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.

 vict0988 wrote:

People hate free wargear because they don't just want to use thunder hammers and multi-meltas, but also flamers and power swords.

No.
Theres 2 things going on wth people who think like this.
1) They don't want to use flamers etc.
They WANT to use as many of whatever they think the best item is. And they will do so regardless of how many pts it costs. It's only when they can't finesse enough pts that you'll see them use something else (IE, the next best thing they can afford).
For them to take anything but the best? They NEED an excuse.
Wether "lesser" options cost xpts less than the best or all options cost the same, there's no difference. There's nothing stopping these folks from actively choosing.
But they dont....

2) They don't want to potentially face off against a list full of (best items).

I think there's a danger of warping the initial meaning of the thread. But Thousand Sons seem to be another example of what I mean. Hands up, I'm not a Thousand Son player so maybe its different if you are (or based on Wyldhunt's post maybe not).

I don't think they are in a terrible spot "fluffwise" - and I think (although I know some don't) that they are more fluffy than when they were just an appendage to "Codex: Black Legion."

But... its very difficult for me to believe anyone's ever gone "oh I'm doing a Cult of Mutation list, that's massive different to a Cult of Prophecy List". Admittedly needing to have rules push fluff can be a bit tedious/weak (I'm not a fan of people doing this in say TTRPGs, as they just end up "playing the mechanics" rather than roleplaying) - but that's sort of the way 40k went, so not getting it feels bad.

I know a lot of Thousand Son players *hate* Tzaangor (and the fact they come in almost every combo-box) - but if the Warpmeld Pact was a vaguely capable thing, it would at least be a different (if somewhat forced) way to play. But it was basically just a joke.

IMO, thunder hammers aren't necessarily auto-include because of being minus one to hit. A relic version of another weapon would most likely be a better option.

Doc you are looking for how the game was originaly intended to be played and how the first few editions promoted it, best described by this reply in this very topic-

with a good friend I will play a lot more recklessly just looking for cool moments and a good time.

If that is your goal-epic battles in the 40K universe with your dudes acting like they would in the lore, than 40K is a fantastic fun game. If you are looking for the current crop of GW designers and tournament minded players who are after something more-"STG" (stratagems the gathering)

Then you are not getting the kind of game you are describing. there is a clear design difference between the original creators of the setting and game and the current climate. take a look through the index astertes books or most of the 3rd and 4th ed codexes where you were encouraged and rewarded for playing your faction in a manner they were described in the lore.

After all if you are going to spend all the time building, painting and then spending 2 hours a pop with another player to actual play a game you want it to be an enjoyable experience not an exercise in frustration. Epic GAK and sillyness is why i play oldhammer 40K and why i won't touch current 40K.

Tyel wrote:
as they just end up "playing the mechanics" rather than roleplaying

As a lifelong roleplay (42 years- met my partner at a games convention, organized RPG conventions as an executive in the University club, etc, etc), I have always viewed mechanics as a part of the art form. Too few mechanics, and it's just improv... And don't get me wrong, I'm a theatre guy, so I do that too... But the two arts scratch different itches.

I've talked about this on these forums before.

The art of roleplaying is about USING the mechanics to tell your story. To feel inhibitted by the mechanics (or lack of mechanics in some games) implies a mismatch between the story you are trying to tell and the system in which you are trying to tell it. I try to avoid forming story ideas until I am familiar enough with the mechanics so that I can figure out which types of stories best fit.

The changes in editions are ALWAYS rough though, because you get attached to the types of stories you can tell with the ruleset... And then everything changes.

3.5 D&D was great at telling martial stories; my characters always developed feats and skill proficiencies as a part of the story- so for example, I could take Cleave at Level 1, and I'd figure out who taught it to me and how that happened, and why... But there had to be a story about why I never learned Great Cleave. Did my teacher not now it? Did the teacher die? Did the adventure interupt the training?

And then if I decided I wanted Great Cleave, I'd have to bend the story to find a teacher.

In 5th, they stripped out the capacity for that kind of roleplaying by simplifying the mechanics to the point where it was difficult to describe combat in an interesting way. And the skills system was so gutted that it was almost impossible to hang a story on it.

