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.

Reading a few threads about the Chaos Codex etc in terms of fluff being poorly represented got me thinking about how little is actually present in the 40k Codices. A lot of the fluff available in the list is sort of pretend fluff.

Almost all the fluff (in my opinion) in a codex comes to play simply by what colour your men are. Although the Space marine codex has chapter tactics, the rest have nothing but colour differences to make up the majority of their on board fluff. This doesnt affect all books. I think Eldar are pretty lucky in terms of how they can play lists fluff wise. But as someone who plays guard it feels most of the fluff is artificial.

I think the problem comes from a lack of restrictions which could really increase the quality of how armies are made and played on the field. GW is trying to push the take whatever mindset but it obviously hurts the game a lot more than it helps. The books take the time to mention how different groups behave in fluff and how their system differs from the rest, but makes no attempt to use this in the rules. This is in stark contrast to how Flames of war does it. Instead of a take whatever attitude, they take the time to get all the factions and split them into groups (and time periods but thats irrelevant) which restrict what you can and cannot take.

Take the guard codex for example. Its vanilla. You have troops that have no attributes besides appearance and gear. However we know that in the fluff a guardsmen is a huge broad brush. So its vanilla but no condiments are added.

Instead the codex should be in greater depth in how you create your list. So for guard if you selected your regiment (which would be a range of regiments from the fluff that cover many types for the custom option) which would have a small list of restrictions and bonuses on how you can make your list. This works the same for any faction that has differences within themselves. Chaos for example (dont know much about chaos sorry) would choose from a list of allegiances and have their force defined by that. Rather than pick it afterwards.

As said before eldar are pretty lucky in this regard as it has the options to create all the themes and so forth as it is. Even if this was optional it would be an improvement. I guess this would have the second benefit of overall restriction throughout the game.

Lack of restriction (in my opinion) makes for a worse game over all, but an easier one. All the better games I play have restrictions, which (coming from a not very competitive player) does more to make a good game than anything else possible. But more importantly it would go far to help push fluff style lists or themed lists.

Imagine Tau choosing Vior'la (those firy hearted dudes) and having a force that had rules to encourage rash and bold warlike moves unlike the rest of the Tau race. Or A Tyranid force that had benefits for focusing on promoting the psyker specie brood things over other improvements and thus had a very different play style to that of other nids. Or guard where your troops are defined by the force they belong in (much like the FW guard lists). The list goes on.

This could create more choices too. For example warlord traits can be pretty in-depth and instead of being random, be defined by the type of list you chose to make.

Personally I want to see more restriction that creates options, rather than the current way where we have all the options but (although not technically) loose out on plenty of them. The books seem very bare bones and lack potential. We can make anything ish, but its really just an illusion of choice (which we all know it is) as your just picking out of the same pool as everybody else, rather then creating a unique pool tailored to your idea of an army. Even the guard, who have a wealth of options, arent really made in a way that makes much sense (in my opinion). They have the option of conscripts for example, but you cannot take them without taking a huge amount of standard troops as well. Youd think conscripts could be taken like veterans (as they are more readily available). Restrictions that are in place are either pointless (like the way conscripts are granted), or part of a random dice roll (like Psychic powers/warlord traits).

Would players enjoy it more if restrictions where increased (unlike the current trend)? I see this as a pretty simple solution to keeping 40k that bit more balanced but at the same time creating more meaningful options.

I could be wrong and I rambled a bit, but hopefully that made sense.

To put up a summery, would more player choice combined with restrictions on how a list is made (not just what a list is made of) be enjoyable for most?

Not so much more restrictions as more rules/lists that include restrictions. The IG codex should have the rules to run a variety of regiment types accurately, such as Tanith First, Cadian, Catachan, DKK, whatever. Doctrines did this to an extent but it could be done so much better. Give each regiment type its own FoC and a set of universal rules, restricted units they can't take and some modifications to units. Vets with 10 point carapace or camo cloaks really doesn't cut it.

Thats what I mean, didnt really know a good way of wording it. But through restriction and choice of restriction the game could have many more doors open and in my opinion add to the quality of the game. It will do good for all armies too.

This happened before, in older editions of the Tau codex, where Farsight's inclusion led to the exclusion of other forces.

Personally, I don't like it.

A fluffy army should provide a bonus, not a negative. Adding crazy restrictions for playing a fluff oriented army virtually ensures that no one will ever play it again. They'll just play the generic version of the army and paint them to look like the force they otherwise would have played with.

A far better suggestion would be to A) do what already exists in many places and have FOC altering effects (such as Baron Sathonyx), B) have unit altering effects (such as Pedro Kantor) or C) have some form of synergy bonus.


Examples of C include:
Firedrakes - If you run a Space Marines army with Chapter Tactics (Salamanders) and all of your Elites choices are Terminators, then all of your Terminator/Assault Terminator units gain Preferred Enemy: Dark Eldar.
Freebooterz - If you run an Orks army which does not include any mekboyz, big meks, painboyz, or mad doks, (including special character variants), AND you do not select the same unit type more than once in any of your Elite, Fast Attack, or Heavy Support slots, you can run a Freebooterz army. If you do so, all of your infantry models gain Objective Secured.
Direst Circumstances - If you run a Space Wolves army with Logan Grimnar as your Warlord, and he begins the game joined to a unit of ten models (all in Terminator armor) AND all of your units begin the game in Reserve, then Logan Grimnar's unit may enter play by teleporting, using the Deep Strike rules, on the first turn.

I would REALLY like to see synergy bonuses like that.

Thats what I meant, but to get the bonuses there need to be restrictions first. Cant just choose a Cadia as a regiment then get the bonuses with no restrictions. Farsight had the huge body guard unit available and the bonus of free bondong knives plus hatred orks oif I remember? But limited the options available for the army. Which is how (but done better) all armies should work. Doesn't have to be based around a character but based around the theme or army type foremost. Much like your examples.

But id view that as restriction overall. You are limiting yourself to get the bonuses for those limitations.

My IG regiment is from a forest world and they must use aircraft to travel across their homeworld. Tracked and wheeled vehicles are essentially impossible to use for thousands of miles of forests, so instead they use sentinals, and valkyries.

under the current rules i cant really adhere to my fluff because i can only have 3 fast attack choices, and i can't outflank without al'raheim unless i get lucky on my roles. So either i go unbound and don't get outflanking and rely on the roll, or i gimp myself of my "heavy support".

I think this appeals to Imperial Guard players more than anyone else at the moment haha.

Yea its a pity. Its as I said above, a weird illusion of choice. Stops so many fluffy lists which could easily be included.

So I am a little confused, so sorry if I am taking this the wrong way and responding incorrectly.

I am an old school gamer from RT days and remember when there really wasn't much like 40k out there. The cool thing, there were all these historical games out there and people were real sticklers for army colors, units, etc. that when 40k came out it was like D&D in space!!!!!!!!

The cool thing about the armies, especially SM, was that you ould make your own and pick your scheme. Same thing with Imperial Army(Guard) and even eldar back then. It was carte blanche for people to add their own touch to the hobby.

Nowadays I hear all these things about people with custom chapters getting, oh these marines are blue, Ultramarines. No? They have to be because they're blue. And people really being adamant about it and other such nonsense. Now I am not advocating things that are completely nutzoid, like female marines, or loyalist librarians summoning demons, but color schemes? Yeah less restrictions.

Once again, I am not entirely sure that's what you meant, but the funnest part of this hobby is that you can create your own little part of it. But yeah there should be some guidelines.

I enjoy having my custom chapter, with its own history, that can use the rules of IMperial Fists, since they are descended form them. I kinda miss the 4th edition Build-Your-Own chapter rules. Just for customization.

I do like what they did with marines, would love to see them do it with other armies, like orks.

Bad moons get this, Goffs get that., etc. and IG. it would be cool. Its a gamer's hobby or well, a hobbyist's game and we should be able to have fun when adding our own creativity to it.

 Gorgrimm wrote:
So I am a little confused, so sorry if I am taking this the wrong way and responding incorrectly.

I am an old school gamer from RT days and remember when there really wasn't much like 40k out there. The cool thing, there were all these historical games out there and people were real sticklers for army colors, units, etc. that when 40k came out it was like D&D in space!!!!!!!!

The cool thing about the armies, especially SM, was that you ould make your own and pick your scheme. Same thing with Imperial Army(Guard) and even eldar back then. It was carte blanche for people to add their own touch to the hobby.

Nowadays I hear all these things about people with custom chapters getting, oh these marines are blue, Ultramarines. No? They have to be because they're blue. And people really being adamant about it and other such nonsense. Now I am not advocating things that are completely nutzoid, like female marines, or loyalist librarians summoning demons, but color schemes? Yeah less restrictions.

Once again, I am not entirely sure that's what you meant, but the funnest part of this hobby is that you can create your own little part of it. But yeah there should be some guidelines.

I enjoy having my custom chapter, with its own history, that can use the rules of IMperial Fists, since they are descended form them. I kinda miss the 4th edition Build-Your-Own chapter rules. Just for customization.

I do like what they did with marines, would love to see them do it with other armies, like orks.

Bad moons get this, Goffs get that., etc. and IG. it would be cool. Its a gamer's hobby or well, a hobbyist's game and we should be able to have fun when adding our own creativity to it.

yea I understand the confusion. My writing can be awful when im between jobs. Now what I mean is that there should be options, but in a restrictive manner. So say you wanted speed freaks there would be rules for them (nothing about colour or or models) simply rules. The idea is that there will be a selection of choices within each codex that will cater to each play style. So You may want a motor bike army with orks but not want the colours or names of the official ones. Thats fine but the rules themselves are there for you to use that will make your army play by that style you chose.

Hopefully that makes more sense. At the moment as someone pointed out above, the current system stops him being a bit more creative rather than encourages it. If GW had rules for an airbourne company within the codex that stopped him getting a bunch of units but have him access to aircraft and infantry then its restricting him to certain options, but in the grand scheme of things providing him with a greater amount of options. The same concept for all the armies available.

Hopefully that explains it better.

Yes, I feel restrictions are better. As you can design the game for those who enjoy that style of play and easily hand waive them away for those who want to deviate.

It's MUCH harder to go in the reverse.

Sledgehammer wrote:My IG regiment is from a forest world and they must use aircraft to travel across their homeworld. Tracked and wheeled vehicles are essentially impossible to use for thousands of miles of forests, so instead they use sentinals, and valkyries.

under the current rules i cant really adhere to my fluff because i can only have 3 fast attack choices, and i can't outflank without al'raheim unless i get lucky on my roles. So either i go unbound and don't get outflanking and rely on the roll, or i gimp myself of my "heavy support".

Elysians.

TheKbob wrote:Yes, I feel restrictions are better. As you can design the game for those who enjoy that style of play and easily hand waive them away for those who want to deviate.

It's MUCH harder to go in the reverse.

Anyone can restrict their own armies during list building. The problem is that applying certain restrictions should make it possible to open up other options, I think, and it doesn't. Like Sledgehammer's problem above - I'm sure he'd be happy if he could say "I'm not taking any tracked vehicles, so I can take fliers in that slot instead." and have it accepted.

I don't think you can introduce choice by limiting options. However I am massively in-favour of diversifying the Troops sections of every Codex in the game and allow players far more flexibility in how they choose their list. Once this is achieved, fluffy play should be rewarded with benefits and buffs rather than full-on restricted.
I'm going to use Chaos 3.5 as an example because it is a very good demonstration of introducing the illusion of choice, while simultaneously introducing lots of limitations to pigeon-hole that choice into set templates.
For example, a Night Lord force had Stealth and extra Raptors. This is good, but comes with the assumption that Night Lords never use Daemons, that every warband follows this ideology and directly flies in the face of fluff that clearly demonstrates that Chaotic Night Lords exist. A much better way to have done it would be to introduce some incentive to stay unmarked, such as receiving the Mark of Undivided for free or as part of the Stealth upgrade.

Examples of diversifying lists:
Space Marines- Assault Marines as Troops if your HQ has a Jump Pack and Honour Guard/Command Squads can upgrade to take them. Terminators as Troops if you take a Terminator Captain.
Dark Angels- Deathwing and Ravenwing are Troops, regardless of the HQ being used.
Chaos- Spawn moved to the Troops slot.
Imperial Guard- Platoon massively expanded into Light Infantry, Mechanised, Airborne and Heavy Infantry variations, each with unique unit access and different Orders. Rough Riders expanded into a platoon and CCS can take horses, moving them into Troops.
Necrons- Flayed Ones as Troops, possibility to run a Canoptek army with an Overlord upgrade.

I love some of the armies provided by special characters, but hate needing a character to gain them. I think that the game would be better for everybody with more extensive foundations to every army.

Yes which is what most of us want. Id love to have it you create your own fluff army type based on a doctrine system per codex (something like Master of Orien 2 or Endless space, but more 40k orientated). But its stil imposing restrictions because taking certain things will eliminate other options.

As said above my wording was kind of poor, but your last sentence is close to what I was saying.

An extensive foundation for each army list that players chose right from the start. However I think each choice should cut off options while creating options. Serving the 2 sided purpose of limiting craziness, but also allowing for huge customization.

To sum it up ill attempt an example.

I choose an airborne company. It restricts the use of tanks, heavy guns (ish) and mounted troops to none. But gives abilities to troops such as deep strike, flyer transports and a huge change in wargear options (focusing on lighter options). There would be a warlord table for this army along with some other options in there (maybe).

Thats just a rough example of how imposing restriction would be a benefit. It also forces players to try make do without everything on their plate. He will have no tanks or big guns. So he has to rely on placing his men in the right places and using his aircraft to full potential. At the same time his army will be vastly different to say for example a Tank list.

Although it limits some options it actually created more options.

its far better than what we have now.

See I disagree with that quite strongly. The solution isn't to say that he can't take tanks, but rather to make it favourable to take more aircraft instead. There are going to be examples of aerial and mechanised armies acting in unison and you are removing that option by your execution.

As an alternative, perhaps introducing a special rule for someone that only benefits aircraft. For example, an Order that is applied against an enemy target, and all aircraft firing at this person gain Ignore Cover, or Twin Linked, or Strafing Run or something. If you have invested enough points that aircraft is becoming a theme, the best option would be to keep going and buy more aircraft because they are proportionally stronger than the non-buffed tanks. You can still take your tanks if you like, but they won't get the added benefits and so there is a reward for sticking to theme.

It's still a better alternative than no themes, but I strongly believe in rewarding players for using moderation rather than outright removing the option to do certain things. Of course this would need to be applied to every army evenly and so it might not be viable at this stage of the game, but it's how I would do it if I were starting afresh.

Mozzamanx wrote:
See I disagree with that quite strongly. The solution isn't to say that he can't take tanks, but rather to make it favourable to take more aircraft instead. There are going to be examples of aerial and mechanised armies acting in unison and you are removing that option by your execution.

Allies works well for that though. Using Tanith First as an example, they retained their own structure but at various times had Pardus armour (Armoured Battlegroup) or Phantine air (Elysians) attached to them.

Well, yes, there will be examples of airborne and mechanised units acting in concert. But in my opinion, that's what the Allies rules are for.

You don't get aircraft and tanks in the same regiment, because they do not synergise well except in accidental situations - you limit the aircrafts' mobility by making them keep to the ground speed of the tanks, so even if the tanks don't end up missing out by having aircraft support, you're still wasting the aircrafts' abilities and fuel.

You couldnt have an aircraft unit backed by tanks. As pointed out above that doesnt work.

Tanks supported by limited aircraft would be ok though. There will never be a way of effectively including all options, but I think the one I used as an example creates far more choice than the current system. And thats a rough very basic example.

Mozzamanx wrote:
I don't think you can introduce choice by limiting options. However I am massively in-favour of diversifying the Troops sections of every Codex in the game and allow players far more flexibility in how they choose their list. Once this is achieved, fluffy play should be rewarded with benefits and buffs rather than full-on restricted.
I'm going to use Chaos 3.5 as an example because it is a very good demonstration of introducing the illusion of choice, while simultaneously introducing lots of limitations to pigeon-hole that choice into set templates.
For example, a Night Lord force had Stealth and extra Raptors. This is good, but comes with the assumption that Night Lords never use Daemons, that every warband follows this ideology and directly flies in the face of fluff that clearly demonstrates that Chaotic Night Lords exist. A much better way to have done it would be to introduce some incentive to stay unmarked, such as receiving the Mark of Undivided for free or as part of the Stealth upgrade.

I actually respectfully disagree with this statement. In my opinion, the Chaos 3.5 dex was the perfect example of a fluff codex done right. Each army really felt like it had it's own flavour. If you want an A-typical legion, that doesn't follow the standard doctrine then use the core rules in the codex. However, if you want your army to FEEL like Word Bearers, then use the option to load up on daemons, have a dark apostle and shun cult troops. You aren't gimped by not using cult troops because you could make up for them with the extra daemons. If you just give the bonuses then there is nothing to stop WAAC players from just choosing a doctrine to gain the benefits but in no way theming the army as it is portrayed in the fluff. In relation the Nightlords, none of the Legions banned the use of other units, they simply put heavy restrictions on the things they would not usually take. So Nightlords could have Daemons but only undivided ones like Furies. Alpha Legion could take Daemons but only cultists could summon them. So both of those armies felt like they should have played. Just adding Stealth and not changing unit requirements would not have felt like Nightlords. Also in the 3.5 codex you could give squads Veteran abilities, so if you wanted a stealth force without the restrictions then you could just use the vanilla list and upgrade them with the Veteran skills.

I still despair when I see a "fluffy" Deathguard army where all squads are mounted, when it has always been fluffy that they are footsloggers. In the 3.5 dex you could only take 0-2 Rhinos as transports and any extra would take up fast attack. This still gave players the option to field what they wanted but it nudged you in the direction of the fluff. This is in stark contrast to most armies in the current edition where any restrictions are entirely self imposed. For example I built my Alpha Legion around the 3.5 dex, so I had almost no vehicles but army wide infiltrate, cheap cultist chaff and lots of melta guns, so the army relied on getting up close and ripping out the enemies throat, turn 1-2 or I would struggle. When 4th rolled around I lost cultists, and could no longer infiltrate, so I had to waste points on non scoring chosen to keep the infiltrate vibe there, self restricted myself to have no daemonic upgrades, so no lash prince or plague marines and what i was left with was a bland, weak force that felt boring to play. So I had to put in all the effort and my only reward was an army of subpar units, which gradually resulted in some less than fluffy editions just so the army could even be worth playing.

Some armies just straight up don't match their fluff at all, Space Wolves work much better as a shooting army when they should really be cc oriented. Tyranids should be huge swarms with a few monsters holding them together and yet the more successful armies seem to be monster heavy with just a few gaunts to hold objectives. Tau should be highly mobile not just a static gunline (they may be more mobile now, I'll be honest that I am not familiar with their new codex).
It's not like like GW can't do it either, Eldar and Dark Eldar play very much like they are described in the fluff, GK also do a good job of representing an Elite force of few warriors taking on foes that outnumber them. Orks are pretty much there, just could do with a bit of a tweak to modernise the codex to 7th standard. The rest sort of sit in the middle as a whole but as the OP said, could do with some work to create fluffy sub factions ala Guard and Marines.

I definitely feel that the "soul" of 40k is just being eroded with each successive update, where more is choice is creating less substance. As a person who is only even still around because of the fluff, this is definitely an issue that is pushing me out of the hobby. If it weren't for BL then I would have jumped ship a long time ago, if the game starts representing the fluff again then maybe I would invest in another army, but as it stands I'm simply going to be buying the odd novel and watching from the sidelines.

Exactly how I feel KorPhaeron.

I feel a constant growing resent for my imperial guard codex to the point where I dont feel like playing because all I see in the book is wasted potential and no substance. Its just a hodge podge of whatever to use whenever. Really sucks.

The only way i can tolerate using the codex is buy playing small point games and heavily PLAYING the game in a manner which makes it kinda fluffy. But playing that way only gives restrictions, no choice or bonus for doing so. Which really sucks.

It depends on the restrictions IMHO. Some restrictions are good, some are bad. On the flipside though allowing anything and everything would be silly. There doesn't need to be ten different IG profiles for guardsmen from each type of Imperial world, for example. The game itself is an abstract (very abstract...) representation of war, so it should be viewed at a bird's eye level of the conflict.

 KorPhaeron77 wrote:

Spoiler:

Mozzamanx wrote:
I don't think you can introduce choice by limiting options. However I am massively in-favour of diversifying the Troops sections of every Codex in the game and allow players far more flexibility in how they choose their list. Once this is achieved, fluffy play should be rewarded with benefits and buffs rather than full-on restricted.
I'm going to use Chaos 3.5 as an example because it is a very good demonstration of introducing the illusion of choice, while simultaneously introducing lots of limitations to pigeon-hole that choice into set templates.
For example, a Night Lord force had Stealth and extra Raptors. This is good, but comes with the assumption that Night Lords never use Daemons, that every warband follows this ideology and directly flies in the face of fluff that clearly demonstrates that Chaotic Night Lords exist. A much better way to have done it would be to introduce some incentive to stay unmarked, such as receiving the Mark of Undivided for free or as part of the Stealth upgrade.

I actually respectfully disagree with this statement. In my opinion, the Chaos 3.5 dex was the perfect example of a fluff codex done right. Each army really felt like it had it's own flavour. If you want an A-typical legion, that doesn't follow the standard doctrine then use the core rules in the codex. However, if you want your army to FEEL like Word Bearers, then use the option to load up on daemons, have a dark apostle and shun cult troops. You aren't gimped by not using cult troops because you could make up for them with the extra daemons. If you just give the bonuses then there is nothing to stop WAAC players from just choosing a doctrine to gain the benefits but in no way theming the army as it is portrayed in the fluff. In relation the Nightlords, none of the Legions banned the use of other units, they simply put heavy restrictions on the things they would not usually take. So Nightlords could have Daemons but only undivided ones like Furies. Alpha Legion could take Daemons but only cultists could summon them. So both of those armies felt like they should have played. Just adding Stealth and not changing unit requirements would not have felt like Nightlords. Also in the 3.5 codex you could give squads Veteran abilities, so if you wanted a stealth force without the restrictions then you could just use the vanilla list and upgrade them with the Veteran skills.

I still despair when I see a "fluffy" Deathguard army where all squads are mounted, when it has always been fluffy that they are footsloggers. In the 3.5 dex you could only take 0-2 Rhinos as transports and any extra would take up fast attack. This still gave players the option to field what they wanted but it nudged you in the direction of the fluff. This is in stark contrast to most armies in the current edition where any restrictions are entirely self imposed. For example I built my Alpha Legion around the 3.5 dex, so I had almost no vehicles but army wide infiltrate, cheap cultist chaff and lots of melta guns, so the army relied on getting up close and ripping out the enemies throat, turn 1-2 or I would struggle. When 4th rolled around I lost cultists, and could no longer infiltrate, so I had to waste points on non scoring chosen to keep the infiltrate vibe there, self restricted myself to have no daemonic upgrades, so no lash prince or plague marines and what i was left with was a bland, weak force that felt boring to play. So I had to put in all the effort and my only reward was an army of subpar units, which gradually resulted in some less than fluffy editions just so the army could even be worth playing.

Some armies just straight up don't match their fluff at all, Space Wolves work much better as a shooting army when they should really be cc oriented. Tyranids should be huge swarms with a few monsters holding them together and yet the more successful armies seem to be monster heavy with just a few gaunts to hold objectives. Tau should be highly mobile not just a static gunline (they may be more mobile now, I'll be honest that I am not familiar with their new codex).
It's not like like GW can't do it either, Eldar and Dark Eldar play very much like they are described in the fluff, GK also do a good job of representing an Elite force of few warriors taking on foes that outnumber them. Orks are pretty much there, just could do with a bit of a tweak to modernise the codex to 7th standard. The rest sort of sit in the middle as a whole but as the OP said, could do with some work to create fluffy sub factions ala Guard and Marines.

I definitely feel that the "soul" of 40k is just being eroded with each successive update, where more is choice is creating less substance. As a person who is only even still around because of the fluff, this is definitely an issue that is pushing me out of the hobby. If it weren't for BL then I would have jumped ship a long time ago, if the game starts representing the fluff again then maybe I would invest in another army, but as it stands I'm simply going to be buying the odd novel and watching from the sidelines.

^Exalted.

Again, you saved me a lot of writing.