Switch Theme:

Does anyone else here miss DIY Army Traits?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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




Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




RedCommander wrote:
Yes! This is what I've been saying.

The return of Doctrines is all I would ask. Of course, now they should account for more than just infantry models.

Of course, I'm not really expecting this in an edition where you can't even choose to give some HQ-dude or an unit leader a Signum or an Auspex. Or Bionics. Or Meltabombs. Or Medalion Crimson. Or Macharian Cross. Or a Trademark Item.



Aww, now I am remembering my old HQ leader, Bionic Company Commander "Steve"


I miss Steve.
   
Made in es
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain




Vigo. Spain.

But to be honest, drawbacks are only needed when this system is only possible for some factions. If like in 8th everybody has this sime kind of rules, you don't need drawbacks.

 Crimson Devil wrote:

Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.

ERJAK wrote:
Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.

 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Springfield, VA

See, Galas, you would have loved the Imperial Guard system. There weren't really "list building drawbacks" unless you include points costs as list building.

I am more familiar with Armoured Company than not, and this is how the system worked:

You could choose up to 5 doctrines.

You could not take any doctrines at all. If you didn't, you gained access to the entire breadth of the list. If you did, you lost access to:
Salamander Scout Vehicles, Techpriest Enginseers, Destroyer Tank Hunters, Leman Russ Vanquishers, Exterminators, and Conquerors, and the Griffon Mortar.

Any of those cost one doctrine point to unlock.

Then, the other doctrines were:

Organizational:
Siege Regiment (essentially artillery regiment): Artillery replaced Tanks as troops choices

Heavy Tank Regiment: Loses access to all Fast Attack entries but instead may take more Leman Russ tanks as Elites and Heavy Support.

The organizational doctrines were mutually exclusive.

Skills and Drills:
Ace Sponson Gunners: Overwatch before it was a thing -10 ppm
Evasive Driving: 5+ save in close combat for tanks - 10ppm
Ace driver: Ignored terrain (rather than re-roll) but thrice the price of a dozer -15ppm
Crush and Grind: Tank shocks caused wounds -15 ppm
Ace Gunners: Re-roll 1s in shooting - 25ppm

Special Equipment:
Anti-tank rounds: LRBTs became Vanquishers, but only if they didn't move for 20ppm
Improved Sponsons: LRBTs could take Demolisher sponsons for 5ppm
Overcharged Engines: tanks are faster for 15ppm
Forge Crafted: Tanks were Venerable (per the dreadnought) - 20ppm
Side Skirts: +1 side armour - 15 ppm
Machine-God's Blessing: Immune to Lance - 25ppm
Anti-Mag Paste: additional 5+ save against grenades - 10ppm
Reinforced Ceramite Armour: Immune to melta - 30ppm

SO that's all of them.

Essentially you could have a super elite tank company using Vanquishers, Ace Gunner, Reinforced Ceramite Armour, Ace Sponson Gunners, and Forge-Crafted

Or you could have a cheap spammy one with just Heavy Armour

Or you could have an Artillery regiment with Siege Regiment and Griffons

Or you could have a well-equipped regiment with Side Skirts, Improved Sponsons, Overcharged Engines, Vanquishers, and Salamanders

Or you could have an elite but shoddy regiment with Ace Gunners, Ace Sponson Gunners, Ace Drivers, Crush and Grind, and Evasive Driving.

The possibilities were fething awesome, and that's with a list that's essentially "Here are some leman russ tanks"

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/09/15 19:05:23


 
   
Made in es
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain




Vigo. Spain.

The Organizational part is the one I think isn't good for this sistem, but the rest are pretty good, yes. I know they offer a good amount of personalization, a shame we lost that.

But this is the age of streamlining, more casual, faster to play and to learn. I don't think is a bad thing, but being a Roleplayer in the heart, personally I prefer more personalization.

 Crimson Devil wrote:

Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.

ERJAK wrote:
Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.

 
   
Made in us
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle





In My Lab

Demolisher Sponsons for 5 PPM seems REALLY CHEAP.

Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Springfield, VA

 JNAProductions wrote:
Demolisher Sponsons for 5 PPM seems REALLY CHEAP.


You still had to pay for the sponson. Essentially, at the time, regular tanks could get heavy flamers and heavy bolters, and demolishers could get heavy flamers, heavy bolters, plasma cannons, or multi-meltas.

So you had to pay 5ppm for a Leman Russ to have access to multi-meltas and plasma sponsons, which they then had to buy (for I think +30 and +40 points respectively? not sure)

but the brevity of my summary was bad

EDIT:

Here is the actual doctrine:

Improved Sponsons – 5 points per
standard Leman Russ battle tank.
Each standard Leman Russ may select its
sponson weapons from those available to
the Leman Russ Demolisher at the points
cost specified there.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/09/15 19:11:56


 
   
Made in us
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle





In My Lab

Oh. I thought you got Demolisher Cannons as sponsons for 5 PPM.

And that sounded crazy.

Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Springfield, VA

JNAProductions wrote:Oh. I thought you got Demolisher Cannons as sponsons for 5 PPM.

And that sounded crazy.



LMAO no. Not at all.

ahahaha
   
Made in be
Courageous Beastmaster





I think that purifier is right that if they had called the generic names and said wich forgeworld preferred wich doctrine you would have been more fine with it.

But I do wonder reading this thread: why didn't they do that?




 
   
Made in us
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle





In My Lab

Earth127 wrote:
I think that purifier is right that if they had called the generic names and said wich forgeworld preferred wich doctrine you would have been more fine with it.

But I do wonder reading this thread: why didn't they do that?


GW is dumb?

Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut




 Unit1126PLL wrote:
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?

Different paint jobs and models. For example, I have a half Minotaurs and half Raptors force. They're all the same colors, but Lias is the one leading the Sternguard and Scouts, whereas Asterion is leading Terminators and Vanguard.

CaptainStabby wrote:
If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.

 jy2 wrote:
BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.

 vipoid wrote:
Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?

 MarsNZ wrote:
ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
 
   
Made in us
Monster-Slaying Daemonhunter





I don't see the problem with the way it's set up.

At some point, there is such a thing as too many options.

And really, I'm not sure it's that hard to find a trait that matches what you want.

Perhaps the bigger problem is the fact that Space Marines got Chapter Tactics at all. Not all minor quirks need to be expressed as a rule, and for sure you can achieve "my guys like tanks" or "my guys like flamethrowers" by just, you know, bringing tanks or bringing flamethrowers.

At some point, not everything needs a rule associated with it.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/09/16 00:09:05


Guardsmen, hear me! Cadia may lie in ruin, but her proud people do not! For each brother and sister who gave their lives to Him as martyrs, we will reap a vengeance fiftyfold! Cadia may be no more, but will never be forgotten; our foes shall tremble in fear at the name, for their doom shall come from the barrels of Cadian guns, fired by Cadian hands! Forward, for vengeance and retribution, in His name and the names of our fallen comrades! 
   
Made in ca
Insect-Infested Nurgle Chaos Lord






I loved the DIY traits and was hoping they'd do something similar for the other factions. Tyranids had something similar in the Mutation tables and Mutants (which, while not exactly the same, totally fit the theme and was pretty fun to play around with). Just note that while they weren't really balanced (a lot of the negative SM traits would be negated if you never intended on taking those items in the first place), if I remember, GW was actually pretty upfront with that, and stated only the vanilla lists were actually balanced (for what passed for balance back then).

The current "Chapter Tactics" style ones are interesting, but I just wish they weren't so restrictive or tied to a single faction. Like, instead of calling it the "Salamanders" trait, they could have made it "Master Artisans" and applied it to any chapter that were just good at crafting weapons, and used Salamanders as an example.

Gwar! wrote:Huh, I had no idea Graham McNeillm Dav Torpe and Pete Haines posted on Dakka. Hi Graham McNeillm Dav Torpe and Pete Haines!!!!!!!!!!!!! Can I have an Autograph!


Kanluwen wrote:
Hell, I'm not that bothered by the Stormraven. Why? Because, as it stands right now, it's "limited use".When it's shoehorned in to the Codex: Space Marines, then yeah. I'll be irked.


When I'm editing alot, you know I have a gakload of homework to (not) do. 
   
Made in se
Servoarm Flailing Magos






Metalica

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:


The current "Chapter Tactics" style ones are interesting, but I just wish they weren't so restrictive or tied to a single faction. Like, instead of calling it the "Salamanders" trait, they could have made it "Master Artisans" and applied it to any chapter that were just good at crafting weapons, and used Salamanders as an example.


That would effectively make exactly no difference at all.

 
   
Made in es
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain




Vigo. Spain.

 Purifier wrote:
 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:


The current "Chapter Tactics" style ones are interesting, but I just wish they weren't so restrictive or tied to a single faction. Like, instead of calling it the "Salamanders" trait, they could have made it "Master Artisans" and applied it to any chapter that were just good at crafting weapons, and used Salamanders as an example.


That would effectively make exactly no difference at all.


I agree and disagree. It doesn't makes a difference ,yes. One should expect people to be mature enough, just like when you have Saint Celestine in every army maybe your opponen is using a custom Living Saint.
But at the same time, what is written in a official ruleset is always push people to believe it over what other players say. So probably if the Chapter Tactics where called "Siege masters" instead of Imperial Fist, "Ravaging Zealots" instead of Black Templars, etc... you could use whatever tactic you wanted with your official chapters (Ultramarines, Crimson Fists, White Scars, etc...) and nobody would say anything. But try to do it now, using Ultramarine tactics with a White Scar or Iron Hand painted chapter, and people will call you all types of names.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/09/16 02:27:31


 Crimson Devil wrote:

Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.

ERJAK wrote:
Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.

 
   
Made in ca
Insect-Infested Nurgle Chaos Lord






Galas more or less summed up my views. Mechanically it makes no difference (other than maybe allow an Ultramarine character to join a "Siegemaster" army, since it isn't tied to a specific chapter anymore) but the general feel of it will change. And in a hobby where the gaming aspect is literally only 1/3rd of it, it can make a lot of difference.

Gwar! wrote:Huh, I had no idea Graham McNeillm Dav Torpe and Pete Haines posted on Dakka. Hi Graham McNeillm Dav Torpe and Pete Haines!!!!!!!!!!!!! Can I have an Autograph!


Kanluwen wrote:
Hell, I'm not that bothered by the Stormraven. Why? Because, as it stands right now, it's "limited use".When it's shoehorned in to the Codex: Space Marines, then yeah. I'll be irked.


When I'm editing alot, you know I have a gakload of homework to (not) do. 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Springfield, VA

 Purifier wrote:
 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:


The current "Chapter Tactics" style ones are interesting, but I just wish they weren't so restrictive or tied to a single faction. Like, instead of calling it the "Salamanders" trait, they could have made it "Master Artisans" and applied it to any chapter that were just good at crafting weapons, and used Salamanders as an example.


That would effectively make exactly no difference at all.


Yes it does because you could bring a Ultramarine character who was a Master Artisan if for some reason you felt like he fit your home brew chapter rules better
   
Made in se
Servoarm Flailing Magos






Metalica

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
 Purifier wrote:
 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:


The current "Chapter Tactics" style ones are interesting, but I just wish they weren't so restrictive or tied to a single faction. Like, instead of calling it the "Salamanders" trait, they could have made it "Master Artisans" and applied it to any chapter that were just good at crafting weapons, and used Salamanders as an example.


That would effectively make exactly no difference at all.


Yes it does because you could bring a Ultramarine character who was a Master Artisan if for some reason you felt like he fit your home brew chapter rules better

YOU. CAN. DO. THAT. NOW.

If you mean special character, as in named, then no, you wouldn't be able to, as they would be locked to their own chapter rules, just like it is now.
And as for the "they will call you lots of names"-argument... jesus christ, what kind of people do you play against? I mean are you serious? Will they start name calling over that? You need to get a new group. That is ridiculous. I've played with at least 4 different clubs over the years, with at least 30 members on each club, and no one in any of them, not a single person, would name call for your paint scheme being "wrong."

 
   
Made in gb
Ultramarine Librarian with Freaky Familiar





 Purifier wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
 Purifier wrote:
 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:


The current "Chapter Tactics" style ones are interesting, but I just wish they weren't so restrictive or tied to a single faction. Like, instead of calling it the "Salamanders" trait, they could have made it "Master Artisans" and applied it to any chapter that were just good at crafting weapons, and used Salamanders as an example.


That would effectively make exactly no difference at all.


Yes it does because you could bring a Ultramarine character who was a Master Artisan if for some reason you felt like he fit your home brew chapter rules better

YOU. CAN. DO. THAT. NOW.

If you mean special character, as in named, then no, you wouldn't be able to, as they would be locked to their own chapter rules, just like it is now.
And as for the "they will call you lots of names"-argument... jesus christ, what kind of people do you play against? I mean are you serious? Will they start name calling over that? You need to get a new group. That is ridiculous. I've played with at least 4 different clubs over the years, with at least 30 members on each club, and no one in any of them, not a single person, would name call for your paint scheme being "wrong."
Your argument is based on personal experiences. As such, can't be generalised.

As we have seen on Dakka itself, there genuinely ARE people out there who will call someone a TFG if they use the rules of a Chapter they aren't painted as. We saw it in 6th, and have seen it since.
Can you provide a reason why we shouldn't just call them "Master Artisan" or "Siege Masters" if they have the same effect? I mean, you say they're effectively the same, beyond cosmetic difference, so why are you complaining when it obviously doesn't affect you?

This is why I would rather GW not differentiate between Guardsmen Regiments based on their homeworld - they can if they want, but focusing on the regiment itself is a far bigger concern (a Tallarn Tank Company is far more similar in gameplay and combat style to a Cadian Tank Company than it would be to Tallarn Light Infantry).


They/them

 
   
Made in se
Servoarm Flailing Magos






Metalica

I'm not. I'm the one that managed to wrangle from these people that their complaint wasn't with the rule, but the wording of it, after they said it was bad. I'm the one that has gotten us to a conversation beyond "well it feeeeels wrong" and even now they're still arguing that it would be ruleswise better if it had the other name, because they still can't wrap their heads around it.

So I'm not saying "NO LEAVE IT AS IT IS." I'm saying that the argument of "they'll call me names" is incredibly weak at best, and it is literally the ONLY argument remaining for why the dogmas/chapter tactics are "bad."

There is no reason why it couldn't have its names changed and I wouldn't bat an eye if they were. That's completely fine. But acting like it would be any different from what we have now is just ridiculous.
And calling GW stupid is just as ridiculous. There is no way they could have known their playerbase was gonna whine like this about something that doesn't matter.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/09/16 09:24:05


 
   
Made in gb
Ultramarine Librarian with Freaky Familiar





 Purifier wrote:
I'm not. I'm the one that managed to wrangle from these people that their complaint wasn't with the rule, but the wording of it, after they said it was bad. I'm the one that has gotten us to a conversation beyond "well it feeeeels wrong" and even now they're still arguing that it would be ruleswise better if it had the other name, because they still can't wrap their heads around it.

So I'm not saying "NO LEAVE IT AS IT IS." I'm saying that the argument of "they'll call me names" is incredibly weak at best, and it is literally the ONLY argument remaining for why the dogmas/chapter tactics are "bad."

There is no reason why it couldn't have its names changed and I wouldn't bat an eye if they were. That's completely fine. But acting like it would be any different from what we have now is just ridiculous.
And calling GW stupid is just as ridiculous. There is no way they could have known their playerbase was gonna whine like this about something that doesn't matter.
Again - something that doesn't matter, which has pretty much removed all variety from the 3.5 IG lists, and reduced them all to the same thing.

Yes, in game, it has no difference, beyond the rules for characters (which would need some working on, unless say Vulkan can only be taken in a Master Artisan list), but you are wrong in that "YOU. CAN. DO THAT. NOW." I can make an <Ultramarine> list, but that would imply that my list is painted as Ultramarines. GW actively said that Ultramarines armies should be played with <Ultramarines> rules, something successor chapters didn't need to adhere to. This creates an expectation that Ultramarines should only use <Ultramarine> rules - something which would be removed by the <Master Artisan> system.

It might have no game benefit, but gaming is 1/3 of the game. Modelling and painting are elements too, and the freedom to paint my <Master Artisan> force as Ultramarines would be enhanced by this system, as opposed to the potentially awkward situation of "These Ultramarines will be using the <Salamanders> rules", which can lead to name calling, accusation of TFG and WAAC.

The two methods are not the same thing, from a hobby perspective, purely from a social perspective, unless you're implying there was no stigma at all from people playing the most powerful Chapter Tactics in 6th/7th despite being painted differently.

This system works better for narrative and fluff reasons, it works better from a hobby reason as a result, and largely eliminated the aforementioned stigma.


They/them

 
   
Made in gb
Jovial Plaguebearer of Nurgle




Leicester

Personally i do wish we had some of the old customarisation back.
For me im planning to playa Tzeench renegade chapter now as per the csm codex i use the dark raiders trait yet advance and charge does not really seem that tzeenchy at all (infact none of the traits are).
Now yes i could wait for the thousand sons codex and use their rules but that then raises its own issues
i cannot give the rules to my csm terminators havocs oblits etc
Now maybe this new way is more balanced but for chaos atleast especially with renegades gw could of handled the trait alot better.
   
Made in fi
Courageous Space Marine Captain






 Purifier wrote:
 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:


The current "Chapter Tactics" style ones are interesting, but I just wish they weren't so restrictive or tied to a single faction. Like, instead of calling it the "Salamanders" trait, they could have made it "Master Artisans" and applied it to any chapter that were just good at crafting weapons, and used Salamanders as an example.


That would effectively make exactly no difference at all.

I agree, the names are not the issue, the issue is unnecessarily bundling things together. Why is every chapter who are 'master artisans' also good with flamers? Why does every chapter who is good at assaulting shun Librarians? Stuff like that.

And sometimes these bundles do not make sense even to the chapters they're supposed to represent. Why Ultramarines get an anti-psyker item and Black Templars get a hat that makes them better commanders? It would make much more sense other way around.

   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Springfield, VA

 Crimson wrote:
 Purifier wrote:
 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:


The current "Chapter Tactics" style ones are interesting, but I just wish they weren't so restrictive or tied to a single faction. Like, instead of calling it the "Salamanders" trait, they could have made it "Master Artisans" and applied it to any chapter that were just good at crafting weapons, and used Salamanders as an example.


That would effectively make exactly no difference at all.

I agree, the names are not the issue, the issue is unnecessarily bundling things together. Why is every chapter who are 'master artisans' also good with flamers? Why does every chapter who is good at assaulting shun Librarians? Stuff like that.

And sometimes these bundles do not make sense even to the chapters they're supposed to represent. Why Ultramarines get an anti-psyker item and Black Templars get a hat that makes them better commanders? It would make much more sense other way around.


which is why splitting the bundles up into a whole list of options from which a given army can take say, 3 or 4, makes sense.

Just like the IG codex from 3.5.
   
Made in fi
Courageous Space Marine Captain






 Unit1126PLL wrote:

which is why splitting the bundles up into a whole list of options from which a given army can take say, 3 or 4, makes sense.

Just like the IG codex from 3.5.

Yes, absolutely.

   
Made in es
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain




Vigo. Spain.

I have to apologize purifier if I have express myself poorly. I wasnt calling GW stupid or the chapter rules of 8 the to be bad. I wasnt using the argument of people calling others TFG for how they have their chapters painted to say that the system we have now is bad. I was just responding to you affirmation that the difference con how you calle something has no impact, when it does.
Personally, to me the Kharadron Overlord is the best fusión of both system, but I like the one we have now.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/09/16 15:10:31


 Crimson Devil wrote:

Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.

ERJAK wrote:
Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.

 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut




 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
 Purifier wrote:
I'm not. I'm the one that managed to wrangle from these people that their complaint wasn't with the rule, but the wording of it, after they said it was bad. I'm the one that has gotten us to a conversation beyond "well it feeeeels wrong" and even now they're still arguing that it would be ruleswise better if it had the other name, because they still can't wrap their heads around it.

So I'm not saying "NO LEAVE IT AS IT IS." I'm saying that the argument of "they'll call me names" is incredibly weak at best, and it is literally the ONLY argument remaining for why the dogmas/chapter tactics are "bad."

There is no reason why it couldn't have its names changed and I wouldn't bat an eye if they were. That's completely fine. But acting like it would be any different from what we have now is just ridiculous.
And calling GW stupid is just as ridiculous. There is no way they could have known their playerbase was gonna whine like this about something that doesn't matter.
Again - something that doesn't matter, which has pretty much removed all variety from the 3.5 IG lists, and reduced them all to the same thing.

Yes, in game, it has no difference, beyond the rules for characters (which would need some working on, unless say Vulkan can only be taken in a Master Artisan list), but you are wrong in that "YOU. CAN. DO THAT. NOW." I can make an <Ultramarine> list, but that would imply that my list is painted as Ultramarines. GW actively said that Ultramarines armies should be played with <Ultramarines> rules, something successor chapters didn't need to adhere to. This creates an expectation that Ultramarines should only use <Ultramarine> rules - something which would be removed by the <Master Artisan> system.

It might have no game benefit, but gaming is 1/3 of the game. Modelling and painting are elements too, and the freedom to paint my <Master Artisan> force as Ultramarines would be enhanced by this system, as opposed to the potentially awkward situation of "These Ultramarines will be using the <Salamanders> rules", which can lead to name calling, accusation of TFG and WAAC.

The two methods are not the same thing, from a hobby perspective, purely from a social perspective, unless you're implying there was no stigma at all from people playing the most powerful Chapter Tactics in 6th/7th despite being painted differently.

This system works better for narrative and fluff reasons, it works better from a hobby reason as a result, and largely eliminated the aforementioned stigma.

Actually it implies you're using Ultramarines or a Successor. You could theoretically have a Successor not act like the parent, much like Black Templars with the Imperial Fists, but how often does that happen?

Also your example about Ultramarines using Salamanders rules doesn't work because you're not taking special characters into consideration as well. Cato wouldn't ever benefit from that rule.

CaptainStabby wrote:
If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.

 jy2 wrote:
BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.

 vipoid wrote:
Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?

 MarsNZ wrote:
ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
 
   
Made in ca
Insect-Infested Nurgle Chaos Lord






I was thinking they would remove the associated keywords from the Chapter Tactics and replace them with the generic <CHAPTER> thing. This way you could have Master Artisans with Cato Sicarus, or run Lightning Assault with Crusader Squads (something you can't do right now)

Gwar! wrote:Huh, I had no idea Graham McNeillm Dav Torpe and Pete Haines posted on Dakka. Hi Graham McNeillm Dav Torpe and Pete Haines!!!!!!!!!!!!! Can I have an Autograph!


Kanluwen wrote:
Hell, I'm not that bothered by the Stormraven. Why? Because, as it stands right now, it's "limited use".When it's shoehorned in to the Codex: Space Marines, then yeah. I'll be irked.


When I'm editing alot, you know I have a gakload of homework to (not) do. 
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut





A lot of this thread seems to be about people wanting things their way and want to be able to do more than the designers want you to do right now.
Of course people want to make chapters who are great at melee and shooting. Who doesn't want to shore their weaknesses. We all create our own heroes that are above the curve.
The thing is though, that it's bad for the game. It's also been seen time and time again, that no matter how many choices you include, the best combos will be discovered and thus the rest of those choices are non-choices anyways and just a waste of space.
You really can build damn near any kind of army you want right now with the detachment system and mixing in different keywords with them. It just comes with the limitation of the more options you take, the less they work together. That is a perfectly fine balancing mechanism.
   
Made in ca
Insect-Infested Nurgle Chaos Lord






Some of it is that, some of it is for options we just flat out don't have.

Like one of the more popular Regimental Doctrines I saw was the Carapace Armor one and Sharpshooters (rerolling 1s). That is something you can't really reproduce at all, but goes perfectly with certain regiments (like Cadians with their heavier armor or Mordians with their gun drills).

Plus being able to mix and match gives you a bit more variety in opponents as well. If I see Guilliman in the army, it's pretty much guaranteed that the army is using the ultramarine tactic. With the old system it could be that or they could be using the vanilla rules or some other combo of rules.

Gwar! wrote:Huh, I had no idea Graham McNeillm Dav Torpe and Pete Haines posted on Dakka. Hi Graham McNeillm Dav Torpe and Pete Haines!!!!!!!!!!!!! Can I have an Autograph!


Kanluwen wrote:
Hell, I'm not that bothered by the Stormraven. Why? Because, as it stands right now, it's "limited use".When it's shoehorned in to the Codex: Space Marines, then yeah. I'll be irked.


When I'm editing alot, you know I have a gakload of homework to (not) do. 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: