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.

Realistically anyone running Stormlance will likely think of their army as White Scars. It doesn't diminish what White Scars are if someone else uses them as Imperial Fists. In reality I don't think anyone will do this. People will look at units and perhaps they really like bikes. So they pick Stormlance. And then they read about marines and here are these guys who love bikes, too...and a WS player is born.

Stormlance is a bad example. Because no one is running. It is suppose to be White Scars, but because GW removed all the bike characters and units from the codex, it rules don't even support a potential army build. I don't think that a WS player or the WS community care, if some crazy IH player switches to play a bike army as a meme. Maybe they could be a little bit unhappy that after doing that he can go back to play a regular IH build, and they can't, because their regular sucks/is bad.

A better example of how this "a free option for all" is the Venguard list. The RG detachment, doesn't do much to build an efficient RG list. Or even play venguard units. But take them instead as ultramarines, with ultramarine special characters, load up on centurions and aggressors. And suddenly a RG player may start thinking, why are ultramarine players give a better RG? And it can go cross factions too. My dudes were suppose to be the teleport army. HUGE cuts taken to balance the abilities. Damage dropped to practicaly no damage, both in shoting and melee. And then Necron get their codex and the GK army rule is suddenly just a detachment for them. And they have better units, better rules, better synergies, better damage, no where in the codex does it seem as if the designer though that in order to balance the ability to teleport, everything has to be nerfed. Ah and for some reason they can teleport vehicles and we can no. Even ones that have litteral teleport packs mounted on them.

No player of an army is happy to see his army be bad, but they get a lot more unhappy, when they see the same design team write good rules. And it really reaches new levels of unhappy, when the designers do it to a different army in the same codex.

I'll say it again: "GW did an idea badly" is not the same as "An idea is bad".

Dudeface 812953 11640155 wrote:

I'm confused. Your argument makes it sound like you agree, you shouldn't be punished for playing the way you want to play with what you want to play irrespective of what chapter your minis visually identify with. Flavour being added via characters and other unique options. Did I read that right?

Shoulds don't matter. What matters is what GW does and how they write their rules. Should GW write good rules, that represent faction fantasy of a faction and have , which more or less is a very GW games specific term, no trap units or even armies? Yes of course. But that is not how they write rules.

We all know that, aside for marines, once your codex is writen you are done with the rules for that edition. The number of large scale fixes or changes are extremly rare per edition. How long will it take for GW to fix an army like Ad Mecha. One that already has the codex out, and was bad since the start of the edition? There won't be any new book coming in 10th. And GW doesn't do large changes, for some factions they don't do it, even for a index to codex switch. Maybe GW fixes them in a year, aka 2/3 in to the edition, that is assuming they get lucky as a faction in 10th.
We know that no bike models, characters etc are planned for this edition for marines. Which more or less means White Scars players are not going to have an army till minimum 11th ed. In general for supposed favourism, GW does the marine changes with the speed of a snail. If they wanted to phase out marines, they could have done it through out a single edition, tops 2. And not spread it over 4. Non marine full updates are sometimes good, sometimes not, but at least they don't take three or four times as much as an avarge dude plays the game.

What I would want is for GW do not just have one or two pet army projects from someone people in the design studio, and the rest of the armies being done as a copy paste. This creates only confusion, huge imbalances and stuff gets missed, because some dude with a spreadsheet working on a codex or index "forgets/doesn't" know what faction he is working on. I could write another page about my dudes, but people don't like that. So let me just point at the ad mecha codex. I don't know who wrote it, who said okey to it, who playtested it etc But the person in charge clearly thought that the faction about robots and robot humans, shouldn't have a valid robot army. But hey the studio did the same to tau in prior edition, maybe it was even the same people


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JNAProductions wrote:
I'll say it again: "GW did an idea badly" is not the same as "An idea is bad".

Yes, but we play with GW rules, within GW created limitations to stuff like gear, army updates, terrain (important for those that have their own/store owners/tournament orgenisers etc). GW ain't a kid, who decided that it would be fun to take a cousin sleding, and it somehow ended with the cousin missing half his teeth and a scar mid face. They are a gaming company, the biggest in the world with 40years of expiriance. I know them for three editions, and to me it looks like every edition GW has to learn again that A LoS ignoring shoting is stupid, when it does max dmg B roll modification in an game where procs and on roll effects happen are impossible to quantify with points C Current year is not 1980 and we are not playing a historical table top game with a Rules Master and narrative goal to the game.
Companies are judged by effects and results, not on what they hope or wish for. In real life, maybe , and this is a big maybe, only parents judge their kids based on hopes and wishes. And even those that do only to a certain age. I have my doubts a 40 years old can told his mom and dad, It went bad, but I had good intentions.

 Daedalus81 wrote:


I feel like a lot of this sentiment revolves around "my guys can do this cool thing and your guys can't so it makes my choice more unique and special". Kind of a purity test, I guess? I'm not saying these are anyone's words.

This one made me think a bit- you know, examine my own motivations to see if I might fit this description. I don't think I do.

Because the thing is, it's not JUST about my choice being special. It's about knowing that all of my possible opponents ALSO have things that are special for their subfaction. Because it's about believing that ALL subfactions deserve an identity hook that is their signature and which affects how they operate. And I believe the point is best illustrated by examining factions that AREN'T marines, because marines have had distinct subfaction abilities that affect how they play on the field since 2nd.

But man, as a Sisters player, for whom it has NEVER mattered whether I chose Bloody Rose or Sacred Rose, it really made me feel almost as privileged as marines have always been for that choice to finally fething mean something. In order to go all the way, of course, my broad faction range would have to include 150+ kits with a chunk of those being dedicated to subfaction, and maybe an entire spin-off game set in the Age of Apostasy...

But having my subfaction choice mean something was a good start. And knowing that everyone else's subfaction choice mattered too was a huge part of my satisfaction, because I don't JUST play Sisters. Generally, I find that the less other stuff a faction has, the more important having subfactions was- like the choice between Hereticus, Malleus or Xenos was EVERYTHING to an Inquisition force.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Someone playing "IF" could certainly run Stormlance ( as one example ) and it might feel weird, but it's not outside the scope of possibility that the jack of all trades marines can pivot. Horus Heresey IF likely still run Scimitar Jetbikes I'd bet even if more players lean heavy on vehicles or terminators.

How might one run a fluffy IF bike list in 40K?

Well, IF love bolters. Outriders have those. An ATV with a gatling fits the mold, too. Like all marine detachments they can use AoC - durability fits. Then there's Blitzing Fusillade, which grants Assault and SH1 - more bolter hits = good. IF should love to run a flying brick as well. Stormlance provides a -1 to be hit and -1 to be wounded strat that gels nicely with it's -1D. A super durable beefcake flyer? Totally.

So three strats that fit how IF might operate on a slightly more mobile list. Would it be the best list ever? No, but that shouldn't matter.

And I think the second option is absolutely awesome- it illustrates what I was talking about in an earlier post- non-White Scar bikers are not "Bad" - they're just NOT White Scar Bikers. And if both of us agree that that IS a fluffier choice, and that it is not objectively "Bad," then why can we not also agree that the detachment that was created to represent White Scars is better reserved for White Scars in most, if not all games... And especially those that are classified as "narrative?"

Now all that being said...

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Realistically anyone running Stormlance will likely think of their army as White Scars. It doesn't diminish what White Scars are if someone else uses them as Imperial Fists. In reality I don't think anyone will do this. People will look at units and perhaps they really like bikes. So they pick Stormlance. And then they read about marines and here are these guys who love bikes, too...and a WS player is born.

I do generally agree with this, and it's important for me to remember it. In MOST cases, people probably will choose to stick to the fluffier way, and certainly the circle I game with would, so as long as the detachments in the upcoming dexes continue to allow us to do that, I won't notice this as much as it feels like I will while I'm participating in online debate rather than actually playing.

So yeah, checking my own righteous indignation every now and again is probably healthy.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

I suspect people miss the really strong combinations and that's what is meant by heavily sanitized.

Not really, because the combo still exists- it's just DETACHMENT rule + Army rule + Enhancement + Strat + Leader rule + Datacard rule instead of SUBFACTION rule + Army rule + Enhancement + Strat + Leader rule + Datacard rule.

We haven lost combos at all. What we've lost is a guarantee that our opponent's abilities will be at least somewhat consistent with their subfaction identity, because ONE element in the combo is dependent upon subfaction identity.

I think part of the issue here is the question of SHOULD subfactions play differently or should it be only a cosmetic choice of colors and maybe some special characters?

If we look at the far back times of 2nd edition, Marines as a whole were Ultramarines (i.e. any codex compliant Marine chapter) that weren't Space Wolves, Dark Angels, or Blood Angels; in these days Raven Guard, iron Hands, Templars, et all were just Ultramarines painted differently and you had no special rules to make your chapter unique (I believe the only special characters were Ultramarines, but I could be mistaken). Same for Chaos, which Legion you were was superfluous and had no bearing on anything, they all played identically and color was just an aesthetic choice, although you did have like Abaddon, Kharn, Ahriman, Fabius Bile and Huron Blackheart as characters. Same with Eldar and craftworlds; they didn't matter and all Eldar played identically.

Fast-forward to 3rd edition. Now we start getting special rules for subfactions come in. The big reason the Chaos 3.5 codex, to this day, is considered the best codex GW ever wrote is because every legion played differently. Night Lords didn't play like Alpha Legion, who didn't play like Iron Warriors. Your choice legion was as much a statement of what you wanted out of the army as a player as it was how you approached the game.

But is that good or bad? Is the difference between them large enough that they should be almost their own unique armies? Or should they play similarly as a single faction and have the color, once again, be a matter of taste rather than determining what set of abilities you get to use? It used to be that your choice of subfaction, yes including colors, was an important one to you and not one to be taken lightly. It wasn't tied to power, so it meant you were invested in the subfaction because you liked it, and not simply because it was the "best" choice and power on the table is the limit of you interest in it.

I know in the past it bothered me intensely to see someone with an Ultramarine army, painted and themed as ultramarines, but using Iron Hands rules because those happened to be the "meta" choice; it completely rubbed me the wrong way and immediately made me think the person was a power-gaming weasel because it's clear they want Ultramarines but don't want to deal with any consequences for picking Ultramarines over Iron Hands However, this once again brings up the point of what, if anything, should determine your subfaction? Is it just a playstyle, similar to the 10th edition Marine codex where detachments, despite any obvious subfaction they might hint at, are purely a tactical choice? Or should it be more than that?

 AnomanderRake wrote:
My thesis, on the original question, is that GW was trying to reset bloat. 40k has had three big burn-it-down-and-start-over moments in its past, in 3e, 8e, and 10e, all of which happened because the edition before was or was perceived to be bloated beyond usability. In trying to reset the bloat while also trying to preserve their bare-bones core mechanics they've produced a game that doesn't really have much substance left.

I'd disagree that 2nd-to-3rd was a de-bloat change. GW wanted to get people to play bigger games (so they buy more), and accepted that the more detailed/fiddly rules of 2nd were hindering that. The engine itself was fine (as seen in Necromunda or Gorkamorka), but the scale they were aiming for meant they needed to zoom out a bit in terms of the mechanics.

I'd agree that at least part of the intent around 7th-to-8th and 9th-to-10th is debloating, though whether GW have learned or applied the right lessons when doing this is definitely up for debate.

I feel that there’s a bunch of management oversight on 40k that prevents the design team from really branching out and doing new things. Even during 3rd edition Andy Chambers felt massively constrained when writing rules, and IIRC he was blocked from making 4th edition have alternating activations.

Fast forward to today and 10th has a lot of things that sound good to managers, but may not really be what players want. For example: one-in-one-out is exactly something the suits would love, or only one army rule per faction, or the dreaded “simplified not simple”. Dropping war gear costs also makes writing rules faster and cheaper so that could be an incentive to do so. I suspect stratagems are one of the only things the new studio actually managed to get past the filters and that’s why they’re so prevalent. We can see too that Eldar lost classic abilities like Battle Focus in favor of the new Fate Dice, most likely because it’s something the new studio came up with, which got the green light, and they want to celebrate that success by keeping it.

So to reiterate, 10th potentially had quite a bit of managerial oversight that prevented it from actually doing cool things.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Arbiter_Shade wrote:
You really went out of your way to pad out the difference between one additional dead terminator as somehow meaningful choice. The Infernal Master is a better choice, you even left out that Infernal Master grants two cabal points to the sorcerers one.

A harder choice is between an Exalted Sorcerer and an Infernal Master but it is clear based one what you want out of the squad. If you want some more staying power you go Exalted, you want more killing power you go Infernal Master.

The terminator count is a demonstration that the a-typical Infernal Master choice isn't the be-all end-all regardless of cabal points.

To carry the problem further and bring it back to "list building decision making within 10th" --

The best placing TS list ( WWWLWW ) in LVO ran 11 characters : Ahriman, Magnus, 2 Exalteds, 3 Exalteds on Disc, IM, 3 Shamans. The guy right behind him ( WWWWWL ) ran Magnus, Ahriman, IM, DP w/ Wings, and 2 Sorcerers. The next guy ( WLWWWW ) was fewer characters still, but double mutalith double forgefiend.

Even Eldar lists don't run the same things. There's a significant amount of variety.

An exalted provides a 4++ and will resurrect a model per turn ( unless he hurts the unit or you spike a 6, but those outcomes wash ). My nemesis the nightspinner who sits in the corner and wants to open up my backfield doesn't care at all about an invulnerable either from regular shots or spiking devastating wounds. There is no better protection than not being able to be targeted. For the 4++ to matter it needs to be AP3 weapons, which is generally melee territory ( Deathguard ) and I don't want to be in melee.

On the point of battleshock, you can pull out what ever anecdotes you want but I have yet to see it make a difference in a game. I concede that it may potentially make or break a game but I think it is a terrible mechanic that is just so empty of significant impact that I think it to be a terrible rule. I though Fearless wounds were dumb in 5th but that was a better mechanic than battleshock.

I think a lot of people look for it to swing games. It shouldn't really do that often, because it'd create a win more situation where the army that's ahead stays ahead.

I see, you are missing my point. Choosing units when your detachments spell out what units you take in order to even benefit from the rule is an illusion of choice tied directly to the detachment. Yes, you proved your point that you can build more than one list and do well. Great, that isn't really anything I ever argued against; My point is that when building an army once I have picked my detachment my choices are spelled out for me and there is no way to customize my units past that.

I really like the concept of the Assimilation Swarm but when I go to build the list my eyes just glaze over and I don't even care anymore. Detachments now are so open ended with options while at the same time being so laser focused on what you ought to take the choice of what models to take feels artificial. I truely miss the day when I had to choose between boyz or toys so to speak.

Dudeface wrote:

Breton wrote:

Sure it was.

Dudeface wrote:
all it meant was that if combinations of made up rules made little timmys unit A too good

the people who disagree with you are children power gamers trying to make Unit A too good.

You're really reaching here. Are you denying that people changed "chapter rules" to fit with their play style? That chapter rules were oddly restricting to some players? That marines gained more flexibility and options in list construction through keyword choice than other forces?

If you want to answer no to those, I'd honestly tell you that you've been very sheltered if you haven't encountered meta list blue iron hands because they're "totally fluffy for my ultramarine dread army" etc.

The current method benefits more people including marine players, than the few who played strictly to the exact fluff their rules reinforced.

No, I'm denying your attempt to classify those people who liked the deeper more complex system as children who power game wasn't meant to be an insult to bolster your argument.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
My thesis, on the original question, is that GW was trying to reset bloat.

I would posit they were trying to cater to the people who called it bloat. And I take no little amount of schadenfreude watching some of them now complain about how shallow the current edition is because their subfaction lost its identity. Any given army in 10th probably has about the same number of rules it had before - they're just arranged differently. The rules played Musical Chairs. Instead of Doctrines, Chapter Tactics, Super Doctrines, and Strats we have Faction Abilities, USRs, Dets, Unit Bespokes, Strats, and so on. The problem is the new seating arrangement resolves to far fewer unique combinations that provided the subfaction flavor.

More complex? Sure.
Deeper? Hard disagree.

 Bosskelot wrote:
Simplifying the Marine rules was one of the actual simplification efforts that was sorely needed.

No it wasn't.

The fact the accessible beginner faction couldn't move their basic infantry model without triggering like 5 different rules was an absurdity.

Yes they could. At best they had to deal with their current Doctrine (in the phase before they moved) and may or may not have had to interface with their Chapter tactic. BT had I think one benefit in one super doctrine choice in the movement phase. We had to stretch for 3. In the light of the full moon. After sacrificing a goat. Only if your opponent wiggles their fingers.

The issue is GW took that and then applied it to every faction, even the ones who historically have always had lots of unique mechanics. No Aeldari, Drukhari or GSC player was complaining that their army was too complicated,

Neither were the marine players- just the people who hated the Marine players. You can tell because they only wanted the nerfbat to hit Marines and not their faction.

but they all got hit with this absurd "You Get One Army Special Rule" nonsense that just hobbles 10th. In fact Marines in 8th and 9th were all more complicated, or just had more layers of stacking rules, than those armies which was just bizarre.

