Switch Theme:

One Codex 40k?  [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 ca
Fresh-Faced New User




 Blackie wrote:
 AnomanderRake wrote:
This exists. It's called Bolt Action. You should try it. It works rather well.



Makes sense for something like bolt action. It's about a bunch of human factions, sharing comparable technology.

In a universe in which orcs, bugs, space elves, demons, robots, humans, superhumanes, etc... clash against each other, armies have to be different and flavourful, even at the cost of balance. The key is to keep a reasonable amount of balance around the game, and that's entirely subjective like anything that involves the use of the "reasonable" concept.

People who advocate for something like making all the factions very samey are all interested in an overly competitive chess-like game, they want 40k to be something that has never been and that GW never wanted it to be.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Apocalypse81 wrote:
Yeah, no, this would suck. The flavor of the armies is what makes 40k great.


Excatly. This, not the rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Sim-Life wrote:
 Grimskul wrote:
Yeah, every time they've tried to trim the fat people start complaining about the lack of flavour


And yet we have books upon books upon books of rules now and yet 40k is the most boring its ever been.


You're absolutely right, but things aren't either black or white, there are shades between these colours. It's not impossible to reduce the bloat and keep the flavour.

And to be fair most of those additional books can be flat out ignored. For most of the player base Rulebook + Codex + free erratas is anything they need in terms of rules to enjoy the game.


Naww, different rules are part of the flavor. If all armies played off the same rules, the game would be boring, imo.
   
Made in ie
Battleship Captain





Flavour is meaningless if the flavour is poop.


 
   
Made in us
Insect-Infested Nurgle Chaos Lord





In My Lab

I could see it working-but not with GW. I'm sure they have talented designers there, but given the quality of work, and especially the bloat they have... Nah.

To make it work, you'd probably want a deeper core system-the kind that where a few minor differences in the datasheet make for big gameplay differences.

Edit: And I'll say this too. I don't think this is the best design path-different Codecs are fine!

The way GW handles it isn't very good, but there's a huge difference between, say, Nids and Necrons. Or Tau and Orks.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/01/02 18:58:54


Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! 
   
Made in gb
Mighty Vampire Count






UK

 Mezmorki wrote:


Codex's could be dramatically simplified IMHO, with individual unit entries much simpler (even if it would appear to result in units looking more similar in similar roles comparing across army's) but with the faction differentiation coming through army-wide specific and unique roles.

Let's think about basic unit types for example.... one could come up with a pretty generic list:
Spoiler:

- Horde unit (stat lines of 3 across the board as a baseline, 6+ armor save)
- Light infantry (5+ saves, stat line of 3)
- Medium infantry (4+ saves, stat line of 3 typically)
- Heavy/Elite Infantry (3+ saves, stat line of 4 typically)
- Super Elite (2+ saves, stat line of 4 typically)
- Monstrous Creatures / Vehicles (variable saves, high S and T)

Different types of equipment could come in standardized tier-levels, and the selected standard issue would get applied as a baseline for all troops:

- Light weapons (S3 baseline) for pistol, assault 1, rapid fire
- Medium weapons (S4 baseline) for pistol, assault 1, rapid fire
- High-powered weapons (S5 baseline) for pistol, assault 1, rapid fire

You then layer on various specialists roles onto the above:

- Faster ground movement (e.g. bikes, Calvary)
- Jump pack / flight / jetback movement
- Assault role (extra attacks, extra S, extra WS)
- Fire support role (enhanced ranged weapons for anti-personal)
- Anti-tank role (enhanced ranged weapons for dealing with armor)

Units can also have various other buffs/abilities that apply to units...

- Deep strike
- Fearless
- Charge bonuses
- Scout/outflank
- Infiltrate

Or to weapons...

- Power
- Melta
- Lance
- Blast

When it comes different armies, you can take the templates above and work out a special way to apply army-wide bonuses/maluses to the unit stats and then special rules on top. Essentially we're talking about unit and weapon design rules with a menu of special abilities that can be grafted on top.

Army-wide systems/mechanics can be things like:

- ATSKNF (marines)
- Re-animation (necrons)
- Markerlights / fire control (Tau)
- Synapse (Tyranids)
- Waaagh + Mob Up (Orks)
- Fleet / Battle Focus (Eldar)
- Fleet / Power from Pain (Dark Eldar)


Oh look .... I just remade 3rd edition

Thats pretty good be quite interested in seeing more....

I AM A MARINE PLAYER

"Unimaginably ancient xenos artefact somewhere on the planet, hive fleet poised above our heads, hidden 'stealer broods making an early start....and now a bloody Chaos cult crawling out of the woodwork just in case we were bored. Welcome to my world, Ciaphas."
Inquisitor Amberley Vail, Ordo Xenos

"I will admit that some Primachs like Russ or Horus could have a chance against an unarmed 12 year old novice but, a full Battle Sister??!! One to one? In close combat? Perhaps three Primarchs fighting together... but just one Primarch?" da001

www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/528517.page

A Bloody Road - my Warhammer Fantasy Fiction 
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




This premise implies that balance is a worthy goal. GW games were a lot more fun when they were unbalanced, but each army had a specific niche. Sure the "tournament" scene will hurt, but that scene should not be the goal.

Maybe they could actually embrace the narrative vs matched system more in the future and cull a lot of the bloat from matched play and roll it into narrative structures.

The game would also benefit greatly from going to a d12 system adding more granularity which would alleviate many of the rules bloat problem we have currently (invuls, high ap, transhuman etc etc)
   
Made in ie
Battleship Captain





Tittliewinks22 wrote:
This premise implies that balance is a worthy goal. GW games were a lot more fun when they were unbalanced, but each army had a specific niche. Sure the "tournament" scene will hurt, but that scene should not be the goal.

Maybe they could actually embrace the narrative vs matched system more in the future and cull a lot of the bloat from matched play and roll it into narrative structures.

The game would also benefit greatly from going to a d12 system adding more granularity which would alleviate many of the rules bloat problem we have currently (invuls, high ap, transhuman etc etc)


The people who want this have given up on this happening (IMO) and decided if we can't have flavour we should aim for balance. I think if the game is somewhat balanced we can make thematic armies to give them flavour and still have a good game.

The armies have been sapped of personality more and more over the years and GW is just homogenising them further and further so if the armies are all going to be grey paste anyway why not make it GOOD grey paste.


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




NE Ohio, USA

Tittliewinks22 wrote:

The game would also benefit greatly from going to a d12 system adding more granularity which would alleviate many of the rules bloat problem we have currently (invuls, high ap, transhuman etc etc)


No, it wouldn't. All that'd happen is we'd be rolling bigger dice.
   
Made in at
Longtime Dakkanaut




ccs wrote:
Tittliewinks22 wrote:

The game would also benefit greatly from going to a d12 system adding more granularity which would alleviate many of the rules bloat problem we have currently (invuls, high ap, transhuman etc etc)


No, it wouldn't. All that'd happen is we'd be rolling bigger dice.


But that's just not true. If you add more granularity in the datasheets, which a D12 system would definitely allow you to do, you would have more levers to adjust within the unit datasheet to differentiate the multitude of factions and units without relying on lots of bespoke special rules. It wouldn't be the be all end all solution, but it would definitely offer up more options in that regard, it wouldn't be just rolling bigger dice.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/01/04 09:38:53


 
   
Made in us
Mutating Changebringer





New Hampshire, USA

I pitched this idea years ago.
Simply put, matched play should bave as little special rules as possible. It should be a more complicated game of chess.
In other words... A troop is a troop, a tank is a tank, a special weapon is a special weapon.
No MEQ, No Landraider, No flamer.

All the in-depth detail and minutia should be reserved for narrative and open play.

Your average Joe should be able to learn the basics of the game in under 10 minutes. They should be able to play with reasonable skill after 3 games. Then if they want to see the "fun/silly" side of the game they can learn all about why the olive green guys are fat and that they dont die as easily. Or why the little terminators dont have cool little leaders in their squads.

This would make tournaments actual tournaments instead of meta tests.

It would cut all the rules out for the people that dont care (IE they dont want or need to learn the rules for several dozen factions).

Baseline game first. All the extras for the "for fun" players later.

Khorne Daemons 4000+pts
 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran





Lebanon NH

I think that's a very reasonable compromise right there :-) Sorta a: "best of both worlds" scenario!
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut







Yeah, as a narrative player I love that proposal.

Makes the competition actually competitive, and the narrative play more narrative.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




NE Ohio, USA

Tiberias wrote:
ccs wrote:
Tittliewinks22 wrote:

The game would also benefit greatly from going to a d12 system adding more granularity which would alleviate many of the rules bloat problem we have currently (invuls, high ap, transhuman etc etc)


No, it wouldn't. All that'd happen is we'd be rolling bigger dice.


But that's just not true. If you add more granularity in the datasheets, which a D12 system would definitely allow you to do, you would have more levers to adjust within the unit datasheet to differentiate the multitude of factions and units without relying on lots of bespoke special rules. It wouldn't be the be all end all solution, but it would definitely offer up more options in that regard, it wouldn't be just rolling bigger dice.


Sure, maybe this hypothetical "you" your referring to could do it that way. But "You" doesn't make 40k. GW does.
Do you seriously think that GW wouldn't A) promptly fill that extra design space, and B) still add in all kinds of special & bespoke rules?
Like I said, we'd just have bigger dice.
   
Made in us
Powerful Pegasus Knight





Xenos Rampant may actually end up being very similar to what you're hoping for.

I know I'm looking forward to it.

40k has become a meta game rather than a game at all.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2022/01/06 03:45:38


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Annandale, VA

Tiberias wrote:
ccs wrote:
Tittliewinks22 wrote:

The game would also benefit greatly from going to a d12 system adding more granularity which would alleviate many of the rules bloat problem we have currently (invuls, high ap, transhuman etc etc)


No, it wouldn't. All that'd happen is we'd be rolling bigger dice.


But that's just not true. If you add more granularity in the datasheets, which a D12 system would definitely allow you to do, you would have more levers to adjust within the unit datasheet to differentiate the multitude of factions and units without relying on lots of bespoke special rules. It wouldn't be the be all end all solution, but it would definitely offer up more options in that regard, it wouldn't be just rolling bigger dice.


Epic made Space Marines play more differently from Ork Nobz despite less granularity in the statlines than 40K. There are so many ways to differentiate the factions that don't just involve adding extra granularity to the resolution of bare-bones core rules. Even within just GW games, the way Chaos and Imperial fleets in BFG or the way Marine and Ork armies in Epic play are different at a fundamental level owing to some basic but impactful design choices across the factions, and both of those games are wholly D6-mediated.

This idea that the problem with 40K is that it's not granular enough- despite already containing more minutiae than any of its major competitors- is such a uniquely 40K perspective. As if the main issue with a system where a stationary Titan ten feet away is exactly as hard to hit as a Striking Scorpion at full sprint three miles away, or where an Ork horde is as perfectly coordinated and instantaneous in response as a Marine strike force, is actually that it lacks the granularity to represent a Guardsmen being exactly 8.33% more accurate than a Grot. It's borderline stat masturbation. We'd be no better off with D12s; bigger dice won't fix the underlying problems.

The D6 is not an inescapable cause of the rules bloat we've been seeing. That's wholly on the writers having to continually one-up the rules they've already written, in a rules context that reduces every unit down to lethality and durability.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/01/06 04:07:09


   
Made in ca
Ancient Venerable Dreadnought






Because i like more flavor to armies.

To many unpainted models to count. 
   
Made in us
Ultramarine Terminator with Assault Cannon





leerm02 wrote:



So, my question is: why not?


Because depending on how cosmetic your cosmetic difference is it becomes coin flipping. Only Cosmetic differences means Guardsmen, Grots, and Space Marines are all BS3+, WS3+ S4 T4 Ld10 20ish point 2W models with a 2+ armor save- some of whom will now have a very undeserved reputation for being cowardly and/or little more than speed bumps. Different people get different things out of the game, but most of those different things revolve around using the faction that appeals to them cosmetically and rules wise to build an army that entertains them by its differences.

My WHFB armies were Bretonians and Tomb Kings. 
   
Made in ie
Battleship Captain





Breton wrote:
leerm02 wrote:



So, my question is: why not?


Because depending on how cosmetic your cosmetic difference is it becomes coin flipping. Only Cosmetic differences means Guardsmen, Grots, and Space Marines are all BS3+, WS3+ S4 T4 Ld10 20ish point 2W models with a 2+ armor save- some of whom will now have a very undeserved reputation for being cowardly and/or little more than speed bumps. Different people get different things out of the game, but most of those different things revolve around using the faction that appeals to them cosmetically and rules wise to build an army that entertains them by its differences.


You're falling into the all too common trap of assuming that if 40k was changed the change would occur in a vacuum and nothing around it would change. Also you're assuming that a single codex would just lump all units in the Troops section in together and wouldn't make a distinction between light infantry (guardsmen, grots) and heavy or elite infantry (space marines, tyranid warriors). A single codex for all armies could have a hundred different entries, not just a single statline to cover each category of unit . The OP specifically used the Space Marine book as an example because its actually does have nearly a hundred units in it.


 
   
Made in us
Ultramarine Terminator with Assault Cannon





 Sim-Life wrote:
Breton wrote:
leerm02 wrote:



So, my question is: why not?


Because depending on how cosmetic your cosmetic difference is it becomes coin flipping. Only Cosmetic differences means Guardsmen, Grots, and Space Marines are all BS3+, WS3+ S4 T4 Ld10 20ish point 2W models with a 2+ armor save- some of whom will now have a very undeserved reputation for being cowardly and/or little more than speed bumps. Different people get different things out of the game, but most of those different things revolve around using the faction that appeals to them cosmetically and rules wise to build an army that entertains them by its differences.


You're falling into the all too common trap of assuming that if 40k was changed the change would occur in a vacuum and nothing around it would change. Also you're assuming that a single codex would just lump all units in the Troops section in together and wouldn't make a distinction between light infantry (guardsmen, grots) and heavy or elite infantry (space marines, tyranid warriors). A single codex for all armies could have a hundred different entries, not just a single statline to cover each category of unit . The OP specifically used the Space Marine book as an example because its actually does have nearly a hundred units in it.


So you're saying it goes the other way, and Space Marines will get Grots (Or a cosmetically unique grot-like unit)? Will boyz get power armor, or will Tactical squads lose theirs? The one-codex concept described said there would only be cosmetic differences - ergo Every army will have the same options for the on-paper same units. Otherwise the differences are more than cosmetic. Will Tau be getting Assault Marines, or will Space Marines be losing theirs? Does everything get reanimation protocols? Nothing? The closest we have so far is the keyword and If-Then process for captains/etc in the Space Marine book (and Indomitus/Shadowspear/etc sets) where you turn Captain into Master or Wolf Lord etc which still isn't the one codex cosmetic difference thing because of Deathwing and so on.

My WHFB armies were Bretonians and Tomb Kings. 
   
Made in gb
Mighty Vampire Count






UK

 Sledgehammer wrote:
Xenos Rampant may actually end up being very similar to what you're hoping for.

I know I'm looking forward to it.

40k has become a meta game rather than a game at all.


I quite Liked Dragon Rampart but it was missing some important units and some of the add elements were not worth the cost. We added War Machine unit, Elite Missile unit and couple of others and changed a few of the add ons.

Still it was a nice slick game and you could play with a variety of armies - for instance we had a game of Tyranids vs Dwarfs

I AM A MARINE PLAYER

"Unimaginably ancient xenos artefact somewhere on the planet, hive fleet poised above our heads, hidden 'stealer broods making an early start....and now a bloody Chaos cult crawling out of the woodwork just in case we were bored. Welcome to my world, Ciaphas."
Inquisitor Amberley Vail, Ordo Xenos

"I will admit that some Primachs like Russ or Horus could have a chance against an unarmed 12 year old novice but, a full Battle Sister??!! One to one? In close combat? Perhaps three Primarchs fighting together... but just one Primarch?" da001

www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/528517.page

A Bloody Road - my Warhammer Fantasy Fiction 
   
Made in ie
Battleship Captain





Breton wrote:
 Sim-Life wrote:
Breton wrote:
leerm02 wrote:



So, my question is: why not?


Because depending on how cosmetic your cosmetic difference is it becomes coin flipping. Only Cosmetic differences means Guardsmen, Grots, and Space Marines are all BS3+, WS3+ S4 T4 Ld10 20ish point 2W models with a 2+ armor save- some of whom will now have a very undeserved reputation for being cowardly and/or little more than speed bumps. Different people get different things out of the game, but most of those different things revolve around using the faction that appeals to them cosmetically and rules wise to build an army that entertains them by its differences.


You're falling into the all too common trap of assuming that if 40k was changed the change would occur in a vacuum and nothing around it would change. Also you're assuming that a single codex would just lump all units in the Troops section in together and wouldn't make a distinction between light infantry (guardsmen, grots) and heavy or elite infantry (space marines, tyranid warriors). A single codex for all armies could have a hundred different entries, not just a single statline to cover each category of unit . The OP specifically used the Space Marine book as an example because its actually does have nearly a hundred units in it.


So you're saying it goes the other way, and Space Marines will get Grots (Or a cosmetically unique grot-like unit)? Will boyz get power armor, or will Tactical squads lose theirs? The one-codex concept described said there would only be cosmetic differences - ergo Every army will have the same options for the on-paper same units. Otherwise the differences are more than cosmetic. Will Tau be getting Assault Marines, or will Space Marines be losing theirs? Does everything get reanimation protocols? Nothing? The closest we have so far is the keyword and If-Then process for captains/etc in the Space Marine book (and Indomitus/Shadowspear/etc sets) where you turn Captain into Master or Wolf Lord etc which still isn't the one codex cosmetic difference thing because of Deathwing and so on.


You're sticking too rigidly to the idea that the rules MUST represent the model on the table and be defined by current terminology. If Space Marine players want to use chaff profiles for their army they can. They can fluff them however they want in order to justify it. 40k is big setting where almost anything is possible if you squint hard enough. If a player wants an army full of grots with space marine profiles then why not? What does it matter? You can choose to do exactly the same thing. If you want to have Tau Assault Marine just field some vespid with hand weapons.

If someone says
"This unit is jump infantry, this is a shock unit, this is a heavy gunner unit and this is a medium melee unit" do you automatically translate that in your brain to "That means he's using gargoyles, genestealers, tyranid guard and tyranid warriors armed with bone swords and lash whips" or do you just get a general idea of how that unit will act on the table?

What difference does it make if the unit is called "Assault Marines" or "Jump Infantry with melee weapons and medium armour"?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/01/15 18:02:19



 
   
Made in us
Ultramarine Terminator with Assault Cannon





 Sim-Life wrote:


You're sticking too rigidly to the idea that the rules MUST represent the model on the table and be defined by current terminology. If Space Marine players want to use chaff profiles for their army they can. They can fluff them however they want in order to justify it. 40k is big setting where almost anything is possible if you squint hard enough. If a player wants an army full of grots with space marine profiles then why not? What does it matter? You can choose to do exactly the same thing. If you want to have Tau Assault Marine just field some vespid with hand weapons.

If someone says
"This unit is jump infantry, this is a shock unit, this is a heavy gunner unit and this is a medium melee unit" do you automatically translate that in your brain to "That means he's using gargoyles, genestealers, tyranid guard and tyranid warriors armed with bone swords and lash whips" or do you just get a general idea of how that unit will act on the table?

What difference does it make if the unit is called "Assault Marines" or "Jump Infantry with melee weapons and medium armour"?


Sounds like you're trying to say you want to have your soup and eat it too. Don't get me wrong, I like the idea of fluffy soup. I'd love to play some Kellenport scenarios without trying to rewrite the rule book. But I'm not really a fan of everyone gets everything. I can play chess for that. One of the draws here is that everyone gets a hole their army list can't fill and has to plan how to protect it.

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





UK

Whilst a single codex would definitely be balanced, I think the interest in 40K for a lot of us is the diversity. I like different armies having different units and weapons - it's interesting. From a sales point of view, GW would never do it - those of us who run multiple armies wouldn't spend so much (and possibly wouldn't even bother with multiple armies). It's a non-starter.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/dreadblade/
[1,100] Ultramarines
[1,800] Chaos Knights
[1,100] Thousand Sons
[1,100] Grey Knights 
   
Made in ie
Battleship Captain





Breton wrote:
 Sim-Life wrote:


You're sticking too rigidly to the idea that the rules MUST represent the model on the table and be defined by current terminology. If Space Marine players want to use chaff profiles for their army they can. They can fluff them however they want in order to justify it. 40k is big setting where almost anything is possible if you squint hard enough. If a player wants an army full of grots with space marine profiles then why not? What does it matter? You can choose to do exactly the same thing. If you want to have Tau Assault Marine just field some vespid with hand weapons.

If someone says
"This unit is jump infantry, this is a shock unit, this is a heavy gunner unit and this is a medium melee unit" do you automatically translate that in your brain to "That means he's using gargoyles, genestealers, tyranid guard and tyranid warriors armed with bone swords and lash whips" or do you just get a general idea of how that unit will act on the table?

What difference does it make if the unit is called "Assault Marines" or "Jump Infantry with melee weapons and medium armour"?


Sounds like you're trying to say you want to have your soup and eat it too.


Not really because everyone else gets the soup as well.

One of the draws here is that everyone gets a hole their army list can't fill and has to plan how to protect it.


This is becoming increasingly untrue. Overall most armies play the same, the only difference is the amount of dice they roll.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/01/16 08:59:30



 
   
Made in ca
Deranged Necron Destroyer






I really like this idea, I'd suggest keeping the faction identifying aspects, like Necron models can test to get back up, sisters still have Miracle dice, etc, but the stat lines and such are all the same. Maybe each faction has suggested statlines within their description, or cost modifiers.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/01/16 23:45:08


Girl Gamers are the best! 
   
Made in no
Huge Bone Giant





Bergen

I am shure there are many skirmish games out there that already do it. But I quit playing those and am stil playing 40k. So I guess I like it more. (And I think 9th edition is the most I have enjoyed 40k during my career. Yay to balance updates and rule patching.)

   
Made in us
Clousseau




This is basically how Battletech works.

This is also why all of the 40k influx battletech has gotten lately is at a kind of up in arms... the 40k "refugees" want to see battletech have faction specific mechs because flavor.

Which is cool and I understand that desire.
If it were done right.

There's no reason we can't have factions with their own thing.

The problem is GW isn't in the business of balancing its game which is why we're where we are.

But that won't be changing anytime soon because the fan base steam shovels hoards of cash at GW despite their bad rules.
   
Made in us
Terrifying Doombull




The weird thing is (depending on the era) Battletech does have faction specific mech limitations. Its just that players tend to ignore that fluff, as they were never hard-coded into the game rules.

There's some give and take to it as borders move and factories change hands, but... the Hachimoto-Chis, Ravens and Blackjacks (for examples) generally end up with specific Houses. Heck, even the first Technical Readout had faction-specific variants. A Mad-3M (Free Worlds) and a Mad-3D (Davion) are quite distinct.

So if its being perceived as a '40k refugee' problem, the complainers don't know their game.

Efficiency is the highest virtue. 
   
Made in us
Clousseau




I think its because the rules don't force you to take certain mechs.

If I want to play House Davion, nothing says I can't put a Marauder IIC clan mech in my list, even though it would make fluff players eyes' twitch.

(the GM if there is one can enforce that but in general the rules let you take basically whatever you want out of the box, you have to enforce those fluff limits)

I can run a House Davion list and take a Liao specific mech and just hand wave it for "reasons" (i found it in salvage, it was a reward for a past deed, I stole it, etc)

They want it so that the rules say "you can't do that, you can only take House Davion mechs PERIOD unless you houserule it - and then as its a house rule I can deny your house rule with official rule like I can in 40k"
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

But everyone salvages crap from everyone in BTech. Whether you see 'Mech A in Faction B is just a matter of likelihood.

Does the Marian Hegemony have legions of front-line Clan OmniMechs? No, but they might have a few! There are very few 'Mechs where you can definitively say "Nope. That shouldn't be there!", and then tend to be because they're extinct designs.


This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/01/17 04:48:21


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

 
   
Made in us
Clousseau




Right - and thats one of the things I like about Battletech is the whole library of units is available to everyone - so there is no one faction tea-bagging everyone else like there always is in 40k.
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: