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.

For some reason GW customers are worse than Apple customers as far as their deification of the product and the cult like behavior of anticipation for the next release, whether it be substandard product or not.

My obsession with 10th stems from having played 24+ games of 9th and I've had zero fun. In my area they only play that excruciating matched play mode. There's also only 2 kinds of people who play here. Those who don't know the rules for their key models/terrain/the mission. So I end up the bad guy explaining to them how to play. Or tournament regulars that play it hard nose, strats used at the exact time regardless of expressed intent prior, etc. Most importantly can't use my favourite army all through 9th. Guard codex got wrecked by kids spilling milk, no new guard codex came out.

I've got a burning interest to see it all come crumbling down, player count for 40K is down here, really the sooner it's replaced the better for everyone.

 JNAProductions wrote:
But then you're still encouraged to take Marines because you can add any capability to your list, while still contributing to the rest of your plan and maintaining the overall point efficiency of your army. The only way to make them balanced is to make them overpay for their multiple abilities, at which point you have an inefficient unit.

Except that, unlike with adding a Tau melee unit to a Tau army, you can't just add marines to any army. If you want those marines you have to commit to your faction identity being a high floor low ceiling army of units that are decent at everything but exceptional at nothing and overpaying for anything that deviates from this identity.

And let's be honest here, most of the game is already marines so it's not like there's any shortage of encouragement as it is.

What weakness? “Can do everything” isn’t a weakness, unless you want to overcost all Marine units.

Hecaton wrote:

Racerguy180 wrote:
D10 and adding a zero to all current points costs would do wonders....

No. D10's are not necessary, more granularity is not necessary. Better written rules are.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I'm a big advocate for making swarmy units as impotent on the board as they are in the fluff, but with free respawns. A unit of guardsmen, termagants, etc that dies 'respawns' into reserves at full strength, no strings attached. I have played narrative scenarios with mechanics like that and they have always been quite enjoyable, at least in my experience.

I'm a bigger fan of making aliens, traitors, etc as dangerous as they should be, even if Astartes are elite. The game shouldn't exist solely to support Astartes' players power fantasy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Aecus Decimus wrote:
But the premise of "must be equal" is wrong. Orks should suck at shooting, period. They should not get the same damage per points as other factions because they're a melee-focused faction. They should have the same number of shots as everyone else with a lower hit rate, just like Tau have a much lower hit rate on melee attacks.

Orks seem to have a lot of fluff and codex space put into giving them interested guns. Far more than Tau have for melee weapons. Almost like they're not a melee army...

What it comes down to is orks should probably be 4+/4+. The problem, that you haven't acknowledged here, is that most orks don't point-for-point kill things in melee either.

As a thought experiment, if 8th/9th is such a great system why didn't they port HH to this model instead of further refining the old classic system?

7th needed a little bit of streamlining and bloat reduction, which is basically what HH2.0 has done, in addition to making some needed and judicious refinements to the old system.

I mean, it's basically 40K with a proper reaction system in it.

 JNAProductions wrote:
What weakness? “Can do everything” isn’t a weakness, unless you want to overcost all Marine units.

High floor low ceiling is a weakness.

Aecus Decimus wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
What weakness? “Can do everything” isn’t a weakness, unless you want to overcost all Marine units.

High floor low ceiling is a weakness.

Just being bad at a large part of the game isn’t good design, it’s just being bad at a part of the game.
Even Tau should be able to interact with melee combat, they just shouldn’t be wining with it.

The same way orks should be able to supplement there melee strength with ranged, or khorne army’s having ranged support for there melee.
It just makes the setting worse, and the game more bland if players are left without choice and options.

But I think this is inherent to the current use of the mechanics of 40k. It’s a rather poor game with lots and lots tak on to it with no real changes in decades to support the game itself.

And tenth probably won’t change that, best we can hope is they strip it back so they can ad a bunch onto it again.

 Mezmorki wrote:


As a thought experiment, if 8th/9th is such a great system why didn't they port HH to this model instead of further refining the old classic system?

7th needed a little bit of streamlining and bloat reduction, which is basically what HH2.0 has done, in addition to making some needed and judicious refinements to the old system.

I mean, it's basically 40K with a proper reaction system in it.

Did you mean to reply to me?

Aecus Decimus wrote:


Why? The point is that you have to work with your faction's weaknesses and overcome them, not have a guarantee that no matter what you pick you always have equal efficiency. A Tau player should have very poor melee options and have to choose between investing in inefficient options or going without melee entirely and hoping that weakness doesn't cost them the game. The option should be there if you really want it but you should be discouraged from taking it and certainly discouraged from ever spamming it. If a Tau melee unit is also decent at shooting and a point-efficient choice as a whole then you're encouraged to take it and you break the faction identity that Tau are supposed to be absolutely pathetic at melee.

A faction weakness should be having lack of options, not inefficient units.

E.g. Tau don't have anything truly comparable to heavy melee infantry and don't have a lot of ways to support the few melee units they have.

But those few units still should be good at melee, because otherwise they are not going to be taken. A melee unit that is bad at melee isn't a melee unit, it is a waste of points

Moreover Tau are unique, they actively disregard melee in their lore. Orks definitely do not disregard shooting, and there are dozens of Ork units that are entirely dedicated at shooting. Making Ork shooting bad on principle means making half of the Ork codex bad on principle, and that is extremely poor design.

The issue with orks being bad at shooting so to speak is the 35 years of fluff saying they aim as well as my 3 year old does. This has been carried over to the unit profile, which in order to make the shooting work out mathematically had needed too many dice and irritating mechanics of late. Moving them to a higher BS is an easier way of making them better at shooting overall, but the issue is it divorces from that idea of over enthusiastic mushrooms firing wildly in excitement hitting as much by chance as intent.

I'm all for ork shooting actually doing something but unsure how to accomplish it within the mental space that currently occupies, unless it becomes entirely abstracted from their fluff.

Edit: thinking way back they always had more shots via being assault weapons more or less, maybe its that the rest of the game is now made of gun that leaves them feeling awkward.

Ork shooting in 8th was pretty good, if you built your list around it. I'm okay with that, Codizes should allow for different themes, so Bad Moons can be the way to do shooty Orks as well as Dalyth can encourage CC heavy Tau (Kroot).

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
Ork shooting in 8th was pretty good, if you built your list around it. I'm okay with that, Codizes should allow for different themes, so Bad Moons can be the way to do shooty Orks as well as Dalyth can encourage CC heavy Tau (Kroot).

Ork shooting in 8th was painful due to the dakka3 rule, it slowed the game down a lot imo and lead to some utterly weird moments.

Aecus Decimus wrote:

Having BS/WS 3+ marines is the cause of all that bloat. Marines are the average army that everything is defined relative to so that means everyone else has to be at least BS/WS 3+ unless they're a pure horde army. And if everyone's basic troops are at 3+ then 2+ is the only remaining number, and you have to give that to the best characters. That means that if you want to have a unit be "more elite" the only way to do it is to add more re-rolls and modifiers and exploding 6s and shoot/fight twice stratagems and such. There's no room left to do those things purely by stat increases.

OTOH if marines are BS/WS 4+ that means everyone else's basic troops can also be brought down to that level. Now you have 4+ as standard, 3+ as elite (veterans, crisis suits, etc), 5+ for cannon fodder (conscripts), and 2+ for a handful of super-elite special characters. You don't need rules bloat just to represent that a terminator squad is more elite than a tactical squad, you can do it purely by giving them WS 3+.

This is kind of only true if all you care about is the simplicity of looking at a number and knowing that's all you have to do to get your end result. If you're into simplifying the dice rolls down and homogenizing the gak out of every unit in the game, and that's your only aim, then I can kind of see where you're coming from. Maybe.

But this game has a boatload of special rules that help nudge rolls different ways by varying amounts that aren't just a pip on the dice. It adds granularity even if you hate the number of them. A unit that hits on 3+ isn't as good as a unit that hits on a 3+ rerolling 1's, which in turn isn't as good as a unit that hits on a 2+, but the differences are in steps that span leaner gaps than just pips on a d6. It's why I do not understand the call for d10s to replace it. Is that entirely to remove these extra rules and build it into the roll instead?

Dudeface wrote:
The issue with orks being bad at shooting so to speak is the 35 years of fluff saying they aim as well as my 3 year old does. This has been carried over to the unit profile, which in order to make the shooting work out mathematically had needed too many dice and irritating mechanics of late. Moving them to a higher BS is an easier way of making them better at shooting overall, but the issue is it divorces from that idea of over enthusiastic mushrooms firing wildly in excitement hitting as much by chance as intent.

I'm all for ork shooting actually doing something but unsure how to accomplish it within the mental space that currently occupies, unless it becomes entirely abstracted from their fluff.

Edit: thinking way back they always had more shots via being assault weapons more or less, maybe its that the rest of the game is now made of gun that leaves them feeling awkward.

I mean higher rate of fire is the easiest (and fluffiest) way to do this. Possibly also with something akin to AoC for to hit penalties, as otherwise -1 to hit removes 50% of their firepower, and it would represent "accuracy by volume" well enough.

Hecaton wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
The issue with orks being bad at shooting so to speak is the 35 years of fluff saying they aim as well as my 3 year old does. This has been carried over to the unit profile, which in order to make the shooting work out mathematically had needed too many dice and irritating mechanics of late. Moving them to a higher BS is an easier way of making them better at shooting overall, but the issue is it divorces from that idea of over enthusiastic mushrooms firing wildly in excitement hitting as much by chance as intent.

I'm all for ork shooting actually doing something but unsure how to accomplish it within the mental space that currently occupies, unless it becomes entirely abstracted from their fluff.

Edit: thinking way back they always had more shots via being assault weapons more or less, maybe its that the rest of the game is now made of gun that leaves them feeling awkward.

I mean higher rate of fire is the easiest (and fluffiest) way to do this. Possibly also with something akin to AoC for to hit penalties, as otherwise -1 to hit removes 50% of their firepower, and it would represent "accuracy by volume" well enough.

I'd be game for that in honesty, make them immune to hit modifiers altogether, both positive and negative, but the more shots thing I think is actually the rest of the game needing fewer shots first.

Hecaton wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
The issue with orks being bad at shooting so to speak is the 35 years of fluff saying they aim as well as my 3 year old does. This has been carried over to the unit profile, which in order to make the shooting work out mathematically had needed too many dice and irritating mechanics of late. Moving them to a higher BS is an easier way of making them better at shooting overall, but the issue is it divorces from that idea of over enthusiastic mushrooms firing wildly in excitement hitting as much by chance as intent.

I'm all for ork shooting actually doing something but unsure how to accomplish it within the mental space that currently occupies, unless it becomes entirely abstracted from their fluff.

Edit: thinking way back they always had more shots via being assault weapons more or less, maybe its that the rest of the game is now made of gun that leaves them feeling awkward.

I mean higher rate of fire is the easiest (and fluffiest) way to do this. Possibly also with something akin to AoC for to hit penalties, as otherwise -1 to hit removes 50% of their firepower, and it would represent "accuracy by volume" well enough.

So you want Orks to hit on 4+, but then have a specific special rule to have a -1 on the dice rolls, resulting in...... Orks hitting on 5s.

Wich is exactly what we have now sans us having to remember a special rule about it.

You're taking a 1 step process, turning it into a 2 step process, achieving exactly the same result, AND creating the possibilities of introducing errors & wonky rules interactions that'd then require errata....
Genius!

ccs wrote:

Hecaton wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
The issue with orks being bad at shooting so to speak is the 35 years of fluff saying they aim as well as my 3 year old does. This has been carried over to the unit profile, which in order to make the shooting work out mathematically had needed too many dice and irritating mechanics of late. Moving them to a higher BS is an easier way of making them better at shooting overall, but the issue is it divorces from that idea of over enthusiastic mushrooms firing wildly in excitement hitting as much by chance as intent.

I'm all for ork shooting actually doing something but unsure how to accomplish it within the mental space that currently occupies, unless it becomes entirely abstracted from their fluff.

Edit: thinking way back they always had more shots via being assault weapons more or less, maybe its that the rest of the game is now made of gun that leaves them feeling awkward.

I mean higher rate of fire is the easiest (and fluffiest) way to do this. Possibly also with something akin to AoC for to hit penalties, as otherwise -1 to hit removes 50% of their firepower, and it would represent "accuracy by volume" well enough.

So you want Orks to hit on 4+, but then have a specific special rule to have a -1 on the dice rolls, resulting in...... Orks hitting on 5s.

Wich is exactly what we have now sans us having to remember a special rule about it.

You're taking a 1 step process, turning it into a 2 step process, achieving exactly the same result, AND creating the possibilities of introducing errors & wonky rules interactions that'd then require errata....
Genius!

You be misread, the intent is to stay at 5+ with more shots and ignore the first -1 to hit applied against them.

I think many people want a hard reset, because they don't like how the game currently plays. For me its the stats creep, and the deadliness of the game, one player gets tabled and the other one has a 1/8 to 1/4 is army left. And then there is the combos and rules layering that can triple the dmg output of units.

Dudeface wrote:

You be misread, the intent is to stay at 5+ with more shots and ignore the first -1 to hit applied against them.

Honestly; Ork shooting working on totally unmodified hit rolls in general seems like a decent fix. You can make the argument that their shooting is so wild and imprecise that they rely on pure luck anyway, and any attempts to dodge or evade aren't as effective against overwhelming numbers of bullets fired in all directions. This solves the issue where the existence of any hit debuffs reduces Ork damage by 50%.

Bring back Dakka Dakka Dakka as any armywide rule to ignore ranged to hit modifiers. Any Ork unit that currently gets a +1 to hit from grot gunners can be BS4+, but most units would remain BS5+.

To cap off my wishlist, the current Bad Moons Showin' Off strat for exploding 6's with Dakka weapons should be available as a general one for all clans. Bad Moons can have a version that works on all weapon and/or unit types as they're more likely to afford lots of extra rokkits.

Thread has moved on a bit - but I think the whole of "faction weakness" is nonsense.

If Lootas, Flashgitz, Tankbustas etc are "bad" because "Ork shooting should suck" - then people just don't take them. That's "resolving the weakness". But in practice it isn't "resolved" - it just ceases to be a function in the game.

In much the same way lets say there were "Storm Fire Warriors". That's a Tau armed with chainswords and pulse pistol for say 8 points. 2 attacks, WS 5+, S3, AP-1. Well... they suck. Am I "resolving Tau's weakness" by just not taking them?

Are Marines not meant to be a "tank" faction - which explains why their tanks have tended to be second rate?

I don't really get this "the spirit of the faction is to only have 5 datasheets". If someone wants to run a shooty Ork list - who loses by its rules being up to standard? If GW wanted to do a Tau Expansion and it was 4-5 assault focused Tau units that are up to standard, who loses? I don't understand who wins from this idea rosters should have a limited collection of "good" units that are "how that faction should be played" and a bunch of trap choices to be avoided. You only get to spend your points once - so having good shooting, good assault, good elite, good horde, good monsters all in the same list is not a problem. Its only a problem if you have stuff that's undercosted relative to everyone else.

 xttz wrote:

Honestly; Ork shooting working on totally unmodified hit rolls in general seems like a decent fix. You can make the argument that their shooting is so wild and imprecise that they rely on pure luck anyway, and any attempts to dodge or evade aren't as effective against overwhelming numbers of bullets fired in all directions. This solves the issue where the existence of any hit debuffs reduces Ork damage by 50%.

Orks do hit on unmodified hit rolls of 6, like everyone else. Everyone can spray and pray, why should that only work for orks ?

As a thought experiment, if 8th/9th is such a great system why didn't they port HH to this model instead of further refining the old classic system?

It would look really bad when the fan version of that was done a year faster and it probably has better balance than what GW would have written.

The same way orks should be able to supplement there melee strength with ranged, or khorne army’s having ranged support for there melee.
It just makes the setting worse, and the game more bland if players are left without choice and options.

But I think this is inherent to the current use of the mechanics of 40k. It’s a rather poor game with lots and lots tak on to it with no real changes in decades to support the game itself.

The reason why you don't want ranged support in a Khorne army is because the ranged elements are overcosted because of lack of free rules and extra Stratagems that Slaanesh and Tzeentch get, that's not a core rules problem, that's a codex problem.

A faction weakness should be having lack of options, not inefficient units.

The problem is sometimes the designers make models that don't fit into the military doctrine and thematic playstyle of the army. Things like Riptides and Ghost Arks. Ghost Arks could stop being transports if you changed their fluff and rules, but the Riptide just shouldn't have been a thing. Now Tau have a bunch of huge mechs to choose from and the only way to fix that is by overcosting them so you don't see them everywhere or just accept that the faction has been permanently ruined by bad miniature designs (more spirit mechs for Eldar would have been fitting).

 Just Tony wrote:
For some reason GW customers are worse than Apple customers as far as their deification of the product and the cult like behavior of anticipation for the next release, whether it be substandard product or not.

You can message someone with an Iphone 11 using an Iphone 6. You cannot play 10th edition using your 9th edition core rules.

Tyel wrote:
I don't really get this "the spirit of the faction is to only have 5 datasheets".

It makes factions different. If everyone can do everything why pick one or the other? It's okay for Tau to have a few melee units that have some fundamental lacks (like maybe they're all slow or they lack AP or durability), but they shouldn't have 8 different melee units that flesh out the melee roster to be a rounded faction in itself.

Dudeface wrote:

ccs wrote:

Hecaton wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
The issue with orks being bad at shooting so to speak is the 35 years of fluff saying they aim as well as my 3 year old does. This has been carried over to the unit profile, which in order to make the shooting work out mathematically had needed too many dice and irritating mechanics of late. Moving them to a higher BS is an easier way of making them better at shooting overall, but the issue is it divorces from that idea of over enthusiastic mushrooms firing wildly in excitement hitting as much by chance as intent.

I'm all for ork shooting actually doing something but unsure how to accomplish it within the mental space that currently occupies, unless it becomes entirely abstracted from their fluff.

Edit: thinking way back they always had more shots via being assault weapons more or less, maybe its that the rest of the game is now made of gun that leaves them feeling awkward.

I mean higher rate of fire is the easiest (and fluffiest) way to do this. Possibly also with something akin to AoC for to hit penalties, as otherwise -1 to hit removes 50% of their firepower, and it would represent "accuracy by volume" well enough.

So you want Orks to hit on 4+, but then have a specific special rule to have a -1 on the dice rolls, resulting in...... Orks hitting on 5s.

Wich is exactly what we have now sans us having to remember a special rule about it.

You're taking a 1 step process, turning it into a 2 step process, achieving exactly the same result, AND creating the possibilities of introducing errors & wonky rules interactions that'd then require errata....
Genius!

You be misread, the intent is to stay at 5+ with more shots and ignore the first -1 to hit applied against them.

If you go that route, I'd suggest that Orks hit on a 5+ but ignore all modifiers (both positive and negative).

 vipoid wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

ccs wrote:

Hecaton wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
The issue with orks being bad at shooting so to speak is the 35 years of fluff saying they aim as well as my 3 year old does. This has been carried over to the unit profile, which in order to make the shooting work out mathematically had needed too many dice and irritating mechanics of late. Moving them to a higher BS is an easier way of making them better at shooting overall, but the issue is it divorces from that idea of over enthusiastic mushrooms firing wildly in excitement hitting as much by chance as intent.

I'm all for ork shooting actually doing something but unsure how to accomplish it within the mental space that currently occupies, unless it becomes entirely abstracted from their fluff.

Edit: thinking way back they always had more shots via being assault weapons more or less, maybe its that the rest of the game is now made of gun that leaves them feeling awkward.

I mean higher rate of fire is the easiest (and fluffiest) way to do this. Possibly also with something akin to AoC for to hit penalties, as otherwise -1 to hit removes 50% of their firepower, and it would represent "accuracy by volume" well enough.

So you want Orks to hit on 4+, but then have a specific special rule to have a -1 on the dice rolls, resulting in...... Orks hitting on 5s.

Wich is exactly what we have now sans us having to remember a special rule about it.

You're taking a 1 step process, turning it into a 2 step process, achieving exactly the same result, AND creating the possibilities of introducing errors & wonky rules interactions that'd then require errata....
Genius!

You be misread, the intent is to stay at 5+ with more shots and ignore the first -1 to hit applied against them.

If you go that route, I'd suggest that Orks hit on a 5+ but ignore all modifiers (both positive and negative).

You don’t even need to make it entirely faction wide. You could have the bulk of the 5+ army get the "Wild uncontrolled burst/Who needs to aim?" rule for no modifiers, but dedicated shooty units (flashgits, others) could hit on 4+ (or better) but still be subject to modifiers, as they DO aim (with the better BS baseline to go with it)

By not making it an army wide rule you have more wiggle room to differentiate units. Which is good to have in the d6 workspace.

Just make it Dakkadakka: Each time this model makes a ranged attack, an unmodified hit roll of 5+ is always successful.



Regarding a Horus Heresy ruleset, I have yet to see that it can be successfully expanded to incorporate all the different 40k factions instead of being a pure Marine game.

Moreover, Horus Heresy is meant to be a pseudo-historical game, I cannot even find a repository for Horus Heresy tournament lists and results and much less win rates, and the HH community seems aggressive against the idea of competitive HH play.

HH and 40k are meant to be very different games so I don't see 40k moving towards a HH ruleset.

 Gibblets wrote:
My obsession with 10th stems from having played 24+ games of 9th and I've had zero fun. In my area they only play that excruciating matched play mode. There's also only 2 kinds of people who play here. Those who don't know the rules for their key models/terrain/the mission. So I end up the bad guy explaining to them how to play. Or tournament regulars that play it hard nose, strats used at the exact time regardless of expressed intent prior, etc. Most importantly can't use my favourite army all through 9th. Guard codex got wrecked by kids spilling milk, no new guard codex came out.

I've got a burning interest to see it all come crumbling down, player count for 40K is down here, really the sooner it's replaced the better for everyone.

Wow, sorry you are having such a rough time of it. we play at a FLGS so we play all sorts of systems other than just 40K./GW fortunately we have a large group of regulars who play casual who enjoy playing silly stuff. a number of us went back to playing hybrid games of 5th ed 40K with a few house rules and we have been having a great time ever since.

Player count for 9th tanked quite a while ago, although we have seen a few new groups coming in of late doing some, most of the regular guys who were hard into it have been playing other games instead. avoiding 9th and GW games in general.

 vict0988 wrote:
It makes factions different. If everyone can do everything why pick one or the other? It's okay for Tau to have a few melee units that have some fundamental lacks (like maybe they're all slow or they lack AP or durability), but they shouldn't have 8 different melee units that flesh out the melee roster to be a rounded faction in itself.

Because you like the models? Because you like the fluff?

I just think its a false identity because it only really comes up with say Tau. "They can't have assault units, they need a weakness". Or they (and DE) can't have psykers "cos the flavour of just not being in one of the phases of the game".

By contrast Marines can do everything except I guess hordes. CSM can even do that by taking a bunch of cultist units.
Eldar can do everything. Orks can do everything. Tyranids can do everything. Necrons can do everything.

Are these factions bad - or boring - compared with Tau? Do they lack identity?

Tyel wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
It makes factions different. If everyone can do everything why pick one or the other? It's okay for Tau to have a few melee units that have some fundamental lacks (like maybe they're all slow or they lack AP or durability), but they shouldn't have 8 different melee units that flesh out the melee roster to be a rounded faction in itself.

Because you like the models? Because you like the fluff?

I just think its a false identity because it only really comes up with say Tau. "They can't have assault units, they need a weakness". Or they (and DE) can't have psykers "cos the flavour of just not being in one of the phases of the game".

By contrast Marines can do everything except I guess hordes. CSM can even do that by taking a bunch of cultist units.
Eldar can do everything. Orks can do everything. Tyranids can do everything. Necrons can do everything.

Are these factions bad - or boring - compared with Tau? Do they lack identity?

If every faction has every possible unit niche filled then what is the fluff of them really? Tau Assault Centurions are slightly more machine than man, the Drukhari chaplain speaks a different language instead of gothic when he inspires his followers, that sounds really garbage to me. The fluff should be borne out in the rules, part of the rules is the availability of different types of datasheets and the niches of those datasheets. That means Tau shouldn't have gotten huge mechs and Death Guard should not get 4 different types of bikes because Tau are meant to be efficient and rationally designed and Death Guard are meant to be a slow-moving durable threat. I didn't say Tau couldn't have melee units, I said they can't have every melee unit. Tau have melee units, but they're all mobile and squishy, that's fine. But if they get Assault Centurions then it stops being fine because then Tau become a little lot more like Space Marines. Primaris were a huge mistake because they are antithetical to everything the Imperium is about. The whole idea of Space Marines using their own unique brand of vehicles separate from the rest of humanity is pretty strange in the first place, because of it's long history 40k is very messy, but I don't think that's a reason to give up and give Tau Assault Centurions. Necrons shouldn't have a lot of long-ranged shooting, I have advocated for lowering most ranges down to 24" for example, it's not just a Tau thing. Chaos Space Marines are a bit more difficult to pin down, I think ideally perhaps they shouldn't have any reliable vehicles and monsters or any reliable ranged weapons or something like that, but I think it'd be hard to get people on board with giving Chaos Space Marines a flaw at this point.

Tyran wrote:Just make it Dakkadakka: Each time this model makes a ranged attack, an unmodified hit roll of 5+ is always successful.



Regarding a Horus Heresy ruleset, I have yet to see that it can be successfully expanded to incorporate all the different 40k factions instead of being a pure Marine game.

Moreover, Horus Heresy is meant to be a pseudo-historical game, I cannot even find a repository for Horus Heresy tournament lists and results and much less win rates, and the HH community seems aggressive against the idea of competitive HH play.

HH and 40k are meant to be very different games so I don't see 40k moving towards a HH ruleset.

I'm pretty sure that the best evidence that the HH ruleset can be expanded to incorporate all 40k factions is that it's just a further modification of the ruleset that was used to represent all 40k factions for, what was it, 17 years or so? It's just a further modification of the 7th edition ruleset in the same way that 4th edition was a modification of 3rd, and 5th was a modification of 4th, etc, etc.

And Solar Auxilia, Talons of the Emperor, Cults and Militia, Mechanicum, and Daemons of the Ruinstorm players might be confused about how the game is "pure Marines".

Finally, no tournament data only tells us that there isn't any tournament data that has been compiled. We definitely know that tournaments were played using the rules from 3rd-7th edition, which again, are essentially the same.

vict0988 wrote:

Spoiler:

Tyel wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
It makes factions different. If everyone can do everything why pick one or the other? It's okay for Tau to have a few melee units that have some fundamental lacks (like maybe they're all slow or they lack AP or durability), but they shouldn't have 8 different melee units that flesh out the melee roster to be a rounded faction in itself.

Because you like the models? Because you like the fluff?

I just think its a false identity because it only really comes up with say Tau. "They can't have assault units, they need a weakness". Or they (and DE) can't have psykers "cos the flavour of just not being in one of the phases of the game".

By contrast Marines can do everything except I guess hordes. CSM can even do that by taking a bunch of cultist units.
Eldar can do everything. Orks can do everything. Tyranids can do everything. Necrons can do everything.

Are these factions bad - or boring - compared with Tau? Do they lack identity?

If every faction has every possible unit niche filled then what is the fluff of them really? Tau Assault Centurions are slightly more machine than man, the Drukhari chaplain speaks a different language instead of gothic when he inspires his followers, that sounds really garbage to me. The fluff should be borne out in the rules, part of the rules is the availability of different types of datasheets and the niches of those datasheets. That means Tau shouldn't have gotten huge mechs and Death Guard should not get 4 different types of bikes because Tau are meant to be efficient and rationally designed and Death Guard are meant to be a slow-moving durable threat. I didn't say Tau couldn't have melee units, I said they can't have every melee unit. Tau have melee units, but they're all mobile and squishy, that's fine. But if they get Assault Centurions then it stops being fine because then Tau become a little lot more like Space Marines. Primaris were a huge mistake because they are antithetical to everything the Imperium is about. The whole idea of Space Marines using their own unique brand of vehicles separate from the rest of humanity is pretty strange in the first place, because of it's long history 40k is very messy, but I don't think that's a reason to give up and give Tau Assault Centurions. Necrons shouldn't have a lot of long-ranged shooting, I have advocated for lowering most ranges down to 24" for example, it's not just a Tau thing. Chaos Space Marines are a bit more difficult to pin down, I think ideally perhaps they shouldn't have any reliable vehicles and monsters or any reliable ranged weapons or something like that, but I think it'd be hard to get people on board with giving Chaos Space Marines a flaw at this point.

Ok, help me out here, why exactly would CSM have vehicles, "monsters" (I assume you're referring to Daemon Engines?), and ranged weapons? And why on earth would the most technologically advanced race in the setting (Necrons) have poor access to long range firepower?

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Ok, help me out here, why exactly would CSM have vehicles, "monsters" (I assume you're referring to Daemon Engines?), and ranged weapons? And why on earth would the most technologically advanced race in the setting (Necrons) have poor access to long range firepower?

I figure CSM don't value reliability, so when they create stuff they are more likely to prioritize quantity or power. It's not that Necrons can't make long-ranged weapons, it's that their culture leads them to prefer durable hard-hitting units instead of units with greater range.