Switch Theme:

Subfaction Soup for the Soul  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
  • No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
  • Times and dates in your local timezone.
  • Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
  • Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
  • Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.




Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





So floating around the rumor mill is a leak that claims there will be no more subfaction soup. We don't have precise wording, but it sounds something like any replaceable tags like <REGIMENT> have to be the same throughout so Cadians and Scions are a thing, but Cadians and Tallarn are not.

Pros

- No more confusing armies where similarly painted models have different rules
- No more smoothing out a subfaction weakness

Cons

- Some subfactions are better than others
- Less choice

Unknown

- Does this apply to faction soup ( e.g. Knights and Admech )

Now this will obviously be a GT rule, but as we know it will flow into other games. This is a slap to GK, Sisters, and potentially DE ( among others ). There's been something in the rumor mill on DE along these lines where they can do one Coven, one Kabal, and one Cult. This doesn't break the army, but it potentially stops Artists and Dark Tech in the same army.

On other piece is that detachments ( aside from Battalion and Brigade ) are losing slots. So the Patrol loses a FA and Heavy slot ( presumed ). This would make this harder for DE to bring lots of Talos / Cronos and is a nerf in general to specialized armies.

Obviously this is all up in the air, but what do you think? Good, bad, indifferent? Does this mess your list up or would you prefer it? In what other ways do you see this affecting the game?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/01/13 00:56:46


   
Made in us
Trustworthy Shas'vre





Cobleskill

Is Shadowsun going to retain her 'Supreme Commander' rule that allows her to be taken in a cross-faction list?

Spoiler:
Only time will tell.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/01/13 00:55:44


'No plan survives contact with the enemy. Who are we?'
'THE ENEMY!!!'
Racerguy180 wrote:
rules come and go, models are forever...like herpes.
 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





 carldooley wrote:
Is Shadowsun going to retain her 'Supreme Commander' rule that allows her to be taken in a cross-faction list?

Spoiler:
Only time will tell.


She doesn't have a replaceable keyword so as long as there is still a rule that taking that model doesn't break army building I think it will be safe.

   
Made in us
Confessor Of Sins




It's GW selling a solution to a problem that they made, that is implemented in the dumbest way possible.

Judging by the points changes they're ALSO not even considering how this impacts the factions as a whole.

I hope everybody who plays against SoB routinely is ready to see nothing but Bloody rose ever again because if that supplement is even AS mediocre as the OoML one was, it'll be the only build anyone's going to see for 6 months.

If it's as garbage as it looks like it is...well, it was nice being a good army for a while.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/01/13 01:41:56


2500pts
2500
3000


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




NE Ohio, USA

 Daedalus81 wrote:


On other piece is that detachments ( aside from Battalion and Brigade ) are losing slots. So the Patrol loses a FA and Heavy slot ( presumed ). This would make this harder for DE to bring lots of Talos / Cronos and is a nerf in general to specialized armies.

Obviously this is all up in the air, but what do you think? Good, bad, indifferent? Does this mess your list up or would you prefer it? In what other ways do you see this affecting the game?



It'll things up for everyone.

   
Made in us
Trustworthy Shas'vre





Cobleskill

ccs wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:


On other piece is that detachments ( aside from Battalion and Brigade ) are losing slots. So the Patrol loses a FA and Heavy slot ( presumed ). This would make this harder for DE to bring lots of Talos / Cronos and is a nerf in general to specialized armies.

Obviously this is all up in the air, but what do you think? Good, bad, indifferent? Does this mess your list up or would you prefer it? In what other ways do you see this affecting the game?



It'll things up for everyone.



Wait, what? Where is this nugget?

'No plan survives contact with the enemy. Who are we?'
'THE ENEMY!!!'
Racerguy180 wrote:
rules come and go, models are forever...like herpes.
 
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

On one hand, never made much sense to me for Tyranids of two different Hive Fleets to be in the same place.

On the other hand, I have Tallarns and Mordians, and idea of running them at the same time as distinct entities appeals to me.

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

 
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba




New Jersey, State of Perfection

ERJAK wrote:
It's GW selling a solution to a problem that they made, that is implemented in the dumbest way possible.

Judging by the points changes they're ALSO not even considering how this impacts the factions as a whole.

I hope everybody who plays against SoB routinely is ready to see nothing but Bloody rose ever again because if that supplement is even AS mediocre as the OoML one was, it'll be the only build anyone's going to see for 6 months.

If it's as garbage as it looks like it is...well, it was nice being a good army for a while.


A buddy of mine is one of the top 10 SoB players in the ITC or whatever its called, hes already declared the faction dead with the consensus of most of the others in the top 10. Dunno if that really means anything, but these are supposedly the "experts" in the faction so it seems legit.

This ain't no pansy GW Armor, son - Digital Sculpting Plog, Now with Heavy Weapon Platforms!
Sympathy for the Devil, or: The Project Log from Hell

Ma55ter_fett wrote:It reads like the ramblings of a Nigerian lobotomized Shakespeare typed into a cellphone with a very aggressive autocomplete function.
 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





chaos0xomega wrote:
ERJAK wrote:
It's GW selling a solution to a problem that they made, that is implemented in the dumbest way possible.

Judging by the points changes they're ALSO not even considering how this impacts the factions as a whole.

I hope everybody who plays against SoB routinely is ready to see nothing but Bloody rose ever again because if that supplement is even AS mediocre as the OoML one was, it'll be the only build anyone's going to see for 6 months.

If it's as garbage as it looks like it is...well, it was nice being a good army for a while.


A buddy of mine is one of the top 10 SoB players in the ITC or whatever its called, hes already declared the faction dead with the consensus of most of the others in the top 10. Dunno if that really means anything, but these are supposedly the "experts" in the faction so it seems legit.


I feel like that's a little bit premature.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/01/13 03:47:37


   
Made in ca
Longtime Dakkanaut





Yeah, I don't like these changes, and I'm disturbed that a GT Mission Pack is making changes to rules which are shared between multiple modes of play, because unless GW specifically says that it only affects matched, then a case can be made that RAW, it will affect everything even though the book is called GT Mission Pack.

A similar example: in the Crusade rules, it specifically states that Chaos, Imperium, Aeldari and Tyranid are factions... and yet this doesn't mean much, because the rules in the dexes don't acknowledge this in any way. Even though Crusade says Imperium is a faction, the dex says if I bring both sisters and marines to a Crusade battle, it still breaks purity bonuses.

Mission packs and single mode supplements shouldn't modify rules that are common to multiple modes of play. It's easy to read that RO3 is a matched play rule; it's harder to know whether a patrol detachment in Matched has a different composition that a patrol detachment in Crusade unless the text explicitly states one way or the other.
   
Made in us
Stabbin' Skarboy





First they gakked up the whole idea of an ally chart, then made it vastly impractical to ally different factions within the same faction, now we can’t even have some Freebootas providing some fire support for some goffs.

"Us Blood Axes hav lernt' a lot from da humies. How best ta kill 'em, fer example."
— Korporal Snagbrat of the Dreadblade Kommandos 
   
Made in it
Longtime Dakkanaut





Going by the last 2 dex released, I think that what is going to happen is slightly different.

All these rules that require all models in your army to be from the same faction, will now require you to have the same subfaction.

This means that everyone is going the SM/Necron/GSC/Custodes way.

This means for example that if you mix Ebon Chalice and Bloody rose units in the same army, you lose the miracles.

Personally I do like it. It reduces the gap between optimized and non optimized lists.
Many players felt "forced" to play multiple hyve fleets/orders/forge worlds, because it was just better, but it completely breaks the concept of the armies.

By the way, you forgot TS in the list of factions which really suffer from this.
   
Made in it
Waaagh! Ork Warboss




Italy

 Daedalus81 wrote:


Now this will obviously be a GT rule, but as we know it will flow into other games. This is a slap to GK, Sisters, and potentially DE ( among others ). There's been something in the rumor mill on DE along these lines where they can do one Coven, one Kabal, and one Cult. This doesn't break the army, but it potentially stops Artists and Dark Tech in the same army.

On other piece is that detachments ( aside from Battalion and Brigade ) are losing slots. So the Patrol loses a FA and Heavy slot ( presumed ). This would make this harder for DE to bring lots of Talos / Cronos and is a nerf in general to specialized armies.



If coven spam is so problematic and something that is not considered to be how the army should play just put a cap like they did with ork bikes. 1 unit of cronos and 1 unit of talos at most, per army. It's still 6 pain engines allowed which is a lot of pain engines. Preventing a guy fielding one talos and one cronos in the same detachment seems rather silly.

 
   
Made in us
Enigmatic Chaos Sorcerer




The dark hollows of Kentucky

Hmm. We'll have to see how exactly "no sub-faction soup" works before we can judge that move. Everything having to be <WHATEVER> is a lot different than just losing your purity bonus.

That change to Patrols will hurt though. No more Patrol + SHAD for me. Here's hoping for some price cuts for some CSM units so I can make a functional Battalion + SHAD. Would be nice if they'd move Dreadclaws from FA to Dedicated Transport were they belong too.
   
Made in de
Ladies Love the Vibro-Cannon Operator






Hamburg

This means that everyone is going the SM/Necron/GSC/Custodes way.

GK may also be affected when only one detachment aka Brotherhood can be fielded.
Then there is just one GMNDK that can be played.

Former moderator 40kOnline

Lanchester's square law - please obey in list building!

Illumini: "And thank you for not finishing your post with a "" I'm sorry, but after 7200 's that has to be the most annoying sign-off ever."

Armies: Eldar, Necrons, Blood Angels, Grey Knights; World Eaters (30k); Bloodbound; Cryx, Circle, Cyriss 
   
Made in fi
5th God of Chaos (O'rly?)





Rumour is no subfaction souping. Haven't seen max 1 detachment rumour anywhere...

You can remove(or nerf) subfaction souping while keeping multiple detachments. battalion+patrol of valorous heart is different to battalion of ardent shroud and patrol of bloody rose.

2022 painted/bought: 227/322 
   
Made in de
Ork Admiral Kroozin Da Kosmos on Da Hulk






I think making patrols less versatile is a good thing, there was just not enough reason to take any other detachment. You now need to bring the 3 CP detachments instead of 3x patrols.

I'm of mixed feeling for the sub-faction thing. It makes perfect sense from a gameplay point of view, there is too much cherry picking the best sub-faction for each unit/for the best stratagems going on. Cracking down on that is good for the game.
However, I'm not a huge fan if this is being outright disallowed instead of allowed with drawbacks like allies (DG+nurgle daemons, for example) are.

Earth is not flat
Vaccines work
We've been to the moon
Climate change is real
Chemtrails aren't a thing
Evolution is a fact
Orks are not a melee army
Stand up for science!
 
   
Made in de
Ladies Love the Vibro-Cannon Operator






Hamburg

Some factions are already mono-dimensional such as the Marine chapters.
Others like Drukhari and GK are not and they seem to get nerved heavily.
I can live with it although I only play competitively.

Former moderator 40kOnline

Lanchester's square law - please obey in list building!

Illumini: "And thank you for not finishing your post with a "" I'm sorry, but after 7200 's that has to be the most annoying sign-off ever."

Armies: Eldar, Necrons, Blood Angels, Grey Knights; World Eaters (30k); Bloodbound; Cryx, Circle, Cyriss 
   
Made in gb
Regular Dakkanaut





 Jidmah wrote:
I think making patrols less versatile is a good thing, there was just not enough reason to take any other detachment. You now need to bring the 3 CP detachments instead of 3x patrols.

I'm of mixed feeling for the sub-faction thing. It makes perfect sense from a gameplay point of view, there is too much cherry picking the best sub-faction for each unit/for the best stratagems going on. Cracking down on that is good for the game.
However, I'm not a huge fan if this is being outright disallowed instead of allowed with drawbacks like allies (DG+nurgle daemons, for example) are.


+1 to this

Also, for everyone crying that this "kills" certain factions, isn't this a case of a rising tide lifts all boats, or rather a falling tide lowers all boats? Sure your SoB list is now invalid, but so is the scary nids and orks list it would have to face! It'll re-set the meta but its not like the armies least affected by this are the ones winning all the comps?
   
Made in fi
5th God of Chaos (O'rly?)





 wuestenfux wrote:
Some factions are already mono-dimensional such as the Marine chapters.
Others like Drukhari and GK are not and they seem to get nerved heavily.
I can live with it although I only play competitively.


Well. At least you PRETEND to play competively Nobody in the world plays competive 40k.

2022 painted/bought: 227/322 
   
Made in us
Did Fulgrim Just Behead Ferrus?




Noctis Labyrinthus

 Fergie0044 wrote:


+1 to this

Also, for everyone crying that this "kills" certain factions, isn't this a case of a rising tide lifts all boats, or rather a falling tide lowers all boats? Sure your SoB list is now invalid, but so is the scary nids and orks list it would have to face! It'll re-set the meta but its not like the armies least affected by this are the ones winning all the comps?


This does basically nothing to most Crusher Stampede Tyranid lists, which tend to run a single detachment. And which also just sweeped most tournaments recent.

By comparison this guts any Daemons list which combines a Slaanesh detachment with a mixed detachment, which mosts lists trying to be competitive do.

It is disingenuous or ignorant to insinuate this is a change that affects everyone equally. My Daemons army will feel this change a lot more than my Custodes one.
   
Made in de
Ladies Love the Vibro-Cannon Operator






Hamburg

tneva82 wrote:
 wuestenfux wrote:
Some factions are already mono-dimensional such as the Marine chapters.
Others like Drukhari and GK are not and they seem to get nerved heavily.
I can live with it although I only play competitively.


Well. At least you PRETEND to play competively Nobody in the world plays competive 40k.

You're right, ''competively'' is not possible.
At least, I pretend...

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/01/13 10:18:59


Former moderator 40kOnline

Lanchester's square law - please obey in list building!

Illumini: "And thank you for not finishing your post with a "" I'm sorry, but after 7200 's that has to be the most annoying sign-off ever."

Armies: Eldar, Necrons, Blood Angels, Grey Knights; World Eaters (30k); Bloodbound; Cryx, Circle, Cyriss 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




Big fan of one chapter tactic per army - in principle at least. I feel it should have been the case from the get go. Then you can (theoretically - whether GW bother is another question) balance the various subfactions on the assumption players will have X or Y, rather than inevitably taking the best of both worlds.

Detachment changes potentially more of an issue. It did seem a bit too flexible that Patrol+X almost always gave you more slots than you'd ever need. Equally however I'm not sure a more restrictive system (see lengthy threads) improves the game. Some leaning for people to take a battalion isn't the worst thing in the world.
   
Made in gb
Killer Klaivex




The dark behind the eyes.

 Jidmah wrote:
I think making patrols less versatile is a good thing, there was just not enough reason to take any other detachment. You now need to bring the 3 CP detachments instead of 3x patrols.


It's a good job GW hasn't built an entire faction around taking multiple patrols in lieu of normal detachments, otherwise players of said faction might be really fething annoyed by this change.

 the_scotsman wrote:
Yeah, when i read the small novel that is the Death Guard unit options and think about resolving the attacks from a melee-oriented min size death guard squad, the thing that springs to mind is "Accessible!"

 Argive wrote:
GW seems to have a crystal ball and just pulls hairbrained ideas out of their backside for the most part.


 Andilus Greatsword wrote:

"Prepare to open fire at that towering Wraithknight!"
"ARE YOU DAFT MAN!?! YOU MIGHT HIT THE MEN WHO COME UP TO ITS ANKLES!!!"


Akiasura wrote:
I hate to sound like a serial killer, but I'll be reaching for my friend occam's razor yet again.


 insaniak wrote:

You're not. If you're worried about your opponent using 'fake' rules, you're having fun the wrong way. This hobby isn't about rules. It's about buying Citadel miniatures.

Please report to your nearest GW store for attitude readjustment. Take your wallet.
 
   
Made in it
Longtime Dakkanaut





Tyel wrote:
Big fan of one chapter tactic per army - in principle at least. I feel it should have been the case from the get go. Then you can (theoretically - whether GW bother is another question) balance the various subfactions on the assumption players will have X or Y, rather than inevitably taking the best of both worlds.

Detachment changes potentially more of an issue. It did seem a bit too flexible that Patrol+X almost always gave you more slots than you'd ever need. Equally however I'm not sure a more restrictive system (see lengthy threads) improves the game. Some leaning for people to take a battalion isn't the worst thing in the world.


Funny thing is that this WAS the case from the get go.

Marines are limited to one subfaction.
Necrons are limited to one subfaction.

Then in typical GW fashion, the design changed mid way and the next dexes could mix subfactions.

For some reason, GW decided to go back to it in the more recent dexes, so GSC and Custodes cannot mix subfactions.
Now, according to this rumor, GW for the first time in years has decided to actually fix the mess they made and are retroactively updating the other dexes to follow the correct design.
   
Made in gb
Regular Dakkanaut





 Void__Dragon wrote:

This does basically nothing to most Crusher Stampede Tyranid lists, which tend to run a single detachment. And which also just sweeped most tournaments recent.

By comparison this guts any Daemons list which combines a Slaanesh detachment with a mixed detachment, which mosts lists trying to be competitive do.

It is disingenuous or ignorant to insinuate this is a change that affects everyone equally. My Daemons army will feel this change a lot more than my Custodes one.


I'd argue that the crusher stampede only "swept" recent tournaments because it is new and people aren't sure how to deal with it. But you're right about deamons, I hadn't thought about them. Hopefully they would get an exception to this when their new codex drops later this year? Although now that I think about it, it would be best to exempt all 8th edition codexs from this restriction?
   
Made in de
Ladies Love the Vibro-Cannon Operator






Hamburg

Spoletta wrote:
Tyel wrote:
Big fan of one chapter tactic per army - in principle at least. I feel it should have been the case from the get go. Then you can (theoretically - whether GW bother is another question) balance the various subfactions on the assumption players will have X or Y, rather than inevitably taking the best of both worlds.

Detachment changes potentially more of an issue. It did seem a bit too flexible that Patrol+X almost always gave you more slots than you'd ever need. Equally however I'm not sure a more restrictive system (see lengthy threads) improves the game. Some leaning for people to take a battalion isn't the worst thing in the world.


Funny thing is that this WAS the case from the get go.

Marines are limited to one subfaction.
Necrons are limited to one subfaction.

Then in typical GW fashion, the design changed mid way and the next dexes could mix subfactions.

For some reason, GW decided to go back to it in the more recent dexes, so GSC and Custodes cannot mix subfactions.
Now, according to this rumor, GW for the first time in years has decided to actually fix the mess they made and are retroactively updating the other dexes to follow the correct design.

How will the rule with subfactions be implemented?
Having the faction keywords in common?

BA has IMPERIUM, ADEPTUS ASTARTES, BLOOD ANGELS.

NECRONS have NECTION, <DYNASTY>

Former moderator 40kOnline

Lanchester's square law - please obey in list building!

Illumini: "And thank you for not finishing your post with a "" I'm sorry, but after 7200 's that has to be the most annoying sign-off ever."

Armies: Eldar, Necrons, Blood Angels, Grey Knights; World Eaters (30k); Bloodbound; Cryx, Circle, Cyriss 
   
Made in de
Ork Admiral Kroozin Da Kosmos on Da Hulk






 vipoid wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:
I think making patrols less versatile is a good thing, there was just not enough reason to take any other detachment. You now need to bring the 3 CP detachments instead of 3x patrols.


It's a good job GW hasn't built an entire faction around taking multiple patrols in lieu of normal detachments, otherwise players of said faction might be really fething annoyed by this change.


Are we talking about the faction that is literally dominating both casual and tournaments because of how versatile patrols are?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Void__Dragon wrote:
By comparison this guts any Daemons list which combines a Slaanesh detachment with a mixed detachment, which mosts lists trying to be competitive do.

It is disingenuous or ignorant to insinuate this is a change that affects everyone equally. My Daemons army will feel this change a lot more than my Custodes one.


No matter how this is implemented, chaos alignments should not be considered subfaction rules, period.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2022/01/13 11:18:23


Earth is not flat
Vaccines work
We've been to the moon
Climate change is real
Chemtrails aren't a thing
Evolution is a fact
Orks are not a melee army
Stand up for science!
 
   
Made in us
Enigmatic Chaos Sorcerer




The dark hollows of Kentucky

Who this affects and how depends on exactly how it limits subfaction soup. If all it does is remove mono-faction bonuses, then 8th edition codexes won't be affected. If it limits you to one faction trait and one set of warlord traits, relics and, most importantly, strategems, then it affects almost everyone.
   
Made in us
Painlord Titan Princeps of Slaanesh




Back in the old days Daemons did not get along. I can't remember if you couldn't have different types in the same army or you had to roll to see if they fought each other rather than the enemy (like the old ork rule).
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: