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.

Some of this seems okay. I'd certainly like to see Stratagems gone, so losing most of them would be an excellent start.

Generic warlord traits seem logical, given how many of the current ones are almost identical between books. Though, I hope they don't just make crap ones that are never taken (in the past, generic WLTs have frequently been objectively worse than codex ones - such as giving +1S when codex ones give +1S and +1A or some other bonus).

I also much prefer just having custom traits to mix and match, rather than the current system. Not least because the custom traits currently lose out on WLTs, artefacts, stratagems and (if applicable) psychic powers that the standard subfactions get. Also, in general I'd rather not have WLTs, artefacts etc. locked behind specific subfactions.

All that said, it's concerning that this will result in markedly fewer WLTs. I can understand some being removed because they're so similar to the generic ones, but you might think that there would still be a decent amount with previously subfaction-locked WLTs being made available regardless of subfaction.

 catbarf wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:
Yes, it does, but right now we have those PLUS subfaction traits, plus subfaction relic, strat and warlord traits. And OF COURSE that's going to sound excessive to Space Marines, who have had multiple unique units for multiple subfactions since second edition. Heck, to a space marine player, it is excessive when you're already so spoiled for choice and so celebrated in the fiction and lore.

But when you're playing Sisters and your only sub-faction models all come from the same Order, or you're playing Nids or GSC where there are NO subfaction units at all... Believe me, you might actually appreciate the relic, the WL Trait and the strat... Because it's literally ALL you've got.

I play Tyranids and would like subfaction relics, warlord traits, and stratagems to all die in a fire, please and thank you. I find those elements to be more constraining (and annoying, when the wombo-combos come out to play) than flavorful. Especially when I want to play My Dudes and not just Kraken with a funny color scheme.

I much prefer the idea of a free-form traits system that can be selected either to represent an existing subfaction or design your own, like the doctrines/chapter tactics system of 4th Ed. And you of all people should appreciate the capability to make the rules fit your backstory, rather than having to make your army fit the rigid mold that GW has issued you.

I agree. I just hope the baby doesn't get thrown out with the bathwater, with GW just throwing away most or all of the subfaction-locked WLTs and subfactions, rather than opening them to the rest of the army.

 tauist wrote:

 catbarf wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:
Yes, it does, but right now we have those PLUS subfaction traits, plus subfaction relic, strat and warlord traits. And OF COURSE that's going to sound excessive to Space Marines, who have had multiple unique units for multiple subfactions since second edition. Heck, to a space marine player, it is excessive when you're already so spoiled for choice and so celebrated in the fiction and lore.

But when you're playing Sisters and your only sub-faction models all come from the same Order, or you're playing Nids or GSC where there are NO subfaction units at all... Believe me, you might actually appreciate the relic, the WL Trait and the strat... Because it's literally ALL you've got.

I play Tyranids and would like subfaction relics, warlord traits, and stratagems to all die in a fire, please and thank you. I find those elements to be more constraining (and annoying, when the wombo-combos come out to play) than flavorful. Especially when I want to play My Dudes and not just Kraken with a funny color scheme.

I much prefer the idea of a free-form traits system that can be selected either to represent an existing subfaction or design your own, like the doctrines/chapter tactics system of 4th Ed. And you of all people should appreciate the capability to make the rules fit your backstory, rather than having to make your army fit the rigid mold that GW has issued you.

Totally agree on most of your points. Exalted.

Seconded

 Nevelon wrote:

ccs wrote:

Some of us have been there/done that twice!
2e's little black pamphlet & then Codex Space Wolf +
2nd: 8e's Index books & then onto Codex books.

You skip 3rd? Main rulebook “index” lists to codex. Could have another upgrade in there…

oops, missed one.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
Now since there will probably be at least 3 new Codices for 10th I wouldn't mind it if GW just updated each codex, keeping it intact, with upgraded rules/units/whatever as long as the next codex gets updated relatively close in time. So that say, Codex A gets updated in Jan and Codex B gets updated in March while Codex C gets updated in May.

I assume you're meaning new factions there - what makes you think we'd expect that many new factions in 10th?

No, I meant like the 8th Ed Indices, they had a number of different factions in each book.

I apologize for using the word codex instead of index. Codex has just become my generic term for army book.

 catbarf wrote:


I play Tyranids and would like subfaction relics, warlord traits, and stratagems to all die in a fire, please and thank you. I find those elements to be more constraining (and annoying, when the wombo-combos come out to play) than flavorful.

Obviously, your preferences are at least as valid as mine, and probably moreso because they are certainly shared by a greater number of Dakkanauts than mine. So understand, it's not your preference that I disagree with. That is a thing that is entirely valid.

But how can a subfaction relic be a constraint when you aren't required to use it? You're still free to choose any non-subfaction relic if you don't like the relic that is associated with your subfaction. If you don't like your subfaction's bespoke WL trait? Just don't take it. How is that restrictive? Now strategems... You can argue that even if you don't use them, they are still a burden to all the people who feel like they have to memorize every strat from every possible enemy in order to be a competitive player... But the principal IS still the same: you've got 30 strats- you like 5 and hate the other 25. And you can waste time and energy arguing about how much better the game would be FOR YOU if the 25 you hated just didn't exist. But a) that completely ignores the fact that someone else might prefer a different five than you, and by insisting that GW cater exclusively to your preferences, you may have compromised someone else's enjoyment, when B) instead of doing that, you could have just ignored the 25 you hate.

Now I get it- strats certainly aren't as simple as I'm making them- some people hate equipment strats conceptually because they remove the "equipment" feeling that they had when they were just equipment... And in fact, I tend to agree.

 catbarf wrote:

Especially when I want to play My Dudes and not just Kraken with a funny color scheme.

Well here's the thing: technically, Kraken AREN'T your dudes. They're GW's dudes. Their lore was literally written by "not you." If you want to play YOUR dudes, there are rules you can use to invent YOUR dudes. Want to play GW's Dudes? I'm sorry, you're going to have to accept that Space Wolves aren't generally artillery specialists, and that the Sacred Rose aren't ravenous close combat monsters who can't control their temper, because those histories have been written.

And sure, there is enough artillery in a Chapter that the Wolves could choose to send only artillery units to a particular fight, and if they did, the army they sent would be better at doing artillery things than a force composed of a wider variety of units... But the Chapter that ARE artillery specialists are going to have better artillery units than the wolves have.

Similarly, no one is saying Sacred Rose don't have Repentia and Sacrestans... Of course they do, and like the Wolves, they could opt to send an army consisting ONLY of close combat units. But if they do, they still aren't going to be as good as the Bloody Rose close combat army, because Bloody Rose happen to be close combat specialists. Now, the Sacred Rose force that consists entirely of Sacressants and Repentia... Might it be a better CC army than the Bloody Rose army that consists entirely of BSS, Dominions and Retributors? It might actually be.

 catbarf wrote:

I much prefer the idea of a free-form traits system that can be selected either to represent an existing subfaction or design your own, like the doctrines/chapter tactics system of 4th Ed. And you of all people should appreciate the capability to make the rules fit your backstory, rather than having to make your army fit the rigid mold that GW has issued you.

And of course, you preference is valid.

But allowing people to decide how to best represent an established element of lore by themselves almost guarantees that you are eventually going to meet the guy decides to absolutely break cannon- I like red, but I like cybernetics, so welcome to Blood Angels that get cybernetics instead of succumbing to the rage because "My Dudes!"

When I choose to write a sonnet, it's because I want to explore the potential of Iambic Pentameter, the brevity of 14 lines, and the structure of a handful of established rhymes schemes. If I didn't want those challenges, I would choose not to write a sonnet. What I WOULDN'T do is say "Sonnets shouldn't exist because My Poem!" or say, "Well, I know it has 36 lines of unrhymed trochaic tetrameter, but it's still a sonnet because My Sonnet!"

I like working with the material that GW gives me. It's why I play their game rather than just writing sci-fi stories about My Dudes.

And again- remember what my proposed solution to these problems is: there's a tightly balanced, easy to play, tactical game for people who want it, but there's also a huge, sprawling sandbox of narrative potential with more tools and rules than you could ever use in a single game or even a single campaign for those who prefer that approach. So I'm definitely not saying that you shouldn't have what you want- I'm just saying that it doesn't have to prevent me from also having what I want.

Why design a game that only suits one type of player when you can design a game that suits them all?

PenitentJake wrote:
But how can a subfaction relic be a constraint when you aren't required to use it? You're still free to choose any non-subfaction relic if you don't like the relic that is associated with your subfaction. If you don't like your subfaction's bespoke WL trait? Just don't take it. How is that restrictive? Now strategems... You can argue that even if you don't use them, they are still a burden to all the people who feel like they have to memorize every strat from every possible enemy in order to be a competitive player... But the principal IS still the same: you've got 30 strats- you like 5 and hate the other 25.

They're design space being spent on one-note options for specific subfactions rather than options anyone could make use of. If you don't choose to use the one (1) faction-specific warlord trait, relic, or stratagem associated with that subfaction, then you're using the generic ones anyways.

Again, look at how subfactions were handled for Marines and Guard in 4th Ed. Nothing was locked to specific chapters/regiments, instead you were given examples of which traits the big named chapters/regiments get, or you were free to choose your own. GW's brought this back with the 9th Ed Astra Militarum codex, letting you pick from a set of regimental doctrines while also name-dropping which ones are associated with particular regiments.

PenitentJake wrote:
Well here's the thing: technically, Kraken AREN'T your dudes. They're GW's dudes. Their lore was literally written by "not you." If you want to play YOUR dudes, there are rules you can use to invent YOUR dudes. Want to play GW's Dudes? I'm sorry, you're going to have to accept that Space Wolves aren't generally artillery specialists, and that the Sacred Rose aren't ravenous close combat monsters who can't control their temper, because those histories have been written.

And sure, there is enough artillery in a Chapter that the Wolves could choose to send only artillery units to a particular fight, and if they did, the army they sent would be better at doing artillery things than a force composed of a wider variety of units... But the Chapter that ARE artillery specialists are going to have better artillery units than the wolves have.

First off, I'm not trying to redefine what any existing faction is, so I don't understand where you're going with this argument. I don't want to play Kraken, and I don't mind if GW picks a set of traits for the known, established subfactions to say that this is what they normally use. I want to play as My Dudes, and I want the opportunity to pick rules that suit them. I do not want to have to pick an existing subfaction to counts-as, and then decide whether I'm going to just ignore and miss out on options and abilities tied to that subfaction.

Second, the practical outcome of the current system is that Blood Angels don't take their own god damn tank because it doesn't synergize with their subfaction ability. The subfactions tacitly incentivize you to min-max into a single specialty, and for many factions that leads into a flanderization of their theme. I don't know about Space Wolves artillery units, but the lore does not say that literally every Cadian regiment is a static gunline, yet that's what you got in 8th Ed when you were locked into 're-roll 1s when stationary' subfaction trait. You could counts-as Tallarn to better represent Cadian armored companies- firmly established as A Thing in the lore- but then you didn't get any of those Cadian-specific orders, warlord traits, relics, et cetera.

Now we have a freer system where instead of 6 or 7 regiments you get 16 different regimental doctrines to choose from. Cadian armored companies exist again, anyone making a homebrew regiment can just pick an appropriate trait.

PenitentJake wrote:
But allowing people to decide how to best represent an established element of lore by themselves almost guarantees that you are eventually going to meet the guy decides to absolutely break cannon- I like red, but I like cybernetics, so welcome to Blood Angels that get cybernetics instead of succumbing to the rage because "My Dudes!"

Right now that guy is just playing his Blood Angels as Iron Hands. Who cares? Decades of lore are not going up in flames just because I decide that my Krieg tank battalion (something well established in lore) is going to use rules that make them good as tankers, rather than the Krieg-specific Cult of Sacrifice rule that does literally nothing for tanks.

You are arguing in favor of putting every subfaction in a tiny box (you're Krieg so you must play an infantry horde, and your general will have either one of 5-6 generic relics or the same relic as every other Krieg army), and then characterizing that as a huge, sprawling sandbox of narrative potential. I couldn't disagree more; this is a garbage system for enabling anything beyond flanderized archetypes.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
That doesn't mean GW will just keep the indices. Although, I wish they would do like Privateer Press used to do and update all the armies at the same time (and usually in the same book). Now since there will probably be at least 3 new Codices for 10th I wouldn't mind it if GW just updated each codex, keeping it intact, with upgraded rules/units/whatever as long as the next codex gets updated relatively close in time. So that say, Codex A gets updated in Jan and Codex B gets updated in March while Codex C gets updated in May.

