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.
2000/08/26 22:38:29
Subject: Which Undivided Chaos Legion Would You Like to Have a Codex?
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: I also don't think there should be Chapter or Legion tactics, or any other subfaction rules packages like super doctrines or special relics and warlord traits. [In that vein, I also don't think there should even be relics or warlord traits]
So you want them all to be the same, and the difference between Chapters/Legions to just be a paint job?
Sheesh... how unbelievably boring.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/08/26 22:38:38
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: I also don't think there should be Chapter or Legion tactics, or any other subfaction rules packages like super doctrines or special relics and warlord traits. [In that vein, I also don't think there should even be relics or warlord traits]
So you want them all to be the same, and the difference between Chapters/Legions to just be a paint job?
Sheesh... how unbelievably boring.
Free special rules are terrible. It's objectively terrible for game balance, andIMO it's also not good for the story of the game. Everything doesn't need a super special rule for some random constructed background thing that happened, the evolving narrative of the game is what's happening now, and the best stories are like when Commissar with plasma pistol paradrops out of a Valkryie and kills an SM commander, or a Battlewagon comes out of left field and just steamrollers a Dreadnought before crashing into a Predator and causing it to explode.
If your personal CSM worship khorne or something, field berserkers, if your SM like bikes, field more bikes. They don't need special rules to make their berserkers 33% stronger than other berserkers for the same price, or their bikes 16.5% faster, or whatever.
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!
2021/08/27 00:29:13
Subject: Which Undivided Chaos Legion Would You Like to Have a Codex?
40k was unbalanced in 5th and 6th Ed when there weren't subfactions, it changed nothing when they were added back in.
andIMO it's also not good for the story of the game. Everything doesn't need a super special rule for some random constructed background thing that happened, the evolving narrative of the game is what's happening now, and the best stories are like when Commissar with plasma pistol paradrops out of a Valkryie and kills an SM commander, or a Battlewagon comes out of left field and just steamrollers a Dreadnought before crashing into a Predator and causing it to explode.
And subfaction rules/warlord traits/relics affect this how? A warlord trait shows the defining characteristic of the leader of your army, they might be a bloodthirsty warrior or a genius tactician, and that trait is then represented in-game. A piece of my Captain's wargear dates back to the time of the Heresy and is a prized relic of the Chapter, which I can represent in-game with certain Relic choices.
If your personal CSM worship khorne or something, field berserkers, if your SM like bikes, field more bikes. They don't need special rules to make their berserkers 33% stronger than other berserkers for the same price, or their bikes 16.5% faster, or whatever.
Without subfaction rules, those Berzerkers aren't scoring units, which means they can hold objectives, which means the Khorne aligned CSM player literally cannot win games with the unit that complements the background of their faction. Some subfactions use subpar units within the game system but with subfaction rules, those subpar units become valid options while still fulfilling the background of said army. For example, Cultists are and have been the objectively superior Troop choice for CSM for almost 3 Editions now. Red Corsairs don't make use of Cultists often so the subfaction special rules give incentives (extra CP) to take Marine units. Why should the Red Corsair player have to pick between a better chance at winning or sticking with their army background? If Marks of Chaos didn't unlock the Cult units as Troop choices in 6th Edition, the CSM Codex would have been even worse to play than it already was.
2021/08/27 00:42:54
Subject: Which Undivided Chaos Legion Would You Like to Have a Codex?
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: I also don't think there should be Chapter or Legion tactics, or any other subfaction rules packages like super doctrines or special relics and warlord traits. [In that vein, I also don't think there should even be relics or warlord traits]
So you want them all to be the same, and the difference between Chapters/Legions to just be a paint job?
Sheesh... how unbelievably boring.
Free special rules are terrible. It's objectively terrible for game balance, andIMO it's also not good for the story of the game. Everything doesn't need a super special rule for some random constructed background thing that happened, the evolving narrative of the game is what's happening now, and the best stories are like when Commissar with plasma pistol paradrops out of a Valkryie and kills an SM commander, or a Battlewagon comes out of left field and just steamrollers a Dreadnought before crashing into a Predator and causing it to explode.
If your personal CSM worship khorne or something, field berserkers, if your SM like bikes, field more bikes. They don't need special rules to make their berserkers 33% stronger than other berserkers for the same price, or their bikes 16.5% faster, or whatever.
So, no special rules for sub-factions? No sub-faction relics, Warlord traits, or strategems either. How about sub-faction specific units? Should those exist? Should there be units that can only be used in certain sub-factions?
2021/05/26 00:44:05
Subject: Which Undivided Chaos Legion Would You Like to Have a Codex?
40k was unbalanced in 5th and 6th Ed when there weren't subfactions, it changed nothing when they were added back in.
It's substantially worse now than it was then. Also, early on at least for Guard they changed the points cost of infantry to have doctrines, so they weren't free, IIRC.
andIMO it's also not good for the story of the game. Everything doesn't need a super special rule for some random constructed background thing that happened, the evolving narrative of the game is what's happening now, and the best stories are like when Commissar with plasma pistol paradrops out of a Valkryie and kills an SM commander, or a Battlewagon comes out of left field and just steamrollers a Dreadnought before crashing into a Predator and causing it to explode.
And subfaction rules/warlord traits/relics affect this how? A warlord trait shows the defining characteristic of the leader of your army, they might be a bloodthirsty warrior or a genius tactician, and that trait is then represented in-game. A piece of my Captain's wargear dates back to the time of the Heresy and is a prized relic of the Chapter, which I can represent in-game with certain Relic choices.
Just say that it's that, especially if it's I dunno a relic of your own creation. Make his sword fancy or something on the model. It doesn't need to be that every Space Marine captain is carrying the same damn relic chainsword from the standard canon like a game of hot-potato. Also, like sword-is-sword. It's a goddamn sword. Just because this chainsword was made in the first days of our chapter doesn't make it any different in performance from the ones we unboxed from the forgeworld yesterday.
And, this is my opinion, the narrative of the game should be about the evolving story between my collection and my opponent's collection, not really tied and fixed to the canon in such a way that my guys put on their blue shirts today because Ultramarines are strong or something.
If your personal CSM worship khorne or something, field berserkers, if your SM like bikes, field more bikes. They don't need special rules to make their berserkers 33% stronger than other berserkers for the same price, or their bikes 16.5% faster, or whatever.
Without subfaction rules, those Berzerkers aren't scoring units, which means they can hold objectives, which means the Khorne aligned CSM player literally cannot win games with the unit that complements the background of their faction. Some subfactions use subpar units within the game system but with subfaction rules, those subpar units become valid options while still fulfilling the background of said army. For example, Cultists are and have been the objectively superior Troop choice for CSM for almost 3 Editions now. Red Corsairs don't make use of Cultists often so the subfaction special rules give incentives (extra CP) to take Marine units. Why should the Red Corsair player have to pick between a better chance at winning or sticking with their army background? If Marks of Chaos didn't unlock the Cult units as Troop choices in 6th Edition, the CSM Codex would have been even worse to play than it already was.
You're still going to have other stuff. You usually can't play a game without troops.
Also, Red Corsairs have significant cultists. IIRC, Huron Blackheart had a whole army of mortals he formed as the Tyrant's Legion.
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: I also don't think there should be Chapter or Legion tactics, or any other subfaction rules packages like super doctrines or special relics and warlord traits. [In that vein, I also don't think there should even be relics or warlord traits]
So you want them all to be the same, and the difference between Chapters/Legions to just be a paint job?
Sheesh... how unbelievably boring.
Free special rules are terrible. It's objectively terrible for game balance, andIMO it's also not good for the story of the game. Everything doesn't need a super special rule for some random constructed background thing that happened, the evolving narrative of the game is what's happening now, and the best stories are like when Commissar with plasma pistol paradrops out of a Valkryie and kills an SM commander, or a Battlewagon comes out of left field and just steamrollers a Dreadnought before crashing into a Predator and causing it to explode.
If your personal CSM worship khorne or something, field berserkers, if your SM like bikes, field more bikes. They don't need special rules to make their berserkers 33% stronger than other berserkers for the same price, or their bikes 16.5% faster, or whatever.
So, no special rules for sub-factions? No sub-faction relics, Warlord traits, or strategems either. How about sub-faction specific units? Should those exist? Should there be units that can only be used in certain sub-factions?
No. I don't think there should be. It's both a negative effect on balance, and it's an inhibition of the personal narrative of creating your own forces of your dudes, by making the various things contingent on the canon stuff.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/08/27 00:54:50
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!
2021/08/27 01:05:07
Subject: Which Undivided Chaos Legion Would You Like to Have a Codex?
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: I also don't think there should be Chapter or Legion tactics, or any other subfaction rules packages like super doctrines or special relics and warlord traits. [In that vein, I also don't think there should even be relics or warlord traits]
So you want them all to be the same, and the difference between Chapters/Legions to just be a paint job?
Sheesh... how unbelievably boring.
Free special rules are terrible. It's objectively terrible for game balance, andIMO it's also not good for the story of the game. Everything doesn't need a super special rule for some random constructed background thing that happened, the evolving narrative of the game is what's happening now, and the best stories are like when Commissar with plasma pistol paradrops out of a Valkryie and kills an SM commander, or a Battlewagon comes out of left field and just steamrollers a Dreadnought before crashing into a Predator and causing it to explode.
If your personal CSM worship khorne or something, field berserkers, if your SM like bikes, field more bikes. They don't need special rules to make their berserkers 33% stronger than other berserkers for the same price, or their bikes 16.5% faster, or whatever.
So, no special rules for sub-factions? No sub-faction relics, Warlord traits, or strategems either. How about sub-faction specific units? Should those exist? Should there be units that can only be used in certain sub-factions?
No. I don't think there should be. It's both a negative effect on balance, and it's an inhibition of the personal narrative of creating your own forces of your dudes, by making the various things contingent on the canon stuff.
So, no more Grey Hunters, Blood Claws, or Long Fangs? I commend your consistency, even though I disagree with your opinion.
2021/08/27 01:35:30
Subject: Which Undivided Chaos Legion Would You Like to Have a Codex?
I suppose that there are extremes to everything. The anti-fun consolidationists of Dakka have within them, as it seems, abolitionists - people who want to remove all fun, flavour and options from the game, rather than just most of them.
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: I also don't think there should be Chapter or Legion tactics, or any other subfaction rules packages like super doctrines or special relics and warlord traits. [In that vein, I also don't think there should even be relics or warlord traits]
So you want them all to be the same, and the difference between Chapters/Legions to just be a paint job?
Sheesh... how unbelievably boring.
Free special rules are terrible. It's objectively terrible for game balance, andIMO it's also not good for the story of the game. Everything doesn't need a super special rule for some random constructed background thing that happened, the evolving narrative of the game is what's happening now, and the best stories are like when Commissar with plasma pistol paradrops out of a Valkryie and kills an SM commander, or a Battlewagon comes out of left field and just steamrollers a Dreadnought before crashing into a Predator and causing it to explode.
If your personal CSM worship khorne or something, field berserkers, if your SM like bikes, field more bikes. They don't need special rules to make their berserkers 33% stronger than other berserkers for the same price, or their bikes 16.5% faster, or whatever.
So, no special rules for sub-factions? No sub-faction relics, Warlord traits, or strategems either. How about sub-faction specific units? Should those exist? Should there be units that can only be used in certain sub-factions?
No. I don't think there should be. It's both a negative effect on balance, and it's an inhibition of the personal narrative of creating your own forces of your dudes, by making the various things contingent on the canon stuff.
So, no more Grey Hunters, Blood Claws, or Long Fangs? I commend your consistency, even though I disagree with your opinion.
I assume you're being sarcastic since I play Space Wolves, but like seriously, what is the difference between a Grey Hunter and a Tactical Marine? Basically just the name [technically, the Grey Hunters don't get Heavy Weapon and do get a Chainsword, but like that's super minor].
All things considered, there's some point of faction differentiation. If the vast majority of the units are shared or identical, there's no reason to have a separate codex.
I don't intend to portray an overly hard line on it, there's obviously a point of faction differentiation. As I mentioned, there's very little overlap between GK and Space Marines, but almost the entire Space Wolves line is a unit from the SM codex, with the exception of the gunships, the wolf riders, and the wulfen [and there's no particular reason that other SM chapters must not have a beast riders, or gene-seed decayed insane guys]. But look at DG and Tsons. When they made them their own codex, just because they needed to be different, they added a small set of new units and just gutted out a bunch of units that they formerly had, and even then most of it is overlapping or a clone still. I think that would be bad for any of the legions to get that treatment, losing about a third of the units for like 3 unique ones.
I oppose varing rules without points cost changes on principle though.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/08/27 06:28:03
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!
2021/08/27 07:27:22
Subject: Which Undivided Chaos Legion Would You Like to Have a Codex?
I have to say that theres nothing inherently imbalanced about having subfaction rules.
I mean, civilization, Age of Empires, etc... have them in historical gaming context to make actually different to play different versions of a base army (In Age of Empires all armies are the same with different bonuses, a couple units and upgrades).
And in Horus Heresy you have subfactions (With the legions) or custom factions (like the imperium militia) and further sub-subfactions with the Rites of War and stuff.
Theres nothing "inherently imbalanced/broken" about that.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/08/27 07:32:18
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.
2021/08/27 07:35:24
Subject: Which Undivided Chaos Legion Would You Like to Have a Codex?
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: I assume you're being sarcastic since I play Space Wolves, but like seriously, what is the difference between a Grey Hunter and a Tactical Marine? Basically just the name [technically, the Grey Hunters don't get Heavy Weapon and do get a Chainsword, but like that's super minor].
Is it super minor? They have different weapon options and largely a different role, and are far more focused around close-ranged combat. How is that a "super minor" difference?
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: All things considered, there's some point of faction differentiation. If the vast majority of the units are shared or identical, there's no reason to have a separate codex.
Up until the current Marine 'Dex, the Woofs didn't have shared units outside of vehicles. Then GW crowbarred all the non-Chapter-specific Primaris stuff into the Wolves, and we get the weird double Codex thing they have now.
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: But look at DG and Tsons. When they made them their own codex, just because they needed to be different, they added a small set of new units and just gutted out a bunch of units that they formerly had, and even then most of it is overlapping or a clone still. I think that would be bad for any of the legions to get that treatment, losing about a third of the units for like 3 unique ones.
But different Legions should play differently. The difference between World Eaters and Death Guard is not just the colour of their armour, and who they shout praises to in the fluff.
So remove ATSKNF? Remove Ancient Doom or Battle Focus? Remove orders from the Guard? Synapse? These are all 'free' abilities. But no, you think that relics and Warlord traits should also be abolished.
You really do want to remove flavour, fun and options. That's a weird hardline to take.
Yeah, I cannot see the argument for why two military organizations that are 10.000 years appart from where they shared a combat doctrine or unified leadership , follow literal opposite magic gods of destruction than are famous for muttating their followers and give powers to them that could not be more different from the powers of other bad gods, should just play exactly the same with a different paint job.
Space Marines, Sisters of Battle and Imperial Guard have much more in common right now by fluff to justify using the same rules than Thousand Sons, World Eaters, Death Guard, Emperor's Children and Night Lords or Iron Warriors for example.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/08/27 08:04:23
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.
2021/08/27 08:06:47
Subject: Re:Which Undivided Chaos Legion Would You Like to Have a Codex?
Marines have had a rule called "chapter tactics" as long as I've been playing. the only differance between then (5th edition) and now is I'm not locked into the Ultramarines chapter tactics unless I take a special character
Opinions are not facts please don't confuse the two
2021/08/27 12:46:55
Subject: Which Undivided Chaos Legion Would You Like to Have a Codex?
Agreed with all saying "no separate codexes" and "no free specials" I'm against bloat and needless complexity.
1 Astartes Codex (it can be big) and 1 CSM codex... 1 for each Alien Race (nids and cults together, all Eldar in 1, etc). It's been years since anyone around me has bought a codex and most are moving to third party rules once they realize that they won't ever actually play in a tournament, so better to have balance and fun
DO:70S++G++M+B++I+Pw40k93/f#++D++++A++++/eWD-R++++T(D)DM+ Note: Records since 2010, lists kept current (W-D-L) Blue DP Crusade 126-11-6 Biel-Tan Aspect Waves 2-0-2 Looted Green Horde smash your face in 32-7-8 Broadside/Shield Drone/Kroot blitz goodness 23-3-4 Grey Hunters galore 17-5-5 Khan Bikes Win 63-1-1 Tanith with Pardus Armor 11-0-0 Crimson Tide 59-4-0 Green/Raven/Deathwing 18-0-0 Jumping GK force with Inq. 4-0-0 BTemplars w LRs 7-1-2 IH Legion with Automata 8-0-0 RG Legion w Adepticon medal 6-0-0 Primaris and Little Buddies 7-0-0
QM Templates here, HH army builder app for both v1 and v2 One Page 40k Ruleset for Game Beginners
2021/08/27 13:07:54
Subject: Which Undivided Chaos Legion Would You Like to Have a Codex?
I do feel the need to point out that "anti-fun" is an odd choice of epithet for "consolidationists" -I recall people having fun using weapon/wargear/unit selection, paint scheme, and kitbashing/third-party models to make themed forces back in 5e even if the relevant 'dex didn't have subfaction rules.
That said, I am in favor of having them (though they should be limited) and while having a cost associated is probably a good thing, that should be a call made per-ability. Katherine was right, most of the 3.5 Alternate Regimental Organization stuff for Guard had an associated points cost. However, some did not (eg. Close Order Drill, which only required that a unit be in base-to-base with itself) and other options were balanced by being mutually exclusive (you couldn't take Carapace Armour with Light Infantry (which gave the unit Infiltrate, the ability to swap a heavy weapon choice for taking a sniper rifle, and an additional d6 roll for determining movement through difficult terrain)). Likewise, some abilities were unlikely to be worth the associated points cost (Hardened Fighters cost 15 points for an Infantry Squad and gave you...+1 WS. Yay?).
Also, choosing to make, for example, a Tallarn Infantry Squad with all the ARO rules meant that your base Infantry Squad with no extra gear/weapons went from 60 points to 95, a more than 150% increase for 10 S3 T3 1W 5+ bodies. Yes, you did get a fair amount of extra stuff, but this was back in Platoon days, when you'd need 4 Infantry Squads minimum to field a legal list. That really adds up quick, and its a pretty open question whether it would be worth it.
(My reading was always that you didn't have to give every eligible unit every ability, so it wasn't strictly necessary to make every Tallarn squad 95 points base, but still...)
2021/08/27 13:34:50
Subject: Which Undivided Chaos Legion Would You Like to Have a Codex?
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: I also don't think there should be Chapter or Legion tactics, or any other subfaction rules packages like super doctrines or special relics and warlord traits. [In that vein, I also don't think there should even be relics or warlord traits]
So you want them all to be the same, and the difference between Chapters/Legions to just be a paint job?
Sheesh... how unbelievably boring.
Free special rules are terrible. It's objectively terrible for game balance, andIMO it's also not good for the story of the game. Everything doesn't need a super special rule for some random constructed background thing that happened, the evolving narrative of the game is what's happening now, and the best stories are like when Commissar with plasma pistol paradrops out of a Valkryie and kills an SM commander, or a Battlewagon comes out of left field and just steamrollers a Dreadnought before crashing into a Predator and causing it to explode.
If your personal CSM worship khorne or something, field berserkers, if your SM like bikes, field more bikes. They don't need special rules to make their berserkers 33% stronger than other berserkers for the same price, or their bikes 16.5% faster, or whatever.
So, no special rules for sub-factions? No sub-faction relics, Warlord traits, or strategems either. How about sub-faction specific units? Should those exist? Should there be units that can only be used in certain sub-factions?
No. I don't think there should be. It's both a negative effect on balance, and it's an inhibition of the personal narrative of creating your own forces of your dudes, by making the various things contingent on the canon stuff.
So, no more Grey Hunters, Blood Claws, or Long Fangs? I commend your consistency, even though I disagree with your opinion.
I assume you're being sarcastic since I play Space Wolves, but like seriously, what is the difference between a Grey Hunter and a Tactical Marine? Basically just the name [technically, the Grey Hunters don't get Heavy Weapon and do get a Chainsword, but like that's super minor].
All things considered, there's some point of faction differentiation. If the vast majority of the units are shared or identical, there's no reason to have a separate codex.
I don't intend to portray an overly hard line on it, there's obviously a point of faction differentiation. As I mentioned, there's very little overlap between GK and Space Marines, but almost the entire Space Wolves line is a unit from the SM codex, with the exception of the gunships, the wolf riders, and the wulfen [and there's no particular reason that other SM chapters must not have a beast riders, or gene-seed decayed insane guys]. But look at DG and Tsons. When they made them their own codex, just because they needed to be different, they added a small set of new units and just gutted out a bunch of units that they formerly had, and even then most of it is overlapping or a clone still. I think that would be bad for any of the legions to get that treatment, losing about a third of the units for like 3 unique ones.
I oppose varing rules without points cost changes on principle though.
I'm not being sarcastic. I know you play Space Wolves, and if you're willing to give up your own unique units that shows your dedication to your opinion. But I disagree with it. I think things like sub-faction specific warlord traits, relics, etc, are perfectly fine and add flavor to the sub-factions, I just think they should cost points. Faction traits, special units, and having units that are unavailable go further to add differentiation, which should exist. A Death Guard army shouldn't look and behave like a Thousand Sons army, and a Night Lords army shouldn't look or play like either in turn. The Legions are too fundamentally different for them to just be the same with different paint schemes. But I don't think the Undivided Legions need separate codexes to achieve that difference, just different rules.
2021/08/27 15:48:23
Subject: Which Undivided Chaos Legion Would You Like to Have a Codex?
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: I also don't think there should be Chapter or Legion tactics, or any other subfaction rules packages like super doctrines or special relics and warlord traits. [In that vein, I also don't think there should even be relics or warlord traits]
So you want them all to be the same, and the difference between Chapters/Legions to just be a paint job?
Sheesh... how unbelievably boring.
Free special rules are terrible. It's objectively terrible for game balance, andIMO it's also not good for the story of the game. Everything doesn't need a super special rule for some random constructed background thing that happened, the evolving narrative of the game is what's happening now, and the best stories are like when Commissar with plasma pistol paradrops out of a Valkryie and kills an SM commander, or a Battlewagon comes out of left field and just steamrollers a Dreadnought before crashing into a Predator and causing it to explode.
If your personal CSM worship khorne or something, field berserkers, if your SM like bikes, field more bikes. They don't need special rules to make their berserkers 33% stronger than other berserkers for the same price, or their bikes 16.5% faster, or whatever.
So, no special rules for sub-factions? No sub-faction relics, Warlord traits, or strategems either. How about sub-faction specific units? Should those exist? Should there be units that can only be used in certain sub-factions?
No. I don't think there should be. It's both a negative effect on balance, and it's an inhibition of the personal narrative of creating your own forces of your dudes, by making the various things contingent on the canon stuff.
So, no more Grey Hunters, Blood Claws, or Long Fangs? I commend your consistency, even though I disagree with your opinion.
I assume you're being sarcastic since I play Space Wolves, but like seriously, what is the difference between a Grey Hunter and a Tactical Marine? Basically just the name [technically, the Grey Hunters don't get Heavy Weapon and do get a Chainsword, but like that's super minor].
All things considered, there's some point of faction differentiation. If the vast majority of the units are shared or identical, there's no reason to have a separate codex.
I don't intend to portray an overly hard line on it, there's obviously a point of faction differentiation. As I mentioned, there's very little overlap between GK and Space Marines, but almost the entire Space Wolves line is a unit from the SM codex, with the exception of the gunships, the wolf riders, and the wulfen [and there's no particular reason that other SM chapters must not have a beast riders, or gene-seed decayed insane guys]. But look at DG and Tsons. When they made them their own codex, just because they needed to be different, they added a small set of new units and just gutted out a bunch of units that they formerly had, and even then most of it is overlapping or a clone still. I think that would be bad for any of the legions to get that treatment, losing about a third of the units for like 3 unique ones.
I oppose varing rules without points cost changes on principle though.
Well, thankfully GW will never adopt your stance & my SW will continue on having chapter specific versions of things.
Now if YOU want to play your SW as generic marines? Go for it.
2021/08/27 16:46:00
Subject: Which Undivided Chaos Legion Would You Like to Have a Codex?
Well, thankfully GW will never adopt your stance & my SW will continue on having chapter specific versions of things.
Now if YOU want to play your SW as generic marines? Go for it.
Given that we are regular marines now, and most Space Wolves lists I see look basically identical to regular Marine lists with SW special characters instead of G-man or Shrike or whatever....
Consider that for most of the time we had a codex, things would come out for Marines that don't have a reason not to be in our inventory, but we'd just not get, because we were a separate book. There's no reason that we don't believe in AA guns or something, we just didn't have things because of the way the release cycle worked.
And in exchange, we got Chainswords on Tac Marines and split fire on Devastators.
While that isn't about Chaos, I think that sort of treatment would be negative for any Chaos Legion as well. DG and TSons already lost more stuff than they got, I know a DG player who played Death Guard, but literally couldn't after the codex without entirely rebuying his army because most of his collection became unusable for him.
Paying points for special rules is the way I think that something like CT should be implemented. It would be nice if they weren't also explicitly named for any Legion or Chapter or whatever, since I think that locking units and options to canon choices is also bad for the player's narrative.
Like, one of my friends had his Space Marines, who were White Scars successors, modelled riding Sandworms [dune style]. There's more room for creativity when the rules are less prescriptive about "canon accuracy uniqueness". It's not like Space Wolves should have a monopoly on beast riders or something.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/08/27 16:46:23
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!
2021/08/27 17:19:58
Subject: Which Undivided Chaos Legion Would You Like to Have a Codex?
While that isn't about Chaos, I think that sort of treatment would be negative for any Chaos Legion as well. DG and TSons already lost more stuff than they got, I know a DG player who played Death Guard, but literally couldn't after the codex without entirely rebuying his army because most of his collection became unusable for him.
DG lost access to CSM, Raptors, Warp Talons, Havocs, Bikes, Obliterators/Mutilators, Chosen, Forge/Maulerfiends, and Heldrakes.
Dark Apostles and Terminators were replaced with similar options.
CSM/Chosen can easily be proxied as Plague Marines.
DG also got 13 new unique units as of 9th Edition.
So unless your friend was running lists comprising only of Daemon Engines, Bikes, and Raptors, explain to me how their collection became unusable as DG.
It would be nice if they weren't also explicitly named for any Legion or Chapter or whatever, since I think that locking units and options to canon choices is also bad for the player's narrative.
The only things that are locked into specific Chapters are unique units/characters and even then it's not 100% locked. All Blood Angels successors have access to Sanguinary Guard, Death Company units, Baal Predators, Sanguinary Priests, and the Dreadnought variant. The only things they can't take are named characters like Dante or Lemartes.
Like, one of my friends had his Space Marines, who were White Scars successors, modelled riding Sandworms [dune style]. There's more room for creativity when the rules are less prescriptive about "canon accuracy uniqueness".
Ok? So this person can use their worm-riders as bikers. What's the issue here?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/08/27 17:20:55
2021/08/27 17:38:59
Subject: Re:Which Undivided Chaos Legion Would You Like to Have a Codex?
Excluding the "new stuff" that was added in later codexes, both Death Guard and Thousand Sons "lost" the units that they couldn't have in 3.5 or had units replaced with their own God specific versions. So it seems gw was reinstating those limitations. Whether or not that was a good decision is a matter of opinion.
2021/08/29 05:40:25
Subject: Which Undivided Chaos Legion Would You Like to Have a Codex?
Well, thankfully GW will never adopt your stance & my SW will continue on having chapter specific versions of things.
Now if YOU want to play your SW as generic marines? Go for it.
Given that we are regular marines now, and most Space Wolves lists I see look basically identical to regular Marine lists with SW special characters instead of G-man or Shrike or whatever....
Sure, they might look very similar. But thanks to the army specific stuff you think should be jettisoned they play differently. (well, a bit differently, they are still Marines after all....)
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: Consider that for most of the time we had a codex, things would come out for Marines that don't have a reason not to be in our inventory, but we'd just not get, because we were a separate book. There's no reason that we don't believe in AA guns or something, we just didn't have things because of the way the release cycle worked.
I've never wasted my time worrying about it. Because I don't believe it's necessary for each SM (or Guard, CSM, etc etc etc) faction to have identical options.
The lack of AA guns etc? That's just one of the things that make SW Space Wolves. Some unique limitation that you might want to consider when plotting out your route to victory....
Traitor Legions in 7th did this the best. That supplement and Khorne Daemonkin were the *Best* things from that dark time. I also think that's how you should handle the Traitor legions, everyone gets a entry, a keyword, a few relics and stratagems. I don't think any undivided would even be enough to cover a army book, unless you did all of them.
I've sold so many armies. :(
Aeldari 3kpts Slaves to Darkness.3k Word Bearers 2500k Daemons of Chaos
2021/08/30 08:06:25
Subject: Which Undivided Chaos Legion Would You Like to Have a Codex?
I'd say Alpha Legion.
Do something like a chaotic Deathwatch - the operatives have different backgrounds and experiences.
Give them something like a "disrupted Commad" trait, that has a slight chance to leave your forces in a complete mess, because nobody knows who's really in charge - let them use allied "cultists" instead of scouts.
2021/08/31 11:39:23
Subject: Re:Which Undivided Chaos Legion Would You Like to Have a Codex?
SamusDrake wrote: Well, if Space Marines have them then...fair's fair.
And while we're being so fair, how about separate supplements for the main Craftworlds and Ynnari?
And IG regiments, and Ork Kuktures, and Tau Septs, and Tyranid Hive Fleets, and Drukhari ... whatever they're called.
Now in fairness I also don't particularly like the Codex Supplement model either, but strictly because I don't see any reason that the four or five pages of actual rules in the SM Supplements shouldn't have been in the base Marine codex instead of 40 pages of fluff. It is absurd for Behemoth and Kraken or Iron Warriors and Black Legion to be differentiated by one warlord trait, relic, and stratagem (and chapter-tactic) when Imperial Fist and White Scars are separated by six warlord traits, a dozen relics, an entire psychic discipline, and two PAGES of strats.
I actually think GW nailed it with the Faith and Fury updates for Chaos Marines and Black Templars, they should have taken that as their target for all 9th ed sub-factions and just rolled it into the Codexes, or at most put out a single Codex Suppliment for each Codex with the sub-faction rules.
Edit: Backtrack, backtrack, temproalize, deploy admission of ignorance. To be fair Space Marines are the only army I own with a 9th ed codex, I don't know that Necron Houses, SoB Cloisters, AdMech Forge Worlds, and Drukhari ... whatever they're called aren't better differentiated now than they were in 9th. I just haven't heard anyone singing praises of the job GW has done on that front.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2021/08/31 12:04:15
All of the Undivided Legions will be placed in 1 codex. Each will get a new HQ choice, a new troop specific and an old specific to be allowed to be troop based. CSM will get 2 wounds and Term 3 wounds. Ritual Summoning will be changed. Dark Apostles and Masters of Possession will get equipment choices.
Each legion will get pages for fluff, art and stats.
Blue DP Crusade 126-11-6 
Biel-Tan Aspect Waves 2-0-2 
Looted Green Horde smash your face in 32-7-8 
Broadside/Shield Drone/Kroot blitz goodness 23-3-4 
Grey Hunters galore 17-5-5 
Khan Bikes Win 63-1-1 
Tanith with Pardus Armor 11-0-0 
Crimson Tide 59-4-0 
Green/Raven/Deathwing 18-0-0 
Jumping GK force with Inq. 4-0-0 
BTemplars w LRs 7-1-2 
IH Legion with Automata 8-0-0 
RG Legion w Adepticon medal 6-0-0 
