Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

When 8th started, many people complained about the blandness of the index armies. My complaint isn't about blandness, but it's related - I believe that the game designers should be attempting to give each army a unique feeling. This makes balancing tricky, I know, but makes for a more engaging and complex set of strategies. My approach to designing an army would be to identify the overarching theme, then key strengths and weaknesses. These would be defined before consideration of units, points, guns, specific mechanics etc. Below is a draft of the type of high-level theme definition I'm talking about. The idea is that you'd never say something like "The Eldar are the psykers in this game, but armyX can do psykers better".

Would stronger/clearer themes between armies help the game? Is this feasible?

Space Marines (all)
Theme: 8' tall super humans.
Adv: Jack of all trades; no real weaknesses. Particularly strong on morale.
Dis: Expensive units.

Space Marines (Per Chapter)
Adv: Minor buff per chapter when taking units in certain compositions.
Dis: Inflexibility - the buff is lost if deploying other ways.

Imperial Guard
Theme: Human army out of its depth. Regimented.
Adv: Very cheap units. Orders.
Dis: Individually terrible at everything. No special strength except numbers.

Eldar
Theme: Elves in space. Lots of magic.
Adv: Specialists; each unit is designed to do one thing extremely well. Powerful psykers.
Dis: Specialists is both the adv and disadv. Each unit is weak at doing anything but its special thing.

Dark Eldar (Kabals / Wyche Cults)
Theme: Dark elves in space. Into torture, pain etc.
Adv: Extremely mobile. Power from pain (get better as more enemies die).
Dis: Lightly armoured, easy to kill. No psykers.

Dark Eldar (Homunculi covens)
Theme: Abominations and bio-constructs.
Adv: Tough. Hard hitting in melee.
Dis: Slow. No psykers.

Chaos - Nurgle
Theme: Imperial armies zombified / rotting. Bullet sponges.
Adv: Extremely tough. Healing. Raise dead enemies?
Dis: Slow. Low damage output.

Chaos - Khorne
Theme: Imperial armies with bloodlust.
Adv: Fast and melee-killy.
Dis: Lightly armoured. Little/no ranged attacks.

Chaos - Tzeentch
Theme: Imperial psykers gone bad. Ultimate strategy (mechanically able to surprise the enemy / change the game).
Adv: Ability to change things at the strategic level. E.g. Change the mission type. Lots of psykers.
Dis: Psykers are expensive. Low power once on the field; nearly always outgunned. Needs to win via manipulation of strategy.

Chaos - Slaanesh
Theme: Imperial armies that are sexxed up. Powers relating to charming / enticing enemies.
Adv: Powerful against psykers. Mind control?
Dis: Low model count. Needs to use enemy units against themselves to win.

Tau
Theme: Militant "good" alternative to imperial.
Adv: Lots of movey and shooty.
Dis: Terrible at stabby. Relatively low armour.

Orks:
Theme: Crazy, goofy
Adv: Tough, cheap units.
Dis: Terrible at shooting. Unreliable. Not regimented / randomness?

Necrons:
Theme: Skeleton army in space
Adv: Tough as nails to kill, shooty. Raise fallen necrons.
Dis: Extremely slow. Slow should negatively affect them in melee somehow.

... and some armies I didn't mention. You get the idea.

Love what you have done here.
Definitely a start.
Gw gets into trouble when they want to sell more kits so they change rules to represent ways to exceed the sorts of reasonable limitations that you build into the armies above.

Sure, this is generally good practice. It's part of why games such as Starcraft or Magic work so well. But it seems unlikely that GW will go this way with it.

Part of the problem is souping, right? The ability to combine multiple factions renders certain of their disadvantages irrelevant, when those disadvantages are about holes in their army list (such as "expensive units" or "no psykers"). It's also destructive of even aesthetic theme.

But there are also just too many factions. Eldar and Thousand Sons and Tzeentch Daemons are all supposed to be great psykers. Chaos Marines and regular Marines are pretty much the same thing -- Black Legion and Ultramarines differ less than Ultramarines and some other loyalist Chapters. Tau are always going to overlap a lot with Guard and shooty Eldar. Necrons are always going to be mechanically pretty similar to Nurgle.

This would almost certainly be a better game with a radical reduction in the number of factions and more emphasis on making each one its own unique thing, but nobody wants to get Squatted and GW is always going to have an incentive to release new models and factions that step on existing toes.

What you've just described is how 40K started. However, then GW realized that if they make almost everything available to everybody they would sell more models.

It's part of why I chuckle when CSM players complain about not having certain Space Marine tech. That was entirely the point - to have an alternate space marine based force with...*gasp*...different units. It's why Eldar intentionally had no silly thing like an Autarch (unless you selected a Phoenix Lord). It's why, originally, guard tanks swept the floor with their Space Marine counterparts. It's also why models used to actually have BS3 equivalent shooting and people didn't say it was the end of the damn world, etc.

GW missed a huge opportunity when it did the new army construction rules - but only if you play tournaments. Two normal, sane, adults should have no problem making a fun enough balanced game of 40K, but pick-up games or people who (inexplicably) feel forced to play other people at local stores will suffer for it.

 Elbows wrote:
What you've just described is how 40K started. However, then GW realized that if they make almost everything available to everybody they would sell more models.

It's part of why I chuckle when CSM players complain about not having certain Space Marine tech. That was entirely the point - to have an alternate space marine based force with...*gasp*...different units. It's why Eldar intentionally had no silly thing like an Autarch (unless you selected a Phoenix Lord). It's why, originally, guard tanks swept the floor with their Space Marine counterparts. It's also why models used to actually have BS3 equivalent shooting and people didn't say it was the end of the damn world, etc.

Bit like how Mariens were not supposed to have integral air support apart fromThunderhawks and then we got the flood of crap looking marine aircraft...

Also too much "theme" and you get the drivel that is Wolvfy wolf Wolves riding Wolf Wolves with their Wolf Swords.

 Elbows wrote:
What you've just described is how 40K started. However, then GW realized that if they make almost everything available to everybody they would sell more models.

It's part of why I chuckle when CSM players complain about not having certain Space Marine tech. That was entirely the point - to have an alternate space marine based force with...*gasp*...different units. It's why Eldar intentionally had no silly thing like an Autarch (unless you selected a Phoenix Lord). It's why, originally, guard tanks swept the floor with their Space Marine counterparts. It's also why models used to actually have BS3 equivalent shooting and people didn't say it was the end of the damn world, etc.

GW missed a huge opportunity when it did the new army construction rules - but only if you play tournaments. Two normal, sane, adults should have no problem making a fun enough balanced game of 40K, but pick-up games or people who (inexplicably) feel forced to play other people at local stores will suffer for it.

My main issue with this is the local store part. Unpopular opinion but...garagehammer sucks. It's just so blah. You play the same 1-3 people with the same basic armies over and over and over again and it's SOOOO boring. Going out to the local FLGS and getting a game in, preferably in a well lit area with a decent selection of terrain is just better. It helps that most of the time I'd take any excuse to not have to be in my house for an afternoon but still, pick-up games are just better 75% of the time.

And you're welcome to that opinion.

 Mr Morden wrote:


Bit like how Mariens were not supposed to have integral air support apart fromThunderhawks and then we got the flood of crap looking marine aircraft...

Also too much "theme" and you get the drivel that is Wolvfy wolf Wolves riding Wolf Wolves with their Wolf Swords.

Wolfy wolf axes I think they were...

 jeff white wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:


Bit like how Mariens were not supposed to have integral air support apart fromThunderhawks and then we got the flood of crap looking marine aircraft...

Also too much "theme" and you get the drivel that is Wolvfy wolf Wolves riding Wolf Wolves with their Wolf Swords.

Wolfy wolf axes I think they were...

That's not too much theme that's letting your children write for you.

This is the way 40k used to be, but unfortunately it's gradually become more homogenized over time. GW have made a fair few decisions that have killed the flavour of the Xenos armies in particular.

Eldar are meant to be powerful psykers, but IG now have far, far better psykers than Eldar do.

Orks are meant to be a bunch of hooligans with crazy rules, but they no longer have crazy rules. They're also no longer cheap, except for one or two units. I miss the rules where a Big Mek might accidentally teleport himself into an enemy tank, before destroying it with his head. Or Old Zogwort turning an enemy character into a Squig. Instead now, Orks get...

...
...
...
...um well, they can shoot on a 6+, if they're lucky. The craziest time with Orks right now is when they are forced to shoot on a 7+ though. Good times.

I don't get it. I'm looking through these and I'm like "don't all of these armies already do this?"

I could go down each one you've listed and explain how that is already exactly the case. It might not be as *pronounced* as you're looking for, but the farther you swing the pendulum, the more difficult it is to balance.

Like, what would you do to make Nurgle tougher? They already have Poxwalkers that regenerate dudes when enemies die and everything in their army benefits from extra toughness that makes it very hard to kill them, on top of their Disgustingly Resilient. They are the definition of tough.

What would you do to make Dark Eldar more mobile? Make their craft even speedier? They're already ridiculously fast, glass cannons, as they were meant to be.

What would you do to make Space Marines even more Jack of All Trades? Give them a wider variety of elite units that can accomplish any task? That's pretty much exactly what they already have; a massive codex filled with all sorts of different ways to build your army depending on your style.

Let's say you do decide to make Death Guard even tougher. You give Plague Marines T6 or a 2+ save or a 4++ invul or a 4+++ DR. Let's say you give them extra wounds, or you make it so that weapons of S3 or lower cannot wound them at all. Or perhaps you make it so that enemies suffer -1 or -2 to hit them or to wound them. In all of these cases, even if you just take one, you're swinging the balance way out of wack. Even if you start adding more special rules, you're just heading right back into 7th edition's Special Rule Hell.

The thing is, you have to consider how all of those things are going to interact with stratagems and psychic powers. Nurgle has a bunch of stratagems that bring back dead models and psychic powers that make them even tougher to hit and wound.

I have a feeling that people are complaining about blandness because they're seeing a lot of the same rules, but that's simplification, not blandness. There's still a lot of variety in the army flavors based on the statlines, army-specific rules, stratagems, warlord traits, psychic powers, relics, and all the different weapons that each army gets that no others get. As more Codices come out, you'll see more variety as Necron get their Dynasty rules, Tyranids get Hive Fleet rules, Eldar get Craftworld rules, and so on and so forth.

Patience.

I have a lovely memory of an Ork unit teleporting one of my units of Thunderwolves across the field into combat with them. Sometimes random is fun.

What I think you're getting at is "Faction Calculus," the idea that each army *should* have some particular design that is distinct enough to justify the army being its own thing, while still having the tools (not just "units" but a full playbook) to have a fair fight against the other armies.

Ergo, some armies are Fragile Speedsters/Glass Cannons, others are Rangers, or The Brute/Mighty Glacier, or certain deck colors are better at control versus aggro, summons versus healing, etc.

The problem of course being that GW fails to make certain army themes properly viable, or they end up screwing up and making unintended builds.

Tyranids are an all-devouring swarm? Is it not funny then that the majority of Tyranid armies are Gojira conventions, simply because "small Nids only threaten infantry, big monsters threaten everything?" And thus the only way to make a horde semi-palatable was to eliminate Tank Shock, and turn Hormagaunts into an arbitrarily fast Robotron roadblock? By contrast, Starcraft has Banelings, Nydus Worms, and Defilers (which Venomthropes don't quite match in terms of utility).

Eldar are the "technical experts"? Gee, if only "technical expert" wasn't code for "melee infantry that is point-inefficient against everything except a limited subset of units." Why take Banshees or Scorpions when you could have Wave Serpents, Scatter Bikes, and your pick of Fire Dragons/Warp Spiders/Hawks depending on edition. "Mass S6" wasn't a theme, just the most ideal mathhammer.

Orks are a melee horde? That's funny, most every 7th list with Orks was some sort of Zhadsnark Biker Gang, with a discount Stompa.

Thousand Sons are amazing Psykers? Hogwash. You see armies field Magnus, but you don't see them actually fielding Thousand Sons. Magnus was either found in a War Sect, or as an artillerypiece supporting Typhus and Plague Zombies.

I also remember reading 6th Frontline Gaming articles, about how "competitive" Chaos Space Marine armies were some variant of "Typhus, Zombies, and Heldrakes" and didn't recommend actually taking any Chaos Space Marines.

Tactical Marines are "the best" Marines that aren't in the 1st Company? Having served as Assault or Devestator Marines? If only they weren't a tax to unlock Razorbacks. Remember how GW ended up emergency-patching 8th to prevent aircraft from scoring, due to the 4/5 Stormraven armies, and that army had only 1 minimum-sized squad? You sure as Slaanesh don't see players excited to spam Tacmarines in that fashion!

Screw that Ork theme! Anyone who understands the Ork lore in depth knows orks aren't just "Crazy, goofy". And even if they were they do not have the "tough, cheap units" in the game right now... (you can have your entire army taken off the table turn one by many of the index and codex armies). The Rhino is cheaper than our Trukk! Also I hate that we're "Terrible at shooting" when there is entire ork clans that focuses on shooting to win their battles! Sure the average boy doesn't exactly aim but some orks focus on aiming and also training like a human military. It all depends on their genetics, where they are born, their clan, how old they are and how many there are.... However, we are very in the game unreliable and I think this needs to be fixed... Sure you can keep this crazy Ork technology (I would say it's crazy in terms of humans can't understand it or orks will design anything from their imagination to work around problems) but it's just annoying to play with where it often has a 1/6 chance to damage itself or hit your opponent and the rest does nothing... you can have "randomness" without the randomness all being negative. It should be 1/6 maybe damage yourself and 5/6 of doing a positive buff that helps your army out. Skaven are a good example of this I hear. Orks can be stupidly intelligent with one Ork turning an entire moon into a weapon to destroy a planet! Where is this in my game?!?!

Dionysodorus wrote:
But there are also just too many factions. Eldar and Thousand Sons and Tzeentch Daemons are all supposed to be great psykers.

However, I would argue they're great psykers in different ways. There's a lot of nuance people often miss when they try to distill factions down to a single concept.

Also, the OP's interpretation of Orks is just plain wrong, and they should be ashamed of themselves for having it. Orks are the unwashed, unhinged technobarbarians at the gates, constantly bashing down the gates and raiding, looting, and pillaging everything they can find-- not just some goofy comical crazy loony nonsensical garbage a lot of ork-haters try to label them as. Their entire society is built around war, to the point that it is utterly alien to us and actions that are perfectly logical to them seem comical to those of us who cannot really comprehend their mindset-- just as our non-warring ways seem bizarre and hilarious to them, especially when they come to stomp us and show us the real way we should be living. Their society, their technology, their biology, everything about them is geared towards the furtherance of war, as befitting sentient biological weapons created to serve in the ultimate galaxy-spanning war. They are frightening, musclebound brutes whose thunderous charges shakes the ground and empties the bowels of common infantry, whose brutality on the charge is unmatched even by the forces of Chaos, whose lust for war makes Khorne himself envious. And yet within each and every one of them hides the potential for greatness, for brilliance. Every single Ork Boy can personally rise up to lead a WAAAGH!, and they know it. They yearn for it. They desire to be bigger, better, stronger, faster, smarter, and downright fething greener than you.

If I would define them in two words it wouldn't be "crazy, goofy", it would be "brutish, crude". Those two words are far more accurate. The tellyporta gun, for example, isn't "goofy", it's a terrifying invention-- oh hey, your heart suddenly no longer exists and is now a crazed little child-sized being that is trying to eat its way out of you! HOLY GAK! That's terrifying! But it's crude and unpredictable, a brutish application of an instinctual understanding of engineering combined with a lack of care for the well being of those around the mek.

 Melissia wrote:

Dionysodorus wrote:
But there are also just too many factions. Eldar and Thousand Sons and Tzeentch Daemons are all supposed to be great psykers.

However, I would argue they're great psykers in different ways. There's a lot of nuance people often miss when they try to distill factions down to a single concept.

Eldar are currently not great psykers. Warlocks are more expensive than astropaths, but worse. Farseers are much like two Primaris psykers, but for double the price. Eldar are worse psykers than orks right now.

Tzeentch psychic powers are pretty average, but are extremely unreliable to cast. I think you only succeed 2 in 5 times (though I'd have to check that).

Thousand sons are pretty on par with Grey Knights I think, so not terrible if smite spam is your thing.

But yeh, Imperial Guard are currently the best psychic force in the universe. Cheap smite spam and a good selection of reliable powers.

Orks should be "Brutal and Kunnin" or "Kunnin and Brutal", with the army being able to fall anywhere in between that spectrum. In many ways, they should be that army that is underestimated because they're using obsolete tech that's not accounted for, with just a hinge of weird science. I remember one Dakka poster (adamsouza IIRC) stating things Orks need, given how their current design is so...uninspiring. ("Orks. Orks with Burnas. Orks with Deffguns. Orks with Rokkits." And so on so forth.). I forget all the random ideas to diversify them, but I do recall among other things being:
-More "impossible physics" options, tanks that can crawl up walls or grabbin' klaws that can throw objects (including other vehicles) around.
-Actual Cybork models/rules besides "save after a save". Stuff like UFOrks, Spida-Gitz, etc. Make them almost akin to 3.5 Possessed, in that they can be customized.
-An expanded Ork ecology. Squig units, Snotlings, etc.
-Grotz getting more options, making them more of a "general support", ala Pygs for Trollblood armies.
-Optionally, rules for Chaos Orks, ala Khorneboyz, or Tuska da Daemonkilla.

Niiru wrote:
Eldar are currently not great psykers. Warlocks are more expensive than astropaths, but worse. Farseers are much like two Primaris psykers, but for double the price. Eldar are worse psykers than orks right now.

So you wrongly assume that the tabletop is the lore?

 MagicJuggler wrote:
Orks should be "Brutal and Kunnin" or "Kunnin and Brutal", with the army being able to fall anywhere in between that spectrum. In many ways, they should be that army that is underestimated because they're using obsolete tech that's not accounted for, with just a hinge of weird science. I remember one Dakka poster (adamsouza IIRC) stating things Orks need, given how their current design is so...uninspiring. ("Orks. Orks with Burnas. Orks with Deffguns. Orks with Rokkits." And so on so forth.). I forget all the random ideas to diversify them, but I do recall among other things being:
-More "impossible physics" options, tanks that can crawl up walls or grabbin' klaws that can throw objects (including other vehicles) around.
-Actual Cybork models/rules besides "save after a save". Stuff like UFOrks, Spida-Gitz, etc. Make them almost akin to 3.5 Possessed, in that they can be customized.
-An expanded Ork ecology. Squig units, Snotlings, etc.
-Grotz getting more options, making them more of a "general support", ala Pygs for Trollblood armies.
-Optionally, rules for Chaos Orks, ala Khorneboyz, or Tuska da Daemonkilla.

Agree. Agree so hard.

They removed the Ork character that could turn enemy characters into Squigs, because he had a 1 in 10 chance of being powerful and removing a space marine special character from the board in one turn.
They removed the ability for the Orks to literally throw tanks around the board.
They removed the ability for Orks to accidentally create destructive black holes, and teleport themselves (or their enemies) around the board into unexpected fights.
They even removed (I can't even remember how old this rule is) the transport capacity of Ork transports being "However many models you can pile onto the transport".

Were these rules overpowered? Lol, no. They just upset the poor beakies because they were fun and sometimes let the Orks win, so they cried and GW removed them all. I'm actually surprised they didn't start giving them to Imperial Guard over the years.

Also removed in 8th, gitfindaz. In an edition where shooting is king, Orks lost their only upgrade which improved their shooting. They even lost body armour for their 'ard boyz, for literally no reason whatsoever. Even the Age of Sigmar Orks have 'Ard Boyz now, but the 40k ones dont !?! Orks somehow lost the ability to strap armour to their bodies over time.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Melissia wrote:

Niiru wrote:
Eldar are currently not great psykers. Warlocks are more expensive than astropaths, but worse. Farseers are much like two Primaris psykers, but for double the price. Eldar are worse psykers than orks right now.

So you wrongly assume that the tabletop is the lore?

This thread has nothing to do with the Lore. At all. The flavour of an army is in how it plays on the table, not how someone writes a story that happens to involve them. Otherwise GW could just release identical rules for every army, but just write different fluff for each. From what you say, you would be happy with this solution. I wouldn't be, and I don't think anyone else in this thread would be either.

So I rightly assume that you're missing the point entirely.

 MagicJuggler wrote:
Orks should be "Brutal and Kunnin" or "Kunnin and Brutal", with the army being able to fall anywhere in between that spectrum. In many ways, they should be that army that is underestimated because they're using obsolete tech that's not accounted for, with just a hinge of weird science. I remember one Dakka poster (adamsouza IIRC) stating things Orks need, given how their current design is so...uninspiring. ("Orks. Orks with Burnas. Orks with Deffguns. Orks with Rokkits." And so on so forth.). I forget all the random ideas to diversify them, but I do recall among other things being:
-More "impossible physics" options, tanks that can crawl up walls or grabbin' klaws that can throw objects (including other vehicles) around.
-Actual Cybork models/rules besides "save after a save". Stuff like UFOrks, Spida-Gitz, etc. Make them almost akin to 3.5 Possessed, in that they can be customized.
-An expanded Ork ecology. Squig units, Snotlings, etc.
-Grotz getting more options, making them more of a "general support", ala Pygs for Trollblood armies.
-Optionally, rules for Chaos Orks, ala Khorneboyz, or Tuska da Daemonkilla.

A few things in this I disagree with, "Chaos Orks" are more of a fan project because of their rarity... But the statement: "Orks should be "Brutal and Kunnin" or "Kunnin and Brutal"" hits the nail on the head! Orks aren't this stupid race who stumbles across the galaxy... the orks do have leaders who range from "Brutal and Kunnin" or "Kunnin and Brutal". Many races have underestimated the Orks only to be outsmarted (even the Tau were outsmarted by Orks). "An expanded Ork ecology. Squig units, Snotlings, etc." would be awesome. Maybe some more of the snakebite stuff (basically just allow us to use age of sigma models in 40k XD . (this would seriously be the perfect option! They wouldn't have to design any new models but we could use the low technology feral Orks to bolster our army like the actual orks in 40k do. Maybe make them T3 boyz but 4pts each. Boar boyz I would love! And I really wish the normal Squiggoth was not a forgeworld model (it's a fair price for what it is but I would love a plastic one)).

Long and short of it is really that too many armies have too large of a model range. 3rd edition was more distinct and flavourful, but the balance was awful. Now there’s so many units that even if the balance is better there are so many units that many are still trash.

Too many units isn't necessarily an issue. Redundant units and overlapping factions are issues. If a faction has too many units that do the same thing, only one will be "best," especially in the context of the army they're being taken for. One reason Daemons have been an internally messed-up army for so long is the majority of their army boils down to "melee-only anti-infantry infantry." Similarly, if you look at Chaos Space Marines, all their long-range shooting was Heavy Suppprt, all their "fast units" in Fast Attack. Their Elites are all some variant of "close quarters, moves at infantry speed." Marines got Sternguard (2 Heavies per 5), Rifleman Dreadnoughts, Vanguard Veterans and Command Squads and Command Squads in Bikes, letting them fill out the "Ranged" and "Speedy" options in Elites.

And you'll notice that many armies have similar issues, missing one or two of those choices from Elites altogether.

People dont want themes, they want what everyone else has, no matter what. The grass is always greener on the other side and all that.

If you have army A that specializes in tanks for example, people will ask why dont they get good infantry like Army B gets, even if that army gets crappy tanks. And army B will complain their pyskers suck compared to army C, who will complain their monsters suck compared to army D, who will complain their tanks suck compared to army A, etc. etc.

There's no satisfying the community on this. Its always been this way. Keep in mind there are a sizable chunk of people in the playerbase who dont even read the background of their armies and wouldnt understand why their army has a theme in the first place.

Eh, I don't quite buy that argument. I don't see people clamoring for Harlequins to get Land Raiders ("It used to be an option in Rogue Trader!"). There's also the whole disconnect between how an army is fluffed, versus how it actually plays out. Which leads to such old humorous gems like this:

https://www.frontlinegaming.org/2016/06/14/if-unit-entries-were-even-more-honest/

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
People dont want themes, they want what everyone else has, no matter what. The grass is always greener on the other side and all that.

If you have army A that specializes in tanks for example, people will ask why dont they get good infantry like Army B gets, even if that army gets crappy tanks. And army B will complain their pyskers suck compared to army C, who will complain their monsters suck compared to army D, who will complain their tanks suck compared to army A, etc. etc.

There's no satisfying the community on this. Its always been this way. Keep in mind there are a sizable chunk of people in the playerbase who dont even read the background of their armies and wouldnt understand why their army has a theme in the first place.

Could disagree more. Someone who picks Army A, does so because of a combination of models and fluff. If they wanted more of B, they would have chosen B. OR they would simply collect a force of A and a seperate force of B.

Or, currently, just collect Imperium, which has A and B and C and even D. (Celestine and Gulliman are basically monstrous creatures. As are tanks these days.)

What we are talking about here, is that someone collects Army A because they are (in models and in the fluff/story) meant to be an army of (for example) powerful psykers and elite troops. And are upset because their psykers are terrible and their elite troops are worse than Army B's basic infantry.

Well, fundamental balance issues aside, yeah i think having variant themes is interesting and brings something to the game. My favourite representation of blood angels to date is the 3rd edition codex, where you didn't buy death company - they were randomly generated from the squads you took. So a guy goes into death company? Okay, that squad has 1 less person in it when it hits the table. It could be gamed (i certainly optimized my squads for it), but the concept was interesting and fun. Plus your troops had a chance of a random move towards the enemy due to their bloodlust - great for melee troops, not so good for shooty troops or those trying to hold a position. We'll just ignore the rhino rush, that was an abomination.

I think that that's another issue with themed lists - people want core army +1, rather than an army with additional strengths *and* weaknesses.

 Torga_DW wrote:
Well, fundamental balance issues aside, yeah i think having variant themes is interesting and brings something to the game. My favourite representation of blood angels to date is the 3rd edition codex, where you didn't buy death company - they were randomly generated from the squads you took. So a guy goes into death company? Okay, that squad has 1 less person in it when it hits the table. It could be gamed (i certainly optimized my squads for it), but the concept was interesting and fun. Plus your troops had a chance of a random move towards the enemy due to their bloodlust - great for melee troops, not so good for shooty troops or those trying to hold a position. We'll just ignore the rhino rush, that was an abomination.

I think that that's another issue with themed lists - people want core army +1, rather than an army with additional strengths *and* weaknesses.

I think that death company rule lasted into 4th as well didn't it? I remember playing my BA friend who used it, and I don't think I started playing until 4th edition... I agree I liked the way it worked, was much fluffier.

Orks used to have a bunch of fun rules. Like their transport capacity thing. I think their vehicles also moved 1" further per turn, if they were painted red.

Yeah, somewhere in 4th they got a white dwarf update and went back to being a relatively standard army.

edit: but it didn't happen straight away, and if you didn't get that particular white dwarf you missed out.

edit: editing

Niiru wrote:

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
People dont want themes, they want what everyone else has, no matter what. The grass is always greener on the other side and all that.

If you have army A that specializes in tanks for example, people will ask why dont they get good infantry like Army B gets, even if that army gets crappy tanks. And army B will complain their pyskers suck compared to army C, who will complain their monsters suck compared to army D, who will complain their tanks suck compared to army A, etc. etc.

There's no satisfying the community on this. Its always been this way. Keep in mind there are a sizable chunk of people in the playerbase who dont even read the background of their armies and wouldnt understand why their army has a theme in the first place.

Could disagree more. Someone who picks Army A, does so because of a combination of models and fluff. If they wanted more of B, they would have chosen B. OR they would simply collect a force of A and a seperate force of B.

Or, currently, just collect Imperium, which has A and B and C and even D. (Celestine and Gulliman are basically monstrous creatures. As are tanks these days.)

What we are talking about here, is that someone collects Army A because they are (in models and in the fluff/story) meant to be an army of (for example) powerful psykers and elite troops. And are upset because their psykers are terrible and their elite troops are worse than Army B's basic infantry.

Also I play orks... the grass actually is greener for some armies as I stock up on boyz to try and at least have a chance XD

 lolman1c wrote:

Niiru wrote:

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
People dont want themes, they want what everyone else has, no matter what. The grass is always greener on the other side and all that.

If you have army A that specializes in tanks for example, people will ask why dont they get good infantry like Army B gets, even if that army gets crappy tanks. And army B will complain their pyskers suck compared to army C, who will complain their monsters suck compared to army D, who will complain their tanks suck compared to army A, etc. etc.

There's no satisfying the community on this. Its always been this way. Keep in mind there are a sizable chunk of people in the playerbase who dont even read the background of their armies and wouldnt understand why their army has a theme in the first place.

Could disagree more. Someone who picks Army A, does so because of a combination of models and fluff. If they wanted more of B, they would have chosen B. OR they would simply collect a force of A and a seperate force of B.

Or, currently, just collect Imperium, which has A and B and C and even D. (Celestine and Gulliman are basically monstrous creatures. As are tanks these days.)

What we are talking about here, is that someone collects Army A because they are (in models and in the fluff/story) meant to be an army of (for example) powerful psykers and elite troops. And are upset because their psykers are terrible and their elite troops are worse than Army B's basic infantry.

Also I play orks... the grass actually is greener for some armies as I stock up on boyz to try and at least have a chance XD

Well yeh, me too lol. But that's not because we chose Orks because we wanted an army of overpriced units with weak attacks and bland rules. We chose them because they're Orks, and in 8th edition the rules do not match their fluff. It's not that the grass is greener on the other side, it's just that GW took away all our grass.