Switch Theme:

no more mixed subfactions  [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 gb
Tzeentch Veteran Marine with Psychic Potential




dorset

ok, original article here:

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2022/01/21/war-zone-nachmund-grand-tournament-mission-pack-means-new-tactical-challenges-and-more-exciting-games/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=warhammer-40,000&utm_content=gtmissionarticle210122&fbclid=IwAR3hU2tQNvFRZrZJwXNb15P8655Mgf6b0COR2F1SFsG0v-rzLcExdLyaLYg


of note, and reason for the title,is the following:

The biggest change to list building are selectable sub-faction keywords such as <Chapter>. Originally these were picked on a unit-by-unit basis, so squads and Detachments could come from different subfactions. This selection is now made when you start to build your list, and the sub-faction you choose now replaces every example of that keyword – meaning your whole army now has to come from the same grouping.


ergo, no mixed cults thousand sons, no multi brotherhood grey knights, etc.

Additionally, thier is now rule stating that you must pick 2 secondary objectives form the GT pack, so no more marines double dipping with 'dex and supplement.


thiers also a change to fortiifcation rules to let you remove terrain to fit one into your deployment zone.


what are everyones thoughts on this? for some armies its a non-issue, but for others it really screws their current meta builds.


Then it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an` Tommy, 'ow's yer soul? "
But it's " Thin red line of 'eroes " when the drums begin to roll
The drums begin to roll, my boys, the drums begin to roll,
O it's " Thin red line of 'eroes, " when the drums begin to roll.
"Tommy", Rudyard Kipling
Exporitor force kappa-Tercia 500pts Coven of XVth 1000pts
Western Host 1500 pts Watch Company Rho 1000pts
 
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




UK

I think its sensible.

Age of Sigmar already runs like that with you having one army and one faction choice within that army (core army or subfaction).


I think it cuts out a load of min-maxing elements in building an army and makes people commit to a subfaction as an army rather than just min maxing out a generic army.

It will change the meta for some armies, but it shouldn't break them.


It will also mean that unit stats are more easily communicated and recalled during the game as the whole army will be under one subfaction set of rules not multiple.


Fortification rules seem to be sensible too as GW has pushed for more and more "faction" terrain types and has often made them rather large; which can be impractical to impossible to fit on some pre-designed tables. So in a formal setting its good to have a rule that does let you move/remove terrain to fit part of your army and faction on the table instead of having to lose it.

Print Hunter
Check out the latest 3D print model releases!  
   
Made in it
Longtime Dakkanaut





Some AoS faction terrain already behave like that.

Maybe that we will finally see this stuff on the table.
   
Made in it
Waaagh! Ork Warboss




Italy

Good change. Mixing chapters/equivalents is nothing more than a lame gamey mechanic and I'm glad it's gone from matched play.

 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





Tampa,FL USA

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/802968.page

Maybe we shouldn't have two of the same thread right next to each other?

You know you're really doing something when you can make strangers hate you over the Internet. - Mauleed
Just remember folks. Panic. Panic all the time. It's the only way to survive, other than just being mindful, of course-but geez, that's so friggin' boring. - Aegis Grimm
Hallowed is the All Pie
The Before Times: A Place That Celebrates The World That Was 
   
Made in us
Ultramarine Terminator with Assault Cannon





 Blackie wrote:
Good change. Mixing chapters/equivalents is nothing more than a lame gamey mechanic and I'm glad it's gone from matched play.


With that said another Chapter Trait just for paint job crusading/multi chapter armies wouldn't be unwelcome - like that Grey Shields thing they had in Indomitus. Where you can paint up an Imperial Fists That, an Ultramarines This, and a Dark Angels Something Else Entirely but they get this "Crusader Army" CT - at that fluff wise it's different, but rules wise it's not soup, just paint job.

My WHFB armies were Bretonians and Tomb Kings. 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut



London

Maybe rename this for fortifications?

Because I have some seriously large terrain pieces. Sadly I note it is only one terrain piece, still should allow for a fair bit more flexibility.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





Tampa,FL USA

Breton wrote:
 Blackie wrote:
Good change. Mixing chapters/equivalents is nothing more than a lame gamey mechanic and I'm glad it's gone from matched play.


With that said another Chapter Trait just for paint job crusading/multi chapter armies wouldn't be unwelcome - like that Grey Shields thing they had in Indomitus. Where you can paint up an Imperial Fists That, an Ultramarines This, and a Dark Angels Something Else Entirely but they get this "Crusader Army" CT - at that fluff wise it's different, but rules wise it's not soup, just paint job.


The new Vanguard Army of Renown they teased mentions it replaces your CT, so having an Army of Renown like that isn't out of the question.

You know you're really doing something when you can make strangers hate you over the Internet. - Mauleed
Just remember folks. Panic. Panic all the time. It's the only way to survive, other than just being mindful, of course-but geez, that's so friggin' boring. - Aegis Grimm
Hallowed is the All Pie
The Before Times: A Place That Celebrates The World That Was 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut



London

And someone remind me, does a fortification have to be fully within my deployment zone?
   
Made in gb
Frenzied Berserker Terminator




Southampton, UK

So... How does that work for Dark Eldar and their multiple patrols style of deployment?
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





Tampa,FL USA

Crispy78 wrote:
So... How does that work for Dark Eldar and their multiple patrols style of deployment?


Each of the 3 styles have different Keywords. You can still have one of each Keyword type, you just can't do 2 different Covens anymore.

You know you're really doing something when you can make strangers hate you over the Internet. - Mauleed
Just remember folks. Panic. Panic all the time. It's the only way to survive, other than just being mindful, of course-but geez, that's so friggin' boring. - Aegis Grimm
Hallowed is the All Pie
The Before Times: A Place That Celebrates The World That Was 
   
Made in pt
[DCM]
Secret Inquisitorial Eldar Xenexecutor






your mind

I think that encouraging people to replace terrain pieces with what are effectively units which are buildings etc makes 40k on the tabletop too much like 40k Dawn of War or some rts video bs. Sure, such a thing can be interesting when associated with a mission or narrative scenario etc but as a standard way to play, no thanks.

As for not mixing units re "soup" this may be a good thing, but my expectation is that it is more noise and will not improve the game or the hobby, only add wrinkles of change so that hobbyists are forced to buy new units to fill out collections that had otherwise used mixed units for play.

Personally, I think that "armies" like Custodes and Harlequins should NOT be stand alone forces, ever, not even close, and the same really for SoB. IMHO, these should be subfactions which need help from e.g. Imp Guard or CWE in order to wage war i.e. fill out 2000pt full armies. Custodes IMHO should not be anywhere near a tyranid, for example, unless there is some scenario whereby GSC infiltrates a holy reliquery too closely associated with Terra to ignore the possible invasion threat, something like that maybe, but otherwise, such factions whould be relegated to sub-faction status whereby they might fill in some unit selections for affiliated main forces without necessary penalty depending on the scenario. For instance, Harlies discover that Crons are getting too close to a webway entrance that is critical for resources used also by a CW, so they alert the CWE of the threat and accompany them to the battlefield, again without penalty. There would seem to be a number of ways that such a constraint might be implemented that remains flexible enough to accommodate varied model collections, but... heck, now that different weapons do different things by way of strategems, rather than simply by being different weapons and performing differently on the battlefield, I have been thinking that GW has zero idea how to make a decent game system, and are rather focused on how to trick out edition after edition with new card packs and gamey nast until frankly more serious hobbyists lose interest. The rest will split their time between MtG and the GW equivalent, as the actual models and the actual battlefield mean less and less.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/01/21 15:54:13


   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut



London

On the point around small forces (Custodes, Harlequins, Deathwatch etc.) being stand alone... well 40k is at most company level. They should be able to rustle up such forces even if at larger scales they would be an allied detachment.
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




UK

I think there are some cases where GW has tried to make a small force stand alone and have had to pull back - eg the Inquisition. However in most cases its where they've taken a niche of an army that already exists and tried to flesh it out into a fully army, but not given them enough models.


The lore is actually not a barrier at all as that can change on a whim. The barrier is the variety of models on offer. Ergo can a player build a varied, diverse and functional army of Custodes is more important than if the lore (at any one point in time) allows that army to be fielded.

Because after that what we play on the tabletop is nuts - we have heroes going against heroes who are generations apart; lightyears away from each other; who would never EVER fight each other. We have generals who would be miles behind the front lines; on the front lines; we have artillery and aircraft and tanks and support and troops and all mashed in together. The lore just doesn't work


The important thing is really if the army works on the tabletop and is fun. Sometimes armies are split out but don't have enough - eg the Imperium had the Inquisition and the Eldar have Harliquins - both are tiny model ranges in general and whilst they "can" field an army only of their own models; its a very limited range of choices compared to a "normal" force. At which point they either spam set units or they ally in a side force. GW can bring those sub-armies back into the fold (which they have done for both) or they can make them stand alone even more. Such as they did with Genestealer Cults who, at launch, were mostly Imperial troops with a few themed leader models and infantry blocks. Now they are a diverse force that doesn't really lean on the Imperial model line at all and I'd wager as their line steadily expands they'll move more and more away from it. They've gone from corrupted Imperial Guard to a force of uprising miners and industrial workers (for the most part visually speaking).


Print Hunter
Check out the latest 3D print model releases!  
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

But Brood Brothers weren't cut from the book due to fluff changing or because there's now "more" in the GSC range. They were cut because GW don't sell Brood Brother kits outside of a single conversion sprue. The decision, like all their rule decisions, were based entirely upon the plastic sprues they sell.

It's got absolutely feth all to do with balance, fluff or anything else. It's just an extension of no model/no rule.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2022/01/21 16:37:47


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

 
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




UK

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
But Brood Brothers weren't cut from the book due to fluff changing. They were cut because GW don't sell Brood Brother kits outside of a single conversion sprue.



Aye, the fluff didn't change, but the army on the tabletop did change. Heck you can still split in a lot of Imperial stuff if you want.

My point is that at launch GSC were basically Imperial Guard with a few extra options and conversions. They were in effect a sub-faction of the Imperial Guard.


At that stage GW could have retired them into fully a subfaction force; or they could have added to them to make them more diverse as a model range to stand on their own.


In the case of the GSC they went for the latter; in the case of the Inquisition and Harlies they've gone for the former. Of course going back into an army isn't the end, GW might just not see Harlies being added too in a significant way over the next 1-2 editions worth of releases; but you never know a few additional models and a second wave and they could splinter out again in the future.



In short my point is that sub-faction forces that "deserve" to be full armies is, again, based more on the model range than on the lore. SoB could have been a sub-faction force at one stage; same as Custodes. However both (esp Sisters) have now fleshed out into their own unique army. There's too many models, too many choices and too much internal structure to make them a sub-force even if the lore allowed for it (which it honestly doesn't really).

Print Hunter
Check out the latest 3D print model releases!  
   
Made in ca
Preacher of the Emperor






 jeff white wrote:
I think that encouraging people to replace terrain pieces with what are effectively units which are buildings etc makes 40k on the tabletop too much like 40k Dawn of War or some rts video bs. Sure, such a thing can be interesting when associated with a mission or narrative scenario etc but as a standard way to play, no thanks.


I get where you're coming from here, but GW has been trying to sell fortifications for editions on end at this point and the fact that they were almost guaranteed to be unplayable on a board with the prescribed amount of terrain was a problem that needs to be addressed since they keep forgetting about it between game systems and editions.


 jeff white wrote:
Personally, I think that "armies" like Custodes and Harlequins should NOT be stand alone forces, ever, not even close, and the same really for SoB. IMHO, these should be subfactions which need help from e.g. Imp Guard or CWE in order to wage war i.e. fill out 2000pt full armies. Custodes IMHO should not be anywhere near a tyranid, for example, unless there is some scenario whereby GSC infiltrates a holy reliquery too closely associated with Terra to ignore the possible invasion threat, something like that maybe, but otherwise, such factions whould be relegated to sub-faction status whereby they might fill in some unit selections for affiliated main forces without necessary penalty depending on the scenario. For instance, Harlies discover that Crons are getting too close to a webway entrance that is critical for resources used also by a CW, so they alert the CWE of the threat and accompany them to the battlefield, again without penalty.


SoB only really take this kind of roll in Guard books, your idea for Custodes used to describe Grey Knights pretty well though.

   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




NE Ohio, USA

I think that terrain change should be:
1) per Fortification unit taken - to account for somebody taking the full network of 3. Granted, an unlikely occurrence, but still....
2) Just a general errata to the fortification rules & not tied to 2022 matched play.
   
Made in ca
Longtime Dakkanaut





 jeff white wrote:

Personally, I think that "armies" like Custodes and Harlequins should NOT be stand alone forces, ever, not even close, and the same really for SoB. IMHO, these should be subfactions which need help from e.g. Imp Guard or CWE in order to wage war i.e. fill out 2000pt full armies. Custodes IMHO should not be anywhere near a tyranid, for example, unless there is some scenario whereby GSC infiltrates a holy reliquery too closely associated with Terra to ignore the possible invasion threat, something like that maybe, but otherwise, such factions whould be relegated to sub-faction status whereby they might fill in some unit selections for affiliated main forces without necessary penalty depending on the scenario. For instance, Harlies discover that Crons are getting too close to a webway entrance that is critical for resources used also by a CW, so they alert the CWE of the threat and accompany them to the battlefield, again without penalty.


Well Jeff, to put it succinctly, you're wrong.

First: The 9th edition of the game provides support for games at 500 and 1k points. Whether or not you can make a 2k army out of it is no longer a factor in determining whether or not a faction should get its own book and be a real force.

Second: The detachment system already does allow exactly what you're talking about in the last two lines of your post. Outside of the new GT 2022 Mission Pack, the draw backs were: pay CP for the additional detachment and lose faction purity bonus. No need to re-invent the wheel.

Third: Some fluff has been updated now that 40k is not taking place in a static setting. The Indomitus Crusade is cannon now, so whether or not Custodes make sense as an army is a decision that must be made within that context. Morven Vahl is now the Abbess of BOTH Sororitas convents AND a High Lord of Terra, and she is actively involved in promotion wars of faith across the galaxy. And Harlequins, like all Eldar, have had to reconsider the old ways in like of the Ynarri.

Now sure, you can argue that the new fluff doesn't meet with your standards; you can speculate that the fluff ONLY exists to justify the models/ dexes and revenue; you can argue that YOU think 40k should have continued to exist frozen in a static setting forever. Those are valid opinions.

Fourth: I don't want to go backwards and lose things that some players want because people who preferred other editions of the game, or who prefer balance at any cost think it should be so. Quite frankly, it was the return of the GSC at the tag end of 7th that brought me back to this game, and the revamp of the sisters range that kept me. The new factions, which you don't think deserve to be here, might be one of the reasons 8th outsold all previous versions of the game and 9th outsold 8th.

If YOU don't like Harlies, or Custodes, or GSC or SOB don't f*&^ing play them. Proposing that they should be taken away from those who DO play them is pretty offensive- though I acknowledge that likely wasn't your intention.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/01/21 18:03:47


 
   
Made in gb
Never Forget Isstvan!






What I would be interested to know is how much of an impact this has on the average player (i.e. your local store goers or gaming groups). Personally, I only run single faction armies anyway just for less bookkeeping, and all the peeps in my group run the same.
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




UK

It might not have much impact, but it stops the trickle down impact from the tournamnets


It might also start to stop the creep of "paint influences gameplay" rules which have been slipping into some event packs. Ergo the "if you painted using X Subfaction scheme you must use only that subfaction.


With multi-subfaction this gets confusing if they've all the same scheme; however if you have only one per army/player then the paint scheme no longer matters as you don't have to tell different units apart from each other at the army level.

Print Hunter
Check out the latest 3D print model releases!  
   
Made in ca
Longtime Dakkanaut





It won't affect me because I play only Crusade and only with a like minded group. Multi-subfaction and even multifaction armies are not uncommon in the campaign, but it's all story-based, so game events drive army composition.

That said, I am curious to see the text of the rule, because I want to confirm that it is worded in such a way that it unambiguously applies ONLY to matched play. The Warcom article seems to indicat that it may be a part of the Muster Armies rules: if so, mission achieved- every mode of play has its own unique rules for mustering armies.
   
Made in us
Veteran Knight Baron in a Crusader






PenitentJake wrote:
It won't affect me because I play only Crusade and only with a like minded group. Multi-subfaction and even multifaction armies are not uncommon in the campaign, but it's all story-based, so game events drive army composition.

That said, I am curious to see the text of the rule, because I want to confirm that it is worded in such a way that it unambiguously applies ONLY to matched play. The Warcom article seems to indicat that it may be a part of the Muster Armies rules: if so, mission achieved- every mode of play has its own unique rules for mustering armies.


From an early access/leaked/pre-release book
Spoiler:

I'm on a podcast about (video) game design:
https://anchor.fm/makethatgame
And I also stream tabletop painting/playing Mon&Thurs 8PM EST
https://twitch.tv/tableitgaming 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





I would MUCH rather see Guard/Marines mix than mixing chapters.
   
Made in gb
Regular Dakkanaut




I...quite like these changes overall..I think....

As a Tyranid player, I'll be sad to see my trusty support detachment of Kronos go, but i can still use it in narrative games.

Losing multiple sub-factions hurts, but I think it will definitely have a positive impact on the tournament scene eventually. Every sub-faction has its things that its good or bad at, so this amplifies the importance of that choice.

P.S. i also like how this makes the Drukhari "realspace raid" detachment even more unique, a sit now seem to be the only way of getting multiple subfaction bonuses in the game

I am all for restrictions that make a player have to live with the downsides of a particular subfaction instead of simply covering it by taking a second (or third) detachment of something else (see hive guard kronos as mentioned above) as this places more of an emphasis on good generalship and skill rather than list building.

Am i sad i can't take my dark angel/space wolf
"Lion and the Wolf" themed army to a tournament?

No, not really.

I know I'm about to get pillioried by many for what I'm about to say, but when It comes to competitive play LESS IS MORE (as in army building options) because I beleive it then becomes more about how you play with what you have rather than just being about what you have, requiring better generalship on the table.

The BIG caveat to this of course, is GW being able to (as i now call it) "pull a GSC" and make each subfaction seem viable and have a different emphasis on playstyle without there being obviously trash options. This is reliant on the GW rules team (yes...i know..i know....)

Fortification change is ok I suppose, but as the only fortification I own is a Sporocyst which does not want to be deployed in my own zone its a bit "meh" for me.

Could be useful for any Imp players wanting to use some buildings/gun emplacements etc though.

Can't comment on objective changes until I have seen them all.

I

   
Made in us
Confessor Of Sins




 Gert wrote:
What I would be interested to know is how much of an impact this has on the average player (i.e. your local store goers or gaming groups). Personally, I only run single faction armies anyway just for less bookkeeping, and all the peeps in my group run the same.


It mostly depends on what factions they play. The vast majority of Sisters of Battle players played 2 factions because the rules were simple to remember (shoot stuff shoot better, fight stuff fight better) and because it was massively superior to running mono-faction.

This combine with the point hikes will likely mean you'll see this less (and by this, I mean Sisters of Battle.)

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/01/21 19:33:02


2500pts
2500
3000


 
   
Made in gb
Tzeentch Veteran Marine with Psychic Potential




dorset

With regards to dark eldar, correct me if i am wrong, but since they have both <kabal> and <wych cult> they could still take both, since they are different selectable keywords?

Then it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an` Tommy, 'ow's yer soul? "
But it's " Thin red line of 'eroes " when the drums begin to roll
The drums begin to roll, my boys, the drums begin to roll,
O it's " Thin red line of 'eroes, " when the drums begin to roll.
"Tommy", Rudyard Kipling
Exporitor force kappa-Tercia 500pts Coven of XVth 1000pts
Western Host 1500 pts Watch Company Rho 1000pts
 
   
Made in us
Veteran Knight Baron in a Crusader






xerxeskingofking wrote:
With regards to dark eldar, correct me if i am wrong, but since they have both <kabal> and <wych cult> they could still take both, since they are different selectable keywords?


Correct.

I'm on a podcast about (video) game design:
https://anchor.fm/makethatgame
And I also stream tabletop painting/playing Mon&Thurs 8PM EST
https://twitch.tv/tableitgaming 
   
Made in gb
Regular Dakkanaut




xerxeskingofking wrote:
With regards to dark eldar, correct me if i am wrong, but since they have both <kabal> and <wych cult> they could still take both, since they are different selectable keywords?


Yep, turns out I hadn't fully understood what they were saying. but yes, drukhari could still take say 3 patrols rather than a realspace raid.
   
Made in us
Scarred Ultramarine Tyrannic War Veteran






My opinion of the current mission design aside... These changes are good.
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: