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.

 Abadabadoobaddon wrote:

 Fergie0044 wrote:
Best case this is what all the 10th edition codexs will be like with a more streamlined approach to rules.

Wait, best case is 10th edition codices lose subfaction rules? You realize that means no more legion rules for CSM and they are back to warbanz again right?

You don't neeed free unbalanced rules to play legions...

People clamouring for free rules just want another rule to break by finding optimal one.

tneva82 wrote:
People clamouring for free rules just want another rule to break by finding optimal one.

You're using one hell of a brush as you incorrectly attempt to paint everyone with it.

Is there another reason to have 'free' rules? (By this I'm taking it to mean additional extra special rules without drawbacks)

 Dawnbringer wrote:
Is there another reason to have 'free' rules? (By this I'm taking it to mean additional extra special rules without drawbacks)

If done well they can be used to promote faction identity and/or list design without any real blowback on balance.

This is not that circumstance and the whole reason the internal "faction purity" bonus came to pass. Because oddly giving your shooting using the shooting subfaction and the melee units the melee subfaction made the whole situation pointless.

Dudeface wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

You don't need to the exact color scheme. Why would you care if someone uses green Iron Hands?

It's frustrating for people to ignore the setting and fluff purely to rules hop for power. I'd wager that Salamanders (given green example) player also doesn't really enjoy running as ironhands just to not be at a disadvantage.

They're still Salamanders though, just with Iron Hands rules. Nobody should care. People did it all the time when Kelley wrote the broke ass 5th edition Space Wolves codex.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

You don't need to the exact color scheme. Why would you care if someone uses green Iron Hands?

It's frustrating for people to ignore the setting and fluff purely to rules hop for power. I'd wager that Salamanders (given green example) player also doesn't really enjoy running as ironhands just to not be at a disadvantage.

They're still Salamanders though, just with Iron Hands rules. Nobody should care. People did it all the time when Kelley wrote the broke ass 5th edition Space Wolves codex.

And people bitched about it then, too.

It's a slippery slope to get right.

"My faction plays like this"
Becomes:
"My faction gets bonuses to this"
Becomes:
"My faction has objectively better variants of these units"
Becomes:
"These units have multiple variants, eachof varying effectiveness, that are not reflected with varying costs"
And finally terminates with:
"Players are obviously going to play with the ruleset that most favours their list, regardless of aesthetics, ultimately making the theming pointless"

I don't know what the solution is. You could impose negative traits along with the positive but that doesn't actually solve the issue. Alternatively more rigid army construction rules like mandatory or limited units to reduce possible skew.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

You don't need to the exact color scheme. Why would you care if someone uses green Iron Hands?

It's frustrating for people to ignore the setting and fluff purely to rules hop for power. I'd wager that Salamanders (given green example) player also doesn't really enjoy running as ironhands just to not be at a disadvantage.

They're still Salamanders though, just with Iron Hands rules. Nobody should care. People did it all the time when Kelley wrote the broke ass 5th edition Space Wolves codex.

Or get rid of that layer of rules and make a paint scheme purely aesthetic again maybe?

Dudeface wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

You don't need to the exact color scheme. Why would you care if someone uses green Iron Hands?

It's frustrating for people to ignore the setting and fluff purely to rules hop for power. I'd wager that Salamanders (given green example) player also doesn't really enjoy running as ironhands just to not be at a disadvantage.

They're still Salamanders though, just with Iron Hands rules. Nobody should care. People did it all the time when Kelley wrote the broke ass 5th edition Space Wolves codex.

Or get rid of that layer of rules and make a paint scheme purely aesthetic again maybe?

Not going to happen unless you consolidate Codices, which I know you're against doing.

In 2nd edition AoS sub factions were like they are in 40k now, if not MORE potent force modifiers. Choosing a sub-faction was choosing an army within the army, it was built around so significantly that only a handful could simply be swapped for another and still have a valid list, let alone actually function.

In 3rd edition AoS they realized that was too much, and dialed things way back. Now sub-factions are just one rule that grants a nice little perk. Some can be potent and worth building a list around, some armies have clear 'best' sub factions, but overall the game is in a much better place with the new philosophy.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

You don't need to the exact color scheme. Why would you care if someone uses green Iron Hands?

It's frustrating for people to ignore the setting and fluff purely to rules hop for power. I'd wager that Salamanders (given green example) player also doesn't really enjoy running as ironhands just to not be at a disadvantage.

They're still Salamanders though, just with Iron Hands rules. Nobody should care. People did it all the time when Kelley wrote the broke ass 5th edition Space Wolves codex.

Or get rid of that layer of rules and make a paint scheme purely aesthetic again maybe?

Not going to happen unless you consolidate Codices, which I know you're against doing.

