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.

 aphyon wrote:

Dandelion wrote:
I don’t believe the difference in skill between a white scars biker and a salamander biker is really enough to justify a stat difference, considering that a baseline human is S3, while a super soldier sits at S4. There’s just not enough space for it IMO.

It wasn't a stat difference like 10th does with the +1/-1

If you look at what i posted previously for the WS they had an entire page of special rules for their bikes as well as a alternate FOC structure.

While technically not a "stat difference," I think the point stands that the difference between how WS and a Salamander ride their bikes is minimal enough to not necessarily warrant bespoke rules.

It sounds like the key difference between our stances might be that you value difference for difference's sake (making a given faction feel more special by virtue of being different) over a player's creative freedom whereas I'm the opposite. There is value in the warm fuzzies you get from your faction's special rules. I just think there's at least as much value in letting the Salamander guy who likes bikes play with bikes without having the nagging discomfort of knowing that he's playing at a disadvantage.

And I feel like faction-locking rules rules gets harder to defend when you consider how many subfactions there are. If you're okay with people buying traits for their custom chapter, then you already acknowledge that White Scars aren't so special that they're the only ones who should have access to the do-bike-things rules. So telling ouro hypothetical Salamanders guy that he can't do bike things too basically just boils down to telling him that he's enjoying the lore wrong. Which I simply can't get behind even if I did agree that Salamanders riding bikes is weird.

 Wyldhunt wrote:
If you're okay with people buying traits for their custom chapter, then you already acknowledge that White Scars aren't so special that they're the only ones who should have access to the do-bike-things rules. So telling ouro hypothetical Salamanders guy that he can't do bike things too basically just boils down to telling him that he's enjoying the lore wrong. Which I simply can't get behind even if I did agree that Salamanders riding bikes is weird.

Exactly, underlined as emphasis.

I’d agree with that.

Whilst some Chapters might have limited use for a given unit type? Not using them ever at all makes no tactical or strategic sense whatsoever.

Now, rules wise? It can be a way to balance out their perks. Even then? You can utterly fail to do so. Ref 3.5 Iron Warriors.

Those lads could trade in 2 Fast Attack slots for 1 Heavy Support slot. Sounds like a trade to be carefully considered, right? But hold there. Slow down, Pedro. What exactly were my options in Fast Attack?

Daemonic Cavalry. Non-starter, as Iron Warriors couldn’t field any Daemonic Units, other than a Daemon Prince. And that was an HQ.

Chaos Bikers. OK. I was never sold on Bikes in that era, but nippy Meltagun has a certain appeal.

0-1 Unit of Raptors. Which thanks to Daemonic Visage, across the whole unit, inflicted -2 Ld to enemy’s beaten in combat, which stacked nicely with the Beaten In Combat By X -X modifier to break tests. And they could take Meltaguns.

Raptors were a must. Whilst not massively survivable, they tended to make a healthy mess of whatever they engaged, with a more than reasonable chance of Breaking and running down stuff they beat up. But I can only ever have one unit.

So the “two fast attack for one heavy support” always boiled down to Bikes, or a Basilisk/Vindicator/4th Defiler with its solid HTH and a sodding Battle Cannon.

In short? Barely a choice. For anyone. The positive massively outweighed the negative.

 Wyldhunt wrote:

 aphyon wrote:

Dandelion wrote:
I don’t believe the difference in skill between a white scars biker and a salamander biker is really enough to justify a stat difference, considering that a baseline human is S3, while a super soldier sits at S4. There’s just not enough space for it IMO.

It wasn't a stat difference like 10th does with the +1/-1

If you look at what i posted previously for the WS they had an entire page of special rules for their bikes as well as a alternate FOC structure.

While technically not a "stat difference," I think the point stands that the difference between how WS and a Salamander ride their bikes is minimal enough to not necessarily warrant bespoke rules.

It sounds like the key difference between our stances might be that you value difference for difference's sake (making a given faction feel more special by virtue of being different) over a player's creative freedom whereas I'm the opposite. There is value in the warm fuzzies you get from your faction's special rules. I just think there's at least as much value in letting the Salamander guy who likes bikes play with bikes without having the nagging discomfort of knowing that he's playing at a disadvantage.

And I feel like faction-locking rules rules gets harder to defend when you consider how many subfactions there are. If you're okay with people buying traits for their custom chapter, then you already acknowledge that White Scars aren't so special that they're the only ones who should have access to the do-bike-things rules. So telling ouro hypothetical Salamanders guy that he can't do bike things too basically just boils down to telling him that he's enjoying the lore wrong. Which I simply can't get behind even if I did agree that Salamanders riding bikes is weird.

I do not consider 5 rules specific to making WS bikers good at CC along with the alt FOC to support them to be minimal, but that's my opinion.

I don't see the second point as being a conflict. you can play faction X because you like how it is different. but the creative freedom is still there in the rules to make your own force within the rules of the edition i play. the "playing at a disadvantage" thing has always been there. but i don't see it as a disadvantage i see it as variety. the ravenwing from the same era get fearless, skilled rider and a jink save from shooting (and a severely restricted FOC), but they don't get any of the bonuses for close combat the WS get. as they are a bike centric force focused on shooting does this disadvantage them in CC? sure thing but then by comparison the WS get the same sort of disadvantage to the RW in the shooting arena.

I also don't see it as enjoying the lore wrong or right. the lore is the lore and at one point in GWs game design they made the effort to make the rules fit the lore of the setting. if i choose to play to the lore in this locked style for specific factions and i find players who agree with that take on how the game is played (usually when they are new to learning oldhammer and look at the lore specific rules sets for their favorite faction from 3rd-5th they think it is really great). i cannot by definition be preventing anybody from enjoying the lore anyway they see fit. as i cannot force anybody to play with me or agree with me. we are back to the social contract of "in person" wargaming.

It has been an interesting conversation with you specifically but i don't see us ever agreeing with each others positions on the topic.

aphyon wrote:I also don't see it as enjoying the lore wrong or right.

BS. You've been repeatedly hammering home this idea how "someone who plays Salamanders bikers is doing it wrong because the Salamanders shouldn't be able to field a bike oriented force, and no reasonable person would ever think to take a Salamanders bike army".

To quote yourself: "the very concept of a salamanders bike army tells me you don't really care about the lore or love the salamanders".

You've clearly established that there is a "correct" belief that extends beyond your own preference.

the lore is the lore

Except that even within that, there's clearly some confusion, because you seem to be ignorant that certain things that you've deemed as "completely opposite how they should be played" are entirely canon.

You say "the lore is the lore", but the lore changes, the lore adapts, and the mechanical implementations of that "lore" are not always made equal.

This insistence on "One True Lore" simply isn't enough of a basis to build any sort of widespread point from - the only thing it can apply to is yourself, and those who CHOOSE to agree with your interpretation.

if i choose to play to the lore in this locked style for specific factions and i find players who agree with that take on how the game is played (usually when they are new to learning oldhammer and look at the lore specific rules sets for their favorite faction from 3rd-5th they think it is really great).

Yes, you can - and that's great if you and those you want to play with all share the same OPINION. But we're talking about a wider trend and set of experiences than just your home group, and you need to acknowledge that if you want to have this conversation.

Not everyone shares that same opinion, even if they also aren't trying to meta chase - like I mentioned, a Salamanders player who thought bikes were cool. And you coming in here, and making all these comments like "SALAMANDERS SHOULDN'T BE DOING THAT" is the problem here.

Again, this would ALL be resolved if you simply shifted your perspective/language to "I wouldn't play Salamanders like this". Instead of all this hand-wringing about "BUT THE LORE SAYS" or "THAT'S THE COMPLETE OPPOSITE OF WHAT THEY SHOULD BE DOING", consider that maybe the world is wider than your own opinion on the matter, and that your opinion on things might not be as well informed as you think.

So it's page 7 and I think we can settle on some firm conclusions.

It's clear that painting doesn't matter. It doesn't matter what color you paint your minis. Any attempts to tie paintjobs to the background can make people sad. Painting is controversial and can be considered oppressive in the hobby for numerous reasons. In fact it's better if you don't paint at all Peregrin Took. That way no one gets hurt.

The background doesn't matter either and so neither does your choice of chapter, sept, craftworld, league, dynasty, kabal or hive fleet. It just doesn't. The fluff changes from edition to edition, and it's all made up anyway. Salamanders don't exist. Neither do White Scars. And even if they did there would be no differences between them. Similarly there shouldn't be any differences between factions. Differences lead to imbalances which lead to suffering. So just do what you want with your miniatures.

Except the miniatures don't matter either. You don't need them to play. There are lots of less expensive things you could use to represent units on the tabletop. Standees, carboard counters, green plastic army men, micronauts et al are all viable. No one can tell you that can't use any of these things to play. Except for maybe a tournament organizer, but those guys are all mean and you shouldn't engage with them. You do you. If you want to use Tyranid models to represent Space Marines no one can stop you.

It's not like the rules matter. They've always said that the most important rule is that the rules are not that important.

 Arschbombe wrote:
So it's page 7 and I think we can settle on some firm conclusions.

It's clear that painting doesn't matter. It doesn't matter what color you paint your minis. Any attempts to tie paintjobs to the background can make people sad. Painting is controversial and can be considered oppressive in the hobby for numerous reasons. In fact it's better if you don't paint at all Peregrin Took. That way no one gets hurt.

The background doesn't matter either and so neither does your choice of chapter, sept, craftworld, league, dynasty, kabal or hive fleet. It just doesn't. The fluff changes from edition to edition, and it's all made up anyway. Salamanders don't exist. Neither do White Scars. And even if they did there would be no differences between them. Similarly there shouldn't be any differences between factions. Differences lead to imbalances which lead to suffering. So just do what you want with your miniatures.

Except the miniatures don't matter either. You don't need them to play. There are lots of less expensive things you could use to represent units on the tabletop. Standees, carboard counters, green plastic army men, micronauts et al are all viable. No one can tell you that can't use any of these things to play. Except for maybe a tournament organizer, but those guys are all mean and you shouldn't engage with them. You do you. If you want to use Tyranid models to represent Space Marines no one can stop you.

It's not like the rules matter. They've always said that the most important rule is that the rules are not that important.

Painting matters if you value the aesthetics. Not everyone does to a large extent, but tons of people do, with some people putting it above the gameplay itself.
Background matters if you value the lore. Not everyone does, with some people focusing purely on gameplay or how pretty the models are, but a lot of people enjoy the universe of 40k. The fluff changes and is rarely as cut-and-dry as some people present it as, but it's not some amorphous mass that's wholly inconsistent.
The models matter, for WYSIWYG and aesthetics, even if nothing else. You can certainly do counts-as and/or proxies, with your opponent's permission, but the (in my opinion reasonable) default is to use appropriate minis.
The rules matter, if you value the gameplay. Some people just buy, build, and paint minis-and that's totally fine. Other people prefer to engage with the game, in which case, the rules are what matter.

Not everything matters to everyone in the hobby. But all of it matters to some. You choose how you engage with the hobby, and so long as you're happy with it without messing with someone else's enjoyment, it's all good.

The background doesn't matter either and so neither does your choice of chapter, sept, craftworld, league, dynasty, kabal or hive fleet. It just doesn't. The fluff changes from edition to edition, and it's all made up anyway. Salamanders don't exist. Neither do White Scars. And even if they did there would be no differences between them.

I know the whole post was sarcastic, but I think we can drill into this bit to clarify a point.

No one is saying that subfactions aren't (according to their lore) somewhat different. We're just disagreeing about the extent to which they're different. And further, the main point of contention seems to be on who gets to decide how different a pair of subfactions actually are.

To my mind, it's better to err on the side that promotes player choice and creativity. Think of it like this:

* Scenario A: The player doesn't care about being lore accurate; only maximizing the rules. They're going to take whichever option is most powerful regardless of lore, and they can generally go, "Yeah, I'm a successor of the strong faction or whatever." In this case, explicitly stating that only marines who identify as <insert chapter here> can use The Good Rules will just make them claim to be <insert chapter here> or claim to be a successor or whatever. Nothing is really gained.

* Scenario B.) Player likes the lore and happens to agree with your interpretation of the lore. The army they build will be painted the colors you expect. Saying they *had* to paint their army that color to use The Good Rules is irrelevant because they were going to pain the army that color anyway.

* Scenario C.) Player likes the lore, but they think bikes can be green sometimes. The rules say the bikes have to be white to use The Good Rules. Player is somewhat bummed that he can't enjoy the fluff and mechanics he likes at the same time/bummed that he has to play every game at a disadvantage because the rules are telling him he's having fun wrong. In this scenario, tying rules to paint results in the player having a worse experience.

* Scenario D.) Player likes the lore, but they think bikes can be green sometimes. The rules say this is fine and gives him some paint-agnostic abilities that support the units he wants to use. Player has fun making vroom vroom noises while playing with his bikes.

In each of those scenarios, faction-locking The Good Rules would have either been irrelevant or would have resulted in a net negative experience. The only downside to scenario D (which is the 10th edition approach) is that some people are snobby/gatekeepy about how other people enjoy the lore. So it creates a worse experience for the snobby gatekeepers. But as my tone probably communicates, I'm not terribly sympathetic towards the snobby gatekeepers, and they can kindly keep to themselves rather than advocating for rules that detract from the fun of the non-snobs.

My dudes and dudettes, I have heard some really cringe homebrew lore, but I don't want GW to write rules that punishes the cringe players for it. Let people enjoy their silly, lore-inaccurate armies. (Not that I necessarily think green bikers are an outlandish army concept in the first place.)

@Arschbombe

That gave me a good chuckle, your sarcastic wit is duly noted and appreciated.

As Goobertown Hobbies so eloquently put it:

"I know that these rifles shoot troops, and I know these rifles shoot tanks. I know CP is for re-rolling ones. Other than that, I'm just here to spend time with friends. I went 0-6 and still had a great time, my Minis looked great, and I had fun making them."

At the end of the day, I'd say he won more than the guys who went 6-0.

Back in 3rd/4th when I started with eldar I painted them as ulthwe because I liked their lore and color scheme. I get that it's fun to have cool rules for your guys, but I never viewed it as a necessity.

I absolutely love the current approach on this. Flanderisation of the chapters was just getting silly. Now you can actually use whatever units you want, without being punished for painting your models "wrong."

But you can be punished for NOT painting your models....because god forbid you commit that unforgivable sin.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
But you can be punished for NOT painting your models....because god forbid you commit that unforgivable sin.

Good.

Greymaris Marines are a perfectly acceptable chapter of the Indomitus Crusade. Forged on the planet Jago, where the dust has patterned their armor to a perfect grey, they exist like ghosts.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
But you can be punished for NOT painting your models....because god forbid you commit that unforgivable sin.

Mate, if I can pump out 120 Marines in 17 days? Anyone can.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
But you can be punished for NOT painting your models....because god forbid you commit that unforgivable sin.

Mate, if I can pump out 120 Marines in 17 days? Anyone can.

But no one should have to.
If you enjoy painting, have a blast! If you’ll only play against painted forces, that’s a-okay. No one should force you to face an army you wouldn’t have fun against.

But if you don’t care for painting, you shouldn’t have to.

I second JNAProductions on this.

Putting my two cents back in the rant.

Painted marines is entirely up to the player. Is it nice to see a really cohesive nicely painted force to play against? Yes. Does it make any difference when the first turn starts? No

What does make a difference is a player using chapter specific units to make it more narrative .

At the end of the day you have to ask what you'd rather play.

A tournament style game where every unit is there because ite the best you can get.

A narrative game where your army is instantly recognisable as a specific chapter with tactics and units to match.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
But you can be punished for NOT painting your models....because god forbid you commit that unforgivable sin.

Mate, if I can pump out 120 Marines in 17 days? Anyone can.

But no one should have to.
If you enjoy painting, have a blast! If you’ll only play against painted forces, that’s a-okay. No one should force you to face an army you wouldn’t have fun against.

But if you don’t care for painting, you shouldn’t have to.

Also, people might not want to 'pump out' their models...

 Corennus wrote:
What does make a difference is a player using chapter specific units to make it more narrative.
...
A narrative game where your army is instantly recognisable as a specific chapter with tactics and units to match.

Are you suggesting that an army is "less narrative" if it only uses generic units?

Also, why do you need Chapter specific units to make your army flavourful? If you want the flavour of a faction, just take the units that fit how you wanna play that faction. You want to play a White Scars biker lance? Take bikes. You want to play a Raven Guard stealth talon? Take Phobos Marines, supported by Assault Intercessors.

What about players who have their own homebrew Chapters? Are they not "narrative" because they don't get their own unique units? What about Chapters like the Exorcists, who aren't first founding? Do they get to have their own unique units? Scythes of the Emperor? Hawk Lords? Relictors?

Are unique units and tactics essential for narrative play, because you're seeming to claim that it is - or that if someone plays a homebrew or lesser known Chapter, it is "less narrative".

Urrghhhh....can we please not have the "painting" argument again? Or whatever argument Smudge is trying to start? Just, do what makes you happy everyone. And ignore silly internet opinions.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Urrghhhh....can we please not have the "painting" argument again? Or whatever argument Smudge is trying to start? Just, do what makes you happy everyone. And ignore silly internet opinions.

By Smudge, do you mean Fezzik, who brought up painting to start; or me, who said that it’s not a requirement?

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Urrghhhh....can we please not have the "painting" argument again? Or whatever argument Smudge is trying to start? Just, do what makes you happy everyone. And ignore silly internet opinions.

Sorry, what? I didn't mention painting once.
I'm responding to Corennus, who ALSO isn't talking about painting.

If you're going to call someone out, call out the right people, mate - especially if it's going to be your first post in the thread. Or are you just complaining about me in general?

JNAProductions wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Urrghhhh....can we please not have the "painting" argument again? Or whatever argument Smudge is trying to start? Just, do what makes you happy everyone. And ignore silly internet opinions.

By Smudge, do you mean Fezzik, who brought up painting to start; or me, who said that it’s not a requirement?

I'm just tired of the repeated, circular argument, that repeatedly gets threads derailed and locked, that's all. I'm on your side. My previous posts on the subject should show that.

Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Urrghhhh....can we please not have the "painting" argument again? Or whatever argument Smudge is trying to start? Just, do what makes you happy everyone. And ignore silly internet opinions.

Sorry, what? I didn't mention painting once.
I'm responding to Corennus, who ALSO isn't talking about painting.

If you're going to call someone out, call out the right people, mate - especially if it's going to be your first post in the thread. Or are you just complaining about me in general?

I know that you didn't comment on the "painting issue", and it isn't personal. It just seemed that you were starting another circular argument. Sorry. I'm just tired of those. If you enjoy them, then please continue. I apologize for interrupting or bothering you.

I belive it was Crimson who said


"I absolutely love the current approach on this. Flanderisation of the chapters was just getting silly. Now you can actually use whatever units you want, without being punished for painting your models "wrong."

So before we start the "Fezzik's a dunderheaded ninny muggins, can we at least cite the source? I was responding to the claim that one could be punished for painting WRONG, I took it one step further and said, AT ALL. See the difference?

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Urrghhhh....can we please not have the "painting" argument again? Or whatever argument Smudge is trying to start? Just, do what makes you happy everyone. And ignore silly internet opinions.

Sorry, what? I didn't mention painting once.
I'm responding to Corennus, who ALSO isn't talking about painting.

If you're going to call someone out, call out the right people, mate - especially if it's going to be your first post in the thread. Or are you just complaining about me in general?

I know that you didn't comment on the "painting issue", and it isn't personal. It just seemed that you were starting another circular argument. Sorry. I'm just tired of those. If you enjoy them, then please continue. I apologize for interrupting or bothering you.

Politely, and I do mean with all respect, I'm going to continue with the question I asked Corennus.

Corennus made a point. I want to discuss that point, and get their opinion on things that challenge their perspective.

It's not a circular argument if people actually engage with the conversation and react to new information of perspectives - such as "well, did you consider X, which doesn't neatly fit into the statement you made"?


Ultimately, this *is* supposed to be a discussion (emphasis on my previous point about reacting to, and dealing with, the new points that are raised, as opposed to repeating points without adding new detail).

And, I'd really appreciate that, in the future, you don't default to me allegedly being the one to cause problems here - I'm having a discussion here, and what's more, I'm *developing* arguments and responding to new information and takes offered - which not all users do.
Not to mention that you haven't even apologised for falsely attributing things to me.