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.

Remember Guard Doctrines? If you do, you probably remember that Deep Strike was free, and swapping out Lasguns for Laspistols and Chainswords was 2 points per model. DIY Chapter Traits had similar issues too, with the ability to take Chapter Drawbacks that weren't actually disadvantages ("Oh no, I cannot take an allied Inquisitor? Woe is meeeeee.")

Regardless, I still miss the days when rather than "coloring in the lines" so to speak and going "my OC chapter counts as " + (Edition.EIGHT.equals(this.getEdition()) ? Chapter.RAVEN_GUARD : Chapter.WHITE_SCARS"). The argument that such a system would be inevitably imbalanced seems a bit unconvincing considering that blatant internal imbalances exist regardless of lacking army-building options.

Why not let the players stat out their dudes?

100%, I loved my guard doctrines. Not as much as the Catachan Codex mind you, that thing led to some crazy games. Though that was back when you could have a guardsman cost 9 points and still put up a decent fight.

But yeah, I liked having the ability to really customize my guard army and give it a character all its own. They weren't very well balanced though (+3 points for +1 WS and move through cover...).

More than anything it made games feel more varied, one week I'd deep strike in whole platoons, the next my guys would be in tight-order drill lined up in the trenches, the next I'd have guerrilla forces taking various hardpoints throughout the map. I haven't played 8th yet, but my biggest issue with 7th was that the games felt too vanilla.

 TheSilo wrote:
More than anything it made games feel more varied, one week I'd deep strike in whole platoons, the next my guys would be in tight-order drill lined up in the trenches, the next I'd have guerrilla forces taking various hardpoints throughout the map.

Right now, vanilla as all hell, but I feel like you're gonna get at least a good chunk of this feeling back when the Guard codex drops. If you look at what's available and especially at what's coming out for the Ad Mech at the moment (which is the closest analogue to the guard so far, I think) the different Regiment tactics you're gonna get, along with the large amount of Stratagems that each army gets to choose from, there's nothing forcing you to play the game the same way each time. With just three small teasers, I'm looking at the possibility of teleporting in a group of melee Kastelans as a very new and very novel strategy, that will change my games a lot. I sure won't take it every time, but it's definitely a card that I'm really glad that it was suddenly slipped up my sleeve.

 Purifier wrote:

 TheSilo wrote:
More than anything it made games feel more varied, one week I'd deep strike in whole platoons, the next my guys would be in tight-order drill lined up in the trenches, the next I'd have guerrilla forces taking various hardpoints throughout the map.

Right now, vanilla as all hell, but I feel like you're gonna get at least a good chunk of this feeling back when the Guard codex drops. If you look at what's available and especially at what's coming out for the Ad Mech at the moment (which is the closest analogue to the guard so far, I think) the different Regiment tactics you're gonna get, along with the large amount of Stratagems that each army gets to choose from, there's nothing forcing you to play the game the same way each time. With just three small teasers, I'm looking at the possibility of teleporting in a group of melee Kastelans as a very new and very novel strategy, that will change my games a lot. I sure won't take it every time, but it's definitely a card that I'm really glad that it was suddenly slipped up my sleeve.

Quite literally, the issue is that your Forgeworld will be "counts as" no matter what you fluff it as. "I want to run a Lathe World army." "Uhhh...counts as Mars?" The regiment keyword placeholders are functionally the same type of rules that Marines and Chaos Marines get, where you "pick one" (which for Marines, will be Raven Guard or Smurfs normally) and that's that.

Incidentally, there's the whole bunching up of all Chaos Renegades into one single "Renegades" chapter, whether they be Blood Gorgons or Red Corsairs, Night Reapers or The Purge, or even any of the odd cases.

On a sidenote, although the internal balance was not there, the FW lists in 7th were relatively characterful due to their ability to be customized in layers. Corsairs had the Coterie with assorted skills for each group, led by a Prince whose obsession defined the army around him. Likewise, a Renegades&Heretics list was altered based around your Warlord's background and Covenant, so that a Bloody-Handed Reaver's cadre of elite renegades stood in stark contrast to the chaotic mass of tentacles led by a Mutant Boss. Although the Ordnance Tyrant came in and went "I'm going to break the game and let you shoot into close combat," the *idea* that an army could be as much a reflection of its leader was cool, and arguably a lot more reasonable than Special Character Superfriends.

