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.

How do!

Slightly difficult topic to explain, but maybe because I’m overthinking it. But it’s whether you feel your preferred race/faction can be fielded in a way you consider consistent with their described background?

I guess in other words, do the curtains of your codex match the bedsheets of your background?

Now I’m not gonna start defining “background accurate” here, because whilst some things are pretty set, so much is open to not only personal interpretation and preference, but there are now so many sources I think that’d be a very poor way to kick things off. In return, I ask those contributing to this thread aren’t telling anyone else “that are not how Army X be” etc.

This is partially inspired by my frustration with the Tyranid Codexes of old. See, my understanding on Nids is the Swarm Is A Whole. Ickle bugs, middling bugs, big bugs, oooooh feth bugs. All present and horribly genetically correct. Yet thanks to often overpacked Elites, I could never quite engineer a list to satisfy the vision in my head. Rather I had to decide Ickle or Big focus, with no particular middle ground. At least not if I wanted an army which could actually get the job done.

Right. Hopefully I’ve set the scene adequately without being overly restrictive.

Yes and no and maybe.
I think it's sometimes a choice decided for that game. My friend plays Word bearers and fields Ebrious. He'll push up the table a few turns draw attention to himself then run away the rest of the game while ,usually, My space wolves friend gives chase. Which seems really flavorful as Ebrious has a history of getting away in these games. And we all hate Ebrious.

On the other hand if playing a more competitive kind of game that kind of play is maybe too much of a risk for players. If it's a for fun non competitive with a good friend I will play a lot more recklessly just looking for cool moments and a good time.

If you mean I'm my Warboss and what would I do if I were my Warboss. Not so much. Now days I just regard him as a tool to do a job and not much more. If my dice are hot I am prone to taking risks and that's more where I would do that sort of thing with the Warboss, looking for a unit to finish off or a big thing to kill, provided it was mostly a sure thing. I liked it better in earlier editions where he could lead a big mob of grots around to use them as a speedbump or trap stuff in combat. Now days I don't think it works.

May have missed the point not sure.

No you’ve definitely got the point and entered into the spirit

If by "play in character" you mean play the list in a way that feels consistent with how you think the army would behave then I guess the answer is "yes." How you play a list is up to you - you move your pieces and make the decisions. If your vision of the Astra Militarum is waves of infantry rolling forward then you can do that. If your vision is that your Commissar would never back down from a fight then you can do that.

There are list restrictions, though, and I can see how some might spoil someone's attempt to create their perfect vision. That seems to shift with editions - didn't really have too many problems with that in 8th and 9th. I think the only thing I missed consistently was a Librarian on a Bike for my Ravenwing. I know Legends exist, but it is generally bad form round these parts and I would not take them to a tourney.

No, not even close. I barely play anymore because of the ludonarrative dissonance (the massive gulf between "how things should function in the narrative" and "how things function on the tabletop").

Let me go find a quote from a past post...
Here's one example:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Turn it from a (war)GAME into a WAR(game).

Right now, playing 40k feels like playing a GAME. I'm not re-enacting an epic battle or telling the story of characters on a board.

Captain Krassus screamed into the vox: "All Armageddon Steel Legion, raise high the black banners, now is our time! Fix bayonets!" signaling the epic charge.

BUT he couldn't have predicted the cunning of the Rule System, his true foe:
"Sir, we're out of command points, you can't give orders from within a Chimera!" screamed the driver, as he repeatedly shifted from reverse to forwards, jerkily trying to run Orks over like the zamboni scene in Austin Powers. After all, only a fool would drive past enemy infantry that offered practically no threat and bypass hardened positions with maneuver - and the mechanized units of the Armageddon Steel Legion were no fools!

And thusly on the cusp of victory did the planet of Armageddon fall, defeated not by the cleverness of his foe or superior force or tactics, but by the universal laws which this commander foolishly disregarded when he embarked upon his mechanized transport. Who was he to think he could give orders from a Chimera freely? To be a man in such times...

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
No, not even close. I barely play anymore because of the ludonarrative dissonance (the massive gulf between "how things should function in the narrative" and "how things function on the tabletop").

Let me go find a quote from a past post...
Here's one example:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Turn it from a (war)GAME into a WAR(game).

Right now, playing 40k feels like playing a GAME. I'm not re-enacting an epic battle or telling the story of characters on a board.

Captain Krassus screamed into the vox: "All Armageddon Steel Legion, raise high the black banners, now is our time! Fix bayonets!" signaling the epic charge.

BUT he couldn't have predicted the cunning of the Rule System, his true foe:
"Sir, we're out of command points, you can't give orders from within a Chimera!" screamed the driver, as he repeatedly shifted from reverse to forwards, jerkily trying to run Orks over like the zamboni scene in Austin Powers. After all, only a fool would drive past enemy infantry that offered practically no threat and bypass hardened positions with maneuver - and the mechanized units of the Armageddon Steel Legion were no fools!

And thusly on the cusp of victory did the planet of Armageddon fall, defeated not by the cleverness of his foe or superior force or tactics, but by the universal laws which this commander foolishly disregarded when he embarked upon his mechanized transport. Who was he to think he could give orders from a Chimera freely? To be a man in such times...

How you spent your CPs was up to you. Its a game mechanic.

Your Captain actually had incredible command and control abilities. His troops went exactly where he ordered them to whether he was in his Chimera or not, and he always knew exactly where they were. He was never lost, never misidentified something and his troops were "in his head." He'd get high marks in the real world for his C2!

Here is an alternative narrative for your fan-fiction:

"Captain Krassus screamed into the vox from the safety of his Chimera "Fix Bayonets - Charge!"" His troops, on foot, tired of the stream of tirades issued by the Captain ensconced in his track, ignored the order and focused on the fight in front of them. They'd followed his commands over the Vox enough today and look where that had got them...Sergeant Grizzled muttered to himself as he turned off the vox: "Maybe he'd like to join us out here."

Want to get troops to fix bayonets? Fix yours (or draw your sword) as you give the order and join them in the charge.

Anyhoo. Enjoy your fan-fic how you like!

TangoTwoBravo wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
No, not even close. I barely play anymore because of the ludonarrative dissonance (the massive gulf between "how things should function in the narrative" and "how things function on the tabletop").

Let me go find a quote from a past post...
Here's one example:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Turn it from a (war)GAME into a WAR(game).

Right now, playing 40k feels like playing a GAME. I'm not re-enacting an epic battle or telling the story of characters on a board.

Captain Krassus screamed into the vox: "All Armageddon Steel Legion, raise high the black banners, now is our time! Fix bayonets!" signaling the epic charge.

BUT he couldn't have predicted the cunning of the Rule System, his true foe:
"Sir, we're out of command points, you can't give orders from within a Chimera!" screamed the driver, as he repeatedly shifted from reverse to forwards, jerkily trying to run Orks over like the zamboni scene in Austin Powers. After all, only a fool would drive past enemy infantry that offered practically no threat and bypass hardened positions with maneuver - and the mechanized units of the Armageddon Steel Legion were no fools!

And thusly on the cusp of victory did the planet of Armageddon fall, defeated not by the cleverness of his foe or superior force or tactics, but by the universal laws which this commander foolishly disregarded when he embarked upon his mechanized transport. Who was he to think he could give orders from a Chimera freely? To be a man in such times...

How you spent your CPs was up to you. Its a game mechanic.

Your Captain actually had incredible command and control abilities. His troops went exactly where he ordered them to whether he was in his Chimera or not, and he always knew exactly where they were. He was never lost, never misidentified something and his troops were "in his head." He'd get high marks in the real world for his C2!

Here is an alternative narrative for your fan-fiction:

"Captain Krassus screamed into the vox from the safety of his Chimera "Fix Bayonets - Charge!"" His troops, on foot, tired of the stream of tirades issued by the Captain ensconced in his track, ignored the order and focused on the fight in front of them. They'd followed his commands over the Vox enough today and look where that had got them...Sergeant Grizzled muttered to himself as he turned off the vox: "Maybe he'd like to join us out here."

Want to get troops to fix bayonets? Fix yours (or draw your sword) as you give the order and join them in the charge.

Anyhoo. Enjoy your fan-fic how you like!

Remember, guardsmen only ignore orders if you are in a tank, and if they have thrown grenades and a vehicle has blown its smoke dischargers. That also makes them unable to follow orders.

(What you said sounds like a failed leadership check, and could happen any time an order was received - chimera or not. What I said is what the game actually plays out :p)

While I know that the rule of three is in place for a good reason, if I could, I would run a Death Guard army packed with as many Possessed as possible, or an Iron Warriors army with as many Plague Marines as possible, for narrative purposes. Both armies would be at a disadvantage, as Possessed don't have any shooting and Plague Marines currently don't get Legion traits. I'm hoping that the new detachment rules allow for more flexibility to create these kinds of armies.

I keep fielding Tactical Squads, some Specialists, and some Elites, and it keeps working for me, so I'm pretty happy with my army's representation. My main gripe is that I would like to use Assault Squads and Land Raiders more, but I also haven't tried them recently, so it could be on me.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
No, not even close. I barely play anymore because of the ludonarrative dissonance (the massive gulf between "how things should function in the narrative" and "how things function on the tabletop").

Let me go find a quote from a past post...
Here's one example:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Turn it from a (war)GAME into a WAR(game).

Right now, playing 40k feels like playing a GAME. I'm not re-enacting an epic battle or telling the story of characters on a board.

Captain Krassus screamed into the vox: "All Armageddon Steel Legion, raise high the black banners, now is our time! Fix bayonets!" signaling the epic charge.

BUT he couldn't have predicted the cunning of the Rule System, his true foe:
"Sir, we're out of command points, you can't give orders from within a Chimera!" screamed the driver, as he repeatedly shifted from reverse to forwards, jerkily trying to run Orks over like the zamboni scene in Austin Powers. After all, only a fool would drive past enemy infantry that offered practically no threat and bypass hardened positions with maneuver - and the mechanized units of the Armageddon Steel Legion were no fools!

And thusly on the cusp of victory did the planet of Armageddon fall, defeated not by the cleverness of his foe or superior force or tactics, but by the universal laws which this commander foolishly disregarded when he embarked upon his mechanized transport. Who was he to think he could give orders from a Chimera freely? To be a man in such times...

True. Some rules are so bad they jerk you out of the game. Most of my Catachan squads are equipped with radios. Guess their range? 12 inches! So the officers might as well yell their orders. Had to houserule this trash away asap.

As much as possible but it can be difficult to do so.
I think the most fun I've had with playing an army's character was a HH 1 narrative event with my Traitor Militia. I took masses of infantry backed up by field guns, Malcadors (at that time utterly terrible rules-wise), and a pair of Macharius superheavies. My Ogryns always went for the closest units, my infantry would charge the enemy if they lost most of their unit, and when given the choice between having an enemy secure an objective and destroying it, I destroyed it (the only person to do so I might add). I lost every single game but it is to date the most fun I've had at an event.

It's certainly towards the top of my 10th edition wishlist - that fluffy lists for each faction actually play well and are reasonably competitive.

I'm a little stuck at the moment as my World Eater army was rather decimated by the recent codex and is currently pretty much unplayable.

My Dark Eldar are still more or less in progress, but I was rather disappointed by how much flavour was drained out of them by their latest book. They do at the very least seem to work very well as a ragtag bunch of patrol detachments of different kabals, cults etc...

It is always possible to play in character. I'm hoping they do some things to encourage producing an army that is in character without handing the victory to your opponent.

For example, as much as people hate free wargear, GW has consistently shown and inability to price most wargear at a level that competitive players bother to take it most of the time. The number of barebones Troops tax units in the competitive 40K world is a sad, sad sight for anyone wanting an in character battle.

Crispy78 wrote:
It's certainly towards the top of my 10th edition wishlist - that fluffy lists for each faction actually play well and are reasonably competitive.

I'm a little stuck at the moment as my World Eater army was rather decimated by the recent codex and is currently pretty much unplayable.

My Dark Eldar are still more or less in progress, but I was rather disappointed by how much flavour was drained out of them by their latest book. They do at the very least seem to work very well as a ragtag bunch of patrol detachments of different kabals, cults etc...

I am lucky to have a partner who likes skirmish Drukhari vs. Drukhari set in Commorragh, so we play through a lot of the backstabbing as the subfactions try to advance their own agendas and then I take the united army out to play as a whole against other folks.

The territory system in the Dex is pretty solid, If your ascendant controlls three of the same type of territory, it gives you a campaign advantage (as opposed to a game advantage)- often, a group that is associated with a type of territory (ie. Wyches and Arenas) will earn additional experience. What we do is to see control of a single territory as evidence of a relationship with the group in question, control of two is a deeper relationship, and then three is strong enough to finally grant the buff.

So my Ascendant is an Archon, and because he has secured a Wych Cult Arena, he has found a small cult that's willing to fight in it.

He leads a custom Kabal with Toxin Crafters, so he has an existing business relationship with a Lhamaean. I bent the rules a bit with her- allowing her to own territory- mostly Poison Distilleries, but as it turns out, she has a small Wych Cult too, so his Cult will soon be battling hers in a three round gladiatorial event which will see Wych weapons distributed, Hekatrixes chosen to lead each Cult and in the last match, one of those Hekatrixes will earn the rank of Succubus, and their Cult will be invited to accompany the Archon on his next realspace raid.

The alliance between the Ascendant and the Lhamaean is at the core of this army's design, and their style in battle is a product of this relationship- many of my Battle Honours will be the poison upgrades, which affects my load out.

All the flyers that my army uses are not actually owned by Drukhari.... They are owned by a band of Corsairs. In order to use those Aircraft, my Ascendant has to win control of a Dock Territory they use. Once the alliance is made, these Corsairs are a source of oddities that find their way into Commorragh... Particularly interesting specimens to participate in special Arena battles.

My group always plays the game "in character," though sometimes we will have to stretch to find a reason for a particular tactical necessity.

This is actually very easy to do if you play 2nd ed., because the fluff aligns so perfectly with the rules. Not only that, it has those wonderfully quirky rules like tanks blowing their turrets off and they can kill people by landing land on them, which is always good for a laugh.

Back then, orks could actually shoot, so a bunch of bikes and buggies blazing away was downright terrifying, and then of course someone would wreck and they're at fast speed so and now it's bumper-cars all over the battlefield. Glorious.

We also play games as part of a narrative campaign, so there are situations generally unknown in "normal" 40k where a side realizes the tide has turned and executes a retreat or fighting withdrawal to preserve its forces for a future battle.

I particularly enjoy playing Chaos and Ork commanders. Not my best armies, but they do get all the best lines.

While I agree wholeheartedly with Unit's post above, I did enjoy my infantry-guard lists back in 8th edition.

I generally had 3-4 identical 'platoons' of infantry, consisting of:
- A Heavy Weapon Squad.
- A backline infantry squad with a heavy weapon and plasmagun.
- A mid-range infantry squad with a plasmagun and plasma pistol.
- A frontline infantry squad with a flamer and plasma pistol.
- A commander to lead it.
- [Sometimes an Astropath advisor as well].

Then there were some MT squads to drop in behind enemy lines.
I think lastly there were some sentinels and a Primaris Psyker for a little extra support.

I really loved this army. because each platoon basically acted as its own mini-army and was able to work largely independently from the others.

What's more, the platoons were layered so that enemies generally had to cut through them layer by layer. The frontline squads in particular were expected to die as they absorbed firepower and charging units. But the whole idea was that the layers would act to slow and blunt the enemy advance, wearing them down with sheer attrition and force of numbers.

In fact, another thing that felt appropriate with this army was that everything was expendable. There were no lynchpin units at all (even the units that I only had one of, like the Primaris Psyker, were in no way essential).

It was a lot of fun, whilst also being pretty effective.



In stark contrast to this, we have my Dark Eldar army, where it seems my attempts at 'in character' armies are perpetually stymied by terrible and half-arsed rules.

How about something as simple as an Achon who initially attacks from range and then later deigns to weigh into melee? Sorry, Archons aren't allowed ranged weapons until you take a specific kabal and from that a specific relic pistol... which is crap anyway. Oh and his base melee weapons are so utterly abysmal that not one of them can land even land 2 wounds on a regular Space Marine (on average). So by taking the crummy pistol just to get a ranged weapon, you're severely diminishing opportunities to make him worthwhile in melee. I guess you can take a warlord trait to bring his weapon damage up to par. Everyone loves skipping flavourful options just to get passable weapons on their commander, right?

Alright, let's lower the bar a little, how about Haemonculi with appropriate wargear for the units they're leading? Sorry, wargear is for proper factions. The mad scientist fleshmasters get one loadout that's the worst of all worlds.

Okay, what about an idea I've always been fond of - Archons leading a Court of Mandrakes? Well, the Archon can certainly stand near some Mandrakes. Sadly, if he wants to match their ability to shoot 18" he'll have to jump through the same hoops alluded to above. But then, by doing so, he loses out on any chance to actually buff them. Naturally, his aura doesn't work on them, so the only way to buff them is by taking a different kabal and from that a different artefact. But maybe this one is unfair on the Archon when clearly I should really be taking the Mandrake HQ that my army definitely, definitely has.

It's even worse if I want an Archon leading a unit of Scourges, because Archons can't get wings, nor any other mobility options that could substitute for wings. To say nothing of the aforementioned issue with regard to ranged weapons. Oh and they also can't buff Scourges. Because reasons.

"But Vipoid!" you might well cry. "These are niche uses for the Archon that appeal to you and only you."

Touche. Let us instead examine a more reasonable and classic example - an Archon leading a unit of Trueborn (or Kabalites) in a Raider. I think it would be hard to argue that this is in any way unreasonable. And yet once again we arrive at the question of what exactly the Archon can do for his troops. The Trueborn naturally wish to remain in the Raider. This is a core theme of Dark Eldar - shooting from within their lightning-fast transports. Alas, thousands of years of tradition apparently have yet to sink into the brains of Archons, for they have not a single card they can play to aid this scenario. Their aura doesn't work at all in transports, so they are entirely incapable of aiding their retinue. Moreover, as mentioned twice already, their standard wargear does not include any meaningful ranged weapons. So all they can do is stand on deck, picking their nose, and hoping they get into range to fire off a single Poison 4+ AP0 D1 shot. Truly the trueborn would be lost without their commander.

How about another fun idea - a Succubus leading a Beast Pack. Seems another fun image - a beast-tamer succubus, running into battle amidst her menagerie of demonic and monstrous pets, stolen from other planets and even other dimensions. And beasts are clearly Cult units so (even if you consider the above example unfair), this one will definitely work . . . right? Nope. Even though Succubi can use drugs to keep up with their beasts, they have absolutely no way to buff them. Nor even can a Succubus substitute for a Beast Master (conversely, Beast Masters can't be warlords and virtually all the wargear is off-limits, so nor can you run a Beast Master as a pseudo-Succubus).

Well what about something more basic?
Succubi with Hellions? No skyboard so no way to keep up with them.
Reavers? No Jetbike so no way to keep up with them.

As a final example, let's look at the Kabal of the Poison Tongue. It's army-wide benefit is a buff to Poison Weapons. Clearly, then, a natural pairing would be with Lhamaeans - members of an Archon's Court who specialise in toxins. Except not because the Poison Tongue buff doesn't actually help them at all. It doesn't help the poison weapons they wield, and it even interacts awkwardly with the buff they provide (Poison Tongue makes it easier to wound with Poison weapons, but the Lhamaean's buff lets units skip the wounding step on 6s to hit).