Bending it back to 40k, for me 8th and 9th allowed me to tell the stories of relationships between allied factions and subfactions. The emergence of stricter purity rules began to chip away at that in 9th, but as a guy who never played matched, I never stopped being able to bring a detachment of OoOML and a second deatchment of Sacred Rose- that level of Purity was Matched only. And GW also gave me things like Torchbearer rules (Combining Admech, Custodes and Marines) or Armies of Faith rules (Sisters, Guard and Marines).

In 10th, those stories will be harder to tell, because the mechanics just don't look like they are going to support it. There's going to literally be zero difference between OoOML and Sacred Rose now, so stories about them working together are no longer as interesting. If I choose to play 10th, beyond a few experimental games with the free resources to get a sense of what it feels like, I will have to come up with new types of stories that are better supported by the mechanics.

It looks like detachments are the new story hooks. So a campaign could be built on limiting/ growing an army's ability to field a particular detachment that will be particularly appropriate to a given epic level battle.

And those stories might eventually get to the point where they are interesting enough for me to consider using 10th to tell them, but for now, my subfaction stories still feel more interesting.

This is a great topic Mad Doc Grotsnik and a very interesting thread to read so far. I'm assuming we're talking about 9th edition so I'll go with that. Looking at the armies that I play routinely, I'd say that most of them are in pretty good shape being able to play the army that I want narratively without too much mucking about with force org slots.

World Eaters
This is a very simple army to assemble, I like having Berzerkers and I like having a big angry and spiky vehicles and its very easy to put those together.

Custodes
I was very pleased that 9th finally allowed for Sisters of Silence to easily mesh together with the Custodes. While often not as optimal as fielding a pure Custodes list, I very much enjoy running Talons of the Emperor and even running the fluffy pair of Aleya and Valerian even if they are often suboptimal. The army as a whole was still fairly strong so even a suboptimal choice didn't feel like throwing the game away and instead made for some very fun games.

Orks
I like things painted red and moving fast. I think 7th edition was my most disliked Ork codex and I was thrilled when 8th allowed for my giant sheepsfootroller on front of a battle wagon to start mowing things down. I would say it has even improved in 9th, but the problem with 9th is that new models are getting pushed and when first released the Killrigs of the new wild and feral boys were far more cost efficient and lethally effective than ye old battlewagon. So while it's easier than ever to build a speedfreeks army, not every choice is a good one. Overall, I'd say so-so, I can field what I like to play but it could perform a lot better if I were to swap out units replacing my favorite ones with either better units, or focus more on synergizing certain units rather than a hodge podge of different things in my collection which I feel better represent the rifraff of my waaagh! Even so, it's always fun roleplaying as Orks and some of my favorite moments still involve a big gore spattered rolla mowing down Tyranids, Necrons, and Dark Eldar alike.

Eldar
I very much like the Fate dice and have felt that something always missing from the scheming foresight of the Eldar. Eldar like other factions with massive ranges always tend to have an identity crisis, but at least for me 9th edition has been a good edition by making Farseers and Aspect Warriors very useful and powerful. I've fielded many different combinations and generally have fun with each one of them, including my craftworld that focuses on Aspect Warriors, and my mostly dead craftworld where the dead begin to outnumber the living. Really my only complaint is the crusade rules, I find that having a troop 'die' and become a wraithguard to be far too random and thus a pain to actually happen in the crusade league I played in.

Overall, I'd say this edition has been pretty good for the armies I like to field.

As an ultramarine player, it’s fairly easy for me to play in character. I prefer to run themed TAC lists, with a little something from every force org slot. This normally does OK on the tabletop. Obviously not as competitive as a hard skew list, but can normally bring a good fight to whatever shows up. One of the benefits of the TAC list philosophy. No huge strengths to bully your opponent with, but also no glaring weakness.

I also mostly play to the mission, securing victory as the Codex demands. Very practical, very Ultramarine. But sometimes you do need to go for the glory, and make the charge for honor. Which again, very Ultra.

—

Little harder with my Eldar. Ideally, I’d work the battle to minimize casualties. But sometimes I do need to deploy screens of guardians to act like chaff. Holding an objective for one turn, or keeping units off the tanks. Instantly getting killed, but doing the job. Did the strands of fate really require their sacrifice?

I realized I left one more thought out of my earlier post.

About my army lists. So for the most part I try to change it up between games. I keep the core of my army mostly the same but trade out assets and sometimes characters based on earlier games. If my stompa was wrecked it wont be back to the table for several games. I know, stompas right. But that's just one example. If my warboss dies, well, he's not dead just badly wounded and delegates the next command to one of his lesser bosses. at one time it was my Big mek.
And while that may look a little bit un Orky to some it works as part of my ongoing narrative campaign. Each commander has their own goals, it's very political in a WWE storyline kind of way. So they could back stab each other or just steal part of the army for their own means this time around , insert crappy plot here. My force also has paint denoting their loyalties. My big mek had a blue-ish war paint and his property does as well, grots, cannons dreads and even shoota boys.
I feel like these changes do allow for playing in character to a point even when playing less than friendly games. If playing a singly player campaign in games against other people who don't know they're part of it counts.
In other armies I simply like to field the same commander as head of the force at every opportunity and He's the same commander, in name, that I have fielded since 2nd edition. Warp travel being kinda weird and all it sorta works, just don't think about it too much.
Other than that I do tend to try to change up my armies is he same ay as I do with my Orks where I can. But for me it's about the ride not the finish.

 Nevelon wrote:
...Did the strands of fate really require their sacrifice?...

Given how GW's writers usually treat the Eldar (see: Path novels, all Dawn of War games) your Seers' tragic incompetence at seeing what Space Marines are going to do leads to a lot of Guardians being caught out of position and massacred, and your Seer giving a cryptic rant at a Space Marine about how "you fool! you've doomed us all!" just in time for them to notice something horrible about to happen. Eldar are the grimdark version of the mentor figure that gets killed at the 2/3rds mark to motivate the heroes.

 warhead01 wrote:

About my army lists. So for the most part I try to change it up between games. I keep the core of my army mostly the same but trade out assets and sometimes characters based on earlier games. If my stompa was wrecked it wont be back to the table for several games. I know, stompas right. But that's just one example. If my warboss dies, well, he's not dead just badly wounded and delegates the next command to one of his lesser bosses. at one time it was my Big mek.

This is a great idea, I think I'll try this next time I do Orks in a crusade game

 The Red Hobbit wrote:

 warhead01 wrote:

About my army lists. So for the most part I try to change it up between games. I keep the core of my army mostly the same but trade out assets and sometimes characters based on earlier games. If my stompa was wrecked it wont be back to the table for several games. I know, stompas right. But that's just one example. If my warboss dies, well, he's not dead just badly wounded and delegates the next command to one of his lesser bosses. at one time it was my Big mek.

This is a great idea, I think I'll try this next time I do Orks in a crusade game

Well, alight!

It's made for some fun games with my less competitive friends. And it's balanced well enough for me to have a good time muckin' about!

I have a lot of different Warboss models so the idea of fielding a new one each game because the last one is recovering from near fatal injuries sounds like a blast

I played a lot of imperial guard in the middle of 8th edition. We played smaller games as I couldn't field 1500 points of guard, occasionally I added some Dark Angels to field up to 2000 points.
My Dark Angels always formed a separate front in the battlefield, to show that they didn't cooperate with the command of the guard. My guardsmen all where equipped with a voxcaster, and my two command squads (equipped with flag and vox) always joined my company commanders. I really loved the order mechanic and used it to great effect with the boosted range of the vox. I was also strict in that the CPs gained by each battalion (guard and dark Angels) could only be used for their respective units, so no IG Batterie supercharging my space Marines.

I added some Dark Angel veteran bits to some guard models, to signify that these individuals had performed way above what the Dark Angels expected from them, after some outstanding battlefield performances in the previous game. The last battle of a campaign, the Dark Angels and Guard units formed a more coherent Frontline, to show the mutual trust gained over the last few battles.

My opponent used the red terror to eat one of the space marine captains in that battle, while killing all my guard units, and since then, both forces haven't fought together again.
(Because COVID and 9th edition, but my lore reason is that the leadership blamed each other for the staggering loses and parted ways)

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
How do!

Slightly difficult topic to explain, but maybe because I’m overthinking it. But it’s whether you feel your preferred race/faction can be fielded in a way you consider consistent with their described background?

I guess in other words, do the curtains of your codex match the bedsheets of your background?

Checks sig.

Hmmm... let's see. Got once upon a time an awesome book that worked well for multiple forces of my faction that differed vastly, nowadays though?

