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.

 Verthane wrote:
This change is fine for armies like Grey Knights where all of the subfactions look the same, but really sucks for Space Marines...I have over 3000 points of Space Marines, but because I chose for artistic reasons to paint up different chapters, I now have an illegal army. I'm not going to say "those models that are clearly Space Wolves are pretending to be Salamanders". I'm sure some folks would though - if that works for you and your opponents then great.

Illegal how? Just tell your opponent 'my whole army uses Salamander rules'. There, simple, case closed. Much easier for your opponent too.

It's pretty much what I did with my DW after the gak supplement turned the army into stinking pile of garbage . DW Intercessors are now Veteran Intercessors and DW dreads are now Venerable Dreads in my SM army (though it helps I painted the shoulders using my main chapter). Funnily enough, running them like this gave my DW units more fluffy rules than running them as actual DW

 Verthane wrote:
Grey Knights or Sisters of Battle players have no such problems (unless I'm just blissfully unaware of some minor armor markings that designate what subfaction they belong to, but it certainly isn't as major as "repaint the model").

GK have companies (and unlike SM, they can't fall back on 'invented/lookalike successor' excuse) and SoB have orders, so it's the same, really.

 Overread wrote:
Outside of Space Marines almost every other subfaction is little more than half a paragraph of rules variation; with no unique models

*cough* special characters *cough* entire Krieg/Ynnari range *cough*

Heck jump over to Age of Sigmar and the Daughters of Khaine have several subfactions where the only difference is a slightly different shade of red paint. That's it - that's the only real difference in the schemes.

Unless you play Stormcast, as for some reason virtually every single named character belongs to one specific subfaction so if you pick anything else your army book suddenly has 10+ entries less...

 Blackie wrote:
In almost 23 years of playing 40k I've never seen a SM army mixing two chapters.

You're lucky then, as through the entire 8th edition, every single WAAC type army mixed 3 or more (which was hard to keep track of even if they were painted differently instead of usual WAAC grey tide type, but downright impossible if said army went full munchkin and cherrypicked 3 different minmaxed successors). You must have a good meta.

You folks realize that this was a conscious sales decision from GW? Give it 6 months to a year, and the pendulum will swing back, allowing you to soup again.

Look at it from GW's perspective. We'll all (okay not everyone but a lot) will convert our entire collections to a single scheme, then who'd want to repaint their models vs buying new when the pendulum swings?

 carldooley wrote:
You folks realize that this was a conscious sales decision from GW? Give it 6 months to a year, and the pendulum will swing back, allowing you to soup again.

Look at it from GW's perspective. We'll all (okay not everyone but a lot) will convert our entire collections to a single scheme, then who'd want to repaint their models vs buying new when the pendulum swings?

No, this is GW forcing its vision upon the game, they don't want you to mix and match the best sub-factions in a list, so they ban it. They want you to make choices, not grab everything.

Not every design decision GW makes has to be done to maximize profit.

God forbid the company that produces the rules and game control the rules and game. That's just wild.

I think this has been done because lots of players have said multi-chapter selection is lame. Mainly because it inevitably results in solved lists - i.e. Take X & Y in detachment Z, take A and B in detachment C.

Its possible they'll change it back if lots of players write in to say they preferred the old system. But I'm not sure they will.

 Ordana wrote:
They want you to make choices, not grab everything.

Looks to the Detachment Rules, looks to the Unbound rules......Looks to GW's stock price and sales model...
'Yeah, I'm going to disagree with you there...'

GW balance is far too random to be linked directly to sales. For every choice they make that seems to encourage sales they make others that discourage sales.


Asides which many forget that 1 army per player was how things used to be for a very long time; the idea of mixing and matching subfactions is a very new idea all told.

 Overread wrote:
GW balance is far too random to be linked directly to sales.

Looks to (Tau) Codex (spoilers) that is about to be released, looks to what's sold out 'temporarily' on their online store...
Yeah, I'm going to disagree here too...

Didn't GW already have a "play the paint scheme on your marines" rule in place for Gamesday UK? So that if your marines were painted blue then they had to be Ultras, if they were painted red then they had to be Blood Angels and, if they were dark green they had to be Dark Angels, etc.. Forcing everyone there to, effectively, either buy new marines to mix their armies or play just one chapter. This just seems like a logical, from their perspective, progression of their policies.

 Verthane wrote:
This change is fine for armies like Grey Knights where all of the subfactions look the same, but really sucks for Space Marines...I have over 3000 points of Space Marines, but because I chose for artistic reasons to paint up different chapters, I now have an illegal army. I'm not going to say "those models that are clearly Space Wolves are pretending to be Salamanders". I'm sure some folks would though - if that works for you and your opponents then great.

It does suck when your current or favourite army is invalidated for competitive play. I will offer, though, that mixed Chapter armies have not really been a thing in 9th competitively. It was seen sometimes in 8th, but I haven't seen on the table since 9th dropped. Additionally, the various rules brought in by some Tournament Organizers to enforce "paint=rules" are less necessary now. Hipster rules brought in to stop "Chapter jumping" will still be a thing, but there is no need anymore for clarity if a Space Marine army has models painted in different Chapter livery. At a tourney using GT2022 those models will all be one faction - Warhammer World events, though, do indeed mandate rules=paint. I understand and respect that you are unwilling to say that your Space Wolves are Salamanders for a game.

Voss wrote:
Its not illegal, it just has to settle for one set of special rules rather than... six. They're Renegades, so everything gets the charge bonus or whatever it is now.

Can my Alpha Legion be Alpha Legion alongside my Iron Warriors?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Voss wrote:
Its not illegal, it just has to settle for one set of special rules rather than... six. They're Renegades, so everything gets the charge bonus or whatever it is now.

Can my Alpha Legion be Alpha Legion alongside my Iron Warriors?

Sure.

Unless by 'faction identity' you mean 'have more special rules and strats,' but those just sound like game mechanics to me, and I don't care what color your models are.

Sure used a lot of words there to say "No".

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Sure used a lot of words there to say "No".

Ok, since yes is no... so if someone is exclusively shooting at you from close range and the Alpha Legion rules no longer have any game effect, does that mean they're also no longer Alpha Legion? If the enemy is never in cover, are your Iron Warriors never Iron Warriors?

Subfaction traits were a mistake. They simply make balancing impossible.

Do you balance a melee marine unit based on its effectiveness when it has the red marine trait or when it has not? Whatever you do, the unit is now unbalanced if it has a different trait.

I'm glad it's gone. Souping subfactioms like that was cancer

 Crimson wrote:
Subfaction traits were a mistake. They simply make balancing impossible.

There are elements of subfactions that I like but overall I agree.

At the very least, I think it's a shame that they're all just pure buffs - rather than, say, each having positives and drawbacks to emphasise not only the strengths of given subfactions but also their weaknesses.

(And yes, I'm aware GW would probably screw it up so that some subfactions ended up with super-bonuses and meaningless drawbacks. I just think it would have been better than all buffs all the time.)

 Crimson wrote:
Subfaction traits were a mistake. They simply make balancing impossible.

Do you balance a melee marine unit based on its effectiveness when it has the red marine trait or when it has not? Whatever you do, the unit is now unbalanced if it has a different trait.

Not necessarily, because people take different things in their lists.
The issue isn't whether a melee marine with the red trait is balanced against a melee marine with the blue trait - but compared to a shooty marine with the blue trait.

Look at say GSC. Obviously its still early days and things may change when the rubber hits the road - but there is quite a debate over which cult is best, because most cults help lots of different aspects of the army. Best list/best cult is therefore more of a debate than the traditional "make the stabby bits red and the shooty bits blue, then call it a gg" we have seen previously.

 Ordana wrote:

 carldooley wrote:
You folks realize that this was a conscious sales decision from GW? Give it 6 months to a year, and the pendulum will swing back, allowing you to soup again.

Look at it from GW's perspective. We'll all (okay not everyone but a lot) will convert our entire collections to a single scheme, then who'd want to repaint their models vs buying new when the pendulum swings?

No, this is GW forcing its vision upon the game, they don't want you to mix and match the best sub-factions in a list, so they ban it. They want you to make choices, not grab everything.

Not every design decision GW makes has to be done to maximize profit.

That's fair. They're perfectly capable of making asinine, stupid decisions that negatively impact the game without chasing dollar signs at all.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 vipoid wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
Subfaction traits were a mistake. They simply make balancing impossible.

There are elements of subfactions that I like but overall I agree.

At the very least, I think it's a shame that they're all just pure buffs - rather than, say, each having positives and drawbacks to emphasise not only the strengths of given subfactions but also their weaknesses.

(And yes, I'm aware GW would probably screw it up so that some subfactions ended up with super-bonuses and meaningless drawbacks. I just think it would have been better than all buffs all the time.)

Yunno what would alleviate the subfaction balancing issue? If there was some way that you could pay some sort of cost (CP maybe?) in order to take multiple subfaction traits. That way, units always benefit from their best subfaction trait and the whole army can be balanced around that.

It's a wild idea but it just might work.

 carldooley wrote:

 Overread wrote:
GW balance is far too random to be linked directly to sales.

Looks to (Tau) Codex (spoilers) that is about to be released, looks to what's sold out 'temporarily' on their online store...
Yeah, I'm going to disagree here too...

Hammerheads are not sold out in the US. Or the UK, Germany, Canada...

Again... the monthly sales for GW is like £32M right now. 56% of that is to Trade accounts, which buy at 50% of MSRP. So they're selling £48M in product. 1,000 players buying 3 Hammerheads each is £112K or WELL less than 1% of their sales in a month.

And in case you were wondering - there won't be anywhere near 1,000 T'au players in tournaments in the coming months. If you even look at LVO there are more Custodes players than most armies even through they aren't a meta pick ( yet ), because they're notoriously easy to buy into and tavel with.

Wayniac wrote:
I'm glad it's gone. Souping subfactioms like that was cancer

No, not at all - you may not have found the combinations pleasant, but as far as I'm aware no-one has died of playing against a list with multiple subfactions.

That's a good thing, subfaction soup should basically only be allowed in narrative games.

Siegfriedfr wrote:
That's a good thing, subfaction soup should basically only be allowed in narrative games.

Soo, what interesting thing should Matched Play have to encourage people to play it, then?

 Luke_Prowler wrote:

Siegfriedfr wrote:
That's a good thing, subfaction soup should basically only be allowed in narrative games.

Soo, what interesting thing should Matched Play have to encourage people to play it, then?

Drama?

Anyways, in an ideal world we would see more things like the Torchbearer Crusade list from WD466. It was designed for Crusade and blended several factions together in an interesting manner.

 Luke_Prowler wrote:

Siegfriedfr wrote:
That's a good thing, subfaction soup should basically only be allowed in narrative games.

Soo, what interesting thing should Matched Play have to encourage people to play it, then?

Balance.

 Platuan4th wrote:

 Luke_Prowler wrote:

Siegfriedfr wrote:
That's a good thing, subfaction soup should basically only be allowed in narrative games.

Soo, what interesting thing should Matched Play have to encourage people to play it, then?

Balance.

Sorry, that only works when people actually are interested in true balance. Rather than the facade of balance that Matched Play/tournaments present.

 Platuan4th wrote:

 Luke_Prowler wrote:

Siegfriedfr wrote:
That's a good thing, subfaction soup should basically only be allowed in narrative games.

Soo, what interesting thing should Matched Play have to encourage people to play it, then?

Balance.

Narrative games should be balanced too, imo. Though more through asymmetric objectives rather than through actual victory.

Consider Thermopylae. A "lost" battle (from a purely military perspective, one side was wiped out and delayed the other side only slightly). But a memorable battle that any narrative player would be happy to say they were on the losing side of. Because the victory conditions for the Spartans weren't "have a regular field battle" and they knew it in advance.

 Irbis wrote:

 Verthane wrote:
This change is fine for armies like Grey Knights where all of the subfactions look the same, but really sucks for Space Marines...I have over 3000 points of Space Marines, but because I chose for artistic reasons to paint up different chapters, I now have an illegal army. I'm not going to say "those models that are clearly Space Wolves are pretending to be Salamanders". I'm sure some folks would though - if that works for you and your opponents then great.

Illegal how? Just tell your opponent 'my whole army uses Salamander rules'. There, simple, case closed. Much easier for your opponent too.

If I roll up with what a 13th Company of Space Wolves painted and modeled by 'Eavy Metal, such that every model is using SW-unique bits throughout, not a single bit of generic SM anywhere to be seen, then my opponent has every right to expect it to play as 13th Company. When the models are that distinctive, saying 'my Space Wolf army counts as Salamanders' is a clear violation of both the spirit and letter of WYSIWYG, and no different than saying 'my Eldar army counts as Salamanders.'

It's not easier for the opponent, because they are playing against a proxy army when they shouldn't have to. It's a visual misdirection and confusion for those players who are invested into the interaction of lore and rules, knowing in detail what 13th Company looks like and how it's supposed to play. Such misdirection is a bigger harm to high level players and has absolutely no place in any tournament setting. At a minimum, such players should be ZERO'd for painting (not WYSIWYG) and potentially sanctioned on the tabletop when they do something that doesn't match how the model would perform. As an opponent, I do not want to play against an army that forces me to remember that it's not what it looks like. If were still playing competitively, and I had to play against such an army, I would automatically ZERO their Sports and Painting scores.

GW really should force players to play as what they've painted. If someone paints as Blood Angels, then they need to play as Blood Angels, simple as that. If they want to play as something else, and don't want to buy a a new army, then they can repaint their army.

GW really should force players to play as what they've painted. If someone paints as Blood Angels, then they need to play as Blood Angels, simple as that. If they want to play as something else, and don't want to buy a a new army,

Really? Force Players....maybe I am getting old but that sounds like just a sad thing to say and think.

I have maybe a dozen armies but I would not expect this from an opponent - especially given the vast cost of armies.

Proxy models/armies - pretty much fine.

In competitive Tournament play, with an entry fee and prizes that have monetary value?

Force WYSIWYG or else refund-and-refuse.