question.

I did not realize 'jump pack troops' was ambiguous.

I'm not sure how your point 'stands,' though. Neither the rules, the fluff or what you thought either was was correct in any way. Clearly it doesn't contribute well to the fluff OR the rules.

And again, yes, it is debatable whether or not a specific subfaction's rules actually match the fluff- I certainly agree that GW does a better job with some subfactions than others, and yes, that can be problematic... But that's still not what we've actually been exchanging posts about. This set of posts have been about whether or not subfaction rules should exist at all.

Right And if its a fluff bad matchup merely for rules advantage, I'm not sure why it should exist. Its not something that 'could be better,' it just doesn't need to exist at all.

In my opinion, they should. Because SAYING your subfaction are better shooters is not the same as them actually BEING better shooters... or whatever specific rule we happen to be discussing.

Right... see, saying [Color]=better shooter is a dumb bit of background. Marine are all above average competent. Being better 'because Yellow' is not 'depth of background,' its just inane and childish. Like a novice RPG player saying their level 5 fighter is the bestest swordsman ever. That's not something that's achievable within the system, so there isn't any point in making it part of the background.

Regarding new factions: the kroot/alien auxiliary list mentioned way earlier in this discussion sounds really cool.

Also: there should be some Chaos followers amongst aliens in my opinion. Maybe as one optional subfaction of that alien list

Karol wrote:
Werent dark elfs, just like demons, undead and high elfs in fatasy ? Always one of the more powerful books

No. Youve just rolled off a list of the most powerful mid to late 7th ed books. Dark Elves in particular were often rather tame like their 40k cousins. Daemons had a total of two real army books over the history of WHFB. Tomb Kings, who I am assuming you count as undead were usually quite poor.

Yeah, Vampire Counts, Demons and Skaven were the top armies iirc. High Elves were pretty strong too, as they had powerful magic and their troops always struck first. You didn't hear much about Dark Elves.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Yeah, Vampire Counts, Demons and Skaven were the top armies iirc. High Elves were pretty strong too, as they had powerful magic and their troops always struck first. You didn't hear much about Dark Elves.

Dark Elves were pretty nasty in 7th when they could build an essentially unkillable lord with none to shabby combat abilities
And had the Black Guard who were just all round excellent.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Yeah, Vampire Counts, Demons and Skaven were the top armies iirc. High Elves were pretty strong too, as they had powerful magic and their troops always struck first. You didn't hear much about Dark Elves.

It really depends on when you look. The 6th Edition High Elf army book for instance was pretty bad. Okay, more than just pretty bad. It was atrociously bad. It had far more expensive troops than other armies who just weren't that much better so they would usually get ground to a paste. Daemons did relatively well when they had their own army because it was an army that ignored quite a few basic rules and had a pretty good melee ability. Skaven also varried but had lots of incredibly powerful weapons so they tended to rank pretty highly. Vampire Counts also varied. They tended to not have a great melee ability in most of their units and relied on their characters. They were pretty strong (especially because of some movement tricks) but would struggle when not properly supported.

Karol wrote:
Werent dark elfs, just like demons, undead and high elfs in fatasy ? Always one of the more powerful books there were. That is like saying that harlequins have a good design, because they work both as part of CWE and as a solo army. The majority of armies in w40k do not have the core or basic unit rules to carry a themed list without special rule. An army of just termintors without inner circle rules is just a very bad space marine army.

As usual, you've missed the point. DE were pretty decent as an army at the time, yes, though not top tier. What I'm pointing out is it's possible to allow people to create armies that are consistent with the background in terms of unit composition and playstyle, without needing a bunch of extra special rules tacked on. It's just a matter of making sure the units represent the fluff properly and aren't absolutely terrible.

On a similar note, there's a tendency towards Flanderization of sub-factions that bespoke rules for those sub-factions encourage. Most SM Chapters fight in roughly the same way, for example. The differences between Blood Angels and Ultramarines should be relatively minor. BA are still largely Codex-compliant and should fight that way. Instead, we get hordes of elite jump pack troops and frothing lunatics, because the rules dictate that.

First of the difference between BA and Ultramarines is not minor. If it was minor, then one of the faction wouldn't exist, because a separate rule set would not be needed.