 MagicJuggler wrote:
Quite literally, the issue is that your Forgeworld will be "counts as" no matter what you fluff it as. "I want to run a Lathe World army." "Uhhh...counts as Mars?" The regiment keyword placeholders are functionally the same type of rules that Marines and Chaos Marines get, where you "pick one" (which for Marines, will be Raven Guard or Smurfs normally) and that's that.

Why is that an issue? How does the keyword on my piece of paper that I wrote my army with the points on devalue my enjoyment of the game?
From having seen only a few of my own Dogmas (Chapter tactic equivalents) my army will most likely consist of three separate AdMech detachments, each with a job to do, and each with a different Forgeworld. Why is it a problem to you that they have a name on that bit of paper that allows them to be grouped?

 MagicJuggler wrote:

Quite literally, the issue is that your Forgeworld will be "counts as" no matter what you fluff it as. "I want to run a Lathe World army." "Uhhh...counts as Mars?" The regiment keyword placeholders are functionally the same type of rules that Marines and Chaos Marines get, where you "pick one" (which for Marines, will be Raven Guard or Smurfs normally) and that's that.

Incidentally, there's the whole bunching up of all Chaos Renegades into one single "Renegades" chapter, whether they be Blood Gorgons or Red Corsairs, Night Reapers or The Purge, or even any of the odd cases.

On a sidenote, although the internal balance was not there, the FW lists in 7th were relatively characterful due to their ability to be customized in layers. Corsairs had the Coterie with assorted skills for each group, led by a Prince whose obsession defined the army around him. Likewise, a Renegades&Heretics list was altered based around your Warlord's background and Covenant, so that a Bloody-Handed Reaver's cadre of elite renegades stood in stark contrast to the chaotic mass of tentacles led by a Mutant Boss. Although the Ordnance Tyrant came in and went "I'm going to break the game and let you shoot into close combat," the *idea* that an army could be as much a reflection of its leader was cool, and arguably a lot more reasonable than Special Character Superfriends.

I'm not very clear on what the difference is. I didn't play in 6th or 7th, but it kind of sounds to me like you'd be happy if we had exactly the same sort of Chapter Tactics set up but just instead of them being tied to specific Chapters you got to pick which one you wanted to use. But of course this is how it works now, since all you have to say is that you're using Raven Guard rules or whatever for your custom Chapter, and that means that you're getting those Chapter Tactics, and then next game you can say that now you're using Salamanders rules, etc. So I think I'm missing something.

Dionysodorus wrote:

I'm not very clear on what the difference is. I didn't play in 6th or 7th, but it kind of sounds to me like you'd be happy if we had exactly the same sort of Chapter Tactics set up but just instead of them being tied to specific Chapters you got to pick which one you wanted to use. But of course this is how it works now, since all you have to say is that you're using Raven Guard rules or whatever for your custom Chapter, and that means that you're getting those Chapter Tactics, and then next game you can say that now you're using Salamanders rules, etc. So I think I'm missing something.

I don't think you're missing anything. Some people just feel really strongly about what word is in the rulebook, and would probably have been happier if instead of "Forgeworld Lucius" the Dogma had the name "Resilient Dogma"

 Purifier wrote:

Dionysodorus wrote:

I'm not very clear on what the difference is. I didn't play in 6th or 7th, but it kind of sounds to me like you'd be happy if we had exactly the same sort of Chapter Tactics set up but just instead of them being tied to specific Chapters you got to pick which one you wanted to use. But of course this is how it works now, since all you have to say is that you're using Raven Guard rules or whatever for your custom Chapter, and that means that you're getting those Chapter Tactics, and then next game you can say that now you're using Salamanders rules, etc. So I think I'm missing something.

I don't think you're missing anything. Some people just feel really strongly about what word is in the rulebook, and would probably have been happier if instead of "Forgeworld Lucius" the Dogma had the name "Resilient Dogma"

In 3.5 and 4th edition, Marines and Guard could be customized to a certain degree.

Imperial Guard armies could sacrifice access to certain units in order to get 5 "doctrine points" to spend on assorted Regimental Doctrines, or to buy-back access to certain restricted units. You could choose from 3 different "Regimental Organization" doctrines (Drop Troops, Mechanized Infantry, Grenadiers"), a variety of "Skills&Drills" (Hardened Fighters, Light Infantry, Jungle Fighters, Close Order Drill, Sharpshooters, etc), and a variety of Equipment Doxtrines (Carapace Armor, Chem Inhalers, Cybernetics, etc). Certain doctrines added extra points costs to units, and if you weren't careful you could easily have Guardsmen that cost 10+ points per model!