Of course rather than fixing that singular problem everyone else got hit too. Collective punishment in Games Design; you love to see it.

I'm surprised noone pointed out that was coming. Oh wait.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Breton wrote:
Except It's not - A: Its everybody not just Fists, and B: Its a shallow shadow of their previous flavor. The point/appeal of the Tactics and Super Doctrines etc. was to differentiate the different chapters using the same playbook. How it changed how they were built and play. A unit of Aggressors from the Imperial Fists and the Salamanders was likely to look very different. Fists were more likely to take Devastators than Raven Guard because Fists got a specific bonus to Devs, while Ravenguard were more likely to use their bonus in hand to hand thus favoring Jump Packers.

I feel like a lot of this sentiment revolves around "my guys can do this cool thing and your guys can't so it makes my choice more unique and special". Kind of a purity test, I guess? I'm not saying these are anyone's words.

You mean aside from doing just that by putting them in quotation marks? Just like your Little Timmy Slur, you're doubling down now on the Power Gamer thing with a fake quote to poorly characterize the people who disagree with you.

Someone playing "IF" could certainly run Stormlance ( as one example ) and it might feel weird, but it's not outside the scope of possibility that the jack of all trades marines can pivot. Horus Heresey IF likely still run Scimitar Jetbikes I'd bet even if more players lean heavy on vehicles or terminators.

How might one run a fluffy IF bike list in 40K?

One of two ways, making them Scars/Ravenwing by the rules, and IF by the name/paint/fluff or making them Imperial Fists in a bike heavy list using the IF rules.

Well, IF love bolters. Outriders have those. An ATV with a gatling fits the mold, too. Like all marine detachments they can use AoC - durability fits. Then there's Blitzing Fusillade, which grants Assault and SH1 - more bolter hits = good. IF should love to run a flying brick as well. Stormlance provides a -1 to be hit and -1 to be wounded strat that gels nicely with it's -1D. A super durable beefcake flyer? Totally.

So three strats that fit how IF might operate on a slightly more mobile list. Would it be the best list ever? No, but that shouldn't matter.

It should absolutely matter. IF rules in a biker force should be relatively equal to Ravenwing Biker forces in different ways. In 10th edition the bikers would get a boost vs fortifications and vehicles which was a benefit Ravenwing didn't have, instead Ravenwing got faster movement, and Counts-As-Assault.

Realistically anyone running Stormlance will likely think of their army as White Scars. It doesn't diminish what White Scars are if someone else uses them as Imperial Fists. In reality I don't think anyone will do this. People will look at units and perhaps they really like bikes. So they pick Stormlance. And then they read about marines and here are these guys who love bikes, too...and a WS player is born.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
My thesis, on the original question, is that GW was trying to reset bloat. 40k has had three big burn-it-down-and-start-over moments in its past, in 3e, 8e, and 10e, all of which happened because the edition before was or was perceived to be bloated beyond usability. In trying to reset the bloat while also trying to preserve their bare-bones core mechanics they've produced a game that doesn't really have much substance left.

Different substance.

- Picking the unit dynamics I want rather than whether or not I should take 7 Rubrics instead of 10 so I can fit "more good stuff".
- Picking characters that perform the task I need rather than the spells I want.
- At some point there will be a detachment layer to pick from, which will influence all the choices below it.

And these are just pre-game things. No one is talking about the mission format or how that operates.

I suspect people miss the really strong combinations and that's what is meant by heavily sanitized.

Again with the power gamer character assasinations. I suspect people miss the synergy of their chapter specific rules boosting and deboosting army building choices based on what is "fluffy" for their interpretation of their chapter. I would expect a blacksheep IF captain (potentially fluffed as relating stronger to the Sigismund aspect, rather than the Lysander branch of the Dorn Family tree while still being an IF) that loves Bike warfare to still use those bikes against their preferred Siege targets like a horde of movie Indians riding in a circle around the circled wagon train.

I believe 10th Ed was a step forward and two steps back on this front. The death of the old Detachment system + new archtype detachments was a step forward, but as usually happens when GW does wholesale rebuilds they do it half-assed. For example, Bladeguard units are still Deathwing in the new Codex. The Captain and Lieutenant models from that same set/equipment load that we might call Bladeguard Captains and Lieutanants for lack of a more specific name are not Deathwing, and cannot gain the keyword - which they would need to take the Inner Circle Taskforce enhancements. Half-assed. Do it right? Create a Chapter Upgrade sprue for each chapter designed to replace bits from assorted archetypal Squad kits (Outriders, Aggressors/Heavy Intercessors, Terminators, Jump Intercessors, etc) to turn one of those models into a Captain/Lieutenant/Librarian/Chaplain with a corresponding datasheet. Re-add Chapter Tactics to slide unit priority around - in army construction and target priority in a way that synergizes with Chapter Identity then adding that to the universal or Chapter specific Dets.

Wayniac wrote:
I think part of the issue here is the question of SHOULD subfactions play differently or should it be only a cosmetic choice of colors and maybe some special characters?

A valid question perhaps...

Wayniac wrote:

If we look at the far back times of 2nd edition, Marines as a whole were Ultramarines (i.e. any codex compliant Marine chapter) that weren't Space Wolves, Dark Angels, or Blood Angels

But a question that became irrelevant the second there were SW and BA and DA.

Because by then, it was already unfair to Templars, and Raven Guard etc, and more unfair for other factions. The decision to do this for marines and no other faction literally IS the reason marines went on to become the poster children for the game. If instead, GW had led by creating dexes and unique units for Biel Tan, Saim-Hann and Ultwe and left marines as generic army, maybe we'd have Eldar in every release box and a whole side game about the fall of the Eldar, where every faction is a flavour of Eldar with chaos Daemons as the antagonists and no support for other factions.

They could have put the genie back in the bottle if 3rd had chosen to kill BA DA and SW and go back to "all armies are just armies." But they didn't.

And guess why? Because, as it turns out, subfactions are things that players really liked and wanted, and even if there were only three subfactions to kill, player outrage even then would have probably killed the company.

Instead, they leaned into it making moves toward subfaction identities to many of their other popular factions, and became objectively the most successful table top miniature gaming company in the world. Other companies with less diverse offerings have, by comparison, failed spectacularly. Four decades of people have voted with their wallets that subfactions are cool. Meanwhile, Battletech- one of the only miniature games with a history as long as 40k, and largely described as "superior" by those disillusioned with 40k- has changed hands what, 4 times? And is currently relying on Kickstarter to get models made?

Wayniac wrote:

The big reason the Chaos 3.5 codex, to this day, is considered the best codex GW ever wrote is because every legion played differently.

Didn't you really just answer your own question right there?

PenitentJake wrote:
The decision to do this for marines and no other faction literally IS the reason marines went on to become the poster children for the game.

I'd say the reason Space Marines are the power child of the game is because they're Superman, Batman and Ironman all mixed together.

If instead, GW had led by creating dexes and unique units for Biel Tan, Saim-Hann and Ultwe and left marines as generic army, maybe we'd have Eldar in every release box and a whole side game about the fall of the Eldar, where every faction is a flavour of Eldar with chaos Daemons as the antagonists and no support for other factions.

I'm not sure. I mean there are some people who fetishize elves of course, but most people play the "human" race in assorted games if there is a human option. If there's a superhuman faction thats going to be even more popular - which is why IG isn't the poster child.

Breton wrote:
I'd say the reason Space Marines are the power child of the game is because they're Superman, Batman and Ironman all mixed together.

All superheroes, with the possible exception of Iron Man, have more in common aesthetically with Aspect Warriors than marines.

I could se Batman too, because like Marines, it's his gear that does the heavy lifting.

I'm not sure. I mean there are some people who fetishize elves of course, but most people play the "human" race in assorted games if there is a human option. If there's a superhuman faction thats going to be even more popular - which is why IG isn't the poster child.

DO people choose humans more often than others, or are humans merely over-represented in most games?

Because in my Shadowrun and D&D games, humans were often the minority. Why would I want to play something in a fantasy game that I ride the bus to work with five days a week? Talk about the epitome of dull. It's why Horus Heresy and Legions Imperialis will always suck harder than every other game GW makes no matter how good their rules are.

Note: I write provocatively to hammer home the point- Horus Heresy and Legion Imperialis don't suck, they just aren't for me and a lot of other people because we find Marines dull, samey and ubiquitous. My intent isn't to trigger, antagonize or troll fans of those games, or space marine enthusiasts. I'd be more than happy to join you if GW would allow the factions I find interesting to play. Aeronautica might have been able to draw me in- I was happy about the addition of Eldar and Tau, and if 'Nids had made the bill, I would have bought in.

Breton wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

Breton wrote:

Sure it was.

Dudeface wrote:
all it meant was that if combinations of made up rules made little timmys unit A too good

the people who disagree with you are children power gamers trying to make Unit A too good.

You're really reaching here. Are you denying that people changed "chapter rules" to fit with their play style? That chapter rules were oddly restricting to some players? That marines gained more flexibility and options in list construction through keyword choice than other forces?

If you want to answer no to those, I'd honestly tell you that you've been very sheltered if you haven't encountered meta list blue iron hands because they're "totally fluffy for my ultramarine dread army" etc.

The current method benefits more people including marine players, than the few who played strictly to the exact fluff their rules reinforced.

No, I'm denying your attempt to classify those people who liked the deeper more complex system as children who power game wasn't meant to be an insult to bolster your argument.

Jfc at no point did I say that, you're now living out some weird victim fantasy.

My literal point and statement was that some people who mashed rules together from massive stack of options that marines had could inadvertently push a unit to be far better than it was for other players, often in contradiction to the "fluff" of their own army. This then forces poor balance choices and hurts the chapter rules that you hold dear.

None of that is calling anyone a child, you're acting like one now, but that's not the point.

"All my imperial fists have better bolters but only durong 2 turns of the game" isn't some great deep mechanic. It's crappy rules layering to try and force an identity that didn't exist previously. But your army is now tied to the balance of the other chapters, so it's possibly your bolter units get pushed to obscurity because of something dark angels do. Or you maybe have a scout company themed fists force, but the rules that thematically apply to you are locked behind ravenguard. Maybe you have a Dreadnought heavy imperials fists force, but the rules that best represent that are locked behind iron hands, since obviously the other chapters aren't great at repairing vehicles.

The "complex deep" system was a bloated shallow problem.

Breton wrote:
You mean aside from doing just that by putting them in quotation marks? Just like your Little Timmy Slur, you're doubling down now on the Power Gamer thing with a fake quote to poorly characterize the people who disagree with you.

Erm, Breton - you are aware that Dudeface and Daedalus81 are different accounts, right?

They might post in lock-step a lot of the time, but it was Dudeface going on about Little Timmy, not Daed.

 Dysartes wrote:

Breton wrote:
You mean aside from doing just that by putting them in quotation marks? Just like your Little Timmy Slur, you're doubling down now on the Power Gamer thing with a fake quote to poorly characterize the people who disagree with you.

Erm, Breton - you are aware that Dudeface and Daedalus81 are different accounts, right?

They might post in lock-step a lot of the time, but it was Dudeface going on about Little Timmy, not Daed.

No I missed the name change, thanks.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

PenitentJake wrote:

Breton wrote:
I'd say the reason Space Marines are the power child of the game is because they're Superman, Batman and Ironman all mixed together.

All superheroes, with the possible exception of Iron Man, have more in common aesthetically with Aspect Warriors than marines.

I could se Batman too, because like Marines, it's his gear that does the heavy lifting.

I'm not sure. I mean there are some people who fetishize elves of course, but most people play the "human" race in assorted games if there is a human option. If there's a superhuman faction thats going to be even more popular - which is why IG isn't the poster child.

DO people choose humans more often than others, or are humans merely over-represented in most games?

Because in my Shadowrun and D&D games, humans were often the minority. Why would I want to play something in a fantasy game that I ride the bus to work with five days a week? Talk about the epitome of dull. It's why Horus Heresy and Legions Imperialis will always suck harder than every other game GW makes no matter how good their rules are.

Note: I write provocatively to hammer home the point- Horus Heresy and Legion Imperialis don't suck, they just aren't for me and a lot of other people because we find Marines dull, samey and ubiquitous. My intent isn't to trigger, antagonize or troll fans of those games, or space marine enthusiasts. I'd be more than happy to join you if GW would allow the factions I find interesting to play. Aeronautica might have been able to draw me in- I was happy about the addition of Eldar and Tau, and if 'Nids had made the bill, I would have bought in.

In WoW, Humans (even before adding half human Worgen, and the Human but different Kul'Tiran) are the most common race at about 15% for the Alliance side, while Blood Elves being the most human-like option on the Horde side filled with orcs and anthropomorphic cows at 15.2% so yeah, I'd say people tend to play Humans and Superhumans over non-humans.

Larian shared statistics for Baldur's Gate 3 some time ago.

Most played origin character is a human wizard.

Most played custom characters are Half-Elf / Human / Elf Paladins. All races that are closest to a regular human (aka the player) in looks.

People are "boring" like that and want to identify themselves with the character they are playing.
I would say this is even a little tiny bit more representative than WoW, as humans had one of the best racials for a long long time, so numbers are a bit skewed on Alliance side.

 Dysartes wrote:

Breton wrote:
You mean aside from doing just that by putting them in quotation marks? Just like your Little Timmy Slur, you're doubling down now on the Power Gamer thing with a fake quote to poorly characterize the people who disagree with you.

Erm, Breton - you are aware that Dudeface and Daedalus81 are different accounts, right?

They might post in lock-step a lot of the time, but it was Dudeface going on about Little Timmy, not Daed.

Thank you, I respect Daeds posts too much to be happy being confused with or misrepresented as. They are a much more coherent and well thought out poster than I.

PenitentJake wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
The big reason the Chaos 3.5 codex, to this day, is considered the best codex GW ever wrote is because every legion played differently.

Didn't you really just answer your own question right there?

Perhaps I did

But let's continue the train of thought from my post: If people do want subfactions to be unique, which it seems many do as it gives them a sense of being different, should it follow then that these subfactions should be something that is intrinsic to the player's decision, and not be something that gets changed on a whim based on which way the meta pendulum swings?

We are currently seeing exactly this, and detachment choice is more or less a set of tactics you want to use, not something key to your army's identity: Take the current Marine detachments, for example. They exist as options, that might lend themselves to a particular chapter, but they aren't tied to a particular chapter. Anyone can take a Gladius Task Force, it has nothing about it that is tied to Ultramarines. The Vanguard Spearhead, which nominally would lean into the "stealthy" chapters like Ravenguard or Raptors, doesn't require having an army selected from those Chapters. Nor does the Anvil Siege Force, which seems fluffwise to be for Imperial Fists and their less radical successors, have anything actually tying them to those chapters since anyone can select to use it.

This makes the most sense for Space Marines because Space Marine doctrine is 90% the same in the lore anyway, being laid out in the Codex Astartes which basically all of them follow in at least some ways, if not others. So it's rational to think of these detachments as being much closer to the formations in Jomini's Art of War than being distinct army styles based on heritage and doctrines (e.g. the difference between how the French, Prussian, and Austrian armies approached battle in the 18th and 19th century).

The ultimate question then becomes, should all detachments behave in that way and be more of a set of formations/tactics that the faction is known for, but without any requirement or specific tie to the subfactions best known for that mode of warfare? That seems to be the approach GW wants to go with 10th, in that for example with Eldar one might have a construct-focused army but not having to be Iyanden, or a Swordwind aspect-themed army that doesn't force Biel-tan. Similar to the Space Marine approach, this is understandable as Craftworlds are vast with vast resources, so even Iyanden which is said to have "few" Aspect Warriors surely would have enough to mobilize in a Swordwind-esque formation given the standard scale of a typical Warhammer 40,000 battle on the tabletop, whilst Biel-tan, despite being known for its Aspect shrines would certainly have enough construct units to field them en masse if the Autarchs and Farseers felt that was an appropriate response.

But, the question remains, does this hold true for everyone? And should it hold true at all? As mentioned previously SHOULD choice of subfaction be key to your identity, or something that you change on a whim based on how you want the army to play? If the latter, then what's the point of specifically choosing a subfaction that you identify with at all if you're going to ignore it whenever the winds of change (read: meta) shifts away from them?

Wayniac wrote:
But, the question remains, does this hold true for everyone? And should it hold true at all? As mentioned previously SHOULD choice of subfaction be key to your identity, or something that you change on a whim based on how you want the army to play? If the latter, then what's the point of specifically choosing a subfaction that you identify with at all if you're going to ignore it whenever the winds of change (read: meta) shifts away from them?

There's also the question of how subfactions should be differentiated.

in 8th-10th, it's boiled down to a series of buffs that generally push some units over others (if you're lucky, they'll be the units that the theme wants to encourage).

However, there are other possibilities - e.g. making specific units troops/battleline. Effectively tweaking army-composition, rather than providing a direct effect on the field (or could have a combination of the two).