Yeah, they should have moved to this version long ago. "Indexes" or whatever you want to call them immediately form the basis for the army, and then each Arks of Omen-type book during the course of that edition gives the new stuff for whomever (ideally everyone, but assuming it was split up into different books, you could have the first book be for like Marines, Chaos, Eldar, and the second one be for Orks, Guard, AdMech, and so forth) that goes ON TOP of the existing book, not replaces it entirely.

PP's model was the best because all your current stuff was in one book (and I can't even recall if they did books for Mk3) and then you knew each story-progressing book would have a couple of new options for you, but not reinvent the wheel.

Right now that guy is just playing his Blood Angels as Iron Hands. Who cares? Decades of lore are not going up in flames just because I decide that my Krieg tank battalion (something well established in lore) is going to use rules that make them good as tankers, rather than the Krieg-specific Cult of Sacrifice rule that does literally nothing for tanks.

Arguably, this is WORSE because you will have said guy with his very-clearly Blood Angels being "counts as" Iron Hands just because Iron Hands are the "better" choice. At least without rigid sub-factions you don't have to do THAT. There still might be a best choice, but you're not saying "These guys count as these other guys despite looking nothing like them because they have better rules". Instead you might just have Blood Angels that happen to have a force that's been augmented from battle damage with more cybernetics, but they're still Blood Angels.

After 8th started blooming out of control with the various codexes (and junk like Psychic Awakening and what followed), I dropped out.

Give me just the indexes and stop there because adding the codex crap on top is where the system spirals out of control.

PenitentJake wrote:

But how can a subfaction relic be a constraint when you aren't required to use it? You're still free to choose any non-subfaction relic if you don't like the relic that is associated with your subfaction. If you don't like your subfaction's bespoke WL trait? Just don't take it. How is that restrictive?

Because you like the Relic/WLT for a subfaction but not its bonus? Or because you want to have Custom subfaction traits, thus locking you out of all the subfaction Relics and WLTs? Or because you like the Relics/WLTs in more than one subfaction but can never take both in the same army?

Or because you're tired of every Tallarn army having its own Dagger of Tu'Sakh, like that one-of-a-kind relic is being given out in Happy Meals, and the alternative is one of a handful of generic choices.

At least if the generic list was twice as long, there'd be a little more scope for uniqueness in it.

10th will do away with stances and stance based abilities/shenanigans.

I just feel that simplification is so badly, badly needed. I counted the strategems the other day and it's 40-60 for each faction, more for others. It just feels like a card game on top of a game with an already bloated ruleset. I don't play, but I do want to one day and the idea of keeping track of not only my own but my opponents... please, no.

If they have to keep them I'd be cool with a handful of universal strategems plus a couple I can use before the game.

Beast_of_Guanyin wrote:
I just feel that simplification is so badly, badly needed. I counted the strategems the other day and it's 40-60 for each faction, more for others. It just feels like a card game on top of a game with an already bloated ruleset. I don't play, but I do want to one day and the idea of keeping track of not only my own but my opponents... please, no.

If they have to keep them I'd be cool with a handful of universal strategems plus a couple I can use before the game.

Simplification and streamlining are different things but I don't think GW understands that and we'll end up back where we are now in a few years but with a somehow even shallower game.

 Sim-Life wrote:

Beast_of_Guanyin wrote:
I just feel that simplification is so badly, badly needed. I counted the strategems the other day and it's 40-60 for each faction, more for others. It just feels like a card game on top of a game with an already bloated ruleset. I don't play, but I do want to one day and the idea of keeping track of not only my own but my opponents... please, no.

If they have to keep them I'd be cool with a handful of universal strategems plus a couple I can use before the game.

Simplification and streamlining are different things but I don't think GW understands that and we'll end up back where we are now in a few years but with a somehow even shallower game.

Indeed. You can have famously complex games with very uncomplicated rulesets - look at Chess or Go for example, the rules fit on a single sheet of paper in an average font size, but volumes have been written about optimal strategy for both. Now, aiming for a literal classic that stands the test of centuries is probably not a realistic goal, but their existence shows that depth and complexity of a game does not depend on complicated or convoluted rules.

This thing regarding "lore-accurate Blood Angels" is fascinating. The 90s GW I grew up with strongly encouraged everyone to "make the army yours", and fluff etc was deliberately left vague enough that indeed, you could have bionics-obsessed Blood Angels if you wanted to, and NOBODY was going to tell you you were going "against Canon". Heck, the early editions even encouraged you to make up rules by yourself, if it added to your enjoyment of the game..

30 years later, Blood Angels have been flanderized and stereotyped to "Vampiric Anime bois" who spam Sanguinary Guard units left and right. On their spare time, they all wash their long, blonde hairs, write emo poetry and craft artisanal decorations to their weapons. And when the Chaplain tucks them to sleep at night. they need a bedtime story or they'll get nightmares about the Black Rage. WTF

Sure enough, there is much more lore now to go around.. but with the huge scope of time/space in the game, there is still millions of ways to make it ALL fit into the setting - GW's lore, your headcanon, your neighbor's. The lore is supposed to flesh out things, and to inspire your imagination, not to make things more stereotypical and one dimensional..

An ideal army building system IMHO is one which errs on the side of being "too open-ended" rather than "too restrictive". If this is the direction where things are headed, I'm all for it.

Food for thought - People love to talk about units feeling "flavourful", and many like to think you need special rules for making something feel a certain way. Well, what if you altered your playstyle instead?

Wayniac wrote:
Arguably, this is WORSE because you will have said guy with his very-clearly Blood Angels being "counts as" Iron Hands just because Iron Hands are the "better" choice. At least without rigid sub-factions you don't have to do THAT. There still might be a best choice, but you're not saying "These guys count as these other guys despite looking nothing like them because they have better rules". Instead you might just have Blood Angels that happen to have a force that's been augmented from battle damage with more cybernetics, but they're still Blood Angels.

That would be having cake and eating it too. At least now you trade unique units. Now it would be just codex hopping with bonus of keeping your unique units.

So now except even worse as there's no reason whatsoever to NOT pick best traits

 tauist wrote:


30 years later, Blood Angels have been flanderized and stereotyped to "Vampiric Anime bois" who spam Sanguinary Guard units left and right. On their spare time, they all wash their long, blonde hairs, write emo poetry and craft artisanal decorations to their weapons. And when the Chaplain tucks them to sleep at night. they need a bedtime story or they'll get nightmares about the Black Rage. WTF

IMHO it's a process you can observe in a lot of entertainment media over the years - once the original authors leave, or additional authors are taken in and produce material, characters, or in this case factions, often enter a spiral of becoming 'more similar to themselves'. One well-known example are the Simpsons, and specifically Ned Flanders - it's where 'Flanderization' got its name from, but it was observable in most of their characters. What started out as pretty nuanced characters with a good handful of traits, gimmicks, catchphrases and so on got whittled down to two or three defining traits and things, and these traits were in turn exagerated and blown out of proportion with each season. In the case of Flanders, he went from a normal, if religious, person that could have existed on any small-town-america street to a ridiculous parody of a whacked-out nutjob that likes to drink his tap water slightly warmed and oogily-doogilies around all day. The same process can be observed in Warhammer: Space Marines with slight nordic and werewolf themes get turned to Wolflord Wolfy Wolfhammer, Murderfang the werewolf Dreadnought, with a side order of Wolf-Priests on Giant Wolves, and so on. The process gets accelerated by meme culture that takes such exagerations and exagerates them even further.

Tsagualsa wrote:

 tauist wrote:


30 years later, Blood Angels have been flanderized and stereotyped to "Vampiric Anime bois" who spam Sanguinary Guard units left and right. On their spare time, they all wash their long, blonde hairs, write emo poetry and craft artisanal decorations to their weapons. And when the Chaplain tucks them to sleep at night. they need a bedtime story or they'll get nightmares about the Black Rage. WTF

IMHO it's a process you can observe in a lot of entertainment media over the years - once the original authors leave, or additional authors are taken in and produce material, characters, or in this case factions, often enter a spiral of becoming 'more similar to themselves'. One well-known example are the Simpsons, and specifically Ned Flanders - it's where 'Flanderization' got its name from, but it was observable in most of their characters. What started out as pretty nuanced characters with a good handful of traits, gimmicks, catchphrases and so on got whittled down to two or three defining traits and things, and these traits were in turn exagerated and blown out of proportion with each season. In the case of Flanders, he went from a normal, if religious, person that could have existed on any small-town-america street to a ridiculous parody of a whacked-out nutjob that likes to drink his tap water slightly warmed and oogily-doogilies around all day. The same process can be observed in Warhammer: Space Marines with slight nordic and werewolf themes get turned to Wolflord Wolfy Wolfhammer, Murderfang the werewolf Dreadnought, with a side order of Wolf-Priests on Giant Wolves, and so on. The process gets accelerated by meme culture that takes such exagerations and exagerates them even further.

I think some of that is as new writers come in, they are often writing for the company. They are being told and taught to write that way, it’s why even really good writers can stumble with these settings when coming in and often take years to feel out a setting and given some leeway.

It’s also why so many writers go on to hate writing for games, often given a game nearly done and told to make it sound good was the norm.
Everything from the building of the world to characters is set in stone, just have to somehow make it all sound and feel good to play though.

Tsagualsa wrote:

 Grimskul wrote:
It's not suprising unfortunately. GW seems to continue going through this cycle of "Guys we heard ya'll, we have too many running parts, we're going back to the basics" and they try doing either a hard or soft reboot of the rules or design paradigm for codices where they dial back the number of rules, but inevitably, as they add more units in the new edition, they start tacking on new things over the course of the edition until it becomes a bloated mess again.

In some aspects they did pretty well and stayed that course though, the streamlining of vehicles by abolishing that whole armour value - penetration - table roll thing and assorted special rules, introducing degrading profiles for large models, and abolishing templates in favour of dice-based solutions have all been pretty succesful in removing bloaty, but self-contained parts from the rules and were on the most part not replaced by new, different bloat.

You just named all the things i love about 40K and what makes it 40K, there was a lot of love from the old guard at GW through the 90s and into the mid 2000's. they may never have gotten everything right but the goal at the time was different. i think the best line from that time about the game was as they called it "the most important rule" (paraphrased) a game of epic battles in the 41st millennium where both players have a good time.


to me they did the opposite of staying the course
mistakes were made in 6th and 7th and then compounded on from 8th to 9th
.adding poorly implemented hull points
.adding more USRs (from 22 in 5th ed to what triple that in 7th?)
.adding psychic power bloat
.ongoing codex creep
.adding formation bloat
.revamping the game for streamlining core rules... then rinse and repeat the errors of 7th with codex creep, aura bloat, stratagem bloat etc..
.increased lethality and volume of fire to absurd levels.
I could go on..... all they did was move bloat from the core rules to the individual codexes and achieved a higher level of bloat.

catbarf wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:
Yes, it does, but right now we have those PLUS subfaction traits, plus subfaction relic, strat and warlord traits. And OF COURSE that's going to sound excessive to Space Marines, who have had multiple unique units for multiple subfactions since second edition. Heck, to a space marine player, it is excessive when you're already so spoiled for choice and so celebrated in the fiction and lore.

But when you're playing Sisters and your only sub-faction models all come from the same Order, or you're playing Nids or GSC where there are NO subfaction units at all... Believe me, you might actually appreciate the relic, the WL Trait and the strat... Because it's literally ALL you've got.

I play Tyranids and would like subfaction relics, warlord traits, and stratagems to all die in a fire, please and thank you. I find those elements to be more constraining (and annoying, when the wombo-combos come out to play) than flavorful. Especially when I want to play My Dudes and not just Kraken with a funny color scheme.

I much prefer the idea of a free-form traits system that can be selected either to represent an existing subfaction or design your own, like the doctrines/chapter tactics system of 4th Ed. And you of all people should appreciate the capability to make the rules fit your backstory, rather than having to make your army fit the rigid mold that GW has issued you.

I own all those codexes. the trait system in the 4th ed marine codex or the equivalent biomorph system for nids in the 3rd or 4th ed codexes are a thing of beauty. you could clearly build your own personal hive fleet or marine chapter

Also when you didn't want to play just your dudes but a force from legend (a named specific faction) there is still lots of love there in the old thematic rules. and it wasn't just marines. thanks to a combination of FW books and the 4th ed eldar codex i can build a list based on any of the craftworlds or even corsairs.

Tsagualsa wrote:
IMHO it's a process you can observe in a lot of entertainment media over the years - once the original authors leave, or additional authors are taken in and produce material, characters, or in this case factions, often enter a spiral of becoming 'more similar to themselves'. One well-known example are the Simpsons, and specifically Ned Flanders - it's where 'Flanderization' got its name from, but it was observable in most of their characters. What started out as pretty nuanced characters with a good handful of traits, gimmicks, catchphrases and so on got whittled down to two or three defining traits and things, and these traits were in turn exagerated and blown out of proportion with each season. In the case of Flanders, he went from a normal, if religious, person that could have existed on any small-town-america street to a ridiculous parody of a whacked-out nutjob that likes to drink his tap water slightly warmed and oogily-doogilies around all day. The same process can be observed in Warhammer: Space Marines with slight nordic and werewolf themes get turned to Wolflord Wolfy Wolfhammer, Murderfang the werewolf Dreadnought, with a side order of Wolf-Priests on Giant Wolves, and so on. The process gets accelerated by meme culture that takes such exagerations and exagerates them even further.

I don't know if this totally applies to the Simpsons (although I think it does) - but it is just the expansion of the world.

I mean within reason I'd argue its always been a bit thus. Even back in 2nd edition Ultramarines were vanilla. BA loved jump packs (and would get a slightly faster Predator in 3rd?). DA liked bikers and terminators. Finally you had Wolf wolf woof wolfy woof wolves.

But today the number of recognised, fluff-supported Space Marines is what.. over a dozen? If we bring in old Forge World fluff-supplements two or three dozen? There just aren't that many concepts to make a bunch of Marines different to the rest. So to avoid the inevitable overlap being even worse than it already is, you have to narrow the factions down to a thinner and thinner concept. You could I guess try to reverse this - all Marines are much the same, its really just a different paint job on the power armour - but I don't think anyone really wants that to apply. If your character is a Blood Angel - that should mean something different to him being an Imperial Fist or a White Scar etc.

It seems like it should mean something but gamewise it doesn't. Does your yellow marine with a bolter shoot better than a green marine with a bolter? Is the yellow bolter any more/less powerful than the one the green marine uses? In 90% of the cases the answers are "no".

What GW should/could do is make a few special units that are only unlocked if you take special character X. Assuming the AoO detachment chart is here to stay you don't even have to have special deployment rules. If you want to do a White Scar bike horde then there you go. If you want a DA deathwing here's the same chart. The only real thing that is different amongst the marine chapters is their special characters and unique units. Everything else can be covered by your building your detachment the way you want to do it.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
It seems like it should mean something but gamewise it doesn't. Does your yellow marine with a bolter shoot better than a green marine with a bolter? Is the yellow bolter any more/less powerful than the one the green marine uses? In 90% of the cases the answers are "no".

What GW should/could do is make a few special units that are only unlocked if you take special character X. Assuming the AoO detachment chart is here to stay you don't even have to have special deployment rules. If you want to do a White Scar bike horde then there you go. If you want a DA deathwing here's the same chart. The only real thing that is different amongst the marine chapters is their special characters and unique units. Everything else can be covered by your building your detachment the way you want to do it.

Several editions of 40k had that 'Unlock by special character' system, but that was often unpopular as 'special character tax' - you'll probably never find a system that makes all players happy, one subgroup will always complain, be it with character-unlock, trait-unlock, stratagem-unlock or free choice. Imho they should just pick a system that is not overly complicated and does not impose 'taxes' that are too egregious. Something like unlock via Warlord trait, with appropriate special characters always having that trait, but not being the only acces to it, could work. Tournament issues are another kettle of fish entirely, but you'd sensibly solve them by writing tournament-specific additional rules, not by making basic rules perfectly 'tournament-balanced'. List-optimization and meta-builds will happen anyway, no use in breaking the base game in a futile attempt to stop them.

I thought the short-lived 7E Traitor Legions book did that quite well, with (IIRC) different force org charts, different units counting as troops etc.

Tsagualsa wrote:

...Tournament issues are another kettle of fish entirely, but you'd sensibly solve them by writing tournament-specific additional rules, not by making basic rules perfectly 'tournament-balanced'. List-optimization and meta-builds will happen anyway, no use in breaking the base game in a futile attempt to stop them.

I've been advocating for this among my peers when we have discussions on the direction 40k rules should head. I also think I mentioned it once or twice here on Dakka as well.

Narrative and Matched need entirely separate core rules. I believe the 9th framework is great for matched, it's streamlined (supposedly getting more-so in 10th). However for Narrative the streamlined rules really leave a lot to be desired. I believe that the 30k HH core rules and stat line reversions would be perfect for a narrative version of 40k. Since HH is typically touted as the "historical" type game more than a competitive one. This ruleset provides more role play elements imho which would greatly benefit Narrative playstyle... at least a lot more than taking a tournament ruleset and slapping some crusade bloat on top of it.

The destruction of BA lore has to do with the habitual use of horrible authors for writing books about chapters. Unless your book was written by ADB, your canon now likely sucks. The worst fate a faction can receive is to have a book put out by one of the new writers on GWs payroll, about them. BAs, DAs, UM, Custodes, even Cadians. Every new book from 2001+ basically ruins your lore.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
The destruction of BA lore has to do with the habitual use of horrible authors for writing books about chapters. Unless your book was written by ADB, your canon now likely sucks. The worst fate a faction can receive is to have a book put out by one of the new writers on GWs payroll, about them. BAs, DAs, UM, Custodes, even Cadians. Every new book from 2001+ basically ruins your lore.

DoB was a good book, can’t get over the whiny marines in the astorath book though…
And as i understand it the gak show that was the swallow trilogy got retconned as DoB and what not apparently happened while the swallow series was supposedly occurring


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tittliewinks22 wrote:

Tsagualsa wrote:

...Tournament issues are another kettle of fish entirely, but you'd sensibly solve them by writing tournament-specific additional rules, not by making basic rules perfectly 'tournament-balanced'. List-optimization and meta-builds will happen anyway, no use in breaking the base game in a futile attempt to stop them.

I've been advocating for this among my peers when we have discussions on the direction 40k rules should head. I also think I mentioned it once or twice here on Dakka as well.

Narrative and Matched need entirely separate core rules. I believe the 9th framework is great for matched, it's streamlined (supposedly getting more-so in 10th). However for Narrative the streamlined rules really leave a lot to be desired. I believe that the 30k HH core rules and stat line reversions would be perfect for a narrative version of 40k. Since HH is typically touted as the "historical" type game more than a competitive one. This ruleset provides more role play elements imho which would greatly benefit Narrative playstyle... at least a lot more than taking a tournament ruleset and slapping some crusade bloat on top of it.

Core rules might be fairly simple, but calling matched play streamlined with 100 strats per faction, needing a flow chart to deconflict fights first/last, etc is anything but streamlined.
It all comes down to being very clunky imho

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
It seems like it should mean something but gamewise it doesn't. Does your yellow marine with a bolter shoot better than a green marine with a bolter? Is the yellow bolter any more/less powerful than the one the green marine uses? In 90% of the cases the answers are "no".

What GW should/could do is make a few special units that are only unlocked if you take special character X. Assuming the AoO detachment chart is here to stay you don't even have to have special deployment rules. If you want to do a White Scar bike horde then there you go. If you want a DA deathwing here's the same chart. The only real thing that is different amongst the marine chapters is their special characters and unique units. Everything else can be covered by your building your detachment the way you want to do it.

Gosh no. We already have primarches etc fighting in every tiny minor not important pub brawl. Making it even more so by having them unlock things? No thanks.

I don’t really think it’s that needed to do special things for and factions that have a full roster.

Factions like white scars can have marines in a transport to support bikes as the main force, and be entirely fluffy.
It just takes GW making it positive experience to have that without a major hindrance and supporting it with discussion about how and why that’s fluffy, and supporting it in game.

tneva82 wrote:

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
It seems like it should mean something but gamewise it doesn't. Does your yellow marine with a bolter shoot better than a green marine with a bolter? Is the yellow bolter any more/less powerful than the one the green marine uses? In 90% of the cases the answers are "no".

What GW should/could do is make a few special units that are only unlocked if you take special character X. Assuming the AoO detachment chart is here to stay you don't even have to have special deployment rules. If you want to do a White Scar bike horde then there you go. If you want a DA deathwing here's the same chart. The only real thing that is different amongst the marine chapters is their special characters and unique units. Everything else can be covered by your building your detachment the way you want to do it.

Gosh no. We already have primarches etc fighting in every tiny minor not important pub brawl. Making it even more so by having them unlock things? No thanks.

It doesn't have to be a special character. For instance, you may need to have a Capt in Terminator Armor to unlock the deathwing rules or a Capt on Bike to unlock ravenwing. Now that I think on it you could even have a choice of unlocked features with a model. Say an officer on Bike unlocks either a ravenwing special rule or a white scars special rule. I'm just spit balling but there might be something to this feature.

Also to the people who don't want to pay a "tax" for a special rule then you really aren't looking for a special rule just special treatment. Every benefit should have a cost (IMHO).