First off I appreciate there is the ability to add specific units to lists to make them specific chapters.
But
You can make a list of exactly the same units (intercessors aggressors blade guard desolation squads terminators etc) and they can be ultramarines raven guard space wolves salamanders white scars imp fists etc.
The character of different chapters is missing more and more from modern lists.
Yes you can take crusader squads for BT or blood claws and grey hunters for SW but they are increasingly rare to see. And more expensive to buy
That's not really a background Problem is it? Because in the background these are still there.
It'll also be a problem that's going to be solved within a couple of editions when you get Primaris unit with space wolves hat. We're talking about Space Marines here, not factions that could actually need some attention .
In the meantime you can still buy the classic units... did they discontinue any chapter specific kits?
In the beginning space marine chapters were just different paint schemes. Nine editions later and we are back where we started. It's better for the kiddies this way.
This is how space marines were for 20+ years, and was how they should have remained. Salamanders don't refuse to field skimmers and flyers, Raven Guard don't jettison all their tanks into a hard vaccuum.
The "each chapter is all one trope and never anything else" aspect was dumb and should die.
morganfreeman wrote: This is how space marines were for 20+ years, and was how they should have remained. Salamanders don't refuse to field skimmers and flyers, Raven Guard don't jettison all their tanks into a hard vaccuum.
The "each chapter is all one trope and never anything else" aspect was dumb and should die.
Yeah, this. The one that always got me in particular was White Scars. Fully codex compliant, but somehow everyone rode bikes. Because... all those tac, dev and assault squads just gathered dust and were completely useless in the kind of fights that space marines engaged in (which largely aren't road races). Boarding actions, sieges, drop pod assaults on command centers, etc, etc... all solved with... bikes.
They're all operating out of the same strategic manual, for pity's sake.
Special snowflake marines bloated the game out of all proportion, and i say that as someone who started with Dark Angels (in RT) and shifted to Space Woofs in 2nd (and walked away from the latter when they went full Flanderization in later editions).
For a real a squad level skirmish game, focused on individual members, like kill team or necromunda, that kind of hyper focus can work. But its just more pointless nobs to twist and track for a company level game like 40k.
a bike is going to be a bike whether a White Scars marine or Ultra marine. i think unique units can be cool and thematic, but there's diminishing returns. see: Space Wolves
Arschbombe wrote: In the beginning space marine chapters were just different paint schemes. Nine editions later and we are back where we started. It's better for the kiddies this way.
Even in the beginning Chapters were different. UM got Veteran Tacs, BA got Veteran Assaults and boxer Dreads, DA got Veteran Terminators and Gunboat Dreads, Space Wolves got Veteran Devastators and Bjorn.
morganfreeman wrote: This is how space marines were for 20+ years, and was how they should have remained. Salamanders don't refuse to field skimmers and flyers, Raven Guard don't jettison all their tanks into a hard vaccuum.
The "each chapter is all one trope and never anything else" aspect was dumb and should die.
Yeah, this. The one that always got me in particular was White Scars. Fully codex compliant, but somehow everyone rode bikes. Because... all those tac, dev and assault squads just gathered dust and were completely useless in the kind of fights that space marines engaged in (which largely aren't road races).
Blame the player for that one, not the rules. WS were Bikes and Mechanized Infantry. Sure they had bikes, but they also had their Tacs and Devs etc inside Rhinos and Razorbacks.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
morganfreeman wrote: This is how space marines were for 20+ years, and was how they should have remained. Salamanders don't refuse to field skimmers and flyers, Raven Guard don't jettison all their tanks into a hard vaccuum.
The "each chapter is all one trope and never anything else" aspect was dumb and should die.
Except again they weren't one trope. They were each a combination of 2-3 focusing "tropes".
BA were Assaults, Dreads, Libbies - with tertiaries into Speeders/Supercharged Engines etc
DA were the two Wings, Plasma with tertiaries into Gunboat Dreads
Imperial Fists were Seige, Bolt weapons, etc.
Salamanders were Flamers, Meltas, Thunderhammers, Master Crafted.
UM were (Demi-) Companies, Command Squads, Kitchen Sinks
morganfreeman wrote: This is how space marines were for 20+ years, and was how they should have remained. Salamanders don't refuse to field skimmers and flyers, Raven Guard don't jettison all their tanks into a hard vaccuum.
The "each chapter is all one trope and never anything else" aspect was dumb and should die.
Except again they weren't one trope. They were each a combination of 2-3 focusing "tropes".
BA were Assaults, Dreads, Libbies - with tertiaries into Speeders/Supercharged Engines etc
DA were the two Wings, Plasma with tertiaries into Gunboat Dreads
Imperial Fists were Seige, Bolt weapons, etc.
Salamanders were Flamers, Meltas, Thunderhammers, Master Crafted.
UM were (Demi-) Companies, Command Squads, Kitchen Sinks
You're not understanding the OP.
Yes, the various chapters had tropes they leaned into. BA liked jumpy assault, WS liked bikes, DA liked bikes and terminators (often times one or the other). But the baseline for each of those chapters, and their associated codex, was just the standard marine codex. My DA books from 3rd and 4th edition, which I still have, have every single 'standard' unit present in them, and rather than having stat blocks they actually tell you to refer to the basic SM codex. Then ontop of that they'll have some special rules and a unique unit or two.
What OP is complaining about is how you can take a collection of baseline units from the normal marine codex - some blade guard, intercessors, aggressors, so on and so forth - and play them as any chapter you like. Which is exactly how it was for multiple decades.
The chapters as fully independent codex' which are have their own flavor of everything is a recent development, and is the wrong direction in which to take the game. A marine is a marine is a marine. Assassination and subterfuge may be the watch-words of the Raven Guard, but they use those tools to facilitate sudden and overwhelming decapitation strikes; the sort of thing which works really well by deploying some heavy unsubtle units. BA may really like fire and jump packs, but they never stopped fielding standard tactical squads / intercessors and non-libby / furioso dreadnoughts. The famous chapter tactics and such should be flavorful enhancements to encourage some stuff, but not make others worthless. And more-over (almost) all chapters use eachother's tactics; RG aren't the guys with stealth and WS aren't the only bikers. So having chapter themed but alignment agnostic ways to access rules which enhance various aspects is probably the best way to do it.
Short of removing any kind of chapter benefits and making chapter representation entirely up to players via painting and lists. I think that's the best solution and strongly encourage it, but I also doubt we'll see it.
What OP is complaining about is how you can take a collection of baseline units from the normal marine codex - some blade guard, intercessors, aggressors, so on and so forth - and play them as any chapter you like. Which is exactly how it was for multiple decades.
The chapters as fully independent codex' which are have their own flavor of everything is a recent development, and is the wrong direction in which to take the game
1. what he is complaining about is that is the ONLY way you play them now because it is not a wargame it is a card game with tokens. so you take the best tokens and paint them whichever color because it doesn't matter.
2. during rouge trader and second edition the game was still developing it's lore. 3rd edition 1998-2004 is where everything was set in stone by the original design team on this second point you are completely wrong. chapters with their own flavor was laid down in 3rd edition. it is not new and it is not the wrong direction. because the game was made to be about epic battles in the setting of the 40K universe. not chess or generic balanced battle game X.
If anything the current version of the game is the abomination.
To this point every separate marine codex-
.blood angels
.dark angels
.black templar
.space wolves
and the FW special chapters as well as the original index astartes chapter special rules such as white scars (who incidentally actually do not have devastator squads in the normal sense of a codex compliant chapter as they mount all of their 9th company brethren on attack bikes or have them drive predators/vindicators)
were separate because they were not codex compliant.
codex compliant chapters such as raven guard, salamanders etc... were all in codex space marines along with the base line ultras because they were codex compliant in structure even if they had a preference for a slightly different weapon loadout or deployment method.
Corennus wrote: First off I appreciate there is the ability to add specific units to lists to make them specific chapters.
But
You can make a list of exactly the same units (intercessors aggressors blade guard desolation squads terminators etc) and they can be ultramarines raven guard space wolves salamanders white scars imp fists etc.
The character of different chapters is missing more and more from modern lists.
Yes you can take crusader squads for BT or blood claws and grey hunters for SW but they are increasingly rare to see. And more expensive to buy
Funny. Marines working like in background. Bohoo. Power gamers missing free bonus rules. I weep...not.
What OP is complaining about is how you can take a collection of baseline units from the normal marine codex - some blade guard, intercessors, aggressors, so on and so forth - and play them as any chapter you like. Which is exactly how it was for multiple decades.
The chapters as fully independent codex' which are have their own flavor of everything is a recent development, and is the wrong direction in which to take the game
1. what he is complaining about is that is the ONLY way you play them now because it is not a wargame it is a card game with tokens. so you take the best tokens and paint them whichever color because it doesn't matter.
2. during rouge trader and second edition the game was still developing it's lore. 3rd edition 1998-2004 is where everything was set in stone by the original design team on this second point you are completely wrong. chapters with their own flavor was laid down in 3rd edition. it is not new and it is not the wrong direction. because the game was made to be about epic battles in the setting of the 40K universe. not chess or generic balanced battle game X.
If anything the current version of the game is the abomination.
To this point every separate marine codex-
.blood angels
.dark angels
.black templar
.space wolves
and the FW special chapters as well as the original index astartes chapter special rules such as white scars (who incidentally actually do not have devastator squads in the normal sense of a codex compliant chapter as they mount all of their 9th company brethren on attack bikes or have them drive predators/vindicators)
were separate because they were not codex compliant.
codex compliant chapters such as raven guard, salamanders etc... were all in codex space marines along with the base line ultras because they were codex compliant in structure even if they had a preference for a slightly different weapon loadout or deployment method.
Salamanders are easily as non-compliant as White Scars or Blood Angels with the Codex. They had 7 companies of 12 squads, with an extra tactical and devastator squad per company and very limited fast attack elements in reserve. Their chapter master is also their first captain. Frankly, the Blood Angels are very codex-compliant, only their Death company is an aberration made necessary by The Flaw. Sanguinary Guard are just Honour Guard with fancy gear.
White Scars probably can field something equivalent to devastators if forced to. We know they will sometimes fight in boarding actions or underhives or other dense terrain if circumstances dictate. Sometimes there is no way to increase mobility beyond using legs. In those circumstances, I could see the attack bike crews forgoing the bikes and taking heavy weapons out of the armoury. Whilst culturally the White Scars view dreadnoughts with disgust, it is quite possible that they even have a few such interred brothers held in the armouries, a sort of horror of the Chapter that is only released for circumstances like those mentioned above. I would be surprised if no White Scars ended up in dreadnoughts over the 10000 years since they began recruiting from Chogoris.
Of course, in the 3rd edition paradigm, such a force could be facilitated by simply not using the White Scars variant list and sticking to the core Space Marine codex.
Edit: I am aware that Index Astartes states the White Scars do not use devastators or dreadnoughts. But 40k lore rarely holds to absolutes across 10000 years of in-setting lore. Devastators in particular are a fairly simple structural adjustment for a Chapter as flexible as the White Scars, if they are needed for the situation at hand.
Corennus wrote: First off I appreciate there is the ability to add specific units to lists to make them specific chapters.
But
You can make a list of exactly the same units (intercessors aggressors blade guard desolation squads terminators etc) and they can be ultramarines raven guard space wolves salamanders white scars imp fists etc.
The character of different chapters is missing more and more from modern lists.
Yes you can take crusader squads for BT or blood claws and grey hunters for SW but they are increasingly rare to see. And more expensive to buy
I think the problem that James Workshop has is making the chapters *too* generic... BuuUUUuuut: I really started playing in 3rd Ed. and there were multiple codexes and the ability to run different chapters/ klans/ septs/ craftworlds, etc in each army. Rather than people using it for background purposes, it was very "Beardy" and lead to min/maxing lists that would make NO sense from a lore POV, but would allow you to have a mish-mash of all your best.
One thing I'd like that GW doesn't touch on very much are the "renegade/ living on the edge" chapters like the Ashen Claws or Charcaradons. In lore, these chapters would not really have Primaris marines, as they don't get official materiel from the Imperium on a regular basis. But, Space Sharks are popular- so we get a grey color scheme primaris marine with the symbol on his shoulder.
Meta standpoint, GW wants to sell more newer minis so it looks like firstborn will eventually be phased out- but this gets problems like the Death Company SM of Blood Angels. Lorewise- I'm waiting for the other shoe to drop and Cawl's maybe-kinda-almost-definatley heresy of using Traitor geneseed in Primaris to rear it's ugly head. A lot has been emphasized on firstborn being tested as kids for not only physical flaws, but mental and spiritual ones- the clones get hypno-indoctrination, but just maybe the whole test tube baby thing means they don't have a soul. Wouldn't be the first time an Imperium decision regarding anti-Chaos comes back to bite them in the ass...
Frankly, the Blood Angels are very codex-compliant, only their Death company is an aberration made necessary by The Flaw. Sanguinary Guard are just Honour Guard with fancy gear
They are in fact absolutely not. only the 8th company is equipped with entirely jump packs or set up for close support the 2nd through 7 companies are battle line/tactical with a little support from the 8th and 9th companies (devs/assault). however the BA tend to run them as entire companies of jump infantry. additionally they run heavy armor in their elite formations instead of a support role. that isn't even taking into account the death company.
Salamanders are easily as non-compliant as White Scars or Blood Angels with the Codex. They had 7 companies of 12 squads, with an extra tactical and devastator squad per company and very limited fast attack elements in reserve.
If you remember your official lore they were given special exemption by Roboute Guilliman because of damage they took during the horus heresy specifically isstavan to have a smaller than normal force but they still deploy in the same codex compliant manner.
Rather than people using it for background purposes, it was very "Beardy" and lead to min/maxing lists that would make NO sense from a lore POV,
That's true of every wargame system ever made. because people play it and if you play with GAK players you will run into that.
It is why building communities of like minded players is so important. if you like power gaming and you find a bunch of friends that are into that then it is no harm no foul. but if you want to play the setting as intended it is a very different experience.
I have to admit the blandification of space marines has gone too far, they really should have leaned even more into the differences and entirely done away with the Codex compliance after Guiliman returned, doubly so now the Lion is back, like hell would he abide by that rule in current 40k seeing the state the Imperium is in.
I am not talking about the flanderisation like Space Dogos, they should lean into the Viking theme for Space wolves not the dog soldiers theme, Dark Angels should get strange tech, Salamanders should get their Thallax they still have in the background.
Frankly, the Blood Angels are very codex-compliant, only their Death company is an aberration made necessary by The Flaw. Sanguinary Guard are just Honour Guard with fancy gear
They are in fact absolutely not. only the 8th company is equipped with entirely jump packs or set up for close support the 2nd through 7 companies are battle line/tactical with a little support from the 8th and 9th companies (devs/assault). however the BA tend to run them as entire companies of jump infantry. additionally they run heavy armor in their elite formations instead of a support role. that isn't even taking into account the death company.
Salamanders are easily as non-compliant as White Scars or Blood Angels with the Codex. They had 7 companies of 12 squads, with an extra tactical and devastator squad per company and very limited fast attack elements in reserve.
If you remember your official lore they were given special exemption by Roboute Guilliman because of damage they took during the horus heresy specifically isstavan to have a smaller than normal force but they still deploy in the same codex compliant manner.
[
Eh?
The Blood Angels have a veteran company, 4 battle companies, 4 reserve companies, and a scout company like other Codex chapters. I did forget that they have two assault reserves and only one tactical reserve in contrast to the typical 2 tactical and 1 assault, but otherwise their chapter structure is very similar to a codex chapter. Their armoured units are still part of the armoury and attached as necessary to company formations. The death company is obviously different but also something of a necessity.
By contrast, the Salamanders organisation is much more different to a standard codex chapter. It may have been given special dispensation by Guilliman, but it still conforms to Salamanders pre-Heresy doctrine with a heavy preference towards firepower and durability over mobile fast attack elements.
morganfreeman wrote: This is how space marines were for 20+ years, and was how they should have remained. Salamanders don't refuse to field skimmers and flyers, Raven Guard don't jettison all their tanks into a hard vaccuum.
The "each chapter is all one trope and never anything else" aspect was dumb and should die.
Agreed - especially since the one army that was a thousand different things with a vast difference between regiments was Imperial Guard and that just became Cadians.
Haighus wrote: with a heavy preference towards firepower and durability over mobile fast attack elements.
You mean like the preference BA have towards mobile fast attack over firepower and durability? I'm not sure how codex compliant a chapter (Outside UM successors) is matters. I mean even the UM weren't Codex Compliant with their Tyrannic War Vets. And we now have a bunch of units that are 3 or 3/6 instead of 5 or 5/10 causing all sorts of issues for the Codex.
In theory The Flaw is the entire reason the BA are not Codex Compliant while appearing to the outside world that they are. BA don't march their Death Company around in front of God and Everybody. Just like DA don't go telling secrets. And both have a doomsday-reform-the-legion plan which is most definitely NOT Codex Complaint.
TheChrispyOne wrote: Kay- we can fix all of this with one thing: GW brings back Legion of the Damned.
Meh, I'm all for bringing back Legion of the Damned especially the One Super Squad Loyalist Rubrics with Invuln version but its not going to fix everything.
Going with the old Background, all Marine Chapters are true to the Codex except Space Wolves and Black Templar, as those 2 handle their recruits differently
Space Wolves got their trainees into Power Armour and the Scouts are the veterans, while BT have combined units
Blood Angels are different because their gene-seed is degrading and they randomly go mad because of the psionic death scream of their Primarch
Dark Angels are different because they had heretics with their chapter and hunt them down, therefore having special hunting chapters that are combined/connected across the successors
Now with the new background and the changes made by Cawl and the returning Primarchs, Blood Angles are not special any more as their problem was solved
and the Lion cleared up his chapter and removed the special aspect as well
leaving Space Wolves as the only ones as their recruits should still be in power armour but primaris do not work that way so their special thing is gone too
so if rules be true to the background there should be only 1 Codex SM covering all of them with special units being in name/appearance only
but I guess someone in the marketing got cold feet and reversed some changes so that we still get a book for everything
Viewing the character of different Chapters purely in terms of whether they get/don't get super special unique units/options for no reason is engaging with them in only the most superficial way possible.
It could be forgot or it might not be forgetting. Codex Angels of Death and 2010 Codex Blood Angels give them the normal Ultramarines reserve companies. As far as I know the current situation of seventh company is brand new since indomitus. If it is a ret-con, or if it is an in-setting change Dante made around devastation of baal, I don't know
That's perfect for the topic, because they are 3-D characters who think of themselves as the same kind of professionals soldiery as other Chapters, and deliberately follow the same pattern as other Chapters. It's just that they have a pathological behavior, a character foible, so they compulsively want to wear the jump packs and always think first of using the jump packs and compete with each other to be in the limited jump pack spots. They're trying to be normal, and have a hard time. That's character.
Specifically that 2010 Codex blood angels is the one that allowed them to use assault squads as troops, but also says that they have the exact same number of assault squadsas Ultramarines. Their extreme use of jump pack squads is behavioural, not something they formalize.
If you remember your official lore they were given special exemption by Roboute Guilliman because of damage they took during the horus heresy specifically isstavan to have a smaller than normal force but they still deploy in the same codex compliant manner.
It might be more about the number of chapters and not the size. Allen Merret wrote that out of the 1000 chapters, there are over 100 Codex chapters and that in universe the highest estimate is nearly 300. In that case nobody needed special exemption for that 7 company structure. The closest thing to an exemption that line between Guilliman and Vulkan talks about is not fissioning that legion at the second founding. It sounds like they could have been large for a chapter at first, and attrited down to their desired size over time.
What is this reform the legion you speak of? All the unforgiven "chapters" answer to the supreme grand master Azrael
Which is an interesting issue. The Lion never agreed to Guilliman’s reforms, on account of being in stasis, presumed dead.
Given the state of Imperium Nihilus and the Dark Angel geneseed known to be noticably stable? The Lion could be within his rights to build to Legion size, recruits and materiel allowing. Single force, single supreme commander, at least for the time being in order to start stabilising the region. Codex Compliance can always come later.
Now with the new background and the changes made by Cawl and the returning Primarchs, Blood Angles are not special any more as their problem was solved
There's a Death Company Intercessors kit. It's just intercessors with the BA primaris upgrade sprue thrown in, but its existence points to the flaw not being solved.
Now with the new background and the changes made by Cawl and the returning Primarchs, Blood Angles are not special any more as their problem was solved
There's a Death Company Intercessors kit. It's just intercessors with the BA primaris upgrade sprue thrown in, but its existence points to the flaw not being solved.
That's because there was a revolt that made them retcon Cawl. if you remember in the original release not only did he magically pull supper advanced tech out of his many orifices in a setting where the imperium was stagnant and regressive to a fault. but he did so enmass while also outdoing the emperor in the design, creation, and numbers of super space marines all by himself with no help. including fixing all the gene flaws of the various chapters of renown.
kodos wrote: Going with the old Background, all Marine Chapters are true to the Codex except Space Wolves and Black Templar, as those 2 handle their recruits differently
Space Wolves got their trainees into Power Armour and the Scouts are the veterans, while BT have combined units
Blood Angels are different because their gene-seed is degrading and they randomly go mad because of the psionic death scream of their Primarch
Dark Angels are different because they had heretics with their chapter and hunt them down, therefore having special hunting chapters that are combined/connected across the successors
Now with the new background and the changes made by Cawl and the returning Primarchs, Blood Angles are not special any more as their problem was solved
No it wasn't. They still have the Red Thirst and the Black Rage - even among their Primaris marines.
and the Lion cleared up his chapter and removed the special aspect as well
Again, no. The ones who didn't go too far, and are willing to come back are now ICC. Not all of them didn't go too far. And not all of them are willing to come back, so DA will still have their secrets.
leaving Space Wolves as the only ones as their recruits should still be in power armour but primaris do not work that way so their special thing is gone too
so if rules be true to the background there should be only 1 Codex SM covering all of them with special units being in name/appearance only
but I guess someone in the marketing got cold feet and reversed some changes so that we still get a book for everything
So, I know this will result in much gnashing of teeth, wailing, and pulling of hair, but can we just delete the non-founding chapters? If you aren't one of the original chapters, get fracked. With special place I GUESS for the Black Templars, grey knight, and Death Watch, because they are all basically founding legions. But it would seriously cut down on 90% of all this crap. Too much bloat, well 50% just got cut over night.
Too many supplements? Now there are literally only the original ones. And half of those are spikey. I'm not saying destroy the lore, but I am saying for the table top, kill any model like for Astartes that isn't one of the founding chapters.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: So, I know this will result in much gnashing of teeth, wailing, and pulling of hair, but can we just delete the non-founding chapters? If you aren't one of the original chapters, get fracked. With special place I GUESS for the Black Templars, grey knight, and Death Watch, because they are all basically founding legions. But it would seriously cut down on 90% of all this crap. Too much bloat, well 50% just got cut over night.
Too many supplements? Now there are literally only the original ones. And half of those are spikey. I'm not saying destroy the lore, but I am saying for the table top, kill any model like for Astartes that isn't one of the founding chapters.
Not sure how this would improve things as all the flanderised unit bloat being churned out year on year are from the First Founding Chapters which all also apparently need to be the best in class or people scream and wail that Chapter X are no longer the best of the best of the best but still want all the other stuff too - its a no win situation as GW also want to sell NEW models.
People want their own army to be OP...lore is far far too often an excuse to leverage super special rules
Again all the Supplements are First Founding....or at least those who you consider should be listed under.
How many 2nd-onwards founding Chapters have actually had significant, unique rules in recent times?
I can only think of Black Templars, Grey Knights, and Death Watch. Emperor's Spears had a sniff of rules in... 8th? and I think a couple of others, but the vast majority of rules have been for first founding Chapters. There are 18 of them across loyalist and traitors!
Haighus wrote: How many 2nd-onwards founding Chapters have actually had significant, unique rules in recent times?
I can only think of Black Templars, Grey Knights, and Death Watch. Emperor's Spears had a sniff of rules in... 8th? and I think a couple of others, but the vast majority of rules have been for first founding Chapters. There are 18 of them across loyalist and traitors!
Exactly - which is the ongoing issue - constant rules and model upgrades for the chosen few - which also distort and flanderise their lore to the point where every single unit type and title has to have Blood or Wolf or Dark shoved in front of it and each then has to have its own rules and all have to have new stuff each edition - and even then some First Founding Chapters get very very little in comparison - not that thats a bad thing in terms of actual lore - imagine sticking White in front of every unit type
in the last decade (so going back to 2014), there have only been codex supplements for:
- all the original chapters (ultras, salamanders, blood angels, etc)
- Crimson Slaughter (2014, 7th edition)
- Flesh Tearers (2016, 7th edition)
- Black Templars (2021, 9th edition)
- Deathwatch (2016, 2018, 2020, 7th, 8th, and 9th edition)
- Grey Knights (2014, 2017, 2021, 7th, 8th, and 9th edition)
there was a Silver Templars book in 2019 (8th edition), but i'm pretty sure that was just a sourcebook, without unique rules
GW used to have a lot of extra supplements for space marines, but as 7th edition begins fading into the past, it's clear that they don't really handle the game that way anymore. any rules that specific chapters have gotten over the last decade have been in the main codex itself or in WD, at which point it's more of a bonus thing— and even the codex is more light on that than ever, since we've moved to generic detachments rather than rules for specific chapters. the three factions you mentioned have bespoke indexes, but two of them have been a part of the game for a full decade now, with only BT being a recent addition (and that came with a lot more than just rules). the era of too many supplements is well in the past
Okay, one solution (which will never happen) is for GW to lean into the 3D printing aspect of the hobby. They could have a setup similar to eldritch foundry/ hero forge where you have a set number options, with ability to upload a vector graphic if you just want it on a shoulderpad. Then they could charge for individual prints or stl's.. BuuUUUt: GW being themselves, they'll want to make a proprietary software that you can only use the file a few times, then it's destroyed/ encrypted. This would suck, as print failures happen, even with the best of settings/ supports/ etc. Can't eliminate human error. More likely, they could send printers to affiliated stores and have THEM print out orders.. This could be a slower process, as the store owner won't wait hours for one marine, so they'd want to fill the plate (which, honestly- for the horde swarm armies, wouldn't be an issue) and they'd sit on it until they had enough people to make it worth your while.
But all this is how dependent on how much of a lorehound/ rules lawyer you and/ or opponent are. In a casual game you could be like "This big chonky primaris with a cannon actually has a plasma gun, oh and they're all blue, but I'm playing Dark Angels." (Minus specfic models and such).
StudentOfEtherium wrote: in the last decade (so going back to 2014), there have only been codex supplements for:
- all the original chapters (ultras, salamanders, blood angels, etc)
- Crimson Slaughter (2014, 7th edition)
- Flesh Tearers (2016, 7th edition)
- Black Templars (2021, 9th edition)
- Deathwatch (2016, 2018, 2020, 7th, 8th, and 9th edition)
- Grey Knights (2014, 2017, 2021, 7th, 8th, and 9th edition)
there was a Silver Templars book in 2019 (8th edition), but i'm pretty sure that was just a sourcebook, without unique rules
GW used to have a lot of extra supplements for space marines, but as 7th edition begins fading into the past, it's clear that they don't really handle the game that way anymore. any rules that specific chapters have gotten over the last decade have been in the main codex itself or in WD, at which point it's more of a bonus thing— and even the codex is more light on that than ever, since we've moved to generic detachments rather than rules for specific chapters. the three factions you mentioned have bespoke indexes, but two of them have been a part of the game for a full decade now, with only BT being a recent addition (and that came with a lot more than just rules). the era of too many supplements is well in the past
Laughs at the word only as a list of what 30-40 books is listed?
Personally I think the current edition is an improvement on the previous
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: So, I know this will result in much gnashing of teeth, wailing, and pulling of hair, but can we just delete the non-founding chapters? If you aren't one of the original chapters, get fracked. With special place I GUESS for the Black Templars, grey knight, and Death Watch, because they are all basically founding legions. But it would seriously cut down on 90% of all this crap. Too much bloat, well 50% just got cut over night.
Too many supplements? Now there are literally only the original ones. And half of those are spikey. I'm not saying destroy the lore, but I am saying for the table top, kill any model like for Astartes that isn't one of the founding chapters.
Hard disagree. The better solution imo is to return to the Chapter Traits system where known Chapters are given prescribed traits, but players are free to make their own.
Space Marines are ridiculously popular. Near unfathomably so. With reports that the Tactical Squad alone once outsold the whole of WHFB. Not reports I’ve ever seen corroborated, but reports all the same.
Whether casual play or organised play, you can be pretty confident a solid percentage of your games are likely to be against Space Marines of one flavour or another.
Stop and think if you really want those games to be against cookie cutter lists, just with different coloured sprinkles.
Chapter Variants (when done right!) allow the Marine player to skew their list toward a certain type of warfare and its associated strategies and tactics. This in turn brings variety of opponents. A Deathwing army plays very differently to a Ravenwing army. Space Wolves bring different challenges to Blood Angels.
Perhaps the key is a greater variation between them? But don’t wish it away entirely.
I would say the goal is to give Space Marines (and other factions) a wide variety of play-styles and lists without making that variety depend on subfactions or paint colors.
Chapter Variants (when done right!) allow the Marine player to skew their list toward a certain type of warfare and its associated strategies and tactics. This in turn brings variety of opponents. A Deathwing army plays very differently to a Ravenwing army. Space Wolves bring different challenges to Blood Angels.
Given that Vanilla Marines can make Terminator or bike spam lists too, I'm not sure that you're making the point very well...
If you're seeing a lack of melee space marine variety, its entirely because GW has failed to create a compelling framework for melee space marine armies. Demanding players provide the variety that GW has failed to simply because of how they painted their models is like being mad that you never get to face off against an Ork gunline.
StudentOfEtherium wrote: in the last decade (so going back to 2014), there have only been codex supplements for:
- all the original chapters (ultras, salamanders, blood angels, etc)
- Crimson Slaughter (2014, 6th edition)
- Flesh Tearers (2016, 7th edition)
- Black Templars (2021, 9th edition)
- Deathwatch (2016, 2018, 2020, 7th, 8th, and 9th edition)
- Grey Knights (2014, 2017, 2021, 7th, 8th, and 9th edition)
there was a Silver Templars book in 2019 (8th edition), but i'm pretty sure that was just a sourcebook, without unique rules
GW used to have a lot of extra supplements for space marines, but as 7th edition begins fading into the past, it's clear that they don't really handle the game that way anymore. any rules that specific chapters have gotten over the last decade have been in the main codex itself or in WD, at which point it's more of a bonus thing— and even the codex is more light on that than ever, since we've moved to generic detachments rather than rules for specific chapters. the three factions you mentioned have bespoke indexes, but two of them have been a part of the game for a full decade now, with only BT being a recent addition (and that came with a lot more than just rules). the era of too many supplements is well in the past
Laughs at the word only as a list of what 30-40 books is listed?
Personally I think the current edition is an improvement on the previous
nine, unless we're counting all the original space marines (and the point i was responding to was specifically talking about the ones outside of those). even if we count all of those, it's 18 across the three editions, for a total of 27 chapter-specific books across the span of a decade. generally speaking, GW just goes with BA, DA, SW, DW, and GK. BT are an old thing made new again, and main book chapters got their only mini -books in 8th edition
point i was trying to make is, GW is pretty reasonable about space marine releases these days. as a xenos player, i naturally think it's too much and all of these resources should be put into making new tyranids, but all things considered, it feels like an alright place for the faction to be.
Automatically Appended Next Post: also i like the new book making rules generic so you can apply them to your own personal OC chapter, and also, given the popularity of space marines, their numerous releases are fair. space marines are what keep GW in business
StudentOfEtherium wrote: as a xenos player, i naturally think it's too much and all of these resources should be put into making new tyranids, but all things considered, it feels like an alright place for the faction to be.
All biomass becomes Tyranids eventually. Marines are just nids with extra steps!
Tyran wrote: I would say the goal is to give Space Marines (and other factions) a wide variety of play-styles and lists without making that variety depend on subfactions or paint colors.
Chapter Variants (when done right!) allow the Marine player to skew their list toward a certain type of warfare and its associated strategies and tactics. This in turn brings variety of opponents. A Deathwing army plays very differently to a Ravenwing army. Space Wolves bring different challenges to Blood Angels.
Given that Vanilla Marines can make Terminator or bike spam lists too, I'm not sure that you're making the point very well...
