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.

I always thought a cool ork rule sounds like "ork always hit on their bs skill. This roll can not be modified by any rules / stratagems / rules of of other units / effects of other units as orks simply don't care about those things, they get in the the way of the dakka parts."

Things like that. Like the old ork rule that if it is painted red it moves 1" farther because red makes it go faster. This rule applies to all units on the board, or or not.

That is the kind of fluffy rule they should have.

Niiru wrote:
This thread has nothing to do with the Lore.

Actually, it does. Because the lore and the flavor of the army should be inseparable. If it doesn't, then the game designer done fethed up. The "flavor" of Guard throwing wave after wave of men at people? That's also the lore. The Guard isn't incompetent, but they are simply outclassed by everyone else-- Orks are tougher and stronger, Marines have better armor and equipment, Eldar are faster and have better technology and psychic powers, and Chaos has absurdly powerful, monstrous daemons at their beck and call. Guard? They have tanks and soldiers, and they have a lot of them, and the balls to stand up to these insanely powerful enemies. That's their lore, and at their best, that's their flavor, too. The lore and flavor need to match; having a mismatch of gameplay and story is the trappings of a sub-par game developer.

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
People dont want themes, they want what everyone else has, no matter what. The grass is always greener on the other side and all that.

If you have army A that specializes in tanks for example, people will ask why dont they get good infantry like Army B gets, even if that army gets crappy tanks. And army B will complain their pyskers suck compared to army C, who will complain their monsters suck compared to army D, who will complain their tanks suck compared to army A, etc. etc.

There's no satisfying the community on this. Its always been this way. Keep in mind there are a sizable chunk of people in the playerbase who dont even read the background of their armies and wouldnt understand why their army has a theme in the first place.

Maybe that's what you want. I want my army to have a theme, both visually and ruleswise. I do want my army to have a fighting chance against other armies, and them against mine, but that shouldn't require every army to be the same.

I agree with OP that more pronounced themes would be good for 40k to some extent, but I don't think it's as big a problem as OP apparently does. Some armies need help in this regard, others are fine. IG shouldn't be good at psykers, for example.

 Melissia wrote:

Niiru wrote:
This thread has nothing to do with the Lore.

Actually, it does. Because the lore and the flavor of the army should be inseparable. If it doesn't, then the game designer done fethed up. The "flavor" of Guard throwing wave after wave of men at people? That's also the lore. The Guard isn't incompetent, but they are simply outclassed by everyone else-- Orks are tougher and stronger, Marines have better armor and equipment, Eldar are faster and have better technology and psychic powers, and Chaos has absurdly powerful, monstrous daemons at their beck and call. Guard? They have tanks and soldiers, and they have a lot of them, and the balls to stand up to these insanely powerful enemies. That's their lore, and at their best, that's their flavor, too. The lore and flavor need to match; having a mismatch of gameplay and story is the trappings of a sub-par game developer.

Ok, fine then, in that case what I was saying is that the tabletop should match the lore. Which seems to be what you are saying too, so I'm not sure why you got snarky at me about it.

Because you argued the lore doesn't matter, when for a huge number of people, it's the only reason they stick with this game over so many others out there that might provide better balance or gameplay-- because, let's face it, that's note really 40k's schtick.

On the table top, the lore really doesn't matter, though.

 Melissia wrote:
Because you argued the lore doesn't matter, when for a huge number of people, it's the only reason they stick with this game over so many others out there that might provide better balance or gameplay-- because, let's face it, that's note really 40k's schtick.

I didn't say the lore doesn't matter, I said that the army on the tabletop should play in a way that is in keeping with their lore. A race with a long history of powerful psykers, should have good psykers. If not the best psychic options in the game.

You then got snarky, saying that I was wrong in thinking that the tabletop is the same as the lore. Maybe that's true, but my point is that the tabletop -should be- the same as the lore. They should mirror each other, at least to a degree.

You were right to point out my (incorrect) statement about this thread not being about the lore, because it is, tangentially. But most peoples issues aren't with the lore, but with the way the army plays on the table, so I was focusing on that part of the issue.

Niiru wrote:
I didn't say the lore doesn't matter

You said, specifically, that this thread has nothing to do with the lore. Now you're backtracking and arguing it does.

Which is it?

Martel732 wrote:
On the table top, the lore really doesn't matter, though.

The lore is the reason people play this game, without it, 40k would've died ages ago.

The lore is the reason armies work the way they do in the first place, any deviations from that are due to rules constraints, failure to translate fluff to crunch, and (attempts at) balancing. The first is unavoidable, the second mitigatable, the third laudable.

It's not so much the general themes as the lack of internal options and internal faction differentiation that cause most issues with "blandness", at least in my experience. It's not an issue of factions being differentiated enough from each other, it's that the options for each faction aren't consistently presented to play them in a way that many prefer or with the individualization that they're looking for. For instance, lack of Chapter tactics, Legion bonuses, etc. Other times it's that only a handful of units are good, and any other style of force just doesn't work terribly well.

Overfocusing on big broad things for factions as a whole I don't think is the issue, and can lead to further issues. IG for example, they have lots of weeny infantry, but their tanks have quite often been amongst the most powerful going back to their creation. Orks have historically had terrible ballistic skill, but have had some fearsome shooting units that make up for it through raw volume of firepower (even if variable, e.g. Lootas). Necrons have often been portrayed as a slow faction but have, at least since 6E, been amongst some of the most blisteringly fast in the game with flyer & skimmer transports and jetbikes and Wraiths.

 Cream Tea wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
On the table top, the lore really doesn't matter, though.

The lore is the reason people play this game, without it, 40k would've died ages ago.

200% truth. The IP is what keeps this game alive. 40k's rules have historically been pretty terrible, nobody would play this game for its rules, the game is a success in spite of its rules, not because of them.

 Cream Tea wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
On the table top, the lore really doesn't matter, though.

The lore is the reason people play this game, without it, 40k would've died ages ago.

The lore is the reason armies work the way they do in the first place, any deviations from that are due to rules constraints, failure to translate fluff to crunch, and (attempts at) balancing. The first is unavoidable, the second mitigatable, the third laudable.

Agreed, my armies are all fluff based, which makes them not optimizated for tournament play but fun to play with. It's all about the fluff and that is also the problem. How can you make someone a God in the fluff but fair in the actual game? Unfortunately with the rules this really hurts some armies. But it does not mean it has to stay this way. Hopefully as more codexes come out the flavor of the armies will start to really shine on the table.

I'm pretty bitter that the BA function nothing like the fluff and haven't for a long time. So from my perspective, I have to ignore the fluff, because it means nothing to my play experience at all.

On the contrary, the BA actually do function like in the fluff, they just need to be stronger. Your focus on "if it isn't conscripts it's weak and I hate it and I'm going to pretend it doesn't exist" has led you to be blinded to 90% of the game.

 Melissia wrote:

Niiru wrote:
I didn't say the lore doesn't matter

You said, specifically, that this thread has nothing to do with the lore. Now you're backtracking and arguing it does.

Which is it?

Well, if you read my whole post, you'll see I already addressed this. I even outright said that I was mistaken in saying this thread wasn't about the lore, and that in a way it actually is. It isn't the point of the thread, but it does have a relation. No backtracking, as they are two completely separate issues, they just happen to converge and should (in an ideal world) interact with each other. But you seem to be intent on arguing for some reason.

I also never said the lore didn't matter, I just said that this thread was more about problems with how the armies play on the tabletop, than problems with their lore. People often pick armies because of lore, or because of playstyle, or in many cases because of both. This is because lore effects playstyle. I did not say lore didn't matter. I said that lore isn't the problem, and therefore is not what this thread is complaining about. The complaints are about how armies are not playing on the table in the ways that people expect.

Can't put it any more simply, sorry. I'm tired and I'm not sure I'm getting through to you. You also seem intent on arguing with me over semantics, and it's derailing the point of this thread. Which is that armies should have a more defined 'theme' on the tabletop. Not in the lore, as their theme in the lore is fine. It's the tabletop that is the issue.

I've repeated myself several times here, hopefully one of them will resonate with you.

I always had an issue with Blood Angels, Black Templars, and Space Wolves in the fluff. All 3 were supposed to be elite forces that focused on close combat, at least in the beginning. Gw has gone down the wolf path for Space wolves (still prefer space Vikings though) but blood angels have never seemed to get the special something they need to really shine.

I mean back in the day if you wanted a close combat dred you played blood angels for their furiso dread. If you wanted tanks with assault cannons it was blood angels and the baal pred. If you wanted a land raider crusader you had to have black templars. Now if you want these things you don't need to be of the right chapter to get an equivalent (ass razorbacks and dual ccw dreads) that works for you.

Just saying, give these factions back their special "them only" toys. They need their identity back!

 Melissia wrote:
On the contrary, the BA actually do function like in the fluff, they just need to be stronger. Your focus on "if it isn't conscripts it's weak and I hate it and I'm going to pretend it doesn't exist" has led you to be blinded to 90% of the game.

No, they really don't. They lose in CC to almost every list on a point for point basis. Even IG. Their shooting is inferior. Their CC is inferior. I don't see that in the fluff anywhere.

Niiru wrote:

 MagicJuggler wrote:
Orks should be "Brutal and Kunnin" or "Kunnin and Brutal", with the army being able to fall anywhere in between that spectrum. In many ways, they should be that army that is underestimated because they're using obsolete tech that's not accounted for, with just a hinge of weird science. I remember one Dakka poster (adamsouza IIRC) stating things Orks need, given how their current design is so...uninspiring. ("Orks. Orks with Burnas. Orks with Deffguns. Orks with Rokkits." And so on so forth.). I forget all the random ideas to diversify them, but I do recall among other things being:
-More "impossible physics" options, tanks that can crawl up walls or grabbin' klaws that can throw objects (including other vehicles) around.
-Actual Cybork models/rules besides "save after a save". Stuff like UFOrks, Spida-Gitz, etc. Make them almost akin to 3.5 Possessed, in that they can be customized.
-An expanded Ork ecology. Squig units, Snotlings, etc.
-Grotz getting more options, making them more of a "general support", ala Pygs for Trollblood armies.
-Optionally, rules for Chaos Orks, ala Khorneboyz, or Tuska da Daemonkilla.

Agree. Agree so hard.

They removed the Ork character that could turn enemy characters into Squigs, because he had a 1 in 10 chance of being powerful and removing a space marine special character from the board in one turn.
They removed the ability for the Orks to literally throw tanks around the board.
They removed the ability for Orks to accidentally create destructive black holes, and teleport themselves (or their enemies) around the board into unexpected fights.
They even removed (I can't even remember how old this rule is) the transport capacity of Ork transports being "However many models you can pile onto the transport".

Were these rules overpowered? Lol, no. They just upset the poor beakies because they were fun and sometimes let the Orks win, so they cried and GW removed them all. I'm actually surprised they didn't start giving them to Imperial Guard over the years.

Also removed in 8th, gitfindaz. In an edition where shooting is king, Orks lost their only upgrade which improved their shooting. They even lost body armour for their 'ard boyz, for literally no reason whatsoever. Even the Age of Sigmar Orks have 'Ard Boyz now, but the 40k ones dont !?! Orks somehow lost the ability to strap armour to their bodies over time.

'Member Lootas? Remember when they picked a unit and got the weapon options from that unit. Remember a mob of Lootas blowing up their own unit with 4 Plasma Cannons, because all 4 Lootas rolled 1's To hit?

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
People dont want themes, they want what everyone else has, no matter what. The grass is always greener on the other side and all that.

If you have army A that specializes in tanks for example, people will ask why dont they get good infantry like Army B gets, even if that army gets crappy tanks. And army B will complain their pyskers suck compared to army C, who will complain their monsters suck compared to army D, who will complain their tanks suck compared to army A, etc. etc.

There's no satisfying the community on this. Its always been this way. Keep in mind there are a sizable chunk of people in the playerbase who dont even read the background of their armies and wouldnt understand why their army has a theme in the first place.

I actually agree with this, since this sums up 80% of all eldar complaints, 40% of all Ork complaints, 20% of Space Marine complaints, and 35% of Chaos complaints, and 95% of Grey Knight complaints. Some are justified (having stratagem regen for all), some are just downright silly (my X unit costs more than his Y unit even though they fulfill the same role in my army! No I don't care X unit gets buffs that Y doesn't, they have similar profiles so they should cost the same regardless that mine gets more buffs!).

OP here. Thanks all for your inputs.

Orks
It is evident from the commentary that I've committed an egregious transgression in my description of Orks. Indeed, "kunnin and brutal" may be the better theme for the army. Or, as one poster suggested, "techno barbarians" - I like that one too. The specifics of what the themes should be per army isn't really what I intended to discuss (but feel free to take this thread in that direction); the list in the first post was mostly for illustrative purposes.

Lore vs. Tabletop
With regard to lore vs. tabletop, I think the relevant commentators have agreed that they're inextricably interwoven (or at least should be). We can't rewrite 30 years of lore to fit a mould created today, but perhaps the simple solution is to interpret stories from lore as singular examples that don't overrule a stereotype. This way it's OK for the lore to have a story about a human psyker overcoming a farseer that one time, even though Eldar are the dominant psykers.

@drbored - I'm picking and choosing some quotes from your post to contextualise my reply, but the reply is to the whole post.

I'm looking through these and I'm like "don't all of these armies already do this?"
Like, what would you do to make Nurgle tougher?
What would you do to make Dark Eldar more mobile?

These are mechanical questions that I honestly have not considered. In principle though, if Nurgle's theme is "toughest army" then nothing else in the game should be that tough. If we agree that Nurgle are already tough enough, then the answer must be to reduce toughness on other armies to make that distinction clear, or to increase the cost of other armies' "tough" units. Regarding Dark Eldar; if the theme is "fastest army" and we think adding speed is redundant then we should consider slowing down other armies until they can't compete on speed or relatively increasing the cost of competing fast units in opposing armies. Any of these changes affect balance, and you can't do just one of them in isolation without, as you put it, swinging everything out of whack.

Grass is always greener syndrome - in response to some interesting points made by MrMoustaffa, MagicJuggler, and Niiru.
We're in a situation now where the rules allow for armies to take units from two or more factions - as it stands, the rules allow dilution of any attempt to strongly theme an army. Let's assume that sales is the primary driver for this decision, and therefore that the rules need to adapt to address it - i.e. this will never be undone because it generates income for the company. So how can we continue having this flexibility while also having strongly-themed armies?
One approach is to inflate costs for units from the second+ faction. Example: Your Space Marine army wants Leman Russ tanks? No problem - you can have your cake. But you will pay more points than an IG player for an IG tank.
You should never be able to compete point-for-point at the specialty for a different faction. This would potentially address the "souping" problem in the competitive meta, motivate players to stick to their army, and still give them the flexibility to step out of it for casual games or for a niche requirement. It might even make balancing easier, because now you only need to balance each army against each other army, and don't need to put as much consideration into arbitrary cross-army combinations v.s. other arbitrary combinations knowing that souping is going to be points-inefficient in principle.

What do you think about my solution to allowing units from other factions to be taken?

Units are only good with respect to their cost. It's not the units that people covet, it's their EFFICIENCY.

Sorcererbob wrote:

Lore vs. Tabletop
With regard to lore vs. tabletop, I think the relevant commentators have agreed that they're inextricably interwoven (or at least should be). We can't rewrite 30 years of lore to fit a mould created today, but perhaps the simple solution is to interpret stories from lore as singular examples that don't overrule a stereotype. This way it's OK for the lore to have a story about a human psyker overcoming a farseer that one time, even though Eldar are the dominant psykers.

Oh, I don't think any of us were saying that -all- the lore should be reflected on the tabletop. There will always be stories where a squad of 5 imperial guardsmen hold out in a bunker and kill 1000 orks / tyranids / space marines in some kind of heroic last stand. This is all good, all armies should have their heroic tales! But even when we read those stories, we know they're heroic outliers, and that actually 5 guardsmen would normally get chomped by a single genestealer.

Just got reminded of the story of Old One Eye back in... 4th? or maybe 5th? Can't remember. Was a cool story though. Think a Guardman shoved a plasma pistol in a carnifex's eye, blasting off half its head, but it just got angry and went crazy and ate his platoon. Something like that anyway. I should go back and find that.

One approach is to inflate costs for units from the second+ faction. Example: Your Space Marine army wants Leman Russ tanks? No problem - you can have your cake. But you will pay more points than an IG player for an IG tank.

What do you think about my solution to allowing units from other factions to be taken?

Intriguing... It would mean you would have to pick your main faction before you built a list, in order to know which units you inflate the prices on. Normally would be obvious but in a 50/50 army I guess you'd pick the cheaper half. Or maybe your main faction has to be the one your warlord is from. Means if you try and be cheesy and pick.. I dunno, Celestine as your warlord, then you'd have to pay an extra cost for any non-sisters units you take. Which for a lot of people is all of them, as Celestine seems to crop up in IG and Marine armies more often than in Sisters armies.

I actually like this idea. It'll never happen, much like most good ideas, but still it's interesting. And you could always write up a homebrew rule for it and play it in friendly games. Might even catch on.

 Happyjew wrote:

Niiru wrote:

 MagicJuggler wrote:
Orks should be "Brutal and Kunnin" or "Kunnin and Brutal", with the army being able to fall anywhere in between that spectrum. In many ways, they should be that army that is underestimated because they're using obsolete tech that's not accounted for, with just a hinge of weird science. I remember one Dakka poster (adamsouza IIRC) stating things Orks need, given how their current design is so...uninspiring. ("Orks. Orks with Burnas. Orks with Deffguns. Orks with Rokkits." And so on so forth.). I forget all the random ideas to diversify them, but I do recall among other things being:
-More "impossible physics" options, tanks that can crawl up walls or grabbin' klaws that can throw objects (including other vehicles) around.
-Actual Cybork models/rules besides "save after a save". Stuff like UFOrks, Spida-Gitz, etc. Make them almost akin to 3.5 Possessed, in that they can be customized.
-An expanded Ork ecology. Squig units, Snotlings, etc.
-Grotz getting more options, making them more of a "general support", ala Pygs for Trollblood armies.
-Optionally, rules for Chaos Orks, ala Khorneboyz, or Tuska da Daemonkilla.

Agree. Agree so hard.

They removed the Ork character that could turn enemy characters into Squigs, because he had a 1 in 10 chance of being powerful and removing a space marine special character from the board in one turn.
They removed the ability for the Orks to literally throw tanks around the board.
They removed the ability for Orks to accidentally create destructive black holes, and teleport themselves (or their enemies) around the board into unexpected fights.
They even removed (I can't even remember how old this rule is) the transport capacity of Ork transports being "However many models you can pile onto the transport".

Were these rules overpowered? Lol, no. They just upset the poor beakies because they were fun and sometimes let the Orks win, so they cried and GW removed them all. I'm actually surprised they didn't start giving them to Imperial Guard over the years.

Also removed in 8th, gitfindaz. In an edition where shooting is king, Orks lost their only upgrade which improved their shooting. They even lost body armour for their 'ard boyz, for literally no reason whatsoever. Even the Age of Sigmar Orks have 'Ard Boyz now, but the 40k ones dont !?! Orks somehow lost the ability to strap armour to their bodies over time.

'Member Lootas? Remember when they picked a unit and got the weapon options from that unit. Remember a mob of Lootas blowing up their own unit with 4 Plasma Cannons, because all 4 Lootas rolled 1's To hit?

Remember when Looted Vehicles were actually taking an entry from another codex, and slapping a BS penalty and "don't press dat" to it? Heck, remember when there were actually *rules* for Looted Wagons?

 MagicJuggler wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

Niiru wrote:

 MagicJuggler wrote:
Orks should be "Brutal and Kunnin" or "Kunnin and Brutal", with the army being able to fall anywhere in between that spectrum. In many ways, they should be that army that is underestimated because they're using obsolete tech that's not accounted for, with just a hinge of weird science. I remember one Dakka poster (adamsouza IIRC) stating things Orks need, given how their current design is so...uninspiring. ("Orks. Orks with Burnas. Orks with Deffguns. Orks with Rokkits." And so on so forth.). I forget all the random ideas to diversify them, but I do recall among other things being:
-More "impossible physics" options, tanks that can crawl up walls or grabbin' klaws that can throw objects (including other vehicles) around.
-Actual Cybork models/rules besides "save after a save". Stuff like UFOrks, Spida-Gitz, etc. Make them almost akin to 3.5 Possessed, in that they can be customized.
-An expanded Ork ecology. Squig units, Snotlings, etc.
-Grotz getting more options, making them more of a "general support", ala Pygs for Trollblood armies.
-Optionally, rules for Chaos Orks, ala Khorneboyz, or Tuska da Daemonkilla.

Agree. Agree so hard.

They removed the Ork character that could turn enemy characters into Squigs, because he had a 1 in 10 chance of being powerful and removing a space marine special character from the board in one turn.
They removed the ability for the Orks to literally throw tanks around the board.
They removed the ability for Orks to accidentally create destructive black holes, and teleport themselves (or their enemies) around the board into unexpected fights.
They even removed (I can't even remember how old this rule is) the transport capacity of Ork transports being "However many models you can pile onto the transport".

Were these rules overpowered? Lol, no. They just upset the poor beakies because they were fun and sometimes let the Orks win, so they cried and GW removed them all. I'm actually surprised they didn't start giving them to Imperial Guard over the years.

Also removed in 8th, gitfindaz. In an edition where shooting is king, Orks lost their only upgrade which improved their shooting. They even lost body armour for their 'ard boyz, for literally no reason whatsoever. Even the Age of Sigmar Orks have 'Ard Boyz now, but the 40k ones dont !?! Orks somehow lost the ability to strap armour to their bodies over time.

'Member Lootas? Remember when they picked a unit and got the weapon options from that unit. Remember a mob of Lootas blowing up their own unit with 4 Plasma Cannons, because all 4 Lootas rolled 1's To hit?

Remember when Looted Vehicles were actually taking an entry from another codex, and slapping a BS penalty and "don't press dat" to it? Heck, remember when there were actually *rules* for Looted Wagons?

I members!

Honestly, that was about the last time I considered an ork army. In fantasy the one time I bought an army and learned to play it was with orks and goblins, but I never used orks. I loved the idea of the night goblins, shoving shrooms down a models through and shoving it out into an enemy. I remember one time I did that and it killed an oger, fun times with the old ball and Chain. Never won a game with that army, but never tried. I was the "disruption" player, you played me to see if you would survive the stupid.

If orks were like that I would jump all over them. Random awesome is what should make orks cool, they don't need anything besides that based on their fluff. I mean, think of an ork boy with shrooms and a bazooka shoved at an enemy who was charging them..... Giggles all around!

Honestly I think your theme should be a serious part of list construction. Now this does not apply in competitive play, but when I write a list I try to come up with something that fits with what I want my army to be. My best example is my current 2k Cadian army. They were visualized as urban combat specialists tasked with scouting a warzone and moving up street by street to take a city. They are a single company of about 100 men, so in Imperial Guard scale they are a tiny fraction of an overall larger force so no superheavies or special characters. It's organized into a Brigade.

Reconnaissance Screen: As the leading edge of the company, the following units are tasked with scouting ahead of the formation to find the enemy and engage them long enough to allow the rest of the force time to set up and move into position. The screen consists of 2 armored sentinels with plasma cannons and 10 veterans with 3 meltaguns in a Taurox with 2 autocannon. They're mobile, and have just enough armor and heavy weapons to hold their own for a short time before retreating if necessary.

Support Element: These units contain the overall commander and the long range firepower. Once the Recon units find the enemy, they set up to provide overwatch for the Assault Element and engage the opposing force allowing the Recon units to retreat. This element has the Company Commander warlord, 3 heavy weapons teams, a Leman Russ, and is supported by 2 infantry squads with light weapons.

Assault Element: These units are tasked with seizing objectives and taking the fight to the enemy. They are heavily armed and geared up for close quarters firefights. They can bust bunkers, or burn out ruins occupied by enemy combatants. There is a Commissar Lord to lead the charge, 2 Platoon commanders, 2 squads of veterans in Chimeras, a Punisher for suppressing fire, 2 more infantry squads to help establish a perimeter around the target building, and a Hellhound for flushing out enemies in heavy cover. They are mostly mechanized for speed and to avoid sniper fire and they press down rubble strewn streets to seize key areas.

Rapid Reaction Force: These units are on standby to drop in when the fighting is thickest. If the Assault Element is having trouble breaching a fortified structure, they can be called in to Grav chute on the roof and sandwich the enemy from top and bottom. They consist of a Tempestor Prime and 2 10 man squads of Scions.

I've made deliberate choices in unit selection to fit the theme of a hard charging unit of elite urban warfare specialists. No conscripts, because they are too unwieldy and poorly trained for building by building street fighting. No heavy artillery because it wouldn't be able to keep up and would need to be dropped too close to friendly troops to be effective. No special characters because they wouldn't really be leading a force of 104 guardsmen and 8 vehicles. No flyers or superheavies because the terrain would be too dense. No Ogryns, Ratlings (but they would fit), psykers, or other specialists because they are too rare for such a small force in my opinion. No tank commanders because there's only 2 Leman Russ tanks. I wouldn't consider anything in the list "rare" but IG standards.

The army as a whole is still pretty effective, flexible, and doesn't take much of the "IG Cheese" or any spam. The only duplicate units are the 2 Sentinels, 2 Lascannon HWTs, and 4 infantry squads. 2 have flamers, 2 have grenade launcher. It's all painted up in a sweet urban camo pattern, and the officers and veterans easily stand out from the rank and file.

 Cream Tea wrote:

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
People dont want themes, they want what everyone else has, no matter what. The grass is always greener on the other side and all that.

If you have army A that specializes in tanks for example, people will ask why dont they get good infantry like Army B gets, even if that army gets crappy tanks. And army B will complain their pyskers suck compared to army C, who will complain their monsters suck compared to army D, who will complain their tanks suck compared to army A, etc. etc.

There's no satisfying the community on this. Its always been this way. Keep in mind there are a sizable chunk of people in the playerbase who dont even read the background of their armies and wouldnt understand why their army has a theme in the first place.

Maybe that's what you want. I want my army to have a theme, both visually and ruleswise. I do want my army to have a fighting chance against other armies, and them against mine, but that shouldn't require every army to be the same.

I agree with OP that more pronounced themes would be good for 40k to some extent, but I don't think it's as big a problem as OP apparently does. Some armies need help in this regard, others are fine. IG shouldn't be good at psykers, for example.

I actually prefer themes as well, I'm just a bit jaded because I hear people complain about not having everything in every codex. Not from a competitive point of view like orks have to deal with, but IG players complaining we don't have elite infantry, space marines complaining their tanks aren't as good as IG, stuff like that. Most of them are new players who don't really get the lore behind their army, but it gets old. Sorry if I sounded a bit grumpy there

The "flavour" should be evident in lists. when making a list i think how I want it to play and how it should look on the table.

I don't know how there is supposed to be more or less flavour with the factions.

everything that I have ever done in regards to 40k is massively weighted towards fluff. So I guess the thematic aspect of each army that I have play/played has been important in choosing one.

OP again.

I've been thinking about how to implement this more. For stronger themes to work I think the principle has to be 'give something up to gain something'. I've drafted some modified versions of chapter tactics, and how I'd set up the rules for Imperial Guard and Dark Eldar as examples for discussion. I also think that the Force Organisation Chart is one lever that can be pulled for balance - possibly in 8th this is replaced by only allowing certain formations per army. E.g. You could say that Dark Eldar get an additional advantage for the "all fast attack" composition, but can never take the "all heavy support" version. The idea isn't to force players into a hole; it's to motivate them to play to their army's strength.

Space Marines (all)
Theme: 8' tall super humans.
Adv: Jack of all trades; no real weaknesses. Particularly strong on morale. Minor buff per chapter when taking units in certain compositions.
Dis: Expensive units. Inflexibility - the buff is lost if deploying other ways.
Rule: And they shall know no fear. Reroll morale tests.
Force Organisation: Standard (based on the idea that space marines are the poster boys, they get the standard FOC options).

Space Marines (Imperial Fists)
Chapter tactic: Bolter drill. If every model in a tactical squad has a standard boltgun (no upgrades), then when the unit shoots each model takes an additional shot.
Discussion: The idea is that you're giving up the advantages of plasma, melta, grav etc. in your tac squads to get the better boltguns. You're motivated to take tactical squads, which are signature for IF.

Space Marines (Raven Guard)
Chapter tactic: Shadow masters. If an assault squad unit did not shoot in the preceding shooting phase (or haven't had a turn yet), then when an enemy unit targets the assault squad they must subtract 2 from the to-hit roll.
Discussion: Give up shooting to get hit a lot less (thematically you didn't give up your position). You're motivated to take assault squads, which are signature for Raven Guard.

Space Marines (Ultra Marines)
Chapter tactic: Codex discipline. The rule they have now is probably OK.
Discussion: Maybe add that they don't fight in melee on the turn prior if they want to fall back and then shoot? These guys are the vanilla example upon which everything else is compared.

Space Marines (Space Wolves / Blood Angels / Dark Angels / Black Templar)
Chapter tactic: Special units that are on-theme for them. Wolfy wolfmen riding wolves holding wolf axes if you want.
Discussion: Price the special units to be mildly superior at their specialty as compared to the codex variant. Maybe limit the use of some standard units to compensate per Chapter? You're motivated to take the special chapter units, because of cost efficiency.

Imperial Guard
Theme: Human army out of its depth. Regimented.
Adv: Very cheap units. Orders.
Dis: Individually terrible at everything. No special strength except numbers.
Rule: Orders.
Force Organisation: More troop and heavy slots. Less fast attack and elite slots.
Discussion: I would scale down the effectiveness of all units, but make them relatively more useful when under orders. I'd make tanks take orders too. Orders everywhere. The commanders become the linchpin of the whole army - simultaneously the biggest strength and the biggest weakness.

Dark Eldar (Kabals / Wyche Cults)
Theme: Dark elves in space. Into torture, pain etc.
Adv: Extremely mobile. Power from pain (get better as more enemies die).
Dis: Lightly armoured, easy to kill. No psykers.
Rule: Power from pain. I think it's current incarnation is pretty good. Maybe even make units weaker to start and Power From Pain more game-changing on later turns? The idea is that you want to really feel the power curve. You are hiding at the start, and they're hiding from you at the end - if you survive the start, of course.
Force Organisation: Lots of fast attack slots. Few/no heavy support slots.
Discussion: You give up early-game power to have late-game power. Think of it as biding your time, waiting in the shadows to strike.

Of course I haven't considered balance. My view is that balance is done when you assign points to things. Are there any situations or armies for which this approach breaks? Did any of my suggestions seem too stupid to be balanced? What does your army look like when painted with the same brush?

 MagicJuggler wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:


'Member Lootas? Remember when they picked a unit and got the weapon options from that unit. Remember a mob of Lootas blowing up their own unit with 4 Plasma Cannons, because all 4 Lootas rolled 1's To hit?

Remember when Looted Vehicles were actually taking an entry from another codex, and slapping a BS penalty and "don't press dat" to it? Heck, remember when there were actually *rules* for Looted Wagons?

Looted Wagon rules are coming in Chapter Approved!

Well, except that this is 40k Imperium Heresy Edition. So the new looted wagons are Imperium only.

My main concern, is the way people seem to define "flavor" now days. Armies, in general, have more units and options than ever before in the history of the game - and it's still considered "boring" if you're using indices, etc.

Sadly the GW method for flavor is as per all their other rule designs: Ignore rule X, or re-roll Y. I'm not entirely sure how this creates any kind of flavor. Re-rolling being one of the most detestable crutches in all of game design.

The easiest way to produce flavor is:

A) Armies get access to things other armies do not. You get this in 40K...vaguely. There are still far too many similar units populating armies.
B) The most important one...an army's benefits should be balanced with penalties - produced a "balanced" army without producing a more powerful one. Ideally this would include limiting or removing units available for certain flavors of armies. Unfortunately this flies in the face of selling more plastic.

I always refer back to the sample of the Ulthwe Strike Force back in 3rd (I think). It was, for all purposes, a pretty crap list. However it was unique (webway deployment, retreating to webways, etc.) and had a very scant army list. The few major benefits (Black Guardians, Maugan Ra, Seer Councils) were balanced out by the army taking no vehicles outside of Vypers and War Walkers, etc. This kind of army creation generates actual flavor --- but nowdays that kind of design philosophy is gone, because GW doesn't want to ever produce something which states "don't buy these...just these".

I'm curious to see how the upcoming Eldar codex is, considering stuff like Iyanden which should feature Wraithguard as troops (but should be limited in running other generic Eldar infantry/units), etc.

Niiru wrote:

 MagicJuggler wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:


'Member Lootas? Remember when they picked a unit and got the weapon options from that unit. Remember a mob of Lootas blowing up their own unit with 4 Plasma Cannons, because all 4 Lootas rolled 1's To hit?

Remember when Looted Vehicles were actually taking an entry from another codex, and slapping a BS penalty and "don't press dat" to it? Heck, remember when there were actually *rules* for Looted Wagons?

Looted Wagon rules are coming in Chapter Approved!

Well, except that this is 40k Imperium Heresy Edition. So the new looted wagons are Imperium only.

3rd edition Lootas/Looted vehicles were one of the things I loved so much about Orks when I started my army back in the day [a Deathskullz Klan base] - I loved the options, and the theme that even if they weren't sure exactly how it worked, they'd press it into service; even if it blew up in their face or worked hilariously unpredictably. Really, I just loved the options it provided, letting me take whatever looked hilarious/fun from another codex and customizing/themeing my army around that - plus the fluff angle of Orks scavenging/looting junk units and guns from the battlefield, in addition to making their own stuff (loot the battlefield in the fluff, loot the codex in list building).

I'm not surprised though if it really does end up that the first customizable ("looted) unit is an Imperial one; such a shame. That said, if those rules turn out well, I'm slightly (ever so) optimistic that perhaps Orks could get a looted/customizable vehicle option in their codex next year...

Man, I just miss looted everything in general. Gimme Looted Wagons (aka various battle tanks) back please; I just want to run a shooty/looty/armored krumpany.