Switch Theme:

Subfaction Soup for the Soul  [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
Quick-fingered Warlord Moderatus






 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Maybe their intent was that certain Orders would be better suited to a specific play-style, and that your army would consist of the units that fit that playstyle, and not that people would just take everything, and split them off into the Orders that fit the unit types being chosen.



Thats most probably what happened tbh. GW doesnt MinMax their lists when testing, that much has been obvious for a while
   
Made in us
Did Fulgrim Just Behead Ferrus?




Noctis Labyrinthus

 Gert wrote:
 VladimirHerzog wrote:
No, it needs to be promoted by GW if anything

Considering its piracy, gonna press X to doubt.
Also, fun fact about Dakka, there is a rule directly prohibiting the promotion of piracy.


Mind if I send you my boots? I just got off work and they could use a good scrub.
   
Made in us
Terrifying Doombull




gunchar wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I think Alex is right: GW did not design the sub-factions to be mixed. They designed them to make individual armies play differently to one another.

Of course, GW play a very different 40k to the rest of us, so is it any wonder they didn't realise how what they wrote actually worked?

I mean just read the Sister Codex, you don't even need to play Sisters or have much experience to see the obvious(it could be barely any less subtle, hell and even beyond that specific Codex Sisters are neither as cheap as Guard nor as Elite as Marines therefore it's pretty much part of their core design to need highly effective specialized units to begin with). But the sad part is, i wouldn't even be too surprised if GW really would be that incompetent(there was just this little hope that they've gained at least some minor competence in recent years).


Recent years includes the 8th edition Iron Hands FAQ of 'We did not intend our rules to be used this way.' It was an entire paragraph of, essentially, 'what we wrote wasn't what we meant, and everyone should have realized that and feel bad for using the rules as we wrote them.'

Between stacking DR and double feel no pain, what they wrote was just crazy, and yes, incompetent. And then there was the Salamanders strat that made a unit make nearby units untargetable, and you could hide the first unit so nothing in that part of the board could be shot.

Efficiency is the highest virtue. 
   
Made in ca
Longtime Dakkanaut





I didn't bother looking it up, but I remember a Warcom article about Supreme Commanders, and what they were intended to do. If I'm not mistaken, it explicitly said they were designed to lead mixed subfaction armies. Could be wrong on that front, of course.

But I don't think anyone can really read descriptions of what a Waaagh is and assume they are intended to be mon-subfaction affairs.

Ditto for chaos.

And again, every campaign book ever created has a list of allied forces that includes not only multiple subfactions, but multiple factions. I think there's a lot of evidence that GW DID intend this, but they've changed their minds, likely to keep tournament play more balanced and less complex... though, as others have mentioned, this won't really help achieve better balance because it doesn't affect all factions, or even all of the factions who need it most.

   
Made in us
Did Fulgrim Just Behead Ferrus?




Noctis Labyrinthus

PenitentJake wrote:

But I don't think anyone can really read descriptions of what a Waaagh is and assume they are intended to be mon-subfaction affairs.

Ditto for chaos.


This is my concern. I'm a Chaos Daemons player and mixed god armies are so common in the fluff as to be unremarkable. Now if I want to take a Slaanesh detachment (which almost every Daemons army that wants to be competitive does), I just can't.
   
Made in ca
Longtime Dakkanaut





 Void__Dragon wrote:


This is my concern. I'm a Chaos Daemons player and mixed god armies are so common in the fluff as to be unremarkable. Now if I want to take a Slaanesh detachment (which almost every Daemons army that wants to be competitive does), I just can't.


One of the things I had hypothesized about was that maybe Chaos armies, as part of their suite of army rules, may get a specific exemption in order to reflect that they are... You know, chaotic?

Perhaps this change is being implemented specifically so that Chaos armies get to feel special. This kind of blending is even more common in fluff and background for chaos than it is for Orks.

It's a long shot, but who knows? Personally, that will still bug me; I'm always going to think everyone should be able to do this. But it would be something, and certainly would make chaos unique.
   
Made in de
Contagious Dreadnought of Nurgle




 Void__Dragon wrote:
PenitentJake wrote:

But I don't think anyone can really read descriptions of what a Waaagh is and assume they are intended to be mon-subfaction affairs.

Ditto for chaos.


This is my concern. I'm a Chaos Daemons player and mixed god armies are so common in the fluff as to be unremarkable. Now if I want to take a Slaanesh detachment (which almost every Daemons army that wants to be competitive does), I just can't.


The Daemons Codex is pretty old at that point. GW will probably give them some similar mechanic to Dark Eldar so that you can ally within the Codex. But they'll make it harder to ally with CSM, which sucks for monogod lists.

Either way I don't think my gaming group will care or even notice that change since nobody is interested in the tournament books.
   
Made in gb
Never Forget Isstvan!






 Void__Dragon wrote:

Mind if I send you my boots? I just got off work and they could use a good scrub.

Right because I stated an opinion that isn't in line with "GW bad" (and is also true btw), I'm a bootlicker. Lol
   
Made in it
Longtime Dakkanaut





PenitentJake wrote:
I didn't bother looking it up, but I remember a Warcom article about Supreme Commanders, and what they were intended to do. If I'm not mistaken, it explicitly said they were designed to lead mixed subfaction armies. Could be wrong on that front, of course.

But I don't think anyone can really read descriptions of what a Waaagh is and assume they are intended to be mon-subfaction affairs.

Ditto for chaos.

And again, every campaign book ever created has a list of allied forces that includes not only multiple subfactions, but multiple factions. I think there's a lot of evidence that GW DID intend this, but they've changed their minds, likely to keep tournament play more balanced and less complex... though, as others have mentioned, this won't really help achieve better balance because it doesn't affect all factions, or even all of the factions who need it most.



Orks are an exception. They are the most fluff compliant faction when it comes to mixing clans. That's what they do.
And in fact they will be the only post CA faction who can mix subfactions.
Post CA mixing subfactions will make you lose your purity bonus... which orks have never had.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Void__Dragon wrote:
PenitentJake wrote:

But I don't think anyone can really read descriptions of what a Waaagh is and assume they are intended to be mon-subfaction affairs.

Ditto for chaos.


This is my concern. I'm a Chaos Daemons player and mixed god armies are so common in the fluff as to be unremarkable. Now if I want to take a Slaanesh detachment (which almost every Daemons army that wants to be competitive does), I just can't.


Daemons are an 8th edition army which doesn't have a purity bonus. They will not be impacted by these changes.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/01/18 06:49:06


 
   
Made in us
Did Fulgrim Just Behead Ferrus?




Noctis Labyrinthus

Spoletta wrote:


Daemons are an 8th edition army which doesn't have a purity bonus. They will not be impacted by these changes.


Do they not lose Daemonic Loci?
   
Made in fi
5th God of Chaos (O'rly?)





Have we even seen the actual rule? Kind of hard to say will they lose it or not from just the original rumour. Or whether there will be faq's accompanying the rule.

As it is rumour has been interpreted as no mixing whatsoever, losing bonuses and max 1 detachment period. All which fullfills original rumour(no subfaction soup) but different style Which is it?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/01/18 07:43:41


2022 painted/bought: 227/322 
   
Made in us
Enigmatic Chaos Sorcerer




The dark hollows of Kentucky

tneva82 wrote:
Have we even seen the actual rule? Kind of hard to say will they lose it or not from just the original rumour. Or whether there will be faq's accompanying the rule.

As it is rumour has been interpreted as no mixing whatsoever, losing bonuses and max 1 detachment period. All which fullfills original rumour(no subfaction soup) but different style Which is it?

^^^^This. We still don't know how this will be implemented. And remember, the first "no mixing subfactions" shot has already been fired: against CSM with the "psychic powers only work for the same <LEGION> as the psycker" rule change. But mixing CSM + daemons through summoning has been protected through the "units brought in from Reserves after deployment don't break purity bonuses" rule.
   
Made in fi
5th God of Chaos (O'rly?)





Another shot is on new CA with faction specific secondaries only available for pure armies...but does suggest there's way to still mix though. There would be no point for GT pack specific limitation for those if GT pack would flat out forbid it.

2022 painted/bought: 227/322 
   
Made in hk
Longtime Dakkanaut





GW wants fluffy mixed sub factions played by casual players. GW doesn't want competitive min-maxed mixed sub factions winning all the tournaments.

I mean, the super shooty faction that wants to leaf blow the enemies off the board isn't supposed to be able to pay 2CP and suddenly also have absolute melee murder machines. The downside of just paying 2CP to get that might be just too little.
   
Made in de
Ladies Love the Vibro-Cannon Operator






Hamburg

GW could implement the pure-faction rule by spending say 3 CP to play a non-pure faction.
Something like this would make more sense than restricting to pure factions ab initio.

Former moderator 40kOnline

Lanchester's square law - please obey in list building!

Illumini: "And thank you for not finishing your post with a "" I'm sorry, but after 7200 's that has to be the most annoying sign-off ever."

Armies: Eldar, Necrons, Blood Angels, Grey Knights; World Eaters (30k); Bloodbound; Cryx, Circle, Cyriss 
   
Made in it
Waaagh! Ork Warboss




Italy

Pretty sure it would be a restriction for matched play only, a format that openly aims to achieve the highest level of balance possible as it's meant for competitive gaming, rather than encouraging "fun" builds.

Fluffy armies would still exist of course, people really need to understand that there isn't only a single way to play 40k.

 
   
Made in ie
Battleship Captain





 Blackie wrote:
Pretty sure it would be a restriction for matched play only, a format that openly aims to achieve the highest level of balance possible as it's meant for competitive gaming, rather than encouraging "fun" builds.

Fluffy armies would still exist of course, people really need to understand that there isn't only a single way to play 40k.


And you need to understand that most people don't care and will stick to Matched play as the main way to play. When it was introduced in 8th the Rule Of Three was tournament only and just a suggestion rather than a strict rule, but it IMMEDIATELY became a codified rule within the community as far as they were concerned. What happens in Matched/Tournament play becomes the norm for the vast majority of players, saying "well this doesn't effect me or mine" doesn't add anything to the discussion.


 
   
Made in de
Ork Admiral Kroozin Da Kosmos on Da Hulk






Spoletta wrote:
Orks are an exception. They are the most fluff compliant faction when it comes to mixing clans. That's what they do.
And in fact they will be the only post CA faction who can mix subfactions.
Post CA mixing subfactions will make you lose your purity bonus... which orks have never had.

Well, orks also don't gain a whole lot from mixing clans anyways, as clan relic and stratagem are tied to your warboss, most auras and powers are clan-locked and two of the best clans, freebootas and bloodaxes, are better off as mono-clan anyways.

Sure, you could make all your melee units goff and your shooting units deff skulls or bloodaxe, but in general you go all in one strategy anyways.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Sim-Life wrote:
 Blackie wrote:
Pretty sure it would be a restriction for matched play only, a format that openly aims to achieve the highest level of balance possible as it's meant for competitive gaming, rather than encouraging "fun" builds.

Fluffy armies would still exist of course, people really need to understand that there isn't only a single way to play 40k.


And you need to understand that most people don't care and will stick to Matched play as the main way to play. When it was introduced in 8th the Rule Of Three was tournament only and just a suggestion rather than a strict rule, but it IMMEDIATELY became a codified rule within the community as far as they were concerned. What happens in Matched/Tournament play becomes the norm for the vast majority of players, saying "well this doesn't effect me or mine" doesn't add anything to the discussion.


Yet, somehow the detachment limitation released at the same time as the Ro3 rarely did see any use outside of tournaments.

It's almost as if people decide what to adapt based on whether it does fix things they perceive as a problems or not.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/01/18 11:04:43


Earth is not flat
Vaccines work
We've been to the moon
Climate change is real
Chemtrails aren't a thing
Evolution is a fact
Orks are not a melee army
Stand up for science!
 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut






I'm still mad about not being able to mix Ork clans in the same detachment tbh but I guess it was inevitable since the cherry-picking hyper-optimisers would ruin it for the rest of us.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The main problem with all this stuff is that as it started with Chapter Tactics, that became the template for all the other subfaction rules, regardless of whether or not those subfactions are actually analogous to SM Chapters in the fluff – Ork Clans, for example, very much not being.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
(In case anyone's interested, my other spicy sub-faction take is that mixing Khorne/Slaanesh or Tzeentch/Nurgle in the same army should have you thrown out of and barred from whatever venue/event you're playing in, but maybe I'm showing my age there)

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/01/18 11:17:44


 
   
Made in it
Waaagh! Ork Warboss




Italy

 Sim-Life wrote:
 Blackie wrote:
Pretty sure it would be a restriction for matched play only, a format that openly aims to achieve the highest level of balance possible as it's meant for competitive gaming, rather than encouraging "fun" builds.

Fluffy armies would still exist of course, people really need to understand that there isn't only a single way to play 40k.


And you need to understand that most people don't care and will stick to Matched play as the main way to play. When it was introduced in 8th the Rule Of Three was tournament only and just a suggestion rather than a strict rule, but it IMMEDIATELY became a codified rule within the community as far as they were concerned. What happens in Matched/Tournament play becomes the norm for the vast majority of players, saying "well this doesn't effect me or mine" doesn't add anything to the discussion.


Well, the vast majority of players doesn't use "fluffy" armies though, but more or less optimized collections of the models they own. The vast majority of those who go multi-subfaction does that to get an advantage, not because it looks cool. It's a gamey mechanic that has little to do with fluff, and I'm glad if it's gone from competitive play.

People who bring fluffy armies typically belong to a crowd that doesn't care for matched play restrictions. Something that affects one every thousand players doesn't add anything to the discussion as well .

 
   
Made in gb
Fixture of Dakka







 Blackie wrote:
Well, the vast majority of players doesn't use "fluffy" armies though, but more or less optimized collections of the models they own. The vast majority of those who go multi-subfaction does that to get an advantage, not because it looks cool. It's a gamey mechanic that has little to do with fluff, and I'm glad if it's gone from competitive play.

If we're talking tournaments (and/or "competitive" play), though, that's exactly where this sort of gamey mechanic should appear - it's generally where you'll find people who care more for the game than the background, after all.

2021 Plog - Here we go again... - my fifth attempt at a Dakka PLOG

My [url=https://pileofpotential.com/dysartes]Pile of Potential[/url - updates ongoing...

Gamgee on Tau Players wrote:we all kill cats and sell our own families to the devil and eat live puppies.


 Kanluwen wrote:
This is, emphatically, why I will continue suggesting nuking Guard and starting over again. It's a legacy army that needs to be rebooted with a new focal point.

Confirmation of why no-one should listen to Kanluwen when it comes to the IG - he doesn't want the IG, he want's Kan's New Model Army... 
   
Made in it
Waaagh! Ork Warboss




Italy

 Dysartes wrote:
 Blackie wrote:
Well, the vast majority of players doesn't use "fluffy" armies though, but more or less optimized collections of the models they own. The vast majority of those who go multi-subfaction does that to get an advantage, not because it looks cool. It's a gamey mechanic that has little to do with fluff, and I'm glad if it's gone from competitive play.

If we're talking tournaments (and/or "competitive" play), though, that's exactly where this sort of gamey mechanic should appear - it's generally where you'll find people who care more for the game than the background, after all.


Not "should" but "would". That's why people shouldn't care if those mechanics go away, resulting in a more balanced game.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/01/18 12:28:44


 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut







Yeah, I see Blackie's point. With some exceptions (see Penitent Jake's example), most narrative players I have seen tend to stick to a single subfaction.
   
Made in de
Ork Admiral Kroozin Da Kosmos on Da Hulk






 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Yeah, I see Blackie's point. With some exceptions (see Penitent Jake's example), most narrative players I have seen tend to stick to a single subfaction.


I've made the same experience - and of those who don't, they rarely care for losing bonuses or didn't get any to begin with because they are running a unit of GK terminators, an assassin, an inquisitor and Canis Rex as part of their DKOK army.

My army was painted so that each units would be wearing the colors of the clan they most likely would be drawn from - lootas are deff skulls, shoota boyz are bad moons, trukk boyz are evil suns and so on. If I had multiple units I would make each unit of a different clan. With 8th I just decided that the warlord's clan decides what tactics are used for everyone. Cherry picking without blowing my opponent's mind simply isn't possible, and honestly doesn't add anything to the game.