To be fair they can't really spam bikes the way they used to be able to, and the new bikes lack many of the options that made that more interesting.
StudentOfEtherium wrote: as a xenos player, i naturally think it's too much and all of these resources should be put into making new tyranids, but all things considered, it feels like an alright place for the faction to be.
All biomass becomes Tyranids eventually. Marines are just nids with extra steps!
So I've read through the entire thread, and I'm still not entirely clear on what exactly we're discussing/what the OP is getting at. Can someone clarify for me?
Is it just that the OP wants every chapter to have their own bespoke version of a bunch of generic units? Because if so, I'd really rather we went the other direction. Grey hunters could just be represented by tactical marines, sanguinary guard could just be a wargear option for vanguard vets, all chapters could have the ability to stick a librarian in a dreadnaught, etc.
I'm pretty sure most of the "unique" units are available to or have an equivalent in at least a few chapters. That is, BA aren't the only ones who thought of giving inferno pistols, power swords, and fancy armor to their vanguard vets. SW aren't the only chapter that has some animal pals. BA aren't the only chapter to have a psyker in a dreadnaught or a group of extra angry boys wearing power armor. So with that in mind, it makes sense to me that you'd err on the side of giving most chapters access to most toys rather than not.
Like, WS favor putting everyone on a bike or in a tank whenever they can. Presumably, someone who opts to paint their army up like WS will field bikes and/or rhinos more often than not, and they'll probably use the detachment that supports that best. But if someone *does* decide to paint their bikers green or paint their dreadnaught army in WS colors, the only harm in it is that it might offend our personal fluff sensibilities. Which is fine.
Basically, I like when the rules support a variety of playstyles for a given army. I don't like when those playstyles are locked behind a paint scheme. And furthermore, I kind of feel like we don't really see an expectation for that level of special distinction among non-marine players. Like, Iyanden players don't seem to get annoyed when someone fields a wraith army painted up in Biel-Tan colors.
Space Marines are ridiculously popular. Near unfathomably so. With reports that the Tactical Squad alone once outsold the whole of WHFB. Not reports I’ve ever seen corroborated, but reports all the same.
Whether casual play or organised play, you can be pretty confident a solid percentage of your games are likely to be against Space Marines of one flavour or another.
Stop and think if you really want those games to be against cookie cutter lists, just with different coloured sprinkles.
Chapter Variants (when done right!) allow the Marine player to skew their list toward a certain type of warfare and its associated strategies and tactics. This in turn brings variety of opponents. A Deathwing army plays very differently to a Ravenwing army. Space Wolves bring different challenges to Blood Angels.
Perhaps the key is a greater variation between them? But don’t wish it away entirely.
You're preaching to my choir. Variety is incredibly underestimated in value, especially when it comes to replay. I think we took a huge step forwards with the Dets (even though squatting so many HQ's that make them work is a step back too, Hey it's GW.) every theme should be available to every chapter, but the chapter should influence how the theme plays. To the point that a Deathwing army plays differently that a Space Wolves Wolf Guard Terminator Armor even though they're all terminators.
Space Marines are ridiculously popular. Near unfathomably so. With reports that the Tactical Squad alone once outsold the whole of WHFB. Not reports I’ve ever seen corroborated, but reports all the same.
Whether casual play or organised play, you can be pretty confident a solid percentage of your games are likely to be against Space Marines of one flavour or another.
Stop and think if you really want those games to be against cookie cutter lists, just with different coloured sprinkles.
Chapter Variants (when done right!) allow the Marine player to skew their list toward a certain type of warfare and its associated strategies and tactics. This in turn brings variety of opponents. A Deathwing army plays very differently to a Ravenwing army. Space Wolves bring different challenges to Blood Angels.
Perhaps the key is a greater variation between them? But don’t wish it away entirely.
You're preaching to my choir. Variety is incredibly underestimated in value, especially when it comes to replay. I think we took a huge step forwards with the Dets (even though squatting so many HQ's that make them work is a step back too, Hey it's GW.) every theme should be available to every chapter, but the chapter should influence how the theme plays. To the point that a Deathwing army plays differently that a Space Wolves Wolf Guard Terminator Armor even though they're all terminators.
Would you trust GW to do it in an even-handed way?
I certainly wouldn't.
We already had this, and it was done the GW way, everyone could have a full Terminator or Bike army, but one did it straight up better, resulting in the so called Codex hopping that GW wanted to forbid by making colours prt of the rules
But it does not really matter as whatever it is now, in 2 years it will be changed anyway
So just wait and see
Space Marines are ridiculously popular. Near unfathomably so. With reports that the Tactical Squad alone once outsold the whole of WHFB. Not reports I’ve ever seen corroborated, but reports all the same.
Whether casual play or organised play, you can be pretty confident a solid percentage of your games are likely to be against Space Marines of one flavour or another.
Stop and think if you really want those games to be against cookie cutter lists, just with different coloured sprinkles.
Chapter Variants (when done right!) allow the Marine player to skew their list toward a certain type of warfare and its associated strategies and tactics. This in turn brings variety of opponents. A Deathwing army plays very differently to a Ravenwing army. Space Wolves bring different challenges to Blood Angels.
Perhaps the key is a greater variation between them? But don’t wish it away entirely.
You're preaching to my choir. Variety is incredibly underestimated in value, especially when it comes to replay. I think we took a huge step forwards with the Dets (even though squatting so many HQ's that make them work is a step back too, Hey it's GW.) every theme should be available to every chapter, but the chapter should influence how the theme plays. To the point that a Deathwing army plays differently that a Space Wolves Wolf Guard Terminator Armor even though they're all terminators.
Would you trust GW to do it in an even-handed way?
I certainly wouldn't.
I'd hope for it. Its certainly better than everybody's armies being cookie cutter pre-built lists as the Combat Patrol system expands to 2,000 point battles.
Honestly, one of the more unfortunate decisions GW made was to tie doctrinal bonuses to Named Entities. I can understand why; it's a quick and convenient shorthand and ties it into the background material, but you could see the crying coming a mile off.
As to why (eg) Eldar don't seem to have the same problem, maybe that's a side benefit of being slightly sidelined. Not every aspect of that culture has been modelled and described down to the bowel movements, so there's a lot less ackshullying to deal with.
It is also a problem with focusing on such a small number of what are tiny entities.
A standard Marine Chapter is a little over 1000 Marines at full strength. That is less than a single typical Imperial Guard regiment. There are probably more Eldar on a single major Cratfworld than there are Marines in the entire Imperium.
It isn't surprising that lore for a mere 1000 soldiers become extremely detailed and at risk of flanderisation in a way that other, larger factions are less prone to. A major Imperial Guard recruiting world, Eldar Craftworld, Ork Waaagh! etc. can all easily encompass more-or-less the full range of their faction's common variants and still have a predilection towards a certain variant. Marines much less so.
Pilum wrote: Honestly, one of the more unfortunate decisions GW made was to tie doctrinal bonuses to Named Entities. I can understand why; it's a quick and convenient shorthand and ties it into the background material, but you could see the crying coming a mile off.
As to why (eg) Eldar don't seem to have the same problem, maybe that's a side benefit of being slightly sidelined. Not every aspect of that culture has been modelled and described down to the bowel movements, so there's a lot less ackshullying to deal with.
In some cases its good, in some cases it's bad. While technically not a "black sheep" Sammael and Belial used to do some FOC choice shenanigans making Bikes/Terminators TROOPS. Putting that option on all Bike and Terminator Captains would have been better but messier.
So Robute Gulliman shouldn't be the source of UM doctrinal bonuses, but Sammael of the Ravenwing changing things up for his non-standard or what I call "black sheep" list should enable his non-standard force structure. Likewise a generic bike captain from the Imperial Fists (or wherever). Or the Captain of the Raven Guard First Company (who should likely be named because their First Company Det is going to look different than most).
With that said, the Dets are a good first step but they still need some work. Generic HQ's in alternate armors (include Bikes as an "armor") are often ridiculously lacking. Dets that lean into a non-standard structure (i.e. using Terminators or Big Bugs etc as Troops) need to provide an adjustment. Bikes are already OC2, Terminators are OC1. The First Company Dets should probably bump the Veteran Units from OC1 to OC2 or better.
Its like the keyword system. Keywords could be so powerful in this game, but they're only scratching the surface. Every unit having either/or/and Biological and Mechanical to Keyword limit/enable Poison and EMP/Haywire is a no-brainer. If they stick with the Dets and refine them they could be a great system. If they kick them down the road anytime nobody's looking they're going to be meh for a couple editions when they chuck it all and start over with Indexes.
Its like the keyword system. Keywords could be so powerful in this game, but they're only scratching the surface. Every unit having either/or/and Biological and Mechanical to Keyword limit/enable Poison and EMP/Haywire is a no-brainer. If they stick with the Dets and refine them they could be a great system. If they kick them down the road anytime nobody's looking they're going to be meh for a couple editions when they chuck it all and start over with Indexes.
i think that's getting more in the weeds than GW would really like these days. you could have an extensive list of keywords for each unit and model, but that would be very complicated. i think this kind of thing is deserving of its own game system, for how extensive it could be. the way GW handle it now (ie, some things can't effect monsters or vehicles) do the job fine. like if you want something that can poison other units, saying "except monsters or vehicles" is enough. vehicles are made of metal, and monsters are too big for the poison to affect them
i agree this would be cool, but it would also be incredibly difficult to pull off. as i said, it should be its own game system
Wyldhunt wrote: So I've read through the entire thread, and I'm still not entirely clear on what exactly we're discussing/what the OP is getting at. Can someone clarify for me?
Uniformity, sameness across the various chapters is boring. That's why someone posted a link to the 60+ page thread about lack of flavor. And like that thread, the discussion revolves around how to evoke the distinctions between the chapters present in the fluff on the tabletop without, um, "flanderizing" everything and creating clear winners and losers in the process.
Its like the keyword system. Keywords could be so powerful in this game, but they're only scratching the surface. Every unit having either/or/and Biological and Mechanical to Keyword limit/enable Poison and EMP/Haywire is a no-brainer. If they stick with the Dets and refine them they could be a great system. If they kick them down the road anytime nobody's looking they're going to be meh for a couple editions when they chuck it all and start over with Indexes.
i think that's getting more in the weeds than GW would really like these days. you could have an extensive list of keywords for each unit and model, but that would be very complicated. i think this kind of thing is deserving of its own game system, for how extensive it could be. the way GW handle it now (ie, some things can't effect monsters or vehicles) do the job fine. like if you want something that can poison other units, saying "except monsters or vehicles" is enough. vehicles are made of metal, and monsters are too big for the poison to affect them
i agree this would be cool, but it would also be incredibly difficult to pull off. as i said, it should be its own game system
There's a happy medium, and the more the same keyword shows up, the less "in the weeds" things get. Take the example - if everything is Biological or Mechanical (with a few - like Space Marine Dreadnaughts potentially - even being both) its going to be as reflex in nature as that's a 3+ save, that's a 4+ save. Even doing this a handful of times to each model with general category keywords BIOLOGICAL, INFANTRY, SMALL/BIG/BIGGER/BIGGEST (think Transports), and a few other basic concepts you'd see in the CORE rules and the common USRs.
Wyldhunt wrote: So I've read through the entire thread, and I'm still not entirely clear on what exactly we're discussing/what the OP is getting at. Can someone clarify for me?
Uniformity, sameness across the various chapters is boring. That's why someone posted a link to the 60+ page thread about lack of flavor. And like that thread, the discussion revolves around how to evoke the distinctions between the chapters present in the fluff on the tabletop without, um, "flanderizing" everything and creating clear winners and losers in the process.
I'm actually fairly worried we're going to see Combat Patrol turn into the mechanics for 2,000 point armies as well. You'll be given pre-generated 2,000 point armies that have this HQ with this load out, these units with these loadouts, and those other characters with those other loadouts, and each 2,000 point army will have bespoke datasheets just for that army box.
Breton wrote: I'm actually fairly worried we're going to see Combat Patrol turn into the mechanics for 2,000 point armies as well. You'll be given pre-generated 2,000 point armies that have this HQ with this load out, these units with these loadouts, and those other characters with those other loadouts, and each 2,000 point army will have bespoke datasheets just for that army box.
I would be more than happy to see that happen - for tournament play only.
Want to prove you've actually got some skill? Win events using a list GW built for you... and let everyone else enjoy the game without the limitations that the actions of the tryhards end up causing GW to inflict on the rest of the playerbase.
Breton wrote: I'm actually fairly worried we're going to see Combat Patrol turn into the mechanics for 2,000 point armies as well. You'll be given pre-generated 2,000 point armies that have this HQ with this load out, these units with these loadouts, and those other characters with those other loadouts, and each 2,000 point army will have bespoke datasheets just for that army box.
I would be more than happy to see that happen - for tournament play only.
Want to prove you've actually got some skill? Win events using a list GW built for you... and let everyone else enjoy the game without the limitations that the actions of the tryhards end up causing GW to inflict on the rest of the playerbase.
As tournaments go so does the rest of the pickup games. So you'll lose support for DIY Armies.
Breton wrote: I'm actually fairly worried we're going to see Combat Patrol turn into the mechanics for 2,000 point armies as well. You'll be given pre-generated 2,000 point armies that have this HQ with this load out, these units with these loadouts, and those other characters with those other loadouts, and each 2,000 point army will have bespoke datasheets just for that army box.
I would be more than happy to see that happen - for tournament play only.
Want to prove you've actually got some skill? Win events using a list GW built for you... and let everyone else enjoy the game without the limitations that the actions of the tryhards end up causing GW to inflict on the rest of the playerbase.
As tournaments go so does the rest of the pickup games. So you'll lose support for DIY Armies.
While fixed lists might be good for balance, they are bad for sales. Once you have everything you need to field it, there is no reason to buy more minis. It works for CP because they are the start point of your collection. A 2k list is the end goal, and you do not want a firm stopping point. You can always buy more units to chase the meta and shake things up.
It's perfectly possible to make a black template list with crusaders primaris crusaders and chaplains and emperors champion. You can make a list with sanguinor and dante and sanguinary guard and death company easily.
You can make a space wolf list with blood claws and wolves and long fangs and terminator pack leaders.
But what about raven guard. Salamanders. Imperial fists. Iron hands. Ultrasmurfs. White scars.
Apart from the epic heroes there is nothing these chapters can take that sets them apart from other chapters just listed
It's perfectly possible to make a black template list with crusaders primaris crusaders and chaplains and emperors champion. You can make a list with sanguinor and dante and sanguinary guard and death company easily.
You can make a space wolf list with blood claws and wolves and long fangs and terminator pack leaders.
But what about raven guard. Salamanders. Imperial fists. Iron hands. Ultrasmurfs. White scars.
Apart from the epic heroes there is nothing these chapters can take that sets them apart from other chapters just listed
RG: Take more phobos, scout, and jump units than you otherwise might to better reflect your fluff. Probably take the sneaky detachment.
Salamanders: take more flamers and probably the flamer detachment.
Today I represented Iybraesil by taking a second banshee squad instead of something stronger. Iyanden players don't complain that they're not special enough because an Ulthwe army can field the same units they do. What is this spoiled marine nonsense?
It's perfectly possible to make a black template list with crusaders primaris crusaders and chaplains and emperors champion. You can make a list with sanguinor and dante and sanguinary guard and death company easily.
You can make a space wolf list with blood claws and wolves and long fangs and terminator pack leaders.
But what about raven guard. Salamanders. Imperial fists. Iron hands. Ultrasmurfs. White scars.
Apart from the epic heroes there is nothing these chapters can take that sets them apart from other chapters just listed
The current players don't give a GAK about 40K. they care about the game as a game, not the lore, not the universe, not the fluff. your position and the position of the player base GW is catering to are completely different. they are not the company they were when i started playing.
You either build a community of players looking for the same things you are or you move on to some other game system that is that and support it.
I fully understand what you are saying. it is why i helped build the oldhammer group i play with. we don't play it just as a game or even a more simulation style wargame that it is. we play it because it is 40K. that includes the lore and fluff being in the rules. we play factions because they are flanderized and we like it. we like the restrictions and the benefits of playing it that way. we do not want chess like "balance" that was never supposed to be what 40K was about and at this point is effectively impossible with all the factions GW is supporting without dumbing it down and sanitizing or making it bland. especially now that they are directly trying to make it a balanced chess like game where they do frequent balance passes to keep win rate metrics that they care about on par.
Because players are people, no matter how you make the rules some players are going to try and find exploits to feed their need to powergame. the only thing that stops that kind of behavior is the community you play in. If you act like a GAK enough you usually run out of people to play with in a regular active group.
As other have pointed out space marines although being incredibly rare in the setting are the flagship product from GW as they have always been central to the story that is why they get the most attention. variant factions of eldar, orks and even guard got more lore based attention in the 3rd-5 ed era with craftworld, clanz and regimental rules as well but tend to get forgotten since they are not space marines.
preatorians, tallarn, mordians, vostroyans,, elysians, and DKOK at one point had their own special stuff aside from cadians and catachans that always get the most attention for example.
If you as a player like the current system and like chasing the meta train more power to you. then support it. GW will keep taking your money.
Many of us though who think the current game is a dumpster fire that wears a 40K skin suit will play other rules sets, older editions, or support other games and we will get by just fine. it isn't even a GW thing. i still enjoy WM MKIII and i hate MKIV same with infinity. N2 was the best version of the game. N4 is the same tournament focused garbage GW is doing.
At least with classic battle tech there is no "current edition" the core mechanics have not changed in over 30 years and there are books full of official optional rules for players to pick and choose from that are as old as the game or new versions catalyst have added recently.
It's perfectly possible to make a black template list with crusaders primaris crusaders and chaplains and emperors champion. You can make a list with sanguinor and dante and sanguinary guard and death company easily.
You can make a space wolf list with blood claws and wolves and long fangs and terminator pack leaders.
But what about raven guard. Salamanders. Imperial fists. Iron hands. Ultrasmurfs. White scars.
Apart from the epic heroes there is nothing these chapters can take that sets them apart from other chapters just listed
The current players don't give a GAK about 40K. they care about the game as a game, not the lore, not the universe, not the fluff. your position and the position of the player base GW is catering to are completely different. they are not the company they were when i started playing.
You either build a community of players looking for the same things you are or you move on to some other game system that is that and support it.
I fully understand what you are saying. it is why i helped build the oldhammer group i play with. we don't play it just as a game or even a more simulation style wargame that it is. we play it because it is 40K. that includes the lore and fluff being in the rules. we play factions because they are flanderized and we like it. we like the restrictions and the benefits of playing it that way. we do not want chess like "balance" that was never supposed to be what 40K was about and at this point is effectively impossible with all the factions GW is supporting without dumbing it down and sanitizing or making it bland. especially now that they are directly trying to make it a balanced chess like game where they do frequent balance passes to keep win rate metrics that they care about on par.
Because players are people, no matter how you make the rules some players are going to try and find exploits to feed their need to powergame. the only thing that stops that kind of behavior is the community you play in. If you act like a GAK enough you usually run out of people to play with in a regular active group.
As other have pointed out space marines although being incredibly rare in the setting are the flagship product from GW as they have always been central to the story that is why they get the most attention. variant factions of eldar, orks and even guard got more lore based attention in the 3rd-5 ed era with craftworld, clanz and regimental rules as well but tend to get forgotten since they are not space marines.
preatorians, tallarn, mordians, vostroyans,, elysians, and DKOK at one point had their own special stuff aside from cadians and catachans that always get the most attention for example.
If you as a player like the current system and like chasing the meta train more power to you. then support it. GW will keep taking your money.
Many of us though who think the current game is a dumpster fire that wears a 40K skin suit will play other rules sets, older editions, or support other games and we will get by just fine. it isn't even a GW thing. i still enjoy WM MKIII and i hate MKIV same with infinity. N2 was the best version of the game. N4 is the same tournament focused garbage GW is doing.
At least with classic battle tech there is no "current edition" the core mechanics have not changed in over 30 years and there are books full of official optional rules for players to pick and choose from that are as old as the game or new versions catalyst have added recently.
If you care more about the lore than the rules, what’s stopping you from just running a lore-appropriate Salamanders/Imperial Fists/Ultramarines/other chapter force within the rules? You don’t need bespoke tactics to say “I’m playing Raven Guard,” you just need to run a force that RG would.
If you care more about the lore than the rules, what’s stopping you from just running a lore-appropriate Salamanders/Imperial Fists/Ultramarines/other chapter force within the rules? You don’t need bespoke tactics to say “I’m playing Raven Guard,” you just need to run a force that RG would.
you miss the point-
the rules have to reflect the lore of the setting.
the point of your question-you literally cannot. 10 edition is not designed to support it.
this
Spoiler:
does not equal
'Just run it the way you think it should look by taking specific units with the best detachment you can find'...that every other chapter has the same access to, and then hope that by not just taking the most optimal spam units doesn't get your teeth kicked in on the table.
In our oldhammer games i can take a thematic force such as above or just any legal combinations of models or units i like the look of and with average dice rolls along with good generalship on the table top i have the opportunity to win no matter what i am facing. some armies could be my exact counter making it a tougher game but it is not a forgone conclusion in the same way 10 ed works.
Sure, 10th isn't good. I don't much like it either.
But that doesn't mean you NEED rules to represent your specific faction. If you don't care about the game rules that much, what does it matter that any Marines can run bikes well?
...and then hope that by not just taking the most optimal spam units doesn't get your teeth kicked in on the table.
Let's pause to acknowledge that this is a mostly-unrelated issue. Playing in a more competitive meta where less competitive options can prevent you from having an enjoyable game is a thing. However, it's also *always* been a thing, and the potential for thematic choices for one army to be weak compared to another's does not mean that options for playing a thematic army don't exist. You could discuss ways to buff the underpowered options or nerf the overpowered options so that all armies are in the same ballpark and more likely to have close games, but that's not the same as claiming it's impossible to run a thematic army.
Also, going through the rules on that screenshot...
* Specific units may be used: Some units getting sent to Legends is a bummer, but the option still exists. Pretty sure most if not all of those units are still available, and running an army made up of bikes and models in transports is certainly a thng.
* Born in the Saddle: Not sure if difficult terrain still exists at all. If it did, this would be a pretty niche rule, but enhancements for making your bikers faster definitely exist. The +1 Attacks thing sort of went away (unless there's a strat for it), but this is also a my-bikes-are-better-than-your-bikes rule. That sort of thing is kind of its own can of worms. (See: problems with 8th/9th edition detachments and 7th edition formations).
* Bike Squadrons: I'm going off Battle Scribe, so I'm not 100% sure if 10-man units are still possible, but it appears that you can at least get very close to the same squad size and wargear options as before. Again, with the asterisk that Legends is a bit of a mixed bag.
* Mounted Veterans: Legends, but still a thing.
* Counter-Attack: Seems like this is a pretty niche/nitty gritty thing. I doubt people are frequently struggling to get most of their squad into engagement range. There's also the Countercharge strat for a similar feel.
* Flankers: You can put your bike units into strategic reserves.
* Hit & Run: While not 100% the same, the Storm Talon's Lightning Assault rule reflects this pretty well. With the option to also shoot after falling back available as an enhancement.
* Drop Pods: Exist.
* Power Lances: Not 100% the same, but biker sergeants can take all the usual power weapons. Between power weapons, thunder hammers, and power fists, surely one of those profiles is close enough that any power lances you've modeled feel reasonably well represented, no? There's also Fury of the Storm if you want that on-the-charge bonus.
* Horsetail Talismans: This is basically just the Advance rule, no? There's also Portents of Wisdom if you want to feel extra speedy when advancing.
* Chapter Banner: I see Ancients, Chaplains, Captains, and Champions on bikes listed as options. I don't know 10th edition marines super well, but surely one of those represents the concept of an inspiring flagpole reasonably well.
So with all that in mind, and with the acknowledgement that using Legends can be slightly awkward, what aspect of the WS rules in that screenshot do you feel aren't present in 10th? It seems like most of it still exists or has a close equivalent with the exceptions of the bespoke lances (again, you have multiple melee weapon profiles and an enhancement to help represent those) and the +1 Attacks in melee.
Am I overlooking something? Or is it literally just that people are upset other chapters somewhere in the galaxy are similarly good at riding bikes and aren't punished (read: given fewer buffs than White Scars) when doing so?
...and then hope that by not just taking the most optimal spam units doesn't get your teeth kicked in on the table.
Let's pause to acknowledge that this is a mostly-unrelated issue. Playing in a more competitive meta where less competitive options can prevent you from having an enjoyable game is a thing. However, it's also *always* been a thing, and the potential for thematic choices for one army to be weak compared to another's does not mean that options for playing a thematic army don't exist. You could discuss ways to buff the underpowered options or nerf the overpowered options so that all armies are in the same ballpark and more likely to have close games, but that's not the same as claiming it's impossible to run a thematic army.
Also, going through the rules on that screenshot...
* Specific units may be used: Some units getting sent to Legends is a bummer, but the option still exists. Pretty sure most if not all of those units are still available, and running an army made up of bikes and models in transports is certainly a thng.
* Born in the Saddle: Not sure if difficult terrain still exists at all. If it did, this would be a pretty niche rule, but enhancements for making your bikers faster definitely exist. The +1 Attacks thing sort of went away (unless there's a strat for it), but this is also a my-bikes-are-better-than-your-bikes rule. That sort of thing is kind of its own can of worms. (See: problems with 8th/9th edition detachments and 7th edition formations).
* Bike Squadrons: I'm going off Battle Scribe, so I'm not 100% sure if 10-man units are still possible, but it appears that you can at least get very close to the same squad size and wargear options as before. Again, with the asterisk that Legends is a bit of a mixed bag.
* Mounted Veterans: Legends, but still a thing.
* Counter-Attack: Seems like this is a pretty niche/nitty gritty thing. I doubt people are frequently struggling to get most of their squad into engagement range. There's also the Countercharge strat for a similar feel.
* Flankers: You can put your bike units into strategic reserves.
* Hit & Run: While not 100% the same, the Storm Talon's Lightning Assault rule reflects this pretty well. With the option to also shoot after falling back available as an enhancement.
* Drop Pods: Exist.
* Power Lances: Not 100% the same, but biker sergeants can take all the usual power weapons. Between power weapons, thunder hammers, and power fists, surely one of those profiles is close enough that any power lances you've modeled feel reasonably well represented, no? There's also Fury of the Storm if you want that on-the-charge bonus.
* Horsetail Talismans: This is basically just the Advance rule, no? There's also Portents of Wisdom if you want to feel extra speedy when advancing.
* Chapter Banner: I see Ancients, Chaplains, Captains, and Champions on bikes listed as options. I don't know 10th edition marines super well, but surely one of those represents the concept of an inspiring flagpole reasonably well.
So with all that in mind, and with the acknowledgement that using Legends can be slightly awkward, what aspect of the WS rules in that screenshot do you feel aren't present in 10th? It seems like most of it still exists or has a close equivalent with the exceptions of the bespoke lances (again, you have multiple melee weapon profiles and an enhancement to help represent those) and the +1 Attacks in melee.
Am I overlooking something? Or is it literally just that people are upset other chapters somewhere in the galaxy are similarly good at riding bikes and aren't punished (read: given fewer buffs than White Scars) when doing so?
That was an awful lot of Let Them Eat Legends Cake And Pretend It Isn't Moldy. There are better reasons to side eye that list. Like being 20 years old and way out of date, but you glossed over a lot of reasonable points. The Power Lance wasn't about the Strength and Damage Profile - it was about the +1 Initiative (think Fights First on the charge) vs a tradeoff (think Fights Last everywhere else).
And pointing out there's a Bike Champion in Legends is not the same as an entire Command Squad.
And I'm really not sure how an Ancient that only adds 1OC is pretty much the same as an Ancient that adds 1OC and extra movement. You didn't engage with any of that list beyond a superficial reading - and that's obvious by you pointing out Drop Pods exist. The WS Drop Pod rule had nothing to do with whether the Drop Pods exist or not. It had to do with what Army Building Choices you had if you did or did not take Drop Pods.
Yeah many of these rules are available (To everyone) but the point is these rules used to make White Scars stand out from other marines. Counter Attack: White Scars Bike units can use the Counter Charge strat for 0CP even if its' been used by someone else yadda yadda would be a more accurate translation to current. Now this list isn't really my cup of tea for Chapter individuality but I'm willing to discuss it on its merits not just pointing out Drop Pods exist.
Yep..... the old "but" argument-make the point then ignore everything before the "but"
the actual point was in accordance with the original FOC, that every faction had to follow for 4 editions, it allowed the WS to fight differently to everybody else as the lore held. it made them unique as an entire faction, not the current "only this one unit in my entire army this turn remembers the thousands of years of tradition and training of the chapter" via a strat. that they promptly forget about the rest of the game. it's a trap card. if you like MTG then it fits, if you want to play in the 40K universe then it doesn't as it was a built in rule(s) for the entire force that always works.
And yes to brentons point the lore based rules are 20 years old but were still compatible for 4 editions (3rd-7th ed). it does not work with 10th or anything past 7th for that matter. and that was the point. 10th ed is not 40K, it is a game designed to be balanced for tournaments that wears a 40K skin suit. as such lore based rules of playing in the 40K setting do not work for a system designed to be a mix of chess and a card game with tokens.
I almost feel bad for the rules dev team. they get handed this huge pile of factions that GW wants to support model sales for and are told to "make it all balanced against each other based off win rates" then i remember it is current GW and i feel less bad.
That WS list also had restrictions- getting the +1 attack cost +1pt per model for example. Bikes were already pretty expensive in 3rd edition (35pts per biker vs 15pts per tactical marine) so without that they could get overwhelmed by numbers.
They also had some pretty heavy restrictions on list building- the only infantry that wasn't forced to take transports is scouts, and many of the heavy firepower options are quite restricted (no Dreadnoughts, no Devastators, Land Raiders only as transports to already-expensive units). Terminators cannot teleport unless the list is in drop pods. Sticking every unit in a transport or on a bike added a lot of points quickly. Such a list would be quite small in body count compared to a balanced Marine list.
Essentially similar to, say, mechanised Guard of the same period. A powerful option, but paid for in being forced to take expensive units (a Chimera was 85pts).
Also, WS would struggle in some mission types. For example, attacking in sentry missions (only the scouts could sneak, if you took any). Which I think highlights the importance of mission variety to balancing out skew lists, at least in linked games like campaigns.
Such a list would be quite small in body count compared to a balanced Marine list.
i have a few pics of example lists at 1,850 points-
Spoiler:
Spoiler:
of course this isn't just the WS, i could give examples of many of the other thematic lore based lists from the 3.5 chaos dex, Armageddon steel legion, craft world alaitoc etc...
32-41 models plus a handful of vehicles seems pretty low in body count for 1850. Those are great looking armies, but they do highlight the cost of taking so many bikes. You could have 60 tactical marines for half that cost in a standard list, but they would be much less mobile and hit less hard individually.
The biker meta of 5th was driven by a big points reduction per bike (~25pts per model IIRC).
Automatically Appended Next Post: I'm big for lore-themed lists btw, my main force is mechanised Steel Legion. Very similar list with high mobility but low bodycount (compared to most Guard forces).
Also, Bikers went up that important point to T5, meaning they became markedly more resilient. Couple that with their speed, and being able to move and rapid fire (and charge maybe?) they became tricky to take out, with many enemy units being S3, they were left fishing for sixes in HTH.
You could have 60 tactical marines for half that cost in a standard list,
yeah you could, but then you would not be playing white scars, that's kind of the point.
My old 3.5 ravenwing army was more about my love of land speeders but comparatively as a bike army the scars excelled at being a close combat bike army where as the ravenwing were all about ranged high mobility shooting and were even more restricted-land speeder tornados or tempests, bikes, attack bikes and the master of the ravenwing either on bike or in his speeder (you always took the speeder if you had the points as it helped out the overall army with it's wargear) were all that was allowed.
At least with the deathwing back in the day any member of the inner circle could lead a pure deathwing army rather it was azrael himself or asmodai (belial and sammael were not a thing) or any other captain, interrogator chaplain or librarian.
You could have 60 tactical marines for half that cost in a standard list,
yeah you could, but then you would not be playing white scars, that's kind of the point.
Given that the White Scars, like the Blood Angels are with a few cultural exceptions Codex compliant - it would absolutely represent a WS army.
Now rather than Codex Bikes, Codex Wolfs or Codex Blood - I would rather as in the current edition that options exist for all Chapters that allow you to both field armies that can capute what people see as the style of a given Chapter but also alow people to do the same with the other 990 Chapters many of whom have equally unique cultures, companies, units etc but have always had to be ignored in favour of the same four or five Chapters that have always got everything - both in 40k and in HH but have also been flanderised to the point where they bear little or any resemblance to what they used to be.
You could have 60 tactical marines for half that cost in a standard list,
yeah you could, but then you would not be playing white scars, that's kind of the point.
Given that the White Scars, like the Blood Angels are with a few cultural exceptions Codex compliant - it would absolutely represent a WS army.
Now rather than Codex Bikes, Codex Wolfs or Codex Blood - I would rather as in the current edition that options exist for all Chapters that allow you to both field armies that can capute what people see as the style of a given Chapter but also alow people to do the same with the other 990 Chapters many of whom have equally unique cultures, companies, units etc but have always had to be ignored in favour of the same four or five Chapters that have always got everything - both in 40k and in HH but have also been flanderised to the point where they bear little or any resemblance to what they used to be.
Codex Compliant does not mean Cookie Cutter. It would represent an anything army. There is nothing to it that represents any specific chapter.
They have done DIY Chapter creation in the past, and should still be doing it.
Can you explain what has been flanderised in any of the non-wolf Supplement supported chapters? I mean I'll grant that the Wolves are pretty wonky right now, but the Dark/Blood Angels are still pretty much the same as they were. Same with White Scars, Ravenguard and so on.
You could have 60 tactical marines for half that cost in a standard list,
yeah you could, but then you would not be playing white scars, that's kind of the point.
Given that the White Scars, like the Blood Angels are with a few cultural exceptions Codex compliant - it would absolutely represent a WS army.
Now rather than Codex Bikes, Codex Wolfs or Codex Blood - I would rather as in the current edition that options exist for all Chapters that allow you to both field armies that can capute what people see as the style of a given Chapter but also alow people to do the same with the other 990 Chapters many of whom have equally unique cultures, companies, units etc but have always had to be ignored in favour of the same four or five Chapters that have always got everything - both in 40k and in HH but have also been flanderised to the point where they bear little or any resemblance to what they used to be.
Codex Compliant does not mean Cookie Cutter. It would represent an anything army. There is nothing to it that represents any specific chapter.
They have done DIY Chapter creation in the past, and should still be doing it.
Can you explain what has been flanderised in any of the non-wolf Supplement supported chapters? I mean I'll grant that the Wolves are pretty wonky right now, but the Dark/Blood Angels are still pretty much the same as they were. Same with White Scars, Ravenguard and so on.
As I said the current structure allows for the other 990 Chapters rather than IMO having everything rules wise revolving the chosen 3 Chapters and trying constantly to make them more and more special.
The Blood Angels went through a horrible process of having a large proportion of their units and weapons having the word Blood stuck in front them - the Dark Angels had the same with Dark but with an ever growing emphais on their "secret" to the exclusion of anything else of interest.
As you say the Wolves are little more than the word Wolf used in every single possible combination
As someone with both SW and DA armies - I am ashamed to field them in their current lore state :(
The White Scars and Ravenguard have not yet suffered to the same extent - mainly due to the slavish attention constantly focussed on the previous three armies - however if they had had the attention they would have the same issues. They also did not get the vast raft of "signature" units, rules etc - same as the Iron Hands and Salamanders.
All First Founding Chapters, all with a complex and unqiue military structure never represented in the rules - the same as the other 990 Chapters who often have equivalent units to those of the "Chosen Three" Chapters.
The so-called Cookie cutter approach allows for a vast variety of different Chapters
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Also, Bikers went up that important point to T5, meaning they became markedly more resilient. Couple that with their speed, and being able to move and rapid fire (and charge maybe?) they became tricky to take out, with many enemy units being S3, they were left fishing for sixes in HTH.
This is true (except for instant death) but the durability increase was less obnoxious when they cost 35pts than 25pts. A single 35pt biker was not as tough as 2 15pt tactical marines, it was the whole package that made the bike worth it. I think the problems with bikers came when they became too cheap for what they brought to the table.
aphyon wrote:
You could have 60 tactical marines for half that cost in a standard list,
yeah you could, but then you would not be playing white scars, that's kind of the point.
My old 3.5 ravenwing army was more about my love of land speeders but comparatively as a bike army the scars excelled at being a close combat bike army where as the ravenwing were all about ranged high mobility shooting and were even more restricted-land speeder tornados or tempests, bikes, attack bikes and the master of the ravenwing either on bike or in his speeder (you always took the speeder if you had the points as it helped out the overall army with it's wargear) were all that was allowed.
At least with the deathwing back in the day any member of the inner circle could lead a pure deathwing army rather it was azrael himself or asmodai (belial and sammael were not a thing) or any other captain, interrogator chaplain or librarian.
You are missing my point- I'm referring back to the discussion in the thread and referencing how skew lists can be balanced and how there were multiple ways to build marine forces. Essentially, taking all bikes wasn't a straight upgrade because they were expensive and White Scars couldn't take cheaper units easily.
You could have 60 tactical marines for half that cost in a standard list,
yeah you could, but then you would not be playing white scars, that's kind of the point.
Given that the White Scars, like the Blood Angels are with a few cultural exceptions Codex compliant - it would absolutely represent a WS army.
Now rather than Codex Bikes, Codex Wolfs or Codex Blood - I would rather as in the current edition that options exist for all Chapters that allow you to both field armies that can capute what people see as the style of a given Chapter but also alow people to do the same with the other 990 Chapters many of whom have equally unique cultures, companies, units etc but have always had to be ignored in favour of the same four or five Chapters that have always got everything - both in 40k and in HH but have also been flanderised to the point where they bear little or any resemblance to what they used to be.
The 3rd edition rules were explicitly flexible regarding choice of lists- if you wanted infantry White Scars, you just used the default list in Codex: Space Marines. Lorewise this would be easily explained for a White Scars force that was not able to deploy via drop pods or on bikes- boarding actions, underhives, extended campaign where fuel reserves are low etc.
Also, given every chapter is a successor of a first founding chapter, having various lists meant you could theme your successor chapter to more fighting styles than just the default codex. These archetypal lists allow more variety than a single list. I think the key thing here is choice.
Breton wrote:
That was an awful lot of Let Them Eat Legends Cake And Pretend It Isn't Moldy.
aphyon wrote:Yep..... the old "but" argument-make the point then ignore everything before the "but"
Did I not point out the mold enough? I acknowledged that some of the Scars' most iconic units being in legends isn't ideal multiple times. If you want to make the case that the old biker units should be brought out of legends, I'm all for it. If that's not the case you're making, then it feels like you're using their legends status to dismiss my point that a lot of the rules aphyon pointed to as being responsible for making WS flavorful seem to still have modern counterparts.
There are better reasons to side eye that list. Like being 20 years old and way out of date, but you glossed over a lot of reasonable points. The Power Lance wasn't about the Strength and Damage Profile - it was about the +1 Initiative (think Fights First on the charge) vs a tradeoff (think Fights Last everywhere else).
Well, you'll generally already fight first on the charge in 10th, so it sounds like the main difference between the old power lance and a modern power sword (or other power weapon) is the Always Fights Last when not on the charge? Not trying to be a jerk here, but I do think it's worth asking how important/impactful that weapon option is to the flavor and identity of WS. You could reasonably give Saim-Hann wildriders power lances for similar reasons. It would be fluffy and neat, but I'm not going to try to make the case that Saim-Hann is boring if they don't have exclusive access to that sort of weapon.
And pointing out there's a Bike Champion in Legends is not the same as an entire Command Squad.
I haven't done a ton with my marines in a while. Maybe it's showing. What's the difference between a squad of veteran bikers lead by an apothecary or champion and "an entire command squad?" Is it just that you can't have the apothecary, champion, and an ancient all in the same unit?
And I'm really not sure how an Ancient that only adds 1OC is pretty much the same as an Ancient that adds 1OC and extra movement.
Well, he adds extra movement (or at least advance rerolls) with an enhancement. Is the extra movement a big factor in whether WS are "boring"? Again, asking in good faith. I acknowledge it's not 100% the same, but on paper the difference seems pretty minor. To me. A guy who does not play White Scars.
You didn't engage with any of that list beyond a superficial reading - and that's obvious by you pointing out Drop Pods exist. The WS Drop Pod rule had nothing to do with whether the Drop Pods exist or not. It had to do with what Army Building Choices you had if you did or did not take Drop Pods.
I still feel like I'm missing something. The drop pod rule basically says you should stick your whole army on bikes or in transports unless you're sticking most of it in drop pods instead, right? You can choose to do that in 10th. You're not required to do so, sure, but if the point is that you want to represent a fluffy army, then whether the fluffy thing is mandatory or not doesn't seem relevant? Unless your point is that doing the fluffy thing is so inefficient that you're not able to enjoy games in your local meta?
Yeah many of these rules are available (To everyone) but the point is these rules used to make White Scars stand out from other marines. Counter Attack: White Scars Bike units can use the Counter Charge strat for 0CP even if its' been used by someone else yadda yadda would be a more accurate translation to current. Now this list isn't really my cup of tea for Chapter individuality but I'm willing to discuss it on its merits not just pointing out Drop Pods exist.
the actual point was in accordance with the original FOC, that every faction had to follow for 4 editions, it allowed the WS to fight differently to everybody else as the lore held.
Correct me if I'm misrepresenting you, but it sounds like the sticking point for you is that these rules aren't exclusive to WS. I get that it's neat to have your own thing, but I dislike chapter locking those sorts of rules for a couple reasons:
A.) It's a big galaxy. There's probably another chapter out there that also thought of giving its bikers polearms, sticking most of their chapter on bikes, etc. Locking what should probably be generic options behind specific chapters is how you end up with things like only BA having psychic dreadnaughts.
B.) If the chapter-locked rules make a given playstyle straight up more powerful, then you're kind of making every other chapter's equivalent feel crummy in comparison. "Oh, you liked the idea of a bike army? Too bad you like Salamanders fluff. Guess you'll just have to play every game knowing that your bikes are worse than mine. Have fun playing my army -1."
Whereas 10th's approach is basically to identify the general style of army you're playing and then give you some rules to lean into that.
it made them unique as an entire faction, not the current "only this one unit in my entire army this turn remembers the thousands of years of tradition and training of the chapter" via a strat. that they promptly forget about the rest of the game. it's a trap card. if you like MTG then it fits, if you want to play in the 40K universe then it doesn't as it was a built in rule(s) for the entire force that always works.
This is a valid criticism. Worth noting that it's not necessarily a marine-specific one though. I think it's weird that only one of my eldar units can use the barrel roll stratagem each turn compared to past editions where all my skimmers/bikes could jink. A lot of enhancements could reasonably just be army-wide wargear options rather than being tied to specific characters. Strats as a concept show some of their limitations here.
And yes to brentons point the lore based rules are 20 years old but were still compatible for 4 editions (3rd-7th ed). it does not work with 10th or anything past 7th for that matter. and that was the point. 10th ed is not 40K, it is a game designed to be balanced for tournaments that wears a 40K skin suit. as such lore based rules of playing in the 40K setting do not work for a system designed to be a mix of chess and a card game with tokens.
I almost feel bad for the rules dev team. they get handed this huge pile of factions that GW wants to support model sales for and are told to "make it all balanced against each other based off win rates" then i remember it is current GW and i feel less bad.
I do wish there was a more obvious focus on narrative/crusade for this reason. Tournament games being relatively balanced is great and all, but competitive play was never really 40k's strong suit. And in trying to lean into the tournament style of play, it definitely feels like they've sacrificed a lot of the flavor/narrative support. So again, valid, but not marine-specific.
A.) It's a big galaxy. There's probably another chapter out there that also thought of giving its bikers polearms, sticking most of their chapter on bikes, etc. Locking what should probably be generic options behind specific chapters is how you end up with things like only BA having psychic dreadnaughts.
B.) If the chapter-locked rules make a given playstyle straight up more powerful, then you're kind of making every other chapter's equivalent feel crummy in comparison. "Oh, you liked the idea of a bike army? Too bad you like Salamanders fluff. Guess you'll just have to play every game knowing that your bikes are worse than mine. Have fun playing my army -1."
A- GW already dealt with this correctly in the past-run your own DIY chapter as a successor using the same rules but your own paint scheme, or the 4th ed trait system for marine chapters to create your own unique combination.
B-replace "more powerful" with different. i pointed it out before. yes you could run a bike centric army from every chapter and many as troops WS did not fight like raven wing, or wolf guard bikers.
the only real difference is if you run a bike centric army out of a codex compliant ultra marines generic force they get nothing special because they are supposed to be generic.
To me. A guy who does not play White Scars.
i do not play them either, but i will fight for them because removing the lore from the game diminishes it for everybody.
then it feels like you're using their legends status to dismiss my point that a lot of the rules aphyon pointed to as being responsible for making WS flavorful seem to still have modern counterparts.
Except they don't, you had to dig around for something somewhat similar that could be applied to make a facsimile of WS rules that are not actual WS rules that could in fact apply to any chapter. re-enforcing the OPs point is that all marines are effectively the same generic army and the chapter you choose is effectively irrelevant no matter the paint scheme. you must then choose only the most optimal units that best fit the current meta skew or just have bad games. the latter tends to chase players from the hobby.
As i posted previously, if that's what you like -the current balanced focused generic tournament edition-then GW will keep taking your money no harm no foul.
But if you want to play 40K as battles in the setting proper you do so because you want the lore to apply in the rules. rather you feel it is flanderized or not.
unfortunately current 40K does not support this style of play anymore. not in the core mechanics and not in the armies.
B-replace "more powerful" with different. i pointed it out before. yes you could run a bike centric army from every chapter and many as troops WS did not fight like raven wing, or wolf guard bikers.
the only real difference is if you run a bike centric army out of a codex compliant ultra marines generic force they get nothing special because they are supposed to be generic.
See, this is one of the potential problems. Ideally, any chapter would be able to run a bike-heavy army (or whatever other archetype you care to name) and have it be different-but-equivalent-to any other chapter's version of the same. But if WS are running around with biker buffs and stratagems that support a biker army archetype while UM simply don't have such things, then a UM army is essentially playing White Scars -1. Which feels bad. 10th's approach bypasses this issue by just saying, "Oh, you're playing a biker list? Here are the rules to support that." You don't have to miss out on the rules that support your playstyle because you painted your army the wrong color.
And this is essentially wat the DIY successor rules were doing in 9th, just presented differently. In 9th, if you wanted to play an army that's good at X, you used the rules that supported X. You just also got poo-poo'd by people who disapproved of your suspiciously UM-colored "White Scars successors."
It sounds like what you want (and forgive me if I'm misrepresenting you) is for WS to not only favor bikers but to also have better biker rules than everyone else (except RW and WS successors). And if that is your stance, I just don't agree with you.
re-enforcing the OPs point is that all marines are effectively the same generic army and the chapter you choose is effectively irrelevant no matter the paint scheme.
To make sure we're on the same page, this is essentially how it works for every non-marine faction, right? See: Iyanden players don't complain that Ulthwe players can use wraith units. Nor do they complain that their wraith units aren't inherently stronger than Ulthwe's wraith units.
you must then choose only the most optimal units that best fit the current meta skew or just have bad games. the latter tends to chase players from the hobby.
This is a logical fallacy or at least a separate discussion, right? Not trying to attack you when I say that, but
"I have to use only the most optimized units to have a good match."
does not necessarily follow from
"All subfactions in the codex have access to the same rules."
As i posted previously, if that's what you like -the current balanced focused generic tournament edition-then GW will keep taking your money no harm no foul.
But if you want to play 40K as battles in the setting proper you do so because you want the lore to apply in the rules. rather you feel it is flanderized or not.
unfortunately current 40K does not support this style of play anymore. not in the core mechanics and not in the armies.
I consider myself way more interested in fluffy, casual games than in tournament play. I'm not sure I've been to a tournament since... 8th edition? And I agree that modern 40k is missing a lot of the flavor we had in past editions. I just don't feel that sub-faction-locking options is the way to bring back that flavor. If your priority is to make sure that marines have access to evocative rules that satisfyingly represent White Scars, then I'm all for said rules. But if you then want to say that my (hypothetical) Iron Hands successor chapter that also likes to field a bunch of bikes can't use those same rules, that's where you and I disagree.
To make sure we're on the same page, this is essentially how it works for every non-marine faction, right? See: Iyanden players don't complain that Ulthwe players can use wraith units. Nor do they complain that their wraith units aren't inherently stronger than Ulthwe's wraith units.
You cannot mourn what you have not lost. Iyanden never got special rules for their wraith units. In 6th when they got a real separate codex supplement, they got an option for a council of spiritseers, a Iyanden themed warlock power to replace conceal/reveal, a seperate warlord traits table and 5 relics. Making Wraithguard troops was in the base codex if you took a Spiritseer. Way back in 3rd Iyanden was a variant list that did some FOC swaps (wraithguard and wraithlords to troops, guardians to elite etc) and added a Spiritseer upgrade to a warlock. More recently in 9th Iyanden was two craftworld traits, one warlord trait, one relic, and one strategem. So Iyanden players are not jealous of other craftworlders using wraith units. But marines players are keenly aware that they used to have more. And now they have less. That's why all these threads about boringness and flavor circle around the drain of just what it means to a special marine in the grimdark.
To make sure we're on the same page, this is essentially how it works for every non-marine faction, right? See: Iyanden players don't complain that Ulthwe players can use wraith units. Nor do they complain that their wraith units aren't inherently stronger than Ulthwe's wraith units.
You cannot mourn what you have not lost. Iyanden never got special rules for their wraith units. In 6th when they got a real separate codex supplement, they got an option for a council of spiritseers, a Iyanden themed warlock power to replace conceal/reveal, a seperate warlord traits table and 5 relics. Making Wraithguard troops was in the base codex if you took a Spiritseer. Way back in 3rd Iyanden was a variant list that did some FOC swaps (wraithguard and wraithlords to troops, guardians to elite etc) and added a Spiritseer upgrade to a warlock. More recently in 9th Iyanden was two craftworld traits, one warlord trait, one relic, and one strategem. So Iyanden players are not jealous of other craftworlders using wraith units. But marines players are keenly aware that they used to have more. And now they have less. That's why all these threads about boringness and flavor circle around the drain of just what it means to a special marine in the grimdark.
As a marine player, I feel like I have more. I used to have no real ability to run half the codex without buying a whole new army. Now I have actual playstyle options.
I don't think Necron players would feel like something was added if Hypercrypt Legion had a line at the bottom that said, "you can only use this rules if your robots are green".
To make sure we're on the same page, this is essentially how it works for every non-marine faction, right? See: Iyanden players don't complain that Ulthwe players can use wraith units. Nor do they complain that their wraith units aren't inherently stronger than Ulthwe's wraith units.
You cannot mourn what you have not lost. Iyanden never got special rules for their wraith units. In 6th when they got a real separate codex supplement, they got an option for a council of spiritseers, a Iyanden themed warlock power to replace conceal/reveal, a seperate warlord traits table and 5 relics. Making Wraithguard troops was in the base codex if you took a Spiritseer. Way back in 3rd Iyanden was a variant list that did some FOC swaps (wraithguard and wraithlords to troops, guardians to elite etc) and added a Spiritseer upgrade to a warlock. More recently in 9th Iyanden was two craftworld traits, one warlord trait, one relic, and one strategem. So Iyanden players are not jealous of other craftworlders using wraith units. But marines players are keenly aware that they used to have more. And now they have less. That's why all these threads about boringness and flavor circle around the drain of just what it means to a special marine in the grimdark.
Regarding the 3rd edition Craftworld Eldar lists- GW was keen for those lists to not be faction-locked either, but they represented the typical for each Craftworld:
Regarding the 3rd edition Craftworld Eldar lists- GW was keen for those lists to not be faction-locked either, but they represented the typical for each Craftworld:
I know. That was back in the day where things were less constrained in many ways. I don't things really got subfaction locked until 8th edition and the introduction of the keyword system.
As a marine player, I feel like I have more. I used to have no real ability to run half the codex without buying a whole new army. Now I have actual playstyle options.
I don't think Necron players would feel like something was added if Hypercrypt Legion had a line at the bottom that said, "you can only use this rules if your robots are green".
As I said the current structure allows for the other 990 Chapters rather than IMO having everything rules wise revolving the chosen 3 Chapters and trying constantly to make them more and more special.
The Blood Angels went through a horrible process of having a large proportion of their units and weapons having the word Blood stuck in front them - the Dark Angels had the same with Dark but with an ever growing emphais on their "secret" to the exclusion of anything else of interest.
As you say the Wolves are little more than the word Wolf used in every single possible combination
As someone with both SW and DA armies - I am ashamed to field them in their current lore state :(
The White Scars and Ravenguard have not yet suffered to the same extent - mainly due to the slavish attention constantly focussed on the previous three armies - however if they had had the attention they would have the same issues. They also did not get the vast raft of "signature" units, rules etc - same as the Iron Hands and Salamanders.
All First Founding Chapters, all with a complex and unqiue military structure never represented in the rules - the same as the other 990 Chapters who often have equivalent units to those of the "Chosen Three" Chapters.
The so-called Cookie cutter approach allows for a vast variety of different Chapters
The Blood Angels are about at the top of acceptable. The Blood Chalice held by a Sanguinary Priest? Totally Works. Blood Claws on a Furioso Dread? I didn't even know they were a thing, and yeah they could have been Dreadnaught Lightning Claws. The Blood Crozius is a little too on the nose. Whoever named it must have done so at 4:59pm on Friday. The Sanguinor was probably named at 4:45 because they didn't name him Blood Jesus not that Sanguine+Saviour is a hard code to crack. Azkaellon The Lost/Damned would have been better for a fluff tie in, and cross-combo with the Lost And The Damned.
As for DA, I only see two "Dark"s - the Darkshroud that totally works. A speeder with some sort of cloaking device? Yeah. The Dark Talon is meh. The Nephilim Fighter is much better. And again there's a code Dark+Nephilim I think Shadow Talon would have been better, and would have given you Shadow+Nephilim so everyone can wink and nod on Dark Giants/Fallen Angels. My main gripe for the names in DA are the swords. The Sword of X. Nobody was putting the work in here. DA are vaguely Tuetonic/Arthurian. Toss in a little anglicized German/Celtic from a search engine was too much to ask? The Sword of Secrets? How about The Rúnblade (rún is supposedly Celtic for Secret). The Sword Of Silence! Whats wrong with just naming it Tranquility? The Raven Sword? Hey at least its not The Sword Of The Raven. But it could have been Obsidius.
Regarding the 3rd edition Craftworld Eldar lists- GW was keen for those lists to not be faction-locked either, but they represented the typical for each Craftworld:
I know. That was back in the day where things were less constrained in many ways. I don't things really got subfaction locked until 8th edition and the introduction of the keyword system.
They used the keyword system to lock factions, but the keywords weren't why they were faction locked, it was the abuse of soup.
To make sure we're on the same page, this is essentially how it works for every non-marine faction, right? See: Iyanden players don't complain that Ulthwe players can use wraith units. Nor do they complain that their wraith units aren't inherently stronger than Ulthwe's wraith units.
You cannot mourn what you have not lost. Iyanden never got special rules for their wraith units. In 6th when they got a real separate codex supplement, they got an option for a council of spiritseers, a Iyanden themed warlock power to replace conceal/reveal, a seperate warlord traits table and 5 relics. Making Wraithguard troops was in the base codex if you took a Spiritseer. Way back in 3rd Iyanden was a variant list that did some FOC swaps (wraithguard and wraithlords to troops, guardians to elite etc) and added a Spiritseer upgrade to a warlock. More recently in 9th Iyanden was two craftworld traits, one warlord trait, one relic, and one strategem. So Iyanden players are not jealous of other craftworlders using wraith units. But marines players are keenly aware that they used to have more. And now they have less. That's why all these threads about boringness and flavor circle around the drain of just what it means to a special marine in the grimdark.
Well they had the rules but without the restrictions (aside from IA 11 as that craft world list had restrictions) that many marine chapters had.
The 4th ed eldar book that our group prefers to use in our oldhammer games allows for every core army troop faction option to run each of the well known craftworlds so you can build a legal list based off of the specific one you enjoy or just one you made up. the issue with marines is that each legion during the heresy had a specialization. and they never lost that when they became chapters.
It sounds like what you want (and forgive me if I'm misrepresenting you) is for WS to not only favor bikers but to also have better biker rules than everyone else (except RW and WS successors). And if that is your stance, I just don't agree with you..
We will disagree then, what i enjoy and want out of 40K is for the armies to fit the lore.
The WSshould have better bike forces set up for close combat than any other marine faction because that is their specialization along with the other aspects of the chapter such as mechanized deployment. same as BA spending so much focus on assault jump infantry, or iron warriors breaking fortifications. this doesn't make the generalist poster boy ultra marines less than, in fact as the poster boys they got the most attention with a slew of special characters and access to all the gear. they are just not specialized in one specific style of war fighting in the 40K setting like many of the other chapters of renown.
This also applies across other factions. they may not have as many restrictions, but if i am running a bad moons clan for an ork army i should be investing heavy into flashgitz, or the farsite enclave should be crisis suit focused and so on.
It comes back to the fact that if you are into the setting as a basis for playing the game you are playing these factions because of why they draw your interest as a player. the bonuses and restrictions are both a positive to represent the faction on the table. the thing about fandom is that the IP draws you in and keep you coming back. We as fans get into it at various levels. rather it is dedication to a particular marine chapter in 40K a great house or clan in battle tech and so on.
In the OPs point if all the chapters are just vanilla marines with the only real variation is different colors painted on their armor. it diminishes the interest in the setting and game.
It is one of several reasons current 40K holds zero interest for me.
kodos wrote: your problem will be that in 40k the lore is changing over time to fit new model releases and the rules are changed to fit that lore
the 40k you want is not what GW is selling and a good chance it never will be because they hardly go back
so you are better of playing the edition were the lore and rules fit what you want
That is exactly what i have done. i made the effort to build a community and we have a steady regular group that plays core 5th ed but we use whichever codex we feel best represents the armies in the lore. for the most part 3rd-5th ed codexes are preferred as they are the ones most directly tied to the original designers of the universe.
I fully understand i am no longer GWs target customer. I really don't need anything from them any more either. with thousands of points in 3 different armies i can field a wide variety of stuff to keep games interesting.
As i said the current iteration of 40K holds zero interest, if anything i hold a strong dislike for it.
That however does not make me blind to what the current game is about or how it works. there is a reason these topics keep coming up in the forums. even if they do not know the previous editions some of the newer players feel that they are missing something in the game. so we discuss it here.
Wargaming is my main recreational hobby and one i have been active with for over 20 years. i play regularly and i play a lot of games (see sig). if i didn't then it would not be a hobby i would spend this much time, effort, or money on.
This is how i spend 12+ hours of any typical Saturday every weekend. -
Spoiler:
You lose me here too: White Scars should have Special/Different rules for their bike forces, but not better.
Better in the sense they are good at close combat while ravenwing is good at shooting as bike centric armies, call it different or better. i see it as the same thing.
To make sure we're on the same page, this is essentially how it works for every non-marine faction, right? See: Iyanden players don't complain that Ulthwe players can use wraith units. Nor do they complain that their wraith units aren't inherently stronger than Ulthwe's wraith units.
Wanted to come back to this- I really think this is an issue with Marine Chapters being so small. Given the amount we know about them, it is entirely plausible that the largest Aspect shrines are as big or larger than typical Chapters.
Lorewise, Ulthwe is easily big enough to accommodate a formation of Black Guardian jetbikers as skilled as the Wild Riders of Saim-Hann, and Biel-Tan is big enough to have at least some veteran Ranger Pathfinders in its diaspora, even if they are less numerous than those originating from Alaitoc.
However, in the lore White Scars are better bikers than Ultramarines but worse at holding positions etc. The Ultramarines legion probably had a few specialist companies of veteran bikers that could compare to White Scars, but if these survived the Heresy they likely would have been parcelled off into a separate successor like the Aurora Chapter armoured specialists. Therein lies the lore issue of how small and fragmented Marine forces are.
The WSshould have better bike forces set up for close combat than any other marine faction
You lose me here too: White Scars should have Special/Different rules for their bike forces, but not better.
I prefer that there are rules for Elite Bikers - that you can select for a Chapter that in a particular battle is using those asests - lore friendly and not forcing people to have rules that only work for one "Special" Chapter.
Same as for example - speclaist inflitrators/Snipers, creature riders, berserkers, Terminators etc etc _ pretty much everything that is supposedly a signature of the Chosen three chapters is present in other chapers - just with different names etc.
It sounds like what you want (and forgive me if I'm misrepresenting you) is for WS to not only favor bikers but to also have better biker rules than everyone else (except RW and WS successors). And if that is your stance, I just don't agree with you..
We will disagree then, what i enjoy and want out of 40K is for the armies to fit the lore.
Me too! I think I'm just a little more lenient on how that lore is represented and also more conscious of the potential feels-bads your approach holds for those not wanting to lean into their army's stereotypes. Sincere question: do you think that a non-WS player who wants to run a bike army for fluff/aesthetic reasons should have to be at an automatic disadvantage compared to a WS bike list? Because that's the scenario I worry your approach creates.
Yes, WS are better known for fielding bikes than Salamanders are, but if a player likes the idea of a Salamander bike army (maybe to represent a specific campaign or just to carve out his own little corner of the setting), then I don't feel like he should have to play at a disadvantage because our hypothetical WS players won't feel special enough otherwise.
The WSshould have better bike forces set up for close combat than any other marine faction because that is their specialization along with the other aspects of the chapter such as mechanized deployment. same as BA spending so much focus on assault jump infantry, or iron warriors breaking fortifications.
Counterpoint: a chapter preferring/usually defaulting to certain tactics doesn't necessarily mean that they're significantly better at those tactics than everyone else. Just because White Scars will opt for a bike-based solution to a problem 9 times out of 10 doesn't necessarily mean that an Iron Hands biker force is significantly less competent at riding bikes in comparison.
This also applies across other factions. they may not have as many restrictions, but if i am running a bad moons clan for an ork army i should be investing heavy into flashgitz, or the farsite enclave should be crisis suit focused and so on.
I feel like you're making my point for me here. Bad Moons can feel like Bad Moons simply by choosing the appropriate units. Farsight can feel like Farsight simply by choosing the appropriate units. So why then, when it comes to marines, is choosing the appropriate units suddenly not enough? Why are WS not sufficiently White Scar-ish when they field an army full of bikes and transports?
It comes back to the fact that if you are into the setting as a basis for playing the game you are playing these factions because of why they draw your interest as a player.
Counterpoints:
A.) There are reasons to like a faction other than their tactics. Maybe you're really drawn Salamanders because they're the "nice guy" marines and you love their treasure hunting lore, but you're just not all that enthused about shoving as many flamers into your list as possible.
B.) There is also an appeal to playing against type a bit. You like Salamanders. You go online to see that everyone and their mom is running flamer spam Salamanders, and you want to feel a bit unique. So you think, "Hey! Salamanders have bikes too! Maybe my games could follow the exploits of the Salamander bike company." But alas, you then find out that your bike army isn't allowed to use bike stratagems and do bike things because those rules are paint-locked to white armor. And you play every game knowing your rules don't support your army as well as they could because aphyon disapproves of your taste in fluff.
In the OPs point if all the chapters are just vanilla marines with the only real variation is different colors painted on their armor.
The thing is, you can still impose limitations/thematic choices on yourself. If you think Salamanders should always lean into termies and flamer spam instead of bikes, you can do that. But if our friend wants to run Salamanders on bikes instead, 10th edition lets him do that. Insisting that he should be punished for doing so feels contrary to our ultimate goal of having a fun time with the game/hobby.
Sincere question: do you think that a non-WS player who wants to run a bike army for fluff/aesthetic reasons should have to be at an automatic disadvantage compared to a WS bike list? Because that's the scenario I worry your approach creates.
I do not see it as a disadvantage. GW already addressed this with the 4th ed codex trait system. you can "build your own" bike centric list and also give that list a few extra perks an ultra marine list cannot take. But not the same exact combination of skills found in the WS as a close combat focused bike force or ravenwing as a shooting focused bike force. it is similar to the 3.5 chaos codex. you could make a thematic close combat themed undivided army, but it will not operate in the same what a khorne marked berserker close combat thematic army does. the latter gaining special war gear, and other effects from serving their preferred chaos god. but it also comes with restrictions chaos undivided does not suffer.
I feel like you're making my point for me here. Bad Moons can feel like Bad Moons simply by choosing the appropriate units. Farsight can feel like Farsight simply by choosing the appropriate units. So why then, when it comes to marines, is choosing the appropriate units suddenly not enough? Why are WS not sufficiently White Scar-ish when they field an army full of bikes and transports?
I am actually not, all the restricted specialized lists for xenos factions similar to what marines got through sub codexes or index astartes supplements do exist in previous editions they were just all in the forge world imperial armor books.
Additionally eldar aspect warriors serve an aspect shrine that is exactly the same across all craftworlds. they in effect separate from the nature of the craftworld they may serve as the aspect is a higher calling. where as specific space marine legions/chapters are not and do not operate the same. they be the same race/faction but each was modeled after a primarch who embodies an aspect of the emperor or some role he wished them to fullfill in his great plan. As such the entire legion/chapter is specialized for that task. you keep implying that players are being forced into playing this or that marine faction when the reality is that they choose it because it fits what they want to play. of course i am coming at this from a different edition where any perceived disadvantages you may think exist on paper can be overcome by what you do with your force on the table. opposing forces being thematic as well as possibly imbalanced is part of the 40K setting and something that i see as a positive feature of the game. some of the best games i have had have been really hard fought where i lost but still had a great time.
The WSshould have better bike forces set up for close combat than any other marine faction
You lose me here too: White Scars should have Special/Different rules for their bike forces, but not better.
I prefer that there are rules for Elite Bikers - that you can select for a Chapter that in a particular battle is using those asests - lore friendly and not forcing people to have rules that only work for one "Special" Chapter.
Same as for example - speclaist inflitrators/Snipers, creature riders, berserkers, Terminators etc etc _ pretty much everything that is supposedly a signature of the Chosen three chapters is present in other chapers - just with different names etc.
Yeah, I'm not a fan of 200 points for outriders, 2PPM for ELITE outriders that all will STILL operate the same. Its fake variety. If ELITE is worth 2PPM everyone will do it, if its not nobody will. If UM Bikers are a little better shooting and little better fighting, or WS Bikes are a little better moving, and a little better fighting, or Ravenguard Bikers are a little harder to shoot, and a little better something else then they all play different. Nobody is "ELITE" they're just different. I prefer the Det to be about the units, and the Chapter to be about how the units play. I like that everyone can play every Det (until you get to the Supplements, and the inherent problems with this first run at the Dets). I think the variety inside each Det (the Chapter Tactics if you will) should tweak how those same units play. The Biel-Tan Warlock Skyrunning Conclave might be slightly better bikers, while the Ulthwe Warlock Skyrunning Conclave might be slightly better psykers.
I am actually not, all the restricted specialized lists for xenos factions similar to what marines got through sub codexes or index astartes supplements do exist in previous editions they were just all in the forge world imperial armor books. .
What xenos subfaction stuff was in FWIA books? Raid on Kastorel-Npvem had the Ork Dreadmob list, Doom of Mymeara had the Corsairs list and... That's it? Everything else was additions to the existing lists.
Meanwhile, Speed Freeks were in Codex: Armageddon, Eldar subfactions were in Codex: Craftworlds with an additional list in Codex: Eye of Terror, Chapter Approved included rules for Kroot Mercenaries, Feral Orks, the 6 Ork clans, and an alternative Tyranid list. Genestealer Cults and Harlequins featured in Citadel Journal. The 3rd ed Tyranid codex also had "mutable genus" rules for DIY hive fleets.
So most of the subfaction rules appeared in 3rd edition magazines or codices.
IA 3-tau auxiliaries
IA 8-dredd mob list
IA 11 craftworld mymeara and corsairs army lists
IA 12 dark harvest necron army list
IA 13 renegades and heretics army list
Of course that is also not counting the DKOK army list, elysian army list and special lists for the astral claws/tyrants legion, red scorpions, minotaurs, Carcharodons, the latter being the focus of the siege assault army list options.
The auxiliaries in IA3 were just extra units for the standard Tau list, not a whole subfaction.
Way more xenos subfaction rules were by GW proper overall.
Renegades and Heretics were a successor to the Lost and the Damned list in Codex: Eye of Terror (a pretty good one IMO). I didn't mention them because they were not xenos.
The Imperium definitely got the bulk of IA unique lists with 2 DKoK lists (siege, assault), 2 Elysian lists (standard, D-99), Imperial Guard armoured battlegroup, a limited Tallarn list piggybacking off the 3.5th IG doctrines, and the Siege Assault Vanguard list (which I personally associate most with the Star Phantoms assault on the Palace of Thorns, but is generic). As you say, several Chapters got additional rules to varying degrees consistent with however GW was presenting Chapter rules at the time (4th ed chapter traits, 5th ed chapter tactics locked to characters, proper chapter tactics later on etc.).
I am unsure if this has been mentioned or not, but one thing about Space Marines that burns my biscuts is that all the unit versatility of tacticals has been gutted for hyper-focused units, that only do one thing. Instead of tacticals taking a squad of bolters, a plasma gun, and maybe a HB, we have Just Plasma Intercessors, or just HB Intercessors (Heavy Intercessors), it's taken all the squad versatility out of SMs, and made them just specilized squads of dudes that will likely do one thing well, then be pointless for the rest of the time. Also, will someone please explain to me how any single variant of a "Bolt rifle" does more damage than a ball of Sun hot fire plasma? How is a ball of plasma D1 but a gun bolt is d2/3? Make it make sense?
it's taken all the squad versatility out of SMs, and made them just specilized squads of dudes that will likely do one thing well, then be pointless for the rest of the time.
I think that's probably in response to the competitive community. Versatile units are inefficient units. That was always identified as one of the reasons why vanilla space marines haven't been super competitive in most editions.
it's taken all the squad versatility out of SMs, and made them just specilized squads of dudes that will likely do one thing well, then be pointless for the rest of the time.
I think that's probably in response to the competitive community. Versatile units are inefficient units. That was always identified as one of the reasons why vanilla space marines haven't been super competitive in most editions.
It’s also easier for new players. None of those “how should I equip my tactical squad” questions like in the days of yore. Buy your box of intercessors, build your box of intercessors, field your box of intercessors. No questions.
Ok, I'm just responding to the OP's thesis, not the validity or reasoning behind tactical loadouts of yore. The reason I find a lot of Space Marines boring now is that player choice in the very essence of the game (Playing with plastic dolls) has been gutted, and now everyone has to play with the exact same dolls. No one can have different dolls. Everyone's dolls must stand on the same rocks, carry the same weapon, mono-pose, and whatnot. The only variant options now are what bits and bobs you choose to attach. If you choose to attach grenades, knife, pistol in holster, etc. Otherwise, two Space Marine armies, bought by two different players, on the same day of last week, assembled according to the book, will look almost identical. This is the biggest reason I can point to for the "Army being boring now...."
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Ok, I'm just responding to the OP's thesis, not the validity or reasoning behind tactical loadouts of yore. The reason I find a lot of Space Marines boring now is that player choice in the very essence of the game (Playing with plastic dolls) has been gutted, and now everyone has to play with the exact same dolls. No one can have different dolls. Everyone's dolls must stand on the same rocks, carry the same weapon, mono-pose, and whatnot. The only variant options now are what bits and bobs you choose to attach. If you choose to attach grenades, knife, pistol in holster, etc. Otherwise, two Space Marine armies, bought by two different players, on the same day of last week, assembled according to the book, will look almost identical. This is the biggest reason I can point to for the "Army being boring now...."
It used to be marines had a lot of options for getting the same job done. How you chose to do it would flavor the army a lot. You want melta to blow up tanks? Tac squad in a rhino, SG with combis in a drop pod. Bikes. Attack bikes. Land speeders. Tons of choices to choose from. Now? We have eradicators? One of the storm speeders?
The roles needed for an army are largely the same, but the tools are basicly a bucket of monotaskers.
And once you start getting competitive, you are going to want to take the most efficent one.
Through that lense, yes. Marine armies are boring.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Ok, I'm just responding to the OP's thesis, not the validity or reasoning behind tactical loadouts of yore. The reason I find a lot of Space Marines boring now is that player choice in the very essence of the game (Playing with plastic dolls) has been gutted, and now everyone has to play with the exact same dolls. No one can have different dolls. Everyone's dolls must stand on the same rocks, carry the same weapon, mono-pose, and whatnot. The only variant options now are what bits and bobs you choose to attach. If you choose to attach grenades, knife, pistol in holster, etc. Otherwise, two Space Marine armies, bought by two different players, on the same day of last week, assembled according to the book, will look almost identical. This is the biggest reason I can point to for the "Army being boring now...."
Given that even now Marines have a vast bloated list of actual unit options which continue to grow with a huge variety of options of how to play before you even look at "Chosen" chapter options the idea that all marine armies look the same is hilarious.
And even then there is an entire second range of Marine models that can be used to personalise an army.
Variety of models or units is really not a Marine issue.
Breton wrote: I'm actually fairly worried we're going to see Combat Patrol turn into the mechanics for 2,000 point armies as well. You'll be given pre-generated 2,000 point armies that have this HQ with this load out, these units with these loadouts, and those other characters with those other loadouts, and each 2,000 point army will have bespoke datasheets just for that army box.
I would be more than happy to see that happen - for tournament play only.
Want to prove you've actually got some skill? Win events using a list GW built for you... and let everyone else enjoy the game without the limitations that the actions of the tryhards end up causing GW to inflict on the rest of the playerbase.
Orrrrrr...
We could stop letting GW's laughable attempts at balancing their own game, which they've had ten editions of now, slide by blaming everything on mean ol' tournament players.
Sincere question: do you think that a non-WS player who wants to run a bike army for fluff/aesthetic reasons should have to be at an automatic disadvantage compared to a WS bike list? Because that's the scenario I worry your approach creates.
I do not see it as a disadvantage. GW already addressed this with the 4th ed codex trait system. you can "build your own" bike centric list and also give that list a few extra perks an ultra marine list cannot take. But not the same exact combination of skills found in the WS as a close combat focused bike force or ravenwing as a shooting focused bike force. it is similar to the 3.5 chaos codex. you could make a thematic close combat themed undivided army, but it will not operate in the same what a khorne marked berserker close combat thematic army does. the latter gaining special war gear, and other effects from serving their preferred chaos god. but it also comes with restrictions chaos undivided does not suffer.
Yeah, I'm not a fan of 200 points for outriders, 2PPM for ELITE outriders that all will STILL operate the same. Its fake variety. If ELITE is worth 2PPM everyone will do it, if its not nobody will. If UM Bikers are a little better shooting and little better fighting, or WS Bikes are a little better moving, and a little better fighting, or Ravenguard Bikers are a little harder to shoot, and a little better something else then they all play different. Nobody is "ELITE" they're just different. I prefer the Det to be about the units, and the Chapter to be about how the units play. I like that everyone can play every Det (until you get to the Supplements, and the inherent problems with this first run at the Dets). I think the variety inside each Det (the Chapter Tactics if you will) should tweak how those same units play. The Biel-Tan Warlock Skyrunning Conclave might be slightly better bikers, while the Ulthwe Warlock Skyrunning Conclave might be slightly better psykers.
In theory, I'm not opposed to an equal-but-different approach. My concern is in the execution.
First, are we talking about writing bespoke variations on the Stormlance rules for each chapter, or just bringing back an army-wide one-size-fits-all buffs like we had in 8th and 9th? If the former, that's a lot of rules writing. If the latter, you have to make sure that a given chapter's rules are equally beneficial for the units focused on by each detachment type. That is, if the Imperial Fists chapter rule is more beneficial to bikes than the Salamanders rule is, then an IF biker army is going to simply be more powerful than a Salamanders biker army. And whatever chapter-specific rules you create have to not only be equally beneficial to bikes, but also to any other units that benefit from them. That is, the extent to which the WS and Salamander rules are beneficial to bikes must be equal, the extent to which they are beneficial to terminators must be equal, beneficial to vehicles must be equal, etc. "Equally" here meaning equally enough that nobody ends up feeling like they're playing at a disadvantage due to their choice of chapter+detachment.
And even if you take on that project with the best intentions, the job becomes harder the more chapters you want to support. The original 9 loyalist chapters gives you tons of opportunities to fail already. Adding DW or Crimson Fists or Black Templars or whatever into the mix adds a bunch more. If that's a job you want to take on, I wish you well and would love to read the results. It just seems like an impractically difficult project when the alternative is to just let all bikers be good at biking.
You could even have few variations on the existing detachments to highlight different prominent modus operandi. It's just that faction-locking them makes them that much harder to do well without someone feeling bad.
I feel like you're making my point for me here. Bad Moons can feel like Bad Moons simply by choosing the appropriate units. Farsight can feel like Farsight simply by choosing the appropriate units. So why then, when it comes to marines, is choosing the appropriate units suddenly not enough? Why are WS not sufficiently White Scar-ish when they field an army full of bikes and transports?
I am actually not, all the restricted specialized lists for xenos factions similar to what marines got through sub codexes or index astartes supplements do exist in previous editions they were just all in the forge world imperial armor books.
I'm looking at it through the context of more recent editions. Personally, I don't think people should have to buy separate Bad Moons or Farsight Enclave books. Iyanden got its own supplement in 6th, but it really wasn't necessary. You could play an Iyanden-feeling list by just fielding lots of wraiths and maybe Yriel if the mood took you. This approach seems to be considered sufficient for all the non-marine armies. I dislike the idea that marines warrant an extra book or layer of rules to convey their fluff when non-marines seem to be able to pull it off to acceptable standards without those extra bells and whistles.
Additionally eldar aspect warriors serve an aspect shrine that is exactly the same across all craftworlds. they in effect separate from the nature of the craftworld they may serve as the aspect is a higher calling.
Pretty sure that's mostly false, but I don't want to muddy the discussion with an eldar fluff tangent.
where as specific space marine legions/chapters are not and do not operate the same. they be the same race/faction but each was modeled after a primarch who embodies an aspect of the emperor or some role he wished them to fullfill in his great plan. As such the entire legion/chapter is specialized for that task.
I feel you're overstating things pretty dramatically. Chapters, especially the codex-compliant ones, are more alike than different. They have their own preferences and philosophies, but at the end of the day they're all still capable of fielding a bunch of bike boys to pop wheelies. I guess I can understand why you'd be so insistent on them all having bespoke options and such if you really think they're actually that "specialized," but I simply don't think that they are. And further, it's a big galaxy with how many different chapters out there? Surely White Scars aren't the only chapter in the galaxy with a thing for riding bikes. There's absolutely an Iron Hands or Ultramarine or Fists successor out there that makes more sense using The Good Bike Rules than not.
you keep implying that players are being forced into playing this or that marine faction when the reality is that they choose it because it fits what they want to play.
Half-true. As I mentioned in an earlier post, play style/tactics aren't the only factor in what army someone plays. And as I also mentioned, playing against type can be fun in its own right. You seem to be implying that anyone who wants to play bike marines must obviously want to play White Scars or that anyone who wants to field White Scars must obviously want to lean exclusively into bikers, and neither of those are necessarily true.
of course i am coming at this from a different edition where any perceived disadvantages you may think exist on paper can be overcome by what you do with your force on the table. opposing forces being thematic as well as possibly imbalanced is part of the 40K setting and something that i see as a positive feature of the game. some of the best games i have had have been really hard fought where i lost but still had a great time.
Respectfully, this comes across like you're saying,
"Bad rules writing is fine because you can just get good. Bad matchups are super cool, actually. Sometimes I have fun even when I lose, and that's why you should be happy that your Salamander bikers are worse than White Scar bikers."
Your last couple points here seem to be moving away from the notion that biker armies from other chapters should be different-but-equal, instead making the case that different-and-unequal is fine because they could've (should've) just run White Scars if they wanted a bike army or because being at a disadvantage is fun. Not trying to put words in your mouth, but that's the vibe I'm getting. So to check in again, do you think that a player who wants to run a non-WS biker army should be at a disadvantage compared to a WS biker army? Not against each other necessarily, but against a wide field of opponents. Should a Salamanders bike army just be a WS bike army -1?
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: I am unsure if this has been mentioned or not, but one thing about Space Marines that burns my biscuts is that all the unit versatility of tacticals has been gutted for hyper-focused units, that only do one thing. Instead of tacticals taking a squad of bolters, a plasma gun, and maybe a HB, we have Just Plasma Intercessors, or just HB Intercessors (Heavy Intercessors), it's taken all the squad versatility out of SMs, and made them just specilized squads of dudes that will likely do one thing well, then be pointless for the rest of the time. Also, will someone please explain to me how any single variant of a "Bolt rifle" does more damage than a ball of Sun hot fire plasma? How is a ball of plasma D1 but a gun bolt is d2/3? Make it make sense?
I'm not sure Tacs are all that versatile in the new system where everyone can shoot everything. When units have to be tuned against an entire unit of Las/Plas/Melt/Elemental Flavor Of The Month, one plasma gun approaches paint scratching levels to the unit as a whole. Even now, with Tacs being all but Primaris in name with two wounds and so on, you're not seeing Tac Squads very often. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see a list of 60 Tacs, 20 Assaults, 20 Devs - which can sort of be made today - I'm not sure how effective it would be.
As for the HB/Plas question? Getting shot by a big heavy hypersonic mass of metal doesn't splash - it goes through you. Getting hit by a ball of liquid/gaseous superheat will splash and flow - so the ball hits with less of its potency harder - and has less potency because its undercharged for speed over damage.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Ok, I'm just responding to the OP's thesis, not the validity or reasoning behind tactical loadouts of yore. The reason I find a lot of Space Marines boring now is that player choice in the very essence of the game (Playing with plastic dolls) has been gutted, and now everyone has to play with the exact same dolls. No one can have different dolls. Everyone's dolls must stand on the same rocks, carry the same weapon, mono-pose, and whatnot. The only variant options now are what bits and bobs you choose to attach. If you choose to attach grenades, knife, pistol in holster, etc. Otherwise, two Space Marine armies, bought by two different players, on the same day of last week, assembled according to the book, will look almost identical. This is the biggest reason I can point to for the "Army being boring now...."
Also one of the reasons I 3D Print bits. I found some plans for Marneus Calgar's banner+pole. I've made one where he's wearing it, and it looks SUPER cool with his Gravis Armor. But it also makes him 40 feet tall - Hopefully most of the people I play will compromise in some way - only the original parts can be "seen" or only actually damageable bits instead of flags and antennae.
But just in case I did some looking and found a "servitor" that could be fluffed as a "remembrancer" with a little mobile writing desk I could attach the banner to and it would work like a little Watcher In The Dark i.e. a token that has no effect etc on the rules. - and as an added bonus the Sons of Guilliman carting around a Remembrancer to write down all sorts of reports for Gulliman to digest feels pretty fluffy.
Breton wrote: I'm actually fairly worried we're going to see Combat Patrol turn into the mechanics for 2,000 point armies as well. You'll be given pre-generated 2,000 point armies that have this HQ with this load out, these units with these loadouts, and those other characters with those other loadouts, and each 2,000 point army will have bespoke datasheets just for that army box.
I would be more than happy to see that happen - for tournament play only.
Want to prove you've actually got some skill? Win events using a list GW built for you... and let everyone else enjoy the game without the limitations that the actions of the tryhards end up causing GW to inflict on the rest of the playerbase.
Orrrrrr...
We could stop letting GW's laughable attempts at balancing their own game, which they've had ten editions of now, slide by blaming everything on mean ol' tournament players.
As likely to happen as the people pushing "bloat" theories, and claiming Marine Armies aren't cookie cutter when the meta settles.
In theory, I'm not opposed to an equal-but-different approach. My concern is in the execution.
First, are we talking about writing bespoke variations on the Stormlance rules for each chapter, or just bringing back an army-wide one-size-fits-all buffs like we had in 8th and 9th? If the former, that's a lot of rules writing. If the latter, you have to make sure that a given chapter's rules are equally beneficial for the units focused on by each detachment type.
Yeah I'm not interested in Chapter XYZ's Stormlance numbering in the 10,000's. Armywide buffs is the way to go. I'd even say they don't need to be equally beneficial by handful of detachment iconic units. They just need to be relatively equally beneficial before you get to the detachment. One of the cool things about it is that it can make units that may not make the grade suddenly somewhat good. I'm turning this idea over in my head the last week so it keeps coming back to me - The Inner Circle Task Force has a rule for Vowed Objectives. The arguably iconic units for the Inner Circle Task force are Terminators. Its basically the Dark Angels Deathwing Detachment. And there's a lot wrong with it, but its not horrible. One of the things it does is (potentially) makes Vanguard Vets (And Lightning Claw Assault Terminators) pretty good. When is the last time Lightning Claw Terminators were good?
Respectfully, this comes across like you're saying,
"Bad rules writing is fine because you can just get good. Bad matchups are super cool, actually. Sometimes I have fun even when I lose, and that's why you should be happy that your Salamander bikers are worse than White Scar bikers."
Your last couple points here seem to be moving away from the notion that biker armies from other chapters should be different-but-equal, instead making the case that different-and-unequal is fine because they could've (should've) just run White Scars if they wanted a bike army or because being at a disadvantage is fun. Not trying to put words in your mouth, but that's the vibe I'm getting. So to check in again, do you think that a player who wants to run a non-WS biker army should be at a disadvantage compared to a WS biker army? Not against each other necessarily, but against a wide field of opponents. Should a Salamanders bike army just be a WS bike army -1?
First i don't consider it bad rules writing, i consider it to be the game as it was intended-epic battle in the 40K setting. where each army fights in the way it should and battles are not "balanced" however the core mechanics/rules allow both players the opportunity to triumph.
Second-the very concept of a salamanders bike army tells me you don't really care about the lore or love the salamanders. as somebody who has played them since 5th ed i understand and play to the strengths of how the chapter fights in the lore. marginal bike or land speeder use (index astartes IV makes it clear because of the conditions on nocturn they have very few of them) but heavy doses of flamer weapons, melta weapons, heavy armor, dreadnoughts, master crafted wargear and close range (flamer template) shooting with a preference for thunder hammers. a force that is slow to action but when they do move it is with overwhelming force.
Instead of trying to force yourself on the setting you should be immersing yourself in the setting. if you want to run a marine bike army you have many options that make sense-all around generic "codex space marine bikers" ( in the comparable rule set they can take tank hunters so that's a pretty cool thing they get the others don't), close combat assault specialized bikers -white scars, high maneuver ranged attack bikers-raven wing
Or on the chaos side each mark in the 3.5 codex gives their bikes many interesting options and play styles. and that's not counting what necron, ork or eldar bike themed armies can do.
So you have nearly a dozen options in the "bike army" concept in the game already without having to force it on a faction that should not be running such a force to begin with.
If you take out the flavor and the lore based rules, you may get that magic "balanced" game system, but you also lose the fact it is supposed to be a 40K game. it does become sanitzed, boring or otherwise loses it's soul as the other mirror topics discussed at length.
You don't have to agree with me or anybody else. the game is what you make of it and what you enjoy that keeps you there. i already pointed out i am not current GWs target audience. i am in a good place with over a dozen fellow travelers playing oldhammer and enjoying it the way it was intended. where we can throw down a 3.5 chaos list against a 7th ed admech list or an imperial armor list, chapter approved list, index astartes list etc... and have great epic battles.
Even better we never have to worry about GW coming in and mucking things up with edition changes, squatting models, balance passes, errata or FAQs ever again.
We could stop letting GW's laughable attempts at balancing their own game, which they've had ten editions of now, slide by blaming everything on mean ol' tournament players.
technically speaking they had 1/3 of an Edition to balance because as soon as there are changes to the core rules outside of balancing USRs you start all over again and something very simple like changing point costs means everything you already had is screwed and you start all over
so far as balancing of 40k goes, everything we previously had means nothing with the reset for 10th Edition
while a fresh start has its advantages, the main disadvantage is that balance also start from 0 again
Balance absolutely doesn't start back from zero again. The foundation of 10th edition is still essentially 3rd ed.
There are also endless basic lessons that GW should have learned from past experience ('who could have foreseen people taking Lash of Submission twice!?') but which continue to be issues.
first of all, the people who learned those lessons are not longer working for GW and than lessons learned from the previous Edition only work with the previous core rules (why we see rather big changes with the on release Errata)
and yes, even if you keep everything the same, saying a Marine squad does not pay for upgrades and always cost 200 points messes everything up and you start from 0 again as you can guess things but most work happens with games being played (which is happening after release)
in addition, just because some rules are still similar to 3rd does not mean you can base any experience from pre-8th Edition for 10th
we learned that the hard way when GW thought that with changing how AP and Toughness and that without adjusting the other stats that tanky units will still be tanky
for everything regarding balance, current 40k is not the 10th version of the game but a new game were you start from 0.
Yeah I'm not interested in Chapter XYZ's Stormlance numbering in the 10,000's. Armywide buffs is the way to go. I'd even say they don't need to be equally beneficial by handful of detachment iconic units. They just need to be relatively equally beneficial before you get to the detachment. One of the cool things about it is that it can make units that may not make the grade suddenly somewhat good. I'm turning this idea over in my head the last week so it keeps coming back to me - The Inner Circle Task Force has a rule for Vowed Objectives. The arguably iconic units for the Inner Circle Task force are Terminators. Its basically the Dark Angels Deathwing Detachment. And there's a lot wrong with it, but its not horrible. One of the things it does is (potentially) makes Vanguard Vets (And Lightning Claw Assault Terminators) pretty good. When is the last time Lightning Claw Terminators were good?
My concern is that it seems extremely likely that some chapter rules would benefit some units more than others. Like if you're running an army full of tanks, the old SW +1 to-hit in melee is probably going to be less useful for your tanks than something like counting as being in cover at a distance (RG) or FNP and doubling your wounds for wound bracket purposes (IH). So then if you want to field an Ironwolf army, you might feel like you're shooting yourself in the foot by not playing RG or IH instead.
Whereas 10th's approach basically just says, "What kind of army do you want to play? Okay cool. Here are some rules to support that and make it more interesting."
But again, I'd have no objection to the equal-but-different thing if someone managed to pull it off.
First i don't consider it bad rules writing, i consider it to be the game as it was intended-epic battle in the 40K setting. where each army fights in the way it should and battles are not "balanced" however the core mechanics/rules allow both players the opportunity to triumph.
Second-the very concept of a salamanders bike army tells me you don't really care about the lore or love the salamanders...
"Salamanders" as I've been using it here is just shorthand for marines-whose-chapter-isn't-primarily-associated-with-bikes-the-way-White-Scars-are.
That said, your opposition to a Salamanders bike army might make it a great for-instance for purposes of this conversation. In your opinion:
A.) Should an army be allowed to have a Salamanders paint scheme/lore and field a list focused on/consisting primarily of bikes?
B.) If so, is it acceptable/good for the game and player experience for such a list to be notably less powerful than a list with White Scars paint/lore? i.e. if the green bikes and the white bikes play Bob's orks 100 times each, the green bikes will win 30 games compared to the white bikes' 50 games because the green bikes' stratagems and special rules don't synergize with their selected units as well?
If the answer to A is no or the answer to B is yes, then my concern would be that we're setting up new people to have a bad experience or be disappointed that their green bike army idea isn't supported. Whereas with 10th's approach, all marine bike armies are supported regardless of paint scheme. If Greg really likes the idea of nice guy marine bikers, he can play that army without having to accept that he'll lose more.
Can we agree that your stance that paint scheme should punish some army builds might lead to bad experiences for some people? Or that wanting some paint schemes to perform less well with the same unit composition is ultimately just us being fluff snobs?
i am in a good place with over a dozen fellow travelers playing oldhammer and enjoying it the way it was intended.
kodos wrote: first of all, the people who learned those lessons are not longer working for GW...
If only human civilisations could develop a method of passing knowledge from one person to another over a span of time and/or distance... some arcane method of transcribing thought and knowledge which would be legible to those who follow...
kodos wrote: and than lessons learned from the previous Edition only work with the previous core rules (why we see rather big changes with the on release Errata)
Except that isn't true. Everybody with an above room temperature IQ knows that players will spam the best units/options (like taking multiples of Lash of Submission apparently taught GW in 4th ed.); yet somehow nobody conceived that removing army building restrictions to the point where you could make an entire army of flying Hive Tyrants might cause an issue...
kodos wrote: first of all, the people who learned those lessons are not longer working for GW...
If only human civilisations could develop a method of passing knowledge from one person to another over a span of time and/or distance... some arcane method of transcribing thought and knowledge which would be legible to those who follow...
but this cost money and you need to pay the time people need for that while if you don't to it, the game will still sell
doing something simple as that is wasted money if it does not influence sales
kodos wrote: and than lessons learned from the previous Edition only work with the previous core rules (why we see rather big changes with the on release Errata)
Except that isn't true. Everybody with an above room temperature IQ knows that players will spam the best units/options (like taking multiples of Lash of Submission apparently taught GW in 4th ed.); yet somehow nobody conceived that removing army building restrictions to the point where you could make an entire army of flying Hive Tyrants might cause an issue...
but the reason to remove them was because GW struggled in balancing slots
as they did not understand that an army were all good units were in the same slot and limited to 3 total was weaker and therefore not sold as much as an army with a good unit in each slot therefore having 9 such units
that in addition the slots were based on fluff instead of rules making the problem even worse
than we take the rumour that the initial 8th edition was planned to follow AoS in style and because that game crashed it was changed and they just released old faction rules with new core rules figuring stuff out on the way simply because no one thought about it before because this was supposed to be different
that they needed to learn with the new core rules is shown by the initial errata for 8th and you can see the point were they learned that certain things work differently (like trying to balance pink, blue and yellow horrors with points until it made click and they realised that they need to change the ward save)
the reset for 10th was done because now they try to make a game instead of building on a patchwork, which makes sense but than the generic corporation stuff makes this a much harder task than it should be.
the different index showing that there was not much communication during writing, and going by GW that they don't want people to know the full picture to prevent leaks, everyone was working on their own and the combined work was released without ever looking closer into it of the combination works (because this costs time and money and people buy it anyway)
kodos wrote: but the reason to remove them was because GW struggled in balancing slots as they did not understand that an army were all good units were in the same slot and limited to 3 total was weaker and therefore not sold as much as an army with a good unit in each slot therefore having 9 such units that in addition the slots were based on fluff instead of rules.
Not even that really.
The old FOC was fluffy when applied to Space Marines and to lesser degree other somewhat conventional armies*. It never made much sense for less conventional factions like Tyranids or Daemons.
Sure a Hive Tyrant should be HQ and a Termagant troop... but Warriors flipflopped bewteen HQ, Elites or Troop depending on the edition and I have no idea why Hive Guard were Elite instead of Heavy Support, why Trygons were Heavy Support instead of Fast Attack and why I could not make an army of pure Raveners and other snakeish Tyranids Jormungandr-style?
*And even then the IG was macking a mockery of it since 5th with tank and aircraft squadrons.
If you want to use army construction rules as a balancing factor, then you have to apply an understanding of what makes a unit powerful and the whole army powerful. The FOC just lumped units into broad categories based mostly on the appearance and gut feelings. It didn't factor in the points efficiency of individual units, unit synergy, or the impact of skew lists.
And to be fair, writing rules that can tackle those considerations is hard. So instead we ended up with the rule of 3 which lets you build pretty much any army you want but also only lets you spam a hypothetical OP unit so many times.
I feel like the way they've handled strats and psychic powers and such in recent editions is also part of their attempts to deter spamming 3 of the best unit. If unit X is top tier but only when using a stratagem (which you can only use once per phase), then you're often better off taking 1 or 2 of unit X and then branching out into whatever your next best unit is.
Me too! I think I'm just a little more lenient on how that lore is represented and also more conscious of the potential feels-bads your approach holds for those not wanting to lean into their army's stereotypes. Sincere question: do you think that a non-WS player who wants to run a bike army for fluff/aesthetic reasons should have to be at an automatic disadvantage compared to a WS bike list? Because that's the scenario I worry your approach creates.
Yes, WS are better known for fielding bikes than Salamanders are, but if a player likes the idea of a Salamander bike army (maybe to represent a specific campaign or just to carve out his own little corner of the setting), then I don't feel like he should have to play at a disadvantage because our hypothetical WS players won't feel special enough otherwise.
I think this hypothetical is a little off base in a chicken and egg kind of way. Those stereotypes go a long way in informing player army choices. I think a player who was interested in bikes wouldn't have started a Salamanders army in the first place. There were guys who were hard core into Salamanders before 5th when they magically got more popular for really inscrutable reasons. Some of them were so hard core they got named in the Nick Kyme novels. Having chosen Salamanders they confine themselves to playing the army in accordance with the fluff as much as possible. If the Salamanders don't use bikes much, then they won't put them on the tabletop much. And I'm not sure that they'll be sad that their bikes aren't as good as the Scars.
It's like the saga of chaos in the change from the beloved 3.5 dex to the reviled 4th edition book, often derided as "codex renegades." The writers said at one point that they felt the 3.5 book was too restrictive and they wanted the new book to give players as much freedom as possible to make their army their own. What they failed to grasp was that many players were wedded to those restrictions as a way to validate their armies. The proof was in how you conformed to the archetypes. "Here is my Word Bearers army. You can tell it's a Word Bearers army because it has an Apostle, only undivided icons and marks, and there's some daemons."
In the current environment space marine players have a lot of freedom in building their armies through the detachments, but this freedom erases the meaning in the choice of chapter. If everyone can run bikes equally well, then what value is there in choosing White Scars? Why would anyone continue to choose them if the only thing that makes them different is that painting white is a chore?
Me too! I think I'm just a little more lenient on how that lore is represented and also more conscious of the potential feels-bads your approach holds for those not wanting to lean into their army's stereotypes. Sincere question: do you think that a non-WS player who wants to run a bike army for fluff/aesthetic reasons should have to be at an automatic disadvantage compared to a WS bike list? Because that's the scenario I worry your approach creates.
Yes, WS are better known for fielding bikes than Salamanders are, but if a player likes the idea of a Salamander bike army (maybe to represent a specific campaign or just to carve out his own little corner of the setting), then I don't feel like he should have to play at a disadvantage because our hypothetical WS players won't feel special enough otherwise.
I think this hypothetical is a little off base in a chicken and egg kind of way. Those stereotypes go a long way in informing player army choices. I think a player who was interested in bikes wouldn't have started a Salamanders army in the first place. There were guys who were hard core into Salamanders before 5th when they magically got more popular for really inscrutable reasons. Some of them were so hard core they got named in the Nick Kyme novels. Having chosen Salamanders they confine themselves to playing the army in accordance with the fluff as much as possible. If the Salamanders don't use bikes much, then they won't put them on the tabletop much. And I'm not sure that they'll be sad that their bikes aren't as good as the Scars.
It's like the saga of chaos in the change from the beloved 3.5 dex to the reviled 4th edition book, often derided as "codex renegades." The writers said at one point that they felt the 3.5 book was too restrictive and they wanted the new book to give players as much freedom as possible to make their army their own. What they failed to grasp was that many players were wedded to those restrictions as a way to validate their armies. The proof was in how you conformed to the archetypes. "Here is my Word Bearers army. You can tell it's a Word Bearers army because it has an Apostle, only undivided icons and marks, and there's some daemons."
In the current environment space marine players have a lot of freedom in building their armies through the detachments, but this freedom erases the meaning in the choice of chapter. If everyone can run bikes equally well, then what value is there in choosing White Scars? Why would anyone continue to choose them if the only thing that makes them different is that painting white is a chore?
So Salamanders NEVER field bikes?
You can get to 1,000 pretty easily with maybe two dozen bikes and bike-like models.
It might be unusual to see Salamanders field a bike list, but it's certainly possible. If someone were to collect a whole chapter of Salamanders, even with less bikes than Ultramarines have, they could easily do a mounted force for a 1,000 point game. Harder to do for a 2,000 game, but still possible, especially with Legends on the table.
Should that list be worse than a White Scars list of the same models?
It might be unusual to see Salamanders field a bike list, but it's certainly possible. If someone were to collect a whole chapter of Salamanders, even with less bikes than Ultramarines have, they could easily do a mounted force for a 1,000 point game. Harder to do for a 2,000 game, but still possible, especially with Legends on the table.
Should that list be worse than a White Scars list of the same models?
No, it should be different. The White Scars force should include some mechanized infantry, it should be a little faster and more adept at moving and acting (Advance/Fallback and Charge/Shoot) the Salamanders should include more flamers and melta that may or may not be mounted/mechanized - there should be HQ options beyond the Chaplain on Bike - for example a Captain on a Bike swinging a Thunderhammer for the Salamanders.
So Salamanders NEVER field bikes?
You can get to 1,000 pretty easily with maybe two dozen bikes and bike-like models.
No one is saying that. I'm just saying that bikes are not what Salamanders are known for and therefore players who are interested in bikes tend to look elsewhere. So there's no pressing need to ensure that when a Salamanders army does use bikes that they are just as special as the bikes from the chapter that is known for using bikes.
It might be unusual to see Salamanders field a bike list, but it's certainly possible. If someone were to collect a whole chapter of Salamanders, even with less bikes than Ultramarines have, they could easily do a mounted force for a 1,000 point game. Harder to do for a 2,000 game, but still possible, especially with Legends on the table.
Should that list be worse than a White Scars list of the same models?
I think it would be ok if they were worse. We're arguing about flavor versus fairness. That's what the thread is about. If you go all in on fairness then you lose all the flavor and chapters are just paint schemes in a book. If you go all in on flavor then you lose fairness and perhaps eventually balance. I think this is reflected in the perception of the index versions of 40k. Some people liked index 40k at the start of 8th because it felt fair. Others hated it because it was bland. As the codices came out the blandness started to fade and the fairness went out the window. 10th started over with indexes again and we've had multiple threads about lack of flavor because of that. The difference this time is that even the codices seem to be bland.
Anyway, people choose their chapters for a reason and they like to see those reasons reflected on the tabletop even if it means their chapter is better or worse at some things than the other guy's chapter. Look at HH. It's all marines all the time. From a xenos perspective it can't get any more boring than that. But HH take pains to ensure there are differences not just between loyalist and heretic, but also within those groups.
So Salamanders NEVER field bikes?
You can get to 1,000 pretty easily with maybe two dozen bikes and bike-like models.
No one is saying that. I'm just saying that bikes are not what Salamanders are known for and therefore players who are interested in bikes tend to look elsewhere. So there's no pressing need to ensure that when a Salamanders army does use bikes that they are just as special as the bikes from the chapter that is known for using bikes.
It might be unusual to see Salamanders field a bike list, but it's certainly possible. If someone were to collect a whole chapter of Salamanders, even with less bikes than Ultramarines have, they could easily do a mounted force for a 1,000 point game. Harder to do for a 2,000 game, but still possible, especially with Legends on the table.
Should that list be worse than a White Scars list of the same models?
I think it would be ok if they were worse. We're arguing about flavor versus fairness. That's what the thread is about. If you go all in on fairness then you lose all the flavor and chapters are just paint schemes in a book. If you go all in on flavor then you lose fairness and perhaps eventually balance. I think this is reflected in the perception of the index versions of 40k. Some people liked index 40k at the start of 8th because it felt fair. Others hated it because it was bland. As the codices came out the blandness started to fade and the fairness went out the window. 10th started over with indexes again and we've had multiple threads about lack of flavor because of that. The difference this time is that even the codices seem to be bland.
Anyway, people choose their chapters for a reason and they like to see those reasons reflected on the tabletop even if it means their chapter is better or worse at some things than the other guy's chapter. Look at HH. It's all marines all the time. From a xenos perspective it can't get any more boring than that. But HH take pains to ensure there are differences not just between loyalist and heretic, but also within those groups.
There are a couple of additional problems - one of which is when players of Chapter X feel that they should get everything that all the other Chapters get and then also be better at them in specific areas - so Dark Angels should have all the standard Marine stuff, but in addition the Best Terminators cos Lore, the Best bikers cos lore, the best plasma cos lore etc and don;t want any downsides of any kind becuase they have kept getting the bonsues previously. Now many other Chapters also have excellent bikers, terminators etc.
So Option One: GW keep trying to make DA "unique" by giving them extra rules for various units or even worse as they have been doing - keep making up super special new units so that they can better justify the same rules but if they do not also have the same or better units that every other Chapter has then they are screamed at as having "nerfed" DA.
Meanwhile those who want to use Terminator armies but not DA will also be penalised for not painting them as DA and will so often play them as DA but with different lore, painting scheme and may well have people having issues that they are not DA models/ etc.....whilst others will just sigh and play DA as they are the Terminator army.....
Option Two is as they have done is to have all Terminator focussed Chapters/armies use the same rules but then people get very upset feel that this is too bland as their favoured Chapter does alone not have super special rules.....
When referring back to those 3rd edition lists, some of them were deliberately restricted compared to the default list as a representation of their lore. The Cursed Founding rules for example had some extra rules your squads still paid to upgrade with, in exchange for more limited heavy units, the loss of And They Shall Know No Fear, no allies, and no drop pod assault. Overall a nerf because these Chapters do often struggle against unfair odds in the lore. It is entirely a list for lore building.
There are a couple of additional problems - one of which is when players of Chapter X feel that they should get everything that all the other Chapters get and then also be better at them in specific areas - so Dark Angels should have all the standard Marine stuff, but in addition the Best Terminators cos Lore, the Best bikers cos lore, the best plasma cos lore etc and don;t want any downsides of any kind becuase they have kept getting the bonsues previously. Now many other Chapters also have excellent bikers, terminators etc.
The argument has avoided bringing the extra special chapters into the mix because the issues are ameliorated by having separate codices that make them separate armies. A separate DA codex can fully make DA marines+1 in all areas and it's fine assuming it's appropriately costed.
There are a couple of additional problems - one of which is when players of Chapter X feel that they should get everything that all the other Chapters get and then also be better at them in specific areas - so Dark Angels should have all the standard Marine stuff, but in addition the Best Terminators cos Lore, the Best bikers cos lore, the best plasma cos lore etc and don;t want any downsides of any kind becuase they have kept getting the bonsues previously. Now many other Chapters also have excellent bikers, terminators etc.
The argument has avoided bringing the extra special chapters into the mix because the issues are ameliorated by having separate codices that make them separate armies. A separate DA codex can fully make DA marines+1 in all areas and it's fine assuming it's appropriately costed.
I'd argue "assuming its appropriately costed" works in general for subfaction lists, but I think the one thing everyone agrees on in this thread is that nobody trusts GW to be able to come close to doing that
Didn't I see a video by Auspex tactics that the top list at majors now is a DA list of Super heavy Flyers, a dark Shroud, and some infantry with Azrael? I mean, I don't think SM are dead. I think they are only ever one balance patch away from top tier or broken, which makes their popularity come in waves?
There are a couple of additional problems - one of which is when players of Chapter X feel that they should get everything that all the other Chapters get and then also be better at them in specific areas - so Dark Angels should have all the standard Marine stuff, but in addition the Best Terminators cos Lore, the Best bikers cos lore, the best plasma cos lore etc and don;t want any downsides of any kind becuase they have kept getting the bonsues previously. Now many other Chapters also have excellent bikers, terminators etc.
So Option One: GW keep trying to make DA "unique" by giving them extra rules for various units or even worse as they have been doing - keep making up super special new units so that they can better justify the same rules but if they do not also have the same or better units that every other Chapter has then they are screamed at as having "nerfed" DA.
Not better. Different.
Meanwhile those who want to use Terminator armies but not DA will also be penalised for not painting them as DA and will so often play them as DA but with different lore, painting scheme and may well have people having issues that they are not DA models/ etc.....whilst others will just sigh and play DA as they are the Terminator army.....
I have never seen a rule that says to use DA rules you must paint your minis exactly like they appear in the Citadel Colour App.
Option Two is as they have done is to have all Terminator focussed Chapters/armies use the same rules but then people get very upset feel that this is too bland as their favoured Chapter does alone not have super special rules.....
No win really.
Option 3 - and I think the best option - is to give everyone a couple minor fluffy subfaction boosts that tweak units so they're not better or worse, just different. Deathwing Terminator units that can take a Plasma Canon are not "better". They're actually/arguably worse right now with Cyclones being the "best", and Assault canon being "better". Likewise your claim that DA got "better" Terminators without any tradeoff is also inaccurate. Until recently DA did not have Vanguard Vets or Sternguard Vets. That was part of their tradeoff for bespoke Terminator Units.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Didn't I see a video by Auspex tactics that the top list at majors now is a DA list of Super heavy Flyers, a dark Shroud, and some infantry with Azrael? I mean, I don't think SM are dead. I think they are only ever one balance patch away from top tier or broken, which makes their popularity come in waves?
Probably not - I don't follow the tournament scene, but Super Heavy Fliers are pretty rare? It may have been full of regular flyers - and I'm pretty sure someone predicted that a little ways back when they saw the 0-2 per Army flyer restriction was gone and would be returning shortly after someone abused it. As with all things GW its pretty much cyclical - we did the Whirlwind/Thunderfire/Desolator Indirect abuse, and the flyer abuse was likely to be next in the pipeline.
Me too! I think I'm just a little more lenient on how that lore is represented and also more conscious of the potential feels-bads your approach holds for those not wanting to lean into their army's stereotypes. Sincere question: do you think that a non-WS player who wants to run a bike army for fluff/aesthetic reasons should have to be at an automatic disadvantage compared to a WS bike list? Because that's the scenario I worry your approach creates.
Yes, WS are better known for fielding bikes than Salamanders are, but if a player likes the idea of a Salamander bike army (maybe to represent a specific campaign or just to carve out his own little corner of the setting), then I don't feel like he should have to play at a disadvantage because our hypothetical WS players won't feel special enough otherwise.
I think this hypothetical is a little off base in a chicken and egg kind of way. Those stereotypes go a long way in informing player army choices. I think a player who was interested in bikes wouldn't have started a Salamanders army in the first place.
Choosing Salamanders over WS if you like bikers might be slightly odd, but I don't think it's unheard of or unreasonable. Again, maybe they really like the nice-guy-marines thing. Maybe they started with a more conventional Salamanders army, but then they fell in love with the bike models or just really like the mental image of Salamander bikers for whatever reason.
At the end of the day, if someone shows up to the store with a bike army painted green, do you think it's good for the game/hobby/person in front of you for his army to be penalized for its paint scheme? As I said to Aphyon on the previous page:
A.) Should an army be allowed to have a Salamanders paint scheme/lore and field a list focused on/consisting primarily of bikes?
B.) If so, is it acceptable/good for the game and player experience for such a list to be notably less powerful than a list with White Scars paint/lore? i.e. if the green bikes and the white bikes play Bob's orks 100 times each, the green bikes will win 30 games compared to the white bikes' 50 games because the green bikes' stratagems and special rules don't synergize with their selected units as well?
Breton wrote:
No, it should be different. The White Scars force should include some mechanized infantry, it should be a little faster and more adept at moving and acting (Advance/Fallback and Charge/Shoot) the Salamanders should include more flamers and melta that may or may not be mounted/mechanized - there should be HQ options beyond the Chaplain on Bike - for example a Captain on a Bike swinging a Thunderhammer for the Salamanders.
Breton wrote:
Option 3 - and I think the best option - is to give everyone a couple minor fluffy subfaction boosts that tweak units so they're not better or worse, just different. Deathwing Terminator units that can take a Plasma Canon are not "better".
Ehh. Like I said, I'm open to reading rules for the various different-but-equal rules for different chapters. But how many different rule sets are we talking about? 9 for the original chapters, +1 for DW, +2 for BT and Crimson Fists? And then you have the infinite homebrew chapters. Do they just choose the chapter they think fits their fluff best? If I write up a chapter called the Palamanders who happen to like bikes and wear green armor, are they allowed to use the WS rules? And if so, why faction lock things in the first place?
As for very minor distinctions like the plasma cannon example, I'm not necessarily opposed to it, but I feel like that's a lot of work to create intentionally meaningless distinctions that, again, don't necessarily fit minor canonical chapters or homebrewed chapters. It seems better to me to just let units have all the options they reasonably can, and then leave it to the players to follow the fluff as much as they want.
Likewise your claim that DA got "better" Terminators without any tradeoff is also inaccurate. Until recently DA did not have Vanguard Vets or Sternguard Vets. That was part of their tradeoff for bespoke Terminator Units.
Ehhh. Unless there's major synergy between termies and vets, I feel like this is sort of a false tradeoff in the same way that "giving up" FA slots (that you weren't going to use anyway) to gain more HS slots was a false trade-off in past editions. It's only a trade-off if you really wanted to take vets in the first place.
Breton wrote:
Option 3 - and I think the best option - is to give everyone a couple minor fluffy subfaction boosts that tweak units so they're not better or worse, just different. Deathwing Terminator units that can take a Plasma Canon are not "better".
Ehh. Like I said, I'm open to reading rules for the various different-but-equal rules for different chapters. But how many different rule sets are we talking about? 9 for the original chapters, +1 for DW, +2 for BT and Crimson Fists? And then you have the infinite homebrew chapters. Do they just choose the chapter they think fits their fluff best? If I write up a chapter called the Palamanders who happen to like bikes and wear green armor, are they allowed to use the WS rules? And if so, why faction lock things in the first place?
The same way its always been. GW picks the combos for the Chapters GW made. The Primogenitors, a couple-few successors (Crimson Fists, Black Templars, Blood Ravens, and a couple I'm forgetting). They create a DIY combo system like they have in the past. Here's a list, Pick Two, or Use a Primogenitor.
As for very minor distinctions like the plasma cannon example, I'm not necessarily opposed to it, but I feel like that's a lot of work to create intentionally meaningless distinctions that, again, don't necessarily fit minor canonical chapters or homebrewed chapters. It seems better to me to just let units have all the options they reasonably can, and then leave it to the players to follow the fluff as much as they want.
It wasn't meaningless. They didn't get Sternguard and Vanguard because all their veterans were in Terminator Armor - so add Knights and Deathwing Terminator datasheets to give them the four Squad Veteran Datasheets. Additionally the Deathwing Squad was more than the Plasma Canon, they also were able to mix Shoot and Fight loads. The thing you should be objecting to was that DA was the only chapter with a Terminator Lieutenant, and Command Squad.
Likewise your claim that DA got "better" Terminators without any tradeoff is also inaccurate. Until recently DA did not have Vanguard Vets or Sternguard Vets. That was part of their tradeoff for bespoke Terminator Units.
Ehhh. Unless there's major synergy between termies and vets, I feel like this is sort of a false tradeoff in the same way that "giving up" FA slots (that you weren't going to use anyway) to gain more HS slots was a false trade-off in past editions. It's only a trade-off if you really wanted to take vets in the first place.
Vanguard Vets are an Elites choice not a Fast Attack choice. Have been. So they were all competing for the same slot, it was 12" move vs 5" move and 2+/5++ or 12" TH/4++ vs 5" TH and 4++ etc.
Wyldhunt was referring to the 3.5th Chaos Iron Warriors list, which could exchange 2 fast attack slots for a single extra heavy support slot.
IMO, such changes to FOC and limited options matter less in typical pick-up games with limited mission variety, but do matter if mission variety is high and in particular for linked campaign games. To take the 3.5th book in its context- some missions did not favour heavy support, so skewing a list like that came with disadvantages.
aphyon wrote:Second-the very concept of a salamanders bike army tells me you don't really care about the lore or love the salamanders.
The fact that you discredit the idea of a Salamanders bike army tells me that you don't care or understand the lore.
The Salamanders don't refuse to field bikes. The White Scars don't refuse to field tanks and artillery. To reduce them to such is to massively overlook that these are CODEX CHAPTERS of the Space Marines - and as such, field a variety of forces according to the tactical situation.
The Salamanders absolutely field Bike and Outrider squads, and even if the Chapter is stereotyped as slow and fire obsessed, they still field Assault Marines, Bike Squads, and Land Speeders. If you don't recognise that, politely, I don't think you're in a position to quote "lore" to people.
Instead of trying to force yourself on the setting you should be immersing yourself in the setting.
Yes, *you*, aphyon, should be - and the setting says that Salamanders take bikes just like every other Codex Chapter.
If someone rocks up with an all Bike Salamanders army, that's entirely possible in the setting, and if you have a problem with that, maybe you should be the one immersing yourself in the setting better.
So you have nearly a dozen options in the "bike army" concept in the game already without having to force it on a faction that should not be running such a force to begin with.
And why *should* they not be? Salamanders have always had the option to take Bikes. They're a Codex Chapter - they absolutely have the capacity to field bike squads. They're not allergic to them.
Sounds like you need to "immerse yourself in the setting" better.
If you take out the flavor and the lore based rules, you may get that magic "balanced" game system, but you also lose the fact it is supposed to be a 40K game.
Define a "40k game" in a way without reverting to an opinion.
Arschbombe wrote:I think this hypothetical is a little off base in a chicken and egg kind of way. Those stereotypes go a long way in informing player army choices. I think a player who was interested in bikes wouldn't have started a Salamanders army in the first place. There were guys who were hard core into Salamanders before 5th when they magically got more popular for really inscrutable reasons. Some of them were so hard core they got named in the Nick Kyme novels. Having chosen Salamanders they confine themselves to playing the army in accordance with the fluff as much as possible. If the Salamanders don't use bikes much, then they won't put them on the tabletop much. And I'm not sure that they'll be sad that their bikes aren't as good as the Scars.
Some people enjoy taking obscure formations and groups, because they feel a greater sense of ownership over them. Like someone who doesn't play the Ultramarines 2nd company because everyone else does, but instead plays the Ultramarines 6th company (a predominantly Biker company) - and that's completely canon too! There's nothing wrong with someone taking the "obvious" choice, but to reduce the faction to "they ONLY take XYZ" or "they NEVER take ABC" is more "lore breaking" than anything aphyon is yapping on about.
There's very few Space Marine groups that outright REFUSE to field certain units and formations, because most Chapters follow the Codex, and even those that don't fully follow it still usually take a lot from it.
Choosing a chapter like Salamanders doesn't mean that ALL players will be in love with the whole "slow moving" part - they might like the colour scheme, or the dragon symbolism, or the forge part. Choosing a Chapter like White Scars doesn't mean that all players will enjoy the "bikes" part - some people might choose them for their cultural trappings, or their colour scheme, or their mechanised infantry.
In the current environment space marine players have a lot of freedom in building their armies through the detachments, but this freedom erases the meaning in the choice of chapter. If everyone can run bikes equally well, then what value is there in choosing White Scars? Why would anyone continue to choose them if the only thing that makes them different is that painting white is a chore?
I started playing in 5th. Back then, there were no differences at all in how you played White Scars compared to Salamanders. Are you telling me that no-one played White Scars or Salamanders or Imperial Fists or Ultramarines or Crimson Fists or Iron Hands in 5th edition because they were all mechanically the same?
Breton wrote:
Wyldhunt wrote: Ehh. Like I said, I'm open to reading rules for the various different-but-equal rules for different chapters. But how many different rule sets are we talking about? 9 for the original chapters, +1 for DW, +2 for BT and Crimson Fists? And then you have the infinite homebrew chapters. Do they just choose the chapter they think fits their fluff best? If I write up a chapter called the Palamanders who happen to like bikes and wear green armor, are they allowed to use the WS rules? And if so, why faction lock things in the first place?
The same way its always been. GW picks the combos for the Chapters GW made. The Primogenitors, a couple-few successors (Crimson Fists, Black Templars, Blood Ravens, and a couple I'm forgetting). They create a DIY combo system like they have in the past. Here's a list, Pick Two, or Use a Primogenitor.
No, it hasn't. 5th edition didn't have any specific difference between Codex Chapters.
Back then, Ultramarines played just like White Scars who played just like Salamanders.
Lose the attitude, Smudge, at least when you're talking a load of guff.
You can't claim that they're Codex-compliant when they field have seven companies instead of ten, even if those seven are over-sized compared to the Codex-specified Company size.
And as early as the Salamanders Index Astartes article back in t'day, something along these lines has been said about them:
"In an interesting example of juxtaposition, however, the fluctuating gravity of Nocturne makes training with certain units such as Land Speeders and Assault Bikes difficult, therefore the Chapter makes little use of them, favouring instead Devastator Squads and Terminator Squads (the Chapter has 120 Veterans as opposed to the typical 100)."
While "little use" doesn't preclude any use, it does make a Salamanders army of all bikes and/or Land Speeders unlikely, and you would expect such units to not perform as well on the battlefield even compared to regular Chapters, let alone those who specialise in such techniques (like the Ravenwing or the White Scars).
Sgt smudge- Says a bunch of opinions about salamanders lore while ignoring it and not giving any evidence to the contrary.
I literally quoted from the index astartes article that appeared in WD that explains the chapter at length and it quite clearly states because of the conditions on nocturn they do not regularly train with or invest much in bikes, jump infantry or land speeders. it did not say they didn't have any, just that they didn't have very much. This is re-enforced in the 4th ed trait system restrictions for salamanders that only allows 0-1 fast attack for the entire army but does allow them to replace most special or heavy weapons with melta or flamer equivalents. as such saying the lore would support a full bike, jump or speeder centric salamanders army isn't an opinion it is just flat out wrong and counter to the game rules laid out by the original designers (most of whom left the company before 5th ed ended).
I started playing in 5th. Back then, there were no differences at all in how you played White Scars compared to Salamanders. Are you telling me that no-one played White Scars or Salamanders or Imperial Fists or Ultramarines or Crimson Fists or Iron Hands in 5th edition because they were all mechanically the same?
Breton wrote:
Wyldhunt wrote: Ehh. Like I said, I'm open to reading rules for the various different-but-equal rules for different chapters. But how many different rule sets are we talking about? 9 for the original chapters, +1 for DW, +2 for BT and Crimson Fists? And then you have the infinite homebrew chapters. Do they just choose the chapter they think fits their fluff best? If I write up a chapter called the Palamanders who happen to like bikes and wear green armor, are they allowed to use the WS rules? And if so, why faction lock things in the first place?
The same way its always been. GW picks the combos for the Chapters GW made. The Primogenitors, a couple-few successors (Crimson Fists, Black Templars, Blood Ravens, and a couple I'm forgetting). They create a DIY combo system like they have in the past. Here's a list, Pick Two, or Use a Primogenitor.
No, it hasn't. 5th edition didn't have any specific difference between Codex Chapters.
Back then, Ultramarines played just like White Scars who played just like Salamanders.
I see you managed to ignore the entire thread and just misdirect. the 5th edition core SM codex went to a character unlock system for each codex chapter that gave them slightly different alternate combat tactics or special rules in the case of salamanders it gave them buffed flamers, meltas, and thunder hammers. in the case of WS it gave the khans unit hit and run and furious charge while the rest of the army got outflank.
That isn't what we are talking about. most of the chapter rules with hard restrictions that set the flavorful lore based rules some of us prefer to use come from the original design team from 3rd and 4th ed codexes/index astartes and a few of the alternate 5th ed chapter codexes like BA and SW. in addition to the special lists in IA books.
While i do find the 5th ed core rules (aside from wound allocation) to be the best of 3rd-7th. most of the codex lore based rules/restrictions from 3rd and 4th are far superior to most of the marine specific codexes (and many xenos ones to boot) in 5th.
Dysartes wrote:Lose the attitude, Smudge, at least when you're talking a load of guff.
Of everyone to lose attitude, I'd say that there's been plenty people in this thread who've shown a more consistently unpleasant attitude - aphyon for one. If I'm gonna be called out for that, which I accept, I expect it to apply to *all*.
You can't claim that they're Codex-compliant when they field have seven companies instead of ten, even if those seven are over-sized compared to the Codex-specified Company size.
I *also* said that even Chapters that didn't full comply with the Codex still drew from it in terms of organisation and structure. And, to quote the 8th and 9th edition Codexes, and Index Astartes IV "The Salamanders comply with much of the Codex Astartes, but instead of ten companies continues to maintain the seven warrior houses of the original Legion", "Whilst the Salamanders altered their squad-level organisation to follow the strictures of the new Codex Astartes, they were able to retain much else of their Legion organisation", and "As one can imagine, this preference for Flamers and Meltas leads to a strong affinity among the Salamanders for close-range firefight when in combat, although they are just as capable at other aspects of Space Marine battle doctrine.", as well as "Though the Salamanders can fight in any theatre under any conditions, they have a special proclivity towards close combat through the use of Flame Weapons."
Plus, the 5th edition Codex, and every Codex since (can't speak for 4th and earlier), lists Salamanders as a Codex compliant Chapter.
A load of guff, huh?
And as early as the Salamanders Index Astartes article back in t'day, something along these lines has been said about them:
"In an interesting example of juxtaposition, however, the fluctuating gravity of Nocturne makes training with certain units such as Land Speeders and Assault Bikes difficult, therefore the Chapter makes little use of them, favouring instead Devastator Squads and Terminator Squads (the Chapter has 120 Veterans as opposed to the typical 100)."
While "little use" doesn't preclude any use, it does make a Salamanders army of all bikes and/or Land Speeders unlikely, and you would expect such units to not perform as well on the battlefield even compared to regular Chapters, let alone those who specialise in such techniques (like the Ravenwing or the White Scars).
I've not said anything about "expecting units to perform as well as" - I'm simply responding to aphyon's "guff" about "THE SALAMANDERS DON'T TAKE BIKES SO WHY WOULD YOU EVER WANT TO TAKE BIKES IN A SALAMANDERS ARMY", or words to that effect. That same article you cite also says: "As one can imagine, this preference for Flamers and Meltas leads to a strong affinity among the Salamanders for close-range firefight when in combat, although they are just as capable at other aspects of Space Marine battle doctrine.", as well as "Though the Salamanders can fight in any theatre under any conditions, they have a special proclivity towards close combat through the use of Flame Weapons."
Again, if people can take the individual Adrax Agatone in their Salamanders lists, I'm sure they can also take some bikes.
aphyon wrote:gt smudge- Says a bunch of opinions about salamanders lore while ignoring it and not giving any evidence to the contrary.
I just quoted my sources above - sources you'd know if you knew the lore like you claim you do.
I literally quoted from the index astartes article that appeared in WD that explains the chapter at length and it quite clearly states because of the conditions on nocturn they do not regularly train with or invest much in bikes, jump infantry or land speeders. it did not say they didn't have any, just that they didn't have very much.
They also only have one Adrax Agatone, yet you wouldn't complain if he showed up in a Salamanders list.
Again, the sources I've cited emphasise that the Salamanders still make use of them. A player showing up with Salamanders bikers isn't showing disrespect for the lore.
This is re-enforced in the 4th ed trait system restrictions for salamanders that only allows 0-1 fast attack for the entire army but does allow them to replace most special or heavy weapons with melta or flamer equivalents. as such saying the lore would support a full bike, jump or speeder centric salamanders army isn't an opinion it is just flat out wrong and counter to the game rules laid out by the original designers (most of whom left the company before 5th ed ended).
The "original designers" also didn't introduce those features in the previous editions. In terms of the length of the game, you're cherry picking a very specific time to base your entire premise around. Sounds like selective memory to me.
And, again, the lore that you're so eager to cite from never enforces a 0-1 mechanic (unless you also want to argue that no more than 3 Bike Squads can show up in White Scars lists, if you want to argue mechanics), and explicitly states that Salamanders are "just as capable at other aspects of Space Marine battle doctrine".
Sorry, but you're being flat out wrong - and the only thing I'm being contrary to is *your* headcanon and limited view of a very expansive setting.
I started playing in 5th. Back then, there were no differences at all in how you played White Scars compared to Salamanders. Are you telling me that no-one played White Scars or Salamanders or Imperial Fists or Ultramarines or Crimson Fists or Iron Hands in 5th edition because they were all mechanically the same?
Breton wrote:
Wyldhunt wrote: Ehh. Like I said, I'm open to reading rules for the various different-but-equal rules for different chapters. But how many different rule sets are we talking about? 9 for the original chapters, +1 for DW, +2 for BT and Crimson Fists? And then you have the infinite homebrew chapters. Do they just choose the chapter they think fits their fluff best? If I write up a chapter called the Palamanders who happen to like bikes and wear green armor, are they allowed to use the WS rules? And if so, why faction lock things in the first place?
The same way its always been. GW picks the combos for the Chapters GW made. The Primogenitors, a couple-few successors (Crimson Fists, Black Templars, Blood Ravens, and a couple I'm forgetting). They create a DIY combo system like they have in the past. Here's a list, Pick Two, or Use a Primogenitor.
No, it hasn't. 5th edition didn't have any specific difference between Codex Chapters.
Back then, Ultramarines played just like White Scars who played just like Salamanders.
I see you managed to ignore the entire thread and just misdirect. the 5th edition core SM codex went to a character unlock system for each codex chapter that gave them slightly different alternate combat tactics or special rules in the case of salamanders it gave them buffed flamers, meltas, and thunder hammers. in the case of WS it gave the khans unit hit and run and furious charge while the rest of the army got outflank.
And yet you didn't HAVE to take those characters, and in many cases, you could take ALL of those characters in the same list. You could have Calgar, Khan, and Vulkan He'stan in the same list!
That isn't what we are talking about. most of the chapter rules with hard restrictions that set the flavorful lore based rules some of us prefer to use come from the original design team from 3rd and 4th ed codexes/index astartes and a few of the alternate 5th ed chapter codexes like BA and SW. in addition to the special lists in IA books.
Yes, but in that, you admit that you're cherrypicking a specific mechanical implementation, and that this was not always canon, and that in many cases, *did not reflect an accurate depiction of the Chapter* (ie, White Scars Devastators, Salamanders Bikers, etc)
While i do find the 5th ed core rules (aside from wound allocation) to be the best of 3rd-7th. most of the codex lore based rules/restrictions from 3rd and 4th are far superior to most of the marine specific codexes (and many xenos ones to boot) in 5th.
Yes, but that is a *preference*, not a hard and fast RULE that has "always" existed. You *chose* a system you liked, because it fitted with what you believe is the "best" version - but even the lore you cite doesn't support that!
Again, I wouldn't be having so much of an issue with your statements *if you didn't make all this fuss about how "canon" and "lore friendly" they are*. You going on to say "if someone's taken Salamanders bikes, they clearly don't care about the lore" exemplifies this - taking Salamanders bike squads, plural, IS lore accurate - but you've been so blinded by your insistence on FORCING certain armies to play a certain way that you've forgotten or missed that fact.
There's nothing wrong with how YOU want to play, or how YOU'D play a Salamanders list, but not ever Salamanders player wants to play like that, and that's valid both in the real life, AND in the lore. Like Index Astartes IV says, they are "just as capable at other aspects of Space Marine battle doctrine".
Ok wow, you have discovered...salamanders are space marines!
As space marines they could fight like every other space marine chapter.....except they don't....and if they did, well you have 10th edition where all are pretty much that....almost like it is the contention of this thread the OP started
none of the lore you cited contradicts what index astartes IV says or the traits the 4th ed codex assigns to them. they have bikes, jump infantry and land speeders but not very many and not overly trained on them so taking an army based on the chapter centered around those units would not make any sense nor would a player looking for that style of play be drawn to them.
See here is the thing. 40K started out as a joke. because in the late 80s WHFBs was the GW cash cow, it wasn't until 2nd edition that they realized they needed to really define the game/setting. it was 3rd ed 1998-2004 that everything about the lore and the marine chapters specifically was set in stone by the people who designed their very existence. this didn't start changing in any significant way until all those guys left the company and people who inherited the IP and currently arguably do not know or care about it outside of what the marketing department wants to sell.
I do not see it offensive to say i am going to go with the original designers (Andy, Phil, Rick etc..) who created the universe as opposed to what a player may want it to be or somebody a decade later decides to change the setting.
As for attitude Wyldhunt and i for the most part have been having a civil discussion about the merits of game balance/blandness VS the level of acceptable thematic play represented in the rules. he wants to make sure anybody who wants to play doesn't feel put out because the set lore isn't how particular factions used to prefer to play. i just disagree with the premise of why people choose factions in the first place that would negate the argument. if you think that conversation is unpleasant, you are entitled to your opinion.
As i said before-i am in a fantastic space when it comes to gaming generally and 40K specifically. we have a very active community and when we 40K we play it for fun. as such as gentlemans agreements go, if 2 of our players say "hey would it be ok if we used this rule or that rule in our 5th ed games" they discuss it and decide how they want that game to play outside the framework of 5th ed core rules.
It is kind of how classic battletech does it right-core mechanics are unchanged, but there is an entire tome of optional rules. and you can play in any era or setting while doing it.
P.S. on the 5th ed characters thing- they are HQ choices so at most you can take 2 in the same army list, however as per the rules you must choose which one is actually in command so their special rules apply to the army. the other ones is ignored out side their own abilities.
aphyon wrote:Ok wow, you have discovered...salamanders are space marines!
As space marines they could fight like every other space marine chapter.....except they don't....
Except they can, and do. According to literally all the sources I showed you.
Yes, they LIKE using certain tactics, but they don't use them exclusively. The White Scars don't EXCLUSIVELY fight on bikes. The Imperial Fists don't exclusively fight in sieges. The Raven Guard don't always fight stealth wars.
This is what I mean by you clearly being a hypocrite when you complain about people "not getting the lore" - because you're the one who doesn't read it!
and if they did, well you have 10th edition where all are pretty much that....almost like it is the contention of this thread the OP started
So, in other words, you don't like the lore as it's actually presented, and want to force everyone else to have to play your flanderised version of how every Chapter fights?
none of the lore you cited contradicts what index astartes IV says or the traits the 4th ed codex assigns to them. they have bikes, jump infantry and land speeders but not very many and not overly trained on them so taking an army based on the chapter centered around those units would not make any sense nor would a player looking for that style of play be drawn to them.
An army isn't the entire Chapter, and they're still trained on them, as much as ANY Chapter is trained in their use. If you look at the Salamanders Chapter breakdown, they have Bikes in the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th Companies. That's a whole table's worth of Bikers, even if you're to assume that they only have one squad in each! They also have Land Speeders in all of those above companies - making AT LEAST 6 Land Speeders. The 2nd, 3rd, and 4th companies all maintain two close support squads, which in pre-Primaris days would have likely been either Bike Squads or Assault Squads - so that's at least 6 jump pack squads, or bike squads. Which is, ironically, the same amount of close support squads per battle company as ANY OTHER CODEX CHAPTER.
People don't HAVE to take armies "based on the Chapter". They can take an army that represents a PART of that Chapter - and someone might choose to represent an obscure or less known part of that Chapter. See again my example of someone taking a 6th Company all bikers Ultramarine army. That's still an Ultramarines army, but it represents a different part of the Chapter.
If you think that the ONLY way to play a Space Marine army is to take "only chapter based units", I'm afraid that you're horribly mistaken. You say it makes no sense - why not? It's lore approved. And you say that "no player looking for that style of play would be drawn to that" - why not? After all, in 5th, early 8th, and now 10th, it makes no difference what Chapter you say your bikes are from. If a player loved the green fire iconography of the Salamanders, and the idea of taking the fight to the enemy fast with flamers mounted on bikes and flame iconography up the sides of their bikes, why wouldn't they like this idea?
Again, according to the very MINIMUM of what the Salamanders can field, in terms of their jump pack, bike, and land speeder units, we have 3x Assault Squads 5x Bike Squads Scout Bike Squad 6x Land Speeders
That's starting to look like an army there, yes?
See here is the thing. 40K started out as a joke. because in the late 80s WHFBs was the GW cash cow, it wasn't until 2nd edition that they realized they needed to really define the game/setting. it was 3rd ed 1998-2004 that everything about the lore and the marine chapters specifically was set in stone by the people who designed their very existence. this didn't start changing in any significant way until all those guys left the company and people who inherited the IP and currently arguably do not know or care about it outside of what the marketing department wants to sell.
Again, in other words, you're cherrypicking a select time in the history of 40k to say "yes, that's the definitive version, and nothing else matters", despite future editions disagreeing with you, and you choosing to write those off. And that's fine, if YOU want to - but don't act like yours is the only correct way.
I do not see it offensive to say i am going to go with the original designers (Andy, Phil, Rick etc..) who created the universe as opposed to what a player may want it to be or somebody a decade later decides to change the setting.
You're making one hell of an assumption by claiming that those people decreed that Thou Shalt Never Have More Than One Bike Squad If You Play Salamanders.
Call them up, ask them - if you're so keen on needing their validation to back up your argument (which you seem to be), ask them to support your claim.
As for attitude Wyldhunt and i for the most part have been having a civil discussion about the merits of game balance/blandness VS the level of acceptable thematic play represented in the rules. he wants to make sure anybody who wants to play doesn't feel put out because the set lore isn't how particular factions used to prefer to play. i just disagree with the premise of why people choose factions in the first place that would negate the argument. if you think that conversation is unpleasant, you are entitled to your opinion.
You disagree, but you've made some pretty damn stupid and shortsighted comments. Perhaps I was a tad too harsh on language, but my points all stand - you claim to cite lore, but you don't seem to recognise that it says PRECISELY THE OPPOSITE of what you claim!
You claim that "if you care about the lore, you'd only field X", when the lore makes it pretty clear that this simply isn't true, and instead of just admitting "okay, I messed up" or "I only care about lore from this time, and that means that my version of 40k is different from yours", you try and paint this idea of "One True Version of 40k", and that anyone who deviates from that is playing the game wrong. And that's kinda messed up.
Again, you say "thematic", but only the themes that YOU have decided are valid. A Salamanders Bike army is not only canon, but themeatic if someone makes a cool story around it (such as Captain Mulcebar leading a contingent of fast moving biker troops to intercept a fast Ork Speed Freek column before they can destroy a refugee convoy - because of the inclement storms, the Chapter can't deploy drop pods or aircraft to transport troops, and the Chapters vehicles are being used elsewhere on the planet. Mulcebar has taken the Chapter's fastest units, loaded them up with flamer and melta, and is leading them across the plain to meet the orks in a cavalry clash - now THAT'S got theme.)
You've made a lot of assumptions about WHY people choose the factions they do. And I feel it's relevant to call that out. I didn't start playing Ultramarines because of their tactical flexibility, or their history in the Tyrannic War. I painted them as Ultramarines because I liked the blue and gold aesthetic. Why is that out of the question for someone who maybe really loves the aesthetic of the Salamanders, and also Space Marine bikes?
As i said before-i am in a fantastic space when it comes to gaming generally and 40K specifically. we have a very active community and when we 40K we play it for fun. as such as gentlemans agreements go, if 2 of our players say "hey would it be ok if we used this rule or that rule in our 5th ed games" they discuss it and decide how they want that game to play outside the framework of 5th ed core rules.
I don't care about your group. I'm happy for you. But your group doesn't involve me, nor do I care about it. I fail to see why what house rules you choose to play with have any bearing on this conversation, and why they seem to absolve you from the rules that other people choose to play with (such as "hey, Salamanders can take more than one bike squad").
P.S. on the 5th ed characters thing- they are HQ choices so at most you can take 2 in the same army list, however as per the rules you must choose which one is actually in command so their special rules apply to the army. the other ones is ignored out side their own abilities.
But you could still take them. And, just to refresh your memory, not ALL named characters had the Chapter Tactics rule - namely, the Ultramarines characters. You could have "Calgar" and Vulkan He'stan, and "Calgar" would ALWAYS defer to Vulkan's bonuses to flamers and meltas. In fact, Chaplain Cassius was BETTER played with Vulkan than he was with Calgar, because he carried a combi-flamer.
Wyldhunt wrote:
Choosing Salamanders over WS if you like bikers might be slightly odd, but I don't think it's unheard of or unreasonable. Again, maybe they really like the nice-guy-marines thing. Maybe they started with a more conventional Salamanders army, but then they fell in love with the bike models or just really like the mental image of Salamander bikers for whatever reason.
I still don't think this actually happens this way. When I was starting out a common question that faced new space marine players was what chapter to pick. The conventional wisdom at the time was that you could choose one of the first founding chapters or you could make up your own. The advantage of making up your own was understood to be complete freedom in the rules that you used. So you could run them as Blood Angel successors one week and Dark Angels the following week. It was strongly implied that if you chose to run one of the actual big named chapters then you were bound to adhere to their rules.
In my experience I find that players choose chapters for a variety of reasons. They may have wanted to run Imperial Fists, but decided that yellow was too much of a pain so they went with Crimson Fists because the blue was easier and the chapter vibe was similar. Once having made that choice for whatever reasons they tend to lean in to that choice with the intent of following the lore in their army construction and making their army different from everybody else's. So I don't think that a Salamanders player would ever really think of going bike heavy since he would have understood that in the lore the Salamanders don't do that. In the 4th edition codex with chapter traits the Salamanders were characterized by the drawback Eye to Eye. This limited them to only taking 0-1 Land Speeder squadrons, Attack Bike squadrons and Bike squadrons. In exchange for this they could take an extra flamer, plasma gun or meltagun in their tactical squads (in lieu of the heavy weapon) and they could also attempt to extend the game by one turn.
At the end of the day, if someone shows up to the store with a bike army painted green, do you think it's good for the game/hobby/person in front of you for his army to be penalized for its paint scheme? As I said to Aphyon on the previous page:
A.) Should an army be allowed to have a Salamanders paint scheme/lore and field a list focused on/consisting primarily of bikes?
B.) If so, is it acceptable/good for the game and player experience for such a list to be notably less powerful than a list with White Scars paint/lore? i.e. if the green bikes and the white bikes play Bob's orks 100 times each, the green bikes will win 30 games compared to the white bikes' 50 games because the green bikes' stratagems and special rules don't synergize with their selected units as well?
If this ever actually happens I expect him to say "I'm running these as a White Scars today." And I say, "Sure, whatever floats your boat, Mon-keigh."
Sgt_Smudge wrote:
I started playing in 5th. Back then, there were no differences at all in how you played White Scars compared to Salamanders. Are you telling me that no-one played White Scars or Salamanders or Imperial Fists or Ultramarines or Crimson Fists or Iron Hands in 5th edition because they were all mechanically the same?
They weren't mechanically the same. Maybe you started 5th in the middle of the edition so you missed the transitions, but I was there was from the beginning. Here's what I saw. Codex Space Marines drops in September 2008. It says that more than half of all space marine chapters have Ultramarine geneseed. It says Ultramarines are pre-eminent amongst their brothers. You see blue marines everywhere. Rhinos and Razorbacks have dropped in points and the 5th edition rules no longer punish passengers so harshly. Mechanization takes hold of the meta as players realize that a 40 point Razorback is a good deal (it used to cost 70). Because of this trend melta supplants plasma as the special weapon of choice. You have to be able to open the tin can to get to the juicy bits inside. Then someone notices that if you take Vulkan He'stan, your flamers and melta weapons become twin-linked and suddenly those blue marines you saw everywhere started turning green. Choosing Vulkan made your army Salamanders and replaced the combat tactics rule with Salamanders chapter tactics. Combat tactics allowed any non-Fearless space marine unit to automatically fail any morale check it was required to take. Swapping the rules out based on changing your chapter makes a mechanical change to the army.
Similarly, taking Korsarro Khan and running White Scars gave your entire army outflank in lieu of the combat tactics rule. Taking Pedro Kantor with a Crimson Fist army gave you the Stubborn USR and made Sternguard squads scoring units. Shrike gave Raven Guard the Fleet USR so that they could assault after making a run move in the shooting phase. Lysander gave Imperial Fists Stubborn and Bolter Drill.
There are of course problems with this approach. Many objected to having to take a special character in order to unlock their chapter's special trait especially since only a few month prior in 4th edition you couldn't even take a special character without opponent permission.
Anyway, of all these chapter tactics rules Salamanders was the best and the most common. It wasn't until a year later when the Space Wolves codex dropped that things began to shift towards blue grey away from the blue and green marines. Seven months after that they started turning red.
1.certain chapters have specializations. they are all marines yes but they do some things better than others. my conversation was with wyldhunt about if they should have rules that make them better than others.
2. i do not like the lore the new GW employees created as it goes directly against the original creators designs. great news i don't have to play any particular editon. i can also disagree with where they have taken the game in the last few editions.
3. you make a bunch of claims about how many generic fast units are assigned to each of the 7 companies, but when you go through the breakdown about what each companies job is and what combat doctrines they employ, none specialize in bikes, speeders or jump infantry.
You're making one hell of an assumption by claiming that those people decreed that Thou Shalt Never Have More Than One Bike Squad If You Play Salamanders.
Call them up, ask them - if you're so keen on needing their validation to back up your argument (which you seem to be), ask them to support your claim.
I don't have to, you see they did a thing, they wrote it down and then published it in official sources. if you want to ignore that Because of the NU-lore then knock yourself out. your free to play the game however you like. the fact it exists cannot be disputed.
but you've made some pretty damn stupid and shortsighted comments. Perhaps I was a tad too harsh on language, but my points all stand - you claim to cite lore, but you don't seem to recognise that it says PRECISELY THE OPPOSITE of what you claim!
Nice, you have an opinon and a right to it, i think exactly the same things about your position.
You claim that "if you care about the lore, you'd only field X", when the lore makes it pretty clear that this simply isn't true, and instead of just admitting "okay, I messed up" or "I only care about lore from this time, and that means that my version of 40k is different from yours", you try and paint this idea of "One True Version of 40k", and that anyone who deviates from that is playing the game wrong. And that's kinda messed up.
They are not playing it wrong they are in fact playing a completely different game. they call it 40K but it is a different game. 3rd-7th were at least cross compatible. and most of the progressive mechanical improvements in the rules from 3rd-5th were obvious and mostly welcomed improvements of the same core system. what you have now is a "game" and it has rules and it appeals to some people. i will never consider it to be anything other than 40K in name only. that isn't messed up, it is an opinion and it is not forcing anybody else to do anything. the very nature of a real in person game that requires 2 or more players requires a certain level of agreement/permission on what the game is.
Again, you say "thematic", but only the themes that YOU have decided are valid. A Salamanders Bike army is not only canon,
except it isn't, and never was in the written rules published by GW up to a certain point. you of course can come up with any reason you want to run anything you want. nobody is going to force you to or not to do it. especially in the current edition.
So Salamander bikers are less common than Vulkan or Adrax?
Because, to my knowledge, you have no issue with them showing up.
Myself? i never use them, 99% of the time i run a generic master of the forge ( have a thing for tech marines). and occasionally a terminator librarian, or Brey'arth because i also love dreadnoughts.
If this ever actually happens I expect him to say "I'm running these as a White Scars today." And I say, "Sure, whatever floats your boat, Mon-keigh."
Awesome. I would do the same. And if we're letting people use whichever rules best suit their army regardless of paint scheme, the next obvious step to me is to just officially separate the rules from the paint scheme. Which is what 10th (for all its flaws) has done.
Like, if people genuinely believe that players will never ever want to play an army type that doesn't fit with the stereotypes of their paint scheme, then the point is kind of moot. But if you allow for the possibility that sometimes someone will want to run green bikers, and if you don't want to like, tell them they're not allowed to do that, then you may as well just have the rules support that.
Like, we can all theoretically tell the green biker player that we refuse to play against him because his paint scheme contradicts our interpretations of the lore, but I suspect we all probably agree that would be a dick move. So if we're not going to enforce being dicks to the green biker guy... the natural next step is to just frame the rules in such a way that it's clear green bikes are allowed?
If this ever actually happens I expect him to say "I'm running these as a White Scars today." And I say, "Sure, whatever floats your boat, Mon-keigh."
Awesome. I would do the same. And if we're letting people use whichever rules best suit their army regardless of paint scheme, the next obvious step to me is to just officially separate the rules from the paint scheme. Which is what 10th (for all its flaws) has done.
Like, if people genuinely believe that players will never ever want to play an army type that doesn't fit with the stereotypes of their paint scheme, then the point is kind of moot. But if you allow for the possibility that sometimes someone will want to run green bikers, and if you don't want to like, tell them they're not allowed to do that, then you may as well just have the rules support that.
Like, we can all theoretically tell the green biker player that we refuse to play against him because his paint scheme contradicts our interpretations of the lore, but I suspect we all probably agree that would be a dick move. So if we're not going to enforce being dicks to the green biker guy... the natural next step is to just frame the rules in such a way that it's clear green bikes are allowed?
I don't get it, why do I keep seeing people say this? This has been the case for as long as I can remember. I've seen blue Calgars. I've seen other blue Calgars. Green, yellow, black, and purple Calgars. Paint scheme has never limited people to which chapter rules they used. The only rule was that if you use XYZ Chapter Epic Hero you have to use XYZ Chapter Rules.
I believe a lot of people want to run what I call "Black Sheep" armies. Imperial Fists Bikers. Gulliman Parking Lots. Etcetera. I believe they should still flavor with their chosen chapter. For the sake of being on the same page lets divide the army into two basic things: Theme and Flavor. The Dets are the "theme", chapter tactics would be the "flavor". I think a White Scars biker army is about screaming engines into sword range, I think an Imperial Fists biker is screaming bolters on the handlebars of the bike. I think if they want to play yellow White Scars Biker Armies they can do so, but they shouldn't be forced to - if they want to play yellow Imperial Fists Bikers that actually play like Imperial Fists they should be able to do so.
It is both true that they typically don't use fast attack elements AND that they could cobble together a full army* from such elements if needed.
However, in pre-Primaris lore the reserve companies didn't have any assault squads and only the 3 battle companies and scout company could deploy bikes and landspeeders. The total number of fast attack elements is considerably limited compared to a fully codex-compliant chapter and probably amounts to ~60 Marines total (split between bikes and land speeders) + up to another 100(?) scout bikers across the entire chapter of ~900 Marines. That is plenty for a single 40k army, but it would be exceptional in the lore as it accumulates the assault elements from the entire chapter.
This is probably all different post-Primaris so lorewise the current situation is not the same.
Point of clarification? When did a white dwarf article about fluff of a chapter become gospel? Lest we get into chromosomal politics again, I thought it was generally agreed that unless it was in a codex, WD "wasn't" a citable source for confirmed set in stone fluff. I fully admit to possibly being wrong on this, hence the question. But we site WD articles from the long long ago, and it's getting sort of reductio ad absurdum. "Well, this fluff from a single sentence over twelve years ago and six entire revisions ago, says this, and I claim it as gospel!" Hence the "WD is the weakest of canon sources".
In the current environment space marine players have a lot of freedom in building their armies through the detachments, but this freedom erases the meaning in the choice of chapter. If everyone can run bikes equally well, then what value is there in choosing White Scars? Why would anyone continue to choose them if the only thing that makes them different is that painting white is a chore?
You like the culture and lore behind it. You like the white army scheme. You like bikes and enjoy seeing bikes represented in the fluff and in following that enjoy seeing your chose chapter represented. Honestly, "to gain a mechanical gameplay advantage" is the worst reason to force people to learn to paint white.
Flip to the Salamanders side, there's tons of appeal in that chapter and I can totally see someone who wants to put a bunch of flames all over their bikes, both in the paint scheme and shooting out the exhaust.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Point of clarification? When did a white dwarf article about fluff of a chapter become gospel? Lest we get into chromosomal politics again, I thought it was generally agreed that unless it was in a codex, WD "wasn't" a citable source for confirmed set in stone fluff. I fully admit to possibly being wrong on this, hence the question. But we site WD articles from the long long ago, and it's getting sort of reductio ad absurdum. "Well, this fluff from a single sentence over twelve years ago and six entire revisions ago, says this, and I claim it as gospel!" Hence the "WD is the weakest of canon sources".
*Edit for spelling mistakes
White Dwarf used to be an excellent source of 40k lore, often equivalent to the contemporary codices. The Index Astartes articles being referenced above was a regular White Dwarf feature which still forms the basis for most of the First Founding Space Marine lore and some other Space Marines to this day. They were also accompanied by official rules supplements to the Space Marine, Blood Angels, and Chaos Space Marine codices (depending on the featured Chapter/Legion and the time period) so were essentially codex supplements. The lore was collated and published over four Index Astartes volumes.
White Dwarf at the time had loads of equivalent lore pieces, such as a multiple page in depth look at the lore of the (then new) Chaos Defiler. There was also Chapter Approved for experimental and official rules.
The magazine degenerated into little more than a marketing pamphlet + catalogue followed by a bit of a renaissance in recent years, but the included lore has always been treated as "official" by GW. I'd generally favour White Dwarf lore over Black Library lore if there is a conflict, for example (obviously taking into account the wider context).
That said, 40k has had plenty of retcons and a major move forward in the timeline, so a lot of this older lore is either obsolete or only accurately refers to things prior to the Great Rift.
Wyldhunt wrote: Choosing Salamanders over WS if you like bikers might be slightly odd, but I don't think it's unheard of or unreasonable. Again, maybe they really like the nice-guy-marines thing. Maybe they started with a more conventional Salamanders army, but then they fell in love with the bike models or just really like the mental image of Salamander bikers for whatever reason.
I still don't think this actually happens this way.
Sorry, but unless you're claiming that there's NO WAY that a Salamanders player might like bikes, I'm sorry, but you're talking guff.
Once having made that choice for whatever reasons they tend to lean in to that choice with the intent of following the lore in their army construction and making their army different from everybody else's. So I don't think that a Salamanders player would ever really think of going bike heavy since he would have understood that in the lore the Salamanders don't do that. In the 4th edition codex with chapter traits the Salamanders were characterized by the drawback Eye to Eye. This limited them to only taking 0-1 Land Speeder squadrons, Attack Bike squadrons and Bike squadrons. In exchange for this they could take an extra flamer, plasma gun or meltagun in their tactical squads (in lieu of the heavy weapon) and they could also attempt to extend the game by one turn.
Not all players (and in fact, at this point, a minority) of players started with 4th. Players who started in literally any edition after 4th would have no reason not to field Salamanders bikers - and in 5th edition, there's no fluff in that book at all that implies that the Salamanders wouldn't want bikes.
Not everyone reads every scrap of the lore when they decide what colour they wanna paint their war dolls. And, lest I remind everyone, the lore literally SUPPORTS Salamanders bikers - it's *only* the 4th edition rules that mechanically restrict it. Again, for all this talk of "the Salamanders don't like fast vehicles and Land Speeders aren't common", in the 5th edition book, they literally have a Salamanders Land Speeder in their painting showcase.
Sorry, but again, this is not applicable beyond your own opinion.
At the end of the day, if someone shows up to the store with a bike army painted green, do you think it's good for the game/hobby/person in front of you for his army to be penalized for its paint scheme? As I said to Aphyon on the previous page:
A.) Should an army be allowed to have a Salamanders paint scheme/lore and field a list focused on/consisting primarily of bikes?
B.) If so, is it acceptable/good for the game and player experience for such a list to be notably less powerful than a list with White Scars paint/lore? i.e. if the green bikes and the white bikes play Bob's orks 100 times each, the green bikes will win 30 games compared to the white bikes' 50 games because the green bikes' stratagems and special rules don't synergize with their selected units as well?
If this ever actually happens I expect him to say "I'm running these as a White Scars today." And I say, "Sure, whatever floats your boat, Mon-keigh."
Which is the correct response.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: I started playing in 5th. Back then, there were no differences at all in how you played White Scars compared to Salamanders. Are you telling me that no-one played White Scars or Salamanders or Imperial Fists or Ultramarines or Crimson Fists or Iron Hands in 5th edition because they were all mechanically the same?
They weren't mechanically the same. Maybe you started 5th in the middle of the edition so you missed the transitions, but I was there was from the beginning.
I started when the Codex dropped. And yes, they were mechanically the same. Allow me to explain.
Here's what I saw. Codex Space Marines drops in September 2008. It says that more than half of all space marine chapters have Ultramarine geneseed. It says Ultramarines are pre-eminent amongst their brothers. You see blue marines everywhere. Rhinos and Razorbacks have dropped in points and the 5th edition rules no longer punish passengers so harshly. Mechanization takes hold of the meta as players realize that a 40 point Razorback is a good deal (it used to cost 70). Because of this trend melta supplants plasma as the special weapon of choice. You have to be able to open the tin can to get to the juicy bits inside. Then someone notices that if you take Vulkan He'stan, your flamers and melta weapons become twin-linked and suddenly those blue marines you saw everywhere started turning green. Choosing Vulkan made your army Salamanders and replaced the combat tactics rule with Salamanders chapter tactics. Combat tactics allowed any non-Fearless space marine unit to automatically fail any morale check it was required to take. Swapping the rules out based on changing your chapter makes a mechanical change to the army.
No, Vulkan didn't make your army Salamanders. It made a Space Marine army exchange Combat Tactics to have twin-linked flamers and meltas. Note that NOWHERE does it say that they're Salamanders.
Vulkan could be taken in the same list as Calgar, and every other Ultramarine leader. Vulkan could be taken alongside every other named character in that book, painted the same, even attached to the same unit. The book itself ENCOURAGED that! But NOWEHERE did it say "your marines are now Salamanders". If you took Vulkan in a list, but painted him blue, alongside all the other marines in that list, gave them greco-roman aesthetics and painted a bunch of Ultima symbols, and said that "this is Captain Numitor's taskforce of the Ultramarines", would they be Ultramarines or Salamanders? If you took Calgar in that list, is Calgar an Ultramarine or a Salamander? What about if you then dropped Vulkan from that list, but kept everything else the same? Are they Ultramarines or Salamanders? What if you then took that list I just mentioned, the whole army with Calgar but minus Vulkan, repainted them green and black, with flame iconography, and now called them Salamanders? Mechanically, they play exactly the same, but now they look like Salamanders - what are they? Now I add Vulkan back into the list, but Vulkan is still painted blue. Are they Ultramarines or Salamanders? What if I exchange Calgar for Shrike, and choose to have all my green and black and fire painted Marines to gain the Fleet rule? Are they Salamanders or Raven Guard? What if I drop Vulkan and Shrike, and replace them with a generic captain? What Chapter are they now?
The ONLY difference was tied to a series of special characters, who didn't even ALWAYS give you their boon. If your ONLY difference between Chapter relies on you taking a specific character, then you're not having mechanically differences between Chapters. You have mechanical differences between CHARACTERS, which you literally admit yourself:
There are of course problems with this approach. Many objected to having to take a special character in order to unlock their chapter's special trait especially since only a few month prior in 4th edition you couldn't even take a special character without opponent permission.
Exactly - they weren't unique CHAPTER rules. They were unique rules TIED TO CHARACTERS, characters who could be taken in *any* Chapter, and even together in the same list. Sometimes, characters were BETTER when using the rules that other characters gave them (Cassius in a list that had Vulkan).
Anyway, of all these chapter tactics rules Salamanders was the best and the most common.
Not Salamanders - Vulkan.
aphyon wrote:1.certain chapters have specializations. they are all marines yes but they do some things better than others. my conversation was with wyldhunt about if they should have rules that make them better than others.
And I think both Wyldhunt and myself disagree that they should be mechanically better. The question comes down to which is more important: the type of army, or the Chapter that fields that type of army.
Personally, I'm more in favour of 5th. Get rid of ALL bonuses.
2. i do not like the lore the new GW employees created as it goes directly against the original creators designs. great news i don't have to play any particular editon. i can also disagree with where they have taken the game in the last few editions.
You say "lore the new GW employees created", but the problem is that it's those same original creators who emphasised all those same quotes I've been repeating about how the Salamanders are "just as capable" of fielding bikes. You can't keep quoting "original creators" when it's their words that also disagree with yours!
3. you make a bunch of claims about how many generic fast units are assigned to each of the 7 companies, but when you go through the breakdown about what each companies job is and what combat doctrines they employ, none specialize in bikes, speeders or jump infantry.
I never claimed that ANY of them specialise - because they don't have to! You seem to think that the only way you should be allowed to take an army is if it's some kind of specialist detachment, and that's simply not true! I've never claimed that the Salamanders have a "specialist" Bike company - only that they have the capability and capacity to field a full bike army on tabletop, and if someone wants to create a fluff reason why the Salamanders have fielded such an army, they have my full support!
Again, I point again to the IA4 statement - that the Salamanders are just as capable of fighting on their bikes as other methods of warfare.
You're making one hell of an assumption by claiming that those people decreed that Thou Shalt Never Have More Than One Bike Squad If You Play Salamanders.
Call them up, ask them - if you're so keen on needing their validation to back up your argument (which you seem to be), ask them to support your claim.
I don't have to, you see they did a thing, they wrote it down and then published it in official sources. if you want to ignore that Because of the NU-lore then knock yourself out. your free to play the game however you like. the fact it exists cannot be disputed.
Again, I'm not basing my argument entirely off of Nu-Lore - I'm quoting the same articles that you are, from those same "original creators"!
Like, seriously, look are what my sources are - they're the same "original sources" that you're using!
but you've made some pretty damn stupid and shortsighted comments. Perhaps I was a tad too harsh on language, but my points all stand - you claim to cite lore, but you don't seem to recognise that it says PRECISELY THE OPPOSITE of what you claim!
Nice, you have an opinon and a right to it, i think exactly the same things about your position.
Sure, but you're still not addressing the fact that the sources you're claiming disagree with you.
You claim that "if you care about the lore, you'd only field X", when the lore makes it pretty clear that this simply isn't true, and instead of just admitting "okay, I messed up" or "I only care about lore from this time, and that means that my version of 40k is different from yours", you try and paint this idea of "One True Version of 40k", and that anyone who deviates from that is playing the game wrong. And that's kinda messed up.
They are not playing it wrong they are in fact playing a completely different game. they call it 40K but it is a different game. 3rd-7th were at least cross compatible. and most of the progressive mechanical improvements in the rules from 3rd-5th were obvious and mostly welcomed improvements of the same core system. what you have now is a "game" and it has rules and it appeals to some people. i will never consider it to be anything other than 40K in name only. that isn't messed up, it is an opinion and it is not forcing anybody else to do anything. the very nature of a real in person game that requires 2 or more players requires a certain level of agreement/permission on what the game is.
Again, for all your speaking of "it is an opinion" and acting like that's not just doubling down on exactly what I'm pointing out is the problem here - you might not be "forcing" your opinion, but it's certainly screaming out that you don't give two hoots about someone else's experience - and that's the messed up part.
Again, I don't care what YOU "consider" valid 40k, but the actual FACT is that it's still 40k. Same branding, same company, same name. You can disagree, and arbitrarily make up your own gatekeeping rules on what "real" 40k is, but the facts disagree beyond that. For someone trying to claim facts, you're not doing a good job citing them.
Again, you say "thematic", but only the themes that YOU have decided are valid. A Salamanders Bike army is not only canon,
except it isn't
Except it is. As I proved. The ONLY thing you have going for your argument right now is plugging your fingers in your ears and saying "nuh uh". This is exactly WHY I was combative - because you've shown you're not willing to discuss this in good faith while you continue to ignore the evidence of your eyes and ears.
and never was in the written rules published by GW up to a certain point.
In other words, "this wasn't allowed in the rules over a very specific period of time which I'm going to cherrypick from".
Rogue Trader didn't prevent it. 2nd didn't prevent it. I don't know enough about 3rd and 4th to make a claim here. 5th didn't prevent it. 6th didn't prevent it. 7th didn't prevent it. 8th didn't prevent it. 9th didn't prevent it. 10th doesn't prevent it.
You're pointing to such a narrow section of 40k's mechanical history, and acting like it's the ONLY valid source. That's why your argument is so fundamentally flawed.
If YOU only want to consider that narrow band of time to be how YOU like to play, more power to you. But you ought to understand that YOU'RE the one who's choosing to be selective, and that the world is wider than your narrow horizon.
So Salamander bikers are less common than Vulkan or Adrax? Because, to my knowledge, you have no issue with them showing up.
Myself? i never use them, 99% of the time i run a generic master of the forge ( have a thing for tech marines). and occasionally a terminator librarian, or Brey'arth because i also love dreadnoughts.
And you're more than welcome to run those. But you're dodging the question.
Also, I should point out that, in 5th, you *had* to take Vulkan if you wanted the """""Salamanders""""" rules. Were all Salamanders battles in 40k fought with Vulkan leading them? He's just one guy, after all - less common than Bike squads!
It is both true that they typically don't use fast attack elements AND that they could cobble together a full army* from such elements if needed.
However, in pre-Primaris lore the reserve companies didn't have any assault squads and only the 3 battle companies and scout company could deploy bikes and landspeeders. The total number of fast attack elements is considerably limited compared to a fully codex-compliant chapter and probably amounts to ~60 Marines total (split between bikes and land speeders) + up to another 100(?) scout bikers across the entire chapter of ~900 Marines. That is plenty for a single 40k army, but it would be exceptional in the lore as it accumulates the assault elements from the entire chapter.
This is probably all different post-Primaris so lorewise the current situation is not the same.
*By this I mean a 40k sized army.
I believe that this is correct, and my original statement may have been incorrect (for pre-Primaris Salamanders) - however, as you point out, that's still at least 6 regular Bike Squads, at least 3 Land Speeders, and at least a squad of Scout Bikes and a Land Speeder Storm - assuming that there's only ONE of each per company, except Bike Squads, which form the two Assault Squads per Battle Company.
Again, more than enough for a game for 40k, and while exceptional, 40k is full of exceptional battles, such as ANY battle where Custodes, Grey Knights, or a Primarch show up at.
Vulkan's rules didn't say your army was now Salamanders, but the rule was called Chapter tactics (not Vulkan's tactics) and Vulkan's chapter was the Salamanders. In addition, if you had two heroes from different chapters which both had the Chapter tactics rule in your army, you had to pick which Chapter tactics your force would use (i.e. which chapter was in charge).
So the implication was pretty clearly that these rules were supposed to represent alternate Chapters with differing character and specialties from the default. I think it was a poor decision to lock that behind special characters but hey ho.
I want to point out this thread is in the lore subforum. Whilst discussing how game rules reflect the lore is part of this, IMO, I think it is important to point out that Salamanders are, as per lore, less likely to field fast attack and if the whole Chapter deployed for a single battle, probably couldn't deploy massed bikers and speeders in a fast attack role even if they thought it would be beneficial, unlike, say, the White Scars. At least up until the Great Rift, I don't think any lore contradicted this. With Primaris reinforcements they probably can deploy much more fast attack than before.
Whether that lore should carry over into game rules and to what degree is mostly subjective.
From a game design perspective I liked the 3rd edition approach of FOC combined with limiting some units even further (0-1 per list, 0-2 etc). Others do not. But that doesn't mean no Salamanders force ever fields more than one bike squad, it just means their typical force (at up to 2000pts in 3rd edition) routinely fields no more than a single bike squad. The rules of the time had explicitly ways to break this- a second detachment could be taken every 2000 pts with a new FOC, and 4th edition added Apocalypse with no unit restrictions for games >3000pts. There was also the option of just using the default Space Marine list and taking 3 bike squads. The lore at the time was simply that Salamanders rarely fielded many bikes in smaller forces.
You say "lore the new GW employees created", but the problem is that it's those same original creators who emphasised all those same quotes I've been repeating about how the Salamanders are "just as capable" of fielding bikes. You can't keep quoting "original creators" when it's their words that also disagree with yours!
These are not mutually exclusive things, they can be "just as capable" and they can also not field them for various reasons in large numbers or as a focus of the army. nobody said anywhere they didn't have them, just that that is not the fighting style the excel at/focus on. since the latter is clearly defined both in 3rd and 4th ed. a lore inspired salamanders player may bring a few bikes but they would not think "bike army" when looking at the chapter.
Sure, but you're still not addressing the fact that the sources you're claiming disagree with you.
Except they explicitly do not.
Again, I'm not basing my argument entirely off of Nu-Lore - I'm quoting the same articles that you are, from those same "original creators"!
Like, seriously, look are what my sources are - they're the same "original sources" that you're using!
Same as above you are choosing to ignore the parts you do not agree with.
In other words, "this wasn't allowed in the rules over a very specific period of time which I'm going to cherrypick from".
Rogue Trader didn't prevent it.
2nd didn't prevent it.
I don't know enough about 3rd and 4th to make a claim here.
5th didn't prevent it.
6th didn't prevent it.
7th didn't prevent it.
8th didn't prevent it.
9th didn't prevent it.
10th doesn't prevent it.
You're pointing to such a narrow section of 40k's mechanical history, and acting like it's the ONLY valid source. That's why your argument is so fundamentally flawed.
1 rouge trader/2nd had not even decided what the universe was yet, unless you think inquisitor Obiwan Sherlock Clousseau from 1987 is still in the official lore after 3rd (he isn't) along with all sort of other things they decided were not in the official lore. that happened in 3rd.. so 3rd is where they created the setting and they continued it in 4th along the same lines-with the original design team still at the helm.
1998-2008 that's 10 years worth of the 40K franchise. nearly half of the time it has been a game with set lore. and while they may have dumbed down the restrictions to character unlocks in the generic space marine codex. the blood angels, dark angels and space wolf codexes maintained the restrictions, alt force org charts and specializations. that's at least 14 years worth of specialized rules and the lore remained virtually unchanged in the setting until about halfway through 7th with the gathering storm plot line. so since 1998 to 2017 the core lore remained virtually unchanged that's nearly 19 years of the entire lifespan of the game since the lore was established.
Haighus wrote: Vulkan's rules didn't say your army was now Salamanders, but the rule was called Chapter tactics (not Vulkan's tactics) and Vulkan's chapter was the Salamanders. In addition, if you had two heroes from different chapters which both had the Chapter tactics rule in your army, you had to pick which Chapter tactics your force would use (i.e. which chapter was in charge).
And yet that same book ALSO encouraged you to paint and redesign characters to be from the same Chapter if that was your prefence - ie, "Vulkan" could be remodelled as Captain Fabian of the Ultramarines 3rd Company. Lysander could be remodelled as Captain Agemman.
Sure, it *said* Chapter Tactics, but Calgar's also said "God of War" - was he a god? (Pedantic, but just to highlight that it was the name of a special rule - not conclusive proof in its own right, and that mechanically, which is what I was talking about, there was no difference between a Salamanders Space Marine and a White Scars Space Marine, because it was the character that granted army-wide rules, and that those characters could be taken in the same army if you really wanted to.)
So the implication was pretty clearly that these rules were supposed to represent alternate Chapters with differing character and specialties from the default. I think it was a poor decision to lock that behind special characters but hey ho.
And yet, that implication still never stopped all-bike Salamanders lists. There was no rule that prevented it, or even discouraged.
My statement stands - MECHANICALLY, there was no difference in Chapter.
I want to point out this thread is in the lore subforum. Whilst discussing how game rules reflect the lore is part of this, IMO, I think it is important to point out that Salamanders are, as per lore, less likely to field fast attack and if the whole Chapter deployed for a single battle, probably couldn't deploy massed bikers and speeders in a fast attack role even if they thought it would be beneficial, unlike, say, the White Scars. At least up until the Great Rift, I don't think any lore contradicted this. With Primaris reinforcements they probably can deploy much more fast attack than before.
*Less likely*, yes, I'll fully agree - but NOT impossible, and certainly not 0-1.
Salamanders would be UNLIKELY to below massed bikes, but importantly STILL COULD, and if a player wants to, they should be able to. Again, what's wrong with the scenario I mentioned earlier - a swarm of Ork Speed Freeks needing to be intercepted, the Chapter being unable to deploy aircraft or Drop Pods to intercept them due to storms, and the ground not being stable enough for troop transports like Rhinos or Land Raiders to deploy. The Salamanders, if they'd deployed to the warzone in Chapter strength (like Armageddon!), could muster all their fast moving troops onto Bikes and Land Speeders to engage the Orks.
From a game design perspective I liked the 3rd edition approach of FOC combined with limiting some units even further (0-1 per list, 0-2 etc). Others do not. But that doesn't mean no Salamanders force ever fields more than one bike squad, it just means their typical force (at up to 2000pts in 3rd edition) routinely fields no more than a single bike squad. The rules of the time had explicitly ways to break this- a second detachment could be taken every 2000 pts with a new FOC, and 4th edition added Apocalypse with no unit restrictions for games >3000pts. There was also the option of just using the default Space Marine list and taking 3 bike squads. The lore at the time was simply that Salamanders rarely fielded many bikes in smaller forces.
Rarely still doesn't mean never. And lest I repeat myself - EVEN THE LORE still stated that the Salamanders COULD do it, and their objection was purely because they liked fighting differently. There should be no mechanical reason to prevent them taking a perfectly lore-friendly formation.
You say "lore the new GW employees created", but the problem is that it's those same original creators who emphasised all those same quotes I've been repeating about how the Salamanders are "just as capable" of fielding bikes. You can't keep quoting "original creators" when it's their words that also disagree with yours!
These are not mutually exclusive things, they can be "just as capable" and they can also not field them for various reasons in large numbers or as a focus of the army. nobody said anywhere they didn't have them, just that that is not the fighting style the excel at/focus on. since the latter is clearly defined both in 3rd and 4th ed. a lore inspired salamanders player may bring a few bikes but they would not think "bike army" when looking at the chapter.
Again, you're SO CLOSE to getting it!
No-one's claiming that they "excel" or "focus" on it, but simply that they CAN and DO take Bike formations! And then you turn around and say that "a lore inspired Salamanders army blah blah blah", which flies RIGHT in the face of that!
A "lore inspired Salamanders army" CAN STILL TAKE BIKES. It can even take a lot of them! To say that they CAN'T field a bike army is to miss the lore.
Sure, but you're still not addressing the fact that the sources you're claiming disagree with you.
Except they explicitly do not.
Explicitly, they state that "the Salamanders can fight in any theatre under any conditions" and "they are just as capable at other aspects of Space Marine battle doctrine".
Bikes are fine.
Again, I'm not basing my argument entirely off of Nu-Lore - I'm quoting the same articles that you are, from those same "original creators"!
Like, seriously, look are what my sources are - they're the same "original sources" that you're using!
Same as above you are choosing to ignore the parts you do not agree with.
I'm not disagreeing with anything EXCEPT this idea that they ONLY fight in a certain way! Go on, quote for me a section that says that they NEVER field bikes, or that they CANNOT do do.
Quote it for me.
In other words, "this wasn't allowed in the rules over a very specific period of time which I'm going to cherrypick from".
Rogue Trader didn't prevent it.
2nd didn't prevent it.
I don't know enough about 3rd and 4th to make a claim here.
5th didn't prevent it.
6th didn't prevent it.
7th didn't prevent it.
8th didn't prevent it.
9th didn't prevent it.
10th doesn't prevent it.
You're pointing to such a narrow section of 40k's mechanical history, and acting like it's the ONLY valid source. That's why your argument is so fundamentally flawed.
1 rouge trader/2nd had not even decided what the universe was yet, unless you think inquisitor Obiwan Sherlock Clousseau from 1987 is still in the official lore after 3rd (he isn't) along with all sort of other things they decided were not in the official lore. that happened in 3rd.. so 3rd is where they created the setting and they continued it in 4th along the same lines-with the original design team still at the helm.
Oh, good! So you're admitting the lore has ALWAYS been in a state of change, and that things that were "original lore" get changed over time!
Good, we're on the same page.
1998-2008 that's 12 years worth of the 40K franchise. nearly half of the time it has been a game with set lore.
Lest I make you feel old, 2008 to 2024 is 16 years.
That's EVEN LONGER that 4th's been abandoned and moved on from.
If you wanna make an argument from longevity, you'd better remember that you're technically now in the minority time period.
Haighus wrote: Vulkan's rules didn't say your army was now Salamanders, but the rule was called Chapter tactics (not Vulkan's tactics) and Vulkan's chapter was the Salamanders. In addition, if you had two heroes from different chapters which both had the Chapter tactics rule in your army, you had to pick which Chapter tactics your force would use (i.e. which chapter was in charge).
And yet that same book ALSO encouraged you to paint and redesign characters to be from the same Chapter if that was your prefence - ie, "Vulkan" could be remodelled as Captain Fabian of the Ultramarines 3rd Company. Lysander could be remodelled as Captain Agemman.
Sure, it *said* Chapter Tactics, but Calgar's also said "God of War" - was he a god? (Pedantic, but just to highlight that it was the name of a special rule - not conclusive proof in its own right, and that mechanically, which is what I was talking about, there was no difference between a Salamanders Space Marine and a White Scars Space Marine, because it was the character that granted army-wide rules, and that those characters could be taken in the same army if you really wanted to.)
So the implication was pretty clearly that these rules were supposed to represent alternate Chapters with differing character and specialties from the default. I think it was a poor decision to lock that behind special characters but hey ho.
And yet, that implication still never stopped all-bike Salamanders lists. There was no rule that prevented it, or even discouraged.
My statement stands - MECHANICALLY, there was no difference in Chapter.
I want to point out this thread is in the lore subforum. Whilst discussing how game rules reflect the lore is part of this, IMO, I think it is important to point out that Salamanders are, as per lore, less likely to field fast attack and if the whole Chapter deployed for a single battle, probably couldn't deploy massed bikers and speeders in a fast attack role even if they thought it would be beneficial, unlike, say, the White Scars. At least up until the Great Rift, I don't think any lore contradicted this. With Primaris reinforcements they probably can deploy much more fast attack than before.
*Less likely*, yes, I'll fully agree - but NOT impossible, and certainly not 0-1.
Salamanders would be UNLIKELY to below massed bikes, but importantly STILL COULD, and if a player wants to, they should be able to. Again, what's wrong with the scenario I mentioned earlier - a swarm of Ork Speed Freeks needing to be intercepted, the Chapter being unable to deploy aircraft or Drop Pods to intercept them due to storms, and the ground not being stable enough for troop transports like Rhinos or Land Raiders to deploy. The Salamanders, if they'd deployed to the warzone in Chapter strength (like Armageddon!), could muster all their fast moving troops onto Bikes and Land Speeders to engage the Orks.
From a game design perspective I liked the 3rd edition approach of FOC combined with limiting some units even further (0-1 per list, 0-2 etc). Others do not. But that doesn't mean no Salamanders force ever fields more than one bike squad, it just means their typical force (at up to 2000pts in 3rd edition) routinely fields no more than a single bike squad. The rules of the time had explicitly ways to break this- a second detachment could be taken every 2000 pts with a new FOC, and 4th edition added Apocalypse with no unit restrictions for games >3000pts. There was also the option of just using the default Space Marine list and taking 3 bike squads. The lore at the time was simply that Salamanders rarely fielded many bikes in smaller forces.
Rarely still doesn't mean never. And lest I repeat myself - EVEN THE LORE still stated that the Salamanders COULD do it, and their objection was purely because they liked fighting differently. There should be no mechanical reason to prevent them taking a perfectly lore-friendly formation.
I didn't claim they never fielded bike heavy forces either, I agree with you on that. All kinds of weird formations have existed in 40k lore, I'm not convinced they all need to be covered by options in the rules, especially if they are easy to "counts as" or sufficiently niche to be narrative game material where rules tweaking is much more prevalent. The 3rd War for Armageddon had a battle where Ork dreadnoughts faced off against dozens of Space Marine dreadnoughts from multiple Chapters, but a list for pure Space Marine dreadnoughts didn't exist. Easy enough to set up as a narrative game though.
The point of those variant lists was flavourful alternatives favoured by those Chapters in comparison to the standard list. You could still use the standard list without issue. Again, the 0-1 was at the scale of a 40k game in 3rd, basically a demi-company sized formation. The Salamanders could also only take 0-1 Land Raider Crusader (like every none-Black Templars Chapter). Does that mean they only had one in the entire Chapter? Probably not, but was a way of representing relative rarity compared to other options. Again, a narrative battle where a Chapter deploys their entire Land Raider complement could easily be houseruled, but it isn't a common occurrence (and Apocalypse covered those battles pretty well IMO). The lists were only supposed to represent typical deployments, not the be all and end all of how Salamanders or White Scars or Raven Guard etc. deployed.
Bear in mind that different types of mission also regularly played around with the Force Organisation Chart, it was used as a tool to vary army composition and create differing challenges in different scenarios.
Oh, and I agree the 5th ed Chapter tactics rules didn't represent Chapter tactics well, they were implemented as "xyz leader" tactics, but the rule name does suggest the intention even if it was realised poorly. There was a mechanical difference between Chapters... but only if you took their special snowflake leader. Like I said above, I think this was a bad way of doing this.
Also, counts as has always been an option for making your own character using the rules of a hero. I don't think that changes the lore to mechanics discussion. It just highlights how tying Chapter tactics to specific heroes makes for a poor representation of Chapter tactics.
I'm not disagreeing with anything EXCEPT this idea that they ONLY fight in a certain way! Go on, quote for me a section that says that they NEVER field bikes, or that they CANNOT do do.
Quote it for me.
Index astartes IV pg 21-22 sub section -organization- relative section-
"The conditions on nocturne are not conducive to training for high speed attack or using the anti-grav engines of land speeders, so the chapter employs relatively few of these specialized fast attack units"
Space marine codex 4th ed pg. 45 section-chapters of legend traits
sub section-salamanders-
cleanse and purify, never despair, eye to eye*
*eye to eye-
"Although the codex astartes includes extensive guidance on raiding, hit and run and guerilla warfare these techniques are not universally employed. The chapter main not be able to train in these tactics (due to lack of equipment or training facilities) or be temperamentally opposed to them. this drawback may not be selected along with be swift as the wind (the bike army option-added for clarification).
May only take 0-1 selection in total from the following list. land speeder squadron, attack bike squadron, bike squadron."
Again nobody ever said they never use them, but a player who chooses salamanders as a faction that is drawn to them because of the lore. would not think of them as a fast attack/bike centric force.
Oh, good! So you're admitting the lore has ALWAYS been in a state of change, and that things that were "original lore" get changed over time!
Good, we're on the same page.
Nothing of the sort, there was no "set lore" before 3rd. 3rd is where they set the lore. it did not change until the end of 7th. that is why prior to that time players constantly talked about when they were going to move the story forward because up till that time all the battles players were fighting were in the historical context.
"Employs relatively few," matters if you want to field the entire chapter.
It doesn't matter so much when you're fielding 20-60 models from 1,000+ Marines.
JNAProductions wrote: "Employs relatively few," matters if you want to field the entire chapter.
It doesn't matter so much when you're fielding 20-60 models from 1,000+ Marines.
This. Although the Salamanders were more like ~900 Marimes the point still stands
I still like the Index Astartes lists as archetypes though.
JNAProductions wrote: "Employs relatively few," matters if you want to field the entire chapter.
It doesn't matter so much when you're fielding 20-60 models from 1,000+ Marines.
This. Although the Salamanders were more like ~900 Marimes the point still stands
I still like the Index Astartes lists as archetypes though.
Yeah-if you yourself only want to field what's more typical of a Salamanders' list, that's fine. No one should dictate to you how to enjoy your models. But the same is true of everyone else as well-if they want to play Salamanders Bikers, that's also fine.
Again nobody ever said they never use them, but a player who chooses salamanders as a faction that is drawn to them because of the lore. would not think of them as a fast attack/bike centric force.
I don't think anyone was claiming that fielding an army of green bikers was meant to imply that the chapter as a whole was brimming with bikers. Only that this particular force deployed to this particular battle happens to made up of bikers.
And whether you think it's *likely* someone will want to run Salamander bikers isn't really the point. Apologies if you already responded to this and I missed it, but:
A.) Should an army be allowed to have a Salamanders paint scheme/lore and field a list focused on/consisting primarily of bikes?
B.) If so, is it acceptable/good for the game and player experience for such a list to be notably less powerful than a list with White Scars paint/lore? i.e. if the green bikes and the white bikes play Bob's orks 100 times each, the green bikes will win 30 games compared to the white bikes' 50 games because the green bikes' stratagems and special rules don't synergize with their selected units as well?
i object to the entire premise of basing the entire point on win statistics. that's a 10th ed...well really the last 3 editions of GW catering to tournament mindset players.
That is not why i play 40K, i play 40K for epic battles in the 40K setting. if i am playing salamanders in the typical way they are said to fight. and another guy runs the WS in the typical way they are said to fight. the win loss rate is never as important as the feel of the army and also if you had a good game.
tournament players tend to- win=good game
for me hard fought battle that could have gone either way based on my choices on the table with a thematic force that fights the way it is typically does in the lore=good game.
My game this last weekend was very much that-5th ed rules
4th ed "typical" black templar army VS my 3.5 dark angels "typical" army 2k points. narrow victory to my opponent=good game
If White Scars have more powerful bikers than Salamanders, you’re less likely to have a close game for one of those armies.
If Salamander bikers are reasonably balanced, White Scars are too strong. If White Scars bikers are reasonably balanced, Salamanders are too weak.
I too prefer to have a close and hard-fought game, win or lose, than a blowout where I stomp my foe with no issues. Painting everyone who has a different take than you as a poor tournament player isn’t just or accurate.
Haighus wrote:I didn't claim they never fielded bike heavy forces either, I agree with you on that. All kinds of weird formations have existed in 40k lore, I'm not convinced they all need to be covered by options in the rules, especially if they are easy to "counts as" or sufficiently niche to be narrative game material where rules tweaking is much more prevalent. The 3rd War for Armageddon had a battle where Ork dreadnoughts faced off against dozens of Space Marine dreadnoughts from multiple Chapters, but a list for pure Space Marine dreadnoughts didn't exist. Easy enough to set up as a narrative game though.
The point of those variant lists was flavourful alternatives favoured by those Chapters in comparison to the standard list. You could still use the standard list without issue. Again, the 0-1 was at the scale of a 40k game in 3rd, basically a demi-company sized formation. The Salamanders could also only take 0-1 Land Raider Crusader (like every none-Black Templars Chapter). Does that mean they only had one in the entire Chapter? Probably not, but was a way of representing relative rarity compared to other options. Again, a narrative battle where a Chapter deploys their entire Land Raider complement could easily be houseruled, but it isn't a common occurrence (and Apocalypse covered those battles pretty well IMO). The lists were only supposed to represent typical deployments, not the be all and end all of how Salamanders or White Scars or Raven Guard etc. deployed.
Bear in mind that different types of mission also regularly played around with the Force Organisation Chart, it was used as a tool to vary army composition and create differing challenges in different scenarios.
My opinion is that GW shouldn't have had 0-1 to represent flavour. If a player WANTED to create a flavourful army, they can choose what units they want to take in it. If Unit X doesn't fit the flavour, then the player should choose not to take it, because that's their flavour.
If GW want to create "typical deployment" lists, then I'm all for that, insofar as they do it like Combat Patrol or Formations - ie, here's a VERY restricted list of the units you can pull from, designed to fight against OTHER typical deployment armies.
I don't agree with the idea of "if you're playing XYZ Chapter, then you HAVE to use these rules". If people want to reflect relative rarity, or a Chapter preferring to use more or less of a unit than other Chapters, then take more or less of that unit in your army. You don't need the rules to force you to.
Oh, and I agree the 5th ed Chapter tactics rules didn't represent Chapter tactics well, they were implemented as "xyz leader" tactics, but the rule name does suggest the intention even if it was realised poorly. There was a mechanical difference between Chapters... but only if you took their special snowflake leader. Like I said above, I think this was a bad way of doing this.
Again, good or bad way of doing whatever they intended, my point stands - there was no mechanical difference between Chapters. Locking abilities behind a certain leader isn't "Chapter Tactics" as we know them.
Also, counts as has always been an option for making your own character using the rules of a hero. I don't think that changes the lore to mechanics discussion. It just highlights how tying Chapter tactics to specific heroes makes for a poor representation of Chapter tactics.
True, except the 5th ed book ACTIVELY encouraged it, with its own little popout that said as much. No book afterwards did that.
aphyon wrote:
I'm not disagreeing with anything EXCEPT this idea that they ONLY fight in a certain way! Go on, quote for me a section that says that they NEVER field bikes, or that they CANNOT do do.
Quote it for me.
Index astartes IV pg 21-22 sub section -organization- relative section-
"The conditions on nocturne are not conducive to training for high speed attack or using the anti-grav engines of land speeders, so the chapter employs relatively few of these specialized fast attack units"
"Relatively few" doesn't mean that they can't take them, or field a whole army of them in 40k terms. Remember - I said "quote for me a section that says they NEVER field bikes". This isn't that.
Try again.
Space marine codex 4th ed pg. 45 section-chapters of legend traits
sub section-salamanders-
cleanse and purify, never despair, eye to eye*
*eye to eye-
"Although the codex astartes includes extensive guidance on raiding, hit and run and guerilla warfare these techniques are not universally employed. The chapter main not be able to train in these tactics (due to lack of equipment or training facilities) or be temperamentally opposed to them. this drawback may not be selected along with be swift as the wind (the bike army option-added for clarification).
May only take 0-1 selection in total from the following list. land speeder squadron, attack bike squadron, bike squadron."
And as Haighus said, that was an abstraction on tabletop, not a rule that said "Salamanders only have 1 bike squad". Again, IN THE LORE, IA4 says that the Salamanders can just as easily fight on bikes. IN THE LORE, all the Salamanders Battle Companies have two Assault Squads, which are all capable of fighting on Bikes. Every Battle Company has Land Speeders.
This is a mechanical restriction, and what's more, a bad one. Plus, I can point at literally every OTHER edition, which has no such restriction or limitation. Aka, you're cherrypicking.
Again nobody ever said they never use them, but a player who chooses salamanders as a faction that is drawn to them because of the lore. would not think of them as a fast attack/bike centric force.
Except the lore ALLOWS for the Salamanders to have bikes! They might not be *typically* a bike force, but there's nothing that prevents them!
Oh, good! So you're admitting the lore has ALWAYS been in a state of change, and that things that were "original lore" get changed over time!
Good, we're on the same page.
Nothing of the sort, there was no "set lore" before 3rd. 3rd is where they set the lore. it did not change until the end of 7th.
That's not true, and you know it. Necrons changed, new Space Marine forces were included, Abaddon's motives changed, Eldrad died and was resurrected, the Grey Knights and Deathwatch went from small detachments and auxiliary units to being full out armies, Tyranids changed their entire shape, I don't even think Tau existed in 3rd, amongst many others - and that's still not even getting into that the SAME LORE that you say opposes Salamander bikers DOESN'T EVEN SAY THAT!
that is why prior to that time players constantly talked about when they were going to move the story forward because up till that time all the battles players were fighting were in the historical context.
Things still changed in that time period - all the above things I mentioned, for example. The TIMELINE didn't advance, but things within the setting certainly changed.
aphyon wrote: i object to the entire premise of basing the entire point on win statistics. that's a 10th ed...well really the last 3 editions of GW catering to tournament mindset players.
That is not why i play 40K, i play 40K for epic battles in the 40K setting. if i am playing salamanders in the typical way they are said to fight. and another guy runs the WS in the typical way they are said to fight. the win loss rate is never as important as the feel of the army and also if you had a good game.
tournament players tend to- win=good game
for me hard fought battle that could have gone either way based on my choices on the table with a thematic force that fights the way it is typically does in the lore=good game.
My game this last weekend was very much that-5th ed rules
4th ed "typical" black templar army VS my 3.5 dark angels "typical" army 2k points. narrow victory to my opponent=good game
For context, I haven't played in a tournament in years, and I very much prefer fluffy games with strong story elements over tournament style games/lists.
With that in mind, the reason I value balance/"win rate" (for lack of a better term) is that too large a gap in power can diminish the overall game experience. Even for those of us who are more focused on the narrative, consistently losing a lot isn't much fun. Especially when you know part of the reason you're losing so much is that you're weakening your list as a side-effect of trying to run a fluffy list. So if a green biker player looks over at a white biker player and sees all these rules and abilities that would fit his army well and let him have closer games if he used them... it's rough to feel like you're not allowed to use those rules because of your paint scheme.
It's easier to have a close game when both armies are given similarly useful rules to support their armies. If you want an army full of bikers to do biker things and have close games, I'd think you'd want them to have access to the do-biker-things rules regardless of paint scheme.
Haighus wrote:I didn't claim they never fielded bike heavy forces either, I agree with you on that. All kinds of weird formations have existed in 40k lore, I'm not convinced they all need to be covered by options in the rules, especially if they are easy to "counts as" or sufficiently niche to be narrative game material where rules tweaking is much more prevalent. The 3rd War for Armageddon had a battle where Ork dreadnoughts faced off against dozens of Space Marine dreadnoughts from multiple Chapters, but a list for pure Space Marine dreadnoughts didn't exist. Easy enough to set up as a narrative game though.
The point of those variant lists was flavourful alternatives favoured by those Chapters in comparison to the standard list. You could still use the standard list without issue. Again, the 0-1 was at the scale of a 40k game in 3rd, basically a demi-company sized formation. The Salamanders could also only take 0-1 Land Raider Crusader (like every none-Black Templars Chapter). Does that mean they only had one in the entire Chapter? Probably not, but was a way of representing relative rarity compared to other options. Again, a narrative battle where a Chapter deploys their entire Land Raider complement could easily be houseruled, but it isn't a common occurrence (and Apocalypse covered those battles pretty well IMO). The lists were only supposed to represent typical deployments, not the be all and end all of how Salamanders or White Scars or Raven Guard etc. deployed.
Bear in mind that different types of mission also regularly played around with the Force Organisation Chart, it was used as a tool to vary army composition and create differing challenges in different scenarios.
My opinion is that GW shouldn't have had 0-1 to represent flavour. If a player WANTED to create a flavourful army, they can choose what units they want to take in it. If Unit X doesn't fit the flavour, then the player should choose not to take it, because that's their flavour.
If GW want to create "typical deployment" lists, then I'm all for that, insofar as they do it like Combat Patrol or Formations - ie, here's a VERY restricted list of the units you can pull from, designed to fight against OTHER typical deployment armies.
I don't agree with the idea of "if you're playing XYZ Chapter, then you HAVE to use these rules". If people want to reflect relative rarity, or a Chapter preferring to use more or less of a unit than other Chapters, then take more or less of that unit in your army. You don't need the rules to force you to.
I think it complemented the FOC nicely, and isn't any different to, say, attacking forces getting less heavy support for raid missions. I get that some folk disagree but I think it made for nicer and more varied forces.
I also don't agree with "you have to use XYZ rules" even if the name is slapped on (in the same way as homebrew versions of characters discussed below), but I appreciate some folk gatekeep that stuff.
Oh, and I agree the 5th ed Chapter tactics rules didn't represent Chapter tactics well, they were implemented as "xyz leader" tactics, but the rule name does suggest the intention even if it was realised poorly. There was a mechanical difference between Chapters... but only if you took their special snowflake leader. Like I said above, I think this was a bad way of doing this.
Again, good or bad way of doing whatever they intended, my point stands - there was no mechanical difference between Chapters. Locking abilities behind a certain leader isn't "Chapter Tactics" as we know them.
I mainly started playing 40k in 5th, so this was Chapter tactics "as I knew it" and even at the time I thought it was a poor mechanic for what it was supposed to represent. Bit of "no true scotsman" here.
Also, counts as has always been an option for making your own character using the rules of a hero. I don't think that changes the lore to mechanics discussion. It just highlights how tying Chapter tactics to specific heroes makes for a poor representation of Chapter tactics.
True, except the 5th ed book ACTIVELY encouraged it, with its own little popout that said as much. No book afterwards did that.
I also cannot think of any since, but I can think of examples prior to 5th edition, such as the popout in Codex: Craftworlds explaining these are archetypes and not strictly locked to each Craftworld, or the blurb for mechanised companies in Codex: Armageddon stating that Armageddon is not the only world to raise mechanised companies. I think GW shifted during and especially after 5th to making forces more unique and rigid.
aphyon wrote: i object to the entire premise of basing the entire point on win statistics. that's a 10th ed...well really the last 3 editions of GW catering to tournament mindset players.
That is not why i play 40K, i play 40K for epic battles in the 40K setting. if i am playing salamanders in the typical way they are said to fight. and another guy runs the WS in the typical way they are said to fight. the win loss rate is never as important as the feel of the army and also if you had a good game.
tournament players tend to- win=good game
for me hard fought battle that could have gone either way based on my choices on the table with a thematic force that fights the way it is typically does in the lore=good game.
My game this last weekend was very much that-5th ed rules
4th ed "typical" black templar army VS my 3.5 dark angels "typical" army 2k points. narrow victory to my opponent=good game
For context, I haven't played in a tournament in years, and I very much prefer fluffy games with strong story elements over tournament style games/lists.
With that in mind, the reason I value balance/"win rate" (for lack of a better term) is that too large a gap in power can diminish the overall game experience. Even for those of us who are more focused on the narrative, consistently losing a lot isn't much fun. Especially when you know part of the reason you're losing so much is that you're weakening your list as a side-effect of trying to run a fluffy list. So if a green biker player looks over at a white biker player and sees all these rules and abilities that would fit his army well and let him have closer games if he used them... it's rough to feel like you're not allowed to use those rules because of your paint scheme.
It's easier to have a close game when both armies are given similarly useful rules to support their armies. If you want an army full of bikers to do biker things and have close games, I'd think you'd want them to have access to the do-biker-things rules regardless of paint scheme.
If you are fine with sacrificing one for the other and your fellow players are of the same mind set it should not be a problem.
However i see it as part of the fun of playing old hammer that i can put anything i want on the table under the legal FOC for that faction and still have a chance to win even if my force is "weaker" in some areas. being a good general in playing the objectives, using the terrain and the strengths of my force makes the game much more enjoyable, winning is just icing on the cake.
Some of us are focused on the lore and like the "paint scheme" lock for armies because we love those factions for a reason. GW already gave a way around the entire thing by allowing you to "create your own". it was always a thing from 3rd-7th. and since it was your original paint scheme changing chapter rules from week to week isn't a problem when you feel the need to switch it up.
One of the guys at the store for example runs pseudo iron hands list in his own color scheme and since we play oldhammer he has tried a variety of codexes including the "everything is cheaper and more bling" 7th ed codexes but he went back to the 4th ed marine codex trait system because he likes how the army feels better than just raw win/loss or power level ratings.
It is also the same reason every single oldhammer chaos player at the store uses the 3.5 chaos codex.
Some of us are focused on the lore and like the "paint scheme" lock for armies because we love those factions for a reason. GW already gave a way around the entire thing by allowing you to "create your own". it was always a thing from 3rd-7th. and since it was your original paint scheme changing chapter rules from week to week isn't a problem when you feel the need to switch it up.
The key distinction here, I think, is that a more permissive approach like 10th's doesn't prevent you from imposing limitations on yourself. It just means that people with a different interpretation than yours aren't also beholden to those same limitations. So if *your* Salamanders never use bikes, that's fine. But your friend's Salamanders do, and they're allowed to use the bike rules to do bike things.
It just seems silly to me to be okay with your opponent painting his army green with dark skin and red eyes and letting him run them as bikes so long as they're called "Palamanders" instead of "Salamanders." But heaven forbid he replace that P with an S.
I still don't understand why this is such a uniquely Marine thing. Other factions started decoupling subfactions from rules in 9th, and didn't provoke this sort of backlash.
aphyon wrote: Some of us are focused on the lore and like the "paint scheme" lock for armies because we love those factions for a reason.
So what is that reason? Because unless it's 'I get special rules and nobody else is allowed to be as special as me', I don't see how it affects you or your enjoyment of, say, White Scars bikers that Salamanders can play bikers credibly too.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Point of clarification? When did a white dwarf article about fluff of a chapter become gospel? Lest we get into chromosomal politics again, I thought it was generally agreed that unless it was in a codex, WD "wasn't" a citable source for confirmed set in stone fluff. I fully admit to possibly being wrong on this, hence the question. But we site WD articles from the long long ago, and it's getting sort of reductio ad absurdum. "Well, this fluff from a single sentence over twelve years ago and six entire revisions ago, says this, and I claim it as gospel!" Hence the "WD is the weakest of canon sources".
*Edit for spelling mistakes
I have a hard time excluding White Dwarf because that's occasionally where you get alternate rules systems like Warbands for Fantasy - and that time they used White Dwarf to publish a codex they weren't going to otherwise. But I'd also apply a recency bias.
catbarf wrote: I still don't understand why this is such a uniquely Marine thing. Other factions started decoupling subfactions from rules in 9th, and didn't provoke this sort of backlash.
aphyon wrote: Some of us are focused on the lore and like the "paint scheme" lock for armies because we love those factions for a reason.
So what is that reason? Because unless it's 'I get special rules and nobody else is allowed to be as special as me', I don't see how it affects you or your enjoyment of, say, White Scars bikers that Salamanders can play bikers credibly too.
Notice the topic of this thread. we are not talking 9th edition in particular. from much earlier editions the game started with factions that had sub factions of the armies, not just space marines, with thematic lists. the focus on space marines in this topic is simply because marines are the poster boys for the game and the company that had the most attention in this area. the point specifically is that with the original rules and game designs all the various armies played differently through FOC manipulation or special rules that reflected the factions particular way of fighting. it added flavor and draw to the universe. The OPs point was that such things are basically gone in the current version of the game because everybody can take the same things and all the armies tend to be very samey it just ends up being the same list/detachment that is the current meta and playing specific chapters of legend or any other paint scheme you like makes no difference generally.
It just seems silly to me to be okay with your opponent painting his army green with dark skin and red eyes and letting him run them as bikes so long as they're called "Palamanders" instead of "Salamanders." But heaven forbid he replace that P with an S
That's a very disingenuous example. you know very well what we have been discussing. were back to the everybody can do everything so nobody is special VS this army prefers to fight this way or that. represented by build structure (specifically in the original FOC selections) and army wide special rules/restrictions. when a player says i am playing a *enter well known faction* and then they bring something that is completely opposite of what that faction should be doing. not one that is the said faction in every way with a slightly different homebrew name. to put it in stark representation...on one side you have Mongolian style cavalry and the other is a bunch of dwarven blacksmiths. saying they should both be good at the others job is where the rub is.
There has been a bunch of goal post moving anyway. the original point of contention was wanting to run a bike centric list for salamanders and if they should be as good as white scars who specialize in it. not do salamanders have bikes at all or use them from time to time.
I don’t believe the difference in skill between a white scars biker and a salamander biker is really enough to justify a stat difference, considering that a baseline human is S3, while a super soldier sits at S4. There’s just not enough space for it IMO.
Dandelion wrote: I don’t believe the difference in skill between a white scars biker and a salamander biker is really enough to justify a stat difference, considering that a baseline human is S3, while a super soldier sits at S4. There’s just not enough space for it IMO.
It wasn't a stat difference like 10th does with the +1/-1
If you look at what i posted previously for the WS they had an entire page of special rules for their bikes as well as a alternate FOC structure.
I see. Well, from that perspective, I don’t see much value in locking those restrictions and bonuses behind a paint scheme. The reason being that I value the freedom of tailoring one's army to their own tastes and not necessarily what the standard could be. Modeling>rules
Dandelion wrote: I see. Well, from that perspective, I don’t see much value in locking those restrictions and bonuses behind a paint scheme. The reason being that I value the freedom of tailoring one's army to their own tastes and not necessarily what the standard could be. Modeling>rules
That was also addressed by GW previously the 4th ed codex allowed you to build your own advantages and restriction through the trait system and paint it however you like. all the other editions from 3rd-7th while not having the trait system did have a "build your own" system in place.
this is one of the marine armies a guy runs at the shop who does just that-his own scheme + the trait system from 4th ed for our oldhammer games.
aphyon wrote:The OPs point was that such things are basically gone in the current version of the game because everybody can take the same things and all the armies tend to be very samey it just ends up being the same list/detachment that is the current meta and playing specific chapters of legend or any other paint scheme you like makes no difference generally.
Yeah - and I assure you, if the "White Scars" FOC chart was the meta option, those people would take it now. You'd see a bunch of people taking the "White Scars" rules, no matter how their models were painted or built, because it was the meta.
The situation isn't gonna change - if people want to chase the meta, they'll just do that. If people want to play a "specific Chapter of legend", they can and will.
Again, you've said yourself that you support people picking and choosing whatever fits their army best (the Palamanders example and your Iron Hands friend, as well as your own group picking and choosing which edition to play from) - so why does it matter to you if "any other paint scheme you like makes no difference generally"?
If YOU want to take a certain list, you don't need the game to handhold you into it.
It just seems silly to me to be okay with your opponent painting his army green with dark skin and red eyes and letting him run them as bikes so long as they're called "Palamanders" instead of "Salamanders." But heaven forbid he replace that P with an S
That's a very disingenuous example. you know very well what we have been discussing. were back to the everybody can do everything so nobody is special VS this army prefers to fight this way or that. represented by build structure (specifically in the original FOC selections) and army wide special rules/restrictions. when a player says i am playing a *enter well known faction* and then they bring something that is completely opposite of what that faction should be doing. not one that is the said faction in every way with a slightly different homebrew name. to put it in stark representation...on one side you have Mongolian style cavalry and the other is a bunch of dwarven blacksmiths. saying they should both be good at the others job is where the rub is.
There it is again!
You seem to be fixated on this idea of what people SHOULD or SHOULD NOT be doing with their armies. That's completely nonsense, ACCORDING TO THE LORE YOU'RE FALLING BACK ON! You say that Salamanders being on Bikes "is completely the opposite" of what they "should" be doing, but according to Index Astartes, there's no reason they can't do that. You'd likely claim that Raven Guard fielding a Terminator strikeforce "is completely the opposite" of what they "should" be doing, but the Raven Guard HAVE Terminators! You'd also likely cite that the White Scars don't field Fire Support units, but they have a 9th Company full of them!
Yes, the White Scars being Mongolian inspired is correct, but they're not ALWAYS cavalry! To say that they are is blatantly incorrect and reductive. The 40k universe is much more engaging and interesting when there's depth and detail beyond "lol all white scars are bikers".
not do salamanders have bikes at all or use them from time to time.
Except that you are ALSO saying that this is "completely opposite what that faction should be doing" - so which one is it?
aphyon wrote:all the other editions from 3rd-7th while not having the trait system did have a "build your own" system in place.
Dandelion wrote: I don’t believe the difference in skill between a white scars biker and a salamander biker is really enough to justify a stat difference, considering that a baseline human is S3, while a super soldier sits at S4. There’s just not enough space for it IMO.
It wasn't a stat difference like 10th does with the +1/-1
If you look at what i posted previously for the WS they had an entire page of special rules for their bikes as well as a alternate FOC structure.
While technically not a "stat difference," I think the point stands that the difference between how WS and a Salamander ride their bikes is minimal enough to not necessarily warrant bespoke rules.
It sounds like the key difference between our stances might be that you value difference for difference's sake (making a given faction feel more special by virtue of being different) over a player's creative freedom whereas I'm the opposite. There is value in the warm fuzzies you get from your faction's special rules. I just think there's at least as much value in letting the Salamander guy who likes bikes play with bikes without having the nagging discomfort of knowing that he's playing at a disadvantage.
And I feel like faction-locking rules rules gets harder to defend when you consider how many subfactions there are. If you're okay with people buying traits for their custom chapter, then you already acknowledge that White Scars aren't so special that they're the only ones who should have access to the do-bike-things rules. So telling ouro hypothetical Salamanders guy that he can't do bike things too basically just boils down to telling him that he's enjoying the lore wrong. Which I simply can't get behind even if I did agree that Salamanders riding bikes is weird.
Wyldhunt wrote: If you're okay with people buying traits for their custom chapter, then you already acknowledge that White Scars aren't so special that they're the only ones who should have access to the do-bike-things rules. So telling ouro hypothetical Salamanders guy that he can't do bike things too basically just boils down to telling him that he's enjoying the lore wrong. Which I simply can't get behind even if I did agree that Salamanders riding bikes is weird.
Whilst some Chapters might have limited use for a given unit type? Not using them ever at all makes no tactical or strategic sense whatsoever.
Now, rules wise? It can be a way to balance out their perks. Even then? You can utterly fail to do so. Ref 3.5 Iron Warriors.
Those lads could trade in 2 Fast Attack slots for 1 Heavy Support slot. Sounds like a trade to be carefully considered, right? But hold there. Slow down, Pedro. What exactly were my options in Fast Attack?
Daemonic Cavalry. Non-starter, as Iron Warriors couldn’t field any Daemonic Units, other than a Daemon Prince. And that was an HQ.
Chaos Bikers. OK. I was never sold on Bikes in that era, but nippy Meltagun has a certain appeal.
0-1 Unit of Raptors. Which thanks to Daemonic Visage, across the whole unit, inflicted -2 Ld to enemy’s beaten in combat, which stacked nicely with the Beaten In Combat By X -X modifier to break tests. And they could take Meltaguns.
Raptors were a must. Whilst not massively survivable, they tended to make a healthy mess of whatever they engaged, with a more than reasonable chance of Breaking and running down stuff they beat up. But I can only ever have one unit.
So the “two fast attack for one heavy support” always boiled down to Bikes, or a Basilisk/Vindicator/4th Defiler with its solid HTHand a sodding Battle Cannon.
In short? Barely a choice. For anyone. The positive massively outweighed the negative.
Dandelion wrote: I don’t believe the difference in skill between a white scars biker and a salamander biker is really enough to justify a stat difference, considering that a baseline human is S3, while a super soldier sits at S4. There’s just not enough space for it IMO.
It wasn't a stat difference like 10th does with the +1/-1
If you look at what i posted previously for the WS they had an entire page of special rules for their bikes as well as a alternate FOC structure.
While technically not a "stat difference," I think the point stands that the difference between how WS and a Salamander ride their bikes is minimal enough to not necessarily warrant bespoke rules.
It sounds like the key difference between our stances might be that you value difference for difference's sake (making a given faction feel more special by virtue of being different) over a player's creative freedom whereas I'm the opposite. There is value in the warm fuzzies you get from your faction's special rules. I just think there's at least as much value in letting the Salamander guy who likes bikes play with bikes without having the nagging discomfort of knowing that he's playing at a disadvantage.
And I feel like faction-locking rules rules gets harder to defend when you consider how many subfactions there are. If you're okay with people buying traits for their custom chapter, then you already acknowledge that White Scars aren't so special that they're the only ones who should have access to the do-bike-things rules. So telling ouro hypothetical Salamanders guy that he can't do bike things too basically just boils down to telling him that he's enjoying the lore wrong. Which I simply can't get behind even if I did agree that Salamanders riding bikes is weird.
I do not consider 5 rules specific to making WS bikers good at CC along with the alt FOC to support them to be minimal, but that's my opinion.
I don't see the second point as being a conflict. you can play faction X because you like how it is different. but the creative freedom is still there in the rules to make your own force within the rules of the edition i play. the "playing at a disadvantage" thing has always been there. but i don't see it as a disadvantage i see it as variety. the ravenwing from the same era get fearless, skilled rider and a jink save from shooting (and a severely restricted FOC), but they don't get any of the bonuses for close combat the WS get. as they are a bike centric force focused on shooting does this disadvantage them in CC? sure thing but then by comparison the WS get the same sort of disadvantage to the RW in the shooting arena.
I also don't see it as enjoying the lore wrong or right. the lore is the lore and at one point in GWs game design they made the effort to make the rules fit the lore of the setting. if i choose to play to the lore in this locked style for specific factions and i find players who agree with that take on how the game is played (usually when they are new to learning oldhammer and look at the lore specific rules sets for their favorite faction from 3rd-5th they think it is really great). i cannot by definition be preventing anybody from enjoying the lore anyway they see fit. as i cannot force anybody to play with me or agree with me. we are back to the social contract of "in person" wargaming.
It has been an interesting conversation with you specifically but i don't see us ever agreeing with each others positions on the topic.
aphyon wrote:I also don't see it as enjoying the lore wrong or right.
BS. You've been repeatedly hammering home this idea how "someone who plays Salamanders bikers is doing it wrong because the Salamanders shouldn't be able to field a bike oriented force, and no reasonable person would ever think to take a Salamanders bike army".
To quote yourself: "the very concept of a salamanders bike army tells me you don't really care about the lore or love the salamanders".
You've clearly established that there is a "correct" belief that extends beyond your own preference.
the lore is the lore
Except that even within that, there's clearly some confusion, because you seem to be ignorant that certain things that you've deemed as "completely opposite how they should be played" are entirely canon.
You say "the lore is the lore", but the lore changes, the lore adapts, and the mechanical implementations of that "lore" are not always made equal.
This insistence on "One True Lore" simply isn't enough of a basis to build any sort of widespread point from - the only thing it can apply to is yourself, and those who CHOOSE to agree with your interpretation.
if i choose to play to the lore in this locked style for specific factions and i find players who agree with that take on how the game is played (usually when they are new to learning oldhammer and look at the lore specific rules sets for their favorite faction from 3rd-5th they think it is really great).
Yes, you can - and that's great if you and those you want to play with all share the same OPINION. But we're talking about a wider trend and set of experiences than just your home group, and you need to acknowledge that if you want to have this conversation.
Not everyone shares that same opinion, even if they also aren't trying to meta chase - like I mentioned, a Salamanders player who thought bikes were cool. And you coming in here, and making all these comments like "SALAMANDERS SHOULDN'T BE DOING THAT" is the problem here.
Again, this would ALL be resolved if you simply shifted your perspective/language to "I wouldn't play Salamanders like this". Instead of all this hand-wringing about "BUT THE LORE SAYS" or "THAT'S THE COMPLETE OPPOSITE OF WHAT THEY SHOULD BE DOING", consider that maybe the world is wider than your own opinion on the matter, and that your opinion on things might not be as well informed as you think.
So it's page 7 and I think we can settle on some firm conclusions.
It's clear that painting doesn't matter. It doesn't matter what color you paint your minis. Any attempts to tie paintjobs to the background can make people sad. Painting is controversial and can be considered oppressive in the hobby for numerous reasons. In fact it's better if you don't paint at all Peregrin Took. That way no one gets hurt.
The background doesn't matter either and so neither does your choice of chapter, sept, craftworld, league, dynasty, kabal or hive fleet. It just doesn't. The fluff changes from edition to edition, and it's all made up anyway. Salamanders don't exist. Neither do White Scars. And even if they did there would be no differences between them. Similarly there shouldn't be any differences between factions. Differences lead to imbalances which lead to suffering. So just do what you want with your miniatures.
Except the miniatures don't matter either. You don't need them to play. There are lots of less expensive things you could use to represent units on the tabletop. Standees, carboard counters, green plastic army men, micronauts et al are all viable. No one can tell you that can't use any of these things to play. Except for maybe a tournament organizer, but those guys are all mean and you shouldn't engage with them. You do you. If you want to use Tyranid models to represent Space Marines no one can stop you.
It's not like the rules matter. They've always said that the most important rule is that the rules are not that important.
Arschbombe wrote: So it's page 7 and I think we can settle on some firm conclusions.
It's clear that painting doesn't matter. It doesn't matter what color you paint your minis. Any attempts to tie paintjobs to the background can make people sad. Painting is controversial and can be considered oppressive in the hobby for numerous reasons. In fact it's better if you don't paint at all Peregrin Took. That way no one gets hurt.
The background doesn't matter either and so neither does your choice of chapter, sept, craftworld, league, dynasty, kabal or hive fleet. It just doesn't. The fluff changes from edition to edition, and it's all made up anyway. Salamanders don't exist. Neither do White Scars. And even if they did there would be no differences between them. Similarly there shouldn't be any differences between factions. Differences lead to imbalances which lead to suffering. So just do what you want with your miniatures.
Except the miniatures don't matter either. You don't need them to play. There are lots of less expensive things you could use to represent units on the tabletop. Standees, carboard counters, green plastic army men, micronauts et al are all viable. No one can tell you that can't use any of these things to play. Except for maybe a tournament organizer, but those guys are all mean and you shouldn't engage with them. You do you. If you want to use Tyranid models to represent Space Marines no one can stop you.
It's not like the rules matter. They've always said that the most important rule is that the rules are not that important.
Painting matters if you value the aesthetics. Not everyone does to a large extent, but tons of people do, with some people putting it above the gameplay itself.
Background matters if you value the lore. Not everyone does, with some people focusing purely on gameplay or how pretty the models are, but a lot of people enjoy the universe of 40k. The fluff changes and is rarely as cut-and-dry as some people present it as, but it's not some amorphous mass that's wholly inconsistent.
The models matter, for WYSIWYG and aesthetics, even if nothing else. You can certainly do counts-as and/or proxies, with your opponent's permission, but the (in my opinion reasonable) default is to use appropriate minis.
The rules matter, if you value the gameplay. Some people just buy, build, and paint minis-and that's totally fine. Other people prefer to engage with the game, in which case, the rules are what matter.
Not everything matters to everyone in the hobby. But all of it matters to some. You choose how you engage with the hobby, and so long as you're happy with it without messing with someone else's enjoyment, it's all good.
The background doesn't matter either and so neither does your choice of chapter, sept, craftworld, league, dynasty, kabal or hive fleet. It just doesn't. The fluff changes from edition to edition, and it's all made up anyway. Salamanders don't exist. Neither do White Scars. And even if they did there would be no differences between them.
I know the whole post was sarcastic, but I think we can drill into this bit to clarify a point.
No one is saying that subfactions aren't (according to their lore) somewhat different. We're just disagreeing about the extent to which they're different. And further, the main point of contention seems to be on who gets to decide how different a pair of subfactions actually are.
To my mind, it's better to err on the side that promotes player choice and creativity. Think of it like this:
* Scenario A: The player doesn't care about being lore accurate; only maximizing the rules. They're going to take whichever option is most powerful regardless of lore, and they can generally go, "Yeah, I'm a successor of the strong faction or whatever." In this case, explicitly stating that only marines who identify as <insert chapter here> can use The Good Rules will just make them claim to be <insert chapter here> or claim to be a successor or whatever. Nothing is really gained.
* Scenario B.) Player likes the lore and happens to agree with your interpretation of the lore. The army they build will be painted the colors you expect. Saying they *had* to paint their army that color to use The Good Rules is irrelevant because they were going to pain the army that color anyway.
* Scenario C.) Player likes the lore, but they think bikes can be green sometimes. The rules say the bikes have to be white to use The Good Rules. Player is somewhat bummed that he can't enjoy the fluff and mechanics he likes at the same time/bummed that he has to play every game at a disadvantage because the rules are telling him he's having fun wrong. In this scenario, tying rules to paint results in the player having a worse experience.
* Scenario D.) Player likes the lore, but they think bikes can be green sometimes. The rules say this is fine and gives him some paint-agnostic abilities that support the units he wants to use. Player has fun making vroom vroom noises while playing with his bikes.
In each of those scenarios, faction-locking The Good Rules would have either been irrelevant or would have resulted in a net negative experience. The only downside to scenario D (which is the 10th edition approach) is that some people are snobby/gatekeepy about how other people enjoy the lore. So it creates a worse experience for the snobby gatekeepers. But as my tone probably communicates, I'm not terribly sympathetic towards the snobby gatekeepers, and they can kindly keep to themselves rather than advocating for rules that detract from the fun of the non-snobs.
My dudes and dudettes, I have heard some really cringe homebrew lore, but I don't want GW to write rules that punishes the cringe players for it. Let people enjoy their silly, lore-inaccurate armies. (Not that I necessarily think green bikers are an outlandish army concept in the first place.)
"I know that these rifles shoot troops, and I know these rifles shoot tanks. I know CP is for re-rolling ones. Other than that, I'm just here to spend time with friends. I went 0-6 and still had a great time, my Minis looked great, and I had fun making them."
At the end of the day, I'd say he won more than the guys who went 6-0.
Back in 3rd/4th when I started with eldar I painted them as ulthwe because I liked their lore and color scheme. I get that it's fun to have cool rules for your guys, but I never viewed it as a necessity.
I absolutely love the current approach on this. Flanderisation of the chapters was just getting silly. Now you can actually use whatever units you want, without being punished for painting your models "wrong."
Greymaris Marines are a perfectly acceptable chapter of the Indomitus Crusade. Forged on the planet Jago, where the dust has patterned their armor to a perfect grey, they exist like ghosts.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: But you can be punished for NOT painting your models....because god forbid you commit that unforgivable sin.
Mate, if I can pump out 120 Marines in 17 days? Anyone can.
But no one should have to.
If you enjoy painting, have a blast! If you’ll only play against painted forces, that’s a-okay. No one should force you to face an army you wouldn’t have fun against.
But if you don’t care for painting, you shouldn’t have to.
Painted marines is entirely up to the player. Is it nice to see a really cohesive nicely painted force to play against? Yes. Does it make any difference when the first turn starts? No
What does make a difference is a player using chapter specific units to make it more narrative .
At the end of the day you have to ask what you'd rather play.
A tournament style game where every unit is there because ite the best you can get.
A narrative game where your army is instantly recognisable as a specific chapter with tactics and units to match.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: But you can be punished for NOT painting your models....because god forbid you commit that unforgivable sin.
Mate, if I can pump out 120 Marines in 17 days? Anyone can.
But no one should have to.
If you enjoy painting, have a blast! If you’ll only play against painted forces, that’s a-okay. No one should force you to face an army you wouldn’t have fun against.
But if you don’t care for painting, you shouldn’t have to.
Also, people might not want to 'pump out' their models...
Corennus wrote: What does make a difference is a player using chapter specific units to make it more narrative.
...
A narrative game where your army is instantly recognisable as a specific chapter with tactics and units to match.
Are you suggesting that an army is "less narrative" if it only uses generic units?
Also, why do you need Chapter specific units to make your army flavourful? If you want the flavour of a faction, just take the units that fit how you wanna play that faction. You want to play a White Scars biker lance? Take bikes. You want to play a Raven Guard stealth talon? Take Phobos Marines, supported by Assault Intercessors.
What about players who have their own homebrew Chapters? Are they not "narrative" because they don't get their own unique units? What about Chapters like the Exorcists, who aren't first founding? Do they get to have their own unique units? Scythes of the Emperor? Hawk Lords? Relictors?
Are unique units and tactics essential for narrative play, because you're seeming to claim that it is - or that if someone plays a homebrew or lesser known Chapter, it is "less narrative".
Urrghhhh....can we please not have the "painting" argument again? Or whatever argument Smudge is trying to start? Just, do what makes you happy everyone. And ignore silly internet opinions.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Urrghhhh....can we please not have the "painting" argument again? Or whatever argument Smudge is trying to start? Just, do what makes you happy everyone. And ignore silly internet opinions.
By Smudge, do you mean Fezzik, who brought up painting to start; or me, who said that it’s not a requirement?
Gadzilla666 wrote: Urrghhhh....can we please not have the "painting" argument again? Or whatever argument Smudge is trying to start? Just, do what makes you happy everyone. And ignore silly internet opinions.
Sorry, what? I didn't mention painting once. I'm responding to Corennus, who ALSO isn't talking about painting.
If you're going to call someone out, call out the right people, mate - especially if it's going to be your first post in the thread. Or are you just complaining about me in general?
Gadzilla666 wrote: Urrghhhh....can we please not have the "painting" argument again? Or whatever argument Smudge is trying to start? Just, do what makes you happy everyone. And ignore silly internet opinions.
By Smudge, do you mean Fezzik, who brought up painting to start; or me, who said that it’s not a requirement?
I'm just tired of the repeated, circular argument, that repeatedly gets threads derailed and locked, that's all. I'm on your side. My previous posts on the subject should show that.
Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Gadzilla666 wrote: Urrghhhh....can we please not have the "painting" argument again? Or whatever argument Smudge is trying to start? Just, do what makes you happy everyone. And ignore silly internet opinions.
Sorry, what? I didn't mention painting once.
I'm responding to Corennus, who ALSO isn't talking about painting.
If you're going to call someone out, call out the right people, mate - especially if it's going to be your first post in the thread. Or are you just complaining about me in general?
I know that you didn't comment on the "painting issue", and it isn't personal. It just seemed that you were starting another circular argument. Sorry. I'm just tired of those. If you enjoy them, then please continue. I apologize for interrupting or bothering you.
"I absolutely love the current approach on this. Flanderisation of the chapters was just getting silly. Now you can actually use whatever units you want, without being punished for painting your models "wrong."
So before we start the "Fezzik's a dunderheaded ninny muggins, can we at least cite the source? I was responding to the claim that one could be punished for painting WRONG, I took it one step further and said, AT ALL. See the difference?
Gadzilla666 wrote: Urrghhhh....can we please not have the "painting" argument again? Or whatever argument Smudge is trying to start? Just, do what makes you happy everyone. And ignore silly internet opinions.
Sorry, what? I didn't mention painting once. I'm responding to Corennus, who ALSO isn't talking about painting.
If you're going to call someone out, call out the right people, mate - especially if it's going to be your first post in the thread. Or are you just complaining about me in general?
I know that you didn't comment on the "painting issue", and it isn't personal. It just seemed that you were starting another circular argument. Sorry. I'm just tired of those. If you enjoy them, then please continue. I apologize for interrupting or bothering you.
Politely, and I do mean with all respect, I'm going to continue with the question I asked Corennus.
Corennus made a point. I want to discuss that point, and get their opinion on things that challenge their perspective.
It's not a circular argument if people actually engage with the conversation and react to new information of perspectives - such as "well, did you consider X, which doesn't neatly fit into the statement you made"?
Ultimately, this *is* supposed to be a discussion (emphasis on my previous point about reacting to, and dealing with, the new points that are raised, as opposed to repeating points without adding new detail).
And, I'd really appreciate that, in the future, you don't default to me allegedly being the one to cause problems here - I'm having a discussion here, and what's more, I'm *developing* arguments and responding to new information and takes offered - which not all users do. Not to mention that you haven't even apologised for falsely attributing things to me.
.
Very similar list with high mobility but low bodycount (compared to most Guard forces).