Hordes of elite jump pack troops and DC is rules, that is right, because that is their entire lore. There were times when entire companies of BAs went DC with the entire command structure, minus the chaplains becoming "frothing lunatics".

As the DE being decent, I actualy asked about it, because I never played anything outside of AoS. And they were only considered decent when comparing to demons or undead, high elfs who were more broken. And while never got to expiriance DE, I have seen casual eldar lists in 8th ed over power other factions tournament lists. So yeah, I stay by my view. When an army has super powerful army rules and the core rules are in their favour, they can play sub standard builds, because there is stuff that can carry such a list. Eldar seem to be full of such units, which shows up in their nerfs. GW thinks they are hard nerfing them, often after months or longer of being top tier, and by the time they kill a build, the eldar player have moved on to something else. this was true for Eldar in 8th, when GW was still nerfing the hell out of reapers, when players already moved to flyer lists. Or in 9th, when GW thought they have "fixed" Dark Eldar, only to be suprised that somehow they managed to write the rules in a such a way that an entire 60% win rate list hid inside of the codex, in the form of meat mountain.

Karol wrote:
First of the difference between BA and Ultramarines is not minor. If it was minor, then one of the faction wouldn't exist, because a separate rule set would not be needed.

This is a nice summary of what a lot of people have been saying in this very thread: reduce sub-faction bloat because the differences its trying to represent are ridiculously minor. Maybe you can make the argument that BA have sufficient differences to warrant their own Codex, but the same argument in regards to Iron Hands or Imperial Fists seems much harder to take seriously.

Karol wrote:

Hordes of elite jump pack troops and DC is rules, that is right, because that is their entire lore.

No, it's not. BA lore is much deeper than "all jump pack all the time". They have a preference for rapid assaults and use jump packs as their preferred delivery method. Maybe that means they might have 1 or 2 more jump pack units than other chapters. Other than an ad hoc DC, Sanguinary Guard and some very minor vehicle loadout differences BA are a Codex compliant chapter. They should be very similar to UM in terms of army composition.

Imperial Guard regiments are far more different than any space marine chapter is, yet they don't have their own codexes.

Marines are popular, ergo more types of Marine. Same as every other time this dumb argument crops up.

Why yes, if a faction gets the lion's share of marketing and pushed as the "protagonist' faction, they will be more popular.
Even though the "protagonists" are just living weapon systems, half of which got the Imperium into the mess it is now.

through out most edition time marines are under 50% win rate army, and very often it is under 40% win rate. Starting a space marine army is asking to be disappointed.

I am also sure that marine players are flocking to buy this primaris attack bikes, primaris speeders, primaris predators, bunkers, gun emplacements or those rare faction Lt models.

Karol wrote:
through out most edition time marines are under 50% win rate army, and very often it is under 40% win rate. Starting a space marine army is asking to be disappointed.

I am also sure that marine players are flocking to buy this primaris attack bikes, primaris speeders, primaris predators, bunkers, gun emplacements or those rare faction Lt models.

tournaments results don't mean gak for most playgroups, Marines have been doing well in the 3 playgroups i'm a part of

Tournament results, heck even just people playing the game doesn't mean much to GW.
GW cares about model sales and people like Space Marines. The Marine Codex could have a 0% tournament win rate and it wouldn't matter.

Not technically new factions, but I would like the books to expand on the lore we already have but don't have models or rules for.

Things like Exodites being rolled into the Aeldari books similar to the way Harlies were, Guard being given different data sheets for different regiment specific units, traitor guard rules in the Chaos books, more Tau Auxiliary units, etc

Exodites don't even have anything to roll into the codex as is besides a little lore. There's not a single model to their name.

Personally I feel like they'd stand alone as their own army more so than Harlequins.

Harlies and Inquisition always felt like elite troops that bolted onto main armies. Knights and titans as well, though GW has kind of made Knights work on their own.




Of course GW could start building some fanbase for Exodites by releasing a model of a named hero or character and such. But once you start to look at them their army roster would quickly end up as wide as the Craftworld or Dark Elf. Especially as the jetbike and vehicle core would be almost entirely replaced with beasts of burden etc...

They don't even need to try that hard.
I mean, they have freakin' dinosaurs with laser weapons, how rad is that?

