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.
Spoletta wrote: Going by the last 2 dex released, I think that what is going to happen is slightly different.
All these rules that require all models in your army to be from the same faction, will now require you to have the same subfaction.
This means that everyone is going the SM/Necron/GSC/Custodes way.
This means for example that if you mix Ebon Chalice and Bloody rose units in the same army, you lose the miracles.
Personally I do like it. It reduces the gap between optimized and non optimized lists.
Many players felt "forced" to play multiple hyve fleets/orders/forge worlds, because it was just better, but it completely breaks the concept of the armies.
By the way, you forgot TS in the list of factions which really suffer from this.
That does make sense - allow it, but with penalty. I think I'd prefer that option.
Spoletta wrote: Going by the last 2 dex released, I think that what is going to happen is slightly different.
All these rules that require all models in your army to be from the same faction, will now require you to have the same subfaction.
This means that everyone is going the SM/Necron/GSC/Custodes way.
This means for example that if you mix Ebon Chalice and Bloody rose units in the same army, you lose the miracles.
Personally I do like it. It reduces the gap between optimized and non optimized lists. Many players felt "forced" to play multiple hyve fleets/orders/forge worlds, because it was just better, but it completely breaks the concept of the armies.
By the way, you forgot TS in the list of factions which really suffer from this.
That does make sense - allow it, but with penalty. I think I'd prefer that option.
The problem is that it's implemented without thought to how drastically different the effect on different factions are.
For Sisters of Battle you have to choose between: Not having any shooting ability, not having any melee ability, OR not having Miracle dice. Which basically means you can pull miracle dice out of the codex because (especially considering you only get like...3 useful dice per game after the nerfs) there's no possible way being able to guarantee a paltry handful of die rolls over the course of the game is going to be better than actually being able to participate in all 3 phases.
Then look at Ironhands. What exactly is a competitive Ironhands list (who are currently doing significantly better than Sisters are) losing here? The answer is literally nothing. They are completely unaffected by these rules changes.
Specifically addressing the gap between optimized and non-optimized lists, that's only true if only ONE codex is being played. The second you have SoB going up against BT or IH or any of the other inherently mono-subfaction armies, the gap gets WIDER.
Jidmah wrote: I think making patrols less versatile is a good thing, there was just not enough reason to take any other detachment. You now need to bring the 3 CP detachments instead of 3x patrols.
I'm of mixed feeling for the sub-faction thing. It makes perfect sense from a gameplay point of view, there is too much cherry picking the best sub-faction for each unit/for the best stratagems going on. Cracking down on that is good for the game.
However, I'm not a huge fan if this is being outright disallowed instead of allowed with drawbacks like allies (DG+nurgle daemons, for example) are.
+1 to this
Also, for everyone crying that this "kills" certain factions, isn't this a case of a rising tide lifts all boats, or rather a falling tide lowers all boats? Sure your SoB list is now invalid, but so is the scary nids and orks list it would have to face! It'll re-set the meta but its not like the armies least affected by this are the ones winning all the comps?
This is blatantly false.
IH and BT are top tier armies scoring lots of wins currently. Same with Crusher Stampede Nids.
What IH list does this hurt? What about BT? What scary BT list can't you run? What Crusher Stampede list isn't full leviathan? Custodes are quietly doing extremely well in tournaments and their new book is not only designed around only using one subfaction, but got a swath of point drops before it even comes out.
It's not 'falling tide lowers all ships' it's 'crazy day at the stock market, hope you invested in mono-faction books'. Some factions, like a lot of chaos soup lists, won't have a decent mono-option to fall back on and will fall through the floor. Other factions are maybe only 5-10% weaker in their pure lists but will likely still end up in a bad position relative to armies that are totally unaffected.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2022/01/13 15:17:32
Then look at Ironhands. What exactly is a competitive Ironhands list (who are currently doing significantly better than Sisters are) losing here? The answer is literally nothing. They are completely unaffected by these rules changes.
I guess it will be implemented by the Faction Keywords.
For Marines: Imperium, Astartes, <Chapter>.
If so, they will not loose anything.
Former moderator 40kOnline
Lanchester's square law - please obey in list building!
Illumini: "And thank you for not finishing your post with a "" I'm sorry, but after 7200 's that has to be the most annoying sign-off ever."
Then look at Ironhands. What exactly is a competitive Ironhands list (who are currently doing significantly better than Sisters are) losing here? The answer is literally nothing. They are completely unaffected by these rules changes.
I guess it will be implemented by the Faction Keywords.
For Marines: Imperium, Astartes, <Chapter>.
If so, they will not loose anything.
Then look at Ironhands. What exactly is a competitive Ironhands list (who are currently doing significantly better than Sisters are) losing here? The answer is literally nothing. They are completely unaffected by these rules changes.
I guess it will be implemented by the Faction Keywords.
For Marines: Imperium, Astartes, <Chapter>.
If so, they will not loose anything.
Which is bad.
It will take the sting out of a few armies, like Drukhari or GK (with their Brotherhoods; if so, only one GMNDK will be allowed).
Former moderator 40kOnline
Lanchester's square law - please obey in list building!
Illumini: "And thank you for not finishing your post with a "" I'm sorry, but after 7200 's that has to be the most annoying sign-off ever."
The problem is that it's implemented without thought to how drastically different the effect on different factions are.
For Sisters of Battle you have to choose between: Not having any shooting ability, not having any melee ability, OR not having Miracle dice. Which basically means you can pull miracle dice out of the codex because (especially considering you only get like...3 useful dice per game after the nerfs) there's no possible way being able to guarantee a paltry handful of die rolls over the course of the game is going to be better than actually being able to participate in all 3 phases.
Then look at Ironhands. What exactly is a competitive Ironhands list (who are currently doing significantly better than Sisters are) losing here? The answer is literally nothing. They are completely unaffected by these rules changes.
Specifically addressing the gap between optimized and non-optimized lists, that's only true if only ONE codex is being played. The second you have SoB going up against BT or IH or any of the other inherently mono-subfaction armies, the gap gets WIDER.
IH isn't lighting the world on fire through RR1s on heavies for a turn. This guy recently went 3-0-2 with high scores and didn't abuse bodyguard. This list has been available all edition, but is now suddenly winning games.
Also Sisters are 52% 6 week WR and IH are 55% ( BT are 53% ). I wouldn't call that significantly better. Additionally, Sisters took 5% of top tables with 16 players and IH took 3% of top with 12 players.
IH certainly doesn't lose here, but I don't think the changes would catapult them out of the reach of Sisters especially if it opens up room for armies to compete more efficiently against higher tiers.
Spoiler:
++ Battalion Detachment 0CP (Imperium - Adeptus Astartes - Iron Hands) [100 PL, 7CP, 2,000pts] ++
+ Configuration +
**Chapter Selector**: Iron Hands
Battle Size [12CP]: 3. Strike Force (101-200 Total PL / 1001-2000 Points)
Detachment Command Cost
+ Stratagems +
Strategem: Relics of the Chapter [-1CP]: Number of Extra Relics
+ No Force Org Slot +
Servitors [2 PL, 30pts]: 4x Servo-arm
+ HQ +
Lieutenants [5 PL, 90pts]
. Primaris Lieutenant: Rites of War, The Tempered Helm, Warlord
. . Neo-volkite pistol, Master-crafted power sword and Storm Shield: Neo-volkite pistol
Primaris Techmarine [5 PL, 100pts]: Chapter Command: Master of the Forge, The Ironstone
I really don't like the changes. I've been a "Many small armies" player since returning to the game in 8th. Many small factions got smashed by army purity. Now many small subfactions is getting smashed. An entire way of engaging with the hobby has been eliminated. And again, the most frustrating part for me is that ignores the design of 9th edition's multimodal approach to the game. It's a Matched play rule that also affects Crusade and Open. That isn't supposed to happen.
Every campaign book gives a list of the forces that participate in the conflict. Never in history has this list been a single Chaos Faction, a single Xenos Faction, a single Imperial Faction and only a single subfaction in each of those. But even though it's in the fluff pages of every campaign book ever made, you can't play it on the table cuz balance.
No more exciting missions of "Hey guard, you've gotta hold the line until the Marines can break the orbital blockade and drop pod assault in turn 3."
No more justification for supreme commanders, whose fluff purpose is ostensibly to lead mixed sub-factions. They still exist, but honestly, why do you need or want an abbess on a battlefield for only one subfaction which has its own cannoness superior? It's WAY more fluffy for her to be there if there are multiple Orders present.
Chaos Warband? What is that- they've never existed in the fluff. Every battle Chaos has ever fought has always been fought by a force strictly organized by faction and subfaction. We all know the 13th Black Crusade was just Abby and his boys, right?
Honestly, the cinematic moments and story potential people are willing to sacrifice in the name of balance- it boggles my mind. I know I'm a minority among forum users for playing 40k like a large scale RPG rather than a war game, but that's what Crusade was supposed to be. You want bland but balanced boredom? Fine- keep it in Matched play where it belongs.
The flipside is that if Chaos ends up being the only over-faction that's allowed to ignore both army and subfaction purity restrictions, it will finally feel chaotic. But people are so damn twisted about balance at any cost that they probably won't let that go through either.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/01/13 17:46:30
The problem is that it's implemented without thought to how drastically different the effect on different factions are.
For Sisters of Battle you have to choose between: Not having any shooting ability, not having any melee ability, OR not having Miracle dice. Which basically means you can pull miracle dice out of the codex because (especially considering you only get like...3 useful dice per game after the nerfs) there's no possible way being able to guarantee a paltry handful of die rolls over the course of the game is going to be better than actually being able to participate in all 3 phases.
Then look at Ironhands. What exactly is a competitive Ironhands list (who are currently doing significantly better than Sisters are) losing here? The answer is literally nothing. They are completely unaffected by these rules changes.
Specifically addressing the gap between optimized and non-optimized lists, that's only true if only ONE codex is being played. The second you have SoB going up against BT or IH or any of the other inherently mono-subfaction armies, the gap gets WIDER.
IH isn't lighting the world on fire through RR1s on heavies for a turn. This guy recently went 3-0-2 with high scores and didn't abuse bodyguard. This list has been available all edition, but is now suddenly winning games.
Also Sisters are 52% 6 week WR and IH are 55% ( BT are 53% ). I wouldn't call that significantly better. Additionally, Sisters took 5% of top tables with 16 players and IH took 3% of top with 12 players.
IH certainly doesn't lose here, but I don't think the changes would catapult them out of the reach of Sisters especially if it opens up room for armies to compete more efficiently against higher tiers.
Spoiler:
++ Battalion Detachment 0CP (Imperium - Adeptus Astartes - Iron Hands) [100 PL, 7CP, 2,000pts] ++
+ Configuration +
**Chapter Selector**: Iron Hands
Battle Size [12CP]: 3. Strike Force (101-200 Total PL / 1001-2000 Points)
Detachment Command Cost
+ Stratagems +
Strategem: Relics of the Chapter [-1CP]: Number of Extra Relics
+ No Force Org Slot +
Servitors [2 PL, 30pts]: 4x Servo-arm
+ HQ +
Lieutenants [5 PL, 90pts] . Primaris Lieutenant: Rites of War, The Tempered Helm, Warlord . . Neo-volkite pistol, Master-crafted power sword and Storm Shield: Neo-volkite pistol
Primaris Techmarine [5 PL, 100pts]: Chapter Command: Master of the Forge, The Ironstone
Fire Raptor Gunship [22 PL, -1CP, 400pts] . Two quad heavy bolters: 2x Quad heavy bolter . Two twin hellstrike launchers
++ Total: [100 PL, 7CP, 2,000pts] ++
So the summation of all of that is that IH and BT are definitely doing better than SoB currently, now we can argue semantics about what "Significant" is.
You aIso haven't explained HOW it would open up room for more armies to compete. IH, BT, and Nids are all tier 1 factions right now that are totally unaffected by the change. DE are S tier and the general consensus is that they'll receive an exemption to this rule due to how their army construction works.
DA, SW, DW, and Custodes don't care about subfaction rules at all either. So out of the 14 books in the top 3 tiers of Goonhammer's ratings, only 5; Orkz, GK, SoB, Admech and Tsons care about the subfaction changes. GK and Tson being only mildly inconvenienced by them.
Really all it's going to do is shuffle some armies out of tier one and then tighten the remaining tier 1's noose on the rest of the meta.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/01/13 18:23:22
Jidmah wrote: I think making patrols less versatile is a good thing, there was just not enough reason to take any other detachment. You now need to bring the 3 CP detachments instead of 3x patrols.
Depending upon what you want to run (or don't want to run), there's already a very good reason to take the 3CP detachments.
It means you don't have to waste pts/pl/time/$ on stuff you don't want. Just spend a few CP & be done with it.
For example: I have no desire, or intention, to own - or ever play - even a single Drukhari warrior, Wych, or Wrack. Won't do it. But 3cp? Let's me field a Drukhari force.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/01/13 19:31:38
From what I've seen: not letting GK play more than one grandmaster is going to hurt them big time... possibly more than anyone else.
Even in small games, it's not uncommon to see the triple grandmaster (that sounds like a band name) and so I think that people are going to have to seriously rethink how they build that faction.
Spoletta wrote: Reminder to everyone that these changes come together with a point rebalance, so talking these in relation to the current meta is completely useless.
Orks for example are seeing extensive nerfs to their main build.
Not completely useless: We know that Orkz are seeing significant nerfs (assuming you're correct) and sisters are seeing minor nerfs (in terms of points) we also know that both of those factions are significantly hampered by not being able to mix subfactions.
Add in historical precedent and we can conclude with around 70% certainty that GW will miss the mark on their nerfs because they didn't consider the knock-on effect of the subfaction change.
Logical conclusion: Factions that currently mix subfactions frequently will come out of the update in a worse spot than intended because GW doesn't know what they're doing.
So the summation of all of that is that IH and BT are definitely doing better than SoB currently, now we can argue semantics about what "Significant" is.
You aIso haven't explained HOW it would open up room for more armies to compete. IH, BT, and Nids are all tier 1 factions right now that are totally unaffected by the change. DE are S tier and the general consensus is that they'll receive an exemption to this rule due to how their army construction works.
DA, SW, DW, and Custodes don't care about subfaction rules at all either. So out of the 14 books in the top 3 tiers of Goonhammer's ratings, only 5; Orkz, GK, SoB, Admech and Tsons care about the subfaction changes. GK and Tson being only mildly inconvenienced by them.
Really all it's going to do is shuffle some armies out of tier one and then tighten the remaining tier 1's noose on the rest of the meta.
Definitely? Those numbers fluctuate all the time - especially depending on who has played the army recently. Being within 3% is so close as to not even be notable.
For example when looking at just last week Sisters were 54%, IH was 44%, and BT was 50%. Sisters are rather more consistent than most armies and marines for the past 6 months have largely been unremarkable.
Hang on...I'm going to go write a script and see if I can cobble together some data.
So the summation of all of that is that IH and BT are definitely doing better than SoB currently, now we can argue semantics about what "Significant" is.
You aIso haven't explained HOW it would open up room for more armies to compete. IH, BT, and Nids are all tier 1 factions right now that are totally unaffected by the change. DE are S tier and the general consensus is that they'll receive an exemption to this rule due to how their army construction works.
DA, SW, DW, and Custodes don't care about subfaction rules at all either. So out of the 14 books in the top 3 tiers of Goonhammer's ratings, only 5; Orkz, GK, SoB, Admech and Tsons care about the subfaction changes. GK and Tson being only mildly inconvenienced by them.
Really all it's going to do is shuffle some armies out of tier one and then tighten the remaining tier 1's noose on the rest of the meta.
Definitely? Those numbers fluctuate all the time - especially depending on who has played the army recently. Being within 3% is so close as to not even be notable.
For example when looking at just last week Sisters were 54%, IH was 44%, and BT was 50%. Sisters are rather more consistent than most armies and marines for the past 6 months have largely been unremarkable.
Hang on...I'm going to go write a script and see if I can cobble together some data.
When you get done with that, let me know how this change opens up more room for armies to compete when 9 of the top 14 armies are completely unaffected?
H.B.M.C. wrote: What specific problem are GW attempting to fix with this change?
This is another issue. There isn't a problem. Only certain factions bother souping at all and those who do soup are represented all the way up and down the tier chart.
It's a hamfisted solution to something only GW seems to think even IS a problem.
Drukhari are being slaughtered by the detachment changes.
They are virtually guaranteed to have a partial exception- they'll still be able to combine Kabals, Cults and Covens, but only one of each. Otherwise the codex literally doesn't work. As opposed to the way so many people use the term "unplayable" to describe a thing which is merely sub-optimal or inefficient, the Drukhari dex would literally be unplayable. What that means, as others have said, is that the impact of this rule on the top ranking faction will be little to nothing.
Which is 100% guaranteed to not affect Crusade at all, where other changes might. This is my only issue with these rules- sure I disagree with them on principle, but if they only affect Matched, it won't touch me because I don't play Matched. That is the way these things are supposed to work. Unfortunately the other changes affect things that are common to all modes of play, so there's no guarantee I walk away unaffected.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/01/13 22:19:45
H.B.M.C. wrote: What specific problem are GW attempting to fix with this change?
My guess is the problem of a specific subsection of the community that hates "cherry picked" detachments.
Casual players are a blight.
Nah, for something to get action like this - assuming it actually happens - it's further evidence of the insidious poison of the tournament side of things spreading into the wider game.
@PenitentJake - is the one GMNDK per sub-faction keyword thing written into the rules for the GK, or is that your position based on the background? I haven't picked up the 9th book for GK yet to check. If it's written in stone, does it apply to GM outside of NDK as well?
Gamgee on Tau Players wrote:we all kill cats and sell our own families to the devil and eat live puppies.
Kanluwen wrote: This is, emphatically, why I will continue suggesting nuking Guard and starting over again. It's a legacy army that needs to be rebooted with a new focal point.
Confirmation of why no-one should listen to Kanluwen when it comes to the IG - he doesn't want the IG, he want's Kan's New Model Army...
tneva82 wrote: You aren't even trying ty pretend for honest arqument. Open bad faith trolling.
- No reason to keep this here, unless people want to use it for something...
H.B.M.C. wrote: What specific problem are GW attempting to fix with this change?
My guess is the problem of a specific subsection of the community that hates "cherry picked" detachments.
Casual players are a blight.
Nah, for something to get action like this - assuming it actually happens - it's further evidence of the insidious poison of the tournament side of things spreading into the wider game.
@PenitentJake - is the one GMNDK per sub-faction keyword thing written into the rules for the GK, or is that your position based on the background? I haven't picked up the 9th book for GK yet to check. If it's written in stone, does it apply to GM outside of NDK as well?
Rules like these are made to appease the casual playerbase. No tournament player cares about souping subfactions.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/01/13 22:35:01
I agree with previous posters who have said it messes with the fluff and each faction is different. Models come from the fulff and the rules are written for the models, so rules writers have a one step disconnect from the fluff and pressure to balance, is why it may happen imo.
It will never be balanced, it just needs to feel right.
TBH being able to cherrypick subfactions kinda deludes the reason alltogether for subfactions to exist.
But in most books subfactions are a joke, instead of being different subtle ways to play the army they are "the shooting subfaction" "the meele subfaction" and you end up with X units only being usable in one subfaction and the unit being balanced by its use in that one subfaction.
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.
H.B.M.C. wrote: What specific problem are GW attempting to fix with this change?
If I were to speculate, I'd say balance and unit value.
It's hard to provide a balanced model value when you only see the unit in its best light in an army where all model are seen in their best light. Nobody wants GW to assign points value to a unit based on its subfaction. At least forcing you to use only one subfaction then you have the balance between models that are better in that subfaction with those that are not as good or worst under that subfaction.
I dunno. This just seems like another "This specific army/unit is causing a problem, so let's change the rules for everyone!" situation like the aircraft 'fix' from a few weeks back.
H.B.M.C. wrote: I dunno. This just seems like another "This specific army/unit is causing a problem, so let's change the rules for everyone!" situation like the aircraft 'fix' from a few weeks back.