Honestly, I thought 9th's method was fine. I know people complained about bloat but IMO the worst offenders were the Loyalty Abilities, stratagems, and auras. Loyalty abilities could have been cut outright, as the detachment system already encouraged mono-faction play. Stratagems could have been removed, with a few useful ones being turned into standard game abilities (e.g. relics and WLTs could just be based on game size), wargear/unit abilities (e.g. grenades), and Command Abilities (which would replace the always-on auras).

I think doing that (and maybe a few other tweaks) would have streamlined 9th, without also stripping out virtually all flavour, faction identity, customisation etc.

PenitentJake wrote:
But a question that became irrelevant the second there were SW and BA and DA.

Not really. After the SWs got fixed (no more assault cannon gunline terminators for you!), the Angels of Death were essentially a minor tweak to the Ultras, with one getting cool bikes and tougher terminators and the other getting bloodthirsty lunatics.

There was no "army special rule" for any of them, just variation on unit selection, and then players could create their own chapter with further variations and this was what gave them their feel. For example, the Ultras got veteran tactical squads, which are quite useful if you're in to a shooty army. But if you want close combat, the veteran assault marines of the BA are a better fit.

SW of course are a 90 degree twist on what "feral" marines would look like, so I'll concede a partial point there, though I'll take it back because they all use the exact same weapons, vehicles, etc. There's no "ooh, these tanks move faster for those marines," or "if I want this sweet, sweet loadout, I need that faction."

Once you started saying "this army gets this bonus for all models," now the subfactions became actual factions and it was natural for players to gravitate to the type of SM that was objectively the toughest because of these new rules.

The same was true of Chaos. The 2nd ed. codex listed the legions, the way they fought, their doctrine, etc., and GW gave you the units to build that out. With 3.5, those lines became much more starkly defined, and faction selection was now less about preferred play style that which one was objectively better.

And the point of it all was to make models unique to each sub-faction and sell them.

BTW, having read through much of the thread, is the word "streamlined" not a better way to describe 10th than "sanitized"?

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:
BTW, having read through much of the thread, is the word "streamlined" not a better way to describe 10th than "sanitized"?

I think it's subjective, but I think the choice of "sanitized" is to indicate that it's lacking something. Streamlined would be positive, while IMHO and it seems in the view of many others, the game feels negative and bland, lacking in options, not with streamlined choices. It's a big part of why I like to use "sterile" to describe it.

a_typical_hero wrote:
Larian shared statistics for Baldur's Gate 3 some time ago.

Most played origin character is a human wizard.

Most played custom characters are Half-Elf / Human / Elf Paladins. All races that are closest to a regular human (aka the player) in looks.

People are "boring" like that and want to identify themselves with the character they are playing.
I would say this is even a little tiny bit more representative than WoW, as humans had one of the best racials for a long long time, so numbers are a bit skewed on Alliance side.

I think in BG3 (or similar) its a bit skewed, because there's an obvious reason to make your main character a Charisma class. The rundown was Pala/Sorc/Warlock/Rogue (not Cha, but has other things that can sort of stand in for it)/Bard.
In WoW I'm pretty sure its just about which character model doesn't look awful. Humans and Night Elves trounced the rest - but then in TBC Blood Elves showed up, and swiftly outnumbered everything.

I'm fairly confident Space Marine dominance is explained simply by them being in every starter set the game has ever had. Its the cheapest, easiest and most pushed way to get into the hobby.

I've got various issues with 10th, but I think the detachment system is fine as compared with subfactions. I don't think Flanderising ever smaller forces is good for the game.
I think some are overly niche and not very good as a result (looking at you Ad Mech). But that's a different issue.

A Space Marine chapter should have all the equipment in the codex. At least as far as I'm aware, Dorn didn't declare "and they shall know no bikes." If you love the colour Yellow and love bikes, why not have both? I don't buy the whole "well maybe they can have bikes that are different to WS bikes". We know how this goes - some rule is always better. And then you get the bizarre situation where WS are actually worse with bikes than IF, IH or RG etc, or you are left with a suboptimal combination which is just annoying. (8th edition Word Bearers say hi.)

I mean I'm not sure why you'd get into say Iyanden if you didn't like Wraithguard. But maybe you like the colour scheme. Or maybe you do like Wraithguard - but not playing with them *every game*. I don't see the issue if you go "today I'm going to run all aspect warriors, and I'll talk the Swordwind detachment to indicate the rules this force should have". Crying "no no no that should be Biel-Tan only, if you aren't green it can't apply" feels pointless.

Tyel wrote:
A Space Marine chapter should have all the equipment in the codex. At least as far as I'm aware, Dorn didn't declare "and they shall know no bikes." If you love the colour Yellow and love bikes, why not have both? I don't buy the whole "well maybe they can have bikes that are different to WS bikes". We know how this goes - some rule is always better. And then you get the bizarre situation where WS are actually worse with bikes than IF, IH or RG etc, or you are left with a suboptimal combination which is just annoying. (8th edition Word Bearers say hi.)

I mean I'm not sure why you'd get into say Iyanden if you didn't like Wraithguard. But maybe you like the colour scheme. Or maybe you do like Wraithguard - but not playing with them *every game*. I don't see the issue if you go "today I'm going to run all aspect warriors, and I'll talk the Swordwind detachment to indicate the rules this force should have". Crying "no no no that should be Biel-Tan only, if you aren't green it can't apply" feels pointless.

Valid point, that's sort of where I was leading the topic of discussion. In most cases (Chapter/Craftworld/etc.) it seems like the detachment/army rules should be a tactical thing only, because like you said whilst Imperial Fists might "specialize" in sieges, they are still a Codex-compliant chapter and have access to everything that entails, and their specific tactics might change depending on the circumstances on which they've been deployed, whether or not it's the sieges they are best equipped to handle. Same with the Eldar. Iyanden is noted for having a lot of Wraithguard and not a lot of Aspects, but surely they have enough to determine which is best used for the situation they're confronted with.

However, it still brings up the point of whether there should be any benefit at all to select, say, Imperial Fists over "Generic Space Marine Chapter #42" (or, worse, grey tide) or if that should be an irrelevant choice. If nothing differentiates Imperial Fists from any other Codex chapter (as the detachment is not unique to them and could be done equally well with Ultramarines or White Scars or whatever), is there any point at all in picking them? SHOULD there be a compelling reason to pick Imperial Fists over anyone else other than "The yellow marines look cool"?

Tyel wrote:

a_typical_hero wrote:
Larian shared statistics for Baldur's Gate 3 some time ago.

Most played origin character is a human wizard.

Most played custom characters are Half-Elf / Human / Elf Paladins. All races that are closest to a regular human (aka the player) in looks.

People are "boring" like that and want to identify themselves with the character they are playing.
I would say this is even a little tiny bit more representative than WoW, as humans had one of the best racials for a long long time, so numbers are a bit skewed on Alliance side.

I think in BG3 (or similar) its a bit skewed, because there's an obvious reason to make your main character a Charisma class. The rundown was Pala/Sorc/Warlock/Rogue (not Cha, but has other things that can sort of stand in for it)/Bard.

FWIW, I'm pretty sure Human is the most popular race even in tabletop D&D.

Wayniac wrote:
SHOULD there be a compelling reason to pick Imperial Fists over anyone else other than "The yellow marines look cool"?

That's an easy question to answer. Yes and No.

No, the rules should not encourage you to pick Imperial Fist over any other Codex Compliant Chapter.

Yes, there should be background reasons to pick the Imperial Fist over any other Codex Compliant Chapter.

GW has very much moved further and further towards "let the player play what they want to play" in their rules. Not the direction that I would have chosen, but not a bad decision either.

Wayniac wrote:

Perhaps I did

But let's continue the train of thought from my post: If people do want subfactions to be unique, which it seems many do as it gives them a sense of being different, should it follow then that these subfactions should be something that is intrinsic to the player's decision, and not be something that gets changed on a whim based on which way the meta pendulum swings?
...
But, the question remains, does this hold true for everyone? And should it hold true at all? As mentioned previously SHOULD choice of subfaction be key to your identity, or something that you change on a whim based on how you want the army to play? If the latter, then what's the point of specifically choosing a subfaction that you identify with at all if you're going to ignore it whenever the winds of change (read: meta) shifts away from them?

So, you had a lot to say and I didn't want to throw a huge wall of text out there.

Part of the issue, and what a subset of the really dedicated Marine players/fans are trying to get across, is that while the detachments may not actually be locked to the subfaction...it's extremely clear that they were meant to be themed to them. Right down to previous subfaction abilities being placed into the detachment instead. So there went that bit of flavor, locked into a detachment. Add to it that characters for those subfactions other than Ultramarines are basically nonexistent in C: SM, and...yeah.

As much as hating on Marines can be justifiable, it's always daft to hate on the basic Codex. Outside of Ultramarines, everyone else is treated roughly as well as any other subfaction out there: They have a named character and are said to exist.

Add to it that the Space Marines' "expansions" can pick & choose from C: SM while not having to forego their own units and it's just insulting. It's not like Raven Guard are swimming in their own units, or Salamanders, or White Scars.


It would be a wildly different situation if, say, taking a character you were able to throw an upgrade on them that made them tied to a subfaction which in turn affected the Detachment they're in.
But that's not the case. Even taking those named characters for the Chapters just doesn't feel like it does gak.

Wayniac wrote:Fast-forward to 3rd edition. Now we start getting special rules for subfactions come in. The big reason the Chaos 3.5 codex, to this day, is considered the best codex GW ever wrote is because every legion played differently. Night Lords didn't play like Alpha Legion, who didn't play like Iron Warriors. Your choice legion was as much a statement of what you wanted out of the army as a player as it was how you approached the game.

But is that good or bad? Is the difference between them large enough that they should be almost their own unique armies? Or should they play similarly as a single faction and have the color, once again, be a matter of taste rather than determining what set of abilities you get to use? It used to be that your choice of subfaction, yes including colors, was an important one to you and not one to be taken lightly. It wasn't tied to power, so it meant you were invested in the subfaction because you liked it, and not simply because it was the "best" choice and power on the table is the limit of you interest in it.

I thought it was cool that in 3rd-4th the different subfactions approached listbuilding differently and played differently on the table.

I thought it was even cooler that the differences in organization and doctrine were represented as differences in force organization, or unique units, or unique wargear, representing differences that are relevant at the scale of an army and give them actually unique stuff. Iron Warriors bringing Basilisks, or Death Guard having special weapons Devastators, or Alpha Legion fielding Cultists, were all more interesting than 'every World Eater punches better'.

And I thought it was just super cool that when subfaction abilities did give additional power to units, it was almost always paid for, so you could safely ignore the subfaction bonuses entirely and still have a credible, functional, powerful force.

The 8th-9th Ed subfaction approach flanderized factions into doing one thing and one thing only, and directly penalized taking any army composition beyond that two-dimensional, one-note caricature. Oh, you've got a White Scars tank company? Something that exists in the fluff, because White Scars actually do more than just spam bikes? Sucks to suck, enjoy your handicap- should have taken mass biker spam like everybody else, dumbass.

At least in 10th Ed you can choose which of GW's curated army themes you want to field, instead of being railroaded into a specific composition by your paint scheme. It doesn't really bother me that other chapters are allowed to do bikers too and White Scars don't get to uniquely claim to be the best (with the result of anyone else wanting to play a bikers army just using counts-as anyways).