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.

pretre wrote:

Manchu wrote:I think the Necron book is a good indicator of how something you can't imagine being good can actually be good (or at least better than what was before).

Exactly. Although there are still crazy holdouts on that one. ("I loved it when they were one dimensional!!!")

Some may call it one-dimensional, for others this is what made them cool. It's not surprising that those who liked their first version don't necessarily like the revamp, given that it's a drastic change to what they fell in love with. Regardless of how others think the second version is better.
Do you think Tyranids are one-dimensional; would they be better off being given "more personality" as well?

Guilliman was one of the High Lords, yes. But do you remember which one? He assumed supreme command over all the Imperium's military forces -- and that includes the other loyalist legions. In the shadow of Dorn's failure, it was Guilliman who chased the traitors into the Eye and shored up the Imperium. As I already mentioned, the point of the Codex Astartes was not in any sense to bolster Guilliman's ego but rather to forever prevent another Horus Heresy. Ten thousand years are a testament to his wisdom. Meanwhile, Dorn disobeyed a direct order given by his superior for the sake of pride. If anything, Dorn's recalcitrance is a testament to exactly why the Codex needed to be put into place.

One point that is always glossed over in the fluff threads is that non-Codex chapters are looked upon with extreme suspicion by Codex-adherent chapters, which in turn form the vast majority. The Codex works and deviation from it is a sign that something is wrong with the deviant Chapter. The Blood Angels and Space Wolves deviate because of genetic mutations; the Dark Angels deviate because of their endless self-obsession; the Iron Hands deviate because they would prefer to be robots rather than humans; and the Black Templars deviate because of the psychological trauma suffered by Dorn during the Heresy.

Lynata wrote:Some may call it one-dimensional, for others this is what made them cool. It's not surprising that those who liked their first version don't necessarily like the revamp, given that it's a drastic change to what they fell in love with. Regardless of how others think the second version is better.

Hey, if you liked it, more power to you. I just happen to disagree.

Do you think Tyranids are one-dimensional; would they be better off being given "more personality" as well?

No and No.

Lynata wrote:Do you think Tyranids are one-dimensional; would they be better off being given "more personality" as well?

I think so. As it stands, they're just a giant mouth/stomach/womb floating through space with no motivation other than "feed." That pretty much describes the Orks, once you understand that "fight" is a synonym for "feed" as far as they're concerned. The Orks, however, have a lot of personality and that saves them from being boring. The Tyranids have had to be content with the hive mind (you might say "anti-personality") thing and the xenomorph connection for far too long. Looking back, one of the coolest things about the Nids were the Genestealer Cults. I'm not saying they necessarily belong in the contemporary Tyranid army. But they were cool in a way that is absent from the contemporary Nid concept and I think the word "personality" sums it up.

Akroma06 wrote:There is something incorrect with every bit of this...BT do have fortress monestaries. A bunch of them, infact every world they take has one. Now do they garrison them all? No of course not but they know where they are and they will go back to them if they need to and they will drive out whoever is occupying it at the time. Also BT do involve themselves in the imperium's buisness otherwise Armageddon would have been lost. Helbrecht was on the verge of clensing the Ghoul stars when he had to redirect to Armageddon to stop Ghazy. I want to say it was something like 3000 marines got reassigned.

They aren't really fortress monasteries in the proper sense. They build little keeps here or there that could accommodate a couple of companies, but there is nowhere near the infrastructure of a proper fortress monastery. These serve more as a reminder to the populace of the subjugated planet (if there is a surviving populace, anyway) to keep in line, and if they have to return, it gives them a basic staging area planetside. Helping drive off an Ork invasion doesn't exactly translate to being mired in Imperial politics. Most Chapters have an assigned area they are responsible for defending, with permanent holdings (even if some may operate from a battle barge rather than a location on a particular planet) that can be subject to Imperial inspection, and populated planets that are essentially their vassal states that may call upon them to resolve internal issues. Black Templar, on the other hand, are constantly on the move looking for stuff to kill. They aren't exactly governing any planets, and are pretty much impossible to pin down, much less be subjected to any real level of scrutiny.

But anyway, I'm no expert on BT, and sadly their book was written during the age of austerity, where both fluff and rules content in 40K took a depressing turn for the bland.

Ok Guilliman did not run the Imperium by himself, he had become ONE of the high lords and thus had the same power as one of them.

There were no High Lords of Terra at the time. He was the first.

I just finished reading "Courage and Honour". It was not my favorite BL novel for sure, but it was decent. In light of "possible" fluff changes for 6th edition, I found some things interesting from the battles between the Ultramarines and Tau.



Anyway, it's a bit of a stretch that the Ultramarines and Tau become battle brothers, but in light of their battles, there was some mutual respect earned.

Lupe wrote:On the other hand, Black Templars and sisters would have a harder time coordinating because both sides are very dogmatic and very stubborn, and even a simple strategy briefing can drag on for long times. Their ideas on how to carry out the Emperor's will are equally blunt, but somewhat different - the Templars prefer to go forward, kill every enemy in sight and look for more enemies, while the Sisters can be more thorough in their approaches. They are both very, very stubborn when it comes to defending those ideas, and likely to draw each other into lengthy debates.

Thing is that the only time the fluff pointed out difficulties in the Sisters interfacing with a Marine Chapter it was with the Blood Angels and their successor Chapters. Yet is this reflected in the chart?
Also, the Sisters are quite straight-forward as well, their fighting style isn't that different from the Black Templars. And even if it were, aren't the Space Wolves the same as the BT when it comes to aggression?

Manchu wrote:Looking back, one of the coolest things about the Nids were the Genestealer Cults.

Whilst I don't agree with the 'nids needing more personality (just like the Tyranids, I believe their "simplemindedness" actually makes them stand apart* and was part of what caused their fans to like them), I will say that the Genestealer cults were cool and I am sad to see that this is one of the combinations that will not be possible with the current chart.

*: I think it'd be like saying that the Aliens of the AvP franchise are too one-dimensional, or (for the Necrons) the Terminators of the eponymous movies. I suppose some consider it boring, but others perceive the accompanying determination and lack of (humanlike) empathy as one of their scariest aspects.

So, back on topic. Anything about fluff progression in 6th ed?

@Lynata: The aliens and the terminators are good antagonists in that they represent pure antagonism. But their respective movies aren't interesting because of the aliens and terminators but rather because of the complex, sympathetic protagonists the aliens and terminators are after. For my own preference, I think playing an army is like adopting their viewpoint as a protagonist. A non-sympathetic protagonist (please please please note that this is different from an unlikable or morally questionable protagonist) is simply not very interesting. When I play the AvP games as an alien, I get the sense: "what the feth am I doing this for? oh, right, because that's what I do." Yawn.

Omegus wrote:

Akroma06 wrote:There is something incorrect with every bit of this...BT do have fortress monestaries. A bunch of them, infact every world they take has one. Now do they garrison them all? No of course not but they know where they are and they will go back to them if they need to and they will drive out whoever is occupying it at the time. Also BT do involve themselves in the imperium's buisness otherwise Armageddon would have been lost. Helbrecht was on the verge of clensing the Ghoul stars when he had to redirect to Armageddon to stop Ghazy. I want to say it was something like 3000 marines got reassigned.

They aren't really fortress monasteries in the proper sense. They build little keeps here or there that could accommodate a couple of companies, but there is nowhere near the infrastructure of a proper fortress monastery. These serve more as a reminder to the populace of the subjugated planet (if there is a surviving populace, anyway) to keep in line, and if they have to return, it gives them a basic staging area planetside. Helping drive off an Ork invasion doesn't exactly translate to being mired in Imperial politics. Most Chapters have an assigned area they are responsible for defending, with permanent holdings (even if some may operate from a battle barge rather than a location on a particular planet) that can be subject to Imperial inspection, and populated planets that are essentially their vassal states that may call upon them to resolve internal issues. Black Templar, on the other hand, are constantly on the move looking for stuff to kill. They aren't exactly governing any planets, and are pretty much impossible to pin down, much less be subjected to any real level of scrutiny.

But anyway, I'm no expert on BT, and sadly their book was written during the age of austerity, where both fluff and rules content in 40K took a depressing turn for the bland.

Ok Guilliman did not run the Imperium by himself, he had become ONE of the high lords and thus had the same power as one of them.

There were no High Lords of Terra at the time. He was the first.

One of...he was one of. They were made as a group. The size of the keep wasn't really my point. The point was that they do have bases and structures. Now as for the space they are responsible for...the way I look at it is all of it. They deal with anything in or near the imperiums boarders with their crusades.

I really didn't want to turn this into a battle of who was right for what they did at the end of the heresy...I really didn't so lets get back to potential 6th stuff.

Manchu wrote:For my own preference, I think playing an army is like adopting their viewpoint as a protagonist.

Ahh, I think I can understand your motif now.
I guess this is true for most people, yet there are also many who just like the idea of controlling an army without adopting its viewpoint, simply because they prefer looking at the larger picture and find the entire conflict interesting, or because they find the thought of an unstoppable inhuman behemoth fascinating. "Some people just want to watch the world burn."
These are also the people who like playing the Alien in AvP.

Myself, I think I'm alternating between both modes, mostly depending on the faction I'm looking at, but sometimes even switching back and forth for the same group. For example, I like to present my Sisters as protagonists, but at the same time I recognize that often they can very well assume the role of antagonists, and almost revel in pointing out how "evil" they can actually be depending on the circumstances. This is actually one of the most interesting facets of many armies in 40k - so much depends on one's point of view! And in the end, I think I just like to imagine a good story. I don't get "into" my armies and characters so much as I get "behind" them, using them for a narrative that is not only interesting to me but (hopefully) everyone.

paultwilson wrote:So, back on topic. Anythingal about fluff progrrssioncin 6th ed?

I'd be interested in this as well; my copy of the book is still on its way. Anything interesting in the fluff section?

As I indicated, I don't think you have to like or subscribe to a perspective in order to be sympathetic with it in the sense of feeling a connection to its holders as protagonists. So I'm not sure I think there is any difference between getting "into" versus "behind" a faction as far as I'm describing. Using the SoB as an example, I don't really support the idea of burning children alive because they're "heretics." But I can appreciate the complexity of the motivation to do so in-setting. There's no such complexity currently behind the Nids. And I think that is what pretre mentioned by calling the 4th Ed. Necrons "one dimensional." The counterargument, I think, is that they are interesting because they are mysterious. To me, that is like saying something tastses good just because you can't describe the taste. Mystery can be boring much more easily than it can be interesting. When I play SoB fighting Necrons, the mystery of the Necrons is a plus for me. But playing Necrons fighting SoB ... it's like, this is how Necrons do things, period, the end. No thought or reflection necessary. Not my idea of fun. At the end of the day, anyone can strip fluff away. If you want to play Sisters as one dimensional "bolter bitches" you can by ignoring the official fluff. It'd be a shame if that's all that GW tried to do with them, however.

Granted the fluff has changed over the years, and the rules have changed. I've been playing since late 3rd ed. I liked how they changed things from 3rd to 4th. It made sence. The fluff really hasn't fluxuated since 1st. As the game moved on it has constantly refined it. For crying out loud, in 1st there were said to be 25 chapters of space marine legions at one point while its been consistent at 20. That changed in 2nd. Also, in 1st the Emperor was still alive. There were beastmen who served with the imperium. Hell, there were even robots that the imperium could use. Seeing as things are now you see how much things have changed.

I'm not sure about the allies tables and it would make sence though that the imperium would make pacts with the eldar or tau when times are dire enough. But, they both would be extreme cases none the less.

Lynata wrote:the rules we are presented essentially place the armies into an official alliance, a "2 vs 2" team-up that requires a combined battle-plan and coordinated tactics. That's a huge difference.

Do they though? I don't think it requires any alliance to be so formal. If a Chaos position is attacked from one side by Tyranids, and the other side by Ultramarines, then I think it is fair to say the Tyranids and Ultramarines are allied.

The rules are an abstract representation, remember.

What you just described isn't an alliance. Two birds fighting over the same worm are not "allied."

Manchu wrote:What you just described isn't an alliance. Two birds fighting over the same worm are not "allied."

Yes it is. It's one type of an alliance, anyway.

Remember, the rules are abstracted to allow us to fight interesting tabletop battles. We all know a 'true' alliance between most of the forces of 40K is impossible, but any rules only exist to represent two forces working towards goals that, however accidentally and however incongruously, are aligned.

Say for example the Orks are attacking an IG position, and one of those IG is a demon-host that a GK strike force has been hunting. The GK teleport into the battle to aid the orks and destroy the IG, therefore the Orks and GK are allied.

Kaldor wrote:Yes it is. It's one type of an alliance, anyway.

If that's a type of alliance then you are a type of umbrella.

I think your point that allies could be about simple rules abstractions that let people fight interesting scenarios is reasonable but not supported by the chart. As Lynata mentioned, if that was the goal, then why not let every faction ally with every faction? Even you example, Chaos getting stuck between Ultramarines and Nids, is impossible according to the chart. Something more than a rules abstraction is going on here, I think.

The Alliances in the rulebook are the same as what the UK 40K Doubles allies have always been for 5th edition. I believe it should be interpreted as 'who would ally with who in a dire situation' ('cus lets face it, a battle is a dire situation). Chaos Daemons was the only one I disagree with, they shouldn't go with Orks, DE or Tau IMO but besides that it seems pretty good. I think the SoB and BT was summed up early about them both being at the opposite spectrum of pious.

Manchu wrote:

Kaldor wrote:Yes it is. It's one type of an alliance, anyway.

If that's a type of alliance then you are a type of umbrella.

I think your point that allies could be about simple rules abstractions that let people fight interesting scenarios is reasonable but not supported by the chart. As Lynata mentioned, if that was the goal, then why not let every faction ally with every faction? Even you example, Chaos getting stuck between Ultramarines and Nids, is impossible according to the chart. Something more than a rules abstraction is going on here, I think.

Game balance and player satisfaction would be my guess. I'd be happy allowing any units to be used as allies in any other unit, but the player base would get their knickers in a twist about it, and there's some awful cheesy combinations available so I guess the designers tried to come up with a way to make everyone happy.

There is no solution that would not result in twisting knickers, I guess.

Manchu wrote:There is no solution that would not result in twisting knickers, I guess.

This is true of every 40k conversation/debate that I have ever seen. New, beautiful plastic models? ARGH, HORRIBLE! Free puppies? I HATE PUPPIES.

Someone always hates every change.

Manchu wrote:

BlaxicanX wrote:Rebelling against the Codex Astartes is not rebelling against the Imperium, however.

At the time of the near-civil war between the surviving Primarchs, Guilliman was running the Imperium. Dorn's resistance at that point was insubordination. In order to understand Codex Astartes, you must remember that it wasn't written as some esoteric internal point of Space Marine politics. It was written to ensure that the Imperium itself would never be subjected to another Horus Heresy. When Dorn finally relented, he was only somewhat on board: the Imperial Fists and Crimson Fists became famously Codex-adherent (with the IF second only to the UM themselves in this regard) while the Black Templars became one of the most flagrantly non-compliant of all Chapters.

That doesn't really mean anything, though.

Again, the Codex was written specifically to deal with Space Marines- it is a Space Marine affair. There are seperate Imperial edicts that deal with things like the army being split up into the Guard and the Navy, or the Ecclisiarchy not being able to have its own male army. The codex astartes refers specifically to Space Marines, and only Space Marines. The Ecclisarchy, and therefore the Sisters of Battle by extension, do not concern themselves with Space Marine politics. The only thing they care about is the religious aspect of the Imperium. As long as an Imperial force is devoted to the will of the Emperor, their adherence to the Codex Astartes means nothing to the Eccilsarchy. That isn't there jurisdiction.

It'd be like a DEA officer arresting someone for tax evasion. It doesn't happen.

pretre wrote:

Manchu wrote:There is no solution that would not result in twisting knickers, I guess.

This is true of every 40k conversation/debate that I have ever seen. New, beautiful plastic models? ARGH, HORRIBLE! Free puppies? I HATE PUPPIES.

Someone always hates every change.

Absolutely true, unfortunately.

BlaxicanX wrote:Again, the Codex was written specifically to deal with Space Marines- it is a Space Marine affair.

That's like saying the Horus Heresy was a Space Marine affair.

Manchu wrote:

BlaxicanX wrote:Again, the Codex was written specifically to deal with Space Marines- it is a Space Marine affair.

That's like saying the Horus Heresy was a Space Marine affair.

Gonna sound like an idiot for this, but weren't the main conflicts those of the Astartes?

DemetriDominov wrote:

Manchu wrote:

BlaxicanX wrote:Again, the Codex was written specifically to deal with Space Marines- it is a Space Marine affair.

That's like saying the Horus Heresy was a Space Marine affair.

Gonna sound like an idiot for this, but weren't the main conflicts those of the Astartes?

True, both conflicts spun around Space Marines, but not exclusively. Chaos and the Emperor were as much a factor in the Heresy as the inner workings of the Legions. Same with the Codex: The new order wanted the potentially rebellious Astartes declawed. It wasn't only Guilleman's decision.

Yeah, that's mostly what I thought.

Manchu wrote:

BlaxicanX wrote:Again, the Codex was written specifically to deal with Space Marines- it is a Space Marine affair.

That's like saying the Horus Heresy was a Space Marine affair.

Manchu wrote:

Kaldor wrote:Yes it is. It's one type of an alliance, anyway.

If that's a type of alliance then you are a type of umbrella.

It actually is an alliance, we discussed this in the 6th Ed rumor thread

As far a fluff goes about marines + tau, I've heard nothing

Honestly, it's not an alliance. I'm not joshing you! It takes more than two parties interests happening to coincide to make an alliance.