NEIN! NEIN! NEIN! NEIN! (yes you can now picture a certain memed to death scene. Fun fact, the actor of that scene was swiss.)

So i was straddled with 8th as an index afterthought that was only used when a certain not even existing before charachter and smite were absurdly broken. Gone were the possibility to represent even a plantpot. Actually a plantpot had more rulesrepresentation than R&H had in 8th edition in 40k. And it somehow got worse with 9th, congrats GW.
Since 9th that army, that should represent all the mortals that follow chaos and more, well that army got legended, for a reimplementation of a gakky version of squats and primaris that can't even physically use their missile launchers ontop of already having way to many primaris, sorry not sorry. Fun fact, the list was such an afterthought, that the army couldn't ever hold an objective. Yes , that's right, they HAD to FAQ a legends list in 9th. Congrats GW. Double congrats because you could've just coppied the fething IA13 book and adapted the statblock and it would've been a GREAT fething BOOK. But as H.B.M.C always says, GW never misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity.
Does that say enough about R&H? So mortal chaos now dead in essence in 40k.
TL: DR ..



So, then we go onwards: Orks... Yeah beastsnaggas suck. Squigriders are alright as a concept. But primorks just suck, look bad and in general are not necessary. Moreso than the rules which got crippled by NMNR, the army got further crippled in its ability tp be represented by GW's new DG design of unit paradigm, take a look at the kommando sheet and tell me that that thing isn't stupid and solely dictated by the sprues. Also instead of finally allowing kommandos to grab shootas, they just granted them the ability to take every ork special weapon under the sun but can't be shooty? So okrs which like dakka and are Blood axes or deathskullz are not able to put down a shooty ambush?... Don't even get started on warbosses and their options. So not one clan can now be propperly represented anymore imo unless you play the primitive orks, which are the only clan to profit from this, except the snagga boss is the most restricted ork boss there is. How is that right propper orky, that's worse than a gretchin with napoleon complex.


And then CSM... Gad brought up some issues, but more generally, NMNR and DGification has done great damage to the army. Further cultists have become endemic to the list which isn't bad actually, just the fact that the cultist aspect has been more or less take x with preciscly y equipment. Wait, you play IW and technically should be able to field chaotic guardsmen as done in the lore aswell as artillery? Nope, you get a disorganisd underequipped cultist or an wannabee HQ squad that is solely a cult and not at all even close to a paramilitary, nvm actual military. Artillery still isn't a thing either.
Alpha legion? wait, you are telling me that i don't get special cultists? Do i atleast get to take more ? Nope you still require a babysitter marine unit per cultist unit that is the same underequipped rabble rather than infiltrators.... Oh and also, recent currents have gone evermore torwards daemonic-mutated, which member AL never went' into the warp so yeah.

in summary the representation of legions generally sucks, so let us accept that as a rule and don't bother with it no more. Are atleast normal warbands and splinters well represented? Well, no because those factions are leaderdependant, and your leaders now have no more options. Biker chaos lord`? Nope. Daemonic mount? Nope. Jumppack? Nope. Unlocking of culttroops for marked warband? Nope. Custom warbandrules like some other factions got and would've been a no-brainer? NOPE.
Mind you that was all things we even got with the 4th edition codex. The worst chaos codex ever. And we somehow got now a worse one.
I think it's time for a second rule to add to H.B.M.C's statement about gw and missing opportunities, GW never fails to fail at chaos.

So what about the cult legions? Surely GW did them well?
Except they are so flanderised that they don't even jive with many veterans anymore. And the recent WE dex? Yeah, you ain't even getting Red butchers, half the vehicles and a boltgun. NVM that khornes teeth, special havocs, also don't exist for you anymore. you can imagine the "happiness" of WE players.

I think it's time for a second rule to add to H.B.M.C's statement about gw and missing opportunities, GW never fails to fail at chaos.

Well they got it right once......20 years and almost 7 editions ago,

 aphyon wrote:

I think it's time for a second rule to add to H.B.M.C's statement about gw and missing opportunities, GW never fails to fail at chaos.

Well they got it right once......20 years and almost 7 editions ago,

Right is a relative term. There are a whole lot of missing aspects even in that book. NVM some very questionable balance. But at 2 decades + it's fair to say that modern mainline GW has not ONCE managed to do chaos justice even in concept.

But would you care for some totaly no encroaching on aspect warrior structure primaris? Now with 100% chance of selfblowing up through missiles and being more obsolete than Havocs were compared to obliterators in 4th?

I started in late 2nd and over the years played nids, cwe/corsairs and armored krumpany orks. So, yeah, no. Not since 4th/5th at least.

Even for the factions that do have proper lore-supporting rules, I'd argue that a game where one-round killing primarchs and the like is normal isn't really fit for immersive gaming. Maybe I'm just not forging that narrative hard enough, idk.

Isn't playing in character the whole point in landing fun games? That's how I believe dungeons and dragons was played before my time. (I'm from 83')

I would rather play (if ever) with people that really stiple out the behavior of their army to the game rather than just trying to score points and/or winning.
I certainly would enjoy doing the same.

Fun thread btw.

 Leopold Helveine wrote:
Isn't playing in character the whole point in landing fun games? That's how I believe dungeons and dragons was played before my time. (I'm from 83')

I think the opposite is true, people played it more like a wargame back then, with magic items being rewarded according to strict schedules to ensure balance instead of simply giving out wacky stuff for the party to play around with.

I would rather play (if ever) with people that really stiple out the behavior of their army to the game rather than just trying to score points and/or winning.
I certainly would enjoy doing the same.

I think would hate that. I'm not sure how I feel about flavourful mission objectives, I think they get in the way of having a casual game where you throw some dice in a wacky mission and a competitive game where you try to win a balanced mission. I never got around to playing Crusade, such is life.

My army is orks, based on the Freebooterz book. Old lead and new vehicle kits. I find army building restrictive, and it will get worse in 10th I think - but i'm still able to play in character, with a lot of 'counts-as' models. It helps playing as sneaky, not proper orky Blood Axes and having your boys being half the size of the modern ones. I often make game decisions based on what I think the mob/boss/speedfreak would do, even if it ain't optimal. That's playing in character, to me at least. When I finish that madboys mob I will be using the 8 pages tables from first edition to decide what they will do in any given turn.

Well I do play my army, with the models I like, which is terminators. And without the models I don't like, which are NDKs and power armoured GK. I don't think one should do that though, if they want to have a good time playing the army. In 8th it didn't matter as much, because even the best GK army was bad, but in 9th the same army, especialy after the codex is okey. Not great, not good vs the best armies, but in general when played well and with a bit of luck, one doesn't feel as if the play time is being wasted.

GK termintor armies though. Definitly not fun to play, but 100% legal. And options too. Multiple characters, including elite ones, two units to pick from. But nothing anywhere near what DA or chaos terminators can do.

Karol wrote:
Well I do play my army, with the models I like, which is terminators. And without the models I don't like, which are NDKs and power armoured GK. I don't think one should do that though, if they want to have a good time playing the army. In 8th it didn't matter as much, because even the best GK army was bad, but in 9th the same army, especialy after the codex is okey. Not great, not good vs the best armies, but in general when played well and with a bit of luck, one doesn't feel as if the play time is being wasted.

GK termintor armies though. Definitly not fun to play, but 100% legal. And options too. Multiple characters, including elite ones, two units to pick from. But nothing anywhere near what DA or chaos terminators can do.

GK Termies are some of my favourite models GW has ever produced. I'm not sure if they'll get redone as a result of the new vanilla termies. If they do get redone, I hope GW keeps the same aesthetic. I'm sure they will- it's a classic.

Last year, with a few exceptions for one-off games, I played 2 armies.

Drukhari - the Crusade I was using them in started in Aug/Sept if '21 & ran until spring of '22.
The force consists of 1 Archon, 1 Venom, & as many Talis/Cronos as the pts would allow.
It's built this way because I don't like the Drukhari elf models & want as few of them as possible in the force. Hence 1 Archon (the cheapest option) as I MUST have a HQ unit. And all the choices are elves....
SO, in character? That Archon doesn't WANT to be in these battles.
Hes quite content to leave the Talos/Cronos units to rampage as they please.
He's rather cowardly. He rides in the Venom, stays in reserve/webway as long as possible, is wrapped in every defensive buff and relic i can give him via Crusade etc, and only enters the battlefield to snag a late game objective/agenda.
He then claims all the glory & sucks up bonus xp.

The other army is my Grots.
I wanted to run pure rebel grots. This is impossible in Crusade.
*I must have 1 actual Ork to lead it - because the only grot characters are both named.
So I have the ork in MA being driven about by his grot gunner.
*vehicle drivers (trucks & grot bomb launchers) - by default are all orks. I'd pay points to change this if I were allowed. Being integral to the vehicles they never actually touch the table though. I did however convert each one to a Grot midel....model.....
*the Wazbomb - another vehicle with a default ork. :(
And since I must have a Mek to unlock my Scrap Point Crusade rules? Then it might as well be the most effective Mek I can find....

So: there's 1 actual Ork model + several vehicles with rules default Orks driving them.
Everything else is pure grot.
I flatly refused to take any other Ork, no matter how effective it might be.

The exception to my chosen 1 ork model limit came when forced to play with Nephlim (and now AoO) outside Crusade& my trucks HAD to start with a unit aboard - or they'd just automagically be destroyed "for ressons" because FU tourney players.
I despise being told how to deploy my units.
Sometimes it makes sense to start your units in the transport. Sometimes it doesn't.....
So
1) I had to carve out a few pts for Runt Herds I went & modeled a tiny red button in the bed of each of my trucks. And then I dug out some of those unused Runt Herders (I have lots of them), modeled them trussed up in rope/chains & laying on the little red Deadmans switch.
Now my rebel grots have a few captive orks & my trucks never explode just "becuse" & my grots can deploy mounted or on foot as makes sense.

In the Crusade? The grots goal was to aquire the best loot & scrap possible. So I'd always attack the coolest/biggest/most unique vehicles (or models in cool suits - Abbadon, SoB mecha, Guilliman, etc).
Even if it made winning the actual battle harder.
I'd also rotate wich units were used if some had taken heavy losses in the previous game.
And as the year progressed? I incorporated actual bitz of tech from slain foes into my minis.
My warboss in MA? He's now wearing Abbadons suit (or what's left of it.). My grot tanks? Some are sporting Tau & Necron guns.

So yes. I can & do play in chsracter.

ccs wrote:
Last year, with a few exceptions for one-off games, I played 2 armies.

Drukhari - the Crusade I was using them in started in Aug/Sept if '21 & ran until spring of '22.
The force consists of 1 Archon, 1 Venom, & as many Talis/Cronos as the pts would allow.
It's built this way because I don't like the Drukhari elf models & want as few of them as possible in the force. Hence 1 Archon (the cheapest option) as I MUST have a HQ unit. And all the choices are elves....
SO, in character? That Archon doesn't WANT to be in these battles.
Hes quite content to leave the Talos/Cronos units to rampage as they please.
He's rather cowardly. He rides in the Venom, stays in reserve/webway as long as possible, is wrapped in every defensive buff and relic i can give him via Crusade etc, and only enters the battlefield to snag a late game objective/agenda.
He then claims all the glory & sucks up bonus xp.

This is awesome and hilarious. There's an Agenda that lets the Warlord take all the credit, earning xp for stuff other units do. Sounds like that's right up this guy's alley.

Just out of curiousity though, why go Archon over Haemonculus? Better synergy with Talos and Chronos- also seems like it might be fluffier too as a Haemonculus is the guy who makes them. I don't know your backstory though, so it's hard to judge fluffy. Still hilarious, and possibly even more hilarious because it's led by an Archon.

PenitentJake 809592 11517315 wrote:

GK Termies are some of my favourite models GW has ever produced. I'm not sure if they'll get redone as a result of the new vanilla termies. If they do get redone, I hope GW keeps the same aesthetic. I'm sure they will- it's a classic.

Unless GW phases out GK, which is never a 0 chance thing, sooner or later, there would be primaris Strikes, interceptors and "primaris" sized terminators are coming in 10th. Plus GW could split or added new units, if they wanted to, but they don't have to. But even if they suddenly decide GK should have all the primaris tanks, dreads etc it would be a lot of new model. Thing is, 10th will be my 3ed edition, and I slowly finding out that not only is w40k less fun , to me, then AoS, but I also have less time to play in general. If GK termis get "fixed" in 10th, it will be great. I don't think I will rebuy the army though. I think I would sooner buy a custodes or HH army with a ton of terminators, then buy GK a second time.

I guess I try to get into the character of the faction, I mean for me thats part of the point in playing them

e.g. Hive Fleet Turnip is largely a lot of small bugs that play as Zerg, with genestealers as both a lead and then secondary wave among all the smaller gribbles. they have a tendency to go for whatever looks tasty and crunchy - they are not generally subtle but will use traps if I can

my Death Guard tend to be focussed on a more gradual advance as a wave, largely ignoring casualties they take and just grinding forwards

my Orks.. well they are Blood Axes so a level of sneaky applies but basically the guns are there for the noise and in they go

guess the key bit though, all factions I have are picked based on models I liked more than rules as rules keep changing, and generally there is a focus on the troops of the list - my marines for example are marines, with support, not support with a few marines because I have to

results are somewhat variable, but it tends to be fun and I try to make it enjoyable for the enemy as well, they usually have plenty to shoot at

Back in the early 00's, maybe 04'-ish we had a challenge board at the game shop. You battle your way to the top of the board.
One Kid had this Slanesh Daemon army all tricked out. He was wrecking everyone and at the top constantly. I finally got into on of the number two spots and was able to challenge him to a battle. Being the challenger I threw out a lower points game at him. This was key to having a decent game against his nearly unbeatable list. I can't recall if I won or not. The best bit was a flamer in a tac squad was suddenly a valuable tool. I some how caught one of his squads on the back foot and he started to freak out about the flamer and commenced to feel the need to try to get away. Imagine that, Daemons in a panic and running away from a flamer dude in a panic!

So as far as in character I think playing weird point games helps a little, even otherwise poor choices of equipment can suddenly become valuable tools every now and then.
At least in older editions.

That kind of reaction has in a way happened before back in 2nd' An Ork player was convinced my ratling sniper character was going to off him as he moved up the side of the table edge towards my army. Funny thing is he had a displacer field which proved to be his undoing. My sniper plinked a shot in and wounded the Ork warlord who then displaced off the table. But the build up was fun and the payoff even better. I think we were playing 1000 points that day. We were all still just building our armies at the time.

mucking with point values can be good and interesting, IIRC Flames of War had been at 1,850 for late war for a while and Battlefront changed it to 1,450 for official events for a year.. to much outrage.. but the games were good as people had to rethink their armies

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:


This is partially inspired by my frustration with the Tyranid Codexes of old. See, my understanding on Nids is the Swarm Is A Whole. Ickle bugs, middling bugs, big bugs, oooooh feth bugs. All present and horribly genetically correct. Yet thanks to often overpacked Elites, I could never quite engineer a list to satisfy the vision in my head. Rather I had to decide Ickle or Big focus, with no particular middle ground. At least not if I wanted an army which could actually get the job done.

I can relate to this, as my experience with Orks is similar but in the opposite direction. In the 3rd edition codex, the Mob Rule system allowed for almost any two foot units in the army list to combine, giving the sense of the Green Tide where hordes of Ork Boyz would come together and overwhelm their opponents through brute force.

Although the later Ork releases may have more versatility and options, but mostly they leave me feeling like I'm playing any other army with less accurate shooting.

Obviously, in the "theater of the mind" almost any event can be interpreted "in character". Can you truly play "in character" in most tabletop RPGs even? Because some folks feel like the only true role playing is that which the mechanics of the game itself allow, whereas others run D&D like a drama club with dice. They use the mechanics of the game as a tool for storytelling and character expression, rather than as rigid rules that dictate their every action.("Rules don't matter!")

Personally, I don't want to have to write 4 pages a character backstory before session 1. Because the PC may die during the first session. Or they may go on to perform epic feats and a story will be written through my interpretation of what the dice have dictated. And I would prefer if tabletop wargames followed a similar approach, where the outcome of battles and events are determined by the mechanics of the game, allowing for unexpected and dynamic storytelling.

 The Red Hobbit wrote:
I have a lot of different Warboss models so the idea of fielding a new one each game because the last one is recovering from near fatal injuries sounds like a blast

When we start a campaign, one of the essential steps is selecting the commanders for the various forces. Obviously, I will reuse certain models over the years, but for the duration, that's THE GUY. We scope them out and try to do terrible things to them, above and beyond the normal usages of war.