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.

Arbiter_Shade wrote:

I am not saying that the Chapter Tactic system is better but I find it so damn disingenuous when people come in acting like it is so much better because it really is just the same damn thing with a different name. Other armies got screwed on the detachment system because Space Marines get rules that affect their entire army allowing them to build what ever they want while other armies are restricted to bonuses for <UNIT TYPE>

Before I couldn't do a jump pack raven guard army led by shrike with advance and charge, because shrike isn't a white scars valid model and, for me, my raven guard painted marines aren't going to play as rules for another chapter.

I can now do that with my own special character and play the way I want to within the confines of the fluff.

Functionally at a high level, you are correct they're the same, but only if you didn't uphold any integrity regards the forces appearance to the rules, or have any special units.

I feel the argument is over different things.

I think there is an argument that the 10th detachment system - as designed in the few books we have - is too limited because it typically focuses on units rather than a broad rule for everyone.

If we look at Ad Mech - you've got "take Skitarii", "Take Priests", "Take Robots and vehicles" and then two more generic detachments that sort of influence the board state. Which does in turn invite certain unit choices (because you want your list to interact with how you are going to effect the board) but its less explicit than "take X, don't really bother with Y as its not getting any perks."

I think you can argue this isn't great. The first 3 offers too limited a roster. (The fact the other two kind of suck because Ad Mech suck if you aren't spamming Skitarii made slightly obnoxious to remove is neither here nor there.)

We see similar with Tyranids and Necrons.

But this sort of takes us back to the idea that the detachments should be changes to the FOC. This is because its clearly irrational to build a balanced list - and then go "well if I take detachment X, I can buff this 20% of my list, if I take detachment Y, I can buff another 20% of my list etc." You are going to stack the bonus - and if you only have a few units that get it, then your choices are quite limited.

If you want to break that, GW have to force you. But this would probably feel just as limiting as now. For example, if GW were to enforce some sort of quasi-Highlander rule, and your detachment allowed you to take 3 units of what that detachment was trying to represent, I think that would get dull fast. Maybe it can make more stuff Battleline - but that could be abuseable. (I know others hate it, but I think the rule of 3 hides a lot of sins.)

So TL/DR, I don't know what the answer is. I think 10th does have the flaw in that any system where you don't get a bonus kind of sucks. We saw that with 8th and 9th where certain armies didn't benefit from their faction rules. Which felt bad - and often felt bad. (Oh hi 10th edition Ad Mech, didn't see you there...)

I think the 8th/9th system could have been iterated on - probably by not having custom traits and a more curated list. But this arguably applies just as much to 10th. Unfortunately the answer to all of this is that I don't think GW cares that much.

PenitentJake wrote:

 catbarf wrote:
Yeah, of course chapter tactics and detachments have the same pros and cons because they're the same damn system. The difference is just that detachments codify the counts-as that everyone did anyways to deal with the un-fun railroading of the system.

Not to be the "actually" guy, but detachments in 10th also determine which enhancements and which strats you get.

In the 9th ed system, your subfaction gave ONE bespoke WL Trait, Relic and Strat, but all the generic options for the faction as a whole continued to be available. And that is a HUGE difference.

You're forgetting the supplements which provided more WL Traits and more Strats plus relics.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 waefre_1 wrote:

Arbiter_Shade wrote:

Spoiler:

Dudeface wrote:

Arbiter_Shade wrote:
This whole conversation is so bonkers to me.

There is one meaningful difference in Chapter Tactics vs Detachments, that is that in a Chapter Tactic system ALL units in an army go the bonus and in the Detachment system only a few specific units in your army get a bonus. The argument is if you want your bonus tied to fluff or if you want it tied to an arbitrary attempt at balancing, that is just as garbage as the system before it. Detachments fail for me because it means that a lot of units in your army end up with no bonus what so ever. The argument that Chapter Tactics made people run the most powerful combination and ruined all other choices because of it is a non-starter for me. Detachments have the same issue, people are finding the best combinations with the best units and spamming the most powerful stuff. The only reason you now see variation in tournaments is because everything is so bland and devoid of special rules that all that matters anymore are stat blocks.

Almost every pro or anti argument for either system could realistically apply to BOTH systems because, shocker, GW is horrible at writing rules.

The difference is that a white Scars player can now pick an armoured force and pick ironstorm which will benefit them more than being forced into their chapter tactics and doctrine.

What was in the old system, is forcing play styles to be associated with fluff based archetypes. Using Raven Guard as an example they were forced down the road of ranged assassination, if you wanted to play a different style you needed to be a different chapter. Now you can be Raven Guard in any given detachment and have a benefit/focused rules that suit the play style, not the paint job.

Neither is perfect, but imo detachments are less punishing and force fewer "wrong choices" on people.

Yes, yes, now fluff doesn't matter at all. That is great for some people I am sure, I personally hate it. If I wanted to play White Scars it was because I wanted to play a bike/jump pack fast moving army not because I wanted to play an armor heavy list.

The new system forces you to use a handful of models depending on what detachment you use. Both systems have the exact same problem so they didn't solve anything with the new system unless you really hated fluff having effects on the game.

The only reason there are less "wrong choices" is because they seem hell bent on removing all choice. Army building is very paint by the numbers anymore and I personally hate it. I prefer to have the option to take a sub-optimal choice when considering the new system of no choices. I COULD take an Ironstorm detachment and take no vehicles but that would be as silly as making a White Scars list focused on tanks. You are just moving the line in the sand.

I'm not up on my $COLOR Marine lore, but don't White Scars have (had?) an affinity for mechanized and fast armored forces as well? IIRC they were bigger on...I guess you could call it "strategic mobility" rather than just "vroom vroom iron horsies lol".

Also, I'm a little confused on how everyone having access to a bike-heavy force org means that fluff is irrelevant. From the way they're talked about, detachments sound like they have a core focus and some mandatory units, but it sounds like you should still have room to flesh things out after that (if sub-optimally).

You're half right, and he's half right. Like the Chapter Traits most of the Chapters had two-ish Fluffy "focus" areas - At the very beginning BA had Terminators and Vanguard Vets, DA had Terminators and more Terminators/Chaplains, UM had Terminators and Sternguard. Space Wolves had Bikes and Terminators in power armored units and Dreads

White Scars were Bikes and Mechanized Infantry.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 catbarf wrote:
Allowing for force compositions that exist in the fluff is better at respecting lore than pushing subfactions towards stereotypical builds. If you want to build bike-heavy White Scars, nothing has changed. You just have the option to build out other army archetypes of White Scars without being indirectly penalized for it.

The complaint that the new system removes choice makes no sense; it might be a limited set of options but that at least beats having just one (1) option for your subfaction.

In any case, it seems less like a lore issue and more that some players don't feel like their subfaction is special anymore if other subfactions can field comparable capabilities, and for whatever reason it's disproportionately a Marine thing. I don't remember Steel Legion players getting up in arms when Cadians could choose mechanized infantry doctrine in the 9th Ed codex.

It has changed. Not in regards to Chapter Tactics so much - but an all bike force is fairly impossible right now because of the lack of HQ's - and yeah that's more related to the squatting of the Bike HQ's (Libby, Captain on bike) than Chapter Tactics but the two also compound each other. The only MOUNTED LEADER (that isn't chapter specific) right now is the Chaplain on Bike


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Arbiter_Shade wrote:
Man the strawman is real up in here, but what am I to expect from an online conversation.

I am not espousing the virtues of the Chapter Tactic system so much as pointing out that the Detachment system doesn't fix a single thing. It is the same as the Chapter Tactic system just shuffling the names around a bit. I think that it is ridiculous that some of you are arguing that a rule that states that all your units can advance or fall back and charge is somehow more guilty of forcing you into using a small subset of units than a rule that states....*checks notes for Stormlance detachments* All units that advance or fall back can charge.

And this is only through the lens of Space Marines; I play Tyranids and I am disgusted with how much the detachment system shoehorns me into playing specific models. Under the old Hive Fleets I could play any model in any Hive Fleet and get bonuses, under the detachment system only specific model types get bonuses.

I am not saying that the Chapter Tactic system is better but I find it so damn disingenuous when people come in acting like it is so much better because it really is just the same damn thing with a different name. Other armies got screwed on the detachment system because Space Marines get rules that affect their entire army allowing them to build what ever they want while other armies are restricted to bonuses for <UNIT TYPE>

In some ways you're right, but I disagree that the new Det system is worse. I don't think the new Det System is a "finished product" exactly. I'd call it a Beta Test. And I do think the new Det System is an improvement:

In the first place it completely severs CP from Detachments. Whether you paid CP to get a Det, or Got a Det to get CP someone was getting screwed. Guard Cost armies or fluffy double det (Ravenwing + Deathwing for example) were getting screwed if they paid for the Det, Low model count armies were screwed when you got CP per Det. This is an all around improvement.

Allowing every subfaction to make a similar theme army is an improvement.

The Keyword restrictions on many of the theme armies is often not an improvement (Being able to make your Terminator Company in Gladius potentially easier/better vs 1st Company etc)- and not enough theme armies have a Det. (People have been wanting to make a 10th Company for decades).

So yeah, the Det system isn't perfect, but I think its a decent first step.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LunarSol wrote:
I don't think anyone is arguing that the detachments don't push specific models. The difference is that if you want to play with different models, the expectations to switch detachments have largely been removed.

Some Detachments do, some don't. The ones that don't are too often the "clear winner". I'd say you're mostly right about detachment switching expectations or even that you don't go far enough: If you want to play with models that aren't part of the focus you're too often pushed back into a catch-all Det instead of the flavor Det. If you want to play Crusher Stampede but still include some little bugs for screening and such you might be forced back into Invasion Fleet or Synaptic Nexus because Crusher Stampede so often limits the strats to TYRANID MONSTER instead of TYRANID so even your Warriors can't be the target of your Strats. Similar to DA and their Inner Circle Det - Almost nothing with DEATHWING - Especially DEATHWING INFANTRY - has the long range anti-tank of Desolators and/or Devastators etc. None of the generic Power Armored LEADERS get Deathwing to spread to those units (and it would be unfluffy to do so) - I'd call this a Basic Roles issue (basic roles being things like Objective Capture, Hammer, Anvil, Explorer, Screen, and so on) but the Strats and the Det ability still requires Deathwing, and sometimes Deathwing Infantry. Both of these Dets will run into an OC and less so a BattleLine issue. Carnifex and Screamer Killers are OC 3, Terminators stay OC1.

Tyel wrote:

I think there is an argument that the 10th detachment system - as designed in the few books we have - is too limited because it typically focuses on units rather than a broad rule for everyone.

I'll argue otherwise. One of the things I think really works about the current system is that the detachment rules tend to be pretty generic. They might work better on certain weapons or might have units that don't benefit from them, but they are broadly applicable to everything your army could have. What drives specific units is more the strategems and enhancements, but both of those are limited. You only need a couple major targets for them to the army build.

Initially, I worried about having everything fit the detachment, but as I've played more I've found you really only need half, maybe 1200 of your points to benefit from strategems or enancements. After that the remaining 800 is better off filling in weaknesses.

Obviously that's not universally true. Consistent quality has never been one of GW's consistent qualities after all.

 LunarSol wrote:
Initially, I worried about having everything fit the detachment, but as I've played more I've found you really only need half, maybe 1200 of your points to benefit from strategems or enancements. After that the remaining 800 is better off filling in weaknesses.

The switch to detachment-specific stratagems is such a straightforward way to differentiate forces that I wonder whether the detachment-wide bonuses are actually necessary now to differentiate forces. With every Crusher Stampede stratagem only being usable on Monsters and every Unending Swarm stratagem only being usable on Endless Multitude units, those are clearly going to result in some pretty different armies that play differently on the tabletop; the fact that the detachment-wide bonuses only apply to Monsters or Endless Multitudes feels constraining, and isn't necessary to encourage the army to focus on those archetypes.

It reminds me of Warmachine, where each warcaster within a faction had different spells and abilities, which naturally led to different army compositions and different playstyles even though they were drawing from the same pool of units and didn't give out any always-on bonuses to particular ones.

 catbarf wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:
Initially, I worried about having everything fit the detachment, but as I've played more I've found you really only need half, maybe 1200 of your points to benefit from strategems or enancements. After that the remaining 800 is better off filling in weaknesses.

The switch to detachment-specific stratagems is such a straightforward way to differentiate forces that I wonder whether the detachment-wide bonuses are actually necessary now to differentiate forces. With every Crusher Stampede stratagem only being usable on Monsters and every Unending Swarm stratagem only being usable on Endless Multitude units, those are clearly going to result in some pretty different armies that play differently on the tabletop; the fact that the detachment-wide bonuses only apply to Monsters or Endless Multitudes feels constraining, and isn't necessary to encourage the army to focus on those archetypes.

It reminds me of Warmachine, where each warcaster within a faction had different spells and abilities, which naturally led to different army compositions and different playstyles even though they were drawing from the same pool of units and didn't give out any always-on bonuses to particular ones.

They're probably not necessary, but they're a useful tool. To take the Warmachine comparison further they're effectively Elite Cadre's or Field Marshals.

I feel GW not being consistent hides a fair number of sins....

I agree in principle.
Consider the new(ish) Dark Eldar Skysplinter Assault detachment. I don't need my entire army to be in transports and therefore able to benefit from the rule. I want to bring along some Ravagers, Mandrakes and maybe some Cronos in there etc.

But if I look at Ad Mech, I'm not convinced I'd be able to go "I'll have 1200 points of Skitarii/Priests/Robots (...) and that'll do" for their relevant detachment. Partly I think you have the issue - which is always going to apply - is that subfaction bonuses become necessary/addictive. Using say Priests in an Ad Mech list (outside of Breachers) is kind of bad - but feels doubly so if you've played them with their potential bonuses.

I'm not sure if the same can be said of Tyranids/Necrons as I don't play them, but I suspect there are similarities in certain units/detachments.

This is one of the main reason's I haven't played 10th, like at all. First you pick a faction, then you have to pick a detachment. But not any detachment, some are specific to each faction or sub faction. Then you have to pick a whole range of other things, before you even get to pick a stinking model. Say what you want about previous editions, but I liked being able to pick up a box of models, see what their stats were, put them on the table, and play them however I wanted, without checking a list of 6 separate things to verify if they were "legal" or not. That leader can't lead that squad? What? Who cares. Just let him exist on the table. Oh he can't, because my detachment. This is now dumb.

 LunarSol wrote:

Tyel wrote:

I think there is an argument that the 10th detachment system - as designed in the few books we have - is too limited because it typically focuses on units rather than a broad rule for everyone.

I'll argue otherwise. One of the things I think really works about the current system is that the detachment rules tend to be pretty generic. They might work better on certain weapons or might have units that don't benefit from them, but they are broadly applicable to everything your army could have. What drives specific units is more the strategems and enhancements, but both of those are limited. You only need a couple major targets for them to the army build.

Initially, I worried about having everything fit the detachment, but as I've played more I've found you really only need half, maybe 1200 of your points to benefit from strategems or enancements. After that the remaining 800 is better off filling in weaknesses.

Obviously that's not universally true. Consistent quality has never been one of GW's consistent qualities after all.

Honestly I think that your limiting your view of detachments to the Space Marine ones, because you say that they are pretty generic but that only really applies to Space Marines.

I harp on it a lot but it is because it is very personal to me but the Assimilation Swarm applies to a grand total of 4 datasheets in the Tyranid army. The Vanguard Onslaught is a bit better but it is 5 Characters and 8 Datasheets.

If the detachment system is a "beta test" then I am ready for them to throw it out just like they do everything else. GW doesn't beta test because for the past 20 years they have just been reinventing the wheel every couple of years. I think that 8th/9th had a lot of solid foundation to it that they could have built upon; but they decided to throw it all away for 10th which they are just as likely to throw away in 11th or 12th.

The "wait and see" MO has proven time and time again with GW that they never learn anything or improve on anything, they often just change entire design paradigms mid edition leaving use with such a wild variation in power levels. I don't plan on "giving them a chance" with detachments because I think that fundamentally they are worse than the Chapter Tactic method. FYI, that is not an endorsement of Chapter Tactics as I think they were far from great but I think they were closer than Detachments.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
This is one of the main reason's I haven't played 10th, like at all. First you pick a faction, then you have to pick a detachment. But not any detachment, some are specific to each faction or sub faction. Then you have to pick a whole range of other things, before you even get to pick a stinking model. Say what you want about previous editions, but I liked being able to pick up a box of models, see what their stats were, put them on the table, and play them however I wanted, without checking a list of 6 separate things to verify if they were "legal" or not. That leader can't lead that squad? What? Who cares. Just let him exist on the table. Oh he can't, because my detachment. This is now dumb.

Using nids as an example:
10th:
- Buy models
- Paint models however
- Check army level rules
- Pick detachment based on whether it suits your army/play style
- Check detachment rules
- Buy a relic if you wish/applicable
- Generic missions for all armies

9th:
- Buy models
- Pick subfaction
- Paint to subfaction (in theory)
- Hope the models bought match the rules of the subfaction well
- Choose a FOC chart
- Choose a mandatory free warlord trait
- Choose a mandatory free relic
- Assign psychic powers
- Check army rules
- Check bio-adaption thingy table and pick one
- Choose faction specific missions if required

That's ignoring the huge volume of difference that the relics etc only exist on the detachment vs a generic list + subfaction lists and the fact there is only 1/6 of the strats now.

A lot of what you wrote is factually incorrect.

Arbiter_Shade wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:

I'll argue otherwise. One of the things I think really works about the current system is that the detachment rules tend to be pretty generic. They might work better on certain weapons or might have units that don't benefit from them, but they are broadly applicable to everything your army could have. What drives specific units is more the strategems and enhancements, but both of those are limited. You only need a couple major targets for them to the army build.

Initially, I worried about having everything fit the detachment, but as I've played more I've found you really only need half, maybe 1200 of your points to benefit from strategems or enancements. After that the remaining 800 is better off filling in weaknesses.

Obviously that's not universally true. Consistent quality has never been one of GW's consistent qualities after all.

Honestly I think that your limiting your view of detachments to the Space Marine ones, because you say that they are pretty generic but that only really applies to Space Marines.

I harp on it a lot but it is because it is very personal to me but the Assimilation Swarm applies to a grand total of 4 datasheets in the Tyranid army. The Vanguard Onslaught is a bit better but it is 5 Characters and 8 Datasheets.

If the detachment system is a "beta test" then I am ready for them to throw it out just like they do everything else. GW doesn't beta test because for the past 20 years they have just been reinventing the wheel every couple of years. I think that 8th/9th had a lot of solid foundation to it that they could have built upon; but they decided to throw it all away for 10th which they are just as likely to throw away in 11th or 12th.

The "wait and see" MO has proven time and time again with GW that they never learn anything or improve on anything, they often just change entire design paradigms mid edition leaving use with such a wild variation in power levels. I don't plan on "giving them a chance" with detachments because I think that fundamentally they are worse than the Chapter Tactic method. FYI, that is not an endorsement of Chapter Tactics as I think they were far from great but I think they were closer than Detachments.

Fair critique. I'm not fond of the Tyranid detachments at all and I certainly agree with the rest. Even when I like how something is done, the likelihood of it being ruined within months keeps 40k as something I only engage with casually rather than heavily invest in.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
This is one of the main reason's I haven't played 10th, like at all. First you pick a faction, then you have to pick a detachment. But not any detachment, some are specific to each faction or sub faction. Then you have to pick a whole range of other things, before you even get to pick a stinking model. Say what you want about previous editions, but I liked being able to pick up a box of models, see what their stats were, put them on the table, and play them however I wanted, without checking a list of 6 separate things to verify if they were "legal" or not. That leader can't lead that squad? What? Who cares. Just let him exist on the table. Oh he can't, because my detachment. This is now dumb.

If you are staying in-faction your models will be legal regardless of detachment (for those factions with Codexes).

There are restrictions/conditions for characters to join units, but those are on the datasheets and are not part of the detachment rules (at this point anyway). And your character can still exist on the tabletop with units that it cannot join - it might not exist for long if it does not have Lone Operative but this has nothing to do with the detachment.

Now, there are models that function "better" (a loaded word on this thread) in a given detachment, but they would still be legal and even indeed useful in another. Infernus Marines or Flamestorm Aggressors can take advantage of a stratagem and the detachment rule in a Firestorm Detachment, and have a real bump with the right Salamanders characters in support, but they can still be useful (not to mention legal) in Gladius for another chapter. A Tyranid Gargoyle shines in a Vanguard Onslaught detachment, but it is still useful in the other ones.

Army building is quite open now. You need a Character unit and you cannot have more than 3 of the same datasheet (6 for Battleline/Dedicated Transport units), but otherwise have at it. So you can pick up a box of models you like and play as long as you are respecting Rule of 3 (or 6 if its Battleline). Its also quite easy to switch between detachments within a faction. Since detachments are not locked to paint I've run my Dark Angels as six different detachments. Enhancements and Stratagems do change along with the Detachment rule, but the models are legal. Those Deathwing Knights perform differently depending on detachment, but they are legal in every one.

Arbiter_Shade wrote:

Honestly I think that your limiting your view of detachments to the Space Marine ones, because you say that they are pretty generic but that only really applies to Space Marines.

Its pretty much only applies to the Generic Space Marine detachment (Gladius) The 1St Company det is also fairly limited to Terminators and X-Guard Veterans. The others have their own ways of keyword limitation.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

TangoTwoBravo wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
This is one of the main reason's I haven't played 10th, like at all. First you pick a faction, then you have to pick a detachment. But not any detachment, some are specific to each faction or sub faction. Then you have to pick a whole range of other things, before you even get to pick a stinking model. Say what you want about previous editions, but I liked being able to pick up a box of models, see what their stats were, put them on the table, and play them however I wanted, without checking a list of 6 separate things to verify if they were "legal" or not. That leader can't lead that squad? What? Who cares. Just let him exist on the table. Oh he can't, because my detachment. This is now dumb.

If you are staying in-faction your models will be legal regardless of detachment (for those factions with Codexes).

There are restrictions/conditions for characters to join units, but those are on the datasheets and are not part of the detachment rules (at this point anyway). And your character can still exist on the tabletop with units that it cannot join - it might not exist for long if it does not have Lone Operative but this has nothing to do with the detachment.

Yes the problem with characters not getting Lone Operative pretty much by default, plus the requirement of leading a unit to get most of their bespoke rules is a problem. And its exacerbated by the Detachment.

Now, there are models that function "better" (a loaded word on this thread) in a given detachment, but they would still be legal and even indeed useful in another. Infernus Marines or Flamestorm Aggressors can take advantage of a stratagem and the detachment rule in a Firestorm Detachment, and have a real bump with the right Salamanders characters in support, but they can still be useful (not to mention legal) in Gladius for another chapter. A Tyranid Gargoyle shines in a Vanguard Onslaught detachment, but it is still useful in the other ones.

There is only one Salamanders character that buffs flamers/Torrent - and they can't join Flamestorm Aggressors.

Army building is quite open now. You need a Character unit and you cannot have more than 3 of the same datasheet (6 for Battleline/Dedicated Transport units), but otherwise have at it. So you can pick up a box of models you like and play as long as you are respecting Rule of 3 (or 6 if its Battleline). Its also quite easy to switch between detachments within a faction. Since detachments are not locked to paint I've run my Dark Angels as six different detachments. Enhancements and Stratagems do change along with the Detachment rule, but the models are legal. Those Deathwing Knights perform differently depending on detachment, but they are legal in every one.

Nah, Necrons have never worked with space marines before. This is a silly idea

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
This is one of the main reason's I haven't played 10th, like at all. First you pick a faction, then you have to pick a detachment. But not any detachment, some are specific to each faction or sub faction. Then you have to pick a whole range of other things, before you even get to pick a stinking model. Say what you want about previous editions, but I liked being able to pick up a box of models, see what their stats were, put them on the table, and play them however I wanted, without checking a list of 6 separate things to verify if they were "legal" or not. That leader can't lead that squad? What? Who cares. Just let him exist on the table. Oh he can't, because my detachment. This is now dumb.

The lack of variety really stands out this edition. I mostly stay away from 10th for the same reasons, list building is too restrictive.

 techsoldaten wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
This is one of the main reason's I haven't played 10th, like at all. First you pick a faction, then you have to pick a detachment. But not any detachment, some are specific to each faction or sub faction. Then you have to pick a whole range of other things, before you even get to pick a stinking model. Say what you want about previous editions, but I liked being able to pick up a box of models, see what their stats were, put them on the table, and play them however I wanted, without checking a list of 6 separate things to verify if they were "legal" or not. That leader can't lead that squad? What? Who cares. Just let him exist on the table. Oh he can't, because my detachment. This is now dumb.

The lack of variety really stands out this edition. I mostly stay away from 10th for the same reasons, list building is too restrictive.

Sadly I think that's the direction GW is going. They're not quite at building our army for us, but that's the way they're headed. They're working very hard to only allow certain combos or make you jump through too many hoops to do them more than once. 4++ and a medic for example. Right now the only one I know of is Azrael + Apothecary and his Tacticus unit of choice (ICC, Hellblasters, or Desolators) Ravenwing got to keep their "command squad" but its the only one with an apothecary (You can't even add an Apothecary to Company Heroes to make an historical Command Squad). You can't/couldn't do a Company Heros (Command Squad) with a Chaplain or a Librarian for Codex Chapters that do the Cap/Chap/LT/LT command structure, or a Blood Ravens-y Chapter that elevates Libbies. Cant add the Judiciar to any other characters as a Chaplain Lieutenant... In some ways it goes beyond telling us what we can't do and goes as far as telling us what we're "supposed" to do. For other factions it can be even worse. Kharn can only join Berserkers. There are no Terminator Lords/LEADERS. Of course they've got a bad case of New Faction syndrome.

This is why I never wanted heroes to be back in units. It was always going to end this way.

 Kanluwen wrote:
This is why I never wanted heroes to be back in units. It was always going to end this way.

No, no I think that the one character per unit, arbitrary restrictions on what units characters can join and all of the other nonsense that 10th has brought upon us was not inevitable.

It's not like it was so long ago that we had perfectly capable rules to handle characters joining units, leaving units as well as operating as single units. But that was back when they were actually trying to make an interesting game to represent 40k and not a marketing example for their product where players do what they are told.

Tournament and ‘power’ gamers are sad over allies and force building, as their enjoyment of the game at all largely revolved around finding the most ridiculous broken combos and rules loopholes to exploit to give them the advantage in the game.

Meanwhile, for more casual gamers bemoaning the force building rules, you do realize that - you can play the game, right now, today, with any forces you want, any rules you want, any way you want, as long as those you’re playing with agree? You don’t need GW’s stamp of approval to do what you want with your friends. Just don’t expect that to apply to more formal pick up games and tournaments, and you’re golden.

And for a lot of people, pick up games are how they play.
So if they want to mix forces, they can only do so within GW’s rules.

Isn't this the same as admitting that there are too many characters in the SM as a faction? There are more characters in the Astartes lineup (combined all subs) than has ever existed, and thats saying something. BA alone have around 10, that are not legends. Tycho counts as two, Astorath, Dante, Corbo, Lemar(forget the spelling, big black guy with a mace), then you get stuff like Sanguinor, and Gabriel Seth. I mean, that's insane. SWs I think have about the same? Then the UM are basically just flat out all characters, DA are 5+, it's getting out of hand right? Make it like Custodes in 9th. Everyone is either the Chapter Master (Valoris) or a rando-captain you paid CP to make a better Captain. Everyone else was a mini-captain. SM should be the same. 1 Captain (Unique), everyone else is a LT or minor character. We don't need 10+ Character level threats per sub faction.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Isn't this the same as admitting that there are too many characters in the SM as a faction? There are more characters in the Astartes lineup (combined all subs) than has ever existed, and thats saying something. BA alone have around 10, that are not legends. Tycho counts as two, Astorath, Dante, Corbo, Lemar(forget the spelling, big black guy with a mace), then you get stuff like Sanguinor, and Gabriel Seth. I mean, that's insane. SWs I think have about the same? Then the UM are basically just flat out all characters, DA are 5+, it's getting out of hand right? Make it like Custodes in 9th. Everyone is either the Chapter Master (Valoris) or a rando-captain you paid CP to make a better Captain. Everyone else was a mini-captain. SM should be the same. 1 Captain (Unique), everyone else is a LT or minor character. We don't need 10+ Character level threats per sub faction.

Not really. Start with Tycho counts as two - Keywords prevent taking both. Being faithful to the fluff prevents taking either one. Faction Keywords prevent mixing and matching chapters - even the Codex Compliant ones. Two of the Blood Angels Chaplains are also somewhat mutually exclusive. It would be equally inaccurate to include all the Drukhari options under the Aeldari because Yvrainne as a Warlord allows them to soup.

Breton wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Isn't this the same as admitting that there are too many characters in the SM as a faction? There are more characters in the Astartes lineup (combined all subs) than has ever existed, and thats saying something. BA alone have around 10, that are not legends. Tycho counts as two, Astorath, Dante, Corbo, Lemar(forget the spelling, big black guy with a mace), then you get stuff like Sanguinor, and Gabriel Seth. I mean, that's insane. SWs I think have about the same? Then the UM are basically just flat out all characters, DA are 5+, it's getting out of hand right? Make it like Custodes in 9th. Everyone is either the Chapter Master (Valoris) or a rando-captain you paid CP to make a better Captain. Everyone else was a mini-captain. SM should be the same. 1 Captain (Unique), everyone else is a LT or minor character. We don't need 10+ Character level threats per sub faction.

Not really. Start with Tycho counts as two - Keywords prevent taking both. Being faithful to the fluff prevents taking either one. Faction Keywords prevent mixing and matching chapters - even the Codex Compliant ones. Two of the Blood Angels Chaplains are also somewhat mutually exclusive. It would be equally inaccurate to include all the Drukhari options under the Aeldari because Yvrainne as a Warlord allows them to soup.

So you disagree with my entire premise (SM have too many characters) or just the evidence that BA have more than most? I can only speak to the factions I know, but excluding BL characters that are known dead (You said fluff matters) we can't really count most if not all the AM Characters. 90% of those are confirmed KIA. So how many named characters (Uniques) do other races have? Counting SM as a single unified "race", not bothering with the rules of what can or can't be taken, they have well more than half of the characters in the game.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:


So you disagree with my entire premise (SM have too many characters)

What rational person wouldn't?

No matter what flavor of SM you make you won't be using like 99% of them.
If I build UM I'm not using the characters specific to 10, maybe 11 chapters. Heck, after tallying pts I might only use a few of the UM at a time.
Having options I'm choosing not to use for whatever reason is =/= having too many.

But if I switch flavors I still expect options for named characters.

Besides. Is it really surprising that the flagship force that outsells entire other games is the most developed & thus has the most characters??
Spoiler: NO.

What I'd like to see though is more development (lore/stories) for IH/WS/RG/IF/GK/SALS/DW/BT/CF/etcetcetc - so that most of these get a few MORE chapter specific character options.

ccs wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:


So you disagree with my entire premise (SM have too many characters)

What rational person wouldn't?

No matter what flavor of SM you make you won't be using like 99% of them.
If I build UM I'm not using the characters specific to 10, maybe 11 chapters. Heck, after tallying pts I might only use a few of the UM at a time.
Having options I'm choosing not to use for whatever reason is =/= having too many.

But if I switch flavors I still expect options for named characters.

Besides. Is it really surprising that the flagship force that outsells entire other games is the most developed & thus has the most characters??
Spoiler: NO.

What I'd like to see though is more development (lore/stories) for IH/WS/RG/IF/GK/SALS/DW/BT/CF/etcetcetc - so that most of these get a few MORE chapter specific character options.

Fantastic that you start out by stating that anyone that disagrees with you is irrational.

I think it is reasonable to feel that SM's have too many characters when they have more characters than some armies have models in their entire line. It doesn't matter that you can't use all of them at once, it matters that they spend that much time developing redundant models for an army that already has way more choices than necessary.

Then you top it off with the age old argument that Space Marines get more focus because they sell well, which could just be because they get more attention than any other army. But that is a circular argument that will endlessly lead to the death of the topic.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

Breton wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Isn't this the same as admitting that there are too many characters in the SM as a faction? There are more characters in the Astartes lineup (combined all subs) than has ever existed, and thats saying something. BA alone have around 10, that are not legends. Tycho counts as two, Astorath, Dante, Corbo, Lemar(forget the spelling, big black guy with a mace), then you get stuff like Sanguinor, and Gabriel Seth. I mean, that's insane. SWs I think have about the same? Then the UM are basically just flat out all characters, DA are 5+, it's getting out of hand right? Make it like Custodes in 9th. Everyone is either the Chapter Master (Valoris) or a rando-captain you paid CP to make a better Captain. Everyone else was a mini-captain. SM should be the same. 1 Captain (Unique), everyone else is a LT or minor character. We don't need 10+ Character level threats per sub faction.

Not really. Start with Tycho counts as two - Keywords prevent taking both. Being faithful to the fluff prevents taking either one. Faction Keywords prevent mixing and matching chapters - even the Codex Compliant ones. Two of the Blood Angels Chaplains are also somewhat mutually exclusive. It would be equally inaccurate to include all the Drukhari options under the Aeldari because Yvrainne as a Warlord allows them to soup.

So you disagree with my entire premise (SM have too many characters) or just the evidence that BA have more than most? I can only speak to the factions I know, but excluding BL characters that are known dead (You said fluff matters) we can't really count most if not all the AM Characters. 90% of those are confirmed KIA. So how many named characters (Uniques) do other races have? Counting SM as a single unified "race", not bothering with the rules of what can or can't be taken, they have well more than half of the characters in the game.

That wasn't your premise. Your premise was "too many" not "more than the rest". I also disagreed with the characterization of your supporting evidence - counting a unique as two, jumbling them all together even though that's not allowed. The Aeldari have something like 12 named Epic Heroes (Mostly due to the named Aspects) and two generic ones (The Avatar isn't really a named, but it is an Epic Hero). Space Wolves have the most for SM at 11 - And I'm betting they're losing some when they transition to Supplement instead of Index. Most likely Arjac Rockfist and Lukas The Trickster closely followed by Murderfang.. Blood Angels have 8, one of them is dead, and one of them is technically a Fleshtearer. Meanwhile Ravenguard have 1. Crimson Fists and Iron Hands have 1. Most of the other folded in chapters have two. If you want your premise to be that "it's wrong other armies don't have the same Epic Hero support as the Aeldari and the Big Four", then sure that I'd agree with.

I like big games with big stuff and big sandboxes, so I tend not to argue that marines have too much- I instead argue that nobody else has enough.

It's really the same thing, but where it differs is how you fix it. Don't take marine characters away- ADD characters to everyone else.

Drukhari are easy because we already had the characters in our book- bring back Kharadruakh, Duke Sliscuss, Baron Sathonyx and Lady Malice.

Sisters have ONE Cannoness Superior model- Junith Eurita. We need at least one more to represent Convent Prioris, and it should be either Sacred Rose or Ebon Chalice because Morvenn was Argent Shroud before becoming Abbess.

PenitentJake wrote:
I like big games with big stuff and big sandboxes, so I tend not to argue that marines have too much- I instead argue that nobody else has enough.

It's really the same thing, but where it differs is how you fix it. Don't take marine characters away- ADD characters to everyone else.

Drukhari are easy because we already had the characters in our book- bring back Kharadruakh, Duke Sliscuss, Baron Sathonyx and Lady Malice.

Sisters have ONE Cannoness Superior model- Junith Eurita. We need at least one more to represent Convent Prioris, and it should be either Sacred Rose or Ebon Chalice because Morvenn was Argent Shroud before becoming Abbess.

I think GW should take the typical Company - Captain, Chaplain, two Lieutenants (or Lieutenant/Judiciar as a Chaplain "Lieutenant" 2 Company Heroes (1 for Cap, 1 for Chap) 6 Battle Line, 2 Fast Attack, 2 Heavy Support in basic traditional ways: Say 2 HINTS, 2 Ints, 1 Tac, 1 Infiltrator, 1 Assault Intercessors with Jump Packs, 1 Incursor/Assault Intercessor, 1 Dev and 1 Hellblaster or 2 Desolators: I think that's 112 Marines. Take that and make it 2,000 points. No vehicles (except maybe A singular Dread) no Elites borrowed from the first company or upjumped basic marines like Aggressors. Just the basic Company you see in the fluff pages. Make that 2K, balance everything else off of that 2K.

As for big or small - it doesn't matter. More variety is almost always better. I've been preaching for a while now that a number of factions need to get expanded. Custodes just need more sheets. So do Votann. Other factions just need a little puffing. Drukari need new sculpts, plastic, and some nameds. Nids need some more Epic Heroes that aren't necessarily nameds (Think the Avatar). They also need some fluff about burrowing cavernous breeding organisms that sitll pump out Old One Eye among others long after the Invasion Fleet was destroyed/moved on.

Tau need some named. Especially ones that flip the army on it's head. We all know/make the joke, they're space communists. But they're xenophobic Space Communists that use but don't elevate their allies i.e. Kroot and Vespids are Sergeants, never Captains. Give them a named Vespid and Kroot that turn that on it's head. The exception to the rule. Epic Heroes should be one of two things: The "Chapter Master" who is the exemplar of the Chapter - the prototype (Think Calgar: First Rubicon crosser, gravis/Terminator, Strategy Rating 6, etc think Dante: Jump Pack Assault Marine, Strategy Rating 5 <-> Red Thirst/Black Rage, etc) - and the Black Sheep "Captain" who marches to the beat of a different drum and changes all the rules (think: Sammael- rides a bike, changes the rules for bikers to be troops, etc). Tau are in pretty desperate need of that.