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 know Wolf Guard's Jump Pack recently went to +4 points (from +2) in the Chapter Approved 2022. When Wolf Guard with Jump Pack with Lightning Claw and Storm Shield were 2 points cheaper than Vanguard Veterans with the same loadout, it felt fairly balanced, because Wolf Guard are worse than Vanguard Veterans. Now that they are the exact same points, VV have +1 Leadership, Relic Blade option, Melta Bombs, Combat Squads, can take any 2 of any pistol, vs WG can take a combi-bolter, and only 2x Plasma Pistol (or 1 PP/1 BP). That's it, no other advantages, all disadvantages. Combi- and pistols aren't current taken on WG in any list as far as I am aware, so it's all negative.

What do we think about removing the Wolf Guard (Power Armor version) datasheet, and adjusting the Company Veterans datasheet instead?
Specifically, simply add: if it is a Space Wolf unit, it can take Jump Pack at +3 points per model.

I picked +3 points, because Company Veterans are already +1 point over the current WG datasheet (20 vs 19). So the point cost for JP/LC/SS will stay the same as Vanguard Veterans for the normal load out, while still paying an additional 'tax' for a Space Wolf in Jump Pack. So compared to Vanguard Veterans, they would trade Combat Squads & Squad Size (but most people are running 5-mans anyway), Melta Bomb, Relic Blade option for Bodyguard and Command Squad, Combi-, Special, and Heavy Weapon options. Basically, Melta for Bodyguard and better melee option vs better ranged options. Compared to current Wolf Guard: Squad Size, Bodyguard/Command Squad, +1 Leadership, any Pistol, Special and Heavy Weapon options. It makes sense to me that a Bodyguard should be able to keep up with their charges, so having the option for Jump Pack or Bike should work. It also makes "Wolf Guard" a bit more special than weakened-but-same-cost VVs.

Additionally, I think also adding: If not equipped with a Jump Pack, can take a Bike at +13 points.
So we can get our Wolf Guard on Bike back. I picked +13 points, because the difference between Skyclaws and Bike Squad is +10 points (plus another 3 for the Jump Pack above).
Ideally not having to trade out the Bolt Pistol, as currently Bike Squad only has 1 hand of weapons, but everything else on bike(Character on Bike, Attack Bikes, Outriders, Scout Bikes, ATVs) still keep both hands. It ends up being 2 points per model more expensive than Bike Squad, but won't get Berserk Charge and has more weapon options (that they have to pay for). I can see the argument for making the bike upgrade +15 points just to make Bike Squad more competitive (and I think the Legends WG on Bike is 34 points anyway), but that is just fine-tuning.

You basically brought up the problem of trying to make Space Wolves special snowflakes for the sake of making them special snowflakes. They should just have access to Vanguard and Sternguard.

EviscerationPlague wrote:
You basically brought up the problem of trying to make Space Wolves special snowflakes for the sake of making them special snowflakes. They should just have access to Vanguard and Sternguard.

Essentially this. Your suggestions for how specifically to go about it all seem reasonable to me. However, my preferred solution would probably be to consolidate most of the "special" units available to specific chapters into the datasheets of standard units and then have chapter tactics make certain upgrades available. So instead of Grey Hunters, you could just have tactical marines and a chapter tactic bullet point that says SW sergeants can take terminator armor. Wolf Guard can just be van/stern guard, possibly with a SW-specific stratagem or special rule that is purchased with points. Sanguinary Guard can just be vanguard vets that can buy a 2+ save. DA Black Knights (or whatever the special bikers are called) can just be an upgrade for bikers. That sort of thing.

No disrespect to those who love their chapter-specific units, but most of them aren't that special and/or should probably be available to homebrew chapters. Fenrisian Wolf (and TWC) statlines could be given to any chapter that fights alongside beasts. Terminator Sergeants are a thing that Iron Hands and friends should probably have access to. Wulfen, Death Company, and Black Dragon lizard men can all probably be combined into a "Gene Mutant" statline. Etc.

Wyldhunt wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
You basically brought up the problem of trying to make Space Wolves special snowflakes for the sake of making them special snowflakes. They should just have access to Vanguard and Sternguard.

Essentially this. Your suggestions for how specifically to go about it all seem reasonable to me. However, my preferred solution would probably be to consolidate most of the "special" units available to specific chapters into the datasheets of standard units and then have chapter tactics make certain upgrades available. So instead of Grey Hunters, you could just have tactical marines and a chapter tactic bullet point that says SW sergeants can take terminator armor. Wolf Guard can just be van/stern guard, possibly with a SW-specific stratagem or special rule that is purchased with points. Sanguinary Guard can just be vanguard vets that can buy a 2+ save. DA Black Knights (or whatever the special bikers are called) can just be an upgrade for bikers. That sort of thing.

No disrespect to those who love their chapter-specific units, but most of them aren't that special and/or should probably be available to homebrew chapters. Fenrisian Wolf (and TWC) statlines could be given to any chapter that fights alongside beasts. Terminator Sergeants are a thing that Iron Hands and friends should probably have access to. Wulfen, Death Company, and Black Dragon lizard men can all probably be combined into a "Gene Mutant" statline. Etc.

It's about how I'd write a Marine codex. "Insane" Marines for a Death Company/Black Dragon equivalent, then the Mutants for Wulfen equivalent, etc.

Quite frankly there's no reason Sergeants for Space Wolves are the only ones getting Terminator Armor as an option when the Iron Hands did it first. There's also no reason no successor of any Chapter hasn't done the same thing.

I think the points costs of a tonne of SM units are broken. Like a poster noted that a combi-plasma is cheaper on some units than a plasma gun is. It's lazy and unacceptable when GW is printing 2 pts updates a year. If GW wants that much money from everyone playing the game they have to put in more effort than just nerfing the top 2 factions.

@evisceration plague I think the worry is that you accidentally under cost Terminator Sergeants, not a huge deal for Space Wolves, ideally both options would be viable, but for Ultramarines, it encourages lore-breaking armies.

Personally, I feel like the datasheets are fine as is and I don't consider the "problem" OP is putting out to be a real issue. It's not like relic blades are a necessary profile for Wolfguard to perform their role, assuming thunder hammers, power fists and power weapons are appropriately costed then there is no real loss in not having access to relic blades.

I think lack of access to options is often an overstated weakness, what matters is the most undercosted/least overcosted few units in your codex and the least undercosted/most overcosted few units in your codex. You are not bringing your codex to a game, you are bringing an army list.

Whether Wolf Guard are exactly worth their price is hard to say, because what even is balance? I would start by looking at Space Wolves win rates in GTs, Space Wolf lists in GTs that have done well or done poorly and adjust Wolf Guard prices based on that. Comparing units with different chapter tactics is a whole other bowl of Cheerios, so GW have actually made this conversation relatively hard to have, because there are so many auxiliary conversations to have around the issue of "should Wolf Guard be 1 pt cheaper because they cannot have 2 bolt pistols?"

Why does it matter if Ultramarines can do it? Why wouldn't a successor that basically fights the same not do that since they thought it was smart?

That's just the argument of "sorry you picked the wrong paint job for your army". You're not actually worried about the undercosting like you say you are.

EviscerationPlague wrote:
Why does it matter if Ultramarines can do it? Why wouldn't a successor that basically fights the same not do that since they thought it was smart?

That's just the argument of "sorry you picked the wrong paint job for your army". You're not actually worried about the undercosting like you say you are.

Yes I am worried about Ultramarines fielding Terminator Sergeants in their Tactical and Veteran Squads as that is not part of their lore. If you want an army that doesn't obey the codex astartes you should not be playing Ultramarines. I don't really care whether your Ultramarines are light blue or dark blue or whether your Space Wolves are dark blue or light blue, I care whether you call them Ultramarines or Space Wolves as that sets certain expectations that I would hope the designers enforce, things like not allowing Terminator Sergeants in every squad for Ultramarines.

 vict0988 wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
Why does it matter if Ultramarines can do it? Why wouldn't a successor that basically fights the same not do that since they thought it was smart?

That's just the argument of "sorry you picked the wrong paint job for your army". You're not actually worried about the undercosting like you say you are.

Yes I am worried about Ultramarines fielding Terminator Sergeants in their Tactical and Veteran Squads as that is not part of their lore. If you want an army that doesn't obey the codex astartes you should not be playing Ultramarines. I don't really care whether your Ultramarines are light blue or dark blue or whether your Space Wolves are dark blue or light blue, I care whether you call them Ultramarines or Space Wolves as that sets certain expectations that I would hope the designers enforce, things like not allowing Terminator Sergeants in every squad for Ultramarines.

So yes I was right: you're going with the "sorry you picked the wrong paintjob" and you don't actually care about whether it's balanced or not.

And who's to say it never happened on occasion? Do you have ALL the fluff recordings for the Ultramarines to fill the gaps?

 vict0988 wrote:
I think the points costs of a tonne of SM units are broken. Like a poster noted that a combi-plasma is cheaper on some units than a plasma gun is. It's lazy and unacceptable when GW is printing 2 pts updates a year. If GW wants that much money from everyone playing the game they have to put in more effort than just nerfing the top 2 factions.

Or wildly inconsistent points costs. It's weird when Combi- are the same price (or cheaper I guess?) than the base weapon, or when the weapon is a different cost between units. I was just looking at Grav Gun on Bike Squad vs Flamer and both were 5 points, but Company Veterans have Flamer at 5 and Grav Gun at 10.

 vict0988 wrote:
@evisceration plague I think the worry is that you accidentally under cost Terminator Sergeants, not a huge deal for Space Wolves, ideally both options would be viable, but for Ultramarines, it encourages lore-breaking armies.
...
I think lack of access to options is often an overstated weakness, what matters is the most undercosted/least overcosted few units in your codex and the least undercosted/most overcosted few units in your codex. You are not bringing your codex to a game, you are bringing an army list.
...
Whether Wolf Guard are exactly worth their price is hard to say, because what even is balance? I would start by looking at Space Wolves win rates in GTs, Space Wolf lists in GTs that have done well or done poorly and adjust Wolf Guard prices based on that.

I pulled up some lists on 40kstats, and they have 198 tournaments from 2021, 17 Space Wolf lists that place 1st-4th in them. Of all of those lists, 1 list has a Wolf Guard Terminator Pack Leader in a troops squad. Specifically, it has 2 units of Grey Hunters with Chainswords that have a Wolf Guard Terminator with Thunderhammer and Storm Shield. Pretty sure none of them took the Power Armor Wolf Guard. Going by that, Wolf Guard Pack Leaders of any stripe need some buffs or point reductions to be viable. So, like you said, list vs codex.

 vict0988 wrote:
Personally, I feel like the datasheets are fine as is and I don't consider the "problem" OP is putting out to be a real issue. It's not like relic blades are a necessary profile for Wolfguard to perform their role, assuming thunder hammers, power fists and power weapons are appropriately costed then there is no real loss in not having access to relic blades.

Doing some Mathhammer(vs MEQ and with Shock Assault), the Relic Blade comes out much like a Power Fist for the points. Its slightly better, but also slightly more expensive by about the same margin. Notably quite a bit better than the much more popular Lightning Claw when D2 matters. It just that D2 seems to be mattering less and less.

 vict0988 wrote:
Comparing units with different chapter tactics is a whole other bowl of Cheerios, so GW have actually made this conversation relatively hard to have, because there are so many auxiliary conversations to have around the issue of "should Wolf Guard be 1 pt cheaper because they cannot have 2 bolt pistols?"

Or 2 Grav-pistols. It's more, "Hey, you can take this special unit because you have a culture of brave warriors, but you can't take the 'generic' version" quickly followed by "Oh, and those special elites are now exactly the same, but have fewer options, lose keywords, and more likely to run away from the battle for the same points". Sure, you can dismiss it as snowflake isn't snowflaky enough, but the stats don't fit the fluff anymore. Bodyguard and Command Squad at least get them the fluff of being a Retinue to a Wolf Lord.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
Why does it matter if Ultramarines can do it? Why wouldn't a successor that basically fights the same not do that since they thought it was smart?

That's just the argument of "sorry you picked the wrong paint job for your army". You're not actually worried about the undercosting like you say you are.

Yes I am worried about Ultramarines fielding Terminator Sergeants in their Tactical and Veteran Squads as that is not part of their lore. If you want an army that doesn't obey the codex astartes you should not be playing Ultramarines. I don't really care whether your Ultramarines are light blue or dark blue or whether your Space Wolves are dark blue or light blue, I care whether you call them Ultramarines or Space Wolves as that sets certain expectations that I would hope the designers enforce, things like not allowing Terminator Sergeants in every squad for Ultramarines.

So yes I was right: you're going with the "sorry you picked the wrong paintjob" and you don't actually care about whether it's balanced or not.

And who's to say it never happened on occasion? Do you have ALL the fluff recordings for the Ultramarines to fill the gaps?

I mean, the way I was picturing it was that you tie the option for a terminator sergeant to a chapter tactic. So if you want to have your army that is painted like Ultramarines to have access to that option, you'd have to give up the default UM traits, characters, etc. And if UM players feel that doing so better represents their army than the actual UM rules, more power to them. Isha knows I've used custom craftworld traits to represent one of the main craftworlds with their own rules because the custom traits just fit the fluff better. (Looking at you, Iyanden, Ulthwe, and Biel-Tan.)

Like, we can agree that some chapters have termi sergeants. Let's just make that an option. If it's considered non-standard enough to warrant faction-locking, then make that an option you select when defining your army's "special" stuff (i.e. chapter tactics.)

Wyldhunt wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
Why does it matter if Ultramarines can do it? Why wouldn't a successor that basically fights the same not do that since they thought it was smart?

That's just the argument of "sorry you picked the wrong paint job for your army". You're not actually worried about the undercosting like you say you are.

Yes I am worried about Ultramarines fielding Terminator Sergeants in their Tactical and Veteran Squads as that is not part of their lore. If you want an army that doesn't obey the codex astartes you should not be playing Ultramarines. I don't really care whether your Ultramarines are light blue or dark blue or whether your Space Wolves are dark blue or light blue, I care whether you call them Ultramarines or Space Wolves as that sets certain expectations that I would hope the designers enforce, things like not allowing Terminator Sergeants in every squad for Ultramarines.

So yes I was right: you're going with the "sorry you picked the wrong paintjob" and you don't actually care about whether it's balanced or not.

And who's to say it never happened on occasion? Do you have ALL the fluff recordings for the Ultramarines to fill the gaps?

I mean, the way I was picturing it was that you tie the option for a terminator sergeant to a chapter tactic. So if you want to have your army that is painted like Ultramarines to have access to that option, you'd have to give up the default UM traits, characters, etc. And if UM players feel that doing so better represents their army than the actual UM rules, more power to them. Isha knows I've used custom craftworld traits to represent one of the main craftworlds with their own rules because the custom traits just fit the fluff better. (Looking at you, Iyanden, Ulthwe, and Biel-Tan.)

Like, we can agree that some chapters have termi sergeants. Let's just make that an option. If it's considered non-standard enough to warrant faction-locking, then make that an option you select when defining your army's "special" stuff (i.e. chapter tactics.)

If you don't find it fluffy to use Terminator Sergeants for Ultramarines, the thing to do is not use them, simple as that. Regardless it should've been an option for all Loyalist Chapters.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

If you don't find it fluffy to use Terminator Sergeants for Ultramarines, the thing to do is not use them, simple as that. Regardless it should've been an option for all Loyalist Chapters.

Kind of agree, but I'm of a mixed mind. It's mostly a matter of presentation. While in theory, we can all refrain from using optimal options in favor of serving the lore, it does kind of stink when you feel like you're hamstringing yourself for the sake of theme/fluff. So if at any point in time termi sergeants become an optimal choice, they can become a source of frustration for players that are willing to pass on the optimal choice.

Making terminator sergeants an option that you give up some resource (other than points*) for can potentially avoid that frustration by presenting an alternative option in the same "slot" that is perceived as similarly viable. So let's say terminator sergeants are a chapter tactic option alongside something like:

JINK: Biker units with this rule may activate this ability when they're targeted by a shooting attack. Until the end of the phase, ranged attacks made against this unit suffer -1 to hit. Until the end of the following marine player turn, this unit suffers -1 to-hit.

And if both the termi sergeant and the Jink option are seen as similarly useful, then it changes the way I perceive NOT taking termi sergeants. It stops being a frustrating self-imposed penalty. It becomes a flavorful choice that fits both my bike-heavy playstyle and the lore of my White Scars or RW or bike company UMs or whatever.

* Points are prone to boiling down to pretty straightforward mathhammer. Technically a playstyle shift like termi sergeants vs jinking bikes can also be mathhammered out to have a superior option, but it's hidden behind extra layers of considerations and the visceral satisfaction of playing an army that handles differently. Whereas (hypothetically optimal) termi-sergeant vs power armor sergeant is going to have a clear cut "better" option unless transports happen to be good in the meta.

The way I boil it down is to how GW has, believe it or not, handled the Chapter Tactic equivalents for Tyranids and Tau. Keel in mind I haven't perfected the details.
1. Each Chapter has the base Tactic (Ultramarine fall back and shoot, Iron Hand 6+++, etc.). The core founding Chapters will get stuck with a specific sub trait (so no Calgar with +1 Advance/Charge, obviously).
2. Successors have that base trait and can then pick from a list. The fact that Iron Hand successors don't have the base 6+++ has been fething stupid to be honest.
3. Each Chapter and its successors has one core unit that's available no matter what (so crazy Marines for Blood Angels to represent Death Company, an obviously buffed generic version of Victrix for Ultramarines, etc.). After that, depending the size of the game, you can choose 1-3 other exotic units for construction with simple recommendations for said founding Chapters (Jump Pack Honour Guard are something Blood Angels should have after all, but the player might want to go a different route so it doesn't really matter if they have it).

The key is what would BE a unique unit. For example, I don't think there's needs to be 4-5 different unit entries for Terminators. A base squad starting Storm Bolters and Power Weapons, and then the options for whatever, is perfectly fine. This is especially silly for Deathwing in the current Rule of Three situation. I also don't think a Vitrix Guard equivalent is good to limit when other Chapters clearly like their Captains too.

Wyldhunt wrote:

JINK: Biker units with this rule may activate this ability when they're targeted by a shooting attack. Until the end of the phase, ranged attacks made against this unit suffer -1 to hit. Until the end of the following marine player turn, this unit suffers -1 to-hit.

[/i]

I know this is just a hypothetical, but one issue I have with 9th is the way that you can stack penalties on yourself without caring in the slightest due to penalty caps. I've had situations where Ultramarine units fall back from combat, with heavy weapons, firing at my aircraft, and basically don't care about any of it because once you have one penalty, you pretty much don't care. I agree that units shouldn't be able to stack to-hit penalties on opponents firing at it, (IE, a flyer that also has jink and an army ability and another thing for a combined -4 total,) but units being able to stack debuffs on itself and effectively get the benefits of three or four choices while only suffering the penalty of one is broken.

Waaaghpower wrote:

Wyldhunt wrote:

JINK: Biker units with this rule may activate this ability when they're targeted by a shooting attack. Until the end of the phase, ranged attacks made against this unit suffer -1 to hit. Until the end of the following marine player turn, this unit suffers -1 to-hit.

[/i]

I know this is just a hypothetical, but one issue I have with 9th is the way that you can stack penalties on yourself without caring in the slightest due to penalty caps. I've had situations where Ultramarine units fall back from combat, with heavy weapons, firing at my aircraft, and basically don't care about any of it because once you have one penalty, you pretty much don't care. I agree that units shouldn't be able to stack to-hit penalties on opponents firing at it, (IE, a flyer that also has jink and an army ability and another thing for a combined -4 total,) but units being able to stack debuffs on itself and effectively get the benefits of three or four choices while only suffering the penalty of one is broken.

Completely correct. Once we got the 6s always hit, modifiers should've not been capped.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Waaaghpower wrote:

Wyldhunt wrote:

JINK: Biker units with this rule may activate this ability when they're targeted by a shooting attack. Until the end of the phase, ranged attacks made against this unit suffer -1 to hit. Until the end of the following marine player turn, this unit suffers -1 to-hit.

[/i]

I know this is just a hypothetical, but one issue I have with 9th is the way that you can stack penalties on yourself without caring in the slightest due to penalty caps. I've had situations where Ultramarine units fall back from combat, with heavy weapons, firing at my aircraft, and basically don't care about any of it because once you have one penalty, you pretty much don't care. I agree that units shouldn't be able to stack to-hit penalties on opponents firing at it, (IE, a flyer that also has jink and an army ability and another thing for a combined -4 total,) but units being able to stack debuffs on itself and effectively get the benefits of three or four choices while only suffering the penalty of one is broken.

Completely correct. Once we got the 6s always hit, modifiers should've not been capped.

Or, at the very least, modifiers from the enemy should be capped while self-imposed modifiers - falling back, moving with heavy weapons, etc - should be uncapped.

Waaaghpower wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Waaaghpower wrote:

Wyldhunt wrote:

JINK: Biker units with this rule may activate this ability when they're targeted by a shooting attack. Until the end of the phase, ranged attacks made against this unit suffer -1 to hit. Until the end of the following marine player turn, this unit suffers -1 to-hit.

[/i]

I know this is just a hypothetical, but one issue I have with 9th is the way that you can stack penalties on yourself without caring in the slightest due to penalty caps. I've had situations where Ultramarine units fall back from combat, with heavy weapons, firing at my aircraft, and basically don't care about any of it because once you have one penalty, you pretty much don't care. I agree that units shouldn't be able to stack to-hit penalties on opponents firing at it, (IE, a flyer that also has jink and an army ability and another thing for a combined -4 total,) but units being able to stack debuffs on itself and effectively get the benefits of three or four choices while only suffering the penalty of one is broken.

Completely correct. Once we got the 6s always hit, modifiers should've not been capped.

Or, at the very least, modifiers from the enemy should be capped while self-imposed modifiers - falling back, moving with heavy weapons, etc - should be uncapped.

Gotta disagree. I'm perfectly fine with an Eldar flyer that is Alaitoc being -2 to hit. The problem comes from the fact we didn't have models that have a higher BS value and/or ignore a certain amount of modifiers.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Waaaghpower wrote:

Gotta disagree. I'm perfectly fine with an Eldar flyer that is Alaitoc being -2 to hit. The problem comes from the fact we didn't have models that have a higher BS value and/or ignore a certain amount of modifiers.

This could maybe be branched out into its own thread, but:
One issue with to-hit modifiers is that they don't effect all armies equally. If you have a 5+ BS you take a massive hit from -1, but don't care about anything else. If you have a 4+ BS, you care a little about -1 and a lot about -2. 3+ can shrug off a -1 without too much concern, but will really sweat at larger penalties. So the current system heavily punishes Orks while Marines can ignore it, and the old system was more matchup-dependent but tended to reward Orks, (especially with old Dakka Dakka Dakka,) but more often than not caused a ton of problems for armies like Guard and Tyranids with their 4+ BS shooting.

But when you have units that naturally end up with a -2 to hit under a system where a 6 always hits, that doesn't matter. The orks will never lose more efficiency.

EviscerationPlague wrote:The way I boil it down is to how GW has, believe it or not, handled the Chapter Tactic equivalents for Tyranids and Tau. Keel in mind I haven't perfected the details.
1. Each Chapter has the base Tactic (Ultramarine fall back and shoot, Iron Hand 6+++, etc.). The core founding Chapters will get stuck with a specific sub trait (so no Calgar with +1 Advance/Charge, obviously).
2. Successors have that base trait and can then pick from a list. The fact that Iron Hand successors don't have the base 6+++ has been fething stupid to be honest.
3. Each Chapter and its successors has one core unit that's available no matter what (so crazy Marines for Blood Angels to represent Death Company, an obviously buffed generic version of Victrix for Ultramarines, etc.). After that, depending the size of the game, you can choose 1-3 other exotic units for construction with simple recommendations for said founding Chapters (Jump Pack Honour Guard are something Blood Angels should have after all, but the player might want to go a different route so it doesn't really matter if they have it).

The key is what would BE a unique unit. For example, I don't think there's needs to be 4-5 different unit entries for Terminators. A base squad starting Storm Bolters and Power Weapons, and then the options for whatever, is perfectly fine. This is especially silly for Deathwing in the current Rule of Three situation. I also don't think a Vitrix Guard equivalent is good to limit when other Chapters clearly like their Captains too.

Interesting. See, that's actually way more tied to who your gene daddy is than what I would do. I kind of think that tying subfaction rules to actual subfactions may, weirdly enough, have been kind of a mistake. Like, it kind of makes sense for marine chapters and successors who tend to not fall far from the tree, but it's kind of a superfluous limitation for chapters that don't behave like their parents. Chapter tactic equivalents should maybe be presented as "army styles" instead. So my Imperial Fist successors who favor fast attack rather than siege tactics for fluff reasons don't feel like they're cheating for using rules that fit their playstyle.

So maybe not the best example, but Black Dragons are allegedly maybe Salamander successors. But if I were to assign flavorful chapter tactics to them, I'd probably give them traits that buff them in melee and/or focus on morale debuffs due to their scary appearance. (It's very much a thing they lean into in some of the short stories about them.) Making them keep some of the Salamander chapter tactics wouldn't really fit as well. In fact, I'd maybe use the Blood Angels rules to represent them. Or possibly SW. You've got melee bonuses to nod to their bone claws. You've got death company or wulfen to represent their lizard mutant failed aspirants. You've got death masks (sang guard) to represent scary horns.

So what I would probably do is have predefined chapters (basically any chapter with a playable named character) and then customizable successor chapters. The former would basically just have the options from the latter chosen for them with the trade-off being that they have access to named characters. The customizable successor chapters would have a list of available traits (possibly broken up tau style purely to avoid especially powerful pairings), and those traits would have nothing to do with the chapter's gene daddy. Rather than being straight power boosts, the traits would be things that change up an army's playstyle or unlock wargear options. So one trait might let you upgrade sergeants in certain squads to terminator sergeants. Another might let you ignore LoSir with infantry-mounted bolters if you hold still (a nod to the old Raptor rules). Another might unlock access to the "Allied Beasts" and "Beast Rider" datasheets (basically fenrisian wolves and TWC, but you could fluff it as different creatures appropriate for your lore.)

So if I'm playing SW, I don't necessarily have access to termi sergeants AND fenrisian wolves/TWC AND sagas AND blood claws all in the same army, but I could choose about three such special elements to emphasize the brand of special I'm leaning into. So if I want to play up Morkai's company (I think that's Canis Wolfborn's boss), I'd take the options that unlock allied beasts and let me lean into the wolfy wolf stuff. If I want to play the First Great Company, I'd take the termi sergeants, sagas, and superior terminator options. Meanwhile, the Iron Hands are also welcome to take termi sergeants but would probably rather take some traits that boost vehicles or represent their cybernetics instead.

I'd even be tempted to tie certain strats to certain chapter traits. Example: A stratagem that lets you infiltrate some units could be unlocked when you take either the Stealthy trait (basically the RG trait) or the "Rapid Assault" trait (that lets you charge after advancing or whatever). The former is infiltrating by being sneaky. The latter is "infiltrating" by having units dashing forward from the second they enter the battlefield.

Waaaghpower wrote:

Wyldhunt wrote:

JINK: Biker units with this rule may activate this ability when they're targeted by a shooting attack. Until the end of the phase, ranged attacks made against this unit suffer -1 to hit. Until the end of the following marine player turn, this unit suffers -1 to-hit.

[/i]

I know this is just a hypothetical, but one issue I have with 9th is the way that you can stack penalties on yourself without caring in the slightest due to penalty caps. I've had situations where Ultramarine units fall back from combat, with heavy weapons, firing at my aircraft, and basically don't care about any of it because once you have one penalty, you pretty much don't care. I agree that units shouldn't be able to stack to-hit penalties on opponents firing at it, (IE, a flyer that also has jink and an army ability and another thing for a combined -4 total,) but units being able to stack debuffs on itself and effectively get the benefits of three or four choices while only suffering the penalty of one is broken.

Sure. I probably should have refrained from giving a specific example to avoid topic derailment, but I largely agree.