Exactly! I don't get why they aren't a thing and why GW have dragged their heels for 30 years with them. They clearly love the concept because its a bit of lore they always keep rolling out. Heck they did an entire video for Warhammer+ called The Exodite; however you could easily have called it "the ranger" as it really was mostly an Eldar acting like a ranger lighting beacons before titans came to save the day. Not a single dinosaur

 Overread wrote:
Exodites don't even have anything to roll into the codex as is besides a little lore. There's not a single model to their name.

Personally I feel like they'd stand alone as their own army more so than Harlequins.

Harlies and Inquisition always felt like elite troops that bolted onto main armies. Knights and titans as well, though GW has kind of made Knights work on their own.




Of course GW could start building some fanbase for Exodites by releasing a model of a named hero or character and such. But once you start to look at them their army roster would quickly end up as wide as the Craftworld or Dark Elf. Especially as the jetbike and vehicle core would be almost entirely replaced with beasts of burden etc...

You get what I'm suggesting though? People have been crying out for Exodites for years. Just make a unit or two for each slot and add them to the Aeldari/Drukhari books. Add some little caveats for their inclusion in the overall list unless you make a "pure" Exodite list, and boom, playable Exodites.


You could also have a book that has absolutely tons of datasheets in it, and a list beforehand detailing what units are available for each subfaction and in what quantities. Just add two or three unique datasheets for each subfaction.

So maybe a Guard book that lists Kasrkin as Cadian exclusive, and Rough Riders are for Death Korps and Attilan. Maybe Catachans get a special monster hunter veteran unit, and so on.

If you want Kasrkin and Rough Riders in the same list? Take a Cadian detachment and an Attilan detachment.

All of your generic choices are still there in abundance, but it lets people really go in on their chosen Regiment/Chapter/Klan/etc if they really want to.

Karol wrote:
First of the difference between BA and Ultramarines is not minor. If it was minor, then one of the faction wouldn't exist, because a separate rule set would not be needed.

It is minor.

Organisationally the two chapters are near identical. In fact they're more similar now than back in second edition, since Ultramarines now have Veteran Assault Squads Vanguard as well, and Blood Angels have Sternguard.

The only real difference is that the Blood Angel equivalent of Honour Guard (~30/1000 dudes) wear jump packs (I'm sure that the Raven Guard or Hawk Lords have no equivalent units...) and that there's an extra ad-hoc formation of Death Company (again chapters like the Black Dragons have Dragon Claws, Sons of Anteus have Abominations, Space Wolves have Wulfen, which are all the same archetype).

Karol wrote:
Hordes of elite jump pack troops and DC is rules, that is right, because that is their entire lore. There were times when entire companies of BAs went DC with the entire command structure, minus the chaplains becoming "frothing lunatics".

If you think that the Blood Angels' entire lore is elite jump troops and Death Company then you have no clue what you're talking about. You're the sort of person who thinks that Ned Flanders entire character is that he's Christian and say's woople-doople words.

 Afrodactyl wrote:
Not technically new factions, but I would like the books to expand on the lore we already have but don't have models or rules for.

Things like Exodites being rolled into the Aeldari books similar to the way Harlies were, Guard being given different data sheets for different regiment specific units, traitor guard rules in the Chaos books, more Tau Auxiliary units, etc

I'd like this quite a bit, I was pleased they managed to add in the Corsairs model sheets to line up with the Kill Team release. While I don't play Tau, about half of my friends who do would really love to have a more diversified playstyle which auxiliaries. There's a wealth of xenos races out there and hopefully we see some great sculpts of those to add to the roster one day.

 Overread wrote:
Exactly! I don't get why they aren't a thing and why GW have dragged their heels for 30 years with them. They clearly love the concept because its a bit of lore they always keep rolling out. Heck they did an entire video for Warhammer+ called The Exodite; however you could easily have called it "the ranger" as it really was mostly an Eldar acting like a ranger lighting beacons before titans came to save the day. Not a single dinosaur

Considering the amount of new elf concepts AoS has rolled out during the last couple of years I'm really surprised there aren't exodites yet. You can't tell me dinosaur riding elves would be less popular than shark riding elves. However, that may just be because even GW realized how outdated the Craftworld range was and they wanted to have that sorted out first. Also, Corsairs obviously was the easier thing to do with a token unit (I know I know, they had much more than that from FW, but here we are).
8th edition rulebook also hinted at a Chaos Eldar faction, overall I think it's a missed opportunity that we only see human Chaos followers all the time, even a single squat/ Kroot/ eldar in that terrible Cultist box or in that Cultist leadership box would have been great. And you bet people would have started immediately building complete squat cultist mobs, with properly oversized hats of course.

I very much agree Craftworld needed a big update, so I was surprised when Necrons got the huge update slot at the start of the new edition as they weren't honestly in a bad place before that. I think now the only old necron stuff is the destroyers and destroyer lord and the unique heroes. Everything else is modern plastic kits.

Craftworld have had some good attention though and they sorely needed it.




I do get the feeling that AoS right now has a bulk of creative staff whilst 40K is almost limping on old designs and upgrading and nothing fresh. I wonder if its a reflection of finances (hard to push anything past when its not a new marine); or a reflection of the lore; or just the creative staff and such.

40K has had odd things like models still in finecast after years of the faction having no new release (Tyranids); or Craftworld falling so far behind in updates etc... Alongside that the Marine army doubled in size but conceptually didn't feel like a huge leap because a lot of the Primaris stuff is just "here's the same unit concept in a different form" as opposed ot giving totally new concepts and ideas.

What about a codex for each faction to have an equivalent to imperial and chaos knights? Or at least introduce a titan type codex for Orks and nids, they seem most logical for some reason. But we know nearly all factions had units designed for epic 40K that were at that size

 Overread wrote:
I very much agree Craftworld needed a big update, so I was surprised when Necrons got the huge update slot at the start of the new edition as they weren't honestly in a bad place before that. I think now the only old necron stuff is the destroyers and destroyer lord and the unique heroes. Everything else is modern plastic kits.

Craftworld have had some good attention though and they sorely needed it.




I do get the feeling that AoS right now has a bulk of creative staff whilst 40K is almost limping on old designs and upgrading and nothing fresh. I wonder if its a reflection of finances (hard to push anything past when its not a new marine); or a reflection of the lore; or just the creative staff and such.

40K has had odd things like models still in finecast after years of the faction having no new release (Tyranids); or Craftworld falling so far behind in updates etc... Alongside that the Marine army doubled in size but conceptually didn't feel like a huge leap because a lot of the Primaris stuff is just "here's the same unit concept in a different form" as opposed ot giving totally new concepts and ideas.

40k feels like it is going backwards for me. AoS has been so much more fun to play and follow lately.

So many units being removed bc GW doesn't want and conversion, or having to buy other kits for bits has also really put me off too. I was thinking of going back to CSM but with the removal of some things I just dont care anymore (gear options, no jump/bike on lords, etc...) I also played CSM in 7th and had some limited fun with them with the 3.5 codex. So i might just be spoiled, but also my DE has only had things removed and nothing added for literally 4 codices in a row and this is really starting to get to me badly.

PS: FFS GW, remove Ynnari from CWE and make an Outcasts Supplement (not a WD but a full release codex) add the 3 Ynnari character, 1 troop from each Aeldari army, Corsairs as real troops and Elite, add in 1 or 2 extra units from CWE/DE, and add in a couple Exodite units. Make it a full on Outcasts army with Ynnari as a Subfaction in that without this really stupid way you are doing it now, also Ynnari lore makes WAY more sense to be Outcasts base. GW get your act together.

AoS feels like its in a strange spot right now.

1) I'd love to see the double turn gone!

2) They've got this complicated reinforcements system so right now minimum unit compositions are king because at 2K points you can only have 2 full units; everything else has to be mini composition.

Which is good as it makes middleweight elite units more viable; but its bad because it removes infantry blocks.


I get the feeling AoS and 40K are on a slim edition or two from Gw as they focus on getting more customers ;then we'll see things grow again

 Overread wrote:
AoS feels like its in a strange spot right now.

1) I'd love to see the double turn gone!

2) They've got this complicated reinforcements system so right now minimum unit compositions are king because at 2K points you can only have 2 full units; everything else has to be mini composition.

Which is good as it makes middleweight elite units more viable; but its bad because it removes infantry blocks.


I get the feeling AoS and 40K are on a slim edition or two from Gw as they focus on getting more customers ;then we'll see things grow again

We can talk about the double turn somewhere else, but if you ca find my history on it in the AoS chat you can see I for now as the game is really enjoy and think the double turn is needed.

Back to 40k though. Give me Outcasts.

 Lord Damocles wrote:

Karol wrote:
First of the difference between BA and Ultramarines is not minor. If it was minor, then one of the faction wouldn't exist, because a separate rule set would not be needed.

It is minor.

Organisationally the two chapters are near identical. In fact they're more similar now than back in second edition, since Ultramarines now have Veteran Assault Squads Vanguard as well, and Blood Angels have Sternguard.

The only real difference is that the Blood Angel equivalent of Honour Guard (~30/1000 dudes) wear jump packs (I'm sure that the Raven Guard or Hawk Lords have no equivalent units...) and that there's an extra ad-hoc formation of Death Company (again chapters like the Black Dragons have Dragon Claws, Sons of Anteus have Abominations, Space Wolves have Wulfen, which are all the same archetype).

Karol wrote:
Hordes of elite jump pack troops and DC is rules, that is right, because that is their entire lore. There were times when entire companies of BAs went DC with the entire command structure, minus the chaplains becoming "frothing lunatics".

If you think that the Blood Angels' entire lore is elite jump troops and Death Company then you have no clue what you're talking about. You're the sort of person who thinks that Ned Flanders entire character is that he's Christian and say's woople-doople words.

Sanguinary Guard are not Venguard Veterans. I don't get where you get that from. They are distinct in both their arments and looks from regular assault veterans companies have. and DC are not an ad hoc formation. They are something of a daily occurance for all scions of Sanguinius. Dante almost went DC, if it wasn't for the Salamander guys helping him go through. They have gear which puts them at odds with ad mecha, non sanctioned engines for rhinos, razorbacks etc SW didn't have wulfen, outside of singular occurance per company, till the whole siege of Fenris thing. DC is part of BAs and their successors since their gene father died.
Same goes for other marine chapters, the DW and RW are not just dudes in termintor armour and dudes on bikes. RW aren't even a FA reserve company. And saying that SW or BT are practicaly the same as ultramarines just makes no sense, as GWs own material says that they are very much different. And you are right other chapters have "special" units too. RG have dudes that can use the shadow realm and teleport around, salamanders have their drakes etc. But it doesn't matter in game, because GW runs under the no model no rules. So until GW produces specific RG or Salamander kits the players don't have access to their special units.


I don't know who Ned Flanders is, I am assuming he is from the low countries, and what christianity has to do with divergent structures of different space marine chapters.

Ned Flanders is a character from the Simpsons, known for being very religious and very friendly.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Ned Flanders is a character from the Simpsons, known for being very religious and very friendly.

Well... there was that 1 episode....

Karol wrote:
Sanguinary Guard are not Venguard Veterans. I don't get where you get that from. They are distinct in both their arments and looks from regular assault veterans companies have. and DC are not an ad hoc formation. They are something of a daily occurance for all scions of Sanguinius. Dante almost went DC, if it wasn't for the Salamander guys helping him go through. They have gear which puts them at odds with ad mecha, non sanctioned engines for rhinos, razorbacks etc SW didn't have wulfen, outside of singular occurance per company, till the whole siege of Fenris thing. DC is part of BAs and their successors since their gene father died.

They said "Honour Guard" not Vanguard Veterans. BA used to have jump pack Honour Guard until SG came along. They are identical in terms of position within the Chapter - elite veteran unit picked form the best warriors of the Chapter. The BA ones just happen to have fancy armour and master crafted power weapons. That's different to other Chapters, but arguably not different enough that others wouldn't have such a unit.

DC are explicitly ad hoc. They're even noted as such in multiple organisation charts of the BA Chapter. Ad hoc in this case just means they don't have a permanent role as part of the Chapter's disposition of forces because there's no way to know how many DC will be available at any given time. Some battles will see dozens inducted into the DC while entire campaigns can go by with very few falling to the DC. As such the BA Chapter organisation is entirely Codex compliant - they're structurally identical to Ultramarines or any other Codex compliant chapter. there are minor differences in equipment and the names/roles of the Apothecaries, but that's not a structural change.

Karol wrote:
Same goes for other marine chapters, the DW and RW are not just dudes in termintor armour and dudes on bikes. RW aren't even a FA reserve company. And saying that SW or BT are practicaly the same as ultramarines just makes no sense, as GWs own material says that they are very much different. And you are right other chapters have "special" units too. RG have dudes that can use the shadow realm and teleport around, salamanders have their drakes etc. But it doesn't matter in game, because GW runs under the no model no rules. So until GW produces specific RG or Salamander kits the players don't have access to their special units.

So why not streamline things by making some of these special unit archetypes available to everyone? Then GW doesn't have to create specific untis for RG or Salamanders. they can simply highlight in the background that Salamanders or IH elites are often equipped with Terminator armour and you can use the not-quite-DW datasheet to represent them. Similarly, RG elites are probably equipped with jump packs. A SG-style datasheet could easily represent that.

GW shouldn't be trying to represent every last little nuance of every unit. That's how we get to the point of 100+ datasheets just in the regular SM Codex. They should be using archetypes to represent things. I'd argue the same is true of the sub-faction traits. UM may generally use one trait that best represents the Chapter as a whole, but I shouldn't be prevented from using the rules for Iron Hands, for example, to represent the UM Devastator company, or a specific UM formation that's been pushed to greater specialisation over the course of a long campaign.

Removed - rule #1

So why not streamline things by making some of these special unit archetypes available to everyone?

Because if everyone can have something it is no longer special. If everyone could just get 50kg of gold it would stop to be special.

BA used to have jump pack Honour Guard until SG came along.

And at the time other marines could not have them. When GW added veteran assault marines as an option to all marine armies, they also decideded that Blood Angels should have Sang Guard. A unit that did not exist before in rules. Which clearly points out that GW thinks that the whole jump pack warfare thing is crucial to the feel of Blood Angels. If they didn't they would not be wasting design space on making all those units for BA.

The BA ones just happen to have fancy armour and master crafted power weapons. That's different to other Chapters, but arguably not different enough that others wouldn't have such a unit.

With a name change you just said that GK are just fancy space marines with master crafted weapons, not different from other chapters.

DC are explicitly ad hoc.

It is not an ad hoc when it happens constaly. If in every war side X does Y, in a span of 800 years. Then the action stop being ad hoc, and become the sides modus operandi. In the case of BA the modus operandi is 10k years since the death of their primarch.

then GW doesn't have to create specific untis for RG or Salamanders.

Limited design space, lower popularity, low interest in designing them in the GW studio pick any you like. To give an example. Every GK ha a full suit of all armour accesible to GK. So there should be termintor armoured purfires, teleport jumping paladins and coresponding characters too. GW decided that GK are not popular enough to put in the effort to write the rules to do it. And by popular I mean that the potential change would not generate them enough money.

GW shouldn't be trying to represent every last little nuance of every unit.

And they don't. Some armies are more popular, have more funs/buyers. That is why BAs can get a plathora of unique units, while IF get a new special character , and crimson fist players are told to paint their models to look nice. There is a reason why the DG book is a DG book and not a plague marine book, and this is not a pun on how often actual pms are taken in DG lists.

Vatsetis wrote:
... just diferent flavours of incel like power fantasies...

For real?

Well aksually Loyalist Marines only have 2 codexes - Grey Knights and Space Marines - so there's no problem, the other books are just supplements.

So who is going to get the 3rd codex? Or are we counting Custodians as Marines now

Karol wrote:

So why not streamline things by making some of these special unit archetypes available to everyone?

Because if everyone can have something it is no longer special. If everyone could just get 50kg of gold it would stop to be special.

It would still be special in the same way Howling Banshees are special - a unique unit only available to SM. That's how every other army in 40k defines a special unit. Just because GW has decided a subset of individual SM chapters are even more special, doesn't mean we have to agree with them.

Karol wrote:

BA used to have jump pack Honour Guard until SG came along.

And at the time other marines could not have them. When GW added veteran assault marines as an option to all marine armies, they also decideded that Blood Angels should have Sang Guard. A unit that did not exist before in rules. Which clearly points out that GW thinks that the whole jump pack warfare thing is crucial to the feel of Blood Angels. If they didn't they would not be wasting design space on making all those units for BA.

BA position as a "special" chapter is mainly historic. They were lucky enough to get a special unit back in 2nd edition, unlike Salamanders, so now they are treated differently in perpetuity. That was arguably fine when the game had around a dozen factions and they had a mini-Codex. When there are now 20+ factions and Codexes some streamlining may be in order. Also, back then, the obsession with sub-faction rules wasn't a thing. There would have been no problem with someone using the BA Codex to represent their own homebrew Chapter, even at official events.

And why can't the same unit represent any number of elite jump pack units? What's the problem with RG having something similar to Sanguinary Guard? Sure, the specific weapon types may be a little different, but - again - at the scale 40k is played at, are those differences really necessary?

Karol wrote:

The BA ones just happen to have fancy armour and master crafted power weapons. That's different to other Chapters, but arguably not different enough that others wouldn't have such a unit.

With a name change you just said that GK are just fancy space marines with master crafted weapons, not different from other chapters.

Sure, apart from the fact they have completely different organisation and share about 3 units, total, with regular SM. GK would definitely meet the threshold of "different enough" to warrant their own Codex.

Karol wrote:

DC are explicitly ad hoc.

It is not an ad hoc when it happens constaly. If in every war side X does Y, in a span of 800 years. Then the action stop being ad hoc, and become the sides modus operandi. In the case of BA the modus operandi is 10k years since the death of their primarch.

Dude, they are literally defined as an ad hoc formation in the Codex. Again, BA cannot rely on any number of DC being present for a battle because the numbers that fall range from 0-50% of a given force in the background. I don't know if this is a language issue, but you're simply wrong on this subject.

Karol wrote:

then GW doesn't have to create specific untis for RG or Salamanders.

Limited design space, lower popularity, low interest in designing them in the GW studio pick any you like. To give an example. Every GK ha a full suit of all armour accesible to GK. So there should be termintor armoured purfires, teleport jumping paladins and coresponding characters too. GW decided that GK are not popular enough to put in the effort to write the rules to do it. And by popular I mean that the potential change would not generate them enough money.

The point is, GW can have their cake and eat it. You have more generic units like specialisied Terminators or JP Honour Guard and all you need is a short description of the special Salamander Terminators or RG Honour Guard and players can represent that on the battlefield. They don't have to expend extra time and resource and players still get to represent some different aspects of their army.

Removed - rule #1

So far Vatsetis has compared 40k played to Incels and Alcoholics. Nice

Removed - rule #1

No they're not.

Go away.

For god's sake don't take the bait. Just report him and hope the Mods actually do something about it.

 Gert wrote:
For god's sake don't take the bait. Just report him and hope the Mods actually do something about it.

as if the mods were actually active for more than 2 hours per month

That is indeed true. In which case, ignore it because you know it's bait.

I apologise.. Do you prefer if I delete the messages?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
Well aksually Loyalist Marines only have 2 codexes - Grey Knights and Space Marines - so there's no problem, the other books are just supplements.

So who is going to get the 3rd codex? Or are we counting Custodians as Marines now

Actually, I wasnt talking only about loyalust marines... On the chaos side we currently have three codexes with the Astartes key word, and another one on the line (World Eaters).

Thats 6, Astartes Codex.

Traitor Guard is the one thing I'd hope for.

As has been said though, more important would be scaling back the number of codex'. Each color of marine doesn't need its own freaking book. Rather you should have, at most, two marine codex'. One "main" one, and then a "Chapter's of Renown" book which has some slight rule switcheroos for each chapter, 1-2 units unique to them, and 2-4 named characters.

Sanguinary Guard and Death Company do not need to be their own units when Vanguard Vets exist; chapters with the Blood Angels alignment just need a different paint scheme and maybe an extra rule on that unit.

 morganfreeman wrote:
Death Company do not need to be their own units when Vanguard Vets exist;

Body horror and the brutality of being a high priced bullet catcher for the emperor has always been part of marine stuff in general. So to bag on marines a little bit more, I think it’s pretty important for generic and Ultramarines to have some kind of death company, dragon claw or wulfen style unit or army wide rule. It’s a natural consequence of super soldiers and it’s condescending to generic marine fans to allow them to dodge that consequence.

Vanguard veterans on the other hand are sad accident of history. They should in the background only exist for blood angels, and in the game not exist as a separate unit. In the first modern codexes assault squads could buy wargear, the option was only taken away for streamlining in third edition, and there’s absolutely no background reason for assault squads to not take a few power weapons. If you’re going to consolidate codexes and rules you had might as well delete vanguard vets to save space and just allow an unlimited number or assault marine models to become veteran sergeants with wargear options. Well, jump assault intercessors.