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.

Holy gak, I didn't even notice that the scrapjet had an extra point of strength, that's dumb. Why not make the drill +3S?

But yeah, their statlines should be unified and either all the big shootas get gretchin gunners or none of them.

I'd still not put them in one datasheet, it would just create one huge messy entry, especially of the load-outs are fixed anyways.

 Jidmah wrote:
Holy gak, I didn't even notice that the scrapjet had an extra point of strength, that's dumb. Why not make the drill +3S?

But yeah, their statlines should be unified and either all the big shootas get gretchin gunners or none of them.

I'd still not put them in one datasheet, it would just create one huge messy entry, especially of the load-outs are fixed anyways.

the fact that there are 5 standardised diffrent buggy profiles for the ork dex is testament enough for how stupid NMNR is.

One Datasheet with the options for the kit and some consolidation as stated would allow for a far more intersting buggy build than 5 standardised variants.

I think the OP's suggestions go a bit too far with regards to ranged weapons. The melee weapons I can get behind, though. Scrapping CP/strats would also be a good change, even if some ended up shifted to datasheets as a once-per-game ability.

Subfaction traits are something I think should probably stay, but not in the form they are right now. I'd rather see broad archetypes than this prescriptive, railroaded approach we have now. Do we really need 4 slightly different takes on choppy Marines, for example? Why are all IF siege specialists, but the UM devastator company can't be? I'd prefer a system where you pick the units that fit your theme, then apply a fairly minor bonus that supports that theme.

I'm not sure I'm following.

It's rather clear that a consolidated datasheet would look like the primaris HQ datasheets:
"Pick one of the following options:
- rokkit cannon, wing missle, nose drill, spiked ram and four big shootas
- mek speshul, burna bottles and one big shoota
- saw blades, shokk rifle and rokkit launcha
- etc..."

One datasheet allowing all options to be mixed at will would just lead to a single, optimal load-out being played and none of the other buggies every being seen play at all, just like for every other unit that has that kind of customization.
Implementing six completely different buggies with unique strengths was absolutely the right decision, they just need to be more streamlined to remove the differences which were made just for the sake of being different.

And for anyone jumping in on this - please don't give me the "if all options would be properly balanced..." crap. That is a beautiful wish akin to world peace, but will never happen in reality.

Yes, I'd like a primaris HQ equivalent.

But possibly also with the option to choose wargear/buggy type for each model separately, so that in the same squadron vehicles with different loadout might coexist. Just like dreads, which can have different loadaouts, and several other squadrons of vehicles that cost 80+ points each.

Of course different sets of weapons would cost differently, so it's not like only one kind of buggy would overshine all the others; on the contrary, with the chance of mixing up the types of buggies into the same squadron diversity would actually be quite encouraged, especially in the upcoming age of limited units' slots available. In fact it's with the upcoming loss of CPs that people would simply max out the most effective buggy squadron and skip the rest.

In practise even with just one datasheet we'd have what we have now but with less bloat and more oppurtunities to take different kinds of buggies. The only difference would be the end of lists that are extremely heavy on buggies, that max them out at 15 models in total. They'd be capped at 9 at most with rule of three instead. But I don't think it's something that would have an impact on many players, and actually those who own 4+ of the same buggy, legacy of previous edition, could play all their models again.

Merging five simple datasheets into one just means you're writing down the same rules in a more confusing manner though - that does nothing to reduce bloat.

One datasheet also means just one buggy in combat patrol and two for incursion - which is not a good idea at all. It also messes up stratagems and kustom jobs.

To archive what you want, you could just implement a rule akin to the DG's Foetid Virion rules - allow people to put as many buggies as they like into one FA slot as long as all the buggies have a different name.

On sub-faction and army rules, I don't want to see them gone completely, I just want them in one place and not tied to modelling/paint scheme/special characters.

Warlord traits seems the obvious place.

Make your warlord a combat guy, your whole army gets +1 attack (or whatever)
Take the shooty one and your army is rerolling 1s.
Take the speedy one and you get 6 fast attack slots.
Take the siege one and get +1 to cover saves.

Specifics aside it should be something significant, something easy to explain, and balanced. If they can't all be balanced then charge points according to army size (ie 50 points for a 1500 army, 75 points for 2000 point army etc) and of course limit it to one warlord per army.

This is vice the current system where someone might pile an army trait on a warlord trait on a stragem, on a relic to get some ungodly bonus.

Idk man. I miss the days when "this is an iron hands army, you can tell because of the number of Tech Marines" or "I play white scars because I like to be mobile and flexible in play style, so I bring lots of transports and bikes"
rather than
"You can tell the difference between Iron Hands and White Scars because White Scars Assault Intercessors are 250% more effective for the same points"

 Jidmah wrote:
Merging five simple datasheets into one just means you're writing down the same rules in a more confusing manner though - that does nothing to reduce bloat.

There would be no confusion. All buggies would have the same stats and the same rules, just possible different loadouts. Like dreads or kanz. Eventually only the shokkjump dragsta version can keep the bespoke special rule to teleport itself.

 Jidmah wrote:

One datasheet also means just one buggy in combat patrol and two for incursion - which is not a good idea at all. It also messes up stratagems and kustom jobs.

Of course buggies wouldn't lose their squadron ability. One datasheet doesn't mean one model unit. Unit's size would still be 1-3.

One datasheet means up to 9 buggies (3x3) with rule of three. But also the chance to mix up buggies in the same squad, like dreads of kanz. A patrol detachment could still have 6 buggies, exactly as now. It would simply be much easier to field multiple kinds of buggies since they'd be part of the same squadron, but also 4+ of the same kind which is currently illegal. In a current patrol detachment it's impossible to field more than 2 different kinds of buggy, even if the player takes 6 buggies in total. That's absurd and pushes for maxing out the best variant.

Bespoke stratagems would go the way of the dodo of course and that's something I wish about all units' locked stratagems to be honest. Kustom jobs are points that are paid per model, so I don't see any issue here.

No sorry, I prefer spending 5 slots on 5 buggies that can go in 5 directions.

Squadrons are dumb for anything that isn't supposed to stick together.

 Jidmah wrote:
No sorry, I prefer spending 5 slots on 5 buggies that can go in 5 directions.

Squadrons are dumb for anything that isn't supposed to stick together.

I don't see the issue here, either. Dreads can already act as separate units once they are deployed and stats/points wise they're just slower and punchier/less shootier buggies, while the very same buggies had this rule in 8th.

But as a matter of preference I'd still love squadrons of different buggy variants even if they couldn't split up after deployment. It's still much better than maxing out one or two kinds of buggies just because I don't have the slots to field the other ones.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
My Chapters/Legions are not just paint jobs, and never should be treated as such.

Personally, I like having subfaction differentiation, but I dislike the way GW has done it.

The way 40K currently does it:

Army-wide freebie trait: Discourages using 'incompatible' units and makes the optimal ones significantly more difficult to balance.
Warlord traits and relics: Provides a single stereotypical option for each subfaction. You either take the one associated with your subfaction, or you take generic ones.
Unique stratagems: This is at least thematic and leverages existing systems well, but tied to the messy stratagem system.

So in practice, the differences between a Cadian army and a Vostroyan army are that one shoots marginally better stationary and the other can shoot in melee, and beyond that it's pretty much all just listbuilding choices that you could make with or without that subfaction bonus.

I'd rather see a system like:

Catachans
-Catachan Devils available as a unique Elites choice.
-Infantry units can take Heavy Flamers as a heavy weapon.
-Any infantry unit can be upgraded to Deathworld Veterans, which costs X points and provides Y benefit.
-1-2 Catachan-specific stratagems.

Notice how there are no free benefits, just additional options. If you want to do Catachan heavy armor you are free to do so and won't lose out on anything. If you want to lean into the rough-and-ready jungle fighters theme, then you have relevant upgrades, with appropriately balanced points costs. You don't get penalized for not sticking to the flanderised depiction of the regiment, and it doesn't throw the game balance out of whack with some units getting very relevant upgrades for free.

I feel that would work well for the more famous subfactions, and kinda break down when you are trying to differentiate the more obscure ones.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
My Chapters/Legions are not just paint jobs, and never should be treated as such.

Why not? Why do the tiny differences between two tactical squads from different chapters need to be represented in an army-scale game where a titan can kill either of them in one shot? Why does what planet a regiment is from matter, but whether a unit is part of a Cadian armored regiment or Cadian infantry regiment is irrelevant? The game worked just fine when sub-factions didn't exist and we need to go back to that.

So sometime in the early RT days? Because as RT rolled along the orks got clan stuff, Harliquins appeared, and at the tale end Space Wolves got their own list. And I've probably forgotten some others.

 Tyran wrote:
I feel that would work well for the more famous subfactions, and kinda break down when you are trying to differentiate the more obscure ones.

indeed, now if there were a bunch of specialisations you'd could buy which would grant and limit access and some exemples like catachan which would'e bought say deathworld regiment and light infantry and then explained how to use those and equipment unlocks.. now that would be a system shame gw didn't prodice something like that.... oh wait IA13 was a thing.

 Tyran wrote:
I feel that would work well for the more famous subfactions, and kinda break down when you are trying to differentiate the more obscure ones.

I think that any of the subfactions that GW has named and given fluff to should have enough material to work with. Or at the very least, it's an opportunity to flesh them out.

More importantly, I really don't think it takes a lot to significantly differentiate subfactions if you approach them this way. Let's take Harakoni Warhawks, as they've been mentioned off and on in the fluff for a long while but never had official rules after their appearance in the 3.5Ed Guard codex. All I know about them is that they're heavily armored drop troops from a low-gravity world where they hunt local beasts with gliders.

Harakoni Warhawks
-Any infantry unit may upgrade its save to 4+ for X points per model.
-Any infantry unit may purchase deep strike for Y points per model.
-Any Aircraft model may be upgraded to a Veteran Crew (BS3+) for Z points per model.
-1-2 Harakoni-specific stratagems.

So yeah, no fun unique fluffy units. Just a couple of upgrades that convey similar mechanical effect to a subfaction bonus, with an inherent balance mechanism (cost) that allows the bonuses to be both more impactful and tweaked as needed, but are optional so that an army isn't railroaded into that particular theme.

Now that you mention it, I wonder if something like that ever existed for the Harakoni Warhawks...


Weird. Almost like they pay a 20 points per squad cost for a couple of upgrades that convey similar mechanical effects to sub-faction bonuses, which heavily impact their playstyle but are ultimately optional...

Wait no that can't be right, 9th edition is the most narrative edition ever, silly me.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Now that you mention it, I wonder if something like that ever existed for the Harakoni Warhawks...


Weird. Almost like they pay a 20 points per squad cost for a couple of upgrades that convey similar mechanical effects to sub-faction bonuses, which heavily impact their playstyle but are ultimately optional...

Wait no that can't be right, 9th edition is the most narrative edition ever, silly me.

Full disclosure, I had that open on my lap while I was writing, so I'm not going to pretend it was a coincidence- but also, that paragraph of fluff is literally all I have to go on for the Warhawks. Any subfaction that GW has given rules to already has far more content than that.

The same codex also has rules for regiments like Kanak Skull-Takers, Terrax Guard, Savlar Chem-Dogs, and Tanith First & Only. It's really not all that hard to come up with these sorts of mechanics, and probably a lot easier to balance when you can just slap a points cost on them versus trying to keep free bonuses all in line.

Yeah, full disclosure I am agreeing with you.

GW has done it right in the past for a few books. Now, finally, they are applying sub-faction rules across all the books...

...except it is the crappy, awkward version of sub-faction traits.

ccs wrote:

CadianSgtBob wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
My Chapters/Legions are not just paint jobs, and never should be treated as such.

Why not? Why do the tiny differences between two tactical squads from different chapters need to be represented in an army-scale game where a titan can kill either of them in one shot? Why does what planet a regiment is from matter, but whether a unit is part of a Cadian armored regiment or Cadian infantry regiment is irrelevant? The game worked just fine when sub-factions didn't exist and we need to go back to that.

So sometime in the early RT days? Because as RT rolled along the orks got clan stuff, Harliquins appeared, and at the tale end Space Wolves got their own list. And I've probably forgotten some others.

Leaning on Rogue trader or 2nd Edition as comparisons is tough because regardless of presence or lack of sub factions, they give far more customization options to their players, and are scoped for a very different size of game.

 catbarf wrote:

-Any infantry unit may purchase deep strike for Y points per model.

How would you balance this between conscripts, veterans or even ogryns?

Or going to another faction, how are you going to balance suchs upgrades bewteen termagants, Tyranid Warriors, Hive Guard and everything else in between?

Having a list of costs for each subfaction upgrade for each unit is likely going to exponentially get out of control.

 Tyran wrote:

 catbarf wrote:

-Any infantry unit may purchase deep strike for Y points per model.

How would you balance this between conscripts, veterans or even ogryns?

Or going to another faction, how are you going to balance suchs upgrades bewteen termagants, Tyranid Warriors, Hive Guard and everything else in between?

Having a list of costs for each subfaction upgrade for each unit is likely going to exponentially get out of control.

It literally happened in the 3.5e IG book. If you took Drop Troops as a doctrine, you were locked out of taking Ogryns (as they were a Rare Troops doctrine) and Conscripts (as they are a separate organizational doctrine from Drop Troops).

Veterans were balanced with Drop Troops because they were a 0-1 choice, unless you spent ANOTHER doctrine slot on the Hardened Veterans regimental upgrades, which has a whole set of opportunity costs itself.

There was a page of rules around what doctrines did what to whom. You really should read them as they were pretty balanced for their time.

The only problem was that locking out units wasn't really a sacrifice, as if I never intended to take Ogryns or Conscripts in the first place, I wasn't really giving anything up to get Drop Troops.

But that comes down to the whole GW is great at ideas but terrible at executing those ideas thing that they've had going on for literal decades now. Thing is they seem to be getting worse...

 Tyran wrote:

How would you balance this between conscripts, veterans or even ogryns?

Or going to another faction, how are you going to balance suchs upgrades bewteen termagants, Tyranid Warriors, Hive Guard and everything else in between?

Having a list of costs for each subfaction upgrade for each unit is likely going to exponentially get out of control.

Because unlike what GW does very often, the Y shouldn't be the same for the different units. Deep striking a squadron of sentinals would cost different then dropping down a unit with 4 plasma or melta. Same way a powerfist on a sgt level character shouldn't cost the same as on a unit from the same codex that can get 6A or more.

Karol wrote:

 Tyran wrote:

How would you balance this between conscripts, veterans or even ogryns?

Or going to another faction, how are you going to balance suchs upgrades bewteen termagants, Tyranid Warriors, Hive Guard and everything else in between?

Having a list of costs for each subfaction upgrade for each unit is likely going to exponentially get out of control.

Because unlike what GW does very often, the Y shouldn't be the same for the different units. Deep striking a squadron of sentinals would cost different then dropping down a unit with 4 plasma or melta. Same way a powerfist on a sgt level character shouldn't cost the same as on a unit from the same codex that can get 6A or more.

Ding ding ding.
Thus the truth was stated.

Tyran wrote:How would you balance this between conscripts, veterans or even ogryns?

It probably wouldn't be strictly balanced across all units. Fundamentally, a Veterans squad is going to benefit more from a fixed-price upgrade than an Infantry squad, though I wouldn't see it being hard to say 'X cost for infantry, Y for Ogryns'. Or for 'Nids, divide them into Gaunt-sized, mid-sized, and monstrous creatures, so maybe getting +1T for Ouroboris costs 2/5/25pts respectively.

But given that the current situation is having abilities handed out for free to all units, having a cost, even if it's coarse and imperfect, would be a step in the right direction. I mean, if you want balance, the ideal resolution there is to strip out subfaction abilities entirely (because as you point out, their utility is very unit-dependent), but I think we can strike a middle ground.

 Eilif wrote:

ccs wrote:

CadianSgtBob wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
My Chapters/Legions are not just paint jobs, and never should be treated as such.

Why not? Why do the tiny differences between two tactical squads from different chapters need to be represented in an army-scale game where a titan can kill either of them in one shot? Why does what planet a regiment is from matter, but whether a unit is part of a Cadian armored regiment or Cadian infantry regiment is irrelevant? The game worked just fine when sub-factions didn't exist and we need to go back to that.

So sometime in the early RT days? Because as RT rolled along the orks got clan stuff, Harliquins appeared, and at the tale end Space Wolves got their own list. And I've probably forgotten some others.

Leaning on Rogue trader or 2nd Edition as comparisons is tough because regardless of presence or lack of sub factions, they give far more customization options to their players, and are scoped for a very different size of game.

Also worth pointing out, Space wolves, as released in WD157 were absolutely 100% busted compared to the vanilla space marine army, and was probably where the 'special rules' creep originated. Up until Space wolves, Space marines armies had been different solely based on their equipment choices, vehicle choices and so forth, rather than having special rules. The same went for Orks in Freebootas and Ere'we'go. units were differentiated by their equipment, not their layers of rules. Harlequins were introduced at a time when the eldar 'army' was 1 entry in the RT book, and they were far from broken, more of a meme army in 1988 (before memes even existed)
In 1st edition, and to a slightly lesser extent in 2nd, It was army composition that made the biggest difference between armies.
I remember lots of players running Ravenwing (or dark angels 7th Company) forces in 1988, when there were no rules to make them special, just some back ground in a white dwarf. And death wing, well they did have a special unit, but everyone i remember just used it instead of the entry for terminators, mostly because you didn't have to pay to teleport them in to the battle if you didn't want to, otherwise, Deathwing terminators were pretty much identical to terminators.

Putting in my support for the 3.5 era Doctrine style system that Unit and catbarf are supporting.

Also I'm supportive of MASSIVE reductions to weapons and bespoke abilities. (looking at Bolter-bloat specifically).

 Insectum7 wrote:
Putting in my support for the 3.5 era Doctrine style system that Unit and catbarf are supporting.

Also I'm supportive of MASSIVE reductions to weapons and bespoke abilities. (looking at Bolter-bloat specifically).

Funny thing about bolter bloat, despite being marine centric 30k has less bolter profiles than codex sm by a mile.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Putting in my support for the 3.5 era Doctrine style system that Unit and catbarf are supporting.

Also I'm supportive of MASSIVE reductions to weapons and bespoke abilities. (looking at Bolter-bloat specifically).

Funny thing about bolter bloat, despite being marine centric 30k has less bolter profiles than codex sm by a mile.

Oh I believe it, Primaris are a HUGE source of bloat. They gave every unit of Primaris it's own specific guns, rather than the true/real/firstborn style where everyone uses the same equipment but in different ratios.