Earth is not flat
Vaccines work
We've been to the moon
Climate change is real
Chemtrails aren't a thing
Evolution is a fact
Orks are not a melee army
Stand up for science!
 
   
Made in fi
Courageous Space Marine Captain






Mixing subfactions most seems generally more power-gamey than mixing regular factions. I get wanting to use a wide variety of different models in one army, I want that too and that's why I like allies. But subfactions are mostly just same models painted differently (though there are exceptions like Daemons) and most of the time you could use those models together under same rules. You can use your yellow marine models and blue marine models together by just using blue marine rules, so the purpose of different rules is mostly just extra power.

   
Made in us
Quick-fingered Warlord Moderatus






 Gadzilla666 wrote:
tneva82 wrote:
Have we even seen the actual rule? Kind of hard to say will they lose it or not from just the original rumour. Or whether there will be faq's accompanying the rule.

As it is rumour has been interpreted as no mixing whatsoever, losing bonuses and max 1 detachment period. All which fullfills original rumour(no subfaction soup) but different style Which is it?

^^^^This. We still don't know how this will be implemented. And remember, the first "no mixing subfactions" shot has already been fired: against CSM with the "psychic powers only work for the same <LEGION> as the psycker" rule change. But mixing CSM + daemons through summoning has been protected through the "units brought in from Reserves after deployment don't break purity bonuses" rule.


God, GW, just make summoning be "You may include any <CHAOS DEMONS> unit in your <HERETIC ASTARTES> detachment without breaking bonuses" (i'd even settle for a poxwalker/tzaangor restriction on it).

Let me bring Tzeentch demons with Thousand sons FFS
   
Made in us
Enigmatic Chaos Sorcerer




The dark hollows of Kentucky

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
tneva82 wrote:
Have we even seen the actual rule? Kind of hard to say will they lose it or not from just the original rumour. Or whether there will be faq's accompanying the rule.

As it is rumour has been interpreted as no mixing whatsoever, losing bonuses and max 1 detachment period. All which fullfills original rumour(no subfaction soup) but different style Which is it?

^^^^This. We still don't know how this will be implemented. And remember, the first "no mixing subfactions" shot has already been fired: against CSM with the "psychic powers only work for the same <LEGION> as the psycker" rule change. But mixing CSM + daemons through summoning has been protected through the "units brought in from Reserves after deployment don't break purity bonuses" rule.


God, GW, just make summoning be "You may include any <CHAOS DEMONS> unit in your <HERETIC ASTARTES> detachment without breaking bonuses" (i'd even settle for a poxwalker/tzaangor restriction on it).

Let me bring Tzeentch demons with Thousand sons FFS

You can, you just need to summon them. And that's nothing new, CSM have needed either summoning or possession to get daemons since at least 2nd edition.
   
Made in us
Quick-fingered Warlord Moderatus






 Gadzilla666 wrote:

You can, you just need to summon them. And that's nothing new, CSM have needed either summoning or possession to get daemons since at least 2nd edition.


i don't want to have to take a risk to bring them in, the summoning rule right now is sooo underwhelming, theres a reason its almost never used.

Making it so the summoning is now only a fluff explanation for soup (which it already is but with a chance of failure) seems fitting.

"For every character with a mark of chaos, you may include one unit from the Chaos Demons codex with the same allegiance without breaking purity bonuses"

so now you get characters that can still move and you can bring bigger units/squads of demons that summoning usually would let you.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





 Void__Dragon wrote:
PenitentJake wrote:

But I don't think anyone can really read descriptions of what a Waaagh is and assume they are intended to be mon-subfaction affairs.

Ditto for chaos.


This is my concern. I'm a Chaos Daemons player and mixed god armies are so common in the fluff as to be unremarkable. Now if I want to take a Slaanesh detachment (which almost every Daemons army that wants to be competitive does), I just can't.


I imagine it will be revealed Friday, but this doesn't affect Daemons as they do not have replaceable keywords.

   
Made in gb
Furious Raptor




I'd be fine with an Agents of the Imperium style rule that lets you take one single Daemon unit in a TSons, DG or CSM detachment. You don't need loads of Daemons running around, but just slipping one into a no force org slot like an Inquisitor/Assassin would be cool.
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: