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.

Also 40k's core rules aren't good for storytelling

EviscerationPlague wrote:
Also 40k's core rules aren't good for storytelling

These days I'm primarily what you would call a narrative player. The storytelling aspect of a gane, for me, is its soul.

Youre not wrong, but i think what you've said is a bit backwards. Its not that 40ks core rules 'arent good for storytelling".

They're not good, period. (There's far better and far cleaner rules sets out there) For anything.

At best, 40k's rules provide an adequate foundation that you can build on with some work at the front end. And yes, a bit of care. Knowledge helps. Best you'll get is 'some things match up well against some other things under some circumstances. Ymmv'. And you'll need experience and a good understanding to know what those things are. (But imo that is in itself a worthwhile goal to aim for!)

Now I will add that while they're 'not good' for narrative from an objective pov, they're abjectly terrible for competitive play, blind PUGs etc as well. Gw's rules don't really work well out of the box. They never have. They need adjustments. Now in narrative gaming, where collaborative game-building is a thing, list-matching, as opposed to list-building-for-advantage, 'relative'- balancing, as opposed to 'absolute' balancing, unique home brews, house rules etc are a matter of course, putting in the effort up front is what you do anyway, the rules being 'not good' is less of a thing as it will simply be one more thing to adjust. Theyre foundational. Nothing more. Not absolutes and unquestionable dogma that cannot be deviated from. In my mind narrative gaming is probably the best, or at least, the least-bad approach to take with a rules set that as we all know is rather limited and flawed. Imo it opens up the game far more than competitive/chasing the meta dragon approach does, though this is with the caveat that yes, you absolutely need to have a veey good understanding of thr system (though like i said, this is a worthy aim to be anyway). In my experience this approach is why I still enjoy ttgs after 20 years while I've seen so many competitively focused, and competition-exclusive focused players burn out over far less time.

Now can you use other rules set to narrative-game? Of course! fundamentally it's simply mentally imposing the mechanical resolutions that play out within the theatre of the mind and sometimes saying it out loud. You can do this with any rules out there. Heck, we've done it with every system we have used over the last ten years - from lotr, flames of war, bolt action, Infinity, necromunda etc, various historicals etc. Plenty third party, opr kind of things and online fan-versions too.

Why use 40k's over the others? Familiarity, maybe? Ease of reference? At the end of the day whilst not great, theyre OK. 'They'll do'. At least as a foundational element that we can build on. I've played 40k for 20 years. We also enjoy the 40k-iverse and its sometimes easier to reference 40k things, and what you want 40k things to be in terms of those 40k rules that have been associated with them for so long. Other games I've played like ba and fow in a lot of ways strike me as having very similar dna in some instances to older editions of 40k (loved 2nd ed fow for its vehicle rules) or even being better versions od what 40k could have been. And other games like infinity or wmh just don't draw me in any more. Too much. Too... technical and involved i think. I genuinely have a mental block when it comes to infinity. Just can't get enthused about it. Or else the scope is... different/wrong for what we are after. Not that the rules are necessarily 'bad'.

Dudeface wrote:

I mean ironically your method of play is entirely inapplicable to me too Hecaton, I'm at about 40 games played of 9th, with everything between crusade (25-55PL) and points matched play (500-2k) but I don't play tournament mission packs, I don't play hyper competitive lists, I have a stable group of players and we do talk beforehand if there's any adjustments we need to make for fair games. But you act like your world applies to everyone else as much, if not more, than Jake does.

I'm unclear as to how a more balanced game would be bad for your method of play.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

PenitentJake wrote:

Hecaton wrote:

You are only using a fraction of the rules breadth of 40k.

As are you.

And thanks for owning up to those three pieces I quoted that where responsible for my ill will.

That was big of you, and certainly helped promote peace going forward.

Huh? You're not making sense. You said a lot of things in your post that weren't meaningful. I'm not dead-set on 2k matched point games; I just want games to be *games*, rather than exercises where the outcome is pre-determined by talk before the game starts. In my experience that's very boring, and usually the result of a domineering "aggressively casual" personality engineering things so they can win all the time. Nothing about balance changes is going to destroy 25 PL Crusade play; in fact, more balance will only make them better. But some players - including, seemingly, you - hate the idea of the game being tweaked for balance, as it means the salient part of what determines who wins a game is how you play, and not what models you've bought, or who you've managed to bully into accepting what house rules, or whatever.

Hec, you are correct- better balnace Would improve 25 PL Crusade games as much as it would improve 2k matched. I do agree with that.

It's THE WAY people sometimes suggest achieving that balance that has the potential to wreck Crusade. I'm not saying all suggestions would... I've seen some really decent suggestions that I would not object to,

But I've also seen people suggest that for the sake of balance, the game needs to remove subfaction rules. This is an example of a suggestion that would destroy the game for me. I've waited since second for there to be a difference between Order of Our Martyred Lady and Sacred Rose... And it blows my mind that people would suggest undoing that to create a slightly better balance.

Certainly, not everyone is advocating for that. But some people are. There are other examples, but I want to keep this post a reasonable length.

Cheers.

PenitentJake wrote:
This is an example of a suggestion that would destroy the game for me.

Honest question: why? If narrative is the goal and the heart of the game is the stories you tell about the events on the table why is it so essential that different sub-factions have different rules? And why by order/chapter/etc, not by squad? Why is each order/chapter/etc one-dimensional around a specific buff instead of having the full range of possibilities? Like, if I play Cadians I re-roll 1s when standing still but what if I want to play a more mobile force? Why do I have to pretend my Cadians are Tallarn, and if I can just use the Tallarn rules why have them faction-locked at all?

Coming from older editions where we still had plenty of narrative in our games I just don't get it. It all seems like complexity creep crossing into rules bloat to get into that level of detail on a game as large and diverse as 40k. Set balance arguments aside, why not remove them for design elegance reasons?

Yeah. A good example is 4th edition Imperial Guard, where they had choosable faction traits and then SUGGESTED traits for lore factions.

So Armageddon Steel Legion had Mechanized, Storm Troopers, Ratlings, Conscript Squads, and Xeno-fighters:Orks because of the Armageddon campaign.

But if you wanted to run a drop regiment recruited from Armageddon before the conflict with the Orks erupted? Swap out Mechanized for Drop Troops and Xeno-fighters:Orks for whatever you like. The game suggested the narrative to you, rather than mandating it.

Jake, you know how much I hate the current GW for their "play the army OUR WAY or don't play it at all" rules, including Crusade rules as well as faction rules.

PenitentJake wrote:
But I've also seen people suggest that for the sake of balance, the game needs to remove subfaction rules. This is an example of a suggestion that would destroy the game for me. I've waited since second for there to be a difference between Order of Our Martyred Lady and Sacred Rose... And it blows my mind that people would suggest undoing that to create a slightly better balance.

You can keep it for Crusade.

Chapter Tactics create unthematic incentives, Ultramarines without Assault Marines and White Scars without Devastators. It's not really fair to keep bringing up Iyanden since it has FINALLY been fixed and it rewards Wraithguard as much as Guardian hordes.

It's a hassle to have so many rules in the game, especially for new players or at the very least for the people teaching those new players.

And yes, the game might be easier to balance, although GW didn't balance the game in previous editions so this is a minor point and I would replace it with an equally unbalanced and equally thematic Stratagems and Relics, they'd just be unbalanced in different ways and the thematic aspects of the army would be expressed less and in different ways.

 vict0988 wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:
But I've also seen people suggest that for the sake of balance, the game needs to remove subfaction rules. This is an example of a suggestion that would destroy the game for me. I've waited since second for there to be a difference between Order of Our Martyred Lady and Sacred Rose... And it blows my mind that people would suggest undoing that to create a slightly better balance.

You can keep it for Crusade.

Chapter Tactics create unthematic incentives, Ultramarines without Assault Marines and White Scars without Devastators. It's not really fair to keep bringing up Iyanden since it has FINALLY been fixed and it rewards Wraithguard as much as Guardian hordes.

It's a hassle to have so many rules in the game, especially for new players or at the very least for the people teaching those new players.

And yes, the game might be easier to balance, although GW didn't balance the game in previous editions so this is a minor point and I would replace it with an equally unbalanced and equally thematic Stratagems and Relics, they'd just be unbalanced in different ways and the thematic aspects of the army would be expressed less and in different ways.

Disagree. While certain units don't gain anything period with Chapter Tactics (like Dual Chainsword Vanguard and Assault Terminators in Imperial Fists), the number is absurdly low for units that just gain nothing. Assault Marines leaving an unfavorable combat but still getting potshots with their pistols as Ultramarines is one example of a minor benefit. White Scars Devastators that didn't get totally annihilated on the charge might be able to fall back and then charge something else since they can't shoot anyway, so might as well do SOMETHING even if it's dinky Manlet Marine Melee.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
Chapter Tactics create unthematic incentives, Ultramarines without Assault Marines and White Scars without Devastators. It's not really fair to keep bringing up Iyanden since it has FINALLY been fixed and it rewards Wraithguard as much as Guardian hordes.

Disagree. While certain units don't gain anything period with Chapter Tactics (like Dual Chainsword Vanguard and Assault Terminators in Imperial Fists), the number is absurdly low for units that just gain nothing. Assault Marines leaving an unfavorable combat but still getting potshots with their pistols as Ultramarines is one example of a minor benefit. White Scars Devastators that didn't get totally annihilated on the charge might be able to fall back and then charge something else since they can't shoot anyway, so might as well do SOMETHING even if it's dinky Manlet Marine Melee.

Do you think Ultramarines are incentivised to take melee units?

 vict0988 wrote:
PL isn't much better than just allowing each player to bring 100 wounds, you can use that as a starting point and then remove or replace stuff from one army until you find it appropriate to the scenario you want to play. It would also allow people to get to the exact number of wounds so the game is perfectly balanced (sarcasm) by adding one 1-4 extra Tempestus Scions to reach exactly 100 wounds.

You say this jokingly, but you do know that the Matched Play section of the rulebook does suggest using Wounds, rather than points or PL, don't you?

 Blndmage wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
PL isn't much better than just allowing each player to bring 100 wounds, you can use that as a starting point and then remove or replace stuff from one army until you find it appropriate to the scenario you want to play. It would also allow people to get to the exact number of wounds so the game is perfectly balanced (sarcasm) by adding one 1-4 extra Tempestus Scions to reach exactly 100 wounds.

You say this jokingly, but you do know that the Matched Play section of the rulebook does suggest using Wounds, rather than points or PL, don't you?

I think we can safely put that in the same category of "I can't believe someone thought publishing that was a good idea" as the early AoS stuff about getting +1 to hit if you're taller than your opponent.

Also look at Valorous Heart Sisters before the Balance Dataslate and AoC: Repentia did not benefit from their Conviction at all even though in the lore they have a disproportionately larger number of them compared to the other major orders.

Hecaton wrote:


I'm not dead-set on 2k matched point games; I just want games to be *games*, rather than exercises where the outcome is pre-determined by talk before the game starts.

The pre-game talk has the opposite goal in mind. It happens to get a more balanced and unpredictable game. If both players know in advance that they're fielding two forces which are comparable in power and no gotcha moments can "ruin" the game due to the players' knowledge, that pre-game talk is usually completely avoided.

Pre-game talk aims to avoid a pre-determined outcome.

 vict0988 wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
Chapter Tactics create unthematic incentives, Ultramarines without Assault Marines and White Scars without Devastators. It's not really fair to keep bringing up Iyanden since it has FINALLY been fixed and it rewards Wraithguard as much as Guardian hordes.

Disagree. While certain units don't gain anything period with Chapter Tactics (like Dual Chainsword Vanguard and Assault Terminators in Imperial Fists), the number is absurdly low for units that just gain nothing. Assault Marines leaving an unfavorable combat but still getting potshots with their pistols as Ultramarines is one example of a minor benefit. White Scars Devastators that didn't get totally annihilated on the charge might be able to fall back and then charge something else since they can't shoot anyway, so might as well do SOMETHING even if it's dinky Manlet Marine Melee.

Do you think Ultramarines are incentivised to take melee units?

Absolutely. Are Aggressors and Tactical Terminators not melee units?

 Blackie wrote:

The pre-game talk has the opposite goal in mind. It happens to get a more balanced and unpredictable game. If both players know in advance that they're fielding two forces which are comparable in power and no gotcha moments can "ruin" the game due to the players' knowledge, that pre-game talk is usually completely avoided.

Pre-game talk aims to avoid a pre-determined outcome.

In my experience, that's not the case, and people giving examples of pre-game talks in this thread don't support your assertion imo.

Andykp wrote:

Spoiler:

 Overread wrote:
I feel like we aren't really talking about powerlevels and points but more about different playstyles and approaches to the game.

I think anyone stepping back and objectively looking at the game can agree that having a game which works based on mathematical differences in values for different models; then using a single value for a range of values is not an improvement on balance over using a more granular points system ot account for variation in mathematical values for each unit.


Simple put Power Levels ARE fundamentally a worse system. The only benefit they have is being simpler and quicker to add up. However I would argue that a big part of that isn't just that they are smaller numbers, but that they are on the unit profiles. GW at some point started writing codex in a very bad way. 3rd edition it was easy to point up a unit because points and upgrade costs were on the unit profile along with their stats and abilities. It was all in one space in the book.

Today a unit might require you to look on multiple pages to find that information. You have to cross reference multiple pages per unit which slows down and makes the process feel more complicated. It makes points less easy to use because you're checking more pages, wasting more time, getting lost. Heck I recall one edition had stats infront and behind the colour photo pages in the middle. Not even keeping rules in one section of the book.



It's no surprise to me that some end up wanting to use powerlevels as its information presented so neatly and easily to use. On the surface, PL is better presented and easier to use. It masks the inherent inbalances that it introduces whereby it then hinges heavily on local pre-game setup to impose some restriction, structure or no structure at all upon how players use PL.
Which is where we fall into the trap of endlessly debating/arguing over how to use them. Because some care and some don't care about balance.










Personally I feel that is just a huge red herring. Whether an individual player cares about balance or not shouldn't matter; nor if one club or group cares. The core structure of the game should be balanced however the units are bought to play on the table. A balanced game "out of the box" allows for any kind of playstyle to use it. If you don't care about balance its fine because you don't care; if you care about balance its great; if you want narrative games it gives you a functional local structure whereby you know what will likely happen if you tweak things.

This is a big pile of assumptions and misconceptions. Points aren’t better than power levels or visa versa. The game to me and many isn’t about “ a game which works based on mathematical differences in values for different models” it’s a game about using your models to create stories and history or narrative and characters. The maths and the the other stuff is just a means to an end.

Better balance is better for everyone, whether you're a cut-throat tournament player, or a narrative gamer. For narrative gamers it makes it easier to adjust and tinker with stuff because you have more confidence in the basic balance of the game, so you're not as likely to inadvertently break something by using the points as a guideline.

Andykp wrote:
I remember the move from the whacky and unbalanced but amazing fun second edition, to the stripped down and streamlined 3rd edition, and balance was a huge driver in those changes and it sucked all the life and character out of the game.

That's just wrong. The drive from 2nd to 3rd edition was about streamlining to turn the game into a mass battle system rather than a skirmish system. Balance was not the main driver at all. The Index armies being created all at once may have helped create better balance initially, but the reason for the major shift was to get away form the highly detailed rules that work well for skirmish games but were hellish for anything much more than 750 points in 2nd edition.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:
This is an example of a suggestion that would destroy the game for me.

Honest question: why? If narrative is the goal and the heart of the game is the stories you tell about the events on the table why is it so essential that different sub-factions have different rules? And why by order/chapter/etc, not by squad? Why is each order/chapter/etc one-dimensional around a specific buff instead of having the full range of possibilities? Like, if I play Cadians I re-roll 1s when standing still but what if I want to play a more mobile force? Why do I have to pretend my Cadians are Tallarn, and if I can just use the Tallarn rules why have them faction-locked at all?

Coming from older editions where we still had plenty of narrative in our games I just don't get it. It all seems like complexity creep crossing into rules bloat to get into that level of detail on a game as large and diverse as 40k. Set balance arguments aside, why not remove them for design elegance reasons?

Have an exalt!

I never understood the idea that being forced down a specific path by GW was somehow better for narrative and fluffy play. You could absolutely do different Orders in previous editions, and different IG regiments or SM chapters without GW giving you special rules to do so. Want White Scars? Cool, everything's either a bike, a vehicle or has a jump pack or a transport. Bloody Rose? Load up on those assault units. Previous editions even allowed more customisation through things like the IG and SM trait systems.

What we have now is often just a flanderisation based on the whims of the writers. UM will be the "fall back and shoot" Marines, while IF will be the siege guys and never the twain shall meet! So says GW, anyway. What if I want to represent the UM Devastator company? Or a rapid reaction Cadian force? Apparently it's somehow better for narrative gaming if GW tells us what each named sub faction will be and provides specific rules, rather than just telling us how they operate in the background and giving us the tools to represent that in the way we interpret it. And God help you if your favourite sub faction gets lumbered with terrible, unfluffy rules (hi Word Bearers!) because GW couldn't think of anything suitable but just had to come up with something.

This idea that GW telling us exactly how a sub faction should operate seems like it's as far removed from narrative play as I can think of, precisely because it removes player agency and interpretation.

The subfaction rules get even worse when some events suggest that subfaction paint schemes should be official.

Outside of Space Marines, most subfactions are just half a paragraph of rule changes and mostly do account for focusing down a specific tactical angle. You'd get the tank one, the anti tank one; the close combat one; the ranged etc...



It got really silly when you could field several armies at once because people would "min max" putting different subfactions down because who doesn't want to put their ranged units in the subfaction that gives them a range bonus; whilst the closecombat ones go in a different group.

Thankfully the latest edition pushes things back to single armies as standard.




It's more complicated for marines because their subfactions are whole armies and have subfactions of their own.

EviscerationPlague wrote:
Absolutely. Are Aggressors and Tactical Terminators not melee units?

Tactical Terminators are close, but I wouldn't call Aggressors or Redemptor Dreadnoughts melee units. If Aggressors only get to shoot then that's not so bad and pulling them out of melee doesn't tank their damage as it does for Vanguard Veterans or Assault Terminators.

Follow-up question: Is it a problem if Tactical Terminators are vastly superior for Ultramarines than Assault Terminators? After all, I have seen several GW dioramas with Ultramarine Assault Terminators, has Timmy made a mistake when he bought and painted what he saw in the codex?

I am not saying that Ultramarine Assault Terminators/VanVets/(Primaris) Assault Marines/ should be good in every Ultramarine list, but I do think they should be good in some of them and the combination of Ultramarines having their Chapter Tactic and Super Doctrine and Blood Angels having their Chapter Tactic and Super Doctrine means one of them will be underpowered or overpowered. If you want to run a shooty Ultramarine list I think you should be able to do that and I don't doubt that's what most people are interested in, but to me it makes no sense to make Ultramarine Assault Terminators so inferior to Blood Angels Assault Terminators at no cost. This is why I think Stratagems are the ideal way to show the difference between chapters, it's 2000 pts + 18 CP worth of army instead of 2000 pts multiplied by the free Chapter Tactic bonus that can either multiply the power of your army a lot or a little depending on synergy between the Chapter Tactic and the choices in the list. I also think people should be able to engineer their own Stratagem list such that if you are playing the choppy Ultramarines (they had an Assault Company for thousands of years) then you don't get punished for that.

Hecaton wrote:

 Blackie wrote:

The pre-game talk has the opposite goal in mind. It happens to get a more balanced and unpredictable game. If both players know in advance that they're fielding two forces which are comparable in power and no gotcha moments can "ruin" the game due to the players' knowledge, that pre-game talk is usually completely avoided.

Pre-game talk aims to avoid a pre-determined outcome.

In my experience, that's not the case, and people giving examples of pre-game talks in this thread don't support your assertion imo.

I had a bad list, my opponent suggested we play with less terrain to help out my long-ranged units assert their dominance. I still ended up losing but if my opponent had been able to hide almost his entire army it would have been a crushing experience.

My opponent played Grey Knights in 8th before their PA, I played one of my weaker lists and we had a closer game than we otherwise would have if I had brought one of my stronger lists.

My opponent asked me which of the lists he brought I wanted to face and I selected the one that I thought would be the most interesting.

For 9th I haven't really fixed lists a lot because I went on a wacky mission to test out 16 different lists, so it's only been up to my opponent if they wanted to change something and then agreeing on terrain and a mission that we thought would make for a fun game. I have had a number of bad games, but almost exactly 50% win rate almost never winning or losing more than twice in a row.

 vict0988 wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
Absolutely. Are Aggressors and Tactical Terminators not melee units?

Tactical Terminators are close, but I wouldn't call Aggressors or Redemptor Dreadnoughts melee units. If Aggressors only get to shoot then that's not so bad and pulling them out of melee doesn't tank their damage as it does for Vanguard Veterans or Assault Terminators.

Follow-up question: Is it a problem if Tactical Terminators are vastly superior for Ultramarines than Assault Terminators? After all, I have seen several GW dioramas with Ultramarine Assault Terminators, has Timmy made a mistake when he bought and painted what he saw in the codex?

The fact you said Tactical Terminators were close to being a melee unit but not Aggressors is honestly kinda laughable since they're basically the same damn unit in terms of what theyre supposed to do. Also I already stated that it's rare NO unit isn't getting a benefit. Assault Terminators and Dual Chainsword Vanguard both get the +1LD, which only doesn't work because of core rules not making LD matter. That affects all armies though.

Also since Timmy can run successor rules or just go straight to another Chapter, his Assault Terminators are fine. I've been consistent here in saying I don't plan to punish people for choosing the wrong paintjob, which was a problem even BEFORE Chapter Tactics. You forget the problems that arose when Blood Angels, Dark Angels, and Space Wolves had their own special codices? Oh man, the amount of "Counts As Space Wolves" in 5th was utterly hilarious.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
Absolutely. Are Aggressors and Tactical Terminators not melee units?

Tactical Terminators are close, but I wouldn't call Aggressors or Redemptor Dreadnoughts melee units. If Aggressors only get to shoot then that's not so bad and pulling them out of melee doesn't tank their damage as it does for Vanguard Veterans or Assault Terminators.

Follow-up question: Is it a problem if Tactical Terminators are vastly superior for Ultramarines than Assault Terminators? After all, I have seen several GW dioramas with Ultramarine Assault Terminators, has Timmy made a mistake when he bought and painted what he saw in the codex?

I already stated that it's rare NO unit isn't getting a benefit. Assault Terminators and Dual Chainsword Vanguard both get the +1LD, which only doesn't work because of core rules not making LD matter. That affects all armies though.

I didn't ask whether they benefit from the Ultramarines Chapter Tactic, I asked whether there is a good reason to bring Ultramarine Assault Terminators and I think it's pretty clear that the answer is no.

Also since Timmy can run successor rules or just go straight to another Chapter, his Assault Terminators are fine. I've been consistent here in saying I don't plan to punish people for choosing the wrong paintjob, which was a problem even BEFORE Chapter Tactics. You forget the problems that arose when Blood Angels, Dark Angels, and Space Wolves had their own special codices? Oh man, the amount of "Counts As Space Wolves" in 5th was utterly hilarious.

I am not defending Space Wolves getting free chainswords and split fire, however that could be fixed by a points adjustment to the basic Space Marines to make them more viable relative to their brother chapters. Chapter Tactics do not have any cost associated with it based on whether units benefit or not, that's the problem. The problem could be fixed by making the chapter's fighting method be represented via Stratagems and Relics, that way every army gets to fly the flag and it isn't punished very hard if you bring units that don't synergies with your Stratagems or Relics because each Stratagem can only be used once per phase and you have a limited pool of Stratagems and the relic can only be one place at any one time.

I think having to call your Ultramarines Metamarines to get around the rules highlights badly designed rules.

 vict0988 wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
Absolutely. Are Aggressors and Tactical Terminators not melee units?

Tactical Terminators are close, but I wouldn't call Aggressors or Redemptor Dreadnoughts melee units. If Aggressors only get to shoot then that's not so bad and pulling them out of melee doesn't tank their damage as it does for Vanguard Veterans or Assault Terminators.

Follow-up question: Is it a problem if Tactical Terminators are vastly superior for Ultramarines than Assault Terminators? After all, I have seen several GW dioramas with Ultramarine Assault Terminators, has Timmy made a mistake when he bought and painted what he saw in the codex?

I already stated that it's rare NO unit isn't getting a benefit. Assault Terminators and Dual Chainsword Vanguard both get the +1LD, which only doesn't work because of core rules not making LD matter. That affects all armies though.

I didn't ask whether they benefit from the Ultramarines Chapter Tactic, I asked whether there is a good reason to bring Ultramarine Assault Terminators and I think it's pretty clear that the answer is no.

Also since Timmy can run successor rules or just go straight to another Chapter, his Assault Terminators are fine. I've been consistent here in saying I don't plan to punish people for choosing the wrong paintjob, which was a problem even BEFORE Chapter Tactics. You forget the problems that arose when Blood Angels, Dark Angels, and Space Wolves had their own special codices? Oh man, the amount of "Counts As Space Wolves" in 5th was utterly hilarious.

I am not defending Space Wolves getting free chainswords and split fire, however that could be fixed by a points adjustment to the basic Space Marines to make them more viable relative to their brother chapters. Chapter Tactics do not have any cost associated with it based on whether units benefit or not, that's the problem. The problem could be fixed by making the chapter's fighting method be represented via Stratagems and Relics, that way every army gets to fly the flag and it isn't punished very hard if you bring units that don't synergies with your Stratagems or Relics because each Stratagem can only be used once per phase and you have a limited pool of Stratagems and the relic can only be one place at any one time.

I think having to call your Ultramarines Metamarines to get around the rules highlights badly designed rules.

There ARE reasons to bring Ultramarine Assault Terminators, mainly for the Hammers. Just because they don't benefit from ALL RULES ALL THE TIME doesn't mean there isn't a benefit to them. I bring Multi-Melta Bikes in one of my Black Templars lists and I can tell you 100% they're NOT a melee unit. It's about the need for a unit, and they still get a minor benefit with the 5+++ against mortal wounds (similar to Assault Terminators getting a minor benefit from +1LD).

CadianSgtBob wrote:

Honest question: why? If narrative is the goal and the heart of the game is the stories you tell about the events on the table why is it so essential that different sub-factions have different rules?

Because in the stories I want to tell, and in the stories that have already been told in Black Library and rule books since Rogue Trader, and in forty years of White Dwarf, subfactions always have fought differently. There just haven't always been rules to reflect that for factions that aren't Space Marines

CadianSgtBob wrote:

And why by order/chapter/etc, not by squad? Why is each order/chapter/etc one-dimensional around a specific buff instead of having the full range of possibilities?

Well, for starters, because Bloody Rose Retributors get their training at the same convent as Bloody Rose Seraphim.

Secondly, because differences between units ARE currently represented in the game via strats, warlord traits, relics and battle honours.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

Like, if I play Cadians I re-roll 1s when standing still but what if I want to play a more mobile force? Why do I have to pretend my Cadians are Tallarn, and if I can just use the Tallarn rules why have them faction-locked at all?

If you want to play a mobile force of Cadians, you field them in an outrider detachment instead of a patrol, select as many mobile units as you can and choose warlord traits, relics and battle honours that enhance mobility. You also prioritize the use of strats that enhance mobility.

But a question for you: if GW has been writing fluff for twenty years that suggests that Cadians are known for the ability to hold ground and dig in, and Tallarns are known for mobility and you wanted to play a mobile force of guard, why did you choose to play Cadians? Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that you shouldn't be able to ... and I don't think you're currently unable to as I explained above. You just use different tools than subfaction traits to do the job, since there are so many other tools available.

How many LotR players want dwarves with bows?

CadianSgtBob wrote:

Coming from older editions where we still had plenty of narrative in our games I just don't get it. It all seems like complexity creep crossing into rules bloat to get into that level of detail on a game as large and diverse as 40k. Set balance arguments aside, why not remove them for design elegance reasons?

Plenty of options for narrative? Sure. I remember, I was there too. I remember choosing the Order of Our Martyred Lady because I really wanted to tell stories about Martyrdom- it is a concept I've always found fascinating. All orders have martyrs, sure... but the fluff of Martyrdom has always been strongest with OoOML, from changing the name of the order after Katherine's Martyrdom, to changing their livery after the slaughter at Armageddon to the fate of Sanctuary 101...

The point is that it didn't make a lick of difference, because the only difference between OoOML and BR on the table top was a paint job. But these days when I play my OoOML, they behave exactly like they were always supposed to according to well established lore.

If I WANT to tell the story of an Argent Shroud martyr? I still can- there's a generic strat that confers bonuses on an army who has a character martyred.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Yeah. A good example is 4th edition Imperial Guard, where they had choosable faction traits and then SUGGESTED traits for lore factions.

So Armageddon Steel Legion had Mechanized, Storm Troopers, Ratlings, Conscript Squads, and Xeno-fighters:Orks because of the Armageddon campaign.

But if you wanted to run a drop regiment recruited from Armageddon before the conflict with the Orks erupted? Swap out Mechanized for Drop Troops and Xeno-fighters:Orks for whatever you like. The game suggested the narrative to you, rather than mandating it.

Jake, you know how much I hate the current GW for their "play the army OUR WAY or don't play it at all" rules, including Crusade rules as well as faction rules.

I do know how much you hate that, and I feel for you.

I know about your Dark Eldar who are space-based not Commorragh based, and I think they're cool.

Personally, I'd reflect the fluff you described to me by taking lots of Razor Wings and Void Ravens; I'd throw in a few units of Corsairs; I'd choose Raid spoils rather than generate them randomly so that I could max out my Docks territories, and I'd see which of the build-your-own kabal/ cult/ coven traits best suited the idea in my head.

To be clear though, your suggestion of having "recommended" traits for cannon subfactions rather than "set in stone" traits for subfactions would be acceptable to me. And it's great that guard had it in 4th, but sisters and at least a handful of other factions did not. This is the beauty I personally see in 8th/ 9th - EVERY faction is getting consideration of their subfactions, which feels way better than some factions just not being able to meaningfully distinguish.

PenitentJake wrote:
Because in the stories I want to tell, and in the stories that have already been told in Black Library and rule books since Rogue Trader, and in forty years of White Dwarf, subfactions always have fought differently. There just haven't always been rules to reflect that for factions that aren't Space Marines

But why do you need explicit rules for that? Why does your narrative element only exist if the tabletop game explicitly has a rule titled This Is Your Narrative Rule? If you find the concept of martyrdom appealing why do you need an explicit rule called Martyrdom, why can't you just do things like aggressively trade suicide units vs. playing more cautiously in another faction? Or, as you put it:

If you want to play a mobile force of Tallarn, you field them in an outrider detachment instead of a patrol, select as many mobile units as you can and choose warlord traits, relics and battle honours that enhance mobility. You also prioritize the use of strats that enhance mobility.

This is what I don't get, you keep telling me how much you can do through making choices like which units you bring or which WLT you take and how powerful those tools are for representing the kind of force you have in your story but then you also insist that two regiments/orders/etc aren't different unless there's an explicit rule titled They Are Different.

But a question for you: if GW has been writing fluff for twenty years that suggests that Cadians are known for the ability to hold ground and dig in, and Tallarns are known for mobility and you wanted to play a mobile force of guard, why did you choose to play Cadians?

Two things:

1) Regiments aren't one-dimensional like that. There are Tallarn artillery regiments that sit behind the front lines and bombard the enemy all day, there are Cadian scouting forces that rarely stop moving. Even DKoK, presented as being a static cannon fodder siege force to the point of becoming a meme army, had an alternate list that was an elite mechanized force.

2) Because mixing things up is fun. Even if Cadians are usually fairly static sometimes you just want to change it up and charge at the enemy with a bunch of rough riders and hellhounds. Why should I have to play a completely different regiment to do that?

How many LotR players want dwarves with bows?

That's not really comparable, dwarves are a faction equivalent not a sub-faction equivalent. It's like suggesting that LotR should have a sub-faction of dwarves with major buffs to axes (making them the only viable axe faction), a different sub-faction with bows, etc, and that you can only have one of those things at a time.

PS: dwarf bows, been there since the early days of LotR: https://www.games-workshop.com/en-US/Dwarf-Warriors-2018

PenitentJake wrote:
Secondly, because differences between units ARE currently represented in the game via strats, warlord traits, relics and battle honours.

As a long-time Guard player I don't feel the current subfaction system does a great job of doing this, especially compared to the old Doctrines system.

In particular, I really dislike using WLTs and relics to distinguish regiments, because it gives you two choices: pick generic WLTs and relics from a list, or pick the single stereotypical one associated with that regiment. It's pure flanderisation, and it gets in the way of Your Dudes. Want to fluff your Tallarn commander as an officer who leads from the front? Too bad, that's the Catachan trait. Put a master-crafted bolt pistol on his belt? Too bad, the relic bolt pistol is Valhallan only. Would you instead like the same Dagger of Tu'Sakh that every other Tallarn army also has? You get them in Happy Meals on Tallarn.

Also, I second CadianSgtBob's observation that you're seriously picking-and-choosing here. If you feel that mechanical bonuses are necessary to distinguish a subfaction, you can't turn around and tell someone who wants to play Cadian scouts or Tallarn artillery that they should ignore the irrelevance of their mechanical bonuses and simply make army choices that fit their theme. I could just as easily say that if you want to play as Order of the Bloody Rose, you don't need a bonus to melee; just pick more melee-focused units and pick (generic) WLTs, relics, and battle honors that fit their zealous nature.

At the very least, I'd much prefer if subfaction traits were generic and decoupled from WLTs/relics/etc, so you can just pick an appropriate one to apply. So instead of 'these Cadians are actually Tallarn', it's 'these Cadians have the Scout Regiment trait'.

Yeah I've never liked that my Cadians are represented by some relic I have no interest in taking, and one singular stratagem.

There were big problems with the Doctrine System (ie. "giving up" units you were never going to take in the first place isn't really a sacrifice), but at least it let you make armies that felt like they were part of the factions you wanted and allowed for variance.

For our meta-plot, my 444th Cadian Mechanised underwent an Inquisitorial review that saw them stripped of their transports and attached to an Inquisitor as a pure infantry company. From a game perspective, I just wanted to try out All Infantry Guard, and the rules supported that change without suddenly turning my Cadians into Catachans or whatever.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Yeah I've never liked that my Cadians are represented by some relic I have no interest in taking, and one singular stratagem.

Oh, but now you have an entire supplement! Because only Cadians know how to fire their guns really fast or have the relic battle cannon that used to be a universal relic. God damn thieving Cadians, stealing the cannons off every other regiment's tanks, are we sure they aren't a regiment of ratlings?

They also have a version of transhuman, 'cause that makes sense.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
They also have a version of transhuman, 'cause that makes sense.

Strats are a great concept that are ruined by silly things like "why did this Aggressor squad remember they can shrug off lasguns but the other squads forgor "

CadianSgtBob wrote:


But why do you need explicit rules for that?

I don't NEED them. I've been playing since '89. But now that I have them, the game makes me happier, so I don't want to lose them.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

Why does your narrative element only exist if the tabletop game explicitly has a rule titled This Is Your Narrative Rule?

Well, maybe it would help you to understand my perspective if I explained to you that I'm a role-player more than I'm a war gamer. So I have been involved in storytelling systems since I played my first game of Dungeons and Dragons when I was 8 years old- back in '81.

In that game, elves got bonuses to dexterity, dwarves got bonuses to constitution and that made sense. People who play roleplaying games are very used to using rules to drive stories. In World of Darkness games, there are traits which are generally restricted to clans. In Shadowrun, the same. In Cyberpunk, the same.

My favourite edition of D&D was 3.5. I LOVED feat trees, prestige classes, racial paragon rules etc, etc. I had all the supplements for classes, and they were awesome to me. 5th edition is what I'm playing now because it's what my GM and my group want to play- for many of them, D&D is the ONLY RPG they've played, and 5th is the only edition they've played. So I do it... But I know how much deeper and more complex my character could be if I was able to use the 3.5 ruleset to express and support it (Specifically the Rokugan supplement that contains the feat tree for the Nezumi martial art, Mochatchikan). Though somebody, somewhere at some point in time decided that was bloat too, and created a streamlined game because that's "Elegant Design" and now I settle for a monk who has exactly the same options as every other monk, despite the fact that my character fights more with teeth and tail than fists and feet.

40k's background and models were amazing to me, and whenever we played 40k, I did whatever I could to make it more like a roleplaying game. Inquisitor and Necromunda where always better games from my perspective than 40k, but neither had the range. So I waited 33 years for GW to make a version of 40k that borrowed the things that I liked about Necromunda and Inquisitor and brought them into 40k.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

If you find the concept of martyrdom appealing why do you need an explicit rule called Martyrdom, why can't you just do things like aggressively trade suicide units vs. playing more cautiously in another faction?

Since an Argent Shroud player can just as easily trade suicide units, what actually makes the OoOML different besides the paint job? When every subfaction chooses from the same list of abilities only, why have subfactions at all?

If 40k wasn't a game, but just a series of novels, videos and art, then the stories alone would be enough for me. But because 40k IS a game, I personally want differences on the table top between my factions and subfactions so that my choice of which to play makes a tangible difference in the game. If my choice about which faction or subfaction I play is meaningless in the game- if a sister is just a sister- then I feel like GW should never have made different Orders in the first place.

And the thing that kicks me in the teeth about that EVERY freaking time is Space Marines.

Because many of the people who advocate for doing away with subfaction traits still want to have Space Marine subfactions with rules differentiation.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

Or, as you put it:

If you want to play a mobile force of Tallarn, you field them in an outrider detachment instead of a patrol, select as many mobile units as you can and choose warlord traits, relics and battle honours that enhance mobility. You also prioritize the use of strats that enhance mobility.

This is what I don't get, you keep telling me how much you can do through making choices like which units you bring or which WLT you take and how powerful those tools are for representing the kind of force you have in your story but then you also insist that two regiments/orders/etc aren't different unless there's an explicit rule titled They Are Different.

These layers of diversity exist for those folks who like a sub-faction's background and identity, but also want to bring a unique twist to it. An OoOML force SHOULD be able to martyr better than anyone else, even though everyone should be able to Martyr.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

But a question for you: if GW has been writing fluff for twenty years that suggests that Cadians are known for the ability to hold ground and dig in, and Tallarns are known for mobility and you wanted to play a mobile force of guard, why did you choose to play Cadians?

Two things:

1) Regiments aren't one-dimensional like that.

It isn't about "one dimensional" - it's about creating rules that empower reflection of the stories that form the cannon. The things that ARE subfaction rules reflect the things that the owners and creators of the IP deem to be dominant characteristics of the subfactions they have created. This is done so that all members of the subfaction have something in common beyond geography and livery. I think of subfaction rules as tangible manifestations of culture. There are differences between members of a given culture, but if there weren't also commonalties between them, the culture couldn't actually be said to exist at all.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

There are Tallarn artillery regiments that sit behind the front lines and bombard the enemy all day... Even DKoK, presented as being a static cannon fodder siege force to the point of becoming a meme army, had an alternate list that was an elite mechanized force.

Yes, there are, but none of them should be as good at as a subfaction whose identity as designed by the creators of the IP involves a reputation of having the best artillery units in the guard. You can make your Tallarn artillery shine, because there are plenty of non-subfaction traits that allow you to augment them, but if a particular subfaction has a rule that synergizes well with artillery, and your Tallarns don't have access to it, the other guys will always be able to out artillery you, because it is part of their culture.

And having said that, the really interesting thing is that even though they WILL always be able to out artillery you, they might not always choose to do so... Because you might decide to use every generic tool at your disposal to make your artillery shine and the combined effect of those might overwhelm the restricted trait that artillery faction has access to and if you did that, the artillery faction would also have to choose to use those same generic tools in order to benefit from the edge that the subfaction trait gives you... And THAT'S the thing that prevents the subfaction from being a meme-army.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

2) Because mixing things up is fun. Even if Cadians are usually fairly static sometimes you just want to change it up and charge at the enemy with a bunch of rough riders and hellhounds. Why should I have to play a completely different regiment to do that?

Yes, it is... which is why you can as described above. But the subfaction trait is the thing that establishes the fact that "Cadians are usually static" - without it, taking Hellhounds and rough riders wouldn't be mixing it up.

And you don't have to play a different regiment to do it. Go ahead, do it.

But if you come up against the folks that typically do it because it's their culture, you should expect them to have the capacity to be better at it than you are, because for them, behaving that way isn't mixing it up- it's their way of life. And rest assured that they too will like mixing it up, and occasionally they'll behave in a way that they don't typically behave, but if the thing that they are doing differently happens to be the thing that is your subfaction's way of life, you will have the capacity to be better at than they are if you choose to use the same generic tools that they chose to use.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

How many LotR players want dwarves with bows?

That's not really comparable, dwarves are a faction equivalent not a sub-faction equivalent. It's like suggesting that LotR should have a sub-faction of dwarves with major buffs to axes (making them the only viable axe faction), a different sub-faction with bows, etc, and that you can only have one of those things at a time.

PS: dwarf bows, been there since the early days of LotR: https://www.games-workshop.com/en-US/Dwarf-Warriors-2018

Fair enough- it wasn't meant to be a point for point analogy, but I felt it illustrated the point I was trying to make. I stand corrected, but I hope my responses in this post have done enough to explain my point of view that the analogy is no longer as necessary as it was in the post where it was made.

And if not, that's fine- we don't have to agree. I'm as entitled to my opinion as you are to yours.

Another poster said "You can keep them for Crusade" I meant to quote him in the post that set this in motion, but I was being rushed to cook super so I cut my post short. But this is also a solution that ABSOLUTELY works for me. People who are upset about what the game feels like when they play 2k matched can suggest any changes they want to matched play, and I will simply sit that part of the discussion out because it doesn't touch me at all.

But if you suggest a change that is going to impact Crusade, it is likely to make me want to pipe up and politely remind you that people who play like I do exist, whether we are common or not. GW did their best to create an edition that appealed to as many varieties of player as possible. They might have done a better job of satisfying players with my preferences than have of satisfying people with your preferences. If they can make the version of the game that you like to play better at meeting your needs? Awesome. I just don't want that done at the expense of the game I like to play if it can be avoided.

PS: Even if it can't be avoided, it won't matter too much to me, because 9th is likely my last edition. I think it would be incredibly difficult for GW to make Crusade any better at meeting my preferences than it already is- I concede that it's possible of course, but it's unlikely. It sucks that it doesn't look we're not going to get the Emperor's Children dex this edition because I really wanted them to be a fully realized faction within the context of 9th ed Crusade. Hopefully I'll be able to port the 10th ed EC dex back into 9th.

Wait until he learns that the latest DND race rules let you shift your racial bonuses around because the designers realized that dwarves could be charismatic, an Orc can be wise, and an Elf can be strong.

People who do narrative (hi, hello) don't want their stories needlessly constrained by rules, if it doesn't make sense.

Sisters of Battle tanks are gak, because "GW said so" - not for any narrative reason I can fathom.

Eldar tankers can't actually embark on any path at all - in fact, they probably aren't real Eldar! Even the people who don't like the Path system and don't obey it get to walk the Path of the Outcast...

... GW's rules used to help you tell the story. Now, they ARE the story. "Oh you brought Eldar tanks? There is no story here." - the Eldar Crusade Rules. Thanks GW.

"Oh you brought BR flamer Retributors? Wow what an idiot, should've played Ebon Chalice. And what's this about Argent Shroud Repentia? Should've just handed them to the bloody rose. Deeds not Words indeed."