Switch Theme:

no more mixed subfactions  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Did Fulgrim Just Behead Ferrus?




Noctis Labyrinthus

 Gert wrote:
Pot. Kettle. Have you met?


Elaborate on how this is an example of pot meets kettle my friend.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






SoCal, USA!

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

   
Made in us
Fresh-Faced New User





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




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


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


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


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

2500pts
2500
3000


 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut







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


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


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


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


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

You know, kinda like D&D.
   
Made in gb
Never Forget Isstvan!






 Void__Dragon wrote:

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

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





Superior, Wisconsin

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

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

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


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

There is no Overkill, only "Open Fire," and "I need to Reload."
When someone tries to kill you, just kill them right back. 
   
Made in us
Ollanius Pius - Savior of the Emperor






Gathering the Informations.

...and that the War Convocation literally couldn't frigging take any of those special Knights.
   
Made in us
Did Fulgrim Just Behead Ferrus?




Noctis Labyrinthus

 Gert wrote:

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


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

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






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

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

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


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

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/01/24 05:22:25


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




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


Well I mean optimally the best build was a really sneaky character with a Murlynd's Spoon. Win via starvation.
   
Made in gb
Never Forget Isstvan!






 Void__Dragon wrote:

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

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

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

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/01/24 12:06:14


 
   
Made in us
Powerful Phoenix Lord





Dallas area, TX

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


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

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

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

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

-

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/01/24 18:20:12


   
Made in us
Quick-fingered Warlord Moderatus






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

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

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

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/01/24 19:18:12


 
   
Made in us
Powerful Phoenix Lord





Dallas area, TX

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

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

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


BINGO!

-

   
Made in ca
Master Sergeant





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


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






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

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

I'm on a podcast about (video) game design:
https://anchor.fm/makethatgame
And I also stream tabletop painting/playing Mon&Thurs 8PM EST
https://twitch.tv/tableitgaming 
   
Made in us
Quick-fingered Warlord Moderatus






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

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


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

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/01/24 19:19:55


 
   
Made in gb
Never Forget Isstvan!






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

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

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/01/24 19:37:51


 
   
Made in us
Beautiful and Deadly Keeper of Secrets





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


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

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

4th editions awful codex mistakes is not to be shared. It is the edition of the Gav Thorpe Chaos Dex afterall.
   
Made in us
Beautiful and Deadly Keeper of Secrets






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

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

Can you?

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


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

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2022/01/24 21:12:41


 
   
Made in us
Painlord Titan Princeps of Slaanesh




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






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

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

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

Industrial Insanity - My Terrain Blog
"GW really needs to understand 'Less is more' when it comes to AoS." - Wha-Mu-077

 
   
Made in us
Insect-Infested Nurgle Chaos Lord





In My Lab

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

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

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

Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! 
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

That's a terrible argument. Try again.

Industrial Insanity - My Terrain Blog
"GW really needs to understand 'Less is more' when it comes to AoS." - Wha-Mu-077

 
   
Made in us
Insect-Infested Nurgle Chaos Lord





In My Lab

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

What makes it a bad argument?

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

Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! 
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

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

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

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

No.

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

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

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/01/24 22:46:27


Industrial Insanity - My Terrain Blog
"GW really needs to understand 'Less is more' when it comes to AoS." - Wha-Mu-077

 
   
Made in us
Insect-Infested Nurgle Chaos Lord





In My Lab

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

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

Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! 
   
Made in us
Beautiful and Deadly Keeper of Secrets





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

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/01/24 23:01:45


 
   
Made in us
Terrifying Doombull




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

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

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

No.

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

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


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

Pass.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/01/24 23:01:36


Efficiency is the highest virtue. 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: