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
Longtime Dakkanaut




Annandale, VA

 Blackie wrote:
Might even represent the fact that mixed up forces aren't optimized and somehow improvised as members from different forces might not fight with consolidate tactics and synergies, which makes them lose some efficiency, aka some faction bonus are negated.


Sisters losing their faith because allies are on the field sounds wrong, but having fewer Command Points to work with to represent reduced command efficiency seems perfect. I'd say a CP tax would have been a much better way to handle mixed armies than losing faction traits, let alone the outright ban on mixing subfactions that GW is now going with.

In older editions the cost of taking allies was that you had to meet minimum requirements of a second FOC, so min 1 HQ + 2 Troops before you could get into any of the spicy stuff. Easy to add some Tactical Marines to your Guard, but you couldn't just soup tanks in.

But here we are once again, having the unlimited freedom of free-form army composition constrained by sledgehammer solutions in the name of tournament balance, and sucks to suck for casual players.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/01/21 15:12:00


   
Made in ca
Preacher of the Emperor






 carldooley wrote:
I know that it is awful late in this thread to have this question, but explain something to me:

For those of us who run a Super Heavy Auxiliary Detachment out of the same book as another detachment, say baneblades and an infantry regiment; Would we be stuck running both without any regiment bonuses as a SHAD precludes the selection, or does this new rule override that BRB rule?


While we'd probably need to read the book to be sure, based on the new article it looks like your entire army is given the regiment value you decide and it simply applies to any detachments in your army. You don't get the +2 CP bonus for having the same regiment as your Warlord if the baneblade doesn't have <regiment> (does it? Can't remember!), but if you spend CP on a stratagem to give it <regiment> I think it evens out?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/01/21 15:17:06


   
Made in us
Enigmatic Chaos Sorcerer




The dark hollows of Kentucky

Baneblades have the <REGIMENT> keyword. It's right there on the datasheet. They just don't get Regimental Traits unless you take the appropriate Tank Ace ability.
   
Made in gb
Fixture of Dakka







It'll be interesting to see the exact wording when the book comes out - hopefully this sledgehammer strike is restricted specifically to "matched play games using these scenarios", rather than game-wide.

Would mean that this could be reverted with the next scenario pack.

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 ca
Preacher of the Emperor






 catbarf wrote:
But here we are once again, having the unlimited freedom of free-form army composition constrained by sledgehammer solutions in the name of tournament balance, and sucks to suck for casual players.


For what its worth I think simplifying the tournament format in this way could help GW balance that scene out a bit, they clearly build their codexes with mono-dex, mono-faction armies in mind and this at least helps even out imperium and xenos players a bit. (What this means for Brood Brothers, I don't know.)

Locking down the hardcore tournament scene may also give them more wiggle room in the 'more ways to play' space, since a slightly more open casual matched play setting that allows souping and mixed factions is probably closer to what people like in a casual friendly game space rather than open play.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Baneblades have the <REGIMENT> keyword. It's right there on the datasheet. They just don't get Regimental Traits unless you take the appropriate Tank Ace ability.


Fair enough. Either way, the infantry will still have access to their Regimental Traits without losing them.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/01/21 15:33:37


   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





Tampa,FL USA

 Captain Joystick wrote:
(What this means for Brood Brothers, I don't know.)


It means nothing for Brood Brothers because they have a different Keyword(that has already been replaced) from GSC units. Once again, this only prevents SINGLE <KEYWORD> sub-faction mixing.

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 us
Ultramarine Terminator with Assault Cannon





 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Baneblades have the <REGIMENT> keyword. It's right there on the datasheet. They just don't get Regimental Traits unless you take the appropriate Tank Ace ability.


But on the bright side, it sounds like you can get some CP back for matching.

My WHFB armies were Bretonians and Tomb Kings. 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




NE Ohio, USA

 Dysartes wrote:
It'll be interesting to see the exact wording when the book comes out - hopefully this sledgehammer strike is restricted specifically to "matched play games using these scenarios", rather than game-wide.

Would mean that this could be reverted with the next scenario pack.


That chaotic churn between CA volumes is already a possibility. The only thing new is the speed it happens at.
GW giveth, GW taketh away, and you all cheer for "balance". And 6 months from now you'll do it again.
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

And you'll pay them for the privilege.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/01/21 16:10:50


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

 
   
Made in ca
Secretive Dark Angels Veteran



Canada

So if I am reading the preview correctly, I think we have workable set of restrictions?

Let's say I want to have a Detachment of Iron Hands and a Detachment of White Scars. It was already very punishing from a sub-faction trait perspective in 9th, but it is now impossible in GT 22 play to do so as those datasheets both have the <Chapter>. I could, however, have a detachment of Cadians and a Detachment of White Scars as they do not share a replaceable <keyword>. You probably wouldn't do such a mix anyway, but hey.

Let's say I play Astra Militarum. I can no longer have a Detachment of Cadians and a Detachment of Catachans as those various datasheets share a replaceable <Regiment> keyword. Seems fair. I could, however, have a Detachment of Lambdan Lions (Scions) and a Detachment of Cadians as their datasheets do not share a replaceable <Keyword>. I could not, however, have an army with a Detachment of Kappic Eagles and a Detachment of Lambdan Lions since Scions gained a replaceable <Tempestus Regiment> keyword in their Psychic Awakening book.

So there is still some room for flavour but not the same level of cherry-picking from the same faction that we had before. Also nothing stopping two like-minded hard-core casual players from doing what they want with their game. Just don't rock up to a tourney using the GT22 pack without understanding and following the restrictions.

All you have to do is fire three rounds a minute, and stand 
   
Made in hk
Longtime Dakkanaut





So... is it still possible to soup two different codex together? Say I soup chaos knights and death guard together. Is that still allowed?
   
Made in fi
Courageous Space Marine Captain






Eldenfirefly wrote:
So... is it still possible to soup two different codex together? Say I soup chaos knights and death guard together. Is that still allowed?

Yes. This doesn't affect that at all.

   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





 catbarf wrote:
 Blackie wrote:
Might even represent the fact that mixed up forces aren't optimized and somehow improvised as members from different forces might not fight with consolidate tactics and synergies, which makes them lose some efficiency, aka some faction bonus are negated.


Sisters losing their faith because allies are on the field sounds wrong, but having fewer Command Points to work with to represent reduced command efficiency seems perfect. I'd say a CP tax would have been a much better way to handle mixed armies than losing faction traits, let alone the outright ban on mixing subfactions that GW is now going with.

In older editions the cost of taking allies was that you had to meet minimum requirements of a second FOC, so min 1 HQ + 2 Troops before you could get into any of the spicy stuff. Easy to add some Tactical Marines to your Guard, but you couldn't just soup tanks in.

But here we are once again, having the unlimited freedom of free-form army composition constrained by sledgehammer solutions in the name of tournament balance, and sucks to suck for casual players.

'
The problem has become that not all armies have equal power in stratagems. DE are strong, because theirs are so friggin' good and they get no list building penalties. Orks just don't give a gak about strats at all and just dump into other avenues.

DE are going to dodge this with a Real Space Raid battalion though. It will take Dark Tech out of the mix, but it will still be a strong list.

   
Made in it
Longtime Dakkanaut





 Daedalus81 wrote:
 catbarf wrote:
 Blackie wrote:
Might even represent the fact that mixed up forces aren't optimized and somehow improvised as members from different forces might not fight with consolidate tactics and synergies, which makes them lose some efficiency, aka some faction bonus are negated.


Sisters losing their faith because allies are on the field sounds wrong, but having fewer Command Points to work with to represent reduced command efficiency seems perfect. I'd say a CP tax would have been a much better way to handle mixed armies than losing faction traits, let alone the outright ban on mixing subfactions that GW is now going with.

In older editions the cost of taking allies was that you had to meet minimum requirements of a second FOC, so min 1 HQ + 2 Troops before you could get into any of the spicy stuff. Easy to add some Tactical Marines to your Guard, but you couldn't just soup tanks in.

But here we are once again, having the unlimited freedom of free-form army composition constrained by sledgehammer solutions in the name of tournament balance, and sucks to suck for casual players.

'
The problem has become that not all armies have equal power in stratagems. DE are strong, because theirs are so friggin' good and they get no list building penalties. Orks just don't give a gak about strats at all and just dump into other avenues.

DE are going to dodge this with a Real Space Raid battalion though. It will take Dark Tech out of the mix, but it will still be a strong list.


Real Space raid received a huge nerf at the same time though.
DE are not dodging this nerf.
   
Made in us
Furious Fire Dragon





Wait, what's the huge nerf for Realspace Raid?
   
Made in it
Longtime Dakkanaut





It's made of patrols.
Patrols are rumored to be limited to 1 HS and 1 FA.
   
Made in gb
Fixture of Dakka







You'd think changing the slots in detachments is something significant enough to get called out in one of the preview posts, though.

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 ca
Longtime Dakkanaut





To clarify DE:

There are TWO rules for DE that are relevant in the context of this discussion.

RAIDING FORCES:
- every detachment must be a patrol (hit by patrol composition changes)
- because <kabal>, <cult> and <coven> are defferent selectable keywords, you can still take one of each, but ONLY one of each

REALSPACE RAID:
- a single detachment of any type that contains a Warlord Archon, a Succubus, a Haemonculus plus at least one unit of Kabalite, Cultist and Coven troops.
- all kabalites get the kabal obsession, all cults get their obsession and all covens get theirs
- unaffected by patrol composition changes, and still uses separate selectable keywords, hence mostly unaffected by subfaction changes as well

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/01/21 18:25:16


 
   
Made in us
Furious Fire Dragon





 Dysartes wrote:
You'd think changing the slots in detachments is something significant enough to get called out in one of the preview posts, though.


Yeah, I'm pretty skeptical of that claim.
   
Made in us
Confessor Of Sins




 Captain Joystick wrote:
 catbarf wrote:
But here we are once again, having the unlimited freedom of free-form army composition constrained by sledgehammer solutions in the name of tournament balance, and sucks to suck for casual players.


For what its worth I think simplifying the tournament format in this way could help GW balance that scene out a bit, they clearly build their codexes with mono-dex, mono-faction armies in mind and this at least helps even out imperium and xenos players a bit. (What this means for Brood Brothers, I don't know.)

Locking down the hardcore tournament scene may also give them more wiggle room in the 'more ways to play' space, since a slightly more open casual matched play setting that allows souping and mixed factions is probably closer to what people like in a casual friendly game space rather than open play.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Baneblades have the <REGIMENT> keyword. It's right there on the datasheet. They just don't get Regimental Traits unless you take the appropriate Tank Ace ability.


Fair enough. Either way, the infantry will still have access to their Regimental Traits without losing them.


This requires GW to both care AND be competent in making changes though. Something they haven't historically demonstrated.

2500pts
2500
3000


 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





Gene St. Ealer wrote:Wait, what's the huge nerf for Realspace Raid?


Spoletta wrote:It's made of patrols.
Patrols are rumored to be limited to 1 HS and 1 FA.


PenitentJake wrote:To clarify DE:

There are TWO rules for DE that are relevant in the context of this discussion.

RAIDING FORCES:
- every detachment must be a patrol (hit by patrol composition changes)
- because <kabal>, <cult> and <coven> are defferent selectable keywords, you can still take one of each, but ONLY one of each

REALSPACE RAID:
- a single detachment of any type that contains a Warlord Archon, a Succubus, a Haemonculus plus at least one unit of Kabalite, Cultist and Coven troops.
- all kabalites get the kabal obsession, all cults get their obsession and all covens get theirs
- unaffected by patrol composition changes, and still uses separate selectable keywords, hence mostly unaffected by subfaction changes as well


Right, well...I guess it's a wash. If they go battalion they have only 3 FA and 3 HS -- the same as if 3 patrols with only 1 FA and HS each.

In any case I played Thicc City in the battalion config. No Dark Tech, but it was still just stupid durable and I couldn't get LOS on the Talos fast enough.

   
Made in it
Waaagh! Ork Warboss




Italy

 catbarf wrote:
 Blackie wrote:
Might even represent the fact that mixed up forces aren't optimized and somehow improvised as members from different forces might not fight with consolidate tactics and synergies, which makes them lose some efficiency, aka some faction bonus are negated.


Sisters losing their faith because allies are on the field sounds wrong, but having fewer Command Points to work with to represent reduced command efficiency seems perfect. I'd say a CP tax would have been a much better way to handle mixed armies than losing faction traits, let alone the outright ban on mixing subfactions that GW is now going with.

In older editions the cost of taking allies was that you had to meet minimum requirements of a second FOC, so min 1 HQ + 2 Troops before you could get into any of the spicy stuff. Easy to add some Tactical Marines to your Guard, but you couldn't just soup tanks in.

But here we are once again, having the unlimited freedom of free-form army composition constrained by sledgehammer solutions in the name of tournament balance, and sucks to suck for casual players.


Problem is losing a few CP might not be a significant drawback for some armies. Especially if they have tools to regain CPs later. Being forced to take unwanted trash units can be a solution, but I think the majority would rather lose some rules than being forced to play unwanted stuff.

Mixing orders, klans, equivalents from the same book is not common for casual players who typically paint their miniatures with the same colour scheme, it's super common for competitive ones instead who mix up orders/equivalents just to get appropriate buffs to all their units.

 
   
Made in us
Ultramarine Terminator with Assault Cannon





 Blackie wrote:


Problem is losing a few CP might not be a significant drawback for some armies. Especially if they have tools to regain CPs later. Being forced to take unwanted trash units can be a solution, but I think the majority would rather lose some rules than being forced to play unwanted stuff.

Mixing orders, klans, equivalents from the same book is not common for casual players who typically paint their miniatures with the same colour scheme, it's super common for competitive ones instead who mix up orders/equivalents just to get appropriate buffs to all their units.


Its funny, and maybe I read too many of the books, but I have far less problems with subfaction than I do cross faction soup. Even then if they're Battle Brothers (IG/SM or Mech/IG/SM etc - I'd prefer GW figure out how to make it work with a minor to no penalty than just prohibiting it. Kind of like they do now with the DA Wings. If you make a Raven+Deathwing army you take a small CP hit. At the same time, you basically end up with an Adeptus Custodes Army that... takes a CP hit - which doesn't seem right. Either make a new Battalion size Detach with plenty of Elite, FA, no Troop, limited HS choice, or let all the Outrider/Vanguard detach that qualify as the speciality detach refund their CP costs. I'd go with the first one because the second would require too much IF-THEN-ELSE conditioning to prevent abuse - Something like 2-3HQ, 3-8 Elite, 0Troop, 3-8FA, 0-2 HS 0-2 Flyers, with CP Cost/Refund of 3, all units must have Deathwing or Ravenwing keywords. that basically merges the Outrider and Vanguard Detach, doesn't give an extra HQ, no greenwing hole patching, still allows for landraiders, Stormravens, Dreads and Ravenwing flyers. The logical conclusion to what GW is currently doing would prohibit Raven and Death Wings from showing up together. The other thing I don't like about what GW is doing is they're trying to pound Clans/Septs/etc into Chapter Tactics holes. The Ork Horde is multi-clan with the units being clan flavored. Deathskull Lootas. Goff Skarboyz. Evil Sun Buggies. Instead of turning making them go mono-clan, they should have just gotten a list of what happens to each of those units when you have a specific clan kulture or something- with a few units prohibited to each Clan due to animosity. The point is Space Marines and Space Orks have very different flavor and should use a different mechanic in army building.

My WHFB armies were Bretonians and Tomb Kings. 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Annandale, VA

Daedalus81 wrote:The problem has become that not all armies have equal power in stratagems.

Blackie wrote:Problem is losing a few CP might not be a significant drawback for some armies.


Well, using a new method of representing command inefficiency rather than the command mechanic already in the game because they botched its implementation is very GW, I'll give you that.

In a sane world I think the solution here would be to ensure every faction has useful stratagems and cares about loss of CP, not abandon that mechanic and take away subfaction traits instead.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Blackie wrote:
Mixing orders, klans, equivalents from the same book is not common for casual players who typically paint their miniatures with the same colour scheme, it's super common for competitive ones instead who mix up orders/equivalents just to get appropriate buffs to all their units.


Also, I think you underestimate how many casual players collect variations of the same faction. In my local group one guy has both Cadians and Elysians, another has both Bad Moons and Deathskulls, and a third has Ultramarines and Retributors. Some players like different aspects of a faction and collect sub-forces to focus on different elements, or have an existing collection in one scheme but then branch out into a new scheme as they collect newer models. A couple of these guys I know started branching out specifically because they were so easy to soup together and play a larger game. Kinda sucks that now they have to be all played as the same subfaction now.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/01/24 16:00:03


   
Made in us
Ultramarine Terminator with Assault Cannon





 catbarf wrote:
Daedalus81 wrote:The problem has become that not all armies have equal power in stratagems.

Blackie wrote:Problem is losing a few CP might not be a significant drawback for some armies.


Well, using a new method of representing command inefficiency rather than the command mechanic already in the game because they botched its implementation is very GW, I'll give you that.

In a sane world I think the solution here would be to ensure every faction has useful stratagems and cares about loss of CP, not abandon that mechanic and take away subfaction traits instead.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Blackie wrote:
Mixing orders, klans, equivalents from the same book is not common for casual players who typically paint their miniatures with the same colour scheme, it's super common for competitive ones instead who mix up orders/equivalents just to get appropriate buffs to all their units.


Also, I think you underestimate how many casual players collect variations of the same faction. In my local group one guy has both Cadians and Elysians, another has both Bad Moons and Deathskulls, and a third has Ultramarines and Retributors. Some players like different aspects of a faction and collect sub-forces to focus on different elements, or have an existing collection in one scheme but then branch out into a new scheme as they collect newer models. A couple of these guys I know started branching out specifically because they were so easy to soup together and play a larger game. Kinda sucks that now they have to be all played as the same subfaction now.


Not to beat a dead horse, but the simplest solution is probably to make a soup Chapter Tactic/etc One that specifically allows subfaction soup but replaces all the sub faction conflicts with a new one specifically designed for sub faction soup. Basically, creating a sub faction soup sub faction.

For example - in the next Codex:Space Marines another section like the Chapter Specific Supplements that borrows heavily from - but is fully fleshed out - the Indomitus Crusaders Specialist Detachment from Vigilus - Call it Crusader Army - with a page of relics, a page of warlord traits, a couple pages of stratagems (hitting all of the generic chapter specifics like extra warlord trait(s) and such) This would cross a lot of t's and dot a lot of i's - giving the main Codex a "sample" supplement, allowing controlled subfaction soup for people who want to soup more than they want to min-max, and so on.

My WHFB armies were Bretonians and Tomb Kings. 
   
Made in it
Waaagh! Ork Warboss




Italy

 catbarf wrote:


Also, I think you underestimate how many casual players collect variations of the same faction. In my local group one guy has both Cadians and Elysians, another has both Bad Moons and Deathskulls, and a third has Ultramarines and Retributors. Some players like different aspects of a faction and collect sub-forces to focus on different elements, or have an existing collection in one scheme but then branch out into a new scheme as they collect newer models. A couple of these guys I know started branching out specifically because they were so easy to soup together and play a larger game. Kinda sucks that now they have to be all played as the same subfaction now.


I also have orks painted with different colour schemes, but it doesn't mean that they belong to different subfactions. They're all orks. In fact it's even fluffy that former members of different klans are now gathered under the same dominant klan.

Cadians and elysians? They both can be run as part of the same astra militarum army. Make elysians veterans, or just regular infantries like the cadians. Retributors? What are those, an unknown SM chapter? Good, they can all be played as part of the same chapter. Again, colour scheme doesn't matter for the rules, it's perfectly fine to have yellow ultramarines if someone loves to paint yellow dudes and wants to use the ultramarines rules and/or paint ultramarines named characters in yellow. If they're sororitas retributors still no problem, SM and sister can be mixed up as usual.

Issues are armies with wulfen and death company, ravenwing bikes or calgar for example. Those are chapter locked units, no matter how they are painted. And those collections are incredibly rare, that's my point.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/01/25 08:02:59


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Annandale, VA

 Blackie wrote:
Again, colour scheme doesn't matter for the rules, it's perfectly fine to have yellow ultramarines if someone loves to paint yellow dudes and wants to use the ultramarines rules and/or paint ultramarines named characters in yellow.


I would agree with this wholeheartedly if GW hadn't decided, with 8th, that actually color scheme really does matter for the rules, and then doubled down by setting expectations that models will be played as the subfactions they are painted as.

In any case, I don't think anyone needs to be told that they can just proxy Elysians as Cadians and keep playing, it's just lame to shoehorn distinct forces (that previously may not have played the same) into a single subfaction.

   
Made in gb
Never Forget Isstvan!






 catbarf wrote:
I would agree with this wholeheartedly if GW hadn't decided, with 8th, that actually color scheme really does matter for the rules, and then doubled down by setting expectations that models will be played as the subfactions they are painted as.

In any case, I don't think anyone needs to be told that they can just proxy Elysians as Cadians and keep playing, it's just lame to shoehorn distinct forces (that previously may not have played the same) into a single subfaction.

I don't see the problem with the way the subfactions work in relation to paint scheme mostly because painting your Space Marines blue doesn't make them Ultramarines, it makes them blue Space Marines. If however, you paint Ultramarines with the appropriate Chapter emblem and markings, then you should be expected to use them as Ultramarines unless you have specifically agreed with your opponent that this is not the case.
Of course there is the issue of colour schemes looking extremely similar. For example, the Angels of Penance look almost identical to the Imperial Fists official scheme.
Spoiler:

Spoiler:

In this situation though, all it would take is a short conversation explaining what your army is, which IMO should be what people are doing anyway.
But just so it's clear, this is the exact wording that the Warhamer World Modelling Guidelines have with regards to paintschemes:
For example, if you have painted your models as Salamanders, your army must have the Salamanders keyword or if you have
painted your models as Hammers of Sigmar they must use the relevant Command Trait, Artefact of Power etc.

If you have created your own Chapter/Hive Fleet/Sept/Stormhost/ etc and they are painted in your own unique colour scheme,
then you may give them any keyword that you wish.

GW isn't forcing anyone to do anything except in very specific circumstances in the case of Chapter specific Warlord Traits, Relics and Stratagems where you are supposed to pick a Successor Chapters parent Chapter if it is known (i.e. Angels Encarmine uses Blood Angels gubbins or Genesis Chapter uses Ultramarines gubbins). There's enough generic stuff in the Codex anyway that this shouldn't even be an issue.

TLDR, subfactions aren't as messy as people make them out to be.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/01/25 17:27:38


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Annandale, VA

 Gert wrote:
If however, you paint Ultramarines with the appropriate Chapter emblem and markings, then you should be expected to use them as Ultramarines unless you have specifically agreed with your opponent that this is not the case.


If you have blue Marines with Roman motifs and Ultramarines iconography you are expected to play those as Ultramarines. If you have green Marines with dragon scale and Salamanders banners you are expected to field them as Salamanders. If you have both you now have to decide which of those is 'actually' your army and explain to your opponent that you're proxying half your force as the other subfaction. Or not play.

I don't think it's 'messy'; it's not hard to remember the whole army is Ultramarines. I find it frustrating that in a game where GW has firmly established for two editions now that different aesthetics of the same models get different rules- and that models with a recognizable aesthetic are expected to be played under their bespoke rules- they've made a mid-edition listbuilding change that forces players to either proxy with rules that don't fit part of their collection, or leave that part at home.

It veers into stupidity when you can mix Guard, Marines, Knights, Sisters, and AdMech in a single army and that's just fine, but god forbid you have two different chapters on the field at once. It's so clearly a tournament rule to curb min-maxing, but I haven't seen any indication so far that it's a tournament-only change.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/01/25 20:00:29


   
Made in ca
Ancient Venerable Dreadnought






What's funny is canonically guard have to deploy multiple regiments when off world, aside from krieg.

So technically speaking GW is screwing up their own lore

To many unpainted models to count. 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: