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 ca
Deranged Necron Destroyer






TangoTwoBravo wrote:
I like sub-factions. They add flavour and variety. This is a miniatures game where we collect and paint our models from the rich background of 40K.

I also think that in a Matched Play game you should only have one sub-faction. There will always be exceptions - no issues, for instance, with an Imperial Knight in an Astra Militarum force. We should remove, however, the ability to cherrypick sub-factions to gain a variety of benefits/ avoid drawbacks. Make a decision and stick with it!


If you can't mix subfactions, you can't mix. No freaking exceptions (for Matched Play). Imperials already have the lion's share of options and choice.

Girl Gamers are the best! 
   
Made in us
Painlord Titan Princeps of Slaanesh




I would think a nice compromise would be something like this-

You can take as many subfactions as your Codex <Keyword> allows but you may only use the rules from 1 of your subfactions and only on their units. So if you want to mix your marines and guard that's fine but either you have a marine or a guard special rule. Or you could say that you only get the benefits of your designated Army Commander and any unitls that would normally be found under him. (Fluffwise you can say that the overall commander is only familiar with his training and therefore the other subfaction's abilities are not used to their fullest).
   
Made in ie
Battleship Captain





 Blndmage wrote:
tneva82 wrote:

Subfactions are bad for game balance to begin with.


Ok, remove them all then. Marines don't get a special exemption. One Necron army, One Space Marine army, One Alderi army.


Unironically yes. I feel like you're trying to be facetious but for a majority of 40k's there were almost no subfactions (different flavours of space marines not withstanding) and people were perfectly happy representing subfactions via list composition and paint schemes.


 
   
Made in ca
Deranged Necron Destroyer






 Sim-Life wrote:
 Blndmage wrote:
tneva82 wrote:

Subfactions are bad for game balance to begin with.


Ok, remove them all then. Marines don't get a special exemption. One Necron army, One Space Marine army, One Alderi army.


Unironically yes. I feel like you're trying to be facetious but for a majority of 40k's there were almost no subfactions (different flavours of space marines not withstanding) and people were perfectly happy representing subfactions via list composition and paint schemes.


Not being facetious.

If different Tomb Words, etc don't get special flavours, neither do Marines. If we want to make Matched Play as fair as we can, that's it.

Girl Gamers are the best! 
   
Made in ca
Secretive Dark Angels Veteran



Canada

 Blndmage wrote:
 Sim-Life wrote:
 Blndmage wrote:
tneva82 wrote:

Subfactions are bad for game balance to begin with.


Ok, remove them all then. Marines don't get a special exemption. One Necron army, One Space Marine army, One Alderi army.


Unironically yes. I feel like you're trying to be facetious but for a majority of 40k's there were almost no subfactions (different flavours of space marines not withstanding) and people were perfectly happy representing subfactions via list composition and paint schemes.


Not being facetious.

If different Tomb Words, etc don't get special flavours, neither do Marines. If we want to make Matched Play as fair as we can, that's it.


OK - lots going on here.

There have been distinct Codexes for Dark Angels, Blood Angels, Space Wolves and Ultramarines since 2nd Ed. They are are part of the game. I am happy to see other factions get their sub-factions.

I think you are shooting at the wrong target. I said I am fine with Imperial Knights being in an Astra Militarum list. I didn't say you should be able to mix Dark Angels and Blood Angels in the same list. There are likely other reasonable exceptions out there for Matched Play: Cults and Covens for instance but not two Covens.

All you have to do is fire three rounds a minute, and stand 
   
Made in gb
Fixture of Dakka







SW were the first 'dex in 2nd edition, even - Ultramarines and Angels of Death followed later.

GSC and Ad Mech featured in Codex: Imperialis and the Black Book for the edition, with GSC also showing up in the Tyranids book IIRC. Harlequins were in the Eldar 'dex.

Necrons barely made it into the edition, and Dark Eldar and Tau were nary a twinkle in a designer's eye at the time. Given manufacturing at the time, Knights of any form were Right Out.

2021 Plog - Here we go again... - my fifth attempt at a Dakka PLOG

My [url=https://pileofpotential.com/dysartes]Pile of Potential[/url - updates ongoing...

Gamgee on Tau Players wrote:we all kill cats and sell our own families to the devil and eat live puppies.


 Kanluwen wrote:
This is, emphatically, why I will continue suggesting nuking Guard and starting over again. It's a legacy army that needs to be rebooted with a new focal point.

Confirmation of why no-one should listen to Kanluwen when it comes to the IG - he doesn't want the IG, he want's Kan's New Model Army... 
   
Made in us
Confessor Of Sins




TangoTwoBravo wrote:
 Blndmage wrote:
 Sim-Life wrote:
 Blndmage wrote:
tneva82 wrote:

Subfactions are bad for game balance to begin with.


Ok, remove them all then. Marines don't get a special exemption. One Necron army, One Space Marine army, One Alderi army.


Unironically yes. I feel like you're trying to be facetious but for a majority of 40k's there were almost no subfactions (different flavours of space marines not withstanding) and people were perfectly happy representing subfactions via list composition and paint schemes.


Not being facetious.

If different Tomb Words, etc don't get special flavours, neither do Marines. If we want to make Matched Play as fair as we can, that's it.


OK - lots going on here.

There have been distinct Codexes for Dark Angels, Blood Angels, Space Wolves and Ultramarines since 2nd Ed. They are are part of the game. I am happy to see other factions get their sub-factions.

I think you are shooting at the wrong target. I said I am fine with Imperial Knights being in an Astra Militarum list. I didn't say you should be able to mix Dark Angels and Blood Angels in the same list. There are likely other reasonable exceptions out there for Matched Play: Cults and Covens for instance but not two Covens.


One marine codex for all marines. All chapter specific units go to legends. If you want to represent different space marine subfactions, do so through paint schemes and list composition.

2500pts
2500
3000


 
   
Made in de
Longtime Dakkanaut



Bamberg / Erlangen

ERJAK wrote:
One marine codex for all marines. All chapter specific units go to legends. If you want to represent different space marine subfactions, do so through paint schemes and list composition.

Fixed it for you. Chapter specific units just need a rebrand to be usable by anyone. Surely Blood Angels aren't the only Chapter in the galaxy to use Librarian Dreadnoughts? Or Space Wolves the only ones who make use of monsters as steeds?
Sub-factions have been a fun part of 40k ever since. Not everybody got developed enough to have enough fans for sub-factions, but that is a different story.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/01/14 23:31:09


Imperial Guard Space Marines
 
   
Made in us
Confessor Of Sins





Tacoma, WA, USA

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
tneva82 wrote:
How is argent shroud retributor and bloody rose retributor supposed to be balanced? If game is balanced those should be equally viable options. Why only one is seen though?
I am unfamiliar with their rules. Sisters remain one of the armies in 40k that I do not play.

However, from what you are describing, it would appear that one sub-faction has a rule that cause a problem, so the proper way to fix that would be to fix that specific sub-faction and not completely change how sub-factions operate across the entire game.

You fix specific problems with specific solutions. Not with general game-changing ones.
This is a case of subfaction rules that allow you to push your army into a specific style of play being better for some units than others. Argent Shroud (Counts as Remains Stationary when you make a Normal Move or Advance; Unit may re-roll one Wound Roll when it attacks) Retributors (aka Sisters Devastators) are better than Bloody Rose Retributors (If your unit Charge/Were Charged/Heroic Intervention gains +1 Attack and an additional -1 AP on melee attacks) are not equal. They will never be equal short of totally eliminating their subfaction bonus. However, the same bonuses that make AS better than BS for Retributors make Repentia (no ranged weapons with Power Fist) better for BS than AS.

Providing balanced point values for these the army when you can reasonably expect to see both in the same army with the same subfaction trait (so the better of the two balances out the worst) is a lot easier than when you expect to see Argent Shroud Retributors and Bloody Rose Repentia in the same army.

Yeah, you can eliminate the subfaction traits to make everything balanced. Then you get blander armies that are easier to solve for the best lists.
   
Made in us
Confessor Of Sins




 alextroy wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
tneva82 wrote:
How is argent shroud retributor and bloody rose retributor supposed to be balanced? If game is balanced those should be equally viable options. Why only one is seen though?
I am unfamiliar with their rules. Sisters remain one of the armies in 40k that I do not play.

However, from what you are describing, it would appear that one sub-faction has a rule that cause a problem, so the proper way to fix that would be to fix that specific sub-faction and not completely change how sub-factions operate across the entire game.

You fix specific problems with specific solutions. Not with general game-changing ones.
This is a case of subfaction rules that allow you to push your army into a specific style of play being better for some units than others. Argent Shroud (Counts as Remains Stationary when you make a Normal Move or Advance; Unit may re-roll one Wound Roll when it attacks) Retributors (aka Sisters Devastators) are better than Bloody Rose Retributors (If your unit Charge/Were Charged/Heroic Intervention gains +1 Attack and an additional -1 AP on melee attacks) are not equal. They will never be equal short of totally eliminating their subfaction bonus. However, the same bonuses that make AS better than BS for Retributors make Repentia (no ranged weapons with Power Fist) better for BS than AS.

Providing balanced point values for these the army when you can reasonably expect to see both in the same army with the same subfaction trait (so the better of the two balances out the worst) is a lot easier than when you expect to see Argent Shroud Retributors and Bloody Rose Repentia in the same army.


Yeah, you can eliminate the subfaction traits to make everything balanced. Then you get blander armies that are easier to solve for the best lists.


In circumstances where you're forced to take units that are meant for one subfaction in another subfaction, it's quite painful. Being forced to take retributors in Bloody Rose because they're the only even mediocre shooting in the army is painful when you know just how much better they'd be as Argent Shroud. Being forced to take Argent Shroud Zephyrim because they're the only decent option for fast objective contesting is painful when you know how much more effective they'd be as bloody rose.

List building goes from being 'What cool thing should I bring?!' to 'How few of these garbage units must I drag along to avoid essentially locking myself out of either the shooting or combat phase?'

Anecdotally, I've been working on pure bloody rose lists, figuring that there's an off chance the supplement might not be totally unplayable garbage (it will be) and you end up needing to take roughly 400pts of sub-par Retributors because investing those points into what bloody rose wants to do, i.e. melee everything, results in an army that has the shooting power of Chaos Daemons with none of the speed. The book is DESIGNED for these factions to work together and just suddenly going 'nope, can't do that anymore' is a massive kick in the nads.

This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2022/01/15 00:38:08


2500pts
2500
3000


 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





ERJAK wrote:
List building goes from being 'What cool thing should I bring?!' to 'How few of these garbage units must I drag along to avoid essentially locking myself out of either the shooting or combat phase?'

Which is why just suddenly ditching subfaction mixing is just the dumbest thing GW have done this edition.


You could look at it that way. You could otherwise take the perspective that you have to be more careful in how you build your list instead of just selecting all the best combinations available.

- +1A +1AP on your best melee and remain stationary and reroll a h/w on your best shooting, but no miracle dice
- +1A +1AP on your best melee and miracle dice
- remain stationary and reroll a h/w on your best shooting and miracle dice

That, to me, seems like more nuanced decision making than what came before. Is it all going to work universally? Not likely. There's a ton of moving parts and there will be winners and losers, no doubt, but I'm willing to see it play out.

   
Made in ca
Longtime Dakkanaut





 Daedalus81 wrote:


- +1A +1AP on your best melee and remain stationary and reroll a h/w on your best shooting, but no miracle dice
- +1A +1AP on your best melee and miracle dice
- remain stationary and reroll a h/w on your best shooting and miracle dice

That, to me, seems like more nuanced decision making than what came before. Is it all going to work universally? Not likely. There's a ton of moving parts and there will be winners and losers, no doubt, but I'm willing to see it play out.


Usually it feels like you and I are on the same page Daed, or at least in the same neighbourhood. And you are right that it's a more nuanced decision... But the problem is that not all factions have to make similar "more nuanced decisions" as a result of this change. As mentioned numerous times in the thread, there are five or so factions who this REALLY hurts and it doesn't really touch anyone else.

As you know if you read my posts, it ain't gonna make a huge difference to me because my group is going to do what we want to do no matter what the book says. But I did build a huge fluffy campaign involving all six Orders of the Sororitas hunting the relics that each of them carry in the Triumph of Saint Katherine and then fight their way across the galaxy to meet with these relics to form the first ever Triumph in the history of the Imperium. It was going to be absolutely EPIC, fluffy as F%&^ and until these ridiculous sacrifices in the name of balance, 100% book legal.

We're already invested, and the ball is already rolling, so I think we're going full steam ahead regardless, but I pity all the other players who, for example, want to tell da story of da greatest Waaagh in da history of da Galuxy wif da warboss who unites all da klans against da humies! Because multi-sub armies are baked into every page of the lore for some factions, and Matched play books are supposed to change matched play rules only.

Messing with detachment rules is a game level change, not a modal change. Now there is still the vague hope that GW very explicitly states "Crusade players can ignore anything and everything in this book."

There's also a chance that all chaos factions will receive exemptions from these rules in their fluff, because of all the factions they are the ones for whom this makes the least sense given 30 years of established lore.

But barring those two slim possibilities, you've just watched every Crusade group that happens to be less open minded than mine lose access to dozens if not hundreds of possible story hooks for the sake of tweaking the results in a few ridiculous overhyped tournaments in which far less than a tenth of the player base for this game will EVER participate.

FFS, I can barely afford to play 40k- you think I'm hopping on a plane to get to one of the what, two dozen cities in the entire world that actually host GT's? During Covid?

Leave my stories the F&^* alone.

(Sorry to swear at you bro- that's not actually what I'm doing- I'm merely expressing frustration with the ideas represented by these changes, and unfortunately I'm replying to ALL the posts that support these ideas, but only actually quoting yours. Usually I'm capable of greater diplomacy, but Matched play has grown a little too big for its britches and is now messing with MY game.)

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2022/01/15 02:38:48


 
   
Made in us
Confessor Of Sins





Tacoma, WA, USA

ERJAK wrote:
Spoiler:
 alextroy wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
tneva82 wrote:
How is argent shroud retributor and bloody rose retributor supposed to be balanced? If game is balanced those should be equally viable options. Why only one is seen though?
I am unfamiliar with their rules. Sisters remain one of the armies in 40k that I do not play.

However, from what you are describing, it would appear that one sub-faction has a rule that cause a problem, so the proper way to fix that would be to fix that specific sub-faction and not completely change how sub-factions operate across the entire game.

You fix specific problems with specific solutions. Not with general game-changing ones.
This is a case of subfaction rules that allow you to push your army into a specific style of play being better for some units than others. Argent Shroud (Counts as Remains Stationary when you make a Normal Move or Advance; Unit may re-roll one Wound Roll when it attacks) Retributors (aka Sisters Devastators) are better than Bloody Rose Retributors (If your unit Charge/Were Charged/Heroic Intervention gains +1 Attack and an additional -1 AP on melee attacks) are not equal. They will never be equal short of totally eliminating their subfaction bonus. However, the same bonuses that make AS better than BS for Retributors make Repentia (no ranged weapons with Power Fist) better for BS than AS.

Providing balanced point values for these the army when you can reasonably expect to see both in the same army with the same subfaction trait (so the better of the two balances out the worst) is a lot easier than when you expect to see Argent Shroud Retributors and Bloody Rose Repentia in the same army.

Yeah, you can eliminate the subfaction traits to make everything balanced. Then you get blander armies that are easier to solve for the best lists.


In circumstances where you're forced to take units that are meant for one subfaction in another subfaction, it's quite painful. Being forced to take retributors in Bloody Rose because they're the only even mediocre shooting in the army is painful when you know just how much better they'd be as Argent Shroud. Being forced to take Argent Shroud Zephyrim because they're the only decent option for fast objective contesting is painful when you know how much more effective they'd be as bloody rose.

List building goes from being 'What cool thing should I bring?!' to 'How few of these garbage units must I drag along to avoid essentially locking myself out of either the shooting or combat phase?'

Anecdotally, I've been working on pure bloody rose lists, figuring that there's an off chance the supplement might not be totally unplayable garbage (it will be) and you end up needing to take roughly 400pts of sub-par Retributors because investing those points into what bloody rose wants to do, i.e. melee everything, results in an army that has the shooting power of Chaos Daemons with none of the speed. The book is DESIGNED for these factions to work together and just suddenly going 'nope, can't do that anymore' is a massive kick in the nads.
I think you are 100% wrong on your analysis here. I sincerely doubt GW designed any of it's armies with the idea that the player should divide up their armies into small subfactions pieces to maximize the effectiveness of every unit by giving them the best subfaction. Rather, they designed for the subfaction rules to make the the same armies play with a different flavor that favors certain styles of play.

PenitentJake wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:


- +1A +1AP on your best melee and remain stationary and reroll a h/w on your best shooting, but no miracle dice
- +1A +1AP on your best melee and miracle dice
- remain stationary and reroll a h/w on your best shooting and miracle dice

That, to me, seems like more nuanced decision making than what came before. Is it all going to work universally? Not likely. There's a ton of moving parts and there will be winners and losers, no doubt, but I'm willing to see it play out.


Usually it feels like you and I are on the same page Daed, or at least in the same neighbourhood. And you are right that it's a more nuanced decision... But the problem is that not all factions have to make similar "more nuanced decisions" as a result of this change. As mentioned numerous times in the thread, there are five or so factions who this REALLY hurts and it doesn't really touch anyone else.

As you know if you read my posts, it ain't gonna make a huge difference to me because my group is going to do what we want to do no matter what the book says. But I did build a huge fluffy campaign involving all six Orders of the Sororitas hunting the relics that each of them carry in the Triumph of Saint Katherine and then fight their way across the galaxy to meet with these relics to form the first ever Triumph in the history of the Imperium. It was going to be absolutely EPIC, fluffy as F%&^ and until these ridiculous sacrifices in the name of balance, 100% book legal.

We're already invested, and the ball is already rolling, so I think we're going full steam ahead regardless, but I pity all the other players who, for example, want to tell da story of da greatest Waaagh in da history of da Galuxy wif da warboss who unites all da klans against da humies! Because multi-sub armies are baked into every page of the lore for some factions, and Matched play books are supposed to change matched play rules only.

Messing with detachment rules is a game level change, not a modal change. Now there is still the vague hope that GW very explicitly states "Crusade players can ignore anything and everything in this book."

There's also a chance that all chaos factions will receive exemptions from these rules in their fluff, because of all the factions they are the ones for whom this makes the least sense given 30 years of established lore.

But barring those two slim possibilities, you've just watched every Crusade group that happens to be less open minded than mine lose access to dozens if not hundreds of possible story hooks for the sake of tweaking the results in a few ridiculous overhyped tournaments in which far less than a tenth of the player base for this game will EVER participate.

FFS, I can barely afford to play 40k- you think I'm hopping on a plane to get to one of the what, two dozen cities in the entire world that actually host GT's? During Covid?

Leave my stories the F&^* alone.

(Sorry to swear at you bro- that's not actually what I'm doing- I'm merely expressing frustration with the ideas represented by these changes, and unfortunately I'm replying to ALL the posts that support these ideas, but only actually quoting yours. Usually I'm capable of greater diplomacy, but Matched play has grown a little too big for its britches and is now messing with MY game.)
Maybe my memory is bad, but weren't this changes supposedly for the Grand Tournament pack, not Matched Play in general? It would have zero impact on Crusade in that case.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





It's all good PJ. I get your pain, but I do think it will be ok.

   
Made in fi
5th God of Chaos (O'rly?)





Leo_the_Rat wrote:
I would think a nice compromise would be something like this-

You can take as many subfactions as your Codex <Keyword> allows but you may only use the rules from 1 of your subfactions and only on their units. So if you want to mix your marines and guard that's fine but either you have a marine or a guard special rule. Or you could say that you only get the benefits of your designated Army Commander and any unitls that would normally be found under him. (Fluffwise you can say that the overall commander is only familiar with his training and therefore the other subfaction's abilities are not used to their fullest).


Funny enough that's about how it works in aos with allies. Allies don't get their faction things. Also coalition units are thing who are bit better than allies(they benefit from host army rules. Albeit this would feel odd in 40k. Ig with doctrines?-)

2022 painted/bought: 227/322 
   
Made in au
Dakka Veteran





 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.


oh no how will drukhari ever recover



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.


what? are you living in 2010?
   
Made in it
Longtime Dakkanaut





PenitentJake wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:


- +1A +1AP on your best melee and remain stationary and reroll a h/w on your best shooting, but no miracle dice
- +1A +1AP on your best melee and miracle dice
- remain stationary and reroll a h/w on your best shooting and miracle dice

That, to me, seems like more nuanced decision making than what came before. Is it all going to work universally? Not likely. There's a ton of moving parts and there will be winners and losers, no doubt, but I'm willing to see it play out.


Usually it feels like you and I are on the same page Daed, or at least in the same neighbourhood. And you are right that it's a more nuanced decision... But the problem is that not all factions have to make similar "more nuanced decisions" as a result of this change. As mentioned numerous times in the thread, there are five or so factions who this REALLY hurts and it doesn't really touch anyone else.

As you know if you read my posts, it ain't gonna make a huge difference to me because my group is going to do what we want to do no matter what the book says. But I did build a huge fluffy campaign involving all six Orders of the Sororitas hunting the relics that each of them carry in the Triumph of Saint Katherine and then fight their way across the galaxy to meet with these relics to form the first ever Triumph in the history of the Imperium. It was going to be absolutely EPIC, fluffy as F%&^ and until these ridiculous sacrifices in the name of balance, 100% book legal.

We're already invested, and the ball is already rolling, so I think we're going full steam ahead regardless, but I pity all the other players who, for example, want to tell da story of da greatest Waaagh in da history of da Galuxy wif da warboss who unites all da klans against da humies! Because multi-sub armies are baked into every page of the lore for some factions, and Matched play books are supposed to change matched play rules only.

Messing with detachment rules is a game level change, not a modal change. Now there is still the vague hope that GW very explicitly states "Crusade players can ignore anything and everything in this book."

There's also a chance that all chaos factions will receive exemptions from these rules in their fluff, because of all the factions they are the ones for whom this makes the least sense given 30 years of established lore.

But barring those two slim possibilities, you've just watched every Crusade group that happens to be less open minded than mine lose access to dozens if not hundreds of possible story hooks for the sake of tweaking the results in a few ridiculous overhyped tournaments in which far less than a tenth of the player base for this game will EVER participate.

FFS, I can barely afford to play 40k- you think I'm hopping on a plane to get to one of the what, two dozen cities in the entire world that actually host GT's? During Covid?

Leave my stories the F&^* alone.

(Sorry to swear at you bro- that's not actually what I'm doing- I'm merely expressing frustration with the ideas represented by these changes, and unfortunately I'm replying to ALL the posts that support these ideas, but only actually quoting yours. Usually I'm capable of greater diplomacy, but Matched play has grown a little too big for its britches and is now messing with MY game.)



Those rules are on the GT mission pack.

Are you playing crusade games in GT Events? No? Then why do you care about a rule that is applied only to matched play and only to a part of the matched play games?

The game has 3 ways of play.
Open
Narrative, which includes crusade
Matched, which inclused GT

Why do you worry about a GT rule having effect on your crusade games?
   
Made in it
Waaagh! Ork Warboss




Italy

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
 Void__Dragon wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I dunno. This just seems like another "This specific army/unit is causing a problem, so let's change the rules for everyone!" situation like the aircraft 'fix' from a few weeks back.


Planes got what they deserved friend.


Ah yes, glad to see all these

Dark talon
Corvus blackstar
Voidraven bomber
Harpy
Razorwingjetfighter
razorshark
stormraven
valkyrie
crimson hunter
stormwolf
stormfang
hive crone
hemlock wraithfighters
nephilim
sun shark
heldrake
night scythe
stormtalon
stormhawk

nerfed those were really dominating and oppressive.

Just giving an appropriate points cost to the Archaeopter and Dakkajet was the correct fix, shame GW couldnt just do that.

The previous problems of planes being un-hittable was already fixed with 9th restricting modifiers


None of these models was nerfed. It's the possible spam of those models that was nerfed, which in most cases was never a reasonable chance anyway. Two stormwolfs cost 700+ points.

About the new changes I like the fact that armies should be mono-subfaction. Bringing two subfactions only to maximize the bonuses feels too gamey. I don't see any issue in a mono order SoB army for example. And two of the same kind of subfactions for drukhari was lame.

It's the possible loss of slots in detachments that worries me a little bit, it's something that takes away choices. Now mid tier units might not see the table if the player can't spare slots, only the best ones would be maxed out.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/01/15 08:49:10


 
   
Made in fi
5th God of Chaos (O'rly?)





 Nitro Zeus wrote:
 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.


oh no how will drukhari ever recover



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.


what? are you living in 2010?


You seriouly think gw games can be played competively? For that player skill would need to be deciding factor.

Sleeping is more competive than gw games.

Only noobs think gw games are competive. As is level of skill needed is about 3rd grader. 1st grader can already solve the best army list.

Gw games are beer&pretzel by definition. Kids might think it's competive...until they read rules.

2022 painted/bought: 227/322 
   
Made in it
Longtime Dakkanaut





GW games can 100% be played competitively.

In modern 40K player skill is one of the most important factors in deciding the winner, but if you want to discuss this open another thread.
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

Spoletta wrote:
Why do you worry about a GT rule having effect on your crusade games?
You'd have to be quite naive not to realise that what happens in tournaments eventually metastasises and spreads to the rest of the community.

 Blackie wrote:
None of these models was nerfed. It's the possible spam of those models that was nerfed, which in most cases was never a reasonable chance anyway.
They applied a mass change to the entire game to fix a problem specific to a few aircraft. That's a nerf no matter what weaselly 'but ackshually!' way you want to wriggle out of it.


This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/01/15 09:47:26


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

 
   
Made in gb
Tail-spinning Tomb Blade Pilot




UK

There really is nothing stopping local scenes from just adopting the new missions and secondaries without any of the extra detachment and subfaction changes. This is sort of how 40k is generally played; the rules really are more like guidelines. Even in local RTT's we've often fudged the terrain rules to apply more Obscuring keywords to terrain pieces if we feel the board looks a bit sparse in that respect, so if you're just playing a normal matched play game, and not something that is explicitly competitive tournament practice, I don't see why you can't just have a conversation with your opponent and adapt the rules as you see fit.

In general though I do agree that the subfaction and patrol changes are solutions to problems that didn't exist. It is completely unnecessary and misses the forest for the trees.
   
Made in it
Waaagh! Ork Warboss




Italy

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Spoletta wrote:
Why do you worry about a GT rule having effect on your crusade games?
You'd have to be quite naive not to realise that what happens in tournaments eventually metastasises and spreads to the rest of the community.

 Blackie wrote:
None of these models was nerfed. It's the possible spam of those models that was nerfed, which in most cases was never a reasonable chance anyway.
They applied a mass change to the entire game to fix a problem specific to a few aircraft. That's a nerf no matter what weaselly 'but ackshually!' way you want to wriggle out of it.




It's a nerf only for those who wanted to play 3+ of them. Which weren't many. Sometimes due to high point costs of the units, think about the stormwolf or stormfang gunship, they couldn't do it anyway. The vast majority of the players who were bringing those models has not been affected at all by that change, that's why I can't consider it a nerf to those units. It's a nerf to some specific (skew) lists.

 
   
Made in it
Longtime Dakkanaut





 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Spoletta wrote:
Why do you worry about a GT rule having effect on your crusade games?
You'd have to be quite naive not to realise that what happens in tournaments eventually metastasises and spreads to the rest of the community.


Read what he asked.
He isn't worried that a matched play rule somehow ends in his crusade.
He only wants GW to say that those rules are for matched play only, which is exactly what is says.
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

 Blackie wrote:
It's a nerf only for those who wanted to play 3+ of them. Which weren't many.
That doesn't counter what I said at all. You're bad at this.

 Blackie wrote:
It's a nerf to some specific (skew) lists.
It's a nerf to anyone who wanted to bring more than 2 aircraft of any type in any army, stemming from a problem with a select few specific units from two different Codices.

If someone gets a papercut you don't saw off both their arms to prevent the other fingers from getting cut. This is the what GW does.

Spoletta wrote:
He only wants GW to say that those rules are for matched play only, which is exactly what is says.
And what we're saying is that it doesn't matter what GW says, because for so many around the world tournament play is synonymous with "regular pick up games", so whatever the tournament crowd adopts is eventually (and usually quite quickly) applied for normal games.

And none of this would be a problem if GW didn't use a massive sledgehammer to fix what only requires a tiny hammer.


This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2022/01/15 11:01:10


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

 
   
Made in it
Waaagh! Ork Warboss




Italy

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
 Blackie wrote:
It's a nerf only for those who wanted to play 3+ of them. Which weren't many.
That doesn't counter what I said at all. You're bad at this.

 Blackie wrote:
It's a nerf to some specific (skew) lists.
It's a nerf to anyone who wanted to bring more than 2 aircraft of any type in any army, stemming from a problem with a select few specific units from two different Codices.

If someone gets a papercut you don't saw off both their arms to prevent the other fingers from getting cut. This is the what GW does.



It does counter what you said. Because, as you also admitted, that change affects players who want to bring more than 2 flyers, it doesn't affect the flyers. Dakkajets and Wazboms are still pretty good and pretty common, they aren't less powerful now. They just can't be spammed.

I don't think there are many flyers that were good in 3+, and now are bad since they can't be more than 2. I can't think of a single model actually. That's what I'm saying. And that's why I argued that that change is not a nerf to those flyers, unless being unable to bring 3+ of them makes them worse. It's just a nerf to some specific lists, which were either OP or too uncommon to be actually relevant in matched play (in fact they're still legal outside that format), rather than units. Most, if not all, of the flyers listed in the post I quoted before were already typically played in lists with less than 3 flyers.

I also disagree about the papercut example. There's a lot of people who don't like things like flyers or superheavies in regular 40k games and constantly remind that to GW. So with that change they got two birds with one stone: on one hand they provided some balance but they also made most of the playerbase happy with a cap on units that aren't loved, especially when spammed. If 3 LoWs becomes common in competitive games, outside knights of course, GW will cap them as well, no doubt. As tons of players would start demanding it. At the moment there's no need to because LoWs cost a lot of points and that alone is enough to prevent people spamming them too frequently.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/01/16 08:28:24


 
   
Made in it
Longtime Dakkanaut





 H.B.M.C. wrote:
 Blackie wrote:
It's a nerf only for those who wanted to play 3+ of them. Which weren't many.
That doesn't counter what I said at all. You're bad at this.

 Blackie wrote:
It's a nerf to some specific (skew) lists.
It's a nerf to anyone who wanted to bring more than 2 aircraft of any type in any army, stemming from a problem with a select few specific units from two different Codices.

If someone gets a papercut you don't saw off both their arms to prevent the other fingers from getting cut. This is the what GW does.

Spoletta wrote:
He only wants GW to say that those rules are for matched play only, which is exactly what is says.
And what we're saying is that it doesn't matter what GW says, because for so many around the world tournament play is synonymous with "regular pick up games", so whatever the tournament crowd adopts is eventually (and usually quite quickly) applied for normal games.

And none of this would be a problem if GW didn't use a massive sledgehammer to fix what only requires a tiny hammer.




He literally said that if that rule was limited to matched play it would be fine!

Read what other say and don't force your opinions on others!
   
Made in ie
Battleship Captain





tneva82 wrote:
 Nitro Zeus wrote:
 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.


oh no how will drukhari ever recover



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.


what? are you living in 2010?


You seriouly think gw games can be played competively? For that player skill would need to be deciding factor.

Sleeping is more competive than gw games.

Only noobs think gw games are competive. As is level of skill needed is about 3rd grader. 1st grader can already solve the best army list.

Gw games are beer&pretzel by definition. Kids might think it's competive...until they read rules.


GW games can absolutely be played competitively. They just aren't good competitive games.


 
   
Made in de
Ladies Love the Vibro-Cannon Operator






Hamburg

 Sim-Life wrote:
tneva82 wrote:
 Nitro Zeus wrote:
 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.


oh no how will drukhari ever recover



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.


what? are you living in 2010?


You seriouly think gw games can be played competively? For that player skill would need to be deciding factor.

Sleeping is more competive than gw games.

Only noobs think gw games are competive. As is level of skill needed is about 3rd grader. 1st grader can already solve the best army list.

Gw games are beer&pretzel by definition. Kids might think it's competive...until they read rules.


GW games can absolutely be played competitively. They just aren't good competitive games.

Seconded.
Balance issues. Rule design. Mechanics change from edition to edition, from codex to codex. Codex creep.
Too many issues for a game with a big revenue.

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 ca
Longtime Dakkanaut





Spoletta wrote:


He literally said that if that rule was limited to matched play it would be fine!

Read what other say and don't force your opinions on others!


Since I think this is about my posts in this thread, I thought I'd jump in and clarify- Spoletta is pretty much correct with regards to what I said, but HBMC's point is still very valid. Let me break it down:

I know that the 2022 GT Mission Pack is ostensibly a Matched Play resource, and that as such it SHOULD theoretically only affect Matched play. There are several posters in this thread who have expressed this, as a way of reassuring me that my Crusade games are safe from any changes that this book imposes. I WANT to believe this; it is my preferred interpretation.

The problem is that detachment rules- both the composition of detachments and the rules for mixing subfactions within them- are not actually rules that appear in the Matched section of the book(s). Detachments are common to both Crusade and Matched. I fear that a change to a shared rule will actually have a RAW effect on any game mode in which the modified rule is used, regardless of what type of book the rule comes from. I further worry that it is actually GW's INTENTION to use this Mission Pack to modify the core game- and if I can fear this, there will be others who absolutely embrace it.

In order to make it perfectly clear to the player base, GW can do one of two things: they can, in an introduction to the book, explicitly state that any rules adjustments in the book are intended for matched play only. Even if they do that, there are still going to be people who say "It's confusing and stupid that a patrol detachment in a Crusade game contains an extra heavy slot and an extra fast attack slot" - heck, I'm one of those people, despite the fact that this is the best case scenario for me. As many of you know by now, I have some armies that I was never planning on raising above 25 PL, and the flexibility of the previous Patrol composition allowed me to tell a significant number of stories that the current Patrol composition would not allow.

GW's other option, which is far stronger, is to include clarification in the rule itself that it applies only to matched. This allows for hybrid solutions: they could for example, say "Yes, we are modifying patrols for all modes of play (Boo! Hiss!) BUT at least in Crusade games, you won't have to put up with unfluffy mono-subfaction nonsense (Yay!)". But it also does THE best job to removing ambiguity about the precise application of changes to shared rules.

Now, just because Spoletta is correct about his interpretation of what I said, HBMC's point is still valid, and it does tie in to my fears about RAI arguments if GW isn't absolutely clear about this. There will be people who favour balance as their highest priority who allow that to impact their interpretation in a RAI argument that arises from a 25PL Crusade game where GSC saboteurs are trying to blow up the sister's holy motorcade and they want to bring enough Exorcists in a patrol to accurately recreate that part of the story on the table-top. There are going to be people who CHOOSE to kill that story regardless of what GW says cuz balance (which is clearly ridiculous, but it will happen- and I think THAT is HBMC's point).

And for those of you trying to reassure me that if it's a Matched Play book, it's content automatically applies only to matched, you still have to acknowledge that this IS a real shift in scope for a Mission Pack. To my knowledge (which is admittedly imperfect as I don't own them all) no mission pack has ever sought to modify a multimodal, shared rule. It's all been very clear that their content was either optional (think Tactical Deployment) or intended only for a given mode.

The fear IS valid, no matter what the cover says.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/01/16 00:10:36


 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: