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.

My favorite army is dead (Corsairs) so i dont want to hear about it.

 BoomWolf wrote:
I just like to point out in playing thousand sons, so considering MOST of my army don't get the faction ability, eldar crying not every single unit would be benefiting from craft world sound real lame.

Well anything that can't cast Smite doesn't get it, sure. Seems par the course that none of the Marine vehicles benefit because reasons.

Yeah, I think it's ok for units to not benefit from a faction trait because the rule itself doesn't really apply.
Like how Saim-Hann only helps melee units or Jetibkes with heavy weapons, but does nothing for non-melee units or non-jetbikes
That seems common among all factions

But what I have issues with is:
A) all the traits not applying to a specific set of units (like Marines) and
B) a specific trait excluding a set of unit for dumb reasons (like excluding FLY units on any Eldar trait)

 Galef wrote:
Yeah, I think its ok for units to not benefit from a faction trait because the rule itself doesn't really apply.

But what I have issues with is:
A) all the traits not applying to a specific set of units (like Marines) and
B) a specific trait excluding a set of unit for dumb reasons (like excluding FLY units on any Eldar trait)

What does it matter? The end result is the same: some units are not affected.

 Crimson wrote:

 Galef wrote:
Yeah, I think its ok for units to not benefit from a faction trait because the rule itself doesn't really apply.

But what I have issues with is:
A) all the traits not applying to a specific set of units (like Marines) and
B) a specific trait excluding a set of unit for dumb reasons (like excluding FLY units on any Eldar trait)

What does it matter? The end result is the same: some units are not affected.

What's the acceptable amount of units to not be affected though?

 Crimson wrote:

 Galef wrote:
Yeah, I think its ok for units to not benefit from a faction trait because the rule itself doesn't really apply.

But what I have issues with is:
A) all the traits not applying to a specific set of units (like Marines) and
B) a specific trait excluding a set of unit for dumb reasons (like excluding FLY units on any Eldar trait)

What does it matter? The end result is the same: some units are not affected.

I'm ok with *some* units not being affect, but specifically excluding further units means *most* units are not affected

There can be a significant difference between *some* and *most*. The purpose of faction traits to be to add a bit of flavor to your army, but when the units you want to take only benefit from being Chocolate, you'll never make them Vanilla, even if you want Vanilla.

Personally I want to be Saim-Hann. Have been since 4E. But Saim-Hann does nothing for my army at all (mostly because my Troops got removed from the game). So I've been Alaitoc since the codex dropped.

-

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

What's the acceptable amount of units to not be affected though?

It doesn't really matter if they're the same units for all the subfactions of the army. Then point cost of those units can be based on for them not having the trait. I'd be perfectly fine with SM vehicles not having tactics if they wouldn't be overpriced for their effectiveness.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Galef wrote:

There can be a significant difference between *some* and *most*. The purpose of faction traits to be to add a bit of flavor to your army, but when the units you want to take only benefit from being Chocolate, you'll never make them Vanilla, even if you want Vanilla.

Personally I want to be Saim-Hann. Have been since 4E. But Saim-Hann does nothing for my army at all (mostly because my Troops got removed from the game). So I've been Alaitoc since the codex dropped.

Well, that is the biggest reason why these traits are a bad idea to begin with. One always ends up being OP, or at least OP with certain units.

 Crimson wrote:
Well, that is the biggest reason why these traits are a bad idea to begin with. One always ends up being OP, or at least OP with certain units.

I actually agree with this. Army flavor is great, but even the best game designers wouldn't be able to balance them completely. As you said, one trait will always be the clear winner.

I wonder how the community would react if army trait abilities were Narrative only? Like you could still be UMs in Matched Play, but you get no bonus aside from Strats and other abilities that affect specifically UMs. But the +1LD and fall back and shoot at -1 only applied in Narrative games.
Seems a potential way to make both Play modes appealing. Would have to put more restrictions on Narrative to work, but it might be a good start

-

It's not like Eldar are crying because suddenly they'd have a Trait not everyone can benefit from. After all:

Uthwe: Nothing for Hemlocks or Avatars as-is
Biel-Tan: Nothing for most Aspects, CH, Hemlock, any Wraith units, and more
Sam-Hainn: Nothing for Flyers, almost nothing for anything but Windriders and Vypers
Iyanden: Nothing for everything except Grav Tanks, WraithKnight/Lords, and Guardian blobs

The complaint is making Alaitoc so it can only *possibly* impact less than half the book, and of the remaining half only impacts them if they don't play like Eldar.

Thousand Sons special rule only impacting units with Smite makes some sense in that Thousand Sons is an army built around units that can Smite.

It'd be like if you gave Thousand Sons "Tzangors each get free Pulse Rifles"? Do you even care if it's powerful or not? It doesn't match your faction, only benefits a small section of your list, and then only when you aren't fielding them like Thousand Sons.

If you give Alaitoc a trait that only impacts half the army, but fits, I don't care. For instance, I actually really like the Sam-Hainn trait. And my only complaint about Biel-Tan is that it should have been Uthwe. Turn Alaitoc into something like that, and sure. But turn it into "Don't play Eldar, get +amazingbonus", and we'll be unhappy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
+1 the "Traits are a bad idea, Mkay!" post. I liked the CWE book more without them. And the other faction books too.

You can't have balance problems if everything is the same <guy tapping on side of head.jpg>

So the problem is that some traits are better than others, so everyone takes those, and every army ends up being the same. So the solution is to remove traits, so that every army...is the same? No thanks. At least with the current system, people can choose to sacrifice some competitiveness for flavor and variety. And different unit builds can be better with different traits. Sure, something is going to end up being the best overall. But that doesn't mean we have to destroy all B lists.

40K players: “I want balanced forces”
Also 40K players: “I want special rules”

Before Chapter Traits, I felt like my UltraMarines were UltraMarine descendents, whereas another guy's were RG, another were Sallies, and so forth.

Before Chapter Traits, a Spirit Host was very different from a Swordwind force or a Guardian Warhost.

We shouldn't reduce everything to no variance for the sake of balance, but I don't see Chapter Traits adding much variance to the game. It's still the same choices for armies. They just have better rules

But the 'flavour' of these traits doesn't even make sense. Biel-tan encourages you to run guardian hordes and Catachans encourage you to run a lot of Leman Russ tanks.

 Crimson wrote:
But the 'flavour' of these traits doesn't even make sense. Biel-tan encourages you to run guardian hordes and Catachans encourage you to run a lot of Leman Russ tanks.

That i'll certainly agree with. I would almost prefer if traits weren't attached to any specific chapter.

Bharring wrote:
Before Chapter Traits, I felt like my UltraMarines were UltraMarine descendents, whereas another guy's were RG, another were Sallies, and so forth.

Before Chapter Traits, a Spirit Host was very different from a Swordwind force or a Guardian Warhost.

We shouldn't reduce everything to no variance for the sake of balance, but I don't see Chapter Traits adding much variance to the game. It's still the same choices for armies. They just have better rules

Except not, because you're forced into running Roboute. So how did a army actually feel like those Chapters outside paint colors?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Except not, because you're forced into running Roboute. So how did a army actually feel like those Chapters outside paint colors?

Roboute shouldn't exist.

But that aside, 'Chapter Traits' are relatively new invention in the 40K, and people made flavourful armies for years fine without them. If you want to make a thematic White Scars army, choose a lot of bikes and Land Speeders, if you want to make a thematic Biel-Tan army, choose a lot of aspect warriors. Why there needs to be some special rules for it?

Your trying to slam shut a door that has been open for a long time.

And some special army rules have existed for decades now.

 Crimson wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Except not, because you're forced into running Roboute. So how did a army actually feel like those Chapters outside paint colors?

Roboute shouldn't exist.

But that aside, 'Chapter Traits' are relatively new invention in the 40K, and people made flavourful armies for years fine without them. If you want to make a thematic White Scars army, choose a lot of bikes and Land Speeders, if you want to make a thematic Biel-Tan army, choose a lot of aspect warriors. Why there needs to be some special rules for it?

Absolutely agree. Ultimately if you want to make the most powerful army possible you have to make concessions on the fluff. We could say we wish it were otherwise, but it's the case for virtually any game of this kind. The most optimal build is rarely the most lore accurate in any game.

 Crimson wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Except not, because you're forced into running Roboute. So how did a army actually feel like those Chapters outside paint colors?

Roboute shouldn't exist.

But that aside, 'Chapter Traits' are relatively new invention in the 40K, and people made flavourful armies for years fine without them. If you want to make a thematic White Scars army, choose a lot of bikes and Land Speeders, if you want to make a thematic Biel-Tan army, choose a lot of aspect warriors. Why there needs to be some special rules for it?

There don't need to be, but those armies aren't competitive for the most part. For example, in 5th we saw lots of bike armies because of bikes as troops option. Without that, we wouldn't have seen many because bikes weren't good enough without it.

The same complaints about traits being imbalanced can also be applied to unit configurations.

Ideally, traits should be used to encourage less viable list builds by buffing otherwise less desirable units if taken on a large scale.

 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:


There don't need to be, but those armies aren't competitive for the most part. For example, in 5th we saw lots of bike armies because of bikes as troops option. Without that, we wouldn't have seen many because bikes weren't good enough without it.

But everyone could do that, it was not a White Scar thing.

The same complaints about traits being imbalanced can also be applied to unit configurations.

Not really. At least without traits you can theoretically balance the units. But if one trait makes unit A better while another makes unit B better, how do you balance that? Should the unit be pointed as it was receiving the buff from the trait or not?

Ideally, traits should be used to encourage less viable list builds by buffing otherwise less desirable units if taken on a large scale.

Why not just buff those units directly?

 Crimson wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Except not, because you're forced into running Roboute. So how did a army actually feel like those Chapters outside paint colors?

Roboute shouldn't exist.

But that aside, 'Chapter Traits' are relatively new invention in the 40K, and people made flavourful armies for years fine without them. If you want to make a thematic White Scars army, choose a lot of bikes and Land Speeders, if you want to make a thematic Biel-Tan army, choose a lot of aspect warriors. Why there needs to be some special rules for it?

Uh...
You had a Chapter creation system and Legion traits with 3rd/4th, and in 5th a named Character for Loyalist Scum conferred certain bonuses by replacing Combat Tactics (or whatever it was called).

It isn't a new invention I promise you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:

 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:


There don't need to be, but those armies aren't competitive for the most part. For example, in 5th we saw lots of bike armies because of bikes as troops option. Without that, we wouldn't have seen many because bikes weren't good enough without it.

But everyone could do that, it was not a White Scar thing.

The same complaints about traits being imbalanced can also be applied to unit configurations.

Not really. At least without traits you can theoretically balance the units. But if one trait makes unit A better while another makes unit B better, how do you balance that? Should the unit be pointed as it was receiving the buff from the trait or not?

Ideally, traits should be used to encourage less viable list builds by buffing otherwise less desirable units if taken on a large scale.

Why not just buff those units directly?

That's why I'm for balancing everything without Special HQ and Traits first, and then when everyone is balanced as that we can start adding what the Traits do.

In a way, if the Index lists had any semblance of balance that would've been an excellent framework. Instead, GW is kinda balancing as they go.

 Crimson wrote:

 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:


There don't need to be, but those armies aren't competitive for the most part. For example, in 5th we saw lots of bike armies because of bikes as troops option. Without that, we wouldn't have seen many because bikes weren't good enough without it.

But everyone could do that, it was not a White Scar thing.

The same complaints about traits being imbalanced can also be applied to unit configurations.

Not really. At least without traits you can theoretically balance the units. But if one trait makes unit A better while another makes unit B better, how do you balance that? Should the unit be pointed as it was receiving the buff from the trait or not?

Ideally, traits should be used to encourage less viable list builds by buffing otherwise less desirable units if taken on a large scale.

Why not just buff those units directly?

1) Yes, in that case they could. I used that example because you mentioned white scars. But there were other character dependent builds that were tied to specific factions via special characters. At least our traits aren't tied to special characters anymore!

2) What I mean is that you are saying that traits are bad because they cause imbalances. Well, the main thing that causes imbalances is different unit configurations. So why not limit unit options more as well? In both cases, you are removing options in the name of balance.

3) In an ideal world, traits work like this: both armies are balanced, and then each get a trait buffing a different area, but with about the same power overall, so both armies stay balanced. Now obviously it doesn't actually work that way because the game wasn't balanced at the unit level in the first place. So what we actually get is that certain unit combinations produce the most powerful lists, but if you have a trait affecting less used units, that can bring them up to the level of better units.

The big problem is when we see a list that has an optimal unit composition that then is also buffed by a trait. Bad lists with traits aren't a problem. Good lists that also have a relevant trait are.

You are talking about some ideal state of balance that the game isn't going to achieve. If we could achieve total unit balance, then it may not be worth introducing traits. But we can't achieve total unit balance, and we're not going to. So let's at least leave some mechanical variety in so that people who aren't going to play the top meta list can have things be a bit more interesting.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Uh...
You had a Chapter creation system and Legion traits with 3rd/4th, and in 5th a named Character for Loyalist Scum conferred certain bonuses by replacing Combat Tactics (or whatever it was called).

It isn't a new invention I promise you.

Everything after the second edition is 'new'. And I'm pretty sure there weren't chapter traits in the third edition either.

That's why I'm for balancing everything without Special HQ and Traits first, and then when everyone is balanced as that we can start adding what the Traits do.

But it still doesn't solve the issue with the traits. If one trait buffs unit A while another trait doesn't buff it (it buffs something else instead) how do you cost the unit A? If you cost is like it hadn't the trait, it is OP with it, if you cost it like it had it, it will be overcosted without it.

 Crimson wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Uh...
You had a Chapter creation system and Legion traits with 3rd/4th, and in 5th a named Character for Loyalist Scum conferred certain bonuses by replacing Combat Tactics (or whatever it was called).

It isn't a new invention I promise you.

Everything after the second edition is 'new'. And I'm pretty sure there weren't chapter traits in the third edition either.

That's why I'm for balancing everything without Special HQ and Traits first, and then when everyone is balanced as that we can start adding what the Traits do.

But it still doesn't solve the issue with the traits. If one trait buffs unit A while another trait doesn't buff it (it buffs something else instead) how do you cost the unit A? If you cost is like it hadn't the trait, it is OP with it, if you cost it like it had it, it will be overcosted without it.

I believe 3rd ed had different legion traits. 3.5ed CSM did at least.
And if we are calling everything after 2nd ed new, then wtf timescale are we even on here?

"So how did a army actually feel like those Chapters outside paint colors?"
My UltraMarine (descendents): at least 2 Tac squads, 1 Dev squad and 1 ASM squad as the backbone of every list. Working together, not as 3 seperate forces.

Other guy's Sallies: Lots of Flamers and Meltas. A beautiful TH/SS Termie squad with cloaks.

White Scars: More Bikes than the average Marine list. Or every Marine mounted up (Rhino, Razorback, or Bike)

Swordwind: No duplicate non-troops. Preferably very different types of units, too.

Spirit Host: Lots of Wraith constructs. Tends to build slow and durable.

Guardian Warhost: Lots of Guardians. Not much to explain here.

Windrider Host: Moar Jetbikes. Same.

You could build each of these armies, and they would build, look, and play differently. Even without different rules.

White Scars, for example, should be exemplified by more Bikes and having Rhinos for their on-foot doods more often than most chapters. But their bikes should, on average, be just as good as UM or RG bikes. Likewise, UM will probably have more Tacs than others, but their Tacs would be no better.

Bharring wrote:


White Scars, for example, should be exemplified by more Bikes and having Rhinos for their on-foot doods more often than most chapters. But their bikes should, on average, be just as good as UM or RG bikes. Likewise, UM will probably have more Tacs than others, but their Tacs would be no better.

Exactly! Doing it otherwise results a situation, that if for example White Scars had better bikes than other chapters, you'd be gimping yourself if you for some reason wanted to run a bike heavy Ultramarine 8th company army.

 Crimson wrote:

Bharring wrote:


White Scars, for example, should be exemplified by more Bikes and having Rhinos for their on-foot doods more often than most chapters. But their bikes should, on average, be just as good as UM or RG bikes. Likewise, UM will probably have more Tacs than others, but their Tacs would be no better.

Exactly! Doing it otherwise results a situation, that if for example White Scars had better bikes than other chapters, you'd be gimping yourself if you for some reason wanted to run a bike heavy Ultramarine 8th company army.

That would be an argument to make the traits generic and not attached to the fluff. for example, if anyone could take a trait to buff bikes, then the UM bike company and White Scars would be of equal power. It doesn't mean we have to get rid of traits entirely.

But then if you want a Company:
-A White Scars detatchment of Bikers
-An Imperial Fists detatchment of Devs
-An UM detatchment of Tacs

For a silly soup forces. And, depending on the army building rules, you may have 1 WS Tac squad, 1 IF Tac squad, and 4 UM Tac squads - each with different rules.

Why not just have SM Bikes capable stock, and not need a trait to skew your force in their favor? That way, you have fewer silly beardy lists, and more variety within most lists.

 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

Bharring wrote:


White Scars, for example, should be exemplified by more Bikes and having Rhinos for their on-foot doods more often than most chapters. But their bikes should, on average, be just as good as UM or RG bikes. Likewise, UM will probably have more Tacs than others, but their Tacs would be no better.

Exactly! Doing it otherwise results a situation, that if for example White Scars had better bikes than other chapters, you'd be gimping yourself if you for some reason wanted to run a bike heavy Ultramarine 8th company army.

That would be an argument to make the traits generic and not attached to the fluff. for example, if anyone could take a trait to buff bikes, then the UM bike company and White Scars would be of equal power. It doesn't mean we have to get rid of traits entirely.

But if bikes are in practice always run with a certain trait, then why not just make that trait part of the base bike unit rules to begin with?

 Crimson wrote:

 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

Bharring wrote:


White Scars, for example, should be exemplified by more Bikes and having Rhinos for their on-foot doods more often than most chapters. But their bikes should, on average, be just as good as UM or RG bikes. Likewise, UM will probably have more Tacs than others, but their Tacs would be no better.

Exactly! Doing it otherwise results a situation, that if for example White Scars had better bikes than other chapters, you'd be gimping yourself if you for some reason wanted to run a bike heavy Ultramarine 8th company army.

That would be an argument to make the traits generic and not attached to the fluff. for example, if anyone could take a trait to buff bikes, then the UM bike company and White Scars would be of equal power. It doesn't mean we have to get rid of traits entirely.

But if bikes are in practice always run with a certain trait, then why not just make that trait part of the base bike unit rules to begin with?

Well for one, that would just increase the power of all units across the board. And it would leave no difference between bikes run as part of some other list, and bikes run as part of a specialized list.
I think it's good if we have some slight buffs for variety. for example, say you have 2 players with the same list: a couple tacs, some devs, and a bike squad. 1 player picks a trait that buffs the devs, and the other picks a trait that buffs bikes. That should be fine and viable, and is more interesting than both players having the same list. This is the same thing as I mentioned before about list ideally being balanced before traits.

And there's also the issue of specialized lists. They are fun and fluffy, but by definition are going to be weaker than more well rounded lists. If you normally need some tacs to take objectives, some devs to kill Knights, and some bikes to harass back line units, but then you run only bikes, you're going to have trouble taking points or killing Knights, no? In which case you need buffs on your bikes if the list is still going to be competitive. This is also what I was saying before, about traits being used to make less competitive builds still good enough to field.