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.

Yeah I'm gonna have to say no to that, too. The game is better for its current detachment design. If a unit is broke, fix the unit.

tl;dr: as usual, Peregrine, you're looking at a loose screw and thinking the best way to "fix" it is to chop it in half with an axe,

phydaux wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Yes. We need to go back to the pre-6th way of doing it. You have one FOC, taken from one codex, period. No allies, no mixing armies in a single detachment, you pick your faction and play that faction.

Except that the current philosophy at GW is to allow players to buy whatever models that want, and then be able to field whatever models that have as a valid army.

Seriously, 10 years ago if I had told my buddies at my FLAGS "I'm going to play an army made up of nothing but two HQs and six Devestator squads" then would have laughed at me. A few of them would have thrown dice at me. Now, it's a valid army.

That said, there's nothing much wrong with allies now due to how characters work. Now we just have to deal with Scion Command Squads that you can shove 6 of them in literally any army Imperium-wise. That's a unit issue, though, and not an allies issue.

phydaux wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Yes. We need to go back to the pre-6th way of doing it. You have one FOC, taken from one codex, period. No allies, no mixing armies in a single detachment, you pick your faction and play that faction.

Except that the current philosophy at GW is to allow players to buy whatever models that want, and then be able to field whatever models that have as a valid army.

Seriously, 10 years ago if I had told my buddies at my FLAGS "I'm going to play an army made up of nothing but two HQs and six Devestator squads" then would have laughed at me. A few of them would have thrown dice at me. Now, it's a valid army.

But the guy with 4 HQ and 6 Tacticals has double the CP.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
I would be tempted to just have a blanket rule for matched play that states, all units in a detachment must share their most specific keyword.

This would still allow Marines to mix with other marines or guard, etc. But each faction would need to be in its own detachment.

This is not a huge restriction, but it helps a bit.

Then if needed certain factions could be allowed to ignore this restrictions, maybe things like assassins.

Now go ahead and define what "Most specific" means. You'd need a table a mile long.

Furthest to the Right on the Faction Keyword section.

I don't think the 'most specific keyword' thing is a good idea.

It would, for example, ban DE players from including Incubi models in their normal detachments - which makes no sense.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

phydaux wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Yes. We need to go back to the pre-6th way of doing it. You have one FOC, taken from one codex, period. No allies, no mixing armies in a single detachment, you pick your faction and play that faction.

Except that the current philosophy at GW is to allow players to buy whatever models that want, and then be able to field whatever models that have as a valid army.

Seriously, 10 years ago if I had told my buddies at my FLAGS "I'm going to play an army made up of nothing but two HQs and six Devestator squads" then would have laughed at me. A few of them would have thrown dice at me. Now, it's a valid army.

That said, there's nothing much wrong with allies now due to how characters work. Now we just have to deal with Scion Command Squads that you can shove 6 of them in literally any army Imperium-wise. That's a unit issue, though, and not an allies issue.

The issue with Allies is that people will always gravitate towards the best option presented.

Today you're saying "Scion is the problem, but that's a unit issue."
Tomorrow they nerf Scions
The next day someone else will be saying "Retributor is the problem, but that's a unit issue."

When the truth is, if you're presented with a "no catch" offer of taking $5 or $10. You will basically always take the $10.

What different faction provides is trade offs.
Okay Army A, your melee units are 10% better than others, but your ranged units are 10% worse than others.
and Army B, your melee units are 10% worse than others, but your ranged units are 10% better than others.

Essentially what 8th edition did was continue those Trade Offs in stats while also basically saying you can take both units with no catch.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 vipoid wrote:
I don't think the 'most specific keyword' thing is a good idea.

It would, for example, ban DE players from including Incubi models in their normal detachments - which makes no sense.

Yea, the problem is that the different groups are a little inconsistent.

Imperium is a fairly unique Super Keyword thatother armies can't really relate to.

Then the next keyword basically divides the 2 major books between Space Marines and Imperial Guard.
While Imperial Guard is already on it's overarching Army Specific Keyword.
Space Marine are still 1 tier higher. Only Eldar are basically the only army with an equivalent here.

Then Space Marines divides into the standard armies that we are familiar.

Simplified Explanation.

1 - Imperium
- 2 - Space Marines
- - 3 - Blood Angels
- - 3 - Space Wolves
- - 3 - Grey Knights

- - 3 - Imperial Guard
- - 3 - Skittari
- - 3 - Sisters of Battle

- 2 - Aeldari
- - 3 - Craftworld
- - 3 - Drew Carey

Haven;t you, Talamare admitted, by your own admission you haven't taken a very hard look at a lot of these indexes?

yes there are a few useful combinations, but at the same time we're also seeing GW is taking their own steps to address this issue, and unlike your proposal, GW is using a carrot instead of a stick. case in point, you're concerned about space marine players taking ratling snipers over scout snipers?
Lemme tell ya, wuith the stratigiums etc we've seen leaked from codex space marines already? I would MUCH rather have space marine scouts the extra CPs are a BIG thing

To many armies exist right now as a mix. It'd be really bad for most players in the Imperium.

Also would really screwe over Imperial Knights players.

 Talamare wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
I would be tempted to just have a blanket rule for matched play that states, all units in a detachment must share their most specific keyword.

This would still allow Marines to mix with other marines or guard, etc. But each faction would need to be in its own detachment.

This is not a huge restriction, but it helps a bit.

Then if needed certain factions could be allowed to ignore this restrictions, maybe things like assassins.

Now go ahead and define what "Most specific" means. You'd need a table a mile long.

Furthest to the Right on the Faction Keyword section.

This idea doesn't work at all, and ruins armies that have been working LONG before 8th.

For example, by using only the furthest right Keyword:

- Death Company cannot be taken alongside normal Blood Angels forces.
- Deathwing, Ravenwing and normal Dark Angels can't be taken together.
- Militarum Tempestus units can't be taken alongside normal Guardsmen.
- Valkyries, all Psykers, and abhumans can't be taken in AM armies.
- Daemonhosts can't be taken in Inquisition lists (they lack the Ordo Keyword), like how Sister Hospitallers can't be taken (no Order Keyword).
- Priests can't be taken in SoB armies, because their most specific keyword is Astra Militarum (but they can't be taken in there anyway, because they don't have the Regiment Keyword)

So yeah. Doesn't really work too well, and that's just Imperial lists, not even including all the Eldar varieties.

 Talamare wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

phydaux wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Yes. We need to go back to the pre-6th way of doing it. You have one FOC, taken from one codex, period. No allies, no mixing armies in a single detachment, you pick your faction and play that faction.

Except that the current philosophy at GW is to allow players to buy whatever models that want, and then be able to field whatever models that have as a valid army.

Seriously, 10 years ago if I had told my buddies at my FLAGS "I'm going to play an army made up of nothing but two HQs and six Devestator squads" then would have laughed at me. A few of them would have thrown dice at me. Now, it's a valid army.

That said, there's nothing much wrong with allies now due to how characters work. Now we just have to deal with Scion Command Squads that you can shove 6 of them in literally any army Imperium-wise. That's a unit issue, though, and not an allies issue.

The issue with Allies is that people will always gravitate towards the best option presented.

Today you're saying "Scion is the problem, but that's a unit issue."
Tomorrow they nerf Scions
The next day someone else will be saying "Retributor is the problem, but that's a unit issue."

When the truth is, if you're presented with a "no catch" offer of taking $5 or $10. You will basically always take the $10.

What different faction provides is trade offs.
Okay Army A, your melee units are 10% better than others, but your ranged units are 10% worse than others.
and Army B, your melee units are 10% worse than others, but your ranged units are 10% better than others.

Essentially what 8th edition did was continue those Trade Offs in stats while also basically saying you can take both units with no catch.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 vipoid wrote:
I don't think the 'most specific keyword' thing is a good idea.

It would, for example, ban DE players from including Incubi models in their normal detachments - which makes no sense.

Yea, the problem is that the different groups are a little inconsistent.

Imperium is a fairly unique Super Keyword thatother armies can't really relate to.

Then the next keyword basically divides the 2 major books between Space Marines and Imperial Guard.
While Imperial Guard is already on it's overarching Army Specific Keyword.
Space Marine are still 1 tier higher. Only Eldar are basically the only army with an equivalent here.

Then Space Marines divides into the standard armies that we are familiar.

Simplified Explanation.

1 - Imperium
- 2 - Space Marines
- - 3 - Blood Angels
- - 3 - Space Wolves
- - 3 - Grey Knights

- - 3 - Imperial Guard
- - 3 - Skittari
- - 3 - Sisters of Battle

- 2 - Aeldari
- - 3 - Craftworld
- - 3 - Drew Carey

Which one is the retributor?

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Talamare wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
I would be tempted to just have a blanket rule for matched play that states, all units in a detachment must share their most specific keyword.

This would still allow Marines to mix with other marines or guard, etc. But each faction would need to be in its own detachment.

This is not a huge restriction, but it helps a bit.

Then if needed certain factions could be allowed to ignore this restrictions, maybe things like assassins.

Now go ahead and define what "Most specific" means. You'd need a table a mile long.

Furthest to the Right on the Faction Keyword section.

This idea doesn't work at all, and ruins armies that have been working LONG before 8th.

For example, by using only the furthest right Keyword:

- Death Company cannot be taken alongside normal Blood Angels forces.
- Deathwing, Ravenwing and normal Dark Angels can't be taken together.
- Militarum Tempestus units can't be taken alongside normal Guardsmen.
- Valkyries, all Psykers, and abhumans can't be taken in AM armies.
- Daemonhosts can't be taken in Inquisition lists (they lack the Ordo Keyword), like how Sister Hospitallers can't be taken (no Order Keyword).
- Priests can't be taken in SoB armies, because their most specific keyword is Astra Militarum (but they can't be taken in there anyway, because they don't have the Regiment Keyword)

So yeah. Doesn't really work too well, and that's just Imperial lists, not even including all the Eldar varieties.

It's a horriable idea to fix a problem that doesn't really exist anyway.

League here says everyone has to share the same sub-faction Keyword, for competitive games.

Pretty straightforward that way, though it does preclude Talons of the Emperor, Inquisition, Assassinorium, etc. from forming lists.



In casual match ups, bringing a IG artillery battery in support of my Sisters of Battle with a detachment of Custodians and Sisters of Silence all lead by an Inquisitor Lord of the Ordos Malleus isn't a big deal at all.

What about sharing two faction keywords within the same detachment?

sossen wrote:
What about sharing two faction keywords within the same detachment?

Screws Chaos. Screws chaos HARD.

BrianDavion wrote:
Haven;t you, Talamare admitted, by your own admission you haven't taken a very hard look at a lot of these indexes?

I admitted that I haven't really deeply gazed into Inquisitor. I'll also admit I haven't deeply gazed into Skitarii and Blood Angels, probably a few others. Have you read and studied every unit in every codex?

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
This idea doesn't work at all, and ruins armies that have been working LONG before 8th.

For example, by using only the furthest right Keyword:

- Death Company cannot be taken alongside normal Blood Angels forces.
- Deathwing, Ravenwing and normal Dark Angels can't be taken together.
- Militarum Tempestus units can't be taken alongside normal Guardsmen.
- Valkyries, all Psykers, and abhumans can't be taken in AM armies.
- Daemonhosts can't be taken in Inquisition lists (they lack the Ordo Keyword), like how Sister Hospitallers can't be taken (no Order Keyword).
- Priests can't be taken in SoB armies, because their most specific keyword is Astra Militarum (but they can't be taken in there anyway, because they don't have the Regiment Keyword)

So yeah. Doesn't really work too well, and that's just Imperial lists, not even including all the Eldar varieties.

Aye, Most Specific will just cause a ton of issues with very specific units that have an extra keyword.
Tho Forcing 2 Keywords won't really affect Space Marine Armies, but might break a few Xeno ones who lack excessive Faction Keywords.

Basically, Space Marines need to be Forced 3 Keywords.
Chaos, Imperial Guard, and Eldar need to be Forced 2 Keywords.

A ton of potential exceptions need to be made.

For not only the basic ones like Assassins, but also for thing like Cypher and the Fallen.

Which is another problem, we are trying to modify the rules to an existing set. That's a pretty difficult thing to do since a small hiccup here and there can leave the suggestion seeming poor.

BrianDavion wrote:

sossen wrote:
What about sharing two faction keywords within the same detachment?

Screws Chaos. Screws chaos HARD.

No, it really doesn't.

Chaos would be your 1st Keyword. Easy
If you choose CSM as your 2nd, you get the entire CSM section of the Codex.
If you choose Daemon as your 2nd, you not only get the entire Daemon section of the Codex. You even get a few units from CSM.
You could even choose a specific God, such as Tzeentch. Which will give you huge chunks of both books.

BrianDavion wrote:
no, no it shouldn't. chapter tactics are going to require pure detachments, and we're seeing everyone getting their ownm, taking the long view the fix is already coming.

Is there any evidence to the fix is already coming? If so what do you mean? No more "alliances" between any Imperial armies? What about Eldar, and Chaos? Where did you read or hear that there is going to be a fix and what does that mean?

usmcmidn wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
no, no it shouldn't. chapter tactics are going to require pure detachments, and we're seeing everyone getting their ownm, taking the long view the fix is already coming.

Is there any evidence to the fix is already coming? If so what do you mean? No more "alliances" between any Imperial armies? What about Eldar, and Chaos? Where did you read or hear that there is going to be a fix and what does that mean?

no, rather then "punish" people from taking allied imperial lists (which is a pretty normal fluffy thing) they are rewarding people for taking purer lists. sure you COULD take ratling snipers along side your space marines, but with chapter tactics and stratigiums you're proably gonna wanna look more at scout snipers for those other benifits.

BrianDavion wrote:

usmcmidn wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
no, no it shouldn't. chapter tactics are going to require pure detachments, and we're seeing everyone getting their ownm, taking the long view the fix is already coming.

Is there any evidence to the fix is already coming? If so what do you mean? No more "alliances" between any Imperial armies? What about Eldar, and Chaos? Where did you read or hear that there is going to be a fix and what does that mean?

no, rather then "punish" people from taking allied imperial lists (which is a pretty normal fluffy thing) they are rewarding people for taking purer lists. sure you COULD take ratling snipers along side your space marines, but with chapter tactics and stratigiums you're proably gonna wanna look more at scout snipers for those other benifits.

Ah, so you're saying that Eldar and Tau should return?

Part of the problem is an "Imperium" army has two full books to pick through, chaos has one, eldar have most of one, tyranids have around the same including GSC and allied guard. Then tau, orcs and necrons have a third of a book or less.

That's a big gap in how many options a given army has, and it is particularly favorable for the imperium. An imperial army can really have anything it wants, there will never be gaps they can't fill in their army.

Well, 4 books for the Imperium, really. Then 2 for Chaos. Probably something like 1.5 for Tyranids if you're counting allied Guard. About 1 for Eldar. Maybe a bit more than 1/2 a book for each of the others.

Dionysodorus wrote:
Well, 4 books for the Imperium, really. Then 2 for Chaos. Probably something like 1.5 for Tyranids if you're counting allied Guard. About 1 for Eldar. Maybe a bit more than 1/2 a book for each of the others.

Counting forgeworld you'd be correct, which kinda just makes the gap even more glaring.

IG really should just have a generic version for all renegade factions, not just chaos. That'd work as an allied addition to the Tau and help a bit. Or turn kroot into a full army or something.

Lord knows what you could do with orks or necrons though.

 Talamare wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

usmcmidn wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
no, no it shouldn't. chapter tactics are going to require pure detachments, and we're seeing everyone getting their ownm, taking the long view the fix is already coming.

Is there any evidence to the fix is already coming? If so what do you mean? No more "alliances" between any Imperial armies? What about Eldar, and Chaos? Where did you read or hear that there is going to be a fix and what does that mean?

no, rather then "punish" people from taking allied imperial lists (which is a pretty normal fluffy thing) they are rewarding people for taking purer lists. sure you COULD take ratling snipers along side your space marines, but with chapter tactics and stratigiums you're proably gonna wanna look more at scout snipers for those other benifits.

Ah, so you're saying that Eldar and Tau should return?

if you mean Taudar lists, no fears of that, people stopped running that when they became Battle brothers. for the most part 8th edition avoids that problem of 6th/7th. in that I can't use a Librarian to buff my guardsmen while also giving them a aura advantage from Kaldor Dragio

The imperium is the largest organized instituion in the 40k universe..it makes sense to have dozens of sub factions..there is no reason to split it up..that would actually make even less sense...the stupidity of the 40k fandom never ceases to amaze

Mesokhornee wrote:
The imperium is the largest organized instituion in the 40k universe..it makes sense to have dozens of sub factions..there is no reason to split it up..that would actually make even less sense...the stupidity of the 40k fandom never ceases to amaze

And it's riddled with people who hate each other, factions who don't get along, and in general, rivalries of the most bitter nature.

Plus, mechanically, it's a massively unfair advantage to the Imperium players.

Imperium keyword isnt a problem in this edition, buffs only affecting a single 'chapter' 'regiment' etc keyword fixes shenanigans. In a ruleset which I think is fairly devoid of cool/fluffy rules, not allowing say to run a combined SM and IG defense would suck.

What broken lists are people afraid of that the Imperium keyword specifically exploits that is not available (or done to better effect) in a single faction? SM flyer/girlyman spam doesnt need allies.

Also, are people feeling that other factions are weak this edition? Orks and Tyranids are off the chain. Necrons are extremely strong and the Chaos faction keyword has almost as many options situationally as the Imperium one does. Even Ynarri is fine.

People who think Imperium is overpowered, what armies do you run?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mesokhornee wrote:
The imperium is the largest organized instituion in the 40k universe..it makes sense to have dozens of sub factions..there is no reason to split it up..that would actually make even less sense...the stupidity of the 40k fandom never ceases to amaze

I agree 100%

 JNAProductions wrote:

Mesokhornee wrote:
The imperium is the largest organized instituion in the 40k universe..it makes sense to have dozens of sub factions..there is no reason to split it up..that would actually make even less sense...the stupidity of the 40k fandom never ceases to amaze

And it's riddled with people who hate each other, factions who don't get along, and in general, rivalries of the most bitter nature.
.

which proably explains how I can sit down with my buddy and play a game where my space marines fights his Imperial guard

Mesokhornee wrote:
The imperium is the largest organized instituion in the 40k universe..it makes sense to have dozens of sub factions..there is no reason to split it up..that would actually make even less sense...the stupidity of the 40k fandom never ceases to amaze

While true, the Universe is massive.
Chapters tend to be millions of miles apart from each other.
The vast majority of people have never seen, and never will see a Space Marine.
I would estimate that the average human doesn't even know that Space Marines exist.

So yea, they are allied with each other in dozens of sub factions.

However seeing even 2 different Chapters on a Warzone is an extremely rare event.
Within Individual Battles, such as what is usually represented in a tabletop match, it becomes an even rarer event.

Remember
The Chapters have their own vastly different fighting styles.
They are living in a Grimdark Universe in which the other Chapters are potentially traitors.
They haven't seen other Chapters in perhaps YEARS and are never sure what the intention of the other Chapter might be.
Every Guardsman has the potential to be perhaps a Genestealer or a Chaos Cultist.
You seem to think that the Imperium is 1 giant hug.

By the way...
We are talking about 0.1% of Warzones will see 2 Chapters fighting.
and 0.1% of Battles will see 2 Chapters fighting.

Separating them makes 100% sense.
If you want to play an extremely rare event in which there are like 5 different Chapters from 5 different corners of the UNIVERSE are somehow all together for 1 minor battle...
Well there is always Open Play.

you're moving the goal posts. suddenly you're talking about Multiple chapters fighting together (for the record I'd be fine with a "1 chapter only" rule for space marines. limit confusion) except thats not what you started with. you're running around claiming the universe is broken because people can run mxied guard and space marine armies. guess what... THAT'S PRETTY NORMAL FOR THE SETTING. yes plenty of Guardsmen fight and die without ever seeing space Marines (partly because space marines aren't in every theatre of war) but when the Space Marines are about, it's not terriably uncommon to see the guard deploy in conjunction with the Marines. obviously this depends on the chapter but Ultramarines fighting along side Imperial guard? Iron Hands deploying with the forces of the admech? they're common eneugh. it seems pretty clear to me GW is going to make running "mono armies" a pretty good thing.

as for the advanatges or not of Imperium having a deeper amount of troops to draw from... so what? Some armies having more varity then others is hardly some new sin of 8th edition, it's not even a new sin of 6th edition which introduced allies.

Grey Knights have far less options then standard Space Marines, should space marine players have been shamed into only using half their codex?

BrianDavion wrote:
you're moving the goal posts. suddenly you're talking about Multiple chapters fighting together (for the record I'd be fine with a "1 chapter only" rule for space marines. limit confusion) except thats not what you started with. you're running around claiming the universe is broken because people can run mxied guard and space marine armies. guess what... THAT'S PRETTY NORMAL FOR THE SETTING. yes plenty of Guardsmen fight and die without ever seeing space Marines (partly because space marines aren't in every theatre of war) but when the Space Marines are about, it's not terriably uncommon to see the guard deploy in conjunction with the Marines. obviously this depends on the chapter but Ultramarines fighting along side Imperial guard? Iron Hands deploying with the forces of the admech? they're common eneugh. it seems pretty clear to me GW is going to make running "mono armies" a pretty good thing.

as for the advanatges or not of Imperium having a deeper amount of troops to draw from... so what? Some armies having more varity then others is hardly some new sin of 8th edition, it's not even a new sin of 6th edition which introduced allies.

Grey Knights have far less options then standard Space Marines, should space marine players have been shamed into only using half their codex?

No goal post has been moved
The topic of the thread and the only thing stated on the opening post is

"Should the Imperium be separated?"

As well as many Space Marines do not fight with the Imperial Guard. Again, Imperial Guard have different Tactics than Space Marines do. Space Marines don't have much reason to trust Imperial Guard either.
Fighting in the same Warzone is different than Fighting in the same Battle.

Talamare, one thing I think you're missing here:

Imperial armies are far more likely to fight TOGETHER than against one another.
Yes, there's plenty of area to Forge the Narrative about Ultramarines fighting Astra Militarum, but the vast majority of the time, they're fighting together.

It's why cases like the Months of Shame are so, well, shameful. If the Imperium fought itself more times than it actually worked like an Empire, it would never have stood and won/drew/bought time for themselves at:
Armageddon
Damocles Gulf
Cadia
Macragge
Vraks
Kastorel-Novem
Orpheus Sector
Sabbat Worlds Crusade
Etc etc...

There's plenty of opportunity for Imperial armies to fight other Imperial armies. Nothing stops that. However, that's clearly NOT the norm, and clearly not intended.
By ONLY allowing forces to have their "Chapter Tactics" equivalent if the army is PURELY one faction, it allows for the player to decide "do I want rerolls to Hit and Wounds for all of my units every Shooting and Fight phase, or would I rather pay to have these Custodes?"