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 au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

And I think that's nonsense.

Differentiating Marines - and this applies to Chaos Marines as well - is a big appeal of the game. You're playing things that are different to one another.

I see it as no different to Craftworlds or Ork Clans.

As for Flanderisation? That's the Wolves and partially the Blood Angels, and not a fault of the rules, but the fault of the fluff writers who couldn't get the "OMG! WOLVES!" crap out of their head and went too far. I don't think that's a big enough problem to dump the entire system and return everything to bland, generic, flavourless 'counts as' armies.

Yeah. Feth that noise...

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2022/01/24 23:24:33


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

 
   
Made in us
Confessor Of Sins





Tacoma, WA, USA

VladimirHerzog wrote:"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)
You, sir, have missed the point of subfaction rules. It can't be as simple as "if you like that subfaction then pick these units" because the point is the different subfactions actually prosecute war a bit differently. Let's take this example:
Rihgu wrote:IWhite 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
While this does lean into the White Scars method of mobile warfare, this would not be an invalid force for most chapters of space marines. But should these identical forces hit the battlefield, how a White Scars force acts would be much different from an Ultramarines or an Iron Hands force. That is what the subfaction rules are trying to capture.

  • White Scars will quickly get to grips with the enemy while using hit and run tactics to avoid being bogged down by the enemy
  • Ultramarines will execute a disciplined attacked, steadily moving into an optimal attack position and then using squad tactics to fall back as necessary to frustrate the enemy counter-offensive.
  • Iron Hands will use their resilience to weather the storm of their opponents attacks while destroying them.

  • Without subfaction traits, you can't really get that difference on the battlefield while using the same units. IMO this is why GW has decided to ban multiple subfactions in competitive play. The rules were created for thematic gameplay purposes, not for power. Allowing multiple subfactions allowed the players to concentrate on the power rather than the theme.

    This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/01/24 23:16:19


     
       
    Made in us
    Powerful Phoenix Lord





    Dallas area, TX

    I feel like I should clarify my point a bit.
    I also like subfaction rules. My son uses Salamanders and I use a custom Craftworld.

    But we play for fun. We aren't trying to build the absolute best lists to utterly crush one another.

    I haven't played competitively since 7th ed. Mostly because of other life stuff, but now it's because there's just TOO MUCH in the game to ever be confident again.
    I'm ok with losing more than half the games I play, but never because I was blindsided by rules I had no idea existed. And there are now entire ARMY Factions that didn't exist back in 7th.
    I worked really hard in 5th, 6th and 7th to accumulate a decent knowledge of the game, including what other factions were capable of. 8th/9th pretty much invalidated all that effort and I don't have time anymore to start over.

    Competitive play is literally "off the table" for me as a result. Winning is no longer about who has the most well built list, tactics and experience with said list/tactics, but about who can keep up with all the newest hotness.

    Subfaction rules are just a part of the bloat. I was accustomed to 20ish Armies to keep track of. But with subfactions, there are now hundreds.
    That's fine for a small group of players who are going to face the same handful of those over and over.
    But for tournament play that just becomes real work or else you'll lose every game.

    So when I say "I think subfaction rules should be gone", I really mean for competitive/matched/tournament play. Not only is it easier to balance factions when there is LESS to account for (rock/paper/scissors is balanced specifically for this reason), but competitive players will still find broken combos to exploit, so it's not like they'll miss some extra rules that were meant to only add flavor in the first place

    Narrative/Crusade games among friends is perfectly fine to have a bunch of extra fluffy rules to play with.

    -

    This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/01/24 23:28:38


       
    Made in us
    Paramount Plague Censer Bearer





    I'm of the opinion that subfaction rules shouldn't make certain units better in one subfaction over the other. Different is fine, but I'd prefer it be based around what and how much they can take, like making bikers troops for instance, but making them different is fine. I despise just making units better for being one subfaction or another.

    In Infinity, I can run a vanilla combined army list using whatever models I want, but am seriously limited to how many I can bring, but I can take big leaders called the Aspects. If I run, say, the Shasvastii, I can run a whole bunch of extra guerilla warfare, invisible, camouflaged units with smoke and visor tactics that I would be severely limited on with the vanilla army, but now I can't take Daturazi Witch Soldiers, with a chain gun for auto hits, decent melee, and an extra impetuous order, and I can't take the Avatar, the big, half a list Aspect, that is the toughest and most expensive model in the game.

    This is achieved by having variety in the units you can bring in the main faction, but limiting all but the most basic to be very few in numbers, and then allowing the subfaction to shine.

    ‘What Lorgar’s fanatics have not seen is that these gods are nothing compared to the power and the majesty of the Machine-God. Already, members of our growing cult are using the grace of the Omnissiah – the true Omnissiah, not Terra’s false prophet – to harness the might of the warp. Geller fields, warp missiles, void shields, all these things you are familiar with. But their underlying principles can be turned to so much more. Through novel exploitations of these technologies we will gain mastery first over the energies of the empyrean, then over the lesser entities, until finally the very gods themselves will bend the knee and recognise the supremacy of the Machine-God"
    - Heretek Ardim Protos in Titandeath by Guy Haley 
       
    Made in us
    Decrepit Dakkanaut






    SoCal, USA!

     VladimirHerzog wrote:
    "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)


    If it were me, I'd have subfactions go back to tweaking the FOC as was typical in the 3E-5E Codices. That seemed to work just fine!

    As far as balance goes, someone will always be the best, and someone will always be the worst. That's how things are. Having several dozen only makes it that much more difficult to minimize the spread between the best and worst.

    This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/01/25 00:43:23


       
    Made in au
    Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






    Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

     JohnHwangDD wrote:
    That seemed to work just fine!
    Did it?

    I seem to recall people having a lot of problems with the Iron Warriors.

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

     
       
    Made in us
    Decrepit Dakkanaut





    Speaking of subfactions -- CSM leaks!

    No marks to be seen, so a bit of sad panda, but the rest looks spiffy. Alpha Legion are conspicuously absent.

    Spoiler:
    Take it with a grain of salt, but some potential CSM leaks have finally been posted on the Bolter and Chainsword forums:

    (Edited for formatting and readability)

    "Ok so here is a bunch of info I managed to come by from secure sources:

    CSM Doctrine:

    Exact same thing as SM, except replace +1AP with exploding 6s (unmodified hits)

    Icons:

    Vengeance: +1 Combat Attrition

    Wrath: +1AP melee

    Flame: +1AP shooting

    Excess: +1 to hit in melee

    Despair: 6s to hit automatically wound



    All legions are getting 6 warlord traits, 8 relics, and 8 stratagems



    Legion traits: (Supposedly apply to all units)

    Nightlords:

    -2LD & -1CA @ 9''

    +1 to advance & +1 to charge

    +1 to wound when using a pistol/assault/melee against a unit that is below half strength or below LD 6



    Iron Warriors:

    Ignores cover

    Reduce AP1/2 by 1

    +1 to wound using heavy/grenade against vehicles/buildings/units in cover

    Word Bearers:

    Charges/Heroic Intervention = reroll hits

    5+++ vs MW

    When using a pistol/assault/melee, 6s to wound cause 1MW (capped @ 3MW per unit)



    Black Legion:

    Ignore Combat Attrition

    +1 to hit after charging or shooting closest unit

    Rapid fire/assault/pistol cause exploding 5s to hit



    Emperor's Children (4chain leak, not from my sources)

    in the book

    have a way of consistently hitting on 2s (even with thunder hammers)

    World Eaters

    Not in the codex

    Datasheet info:

    Chosen

    3w

    can use Thunder Hammer

    Mutilators

    no longer in the book

    Warp Talons

    2w

    lost cancel overwatch

    gained no fallback

    5a (these are total with claws)

    Raptors

    still have the -1LD aura

    +2a

    Obliterators

    can shoot units that are in engagement range with them (like wraithguard)

    in melee they have powerfists without the -1 to hit

    3 different shooting profiles

    Havocs

    exactly the same as right now but 2w

    Stratagems

    something to ignore invuls (4chan leak, so take with a grain of salt, leak said EC chosen could destory custodes hitting with TH on a 2+ and with strat ignore invul saves)

    NL deepstrike strat for jump packs, DS turn 1

    NL vox scream disables AURAS

    Other:

    IW ectoplasma forgefiend can hit on 2+ and does flat 4 damage

    New cultist unit HQ

    New mutant cultists

    No hateful assault, +1 attack to profile for all "
       
    Made in us
    Longtime Dakkanaut




     Daedalus81 wrote:
    Speaking of subfactions -- CSM leaks!

    No marks to be seen, so a bit of sad panda, but the rest looks spiffy. Alpha Legion are conspicuously absent.

    Spoiler:
    Take it with a grain of salt, but some potential CSM leaks have finally been posted on the Bolter and Chainsword forums:

    (Edited for formatting and readability)

    "Ok so here is a bunch of info I managed to come by from secure sources:

    CSM Doctrine:

    Exact same thing as SM, except replace +1AP with exploding 6s (unmodified hits)

    Icons:

    Vengeance: +1 Combat Attrition

    Wrath: +1AP melee

    Flame: +1AP shooting

    Excess: +1 to hit in melee

    Despair: 6s to hit automatically wound



    All legions are getting 6 warlord traits, 8 relics, and 8 stratagems



    Legion traits: (Supposedly apply to all units)

    Nightlords:

    -2LD & -1CA @ 9''

    +1 to advance & +1 to charge

    +1 to wound when using a pistol/assault/melee against a unit that is below half strength or below LD 6



    Iron Warriors:

    Ignores cover

    Reduce AP1/2 by 1

    +1 to wound using heavy/grenade against vehicles/buildings/units in cover

    Word Bearers:

    Charges/Heroic Intervention = reroll hits

    5+++ vs MW

    When using a pistol/assault/melee, 6s to wound cause 1MW (capped @ 3MW per unit)



    Black Legion:

    Ignore Combat Attrition

    +1 to hit after charging or shooting closest unit

    Rapid fire/assault/pistol cause exploding 5s to hit



    Emperor's Children (4chain leak, not from my sources)

    in the book

    have a way of consistently hitting on 2s (even with thunder hammers)

    World Eaters

    Not in the codex

    Datasheet info:

    Chosen

    3w

    can use Thunder Hammer

    Mutilators

    no longer in the book

    Warp Talons

    2w

    lost cancel overwatch

    gained no fallback

    5a (these are total with claws)

    Raptors

    still have the -1LD aura

    +2a

    Obliterators

    can shoot units that are in engagement range with them (like wraithguard)

    in melee they have powerfists without the -1 to hit

    3 different shooting profiles

    Havocs

    exactly the same as right now but 2w

    Stratagems

    something to ignore invuls (4chan leak, so take with a grain of salt, leak said EC chosen could destory custodes hitting with TH on a 2+ and with strat ignore invul saves)

    NL deepstrike strat for jump packs, DS turn 1

    NL vox scream disables AURAS

    Other:

    IW ectoplasma forgefiend can hit on 2+ and does flat 4 damage

    New cultist unit HQ

    New mutant cultists

    No hateful assault, +1 attack to profile for all "


    So are World Eaters.
       
    Made in au
    Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






    Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

    But Emperor's Children aren't, which is a problem.

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

     
       
    Made in hk
    Longtime Dakkanaut





     Daedalus81 wrote:
    Speaking of subfactions -- CSM leaks!

    No marks to be seen, so a bit of sad panda, but the rest looks spiffy. Alpha Legion are conspicuously absent.

    Spoiler:
    Take it with a grain of salt, but some potential CSM leaks have finally been posted on the Bolter and Chainsword forums:

    (Edited for formatting and readability)

    "Ok so here is a bunch of info I managed to come by from secure sources:

    CSM Doctrine:

    Exact same thing as SM, except replace +1AP with exploding 6s (unmodified hits)

    Icons:

    Vengeance: +1 Combat Attrition

    Wrath: +1AP melee

    Flame: +1AP shooting

    Excess: +1 to hit in melee

    Despair: 6s to hit automatically wound



    All legions are getting 6 warlord traits, 8 relics, and 8 stratagems



    Legion traits: (Supposedly apply to all units)

    Nightlords:

    -2LD & -1CA @ 9''

    +1 to advance & +1 to charge

    +1 to wound when using a pistol/assault/melee against a unit that is below half strength or below LD 6



    Iron Warriors:

    Ignores cover

    Reduce AP1/2 by 1

    +1 to wound using heavy/grenade against vehicles/buildings/units in cover

    Word Bearers:

    Charges/Heroic Intervention = reroll hits

    5+++ vs MW

    When using a pistol/assault/melee, 6s to wound cause 1MW (capped @ 3MW per unit)



    Black Legion:

    Ignore Combat Attrition

    +1 to hit after charging or shooting closest unit

    Rapid fire/assault/pistol cause exploding 5s to hit



    Emperor's Children (4chain leak, not from my sources)

    in the book

    have a way of consistently hitting on 2s (even with thunder hammers)

    World Eaters

    Not in the codex

    Datasheet info:

    Chosen

    3w

    can use Thunder Hammer

    Mutilators

    no longer in the book

    Warp Talons

    2w

    lost cancel overwatch

    gained no fallback

    5a (these are total with claws)

    Raptors

    still have the -1LD aura

    +2a

    Obliterators

    can shoot units that are in engagement range with them (like wraithguard)

    in melee they have powerfists without the -1 to hit

    3 different shooting profiles

    Havocs

    exactly the same as right now but 2w

    Stratagems

    something to ignore invuls (4chan leak, so take with a grain of salt, leak said EC chosen could destory custodes hitting with TH on a 2+ and with strat ignore invul saves)

    NL deepstrike strat for jump packs, DS turn 1

    NL vox scream disables AURAS

    Other:

    IW ectoplasma forgefiend can hit on 2+ and does flat 4 damage

    New cultist unit HQ

    New mutant cultists

    No hateful assault, +1 attack to profile for all "


    Looks spicy!!!! Me likes!
       
    Made in ca
    Longtime Dakkanaut





    Well, I'm going to wade in in general terms:

    Personally I like faction traits and subfaction traits for all, and I think the game loses a lot by not having them. BUT, as others have said, I see other folks point of view too... With the caveat that with or without differentiation, all factions should be equal. No difference between Order of our Martyred Lady and Bloody Rose? Conceptually, sure... But it only works if there's also no difference between Blood Angels and Space Wolves.

    If you're gonna have bespoke content for marines, you're gonna have it for everyone.

    And again, I think the BEST solution, the one that keeps as many players as possible happy is do whatever you have to do to create 40k Tournament edition where balance is the highest priority. Go ahead- curtail or eliminate subfaction rules and strats. Kick flyers and knights out of this version of the game. But leave the other modes of play intact.

    Now that my general comments are over, I want to address this post in particular:

    Voss wrote:
    [
    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.


    The reason I wanted to address this is that the only edition of the game in history where Dark Angels and Space Wolves were the same was Rogue Trader, because they got bespoke dexes in 2nd ed and have had them ever since (though Dark Angels did share their first dex with Blood Angels). Furthermore, Deathwing fluff and company composition variations actually began with Space Hulk DURING Rogue Trader... So this idea the Space Marines were identical for more than a wink in the lifespan of this game is a bit off base.

    Now it IS true that for the early editions, MOST of the difference were based either on:1) Army composition (FOC exceptions), 2) Bespoke Units and 3) Different Loadouts
    rather than the full suite of differentiation we have today. It's also fair to point out that a decent chunk of 2nd existed BEFORE those bespoke dexes were produced. These factors means the point isn't ENTIRELY off the mark... But given that all but one edition of the game has given at least three of the SM Chapters bespoke dexes, I do think it's somewhat disingenuous to say that there was any significant period of time when marines didn't have more differentiation than every other faction in the game.

    As for whether or not the current suite of rules does reflect the lore of the faction or subfaction, or facilitates making your dudes YOUR DUDES, well it's certainly true that some factions and subfactions do that better than others. But I'd also like to point out that your interpretation of what YOUR DUDES means in the context of this game might be worth examining.

    For example, I've had to IMAGINE what the differences between Order of Our Martyred Lady and the Order of the Bloody Rose are for two decades. In that time of having no other choice but to make it all up in my head with no way but houserules to express it on the table, it's entirely possible that I have envisioned things that the creators of the game never imagined. And now, when they publish rules to reflect that, my errors of interpretation or imagination might lead me to expect that the rules would be different than what they are. And I can draw a line in the sand and say "I, who invented neither the Order of Our Martyred Lady nor the Order of the Bloody Rose, knows better than the people who DID invent those factions how they should behave on the table." The other route is to say "Obviously it's their IP, so if they say this is how the army should behave, then it is."

    There is a third road- it's the nuanced one that walks the middle road; it says neither "These Rules Are All Gak" nor "These Rules Are All The Best Thing Ever" but rather, it examines each of the bespoke rules a separate entity, finding instances where each conforms with both previous rules and established lore and where it deviates and decides based on that analysis whether a given rule is appropriate or not.

    That's the path I tend to to walk, because no answer is ever truly as simple as you can make it in a forum post.

    Anyway, just my two cents.

    This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/01/25 04:26:38


     
       
    Made in us
    Decrepit Dakkanaut






    Springfield, VA

     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.



    Wow that went turbo "shut up npc factions, Marines are the main characters of this multi-faction PVP game" in zero seconds flat.

    I don't think I have ever seen a better example of why non-marine players roll their eyes at Marine players.
       
    Made in au
    Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






    Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

     Unit1126PLL wrote:
    Wow that went turbo "shut up npc factions, Marines are the main characters of this multi-faction PVP game" in zero seconds flat.
    Only if you wilfully misinterpret what I wrote.

    My argument should be taken in the context of why Marines should have sub-factions, but not in the notion that they should and others should not. They all should*. I mean, FFS, did you somehow miss these statements?
     H.B.M.C. wrote:
    I mix'n'match different Chaos Legions/Renegade Chapters because that's the background of my army - a Khorne-leaning army of Renegades that is backed up by smaller warbands of Death Guard, Thousand Sons, Word Bearers, Iron Warriors and Alpha Legion as they all flocked towards the Daemon Prince that leads the overall army.
     H.B.M.C. wrote:
    I also very much dislike the idea of mono-Clan Ork armies.
     H.B.M.C. wrote:
    But I love having the ability to play different Chapters/Legions/Craftworlds and have them actually represented within the rules of the game. I despise 'counts as'.
     H.B.M.C. wrote:
    The game is better when different factions are actually different factions, and not just paint jobs.
     H.B.M.C. wrote:
    Differentiating Marines - and this applies to Chaos Marines as well - is a big appeal of the game. You're playing things that are different to one another. I see it as no different to Craftworlds or Ork Clans.
    If I didn't make my position clear enough then sure, that's on me, but again, the only way I see someone being able to reach the conclusion you did is if you misconstrued what I said on purpose.

    And, BTW, I am a non-Marine player. I have an army of just about every race in 40k. It's quicker to list the factions I don't play and it is the ones I do. I even have a fething Tau army, despite the disrespect** I show them. So don't try to try to tar me with the brush of just being a "Marine player".



    *Except Tau, because duh!
    **Completely justified disrespect!

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

     
       
    Made in us
    Resolute Ultramarine Honor Guard





     JNAProductions wrote:


    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?


    As both a theoretical and a practical, YES! Even the Codex chapters should play massively (depending on your definition of massively) different from each other. In a way, Speed Freaks and White Scars should play more alike than and .

    Between Chapter Tactics/Doctrines, and stratagems, they're already leaning that way. Just lean into it. And this is a generic mechanic that works for all armies. A couple what are they called "Super Doctrines" that are now often detachment abilities with battleforged Chapter Tactics requirements... a couple pre-game stratagems to shift basics around to match theme, a couple setup strats, and a couple in game strats. White Scars: For some number X CP, another some number Y Dedicated Transports and contents/Bikes/Attack Bikes/Outriders/ATVs can now Out Flank. Dark Angels already have specialist detachments (which cost CP) to give Ravenwing and Deathwing Objective Secured for a fluffy but non-standard FOC army. For UM, I don't really know - probably some number X CP to make some number Y Veteran Intercessors Troops Choices. Not something I'd thought about before and there isn't a glaring Generic SM thing for the Generic SM Chapter to turn up to 11 standing out to me. In Game strats are mostly already out there. Make <Chapter Flavor Doctrine> active this turn. Stuff like that.


    Automatically Appended Next Post:
    PenitentJake wrote:


    If you're gonna have bespoke content for marines, you're gonna have it for everyone.


    One of the reasons I generally try and pull a Xenos into the comparisons - so that point isn't lost. The same system tools that should give you a Deathwing/Ravenwing army should also give you a Wind Riders of Saim-Hann, or a White Scars Biker/transport Out Flanking encirclement army should give you an Ork Speedfreaks Mob. This should cost a couple CP during list building either through a White Scar specific strat, or the CP cost of a Specialist (second) Detach for Deathwing/Ravenwing.

    This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/01/25 05:20:40


    My WHFB armies were Bretonians and Tomb Kings. 
       
    Made in us
    Banelord Titan Princeps of Khorne




    Noctis Labyrinthus

     JNAProductions wrote:
     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.


    Well I mean, it's a bad argument because whether there being a thousand marines to a chapter or four hundred billion has absolutely no bearing on how different two different chapters might play/fight. Unless you're saying that their lack of numbers in the fluff means they don't deserve to have such notably different rules? I'd argue that's also frankly kind of irrelevant, because Marines might be few in number but there isn't really any disputing that they are the posterboys of the setting and the most popular faction. Them being small in number in the fluff doesn't matter much when they are easily the most-collected army in real life imo.
       
    Made in us
    Enigmatic Chaos Sorcerer




    The dark hollows of Kentucky

    ZebioLizard2 wrote:
    Spoiler:
     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.

    The "4th edition" CSM codex was really the 5th edition codex. We used 3.5 for the majority of 4th, and other factions had similar support for sub-factions, like loyalists with their traits + disadvantages system. 5th is when the "streamlining" rot set in. Well, for at least the first few codexes at least. Then came Grey Knights.

    H.B.M.C. wrote: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.


    Same. I've had enough of "everyone is just Black Legion". The 4th edition CSM codex did more damage to the faction than anything before or after, and we're still suffering from its effects.

    H.B.M.C. wrote:
     JohnHwangDD wrote:
    That seemed to work just fine!
    Did it?

    I seem to recall people having a lot of problems with the Iron Warriors.

    The Iron Warriors FOC shenanigans wouldn't have been a problem if Obliterators had been HS instead of Elites. That's what broke that list. 4 HS options + 3 Obliterator squads was ridiculous. Obliterators have been HS in every other codex, and they should have been HS in 3.5 as well. That's what ultimately stacked the deck for Iron Warriors.
       
    Made in it
    Waaagh! Ork Warboss




    Italy

     H.B.M.C. wrote:
    And I think that's nonsense.

    Differentiating Marines - and this applies to Chaos Marines as well - is a big appeal of the game. You're playing things that are different to one another.



    100% this. When litterally everyone owns some kind of marines differentiating them is the key to keep things healthy and not ultra boring.

    The concept of subfactions for all armies is IMHO one of the best features of 8th-9th edition.

     
       
    Made in us
    Decrepit Dakkanaut






    SoCal, USA!

     Gadzilla666 wrote:
    The Iron Warriors FOC shenanigans wouldn't have been a problem if Obliterators had been HS instead of Elites. That's what broke that list. 4 HS options + 3 Obliterator squads was ridiculous. Obliterators have been HS in every other codex, and they should have been HS in 3.5 as well. That's what ultimately stacked the deck for Iron Warriors.


    Meh. My Eldar never had a problem with IW. Back then, I was running a nearly-optimal Eldar list and had a lot of practice dismantling those sorts of Marines that filled the meta. If it were up to me, I'd also have put Obies in HS.

       
    Made in de
    Ladies Love the Vibro-Cannon Operator






    Hamburg

    Subfaction rules have different impacts to different factions.
    Marines are just restricted to chapters which is perfectly fine.
    However, GK is restricted to just ONE detachment which makes list building rather restrictive.
    And how about real space raid for Drukhari?

    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
    Longtime Dakkanaut





     wuestenfux wrote:
    Subfaction rules have different impacts to different factions.
    Marines are just restricted to chapters which is perfectly fine.
    However, GK is restricted to just ONE detachment which makes list building rather restrictive.
    And how about real space raid for Drukhari?


    GK are not limited to one single detachment, they can play as many detachments as they want as long as they are all from the same brotherhood.

    Real space raid are not affected by this change. You can play a Kabal, a Cult and a Coven in the same army without issues.
    What you can't do is play 2 different Covens.
       
    Made in us
    Mekboy on Kustom Deth Kopta






    I honestly think this is one of the better changes that GW could do for the game after thinking about it, it keeps getting more and more complex with individual factions within codexes and its harder and harder for your opponent to know what your army does. So many people talk about thier areas being matched play only using only current tournament formatting for terrain, scenarios etc. Personally that's not my prefered method of play, but in that kind of a meta i am unsure how people would get new players, seems a big turnoff to have to keep track of all of that after a demo game i would probably walk away and be like ... too complex back to PC gaming.

    I honestly hope 10th edition does tone down these special faction within faction rules and brings the sort of special sauce into making individual units better. As an example say you had a faction special where heavy weapons can move then shoot normally... how about just give that to a few units across armies liek devastators, heavy weapons teams, dark reapers etc. then its like a "oh that is one of those units that can do that" instead of 10 different sub factions having a specific buff through a hq, relic or strategem to do that.

    10000 points 7000
    6000
    5000
    5000
    2000
     
       
    Made in gb
    Automated Rubric Marine of Tzeentch




    dorset

    Voss wrote:

    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.



    you know space wolves and dark angels have basically never been pure codex marines? like, they've had codex separate to codex: space marines for longer than codex: space marines has been a thing*? unless you've been playing since the rogue trader days of the late 80s they've been "special" and not used the standard marine rules, and frankly rogue trader is was so different that now its hard to make meaningful comparisons. marines weren't gene-engineered, Leman Russ was just Some Dude and not a demi-god son of the emperor, etc.



    *the 1st codex: space marines named as such was in 3rd edition. the 2nd edition "codex chapters" book was Codex: Ultramarines, and space wolves had thier own codex in 2nd, while dark angels shared thier 2nd editon book with blood angels in codex: angels of death.

    This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/01/25 13:42:58


    To be a man in such times is to be one amongst untold billions. It is to live in the cruelest and most bloody regime imaginable. These are the tales of those times. Forget the power of technology and science, for so much has been forgotten, never to be relearned. Forget the promise of progress and understanding, for in the grim dark future there is only war. There is no peace amongst the stars, only an eternity of carnage and slaughter, and the laughter of thirsting gods.

    Coven of XVth 2000pts
    The Blades of Ruin 2,000pts Watch Company Rho 1650pts
     
       
    Made in de
    Ladies Love the Vibro-Cannon Operator






    Hamburg


    GK are not limited to one single detachment, they can play as many detachments as they want as long as they are all from the same brotherhood.

    Right.
    Following the wording in the codex, playing more than one detachment with the same BROTHERHOOD keyword is perfectly fine.
    But each GM or BC must be from a different brotherhood.

    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 us
    Decrepit Dakkanaut





    Biloxi, MS USA

    xerxeskingofking wrote:

    *the 1st codex: space marines named as such was in 3rd edition. the 2nd edition "codex chapters" book was Codex: Ultramarines, and space wolves had thier own codex in 2nd, while dark angels shared thier 2nd editon book with blood angels in codex: angles of death.


    And Codex: Space Wolves was released before Codex: Ultramarines at that.

    You know you're really doing something when you can make strangers hate you over the Internet. - Mauleed
    Just remember folks. Panic. Panic all the time. It's the only way to survive, other than just being mindful, of course-but geez, that's so friggin' boring. - Aegis Grimm
    Hallowed is the All Pie
    The Before Times: A Place That Celebrates The World That Was 
       
    Made in de
    Longtime Dakkanaut




     wuestenfux wrote:

    GK are not limited to one single detachment, they can play as many detachments as they want as long as they are all from the same brotherhood.

    Right.
    Following the wording in the codex, playing more than one detachment with the same BROTHERHOOD keyword is perfectly fine.
    But each GM or BC must be from a different brotherhood.


    Which is the same for Marines, Drukhari, etc.. . Each Chapter Master/Show Stealer/etc.. must be from a different chapter/wych cult. Etc.. i.e. in CA22 only one in matched play.

    Hell, GSC unit-Upgrades are just flat-out one-per army even without the matched-play/GT22 restriction of only one sub-faction and apply in Crusade, etc.. , where Grey Knights, Marines, Drukhari, etc.. have no such restriction.

    This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/01/25 14:39:55


     
       
    Made in it
    Waaagh! Ork Warboss




    Italy

     wuestenfux wrote:
    Subfaction rules have different impacts to different factions.
    Marines are just restricted to chapters which is perfectly fine.
    However, GK is restricted to just ONE detachment which makes list building rather restrictive.


    Not really. GK don't need more slots than a battallion could provide them considering how much their units cost and how they are well spread across all the roles. They can perfectly work with max 3 HQs, FA and HS while elites are up to 6 in a battallion.

     
       
    Made in us
    Inspiring SDF-1 Bridge Officer





    Mississippi

     jeff white wrote:

    Personally, I think that "armies" like Custodes and Harlequins should NOT be stand alone forces, ever, not even close, and the same really for SoB. IMHO, these should be subfactions which need help from e.g. Imp Guard or CWE in order to wage war i.e. fill out 2000pt full armies. Custodes IMHO should not be anywhere near a tyranid, for example, unless there is some scenario whereby GSC infiltrates a holy reliquery too closely associated with Terra to ignore the possible invasion threat, something like that maybe, but otherwise, such factions whould be relegated to sub-faction status whereby they might fill in some unit selections for affiliated main forces without necessary penalty depending on the scenario. For instance, Harlies discover that Crons are getting too close to a webway entrance that is critical for resources used also by a CW, so they alert the CWE of the threat and accompany them to the battlefield, again without penalty. There would seem to be a number of ways that such a constraint might be implemented that remains flexible enough to accommodate varied model collections, but... heck, now that different weapons do different things by way of strategems, rather than simply by being different weapons and performing differently on the battlefield, I have been thinking that GW has zero idea how to make a decent game system, and are rather focused on how to trick out edition after edition with new card packs and gamey nast until frankly more serious hobbyists lose interest. The rest will split their time between MtG and the GW equivalent, as the actual models and the actual battlefield mean less and less.


    I agree. An imperial army should be nothing but Imperial Guard, with the option for Space Marines as an elite choice. These troops are so rare, there shouldn't be more than a squad or two of them in a battle in any given place!

    It never ends well 
       
    Made in fi
    Locked in the Tower of Amareo





     alextroy wrote:

    Without subfaction traits, you can't really get that difference on the battlefield while using the same units. IMO this is why GW has decided to ban multiple subfactions in competitive play. The rules were created for thematic gameplay purposes, not for power. Allowing multiple subfactions allowed the players to concentrate on the power rather than the theme.


    Yet it's still all about power. People will just focus on units that maximise subfaction rules and ignore units that don't benefit from it leading to very unthematic looking armies.

    If you give free bonuses it a) will create unthematic armies b) break the balance.

    But it sells models. Broken balance helps sales.

    2024 painted/bought: 109/109 
       
    Made in us
    Resolute Ultramarine Honor Guard





     Stormonu wrote:
     jeff white wrote:

    Personally, I think that "armies" like Custodes and Harlequins should NOT be stand alone forces, ever, not even close, and the same really for SoB. IMHO, these should be subfactions which need help from e.g. Imp Guard or CWE in order to wage war i.e. fill out 2000pt full armies. Custodes IMHO should not be anywhere near a tyranid, for example, unless there is some scenario whereby GSC infiltrates a holy reliquery too closely associated with Terra to ignore the possible invasion threat, something like that maybe, but otherwise, such factions whould be relegated to sub-faction status whereby they might fill in some unit selections for affiliated main forces without necessary penalty depending on the scenario. For instance, Harlies discover that Crons are getting too close to a webway entrance that is critical for resources used also by a CW, so they alert the CWE of the threat and accompany them to the battlefield, again without penalty. There would seem to be a number of ways that such a constraint might be implemented that remains flexible enough to accommodate varied model collections, but... heck, now that different weapons do different things by way of strategems, rather than simply by being different weapons and performing differently on the battlefield, I have been thinking that GW has zero idea how to make a decent game system, and are rather focused on how to trick out edition after edition with new card packs and gamey nast until frankly more serious hobbyists lose interest. The rest will split their time between MtG and the GW equivalent, as the actual models and the actual battlefield mean less and less.


    I agree. An imperial army should be nothing but Imperial Guard, with the option for Space Marines as an elite choice. These troops are so rare, there shouldn't be more than a squad or two of them in a battle in any given place!


    I disagree with why, but yes some of the factions aren't really fleshed out enough for my tastes. Custodes don't have enough data sheets. Genestealer Cults could use some more as well. Probably other factions too. I think the Primaris movement was twofold. I think they wanted to retcon the Marines to change their stat lines etc. I also wonder if it wasn't Step 1 for Sisters revival with the Castigator release. They were already using the Rhino Hull for their vehicles. They can get the Rhino hull out of Space Marines by going Primaris, and the Land Raider hull and Contemptors then become Custodes only if/when they squat the First Born. I think that was the plan, but they were scared off by the outrage. It may still be the plan but between the outrage and what I'm betting is a gigantic drop off in First Born sales (Pandemic plus avoiding buyer's remorse) they have at least delayed it so they're not sitting on all that merch forever.

    My WHFB armies were Bretonians and Tomb Kings. 
       
    Made in dk
    Loyal Necron Lychguard






    tneva82 wrote:
     alextroy wrote:

    Without subfaction traits, you can't really get that difference on the battlefield while using the same units. IMO this is why GW has decided to ban multiple subfactions in competitive play. The rules were created for thematic gameplay purposes, not for power. Allowing multiple subfactions allowed the players to concentrate on the power rather than the theme.


    Yet it's still all about power. People will just focus on units that maximise subfaction rules and ignore units that don't benefit from it leading to very unthematic looking armies.

    If you give free bonuses it a) will create unthematic armies b) break the balance.

    But it sells models. Broken balance helps sales.

    Except that nobody is going to buy Scouts, nobody is going to buy Salamander Outriders... Perfect imbalance leads to sales. If the meta is Eradicators and each faction has counters for Eradicators then people buy those counters, the meta adjusts, Eradicators stop being meta and the Eradicator counters stop being meta leading to people buying new minis again until people get everything for a faction. All GW has to do to create perfect imbalance is do their best job at making the game balanced, because perfect balance is impossible with all the different stats that are in the game, perfect imbalance does not mean "herpaderp me make Eradicators OP now" or "durr what's playtesting?".
       
     
    Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
    Go to: