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.

I don't like hero hammer, but I think characters should feel relevant.

But I have a thing for smaller tier characters like company champions, techmarines, Warlocks, Ethereals, etc... and I always like more when they can do stuff and be more than just an add-on for an squad to receive some kind of buff.

Of course, my favourite kind of unit in the game are troops, so the more relevant troops are in an edition, probably, the more fun I'm gonna have with it. I just love schmucks killing other schmucks in the mud while a couple of cool toys zipp around the battlefield, thats why I played my firecaste and kroot hordes and loved to play it agaisnt imperial guard or ork infantry heavy lists.

 Galas wrote:
I don't like hero hammer, but I think characters should feel relevant.

But I have a thing for smaller tier characters like company champions, techmarines, Warlocks, Ethereals, etc... and I always like more when they can do stuff and be more than just an add-on for an squad to receive some kind of buff.

Of course, my favourite kind of unit in the game are troops, so the more relevant troops are in an edition, probably, the more fun I'm gonna have with it. I just love schmucks killing other schmucks in the mud while a couple of cool toys zipp around the battlefield, thats why I played my firecaste and kroot hordes and loved to play it agaisnt imperial guard or ork infantry heavy lists.

I agree in general, but this also brings up my issues with Primaris and 2w marines. The troops of other factions struggle hard to dent them, making the on-table interactions much less rewarding. See Banshees/Guardians/Genestealers/Current CSM ( )/Necron Warriors etc vs. Intercessors.

 Galas wrote:
I don't like hero hammer, but I think characters should feel relevant.

I wish they'd lean into characters actually giving commands more. Theoretically, the thing that makes many characters characters is their rank and authority to tell your other units what to do. So rather than boring "kill more betterer" auras, I'd love to see characters have a list of orders they can give out. For instance, I'd love my autarch to be able to give a unit JSJ or the ability to fall back and shoot each turn. No need to turn him into a one man army; let the commanders actually command!

This would also be a good way to transition away from the current stratagem system...

 Galas wrote:
I don't like hero hammer, but I think characters should feel relevant.

I just wish that more characters were focused on shooting, or had the option to be focused on shooting.

As much as he shouldn't be a whole separate datasheet in the Codex (because that's just pants-on-head-stupid and indicative of GW's terrible Codex design), I'm glad that the 'Captain with Master-Crafted Heavy Bolt Rifle' exists. It's not the greatest weapon, but it's a "Shooty HQ" for Marines that isn't just a combi-weapon.

I know Marine heroes are meant to be lead-from-the-front types, armed with deadly close combat weapons and ancient and powerful relics, but I'd like one to pick up a Heavy Bolter every once and a while. I mean take the 9th Company Captain of Codex Chapters. Every squad in his company is a Devastator squad. Do you think he's running forward with his power sword whilst his 100 closest friends are blazing away at range? That guy should have a Combi-Lascannon/Frag Missile Launcher!

Same applies to Terminator leaders. Why limit them to Storm Bolters and similar weapons?

"Sorry Captain Agemman, but now that you've ascended to the rank of 1st Company Captain you can't use that Heavy Flamer anymore. But we can attach a tiny Grenade Launcher to your power fist!"

This goes for Imperial Guard commanders as well, whose weapons are often ornamental more than functional. Let my senior officer rock around with a sniper-rifle, or something like that!

I think the Combi-weapon is an alright route to go, especially now that Combis aren't limited to a single shot anymore. Wouldn't mind a 9th Co Cap with a Lascannon. . .

No more Techmarine with conversion beamer though :/. Technically the TM with a Thunderfire Cannon is a hero with heavy weapon?

Just wait 6mo and I'm sure we'll get a Heavy Intercessor Captain with a master crafted turbo heavy bolt rifle tho.

Rihgu wrote:

Did you have a plan when you put the DCA in your list? Was it to send them in with the arcos or do something else?

If it was to send them in together, do that. If it wasn't, don't do it.

This is absolutely incredible. I'm speechless at this.

"You should have made this in-game decision before the game, when you wrote the list."

What?

I think the point is it's too easy to construct your list with the various roles already built in to the units you take. What Unit's saying is essentially that the role of the DCAs in this case was determined at army selection, as was that of the Arcos. If you're in a position to use them for their assigned role you should do that. If you're not you need to do some quick maths to figure out if they can do what you want and if they can't don't use them for that. This also highlights another problem with the general increase in lethality: too often decisions come down to "can I kill that thing in one turn" or "can I survive for one turn". There's basically no nuance in that at all.

It's not that you'll never have to change a predetermined plan, it's that when the only meaningful way to interact with the enemy is often to just kill them the decision process becomes binary.

PenitentJake wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Can I outmaneuver the stratagem? No, it can be popped anywhere, anytime.

Sort of: most strats have a phase in which they need to be used; each can only be used once per turn, and only if you have the CP; using any strat is a tactical choice, because it ALWAYS comes at an opportunity cost.

Can you counterplay? Sometimes: ie you can often play a defensive strat to offset the impact of an offensive one, but again, that's a tactical choice, because if you do it, it may prevent you from playing an offensive strat of your own on the following turn.

Either way, the tactical decision is still more involved than the crossing the trench example you praise: there's no limit to how many units can choose to cross the trench per turn; there's no limit to the amount of times that trench can be crossed per game.

Using a strat is not a tactical decision and it's not something you can interact with as an opponent. Take Skorpekhs, for example. They have a strat that makes them -1 to wound. If you target them and I want to keep them alive I'll pop the strat if I have enough CPs. How do I know if I have enough CPs? I can count. I know what I may want to do each turn and how many CPs I have available so it all boils down to prioritising my CP usage, which is an optimisation problem, not a tactical one.

Yes, you can sometimes draw out a strat and change targets. Maybe you can get an opponent to use Transhuman on one unit,t hen switch to a different one. That's still not much of a tactical choice unless your opponent is an idiot. If they pop Transhuman it's because they want that unit to live, or at least take more effort to kill. They'll be completely aware it only works on one unit so, again, it becomes an optimisation problem which is usually trivial to assess.

PenitentJake wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Can I outmaneuver the aura? Probably, but the only outmaneuver you can do is just "be out of LoS". There's no facing, no suppression, no other way to interact with a unit in an aura.

One way to suppress an aura is to kill or interfere with the dude who grants it. Abilities which shut down or modify auras themselves also exist- aura shut down is common enough- and interestingly enough, the source isn't always a strat- some unit's have it as a psychic power or datacard ability. Way more options for interfering than there are for forcing you to cross the trench if you don't want to or preventing it if you do.

Auras are also limited and diverse enough to provide capacity for stacking vs. coverage, and again often come at an opportunity cost.

Aura shutdown is in no way common. Across my 4 armies I don't think I have any way to do it and of the armies I face most frequently I think there's one relic or WL trait that can do it and a single psychic power. I have no idea how you came to the conclusion it's common. The main problem I have with auras is the lack of opportunity cost for using them. Things like SM Captains, Lords of Contagion, Technomancers etc often are either included specifically for their buff, or do a whole bunch of other beneficial things at the same time so you don't have to give up, say, close combat potential in order to get the most out of a character's reroll 1s buff. Combine that with the fact the detachment system removes any real opportunity cost from building your army and I don't see how there's any real opportunity cost to taking these characters.

PenitentJake wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

The only thing I can do is execute my own aura/ct/stratagem stack into yours to see if I can smash enough of your lynchpins (to whatever pregame strategy your list does) before you smash too many of mine.

But you're completely ignoring what is required to do that: positioning is critical to the process because both the offensive and defensive auras need to be in the proper position to achieve the desired effect, and you have to take risks and assess rewards to get them there; same can be said of tactics and strats as not all units in your army have access to them. Interactions from datacard abilities and psychic powers interact with these decisions too.

Two things here. Firstly, if you really think staying within 6" of a re-roll aura is the mark of great tactical positioning I think we have very different ideas of what that phrase means. It's trivially easy to remain in range of most auras, especially the re-roll auras which tend to be 6". Even 3" auras are pretty easy to maintain because it only requires a tiny sliver of a base from a single model in the unit to be in range. As for interactions with abilities and psychic powers, these are either factored into your plan at the army build stage and rarely able to be countered by your opponent, or your opponent has some counter that you can't really interact with so you just shrug and get on with things.

Using a strat is not a tactical decision and it's not something you can interact with as an opponent. Take Skorpekhs, for example. They have a strat that makes them -1 to wound. If you target them and I want to keep them alive I'll pop the strat if I have enough CPs. How do I know if I have enough CPs? I can count. I know what I may want to do each turn and how many CPs I have available so it all boils down to prioritising my CP usage, which is an optimisation problem, not a tactical one.

Yes, you can sometimes draw out a strat and change targets. Maybe you can get an opponent to use Transhuman on one unit,t hen switch to a different one. That's still not much of a tactical choice unless your opponent is an idiot. If they pop Transhuman it's because they want that unit to live, or at least take more effort to kill. They'll be completely aware it only works on one unit so, again, it becomes an optimisation problem which is usually trivial to assess.

I find this entire argument a little disingenuous because overall you can call everything on the table an optimization problem with the same logic. Is it optimal to go over the dangerous terrain or not? Is it optimal to move my unit there and shoot at that enemy unit? Tactical is about optimizing your chances so the entire argument just falls over itself.

This is my entire problem with the arguments here. People have an extremely personal opinion on what is tactical or not with no basis in anything factual. This is also why I hate these topics is because armchair generals - as we all are - go around throwing their authority and definitions as if these things were some holy imperial facts which they aren't. It would be more honest that people would just say they don't like one gameplay or not instead of going on a rant about what is tactical or not, because it is a copout to not admit your own emotions.

If you don't think Warhammer is tactical go play other games. You'll see similar issues there and you will still continue complaining about the games not being "tactical" enough because ultimately it was never about anyone thinking a game wasn't tactical or not, but their own dislike for the game itself.

I do not mean any animosity towards anyone here, but this girl is bloody fething tired of this definition bickering and currently on a lot painkillers.

Rant over.

 Eldarsif wrote:
...

Kind of my thoughts when reading those posts.
I'd like to add if these "non tactical" decisions are so obvious, I wonder why the same people keep winning tournaments. We all have access to the same playing material (units) after all.

It reminds me a bit how poker is "just getting lucky with the cards".

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I just wish that more characters were focused on shooting, or had the option to be focused on shooting.

As much as he shouldn't be a whole separate datasheet in the Codex (because that's just pants-on-head-stupid and indicative of GW's terrible Codex design), I'm glad that the 'Captain with Master-Crafted Heavy Bolt Rifle' exists. It's not the greatest weapon, but it's a "Shooty HQ" for Marines that isn't just a combi-weapon.

I know Marine heroes are meant to be lead-from-the-front types, armed with deadly close combat weapons and ancient and powerful relics, but I'd like one to pick up a Heavy Bolter every once and a while. I mean take the 9th Company Captain of Codex Chapters. Every squad in his company is a Devastator squad. Do you think he's running forward with his power sword whilst his 100 closest friends are blazing away at range? That guy should have a Combi-Lascannon/Frag Missile Launcher!

Same applies to Terminator leaders. Why limit them to Storm Bolters and similar weapons?

"Sorry Captain Agemman, but now that you've ascended to the rank of 1st Company Captain you can't use that Heavy Flamer anymore. But we can attach a tiny Grenade Launcher to your power fist!"

This goes for Imperial Guard commanders as well, whose weapons are often ornamental more than functional. Let my senior officer rock around with a sniper-rifle, or something like that!

Absolutely agree.

It's why I find it so disheartening that my favourite army seems instead to be charging in the opposite direction. Archons can no longer take Blasters, Haemonculi can't take Hexrifles or even Liquifier guns, so we're just left with 3 melee HQs, complimented by 3 melee special characters. zzzzzZZZZ

Wyldhunt wrote:

I wish they'd lean into characters actually giving commands more. Theoretically, the thing that makes many characters characters is their rank and authority to tell your other units what to do. So rather than boring "kill more betterer" auras, I'd love to see characters have a list of orders they can give out. For instance, I'd love my autarch to be able to give a unit JSJ or the ability to fall back and shoot each turn. No need to turn him into a one man army; let the commanders actually command!

This would also be a good way to transition away from the current stratagem system...

I think a key aspect that ties into both this and the shooty aspect above is that I want my characters to be doing things, and it feels much better to have active abilities than passive ones.

If I have a Company Commander at the back of the table then he can still do things - namely issuing Orders. My officers can never so much as fire a single shot and yet it will still feel like they've taken an active role in contributing to the battle. Same goes for a Farseer, Sorcerer or other Psyker. They've got stuff to do each turn and might even get to do something in the opponent's turn.

In contrast, if I sit an Archon with some Scourges on the backfield (or some Ravagers in 8th edition), he'll be buffing them but in a completely passive way. Even if the overall effect was identical, it *feels* so much worse because all he can do is sit around, twiddling his thumbs each turn. Because mechanically there's nothing for him to do, no decisions to be made. And, as mentioned above, he can't even contribute by taking some pot-shots each turn because his only gun is a run-of-the-mill Splinter Pistol with a wopping 12" range.

Wyldhunt wrote:

This would also be a good way to transition away from the current stratagem system...

If it involves removing Stratagems from the game then I'm all for it.

 Eldarsif wrote:

Using a strat is not a tactical decision and it's not something you can interact with as an opponent. Take Skorpekhs, for example. They have a strat that makes them -1 to wound. If you target them and I want to keep them alive I'll pop the strat if I have enough CPs. How do I know if I have enough CPs? I can count. I know what I may want to do each turn and how many CPs I have available so it all boils down to prioritising my CP usage, which is an optimisation problem, not a tactical one.

Yes, you can sometimes draw out a strat and change targets. Maybe you can get an opponent to use Transhuman on one unit,t hen switch to a different one. That's still not much of a tactical choice unless your opponent is an idiot. If they pop Transhuman it's because they want that unit to live, or at least take more effort to kill. They'll be completely aware it only works on one unit so, again, it becomes an optimisation problem which is usually trivial to assess.

I find this entire argument a little disingenuous because overall you can call everything on the table an optimization problem with the same logic. Is it optimal to go over the dangerous terrain or not? Is it optimal to move my unit there and shoot at that enemy unit? Tactical is about optimizing your chances so the entire argument just falls over itself.

The difference for me comes down to how much control you have as a player over your actions and those of your opponent. I think 40k lacks tactical depth because you have near-total control over your own actions and very little ability to interact with your opponent beyond killing their stuff or buffing your own guys to make them harder to kill. The issue is that the optimisation problem is being done with all the important information known already.

When my opponent passes the turn to me I know everything I need to know and can optimise my decisions based on near-perfect knowledge. They can't move their units except in a few very specific circumstances and I can check my own CP and my opponent's while also measuring any and all ranges at my leisure. On top of that I know my opponent's threat ranges next turn and can plan for that with, again, near-perfect information.

If you don't think Warhammer is tactical go play other games. You'll see similar issues there and you will still continue complaining about the games not being "tactical" enough because ultimately it was never about anyone thinking a game wasn't tactical or not, but their own dislike for the game itself.

I do play other games and I don't see the same issues there, hence my scepticism about the supposed level of tactical thinking in 40k. I don't think any of those other games are perfect but I do think they are more tactically challenging and engaging than 40k. In all cases it's because they alter the optimisation problem from a decision tree where all the variables (or very nearly all) are known, as in 40k, to one where there are various hidden variables I can't know for sure, or at all. They also universally have much lower lethality, which means you need to consider a unit's continued presence, even at lesser capabilities, whereas in 40k where your expectation is almost always that you'll wipe out a unit to negate its ability to affect the game.

As a practical example from my last game of X-Wing I had to decide whether to make the "obvious" move with one of my ships in the knowledge that my opponent also knows this is optimal but has the ability to try to block it. So the question is do I think my opponent will try to block it or do I think my opponent might believe I'll not do that move because it's too obvious, in which case it's best to do the obvious move rather than the less obvious one. Alternatively, I could also decide to do something they are very unlikely to predict, which would also put me in a less advantageous position than if I correctly guess which of the other 2 moves to do. In that scenario I simply don't have all the information I need to make the "correct" decision so the optimisation problem is virtually impossible to solve and I need to balance risk and reward much more than in a game of 40k.

 Eldarsif wrote:

Using a strat is not a tactical decision and it's not something you can interact with as an opponent. Take Skorpekhs, for example. They have a strat that makes them -1 to wound. If you target them and I want to keep them alive I'll pop the strat if I have enough CPs. How do I know if I have enough CPs? I can count. I know what I may want to do each turn and how many CPs I have available so it all boils down to prioritising my CP usage, which is an optimisation problem, not a tactical one.

Yes, you can sometimes draw out a strat and change targets. Maybe you can get an opponent to use Transhuman on one unit,t hen switch to a different one. That's still not much of a tactical choice unless your opponent is an idiot. If they pop Transhuman it's because they want that unit to live, or at least take more effort to kill. They'll be completely aware it only works on one unit so, again, it becomes an optimisation problem which is usually trivial to assess.

I find this entire argument a little disingenuous because overall you can call everything on the table an optimization problem with the same logic. Is it optimal to go over the dangerous terrain or not? Is it optimal to move my unit there and shoot at that enemy unit? Tactical is about optimizing your chances so the entire argument just falls over itself.

Negative, thanks for fundamentally misunderstanding my post.

Optimization is not the correct kind of analysis required for tactics. For example, it may be optimal mathematically to do a human wave attack, but it may be militarily optimal (given concerns like troop morale across the army or logistical constraints WRT replacement soldiers and equipment) to organize around an air or artillery strike, etc.

Reducing war to a math problem is something the Soviets tried to do (check out their analytic method called "COFM" - correlation of forces and means - an attempt to reduce tactics and strategy to pure mathematical optimization routines). Even THEY realized it couldn't be done (though credit to them for trying; they still discovered several useful insights).

Essentially, military science (which a wargame should seek to replicate on the tabletop) is both mathematics and art in some mix. Not EVERYTHING is optimizable mathematically.

For example, in 4th:
[A chimera with two heavy flamers is on the far side of some woods from an enemy unit of Orks. Right now, they cannot see each other, but the Chimera is uncovered on its other sides so still vulnerable to enemy shooting from those directions.]
It may be mathematically optimal to go over the dangerous terrain to achieve a specific attack (say, with a flamer chimera). In 4th, you have to weigh this against the other alternatives:
1) The Chimera is successful and does not immobilize itself. However, as it ended in terrain, it must try again to move next turn. Still, it was able to attack. And it will be in terrain, meaning the opponent may be hard-pressed to deal with it given its cover and their need to move through cover to charge it. Unless, of course, the opponent's unit is already really close, which it might be if the flamer attack is unsuccessful...
2) The Chimera immobilizes itself immediately. Mathematically unlikely, but possible consideration. It neither attacks, nor is useful in future turns.
BUT the enemy might get close. Is there an objective nearby? How close? Can they score it without getting in flamer range?
OR MAYBE I have a tech-priest nearby. How close is the tech-priest? Did I buy him servitors? If not, it's only a 6+ to repair... but then again, that's the same chance as being immobilized.
3) The chimera does not immobilize itself immediately and attacks, but does not successfully move next turn. Same questions as above, but with the added problem that the enemy unit is even closer. What's the likelyhood the flamers will wipe it out or degrade it badly? What's the plan if they do? Was it worth it? Depends on all sorts of other on-table facts.

That same situation in 9th? What is the depth of choices and concerns there?

 Eldarsif wrote:
This is my entire problem with the arguments here. People have an extremely personal opinion on what is tactical or not with no basis in anything factual. This is also why I hate these topics is because armchair generals - as we all are - go around throwing their authority and definitions as if these things were some holy imperial facts which they aren't. It would be more honest that people would just say they don't like one gameplay or not instead of going on a rant about what is tactical or not, because it is a copout to not admit your own emotions.

This assertion about what people do and don't do is both an ad-hominem and unhelpful. If you want to address the specific definition of tactics, that's a separate argument, but I'm happy to have it. It's certainly objective, though, not opinion.

 Eldarsif wrote:
If you don't think Warhammer is tactical go play other games. You'll see similar issues there and you will still continue complaining about the games not being "tactical" enough because ultimately it was never about anyone thinking a game wasn't tactical or not, but their own dislike for the game itself.

I do play other games. My favorite game is actually Chain of Command, and if you want I can explain why. The same issues do NOT arise there, and I do not complain about the game not being tactical enough.

I want Warhammer to be more like how Chain of Command is, but preserve its own flavor (CoC is World War II, so simply plopping Space Marines and Orks into it doesn't work as a straight port). This starts by going back to the decision that offered the player the most tactical, WARGAME (not just GAME) play, and building from there. It's why I have such respect for Mezomorki and what he's already achieved doing exactly that.

 Eldarsif wrote:
I do not mean any animosity towards anyone here, but this girl is bloody fething tired of this definition bickering and currently on a lot painkillers.

Rant over.

Sorry; some of us are passionate about the topic and "definition bickering" isn't what's happening; it's a fundamental misunderstanding of the argument, I think.

 Galas wrote:

Of course, my favourite kind of unit in the game are troops, so the more relevant troops are in an edition, probably, the more fun I'm gonna have with it. I just love schmucks killing other schmucks in the mud while a couple of cool toys zipp around the battlefield, thats why I played my firecaste and kroot hordes and loved to play it agaisnt imperial guard or ork infantry heavy lists.

Ah, a kindred soul.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Insectum7 wrote:
I agree in general, but this also brings up my issues with Primaris and 2w marines. The troops of other factions struggle hard to dent them, making the on-table interactions much less rewarding. See Banshees/Guardians/Genestealers/Current CSM ( )/Necron Warriors etc vs. Intercessors.

For me, I always thought that SM's (and by extension CSM's) should be the one faction that was really hard to kill. When I played the older editions one of the things I disliked was how fast they died and how wildly inconsistent it was with the lore. Personally, I've always thought that the Space Marine army should have been designed kind of like the current Custodes style where you have a couple of super strong squads trying to take on a much larger army. But then GW wouldn't be able to sell anywhere near as many marine models and they are their flagship army so...

For example, in 4th:
[A chimera with two heavy flamers is on the far side of some woods from an enemy unit of Orks. Right now, they cannot see each other, but the Chimera is uncovered on its other sides so still vulnerable to enemy shooting from those directions.]
It may be mathematically optimal to go over the dangerous terrain to achieve a specific attack (say, with a flamer chimera). In 4th, you have to weigh this against the other alternatives:
1) The Chimera is successful and does not immobilize itself. However, as it ended in terrain, it must try again to move next turn. Still, it was able to attack. And it will be in terrain, meaning the opponent may be hard-pressed to deal with it given its cover and their need to move through cover to charge it. Unless, of course, the opponent's unit is already really close, which it might be if the flamer attack is unsuccessful...
2) The Chimera immobilizes itself immediately. Mathematically unlikely, but possible consideration. It neither attacks, nor is useful in future turns.
BUT the enemy might get close. Is there an objective nearby? How close? Can they score it without getting in flamer range?
OR MAYBE I have a tech-priest nearby. How close is the tech-priest? Did I buy him servitors? If not, it's only a 6+ to repair... but then again, that's the same chance as being immobilized.
3) The chimera does not immobilize itself immediately and attacks, but does not successfully move next turn. Same questions as above, but with the added problem that the enemy unit is even closer. What's the likelyhood the flamers will wipe it out or degrade it badly? What's the plan if they do? Was it worth it? Depends on all sorts of other on-table facts.

That same situation in 9th? What is the depth of choices and concerns there?

This is only approaching an unsolveable situation because you've left out a number of factors required to solve it.

1) how large is the ork unit?
2) What *is* the ork unit?
3) Does it have a nob with a power klaw in it?
4) How spread out is the ork unit, or more directly, how many heavy flamer hits am I going to get when I successfully attack?

Rihgu wrote:

For example, in 4th:
[A chimera with two heavy flamers is on the far side of some woods from an enemy unit of Orks. Right now, they cannot see each other, but the Chimera is uncovered on its other sides so still vulnerable to enemy shooting from those directions.]
It may be mathematically optimal to go over the dangerous terrain to achieve a specific attack (say, with a flamer chimera). In 4th, you have to weigh this against the other alternatives:
1) The Chimera is successful and does not immobilize itself. However, as it ended in terrain, it must try again to move next turn. Still, it was able to attack. And it will be in terrain, meaning the opponent may be hard-pressed to deal with it given its cover and their need to move through cover to charge it. Unless, of course, the opponent's unit is already really close, which it might be if the flamer attack is unsuccessful...
2) The Chimera immobilizes itself immediately. Mathematically unlikely, but possible consideration. It neither attacks, nor is useful in future turns.
BUT the enemy might get close. Is there an objective nearby? How close? Can they score it without getting in flamer range?
OR MAYBE I have a tech-priest nearby. How close is the tech-priest? Did I buy him servitors? If not, it's only a 6+ to repair... but then again, that's the same chance as being immobilized.
3) The chimera does not immobilize itself immediately and attacks, but does not successfully move next turn. Same questions as above, but with the added problem that the enemy unit is even closer. What's the likelyhood the flamers will wipe it out or degrade it badly? What's the plan if they do? Was it worth it? Depends on all sorts of other on-table facts.

That same situation in 9th? What is the depth of choices and concerns there?

This is only approaching an unsolveable situation because you've left out a number of factors required to solve it.

1) how large is the ork unit?
2) What *is* the ork unit?
3) Does it have a nob with a power klaw in it?
4) How spread out is the ork unit, or more directly, how many heavy flamer hits am I going to get when I successfully attack?

Right, I left a lot out.

But those don't make it more solvable, I don't think. Remember, you can't premeasure in 4th, so

1) How large it is doesn't matter to this specific attack (it does in 9th tho, which makes it more solvable). Say, 30? How they are positioned (hey there's that weird 'actually needing to see the tabletop to play' thing again) does matter (unlike 9th).
2) Boys, I suppose?
3) Yes!
4) Reference back to 1, but at best you can only estimate this since you can't premeasure in 4th. That's a skill in and of itself (knowing the flamer template is about 8" long, about 1.5"-2" wide at its widest, etc).

Those just add more risk-reward considerations and concerns as well as additional skill requirements (for example, the estimation for point 4 is crucial. Maybe you say six, I say eight, the real answer is 4, which turns out not to be worth it. BETTER IMPROVE OUR SKILLS!. Or maybe we estimate 4-6 and determine it isn't worth the risk, but the real answer is 12 - looks like a missed opportunity, and we should improve our skills...)

 Tawnis wrote:

 Galas wrote:

Of course, my favourite kind of unit in the game are troops, so the more relevant troops are in an edition, probably, the more fun I'm gonna have with it. I just love schmucks killing other schmucks in the mud while a couple of cool toys zipp around the battlefield, thats why I played my firecaste and kroot hordes and loved to play it agaisnt imperial guard or ork infantry heavy lists.

Ah, a kindred soul.

I did read your post about Kroot tactics and it was a great inspiration for me, very entertaining!

I'm here just waiting for more vespid units... I really love their design




I have to say... the considerations in 9th are nearly the same: You basically chose to expose the vehicle hoping to kill your objetive or you don't and leave it there for other motives.

But one mistake I see in all this comparisons is that , in general, the "analysis" of situations are always biased. When someone talks about how 9th lacks tactics (It lacks them) they use examples from a "whole game" perspective. "I have this strategy and I'm gonna do it" ignoring all the little decisions we made in the game turn by turn because the mathematics will always kill our plan and we need to adapt.
But when talking about old editions better tactics, you'll (Using the general you, not you you) always use examples of a very specific situation ignoring everything else.
Why is that chimera in that situation agaisnt those orks? What are both of your armies? If that chimera is in that place I assume is because it has droped his unit and you decided probably in deployment you wanted that chimera to end up in that part of the battlefield. And then, the perspective changes from tactics to "strategy" and optimization.

The biggest difference is that in old editions you didn't had so much redundancy so if you failed to kill something or achieve something you could not use a stratagem with other unit to power it burning resources and try again, or rerrolls, or whatever. But the best competitive lists were precisely the ones that had tons of redundanc and ways to reduce to the minimun the randomness of the system.

1) Well, if it's 11 boyz and I think I can kill 4, then Mob Rule doesn't come into play, which would be pretty important. If it's more than that, don't attack, because they're going to survive, probably not get pinned, and charge and wreck you with a power klaw. Moving to attack would be a waste of time.
2) Okay, thanks.
3) The Heavy Flamer attack is unwise.
4) Estimating distance/coverage is not a skill, it's an ability.

If the unit is 11 or more models attacking with the chimera is a fool's game unless it is clustered up. If the unit is spread out any amount, and of any size, it's a fool's game to attack.

Basically, only attack if it's a smaller sized unit and clustered up.

Rihgu wrote:
1) Well, if it's 11 boyz and I think I can kill 4, then Mob Rule doesn't come into play, which would be pretty important. If it's more than that, don't attack, because they're going to survive, probably not get pinned, and charge and wreck you with a power klaw. Moving to attack would be a waste of time.
2) Okay, thanks.
3) The Heavy Flamer attack is unwise.
4) Estimating distance/coverage is not a skill, it's an ability.

If the unit is 11 or more models attacking with the chimera is a fool's game unless it is clustered up. If the unit is spread out any amount, and of any size, it's a fool's game to attack.

Basically, only attack if it's a smaller sized unit and clustered up.

And the rest of your army does nothing?

This is where I agree with Galas - specific examples are a pain in the butt. I was trying to provide a counter to the example that PenitentJake provided (also very specific) which no one jumped down his throat about.

As for your point 4, it's a skill because it can be improved (or lost without use). It's not "either I have no idea what 12" is, or I do, and forever shall it be."

ALSO,
Your answer is wrong. Maybe you should attack it, because in subsequent turns you NEED the casualties you inflicted in this turn to finish them off. If you don't take the opportunity, you may not have another one (either because your chimera is dead, they enemy doesn't bunch up the same way again, etc etc.)

On-table examples like this are especially bad for 4th because the on-table relative situation matters so much more (and you can't visualize that easy on the internet). However, that is EXACTLY MY POINT. The individual situation needs much more analysis in situ than in 9th. That's tactics.

Rihgu wrote:

4) Estimating distance/coverage is not a skill, it's an ability.

This is actually untrue. An ability is something you are born with, a skill is learned. You can learn to estimate distance/coverage. I was garbage at it when I first started playing, but I was passable before it was removed.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Rihgu wrote:
1) Well, if it's 11 boyz and I think I can kill 4, then Mob Rule doesn't come into play, which would be pretty important. If it's more than that, don't attack, because they're going to survive, probably not get pinned, and charge and wreck you with a power klaw. Moving to attack would be a waste of time.
2) Okay, thanks.
3) The Heavy Flamer attack is unwise.
4) Estimating distance/coverage is not a skill, it's an ability.

If the unit is 11 or more models attacking with the chimera is a fool's game unless it is clustered up. If the unit is spread out any amount, and of any size, it's a fool's game to attack.

Basically, only attack if it's a smaller sized unit and clustered up.

And the rest of your army does nothing?

This is where I agree with Galas - specific examples are a pain in the butt. I was trying to provide a counter to the example that PenitentJake provided (also very specific) which no one jumped down his throat about.

As for your point 4, it's a skill because it can be improved (or lost without use). It's not "either I have no idea what 12" is, or I do, and forever shall it be."

I mean, you jumped down PenitentJake's example... I think we can make the assumption in both cases that both units are fairly isolated from the rest of the army, on a flank somewhere.

It's not a skill because I will literally never be able to do it because I was born with lower/non-existent spatial awareness and depth perception, which is literally all that is. I have no idea what 12" is. I can easily mistake 6" for 12", or 1" for 3". 24" and 36" may as well be the same to me. No amount of practice will ever make me able to accurately guess whether something is 1 foot or 2. I can tell you this because I've been "practicing" with tabletop games for years.
It's like saying telling the difference between colors is a skill. Color blind people exist. But people can hone their ability to differentiate colors. if they have that ability in the first place.

 Tawnis wrote:

Rihgu wrote:

4) Estimating distance/coverage is not a skill, it's an ability.

This is actually untrue. An ability is something you are born with, a skill is learned. You can learn to estimate distance/coverage. I was garbage at it when I first started playing, but I was passable before it was removed.

Correct. An ability is something you are born with, indeed. No, I cannot learn to estimate distance/coverage.

This assertion about what people do and don't do is both an ad-hominem and unhelpful. If you want to address the specific definition of tactics, that's a separate argument, but I'm happy to have it. It's certainly objective, though, not opinion.

Because downplaying tactical choices in Warhammer 40.000 and implying everyone who likes it being some sort of idiots, as you implied in "maybe wargaming is not for you" is so helpful. I know you will say I am mischaracterizing your writings, but the condescension feels very much real to the rest of us.

In tabletop wargames that are weak abstraction of war then yes, it is an opinion as two people are very likely to have differing opinions on how to represent war in an abstract manner. Unless you want to go the Soviet way and try to turn it into mathematical formulas; which you claimed to fail. Hell, StarCraft is a highly tactical game, but it doesn't have any of the components you want which makes me believe that you will somehow diss the game because of your own personal opinion and ideas of what "true tactical" means. Still doesn't change that the game is tactical. Although to be fair as I do not know your personal opinion of StarCraft you might very well love the game and think it is a tactically robust game.

You also confirmed something I felt but had not seen evidence of until today and that is that you play WW2 games. WW2 games are somewhat easier to create formulas around as that is a war that has happened and we can create constraints about the gameplay based off on what happened in years past. Would still be abstract, but at least you have scenarios and data to build around it. Warhammer 40.000 is a fantasy game with super soldiers, ravaging aliens, and ancient civilizations that do not conform to anything we have today, except maybe, and just maybe, Imperial Guard. Everything else is pure abstract fantasy and to clamp old ideas about wars around that is just a limited view on the universe and its potential at large.

I personally have little interest in WW2 games(although I do have a small US Bolt Action army) and I do not want Warhammer 40.000 or Age of Sigmar to become a World War 2 game personally. There is no reason for 40k to become Chain of Command and there is no reason for Chain of Command to become 40k. Homogenization of the hobby is not a positive thing and I would rather have a diverse range of games representing war in different manners than one single, almost GURPS-like system that defines them all. It's why I have armies in several different games so I can play different games when I fancy. I do not want to play Warhammer 40.000 when I play Legion.

However, if you want to create your own homebrew for CoC using 40k figures then more power to you.

Estimating distances is something most people can train.

But TBH when I'm a giant with bird-eyes perspective, thats not something I care about my wargame. Is literally totally out of inmersion to how well my army should behave, my hability to wess distances.

Is like my hability to do fencing being relevant in how well my units in total war fight.

Rihgu wrote:

 Tawnis wrote:

Rihgu wrote:

4) Estimating distance/coverage is not a skill, it's an ability.

This is actually untrue. An ability is something you are born with, a skill is learned. You can learn to estimate distance/coverage. I was garbage at it when I first started playing, but I was passable before it was removed.

Correct. An ability is something you are born with, indeed. No, I cannot learn to estimate distance/coverage.

I don't understand, do you have some mental or visual issue with being able to perceive distance? I assume you aren't blind since you're playing a tabletop game.

Even if YOU specifically are incapable of it for some reason I can't think of, that still doesn't make it an ability. If you really wanted to split hairs, it would be that you lack the ability to develop that skill.

Wyldhunt wrote:

 Galas wrote:
I don't like hero hammer, but I think characters should feel relevant.

I wish they'd lean into characters actually giving commands more. Theoretically, the thing that makes many characters characters is their rank and authority to tell your other units what to do. So rather than boring "kill more betterer" auras, I'd love to see characters have a list of orders they can give out. For instance, I'd love my autarch to be able to give a unit JSJ or the ability to fall back and shoot each turn. No need to turn him into a one man army; let the commanders actually command!

This would also be a good way to transition away from the current stratagem system...

This is how Sigmar works and it is RIDICULOUS how much better it feels as a player...

 Eldarsif wrote:

This is my entire problem with the arguments here. People have an extremely personal opinion on what is tactical or not with no basis in anything factual. This is also why I hate these topics is because armchair generals - as we all are - go around throwing their authority and definitions as if these things were some holy imperial facts which they aren't. It would be more honest that people would just say they don't like one gameplay or not instead of going on a rant about what is tactical or not, because it is a copout to not admit your own emotions.

I tried to define, for my own purposes and I suppose for this whole discussion, what I meant by tactics vs optimization in the OP. It maybe wasn't the most successfully attempt!

I sympathize with your frustration that the line between the two can be a matter of perspective, and certainly individual preferences and biases jade how people read something being tactics vs optimization.

For me, tactical choices rise above optimization choices because of their uncertain payout in regards to the objective of the game. When facing an interesting tactical decision, it should be hard for me to gauge whether option A or option B is going to be better or worse for me in terms of my ability to win the game. I have to draw on past experience and careful risk assessment. Tactical decisions tend to be more far reaching in terms of affecting future turns, versus optimization which is about squeezing the most out of what you have right now.

I'm going to compare ProHammer to 9th edition when it comes to shooting process, as a point of comparison.

(1) ProHammer requires players to declare targets for ALL shooting attacks before resolving any of them. In 9th, you can shoot with single models, and even single weapons, one at a time if you want to.

Effect: In ProHammer you have to make judgement calls, without knowing the outcome, about how much fire to direct at different targets. Your assessment of threats is more significant because if you under shoot a critical threat, it might leave you open to a counter attack. If you overshoot it you've wasted shots that could've been directed elsewhere. In 9th edition, you can shoot one model/weapon at a time until the precise moment that you neutralize the threat, and then shift focus to the next threat. Shooting order in 9th (and most more recent 40k editions) is a pure optimization exercise in my mind. In ProHammer, you have to consider the "what ifs". What if I don't kill the target? What if I over shoot it and leave other targets untouched? There's far more to consider.

(2) In ProHammer, units can split fire ONCE after passing a successful leadership test. In 9th, individual models can freely shoot at different targets.

Effect: Similar logic as above. Freely split firing in 9th means you can freely optimize your shooting to your hearts content. In ProHammer, you can only do it once, and so it prompts some bigger decision making about how you build your list (strategy level) but tactically what you prioritize. Failing the split fire test, which happens, means you have to make a tough call about which of the two declared targets you want to shoot at. Do you take down the tank with your single melta gunner (and pray they make their hit roll?) or shoot at approaching enemy squad before they close range? The bit of uncertainty/randomness puts you into a situation where you can't purely optimize - but have to make a trade-off instead.

(3) In ProHammer, there is no pre-measuring ranges. In 9th you can premeasure freely.

Effect: Assuming one has a basic grasp on estimating distances, the inability to precisely and exactly "know" if a given model is in range of a target makes model/unit movement more ambiguous but much more interesting. Particularly in situations where I'm faced with the choice of "leaving cover" to most likely get in range of an attack versus staying in cover and "maybe" being in range of an attack. It's surprising how often this comes up in our games and it's often a tough choice. In 9th, with premeasuring, you can make a clear cut choice. If I'm able to stay in cover and be in range - perfect! If not, I can decide whether it's optimal to keep my unit in cover and hope it lives or just then decide to leave cover and make the attack. 9th strips out the uncertainty and let's you optimize.

(4) Lethality. We've done a lot in ProHammer (building on older editions) to trim down the lethality. The old armor/cover save system reduces lethality (and we've actually made a rule where if the AP = Sv then you get a -1 save instead of having your armor negated). Failed morale tests cause fall back moves instead of removing more models from the unit. Units can "go to ground" when shot and gain a bonus cover save. Line of Sight is abstracted for area terrain features creating more LoS blocking (and we've defined center of mass for models, so no shooting a stray tentacle or antenna). Screening units grant cover saves to units behind them, etc. Lots of other factors play into this as well.

Effect: The less lethal the game is, the more likely it is for units to stick around longer on the table. Like a game of chess in mid-game, it's at it's peak complexity/depth when both players have a significant amount of their forces left but those forces are distributed all across the battlefield. Each piece/unit has many potential avenues for movement, which can setup future turns in many different ways. The more lethal the game is, the quicker units are eliminated and the quicker you get to a situation where the table level complexity and variety of potential interactions is decreasing. In other words, the fewer units there are, the smaller the decision space in the game. Creating interesting decisions generally requires a bigger decision space.

Those are some examples of what I value and the mechanics that support "interesting tactical choices" versus optimization ones.

 Eldarsif wrote:

This assertion about what people do and don't do is both an ad-hominem and unhelpful. If you want to address the specific definition of tactics, that's a separate argument, but I'm happy to have it. It's certainly objective, though, not opinion.

Because downplaying tactical choices in Warhammer 40.000 and implying everyone who likes it being some sort of idiots, as you implied in "maybe wargaming is not for you" is so helpful. I know you will say I am mischaracterizing your writings, but the condescension feels very much real to the rest of us.

In tabletop wargames that are weak abstraction of war then yes, it is an opinion as two people are very likely to have differing opinions on how to represent war in an abstract manner. Unless you want to go the Soviet way and try to turn it into mathematical formulas; which you claimed to fail. Hell, StarCraft is a highly tactical game, but it doesn't have any of the components you want which makes me believe that you will somehow diss the game because of your own personal opinion and ideas of what "true tactical" means. Still doesn't change that the game is tactical. Although to be fair as I do not know your personal opinion of StarCraft you might very well love the game and think it is a tactically robust game.

You also confirmed something I felt but had not seen evidence of until today and that is that you play WW2 games. WW2 games are somewhat easier to create formulas around as that is a war that has happened and we can create constraints about the gameplay based off on what happened in years past. Would still be abstract, but at least you have scenarios and data to build around it. Warhammer 40.000 is a fantasy game with super soldiers, ravaging aliens, and ancient civilizations that do not conform to anything we have today, except maybe, and just maybe, Imperial Guard. Everything else is pure abstract fantasy and to clamp old ideas about wars around that is just a limited view on the universe and its potential at large.

I personally have little interest in WW2 games(although I do have a small US Bolt Action army) and I do not want Warhammer 40.000 or Age of Sigmar to become a World War 2 game personally. There is no reason for 40k to become Chain of Command and there is no reason for Chain of Command to become 40k. Homogenization of the hobby is not a positive thing and I would rather have a diverse range of games representing war in different manners than one single, almost GURPS-like system that defines them all. It's why I have armies in several different games so I can play different games when I fancy. I do not want to play Warhammer 40.000 when I play Legion.

However, if you want to create your own homebrew for CoC using 40k figures then more power to you.

I accept your post, but there is one thing I think we disagree on.

You say "You also confirmed something I felt but had not seen evidence of until today and that is that you play WW2 games. WW2 games are somewhat easier to create formulas around as that is a war that has happened and we can create constraints about the gameplay based off on what happened in years past. Would still be abstract, but at least you have scenarios and data to build around it. Warhammer 40.000 is a fantasy game with super soldiers, ravaging aliens, and ancient civilizations that do not conform to anything we have today, except maybe, and just maybe, Imperial Guard. Everything else is pure abstract fantasy and to clamp old ideas about wars around that is just a limited view on the universe and its potential at large."

To me, that implies it is difficult to make Warhammer 40k behave like a World War II game, and that is fundamentally NOT what I am asking for, and why I think the claim is spurious.

What I am asking for is that Warhammer 40k behave like a WARgame. There are "tactics" in 40k (the setting, not the game). Whether or not a Chimera with heavy flamers should shoot the orks is a decision an Imperial Guard (not Soviet World War 2) commander has to make. And when he makes that decision, he has to consider things like terrain, distances he cannot accurately measure himself, the clustering or not of enemy units on the table battlefield, the impact of those orks on his overall battleplan, etc. etc. I know this because in the novels, they talk about where infantry have to disembark because the terrain prevents the Chimera from passing without risk - and times where tanks were immobilized taking that risk. The novels talk about tanks driving through enemy infantry with a Tank Shock, ignoring them due to their inability to harm the vehicle, etc. etc.

9th edition 40k does not match the novels/lore. This means that I don't feel like an Imperial Guard commander, I feel like a mathematician-cum-encyclopedia. I am not playing a Warhammer WARgame, I am playing a game with Warhammer windowdressing.

And honestly, the fact that you don't have to fit existing data should make it easier to design, not harder. If this is a universe where vehicles cannot possibly immobilize themselves on terrain? That's fine. Hell, that's awesome - as a treadhead, such a universe would be amazing for tank combat. Heck, you could even design the game first, totally unconstrained, and then design the lore around whatever you come up with. You have total control over how the setting is written, and how the game conforms to those events. Designing the game in that situation should be a breeze!

but, the creators of that universe have, themselves, written in lore that vehicles can immobilize themselves on terrain.

You can have the game function however you want - it's fantasy, after all - but if the game is tied to a setting, then maybe the rules should attempt to replicate that setting.

As it stands, 40k's setting allows for tactical decisions. There are novels that go into the way commanders and officers think, that go into the factors they need to consider. The well-written ones even go into both sides and their thought-processes, and you can watch the tactical evolution in real (fictional?) time. (I still remember Storm of Iron very fondly.)

Those are the actions of (fictionalized and dramatized) military commanders. If the game is a WARgame in this setting, I should be considering the same factors, since I'm trying to be a (fictionalized and dramatized) military commander in that setting. 9th edition is not that.

40k never has really matched the novels/lore, otherwise I would have a billion Tyranids for every Space Marine my opponent has.
That is not feasible for obvious reasons.

Also I was always low-key bitter that monstrous creatures couldn't "tank" shock their way through infantry in spite of the difference in bulk.

 Tyran wrote:
40k never has really matched the novels/lore, otherwise I would have a billion Tyranids for every Space Marine my opponent has.
That is not feasible for obvious reasons.

Also I was always low-key bitter that monstrous creatures couldn't "tank" shock their way through infantry in spite of the difference in bulk.

Agreed that it has never matched the novels/lore well, but it could be better. The fluff is subjective about certain things too - especially relative combat power between factions. Space Marine lore becomes a lot more believable when you read other factions fighting against them, rather than the "bolter porn" novels. But the types of decisions and thought processes I'm talking about aren't really the same thing as adjusting balance in the narrative and on the tabletop. Whether terrain is a potential hazard for tanks or not is very different (in terms of world/development and universe writing) than whether a Marine can kill only three Tyranids or over a hundred.

And yeah. Other GW systems (and other fantasy systems outside of GW) usually have "barge" mechanics that allow monsters to 'Tank-Shock-like' their way through things. Such a barge mechanic would be cool. Imagine if Living Battering Ram gave Carnifexes a bonus to "barging" things out of the way, rather than just making it more killerer.

This idea that 40K is harder to design than WW2 games because it's so full of zany weird sci-fi aliens and monsters and robots rather falls flat when a Fleshborer and bolt pistol are basically the same, and a Tyrannofex and Leman Russ behave largely identically. For all the variety in the visuals of the different factions, they all follow the same core mechanics. It's mostly special rules that set them apart.

 Tyran wrote:
40k never has really matched the novels/lore, otherwise I would have a billion Tyranids for every Space Marine my opponent has.
That is not feasible for obvious reasons.

The Starship Troopers miniatures game used a combination of tunnel networks and respawning units to allow the Bug player to field a swarm without actually having a ton of models on the table. The Mobile Infantry player has individually far superior troops, but the Bugs can show up unexpectedly and keep respawning over the course of the game.

That's the sort of core asymmetry that might set a sci-fi game apart from a WW2 wargame mechanically. 40K's never really leaned into that style of design.

 catbarf wrote:
This idea that 40K is harder to design than WW2 games because it's so full of zany weird sci-fi aliens and monsters and robots rather falls flat when a Fleshborer and bolt pistol are basically the same, and a Tyrannofex and Leman Russ behave largely identically. For all the variety in the visuals of the different factions, they all follow the same core mechanics. It's mostly special rules that set them apart.

 Tyran wrote:
40k never has really matched the novels/lore, otherwise I would have a billion Tyranids for every Space Marine my opponent has.
That is not feasible for obvious reasons.

The Starship Troopers miniatures game used a combination of tunnel networks and respawning units to allow the Bug player to field a swarm without actually having a ton of models on the table. The Mobile Infantry player has individually far superior troops, but the Bugs can show up unexpectedly and keep respawning over the course of the game.

That's the sort of core asymmetry that might set a sci-fi game apart from a WW2 wargame mechanically. 40K's never really leaned into that style of design.

That sounds like designing a game around the asymmetry of 2 factions. The issue 40k has is that occasionally it is an asymmetric game, occasionally it is a symetric game (tbh most of the time with how prevalent Marine players are).
And of course the asymmetry is not something fixed bewteen 2 factions, but dozens of possible combinations between a dozen factions (assuming a 1v1, no team games, which to be fair have never really been properly supported but do happen). And I'm not even getting into the possible different playstyles each faction can have.

 Tyran wrote:
That sounds like designing a game around the asymmetry of 2 factions. The issue 40k has is that occasionally it is an asymmetric game, occasionally it is a symetric game (tbh most of the time with how prevalent Marine players are).
And of course the asymmetry is not something fixed bewteen 2 factions, but dozens of possible combinations between a dozen factions.

GSC is the only blip faction.
Thousand Sons and GK are the premier psykers
Tyranids will have a connected synapse in the new book.
DE is the boat pirate faction.

Marines just happen to be the more popular and more bland factions, but they have their own minor distinctions.