Marines had a large list of chapter traits, grouped into "categories." You could either take 1 trait and 1 minor drawback, 2 traits from the same category and 1 major drawback, or 2 traits from different categories with 1 major and 1 minor drawback. However, many of the drawbacks were stuff like "cannot take Drop Pods" or "cannot take Inquisiton allies" or so, which didn't actually particularly matter if you weren't planning to take such options anyway. Or as the old saying goes, "a drawback that doesn't apply is just free points."

Ideally, what I would like for Marines would be something more "structured" and in-depth, akin to the Chapter Creation system from Deathwatch: Rites of Battle. Something where you select your chapter's "base of power" (A single feral world, a stable sub-empire, a fleet-based chapter, etc), codex compliance (deviations or outright refusal), notable geneseed mutations, any controversies (whether they're "above regulation" or use proscribed xenotech), etc. Any trait category that's too 'deviant' in nature can be swapped out for a Renowned Legacy, so you have a system that allows for orthodox chapters like the Novamarines, borderline-heretical ones like the Relictors, or anything in between.

 MagicJuggler wrote:

 Purifier wrote:

Dionysodorus wrote:

I'm not very clear on what the difference is. I didn't play in 6th or 7th, but it kind of sounds to me like you'd be happy if we had exactly the same sort of Chapter Tactics set up but just instead of them being tied to specific Chapters you got to pick which one you wanted to use. But of course this is how it works now, since all you have to say is that you're using Raven Guard rules or whatever for your custom Chapter, and that means that you're getting those Chapter Tactics, and then next game you can say that now you're using Salamanders rules, etc. So I think I'm missing something.

I don't think you're missing anything. Some people just feel really strongly about what word is in the rulebook, and would probably have been happier if instead of "Forgeworld Lucius" the Dogma had the name "Resilient Dogma"

In 3.5 and 4th edition, Marines and Guard could be customized to a certain degree.

Imperial Guard armies could sacrifice access to certain units in order to get 5 "doctrine points" to spend on assorted Regimental Doctrines, or to buy-back access to certain restricted units. You could choose from 3 different "Regimental Organization" doctrines (Drop Troops, Mechanized Infantry, Grenadiers"), a variety of "Skills&Drills" (Hardened Fighters, Light Infantry, Jungle Fighters, Close Order Drill, Sharpshooters, etc), and a variety of Equipment Doxtrines (Carapace Armor, Chem Inhalers, Cybernetics, etc). Certain doctrines added extra points costs to units, and if you weren't careful you could easily have Guardsmen that cost 10+ points per model!

Marines had a large list of chapter traits, grouped into "categories." You could either take 1 trait and 1 minor drawback, 2 traits from the same category and 1 major drawback, or 2 traits from different categories with 1 major and 1 minor drawback. However, many of the drawbacks were stuff like "cannot take Drop Pods" or "cannot take Inquisiton allies" or so, which didn't actually particularly matter if you weren't planning to take such options anyway. Or as the old saying goes, "a drawback that doesn't apply is just free points."

Ideally, what I would like for Marines would be something more "structured" and in-depth, akin to the Chapter Creation system from Deathwatch: Rites of Battle. Something where you select your chapter's "base of power" (A single feral world, a stable sub-empire, a fleet-based chapter, etc), codex compliance (deviations or outright refusal), notable geneseed mutations, any controversies (whether they're "above regulation" or use proscribed xenotech), etc. Any trait category that's too 'deviant' in nature can be swapped out for a Renowned Legacy, so you have a system that allows for orthodox chapters like the Novamarines, borderline-heretical ones like the Relictors, or anything in between.

Ok, so first, I think that's waaaaaaaay too much customisation. I like the current level much more. Second, it doesn't in any way explain why you hate the current naming of Chapter tactics/Dogmas/whatever so much. They are a light version of what you're describing, so while I could see you thinking they should have been more than they are, I can't see your absolute disgust with them, as they are a bit of what you wanted and considerably more than what we had in 7th. Yet you seem to find them completely useless based only on the naming?

 Purifier wrote:

 MagicJuggler wrote:

 Purifier wrote:

Dionysodorus wrote:

I'm not very clear on what the difference is. I didn't play in 6th or 7th, but it kind of sounds to me like you'd be happy if we had exactly the same sort of Chapter Tactics set up but just instead of them being tied to specific Chapters you got to pick which one you wanted to use. But of course this is how it works now, since all you have to say is that you're using Raven Guard rules or whatever for your custom Chapter, and that means that you're getting those Chapter Tactics, and then next game you can say that now you're using Salamanders rules, etc. So I think I'm missing something.

I don't think you're missing anything. Some people just feel really strongly about what word is in the rulebook, and would probably have been happier if instead of "Forgeworld Lucius" the Dogma had the name "Resilient Dogma"

In 3.5 and 4th edition, Marines and Guard could be customized to a certain degree.

Imperial Guard armies could sacrifice access to certain units in order to get 5 "doctrine points" to spend on assorted Regimental Doctrines, or to buy-back access to certain restricted units. You could choose from 3 different "Regimental Organization" doctrines (Drop Troops, Mechanized Infantry, Grenadiers"), a variety of "Skills&Drills" (Hardened Fighters, Light Infantry, Jungle Fighters, Close Order Drill, Sharpshooters, etc), and a variety of Equipment Doxtrines (Carapace Armor, Chem Inhalers, Cybernetics, etc). Certain doctrines added extra points costs to units, and if you weren't careful you could easily have Guardsmen that cost 10+ points per model!

Marines had a large list of chapter traits, grouped into "categories." You could either take 1 trait and 1 minor drawback, 2 traits from the same category and 1 major drawback, or 2 traits from different categories with 1 major and 1 minor drawback. However, many of the drawbacks were stuff like "cannot take Drop Pods" or "cannot take Inquisiton allies" or so, which didn't actually particularly matter if you weren't planning to take such options anyway. Or as the old saying goes, "a drawback that doesn't apply is just free points."

Ideally, what I would like for Marines would be something more "structured" and in-depth, akin to the Chapter Creation system from Deathwatch: Rites of Battle. Something where you select your chapter's "base of power" (A single feral world, a stable sub-empire, a fleet-based chapter, etc), codex compliance (deviations or outright refusal), notable geneseed mutations, any controversies (whether they're "above regulation" or use proscribed xenotech), etc. Any trait category that's too 'deviant' in nature can be swapped out for a Renowned Legacy, so you have a system that allows for orthodox chapters like the Novamarines, borderline-heretical ones like the Relictors, or anything in between.

Ok, so first, I think that's waaaaaaaay too much customisation. I like the current level much more. Second, it doesn't in any way explain why you hate the current naming of Chapter tactics/Dogmas/whatever so much. They are a light version of what you're describing, so while I could see you thinking they should have been more than they are, I can't see your absolute disgust with them, as they are a bit of what you wanted and considerably more than what we had in 7th. Yet you seem to find them completely useless based only on the naming?

Absolute disgust is a strong accusation. I like large-scale customization more. If GW was feeling cheeky, they could even sell a deck of "doctrine cards" at a markup so players could have a quick-reference as to what they (or their opponent) fielded. You could easily have a cheat-sheet showing what traits notable Regiments/chapters are known for as well (and the 3.5 Guard codex did exactly that, while the GW website had examples for how to use the doctrines to represent Necromundan Spyders, Blood Pact, and Gue'vesa Regiments). Plus extensive customization makes it easier to reduce the total number of units that are actually in 40k (Ex: Rather than having Sternguard, Vanguard, Command Squads, Wolf Guard, etc, you could have *one* unit of Veteran Marines and go from there).

The current system is MUCH easier to balance. Nobody can deny that.

Dionysodorus wrote:

I'm not very clear on what the difference is. I didn't play in 6th or 7th, but it kind of sounds to me like you'd be happy if we had exactly the same sort of Chapter Tactics set up but just instead of them being tied to specific Chapters you got to pick which one you wanted to use. But of course this is how it works now, since all you have to say is that you're using Raven Guard rules or whatever for your custom Chapter, and that means that you're getting those Chapter Tactics, and then next game you can say that now you're using Salamanders rules, etc. So I think I'm missing something.

The chapter traits now come in ready-made bundles that lump bunch of stuff together which may not make sense for your custom chapter. For example, if your chapter is close combat oriented it might seem logical to choose BT tactic, but then you get crusader squads instead of librarians, which may not jive with how you envision your chapter. Or perhaps your chapter is renowned for its artefact weapons, but has no particular affinity to flamers. Stuff like that. I'd prefer system where you'd have a list of traits or bonuses and you could choose some set number of them for your chapter or something like that. Sure, the players would eventually find the optimal combos, but then that already happens with most players gravitating towards the chapters with most powerful rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
The current system is MUCH easier to balance. Nobody can deny that.

Yet it is not even remotely balanced.

Ok, so absolute disgust is harsh, but you did say this

Quite literally, the issue is that your Forgeworld will be "counts as" no matter what you fluff it as. "I want to run a Lathe World army." "Uhhh...counts as Mars?"

I'm not sure what the "quite literally" is referring to, and you haven't explained why this is a problem. The fact that it has a Forgeworld's name is just a Rules-name. It could just as well have been named "Resilient Dogma" but it is "Lucius" and I don't see why that's a problem.

Kharadron Overlords in Age of Sigmar have this.

Theres 6 main Ports with a fixed set of doctrines (A mayor one, a side note, and a minor one)+ a extra doctrine because they are fixed, so you lose flexibility but gain in having a extra (small) rule.
But you can make your custom ports picking the Code Rules you want from the three different groups. I think thats the best compromise.

 Crimson wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
The current system is MUCH easier to balance. Nobody can deny that.

Yet it is not even remotely balanced.

That doesn't excuse making it harder to balance. Maybe we should see if they can manage in the long run to balance this before we start hollering for making it more advanced and harder to balance?

 Galas wrote:
Kharadron Overlords in Age of Sigmar have this.

Theres 6 main Ports with a fixed set of doctrines (A mayor one, a side note, and a minor one)+ a extra doctrine because they are fixed, so you lose flexibility but gain in having a extra (small) rule.
But you can make your custom ports picking the Code Rules you want from the three different groups. I think thats the best compromise.

Kharadrons are a good example actually. Alas that I dislike so much about AOS itself, but the ability to define your own custom port and Article was a custom mechanic I hoped would be ported over in some way for 8th. Alas.

 Galas wrote:
Kharadron Overlords in Age of Sigmar have this.

Theres 6 main Ports with a fixed set of doctrines (A mayor one, a side note, and a minor one)+ a extra doctrine because they are fixed, so you lose flexibility but gain in having a extra (small) rule.
But you can make your custom ports picking the Code Rules you want from the three different groups. I think thats the best compromise.

Yeah, great example! I wish this was how it was handled in 40K too.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
The current system is MUCH easier to balance. Nobody can deny that.

Right, but since it's not well-balanced, they might as well make it more fun.

If they actually put a lot of effort into balancing it and came out with a balanced product, THEN I can see this argument working.

 Crimson wrote:

Yeah, great example! I wish this was how it was handled in 40K too.

We have Stratagems instead, which can be used on the fly as the game progresses, instead of locking in at the start.

We have our MAJOR port, in the Chapter tactic, and then we have optional minors in every Stratagem.

Overlords is a neat system, but I like the current 40k one better. It gives more tactical depth and less "choose your stats" before the game. There's a little bit of stat-choosing just to make your army feel a little unique, and then a bunch of strategic choices.

Does it need balancing, yes. But it's a system with a lot of potential.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JNAProductions wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
The current system is MUCH easier to balance. Nobody can deny that.

Right, but since it's not well-balanced, they might as well make it more fun.

If they actually put a lot of effort into balancing it and came out with a balanced product, THEN I can see this argument working.

Balancing isn't done yet. If it was, THEN I could see your argument working of "it's not balanced, so just thrash it more."

 Purifier wrote:

We have Stratagems instead, which can be used on the fly as the game progresses, instead of locking in at the start.

We have our MAJOR port, in the Chapter tactic, and then we have optional minors in every Stratagem.

Overlords is a neat system, but I like the current 40k one better. It gives more tactical depth and less "choose your stats" before the game. There's a little bit of stat-choosing just to make your army feel a little unique, and then a bunch of strategic choices.

Does it need balancing, yes. But it's a system with a lot of potential.

But the stratagems are fixed! Tactics are bundled with specific stratagems (and relics, and warlord traits, sometimes units and characters too.) That there are some generic ones too doesn't change that.

I have been creating a new custom Primaris chapter, and I find the current way the chapter traits are handled annoyingly limiting.

I really don't see how having less choice can be preferable to having more choice. If there was more open ended system like with the Khadarons, nothing would stop you from picking one of the current set of traits if you happened to like them.

Except Stratagems aren't even really "this is your army" so much as a series of "once per phase, so no duplicates" manabombs, with all the inherent handwavium of "haha, this was the squad that was carrying the Hellfire round all along" that makes you wonder when GW is going to throw their arms up in the air and go "to the Warp with this, we're bringing back Wargear cards. Why worry about positioning or long-term strategy when you can play shell-games over which model is carrying the Vortex Grenade?"

And since every Marine player gets them, it's not even a real distinct choice otherwise.

I honestly can't understand how you see it this way. There are so many stratagems that the choice is "which ones do I spend my limited resource on"

If there are only like three you like anyway, and you feel they're the only viable ones, then I can guarantee there would only be one setup of Port-skills in AOS you'd like too.

It's silly that "oh they had the ammo all along" sure, but as a game mechanic, it's not. It's really cool to be able to use that resource where it's needed.

I feel like you guys are just moaning for the sake of it, and you would have complained about the Port-system too, if that had been the one we got, saying that "oh, it doesn't have the same dynamic usage as that AOS Stratagem system!"

I think a Kharadron system isn't incompatible with Stratagems. Quite the opposite, you could have a list of Stratagems that you can choose to make your "deck" of stratagems for the battle, for example. And have still specific stratagems tied to the "fixed" load-outs of Tactics+Stratagems for the fluff chapters/forgeworlds/legions,etc...

To me Stratagems are the most tactical aspect for Warhammer40k that GW has ever created. I love them, even if theres some possible change in how they are implemented at least in my subjetive point of view.

 Purifier wrote:
I honestly can't understand how you see it this way. There are so many stratagems that the choice is "which ones do I spend my limited resource on"

If there are only like three you like anyway, and you feel they're the only viable ones, then I can guarantee there would only be one setup of Port-skills in AOS you'd like too.

It's silly that "oh they had the ammo all along" sure, but as a game mechanic, it's not. It's really cool to be able to use that resource where it's needed.

I feel like you guys are just moaning for the sake of it, and you would have complained about the Port-system too, if that had been the one we got, saying that "oh, it doesn't have the same dynamic usage as that AOS Stratagem system!"

A) I began writing and playtesting my own system from scratch as I actually was so annoyed with the implementation of Stratagems as a MOBA power meter. I had been thinking of an alternative to IGOUGO or Bolt-Actionesque Alt Activation, and decided to use CP as a resource for that. After all, Command Points should represent your army's ability to command&coordinate, not be some oddball handwavium plotarmorium. (Granted, I could see something like that being done on a "character" or "unit" level, similar to LOTR Fight/Fate points)
B) We're arguing about a system that predated AOS. Saying it's whining to whine is frankly a bit douchey.

I really liked DIY army traits. I wish they were still a thing. Shoot, even last edition they still kind of where. (The IA:11 v2 had some pretty sweet rules for army traits for Eldar armies in battlehosts.)

 Galas wrote:
I think a Kharadron system isn't incompatible with Stratagems. Quite the opposite, you could have a list of Stratagems that you can choose to make your "deck" of stratagems for the battle, for example. And have still specific stratagems tied to the "fixed" load-outs of Tactics+Stratagems for the fluff chapters/forgeworlds/legions,etc...

This is more constructive for example. While not everyone would approve of "40k MTG", you could do something like assign "point costs" to certain stratagems if you wanted to go down that route.

 Purifier wrote:


I feel like you guys are just moaning for the sake of it, and you would have complained about the Port-system too, if that had been the one we got, saying that "oh, it doesn't have the same dynamic usage as that AOS Stratagem system!"

It is really not about whether stratagems are a good mechanic (they're, though I feel that upgrades like chapter master and relics should be handled via points), it is about stuff coming bundled together without you getting to choose. It is annoying if you're trying to create a successor chapter which is not a carbon copy of their parent.

OMG I COMPLETELY DO MISS THEM *weeps for what might have been*

Well first you said that the Ports-system was better because everyone had access to every buff if they wanted, and then you're saying that stratagems aren't personal enough because every marine has access to them anyway, and you haven't responded to my question as to why you took offense at the choice to name the skills after forgeworlds when it makes zero difference in the game any of the times I've brought it up, so douchey yiu may find it, but I can't really see it any other way. You don't have a consistent argument, the only thing you seem sure of is that no matter what, you don't like it, and that's that.

An example of why it is bad to say "My army is Cadian" when it is actually not:

I play Armageddon Steel Legion. I want my army to be fluffy, so I choose Commissar Yarrik. Awesome!

Steel Legion is also famous for it's tank regiments, so I want my tanks to perform well. So I choose Knight Commander Pask for one of my other detachments! That's cool, we'll call him Night Commodore Flask.

But now I have one Steel Legion detachment (which gets, say, the Mechanized rule. You can disembark from a Chimera after it moves!) and one Cadian detachment (All lasguns re-roll ones to hit!).

Why does 1/2 of my mechanized company behave completely different from the other half? And how do I tell them apart on to the table?