The point I'm trying to make is that the DE codex is so rigid and so lacking in options that it's very awkward and unrewarding to deviate from the handful of permitted interactions (Archon goes with Incubi, Succubus goes with Wyches, Haemonculus goes in the bin because Drazhar is so much better, etc.). So many fun interactions are just vetoed from the outset. Even a lot of classic ones, like the standard gunboat, just plain don't work.

Honestly, it seems like every time I conceive of a build that might be interesting, GW yells "Nein! You must only use those units in ze designated vey!".

I punish myself pretty frequently playing a SM Scout list, just because I love the idea of noob neophytes overcoming all odds and whoever survives just might become a Space Marine later.

Hmmm....well, since Mad Doc specifically said "codex" I'm assuming the question pertains specifically to current 9th edition 40k? If so, then the answer is "No", for my Night Lords.

First off, the 9th edition CSM codex completely removed the ability to give Chaos Lords and Sorcerers jump packs. That's a big hit for the "Flyboy Legion". Secondly, yeah, there's some "Fear" mechanics in the Legion trait, but the 9th edition Morale mechanics just don't make it "fun" for me, personally. Forcing a few more models to dissappear in the Morale phase just isn't fun or interesting, to me. Never mind that it is just ineffective against some factions.

In contrast, in HH, I can give my characters jump packs, or bikes, or jet bikes, if I want. Massive plus from the get go. And I also have plenty of Fear, which is both more effective and fun, IMHO. Forcing units to fall back, or be Pinned, is just more interesting to me. And it helps that my Legion gets bonuses against any unit that I force into those positions (from both A Talent For Murder and Bloody Murder). Throw in the bonuses for outnumbering from A Talent For Murder, and it really makes my army feel like a bunch of bullies that like to "Prey on the Week", as it were.

Then there's the fact that HH has a very strong Night Fighting mechanic, and no one can leverage that like the 8th Legion. The ability to give any unit Night Vision for 15 points, from my infantry squads up to my super heavies, really makes them feel like the true "Lords of the Night".

Finally, the fact that I have not one, but two available terminator squads with in built Deep Strike (a bit of a rarity in HH), and how leveraging all of that Fear and Night Fighting can amp up a deep strike, really gives them that "shock assault" feel, which is something that they're known for.

So, in short: In current 40k? No. In HH? Absolutely. Which is one of the many reasons that I left 40k behind for the greener pastures (IMO) of HH.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

In contrast, in HH, I can give my characters jump packs, or bikes, or jet bikes, if I want. Massive plus from the get go. And I also have plenty of Fear, which is both more effective and fun, IMHO. Forcing units to fall back, or be Pinned, is just more interesting to me. And it helps that my Legion gets bonuses against any unit that I force into those positions (from both A Talent For Murder and Bloody Murder). Throw in the bonuses for outnumbering from A Talent For Murder, and it really makes my army feel like a bunch of bullies that like to "Prey on the Week", as it were.

Then there's the fact that HH has a very strong Night Fighting mechanic, and no one can leverage that like the 8th Legion. The ability to give any unit Night Vision for 15 points, from my infantry squads up to my super heavies, really makes them feel like the true "Lords of the Night".

Finally, the fact that I have not one, but two available terminator squads with in built Deep Strike (a bit of a rarity in HH), and how leveraging all of that Fear and Night Fighting can amp up a deep strike, really gives them that "shock assault" feel, which is something that they're known for.

So, in short: In current 40k? No. In HH? Absolutely. Which is one of the many reasons that I left 40k behind for the greener pastures (IMO) of HH.

Do you think GW could be persuaded to add the other factions to HH? Then we could all migrate and play that instead.

 vipoid wrote:

Spoiler:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

In contrast, in HH, I can give my characters jump packs, or bikes, or jet bikes, if I want. Massive plus from the get go. And I also have plenty of Fear, which is both more effective and fun, IMHO. Forcing units to fall back, or be Pinned, is just more interesting to me. And it helps that my Legion gets bonuses against any unit that I force into those positions (from both A Talent For Murder and Bloody Murder). Throw in the bonuses for outnumbering from A Talent For Murder, and it really makes my army feel like a bunch of bullies that like to "Prey on the Week", as it were.

Then there's the fact that HH has a very strong Night Fighting mechanic, and no one can leverage that like the 8th Legion. The ability to give any unit Night Vision for 15 points, from my infantry squads up to my super heavies, really makes them feel like the true "Lords of the Night".

Finally, the fact that I have not one, but two available terminator squads with in built Deep Strike (a bit of a rarity in HH), and how leveraging all of that Fear and Night Fighting can amp up a deep strike, really gives them that "shock assault" feel, which is something that they're known for.

So, in short: In current 40k? No. In HH? Absolutely. Which is one of the many reasons that I left 40k behind for the greener pastures (IMO) of HH.

Do you think GW could be persuaded to add the other factions to HH? Then we could all migrate and play that instead.

It is my sincere hope, Vipoid. I'd even settle for fandexexes, and I know that the Liber Panoptica team (a fan team that has added tons of FAQs and rules adjustments that gw should have done by now, as well as new units for already existing HH factions such as the Legions and Mechanicum) is planning a full Eldar fandex. I look forward to it, and any other Xenos content that can be added, either official, or otherwise.

I'd agree the current DE book just feels incredibly mechanical. There's very little fluff backing - or even open rules interactions - that would encourage at sort of... idiosyncratic list. I don't think its very un-fluffy exactly, but it doesn't feel especially like the fluff either.

In my view at least Archons and Succubi getting bikes or jetpacks etc wouldn't change that.

I think they need a big release to expand the faction. Maybe they'll get one in 2024 or 2025.

The thing is I really liked the Covens supplement in 7th edition. It wasn't ever especially powerful - but it was fun. It fired the fluffy and Johnny parts of my brain. By contrast I'd kind of like them to chuck 8th and 9th's incarnation in the bin and start again. Don't make DE awful again - because that wasn't great - but reimagine the codex as something more than just a bunch of rules piled on rules.

We'll see how things go in the 10th indexes. I think there's a good chance Beasts+Court are just gone.

Or, just end the absolute idiocy of NMNR, and allow Dark Eldar players to customize their characters to reflect their preferred playstyles/fluff.

Edit: And players of other factions, of course.

I’m broadly in favour of characters just getting their options back, regardless of which army they’re from.

Even with NMNR, which I fully understand as a concept, just….make the sodding model. We know GW has a staggering capacity to churn out entirely new kits, and their past few year end results demonstrate they’ve also got the cash resources to Chuck at it too.

At the very, very least? Have specific Hero Champion Leader Types on a Bike, Jump Pack, Skyboard etc, as a reflection troops specialising in that type of combat can rise in the ranks too.

Tyel wrote:
I'd agree the current DE book just feels incredibly mechanical. There's very little fluff backing - or even open rules interactions - that would encourage at sort of... idiosyncratic list. I don't think its very un-fluffy exactly, but it doesn't feel especially like the fluff either.

I think it's a case of GW trying to make DE players take ""fluffy"" lists by eating the carrot and beating them to death with the stick.

The army-building rules and general mechanics seem far, far more rigid than those of any other faction in the game.

Tyel wrote:
In my view at least Archons and Succubi getting bikes or jetpacks etc wouldn't change that.

I don't actually disagree.

I think a skyboard/jetbike would be a nice option for the Succubus but the issues with the codex go way, way beyond that.

Tyel wrote:

The thing is I really liked the Covens supplement in 7th edition. It wasn't ever especially powerful - but it was fun. It fired the fluffy and Johnny parts of my brain. By contrast I'd kind of like them to chuck 8th and 9th's incarnation in the bin and start again. Don't make DE awful again - because that wasn't great - but reimagine the codex as something more than just a bunch of rules piled on rules.

Oh yeah, that supplement was wonderful fun. I think my favourite addition was the Dark Artisan formation. It was a really cool way to run those models.

Tyel wrote:
We'll see how things go in the 10th indexes. I think there's a good chance Beasts+Court are just gone.

It wouldn't surprise me, sadly. And since the codex has lost models every edition, it would just be following the pattern at this point.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Or, just end the absolute idiocy of NMNR, and allow Dark Eldar players to customize their characters to reflect their preferred playstyles/fluff.

FWIW, if DE got a bunch of new units and options in the codex, but no new models, I would still be perfectly happy.

It's a hell of a lot easier to convert models to represent units than it is to make, playtest and cost rules for models that don't exist and to then get my opponent to permit said rules each and every game.

@vipoid: which is another thing that contrasts 40k and HH. Just look at the myriad of options for Mechanicum HQs that are unsupported by models, or the almost entirety of the SoS list. Gw can do without the stupidity of the NMNR concept, it seems, just not for 40k.

I imagine for 10th, if thematic detachments will be replacing named sub-factions, that CSM will probably get stuff like detachments with names like Diabolists for Word Bearers, Lords of Terror for Night Lords, Infiltrators for Alpha Legion, Siege Masters for Iron Warriors, and Warriors of Excess for the Emperor's Children. This final one will probably go away when the EC get their own faction rules. The Black Legion might get named rules because they are the CSM poster boys, but we might instead get something like Heirs to the Warmaster or Dark Crusaders.

Lots of talk about DE, with Vipoid at one end, myself at the other, and most folks somewhere on Vipoid's side of the line. While I'm stoked about my DE Crusade, this doesn't mean I don't agree with a lot of what Vipoid said.

Particularly about options- especially ranged weapons for Archons and Haemonculi. I could see a Succubus on a bike or a board.

Drukhari army building rules frustrate a lot of people but I really like them, and I think adding the Realspace Raid rules was a real improvement from 8th to 9th, Now, at least if you don't like the 3 patrol gimmick, you have another option.

I like the fact that Trueborn and Bloodbrides are back and that they've got Haemoxocytes to go with them; I like that there a Master Variants for Achons, Succubi and Haemonculi- it isn't quite the same as having unit entries for those things, but it's better than not having those things at all.

And I'll admit that Drukhari would be nowhere near as fun as they are if I wasn't playing Crusade- the Battle Honours and Requisition strats (which are permanent in Crusade) really make up for a lot of the missing options. And I'm doubly lucky to have the capacity to do all the little Commorrite skirmish battles that really glue the story together.

And I do, of course, realize that most people don't have that option.

Can I play my armies in fluffy ways? Let's see...

Drukhari:
+Some of their options (Cursed Blade making the enemy functionally kill themselves, Helm of Spite punishing the enemy for trying to cast a power, etc.) feel really appropriate.
+ It's possible (easier even) to run a cult or coven army whereas our first codex sort of forced you to play kabal or a mix of the three.
- Ever dwindling character customization options make it increasingly difficult to play a variety of army themes (as described by vipoid.) This includes a mix of cult/coven/kabal. I know we can do it, but having a haemonculus hanging out with my wyches while they sat next to an archon used to be a perfectly viable and even synergistic unit back in the day.
- 9th edition transport rules have kind of taken away a lot of their "speed." Back in the day, moving a transport forward, hopping out, running, and then charging all in one turn made us feel crazy fast. Now we just don't "feel" fast. The lack of defensive bonuses from moving flat out, jinking, etc. doesn't help with this. I think our speed-as-defense is pretty much just a -1 to-hit strat and doge saves on wyches.
- Despite secondary objectives being a thing, 9th edition missions still usually force you to dogpile units onto objectives (even making you dsiembark from raiders if you need to utilize obsec or bring more bodies into play). So drukhari (who basically don't care about taking ground in the fluff) are forced to die in droves to take and hold objectives. Compare to older editions (which had their own flaws) where drukhari generally ended up playing a very careful range game to kite as much of the enemy as possible while still trying to take out key targets.
- Power From Pain encourages me to hold back and let my pain batteries charge rather than using my speed to get my pain-starved murder junkies into the enemy's face. Compare to the 5th edition pain token system where you wanted to get at least one pain token ASAP because it made your unit more survivable.

So overall... eh. Drukhari don't feel awful, but they also don't feel nearly as fluffy as they used to. They very much give me the impression that GW realizes they fethed them over with the 7th edition codex and made an honest attempt to correct it, but they could still stand to take a few stabs at improvement.

Craftworlders:
+ Psykers don't explode any more, so that's nice.
+ The return of move-shoot-move (via Battle Focus) really lets them feel like a fast army that will use its agility to minimize casualties.
+Army feels smallish with limited numbers, especially if you go the wraith host route.
- My subfaction specifically (Iybraesil) is known for using banshees in place of rangers/guardians, and that's currently not really supported due to the rule of 3 and banshees being Elites. But that's a pretty niche complaint.
- Primaris have kind of been encroaching on our niche as the fast-and-specialized army, but less so since the latest codex.
- See above about eldar not taking ground. For the same reasons Battle Focus is fluffy for letting me avoid return fire, 9th edition missions are unfluffy for forcing me to toss bodies out in the open to stand on objectives.

Overall, craftworlders feel pretty fluffy.

Harlequins:
As much as I love harlies, as time goes on, I wonder more and more if they're just not well-suited to being a full army. Every time I lose a starweaver to an enemy gunline, I find myself wondering why my super sneaky clowns with basically illussion tech, stealth psychic powers, and the ability to hop out of thin air via the webway are rushing a gunline en masse in the first place.

As excited as I was about harlies getting their own codex, I do feel it would probably be fluffier to treat them as a small number of units you splash into a larger force, and give them rules to make them hard to target until they're the closest thing to the enemy. Make them really good at sewing discord an dperforming assassinations, but only while they can hide in the shadow of a more conventional army. (Or just make them a kill team or something.)

Alpha Legion (using Death Watch/Raven Guard/IG/GSC rules)
+Decent variety of toys to reflect the variety of tech and mutations you find in chaos.
+Primaris stats feel about right for astartes durability in general, and the pricetag makes them less numerous.
- The RGs' "sneaky" rules don't feel all that sneaky. The DW "sneaky" rules are quite a bit better, but I'd love something more like the GSC blip system.
- Fluff-wise, it's a little bit weird that my marines are always engaged in straight up, relatively uncertain conflicts. I'd enjoy having some sort of "fortification" option for landmines or something so that I can show off their traps/cleverness and field fewer bodies.

Overall, pretty fluffy (if not very competitive). Though you'll notice I'm using 4 different codices to represent my Alpha Legion, and none of those books are Codex: CSM.

Thousand Sons
+Psykers everywhere
+The Sorcery Point system makes their casting feel more flexible and organic.
-The gap between rubricae and normal marines has shrunk, especially when you look at intercessors with doctrines (same AP as my inferno bolters.)
- Kind of feels like I'm missing some anti-tank. Like, I should either be able to field mortal artillery en masse, or my psykers should be able to throw around strong enough psychic powers to disable enemy artillery from across the table.
- My psykers end up feeling kind of same-y, especially if I'm leaning on them to take up the slack for my lack of ranged anti-tank. This would be alleviated by getting rid of the cults as subfactiosn and just letting me include a time guy and a deception guy and so forth in the same army without penalty. I like the fluff of the cults, but these are supposed to be wizard nerds who are obsessed with gaining a bunch of unique tricks and powers. Alternatively, let more than one psyker cast the same power each turn. If we're all in the time cult, and that's a big enough deal to be our subfaction, then maybe more than one guy should be allowed to use the time cult power.

Overall... I don't know. They're in an okay place, but it feels like their abilities/data sheets are limited to the point that they're missing something. If I'm supposed to be fielding a handful of wizard knights leading a horde of mortals (War of the Fang style), then I'm missing the mortals. If I'm supposed to be playing a bunch of wizards using their exotic mish mash of weird magic... then my wizards feel too samey and limited in their available powers, and the daemon engines feel too copy+paste.

In general, I feel like the fluffyness of armies is a real mixed bag. I was hoping that doctrine-slot abilities (if we must have them) would be used to make one army feel really different from the next by giving an army its own little sub-system. I feel like GSC and Thousand Sons did this pretty well with their blips and sorcery points, but most of the doctrine slot abilities are just too generic to be fluffy, even when they aren't just some variation on "kill more betterer." Like, doctrines themselves only very abstractly tell me anything about marines (although super doctrines tend to be a bit more flavorful.) Strands of Fate for eldar don't make me feel like someone saw the future and pulled it into being; they just feel like an alternative way of handling the same thing my Farseer's powers are supposed to represent. Power From Pain (which probably shouldn't be a doctrine-slot ability in the first place) encourages me to slow down and stall rather than going for the throat and feels soooo much less visceral than the 5th edition version of the same rule. Sacred Rites (or whatever sisters have) and the necron dynastic codes thing both just feel like a random grab bag of buffs.

Basically, it feels like the need to make all these doctrine-slot abilities work in tournament games forced them to go with some ultimately kind of bland mechanics rather than something more unique and flavorful. Like, as annoying and terrible a rule as Phase Out (for necrons) was, look at how much more fluffy it was than their whole "pick a turn to get each of these buffs." Old Power From Pain was annoying in its own way (token tracking), but soooo much fluffier than current PFP. Craftworlders being allowed to take jetbikes, wraiths, or aspect warriors did way more to allow for fluffy Saim-Hann, Iyanden, and Biel-Tan/Iybraesil armies than Strands of Fate is doing right now. But I'm rambling and should just stop now.

Works pretty well for Necrons I'd say, I really like that my units aren't forced to go to ground or fall back. I can't really come up with playstyles or rules that I've used in my last few games that made me feel like I was not playing Necrons. Maybe the new rule for aircraft that makes Nightscythes really terrible transports, coming in turn 3 feels inappropriate for units transported in a Nightscythe since Nightscythes are often used for reconnaissance. I don't think Necrons should Advance, tesla carbines and gauss reapers encourage it.

 alextroy wrote:
It is always possible to play in character. I'm hoping they do some things to encourage producing an army that is in character without handing the victory to your opponent.

For example, as much as people hate free wargear, GW has consistently shown and inability to price most wargear at a level that competitive players bother to take it most of the time. The number of barebones Troops tax units in the competitive 40K world is a sad, sad sight for anyone wanting an in character battle.

People hate free wargear because they don't just want to use thunder hammers and multi-meltas, but also flamers and power swords. Creating 300 sets of equivalent sets of wargear options is impossible and anti-flavour. I'm pretty certain that's what GW has attempted with 10th, at least I'll be able to say I told you so when a hundred pieces of wargear turns out to be clearly worse.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
How do!

Slightly difficult topic to explain, but maybe because I’m overthinking it. But it’s whether you feel your preferred race/faction can be fielded in a way you consider consistent with their described background?

I guess in other words, do the curtains of your codex match the bedsheets of your background?

Now I’m not gonna start defining “background accurate” here, because whilst some things are pretty set, so much is open to not only personal interpretation and preference, but there are now so many sources I think that’d be a very poor way to kick things off. In return, I ask those contributing to this thread aren’t telling anyone else “that are not how Army X be” etc.

This is partially inspired by my frustration with the Tyranid Codexes of old. See, my understanding on Nids is the Swarm Is A Whole. Ickle bugs, middling bugs, big bugs, oooooh feth bugs. All present and horribly genetically correct. Yet thanks to often overpacked Elites, I could never quite engineer a list to satisfy the vision in my head. Rather I had to decide Ickle or Big focus, with no particular middle ground. At least not if I wanted an army which could actually get the job done.

Right. Hopefully I’ve set the scene adequately without being overly restrictive.

I'd say most of them come close, but none of them are really close enough which is probably the sweet spot. I'd guess Bugs and Guard have the same problem most of the time. They seem to be frequently mirrors of each other with armored company mirroring the big bugs. Part of the problem is the problem GW has had forever. If they have to make you take troops, troops aren't good enough to take. Its like tanks in MMOG PVP. If Tanks need Taunt in PVE, they're probably not going to be good in PVP. I think this new edition is going to absolutely suck, but maybe they'll figure out what to do with troops.