Why? I'm not against marines being rolled back together and given less stuff. Outside of that it's actually against your interests to condense books. WE in this guise actually show what it would look like, you just paint how you like for that army and play with the rules in the book.

Dudeface wrote:

 Dawnbringer wrote:
Is there another reason to have 'free' rules? (By this I'm taking it to mean additional extra special rules without drawbacks)

If done well they can be used to promote faction identity and/or list design without any real blowback on balance.

This is not that circumstance and the whole reason the internal "faction purity" bonus came to pass. Because oddly giving your shooting using the shooting subfaction and the melee units the melee subfaction made the whole situation pointless.

The point is free extra bonuses without a drawback (or with a notional drawback) are just that; free extra bonuses.

There is obviously a good point where you get small extra bonuses as recompense for not untoward restrictions that promote thematic armies. I think a good example of this was the Bretonnian Erranty war list. You lost Grail knights as a unit, restricted 0-1 in Pegasus knights, and had to fill core (troop) requirements with Erranty knights (Back when such things meant anything, and for a 2k battle would have been min three units). Also had to take a Duke as your Lord, but don't remember when that came in, as to if losing the lvl 3-4 wizard option mattered more than in 6th.

 Dawnbringer wrote:
I think a good example of this was the Bretonnian Erranty war list. You lost Grail knights as a unit, restricted 0-1 in Pegasus knights, and had to fill core (troop) requirements with Erranty knights (Back when such things meant anything, and for a 2k battle would have been min three units). Also had to take a Duke as your Lord, but don't remember when that came in, as to if losing the lvl 3-4 wizard option mattered more than in 6th.

And what if you weren't planning on taking Grail Knights or Pegasus Knights? Is it a restriction if you never intended on taking it in the first place?

I'd rather that armies have little boosts based on their fluff rather than structural changes of a core army list. I mean, I loved the 3.5 Guard Codex, but the Doctrine system wasn't actually good. Fun, yes, but poorly written.

I see that there may be a fair few disappointed World eaters players tomorrow that were expecting their orders in the UK, per the Firestorm Games facebook page:

"Hey everyone! Apparently the servitors at Games Workshop’s new automated warehouse have suffered a catastrophic data cascade and shoved their heads into the palette grinders (or something).

As a result, we won’t be receiving this week’s new releases as promptly as usual, which will have a knock-on effect on the dispatch date for some orders. All independent retailers appear to be affected, not just us. Based on current information we’re hoping to have received our stock from GW by early next week, but we’ll let you know if that changes. And of course, we’ll get your orders dispatched as soon as we’re physically able."

On a similar note my local official Warhammer store did not have their delivery yesterday ready for Saturdays release, so I will be interested to see if GW/Warhammer stores have been similarly affected.

My order with 1 box of eightbound has apparently shipped, but someone else on the WE discord who ordered 6(!) boxes of them from the same retailer has been told there's a delay.

Seems like they don't have enough stock to meet demand for some kits.

Maybe I'm missing something here but why would it be free rules and bloat?
The various subfactions, especially marines and the imperial guard canoncially fight differently....and look differently.
Why should we expect anything less of their tabletop representation?

It's not "free" rules, it's a fleshing out of rules.
They mostly share a core amount of units and rules, sure...but that is only what they have in common.
After that you fill out what makes each faction different, COMPLETING the rules, not ADDING new rules.
There is no consideration of power gaming there, the various subfactions are not just paint jobs. That's absurd?

 Roknar wrote:
Maybe I'm missing something here but why would it be free rules and bloat?
The various subfactions, especially marines and the imperial guard canoncially fight differently....and look differently.
Why should we expect anything less of their tabletop representation?

It's not "free" rules, it's a fleshing out of rules.
They mostly share a core amount of units and rules, sure...but that is only what they have in common.
After that you fill out what makes each faction different, COMPLETING the rules, not ADDING new rules.
There is no consideration of power gaming there, the various subfactions are not just paint jobs. That's absurd?

Because 20 mins after a book is out the "best" rules are decided on, then everyone's blue/green/pink/rainbow marines are all suddenly "best rules".

That to me is more of a problem than them existing in the first place. They're not representing made up nobodies within the setting, if you're using Salamanders, they're a specific thing. Iron Hands are a specific thing. They shouldn't be run as the other just for a rules advantage imo. So safer to remove.

Dudeface wrote:

 Roknar wrote:
Maybe I'm missing something here but why would it be free rules and bloat?
The various subfactions, especially marines and the imperial guard canoncially fight differently....and look differently.
Why should we expect anything less of their tabletop representation?

It's not "free" rules, it's a fleshing out of rules.
They mostly share a core amount of units and rules, sure...but that is only what they have in common.
After that you fill out what makes each faction different, COMPLETING the rules, not ADDING new rules.
There is no consideration of power gaming there, the various subfactions are not just paint jobs. That's absurd?

Because 20 mins after a book is out the "best" rules are decided on, then everyone's blue/green/pink/rainbow marines are all suddenly "best rules".

Okay, but why do you CARE so much? If someone thinks a certain Power Armor codex has rules that fit their army better, more power to them for using the better codex.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 Roknar wrote:
Maybe I'm missing something here but why would it be free rules and bloat?
The various subfactions, especially marines and the imperial guard canoncially fight differently....and look differently.
Why should we expect anything less of their tabletop representation?

It's not "free" rules, it's a fleshing out of rules.
They mostly share a core amount of units and rules, sure...but that is only what they have in common.
After that you fill out what makes each faction different, COMPLETING the rules, not ADDING new rules.
There is no consideration of power gaming there, the various subfactions are not just paint jobs. That's absurd?

Because 20 mins after a book is out the "best" rules are decided on, then everyone's blue/green/pink/rainbow marines are all suddenly "best rules".

Okay, but why do you CARE so much? If someone thinks a certain Power Armor codex has rules that fit their army better, more power to them for using the better codex.

The same reason you constantly slate the inadequacy of GW rules writing. To clarify I'm not talking about using a better codex, I'm talking about the supplement or subfactions in a book. The second something that's supposed to represent a subfactions fluff and personality is purely used out of character for a power play, it's not serving its purpose.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
In 2nd edition AoS sub factions were like they are in 40k now, if not MORE potent force modifiers. Choosing a sub-faction was choosing an army within the army, it was built around so significantly that only a handful could simply be swapped for another and still have a valid list, let alone actually function.

In 3rd edition AoS they realized that was too much, and dialed things way back. Now sub-factions are just one rule that grants a nice little perk. Some can be potent and worth building a list around, some armies have clear 'best' sub factions, but overall the game is in a much better place with the new philosophy.

And then there's the last StD battletome which opens whole new ways to build your army while staying in spirit of the army. Of course there are "best" choices but if you don't have to instantly gravitate to those.

 Roknar wrote:
Maybe I'm missing something here but why would it be free rules and bloat?
The various subfactions, especially marines and the imperial guard canoncially fight differently....and look differently.
Why should we expect anything less of their tabletop representation?

It's not "free" rules, it's a fleshing out of rules.
They mostly share a core amount of units and rules, sure...but that is only what they have in common.
After that you fill out what makes each faction different, COMPLETING the rules, not ADDING new rules.
There is no consideration of power gaming there, the various subfactions are not just paint jobs. That's absurd?

Subfaction rules very much are free rules. They also flesh out the narrative side, which is a positive to be sure. But you can't get around the fact that the rules implementation is so bad that it actually is free stuff.

Let's imagine four traits to keep the argument simple. One gives your Tactical Marines a bonus attack on a charge. One grants your Tactical Marines' bolter hit rolls of 6 an additional hit. One gives your Tactical Marines a bonus to leadership. One grants damage reduction to Dreadnoughts.

Three of those four chapters have better Tactical Marines than the fourth one, but they all pay the same price for those Marines. Which means either the basic Tactical Marine underperforms compared to the buffed ones or the buffed ones get buffs for free. That doesn't even account for the value of the various buffs compared to each other.

Now put that in the context of the entire army and for argument's sake say an amount of points spent on Tactical Marines isn't worth as much as the same amount spent on Dreadnoughts. Now the fourth chapter that loses out on Tactical Marines gains a buff on Dreadnoughts that are a more useful and powerful than Tactical Squads, but pays the exact same points for the buffed Dreadnought as the other chapters pay for their unbuffed Dreadnoughts.

Now put that in the context of lax army construction rules which do not force you to invest in underperforming Tactical Squads and let you freely load up on overperforming Dreadnoughts. If you pick the chapter that buffs Dreadnoughts, you get greater performance out of your chapter's trait than the other chapters. Which compared to them is free and thus compared to the baseline, with which the first three chapters have to work with, is also free.

It's one of the bigger issues with a number of rules currently in use in 40k. They are all valued the same whether that's free or measured in CP, but increase performance over the baseline and do so to varying degrees compared to other thins that are valued the same. There's no easy fix to that as GW is reluctant to rewrite the rules to work better. You would want to allocate points to abilities like chapter traits, warlord traits, relics and so on to reflect their different impact on performance, reintroduce more restrictive force organization and limit unit number in a more sophisticated way than the rule of three, and refrain from breaking out of that framework for some abilities that may be fluffy but totally wreck balance. When you have that, you'll have a reasonable framework to hand out rules that alter capabilities to better reflect fighting style and other fluffy things. Just thrown on top like GW does now, it's just free boosts that don't even increase performance equally.

It's also not likely to change for the better. You can see with the free wargear choices GW implements at the moment that they are actively moving away from a better rules framework. In that context the absence of subfaction rules in the World Eaters book could be seen as kind of an improvement if you squint really hard, because it removes rules that are only going to work worse the more GW gives up balancing mechanics. It's completely bogus of course because it removes fluffy rules even further (or keeps them out to begin with, as in this case) and you just know that other subfactions won't lose their rules down the line, so it's just GW screwing over World Eaters specifically.

 Roknar wrote:
Maybe I'm missing something here but why would it be free rules and bloat?
The various subfactions, especially marines and the imperial guard canoncially fight differently....and look differently.
Why should we expect anything less of their tabletop representation?

It's not "free" rules, it's a fleshing out of rules.
They mostly share a core amount of units and rules, sure...but that is only what they have in common.
After that you fill out what makes each faction different, COMPLETING the rules, not ADDING new rules.
There is no consideration of power gaming there, the various subfactions are not just paint jobs. That's absurd?

So. How much your models pay for them? How much less you pay lf you don't get them? Why does ba devastator cost same as ih devasator when one is clearly better?

It's broken, leads to unfluffy lists just to power gaming and totally impossible to balance.

If you care about balance they must die.

If you care about fluffy armies they must die.

But then tournament try hards can't break the game.

tneva82 wrote:

 Roknar wrote:
Maybe I'm missing something here but why would it be free rules and bloat?
The various subfactions, especially marines and the imperial guard canoncially fight differently....and look differently.
Why should we expect anything less of their tabletop representation?

It's not "free" rules, it's a fleshing out of rules.
They mostly share a core amount of units and rules, sure...but that is only what they have in common.
After that you fill out what makes each faction different, COMPLETING the rules, not ADDING new rules.
There is no consideration of power gaming there, the various subfactions are not just paint jobs. That's absurd?

So. How much your models pay for them? How much less you pay lf you don't get them? Why does ba devastator cost same as ih devasator when one is clearly better?

It's broken, leads to unfluffy lists just to power gaming and totally impossible to balance.

If you care about balance they must die.

If you care about fluffy armies they must die.

But then tournament try hards can't break the game.

Players were breaking the game long before subfactions LMAO, give it a rest

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Players were breaking the game long before subfactions LMAO, give it a rest

Never the less can you refute that subfaction rules end up just being a "I take the best one" situation for most?

the rules implementation is so bad.......GW is reluctant to rewrite the rules to work better

This. GW is bad and always has been bad at this to varying degrees.
It doesn't make it a conceptually bad idea to differentiate the various subfactions.
And even then, things are never going to be fully balanced even without such differences in rules, they just need to be close enough.




Well then let's say you remove all those rules. We keep only the base rules for everybody
There will STILL be broken unfluffy lists. NOT having them on the other hand only punishes people wanting to play fluffy.

Unit profiles will be better than others, lists will be better than others. Some things will cost too little, others too much.
Decisions will be better than others, by which I don't mean player skill, I mean doing things that would be more accurate in the lore for you subfaction.

EviscerationPlague says it.... Power gamers will and always have been power gamers.
No amount of rules can fully protect against that. And GW are notoriously bad at writing rules.

Providing a way to improve the identity of a faction over an another does not change this.
Power gamers won't care either way, but those that care about the fluff can identify much stronger with their faction than without such rules.
And it doesn't have to be rules limited to one faction either. It could be a pool of specialisations everybody gets to dip in, with rules & restrictions governing how to do that.

Dudeface wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Players were breaking the game long before subfactions LMAO, give it a rest

Never the less can you refute that subfaction rules end up just being a "I take the best one" situation for most?

That's how it is for literally any codex. I just used Space Wolves as an example. And the question is, who cares? Y'all blame the players and not the monkeys with typewriters.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Players were breaking the game long before subfactions LMAO, give it a rest

Never the less can you refute that subfaction rules end up just being a "I take the best one" situation for most?

That's how it is for literally any codex. I just used Space Wolves as an example. And the question is, who cares? Y'all blame the players and not the monkeys with typewriters.

I mean its the players lacking the integrity to use what their force is instead of rules hop and the writers inability to balance them. Solve both and remove them.

Roknar wrote:EviscerationPlague says it.... Power gamers will and always have been power gamers.
No amount of rules can fully protect against that. And GW are notoriously bad at writing rules.

'Power gamers exist, so they might as well be catered to because nothing can be done' isn't a compelling argument.

Voss wrote:

Roknar wrote:EviscerationPlague says it.... Power gamers will and always have been power gamers.
No amount of rules can fully protect against that. And GW are notoriously bad at writing rules.

'Power gamers exist, so they might as well be catered to because nothing can be done' isn't a compelling argument.

Actually a lot can be done about it. The first step is simply admitting it's not the player's fault.

This is all nice and good, but seems like a general complaint discussion rather than World Eaters news or rumors.