It's interesting to see the stark difference in how rules were written then (where you'd have notes on flavour/story baked in) as compared to now.

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.

 catbarf wrote:

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.

Karol 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.

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.

 aphyon wrote:

It's interesting to see the stark difference in how rules were written then (where you'd have notes on flavour/story baked in) as compared to now.

I think that has much more to do with the difference between those who created the universe and the game and those who just inherited the IP with a company that has moved from "we design wargames" to "we sell models that happen to have a game attached to them".

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 actually did, but in a subtle way, instead of making them separate codexes like GW would do now to make you buy more books. the 4th ed eldar codex allowed you to build the core of your army around each craft world or your own generic one. As every craftworld had access to all the aspect warriors(while some favored heavy on one aspect or another). the core and the characters associated with them defined the army direction. there are 5 core troops-

.dire avengers-uthwe
.rangers-alaitoc
.guardian jet bikes-saim hann
.10 man wraithguard units with spirit seers-iyanden
.guardians-generic

 Daedalus81 wrote:

But that isn't an RG army, is it? About half the stuff in Vanguard is keyed to only scout / phobos. It isn't a scout / phobos only detachment, because that would make diverse list building pretty difficult.

What you're describing is like an Ultramarine successor that is good at concealment, but not subterfuge or maneuvers.

 Kanluwen wrote:

The Vanguard "Spearhead" isn't sure what it wants to be. It isn't the far superior Phobos Army of Renown, and it isn't willing to commit to all Phobos. If they'd been on their game, they would have looked back to the Pinion Demi-Company of Kau'yon and done it so that Phobos and Scouts acted as "wayfinders" for teleporting/deep striking troops.

What Karol's describing is not that. It literally was the case that people were doing crap like Marneus, RG, and other Ultras characters in there.

Breton wrote:


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.

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.

Wayniac wrote:

Spoiler:

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:
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.

PenitentJake wrote:
Yes, but "specialize" does mean that IF siege units are somehow better or different than the siege units of other Chapters. If they aren't, you can't actually claim that the "fluff" of "this Chapter specializes in siege" is supported by rules.

 catbarf wrote:
'This chapter specializes in [x]' does not in any way, shape, or form mean 'this chapter alone is capable of [x] or is the best at [x] and nobody else can compete'. It just means they do [x] more often, or more capably, but in no way implies other chapters can't do [x] too when the situation requires.

I have very little sympathy for players who want the game to be railroaded into flanderized archetypes, who only feel like their army is interesting if nobody else is allowed to do what they do. The setting was more interesting when it was an open-ended sandbox with a few exemplars, not this prescriptive regime where Yellow Marines get pissy because other people are allowed to be siege specialists too.

‘You are too noble to understand.’ Seth rounded on Dante. ‘That is not salvation, that is replacement. These new warriors will bear the colours of Flesh Tearers, but without Sanguinius’ fury they will be Flesh Tearers in name only.

All my time as Chapter Master I have waged war on our rage, to wrestle it into submission and use its strength to slay our foes. We are fury! From the time of Amit, the savage lord, to this day, we have carried the white heat of Sanguinius’ anger in us.

That was our gift and our burden. The flaw is what makes us what we are.’

‘We are nothing without the struggle against it. He would make us all Ultramarines in red armour.'

 Haighus wrote:
I think there are three different positions here, using the example of siege masters:
1) This list exclusively represents Imperial Fists (+/- similar successors depending on how hardline you want to be) and they are the only Marines this good at siegecraft
2) This list represents all Chapters skilled in siegecraft, whatever their primogenitor, but doesn't represent those Chapters who are less skilled in this field (such as White Scars or Ultramarines)
3) This list represents a Space Marine force from any Chapter set up for sieges, and all Chapters are equally capable of being siege masters with a bit of force reorganisation

Personally, I think option 2 is my preferred. Lorewise, an Ultramarines force shouldn't be as good at sieges as an Imperial Fist force, because the Ultramarines pursue a balanced doctrine. However, I think it is entirely possible for an Ultramarines successor to be very capable siege masters if their specific circumstances and doctrines lead them to that mastery over siege warfare. Imperial Fist successors are simply more likely to be siege masters as a result of their heritage.

This can be extrapolated to any specialisation associated with a specific Chapter.

 catbarf wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:
Yes, but "specialize" does mean that IF siege units are somehow better or different than the siege units of other Chapters. If they aren't, you can't actually claim that the "fluff" of "this Chapter specializes in siege" is supported by rules.

'This chapter specializes in [x]' does not in any way, shape, or form mean 'this chapter alone is capable of [x] or is the best at [x] and nobody else can compete'. It just means they do [x] more often, or more capably, but in no way implies other chapters can't do [x] too when the situation requires.

I have very little sympathy for players who want the game to be railroaded into flanderized archetypes, who only feel like their army is interesting if nobody else is allowed to do what they do. The setting was more interesting when it was an open-ended sandbox with a few exemplars, not this prescriptive regime where Yellow Marines get pissy because other people are allowed to be siege specialists too.

Objectively? It might be better for subfaction to not be linked to play style- I mean, I've got to concede that right? I mean, since 10th is the only game that even tried to decouple fighting style from subfaction across the board since rogue trader, we'd just veer into a contest between hypotheticals, which is something that can't really be well argued anyway.

I think what I'm really looking for is a system that makes other factions FEEL as close as possible to parity with marines, and they've had strong subfaction identities reflected in rules and ranges since second. The 9th edition is the one that feels to me like it came closest to doing that- largely because of subfactions, but also because of things like all factions getting the equivalent of a Chapter Master upgrade.

I would like to take a crack at this. I think it is a layered discussion that combines aspects of the lore, the game, GW, and the community.

I was not an Oldhammer player. While I've enjoyed 40k for a fair bit of time, I didn't start into the hobby proper until a year or two ago. That being said, I certainly feel some dissatisfaction going from my brief encounter in 8th to 9th edition codex and now to the least satisfying 10th. This prompted me to go back and take a look at the old editions of 40k. I do not have any rose tinted goggles for them because I am a newcomer, thus I had no experience with them prior.

I will be making comparisons between Oldhammer, Modernhammer (9th & 10th), and the MESBG.

From a lore standpoint, I think it is entirely fair to say that the Gathering Storm, the introduction of Primaris, the Indomitus, and the return of the Primarchs have considerably been at odds with the tone of the 41st Millennium. The lore books of the grinding, grimdark battlefields on countless worlds and billions of lives whose names shall not be remembered shifted suddenly to a focus upon a handful of characters. Introducing Guilliman was like adding Superman to WW1. Don't get me wrong, a Primarch's return is absolutely a massive event - but then the writers proceeded to have Guilliman go on to invade Nurgle's Garden, beat Mortarian, fight Magnus on the moon, and suddenly give the Imperium Space Marine Legion-level reinforcements after the loss of a single planet.

I think we can both agree this wildly changes the setting, if not from a perspective of scale or tone, at least from a perspective of.. well.. perspective. Individual battles or campaigns like Vraks are still there, but they are considerably dwarfed compared to what the new Regent of the Imperium is up to. Even as more Primarchs are added, the focus will just be upon these superhuman demigods that move and shake the entire setting. As far as I can tell, and at least certainly for myself, its a jarring change in the direction compared to what came before. Personally, I would much rather have had 100 stories like Dawn of War & Winter Assault than a single Gathering Storm that springboards changes to the entire setting.

From a gameplay standpoint, I believe that 40k as a tabletop game has lost its "soul" to some because it has shifted its focus and attention away from simulation of a battle and more towards being a game.

You might raise the counterpoint that 40k was never a good nor realistic depiction of a battle. I would agree with you, but I do not think the quality of that simulation detracts from the fact that this was the intent.

As I have read the older editions (3rd, 5th, 6th, and even a fan edition of Oldhammer), the consistent thing that I have noticed between those editions which is absent from newer editions of 40k is what I would like to dub "Fumbly Nerdstuff".

To define the term: Fumbly Nerdstuff is when a game takes a considerable amount of time to account for various factors and consequences of an action taken in a nerdy game (ie D&D or Warhammer) for the purposes of simulating a narrative of what happens before, during, and as a result of that action.

As an example: If I swing a sword and hit an Orc in an RPG, adding modifiers of my relative position to the Orc from heightened terrain to the location which I hit the Orc on his body to rolling a result on a table of what happens to the Orc when I hit him with my sword is an example of "Fumbly Nerdstuff". You can absolutely have way too much Fumbly Nerdstuff in a game, and I think everyone's tolerance level for Fumbly Nerdstuff is different.

Older editions of 40k definitely seem to be more interested in the battle you are playing be more of a battle than a game. There are numerous rules differentiating a walker from a tank to a biker and how they interact with movement or attacking. Vehicles react differently to being wounded than an infantry unit and a destroyed vehicle can become another piece of terrain on the map. Melee combat is described in terms of advancing or retreating lines. Movement and shooting has more direct interaction.

And I would not say this is unique to 40k, because I will draw upon what most consider to be GW's best game: MESBG. MESBG's entire rulebook is written in a way where the designers clearly want the player to be approaching the game as a simulated battle or a relived moment from the movies involving characters rather than just "minis on a board". The rules account for being knocked prone, being pushed and falling off ledges, jumping chasms. Combats are written in terms of duelists having a cinematic clash where one assumes parries and strikes. Arrows have to account for terrain and blocking enemy models getting in the way of the shot. There's a fair bit of this Fumbly Nerdstuff written for the intent of a simulated clash between two forces in Middle-Earth.

9th edition introduced, imo, one of the better ideas GW has had in 40k, the Crusade gameplay mode. The most fun I've had with 40k is writing up a story with a bunch of characters matched against an army that my friend made, tweaking the lists to give every unit a personality and a particular role in the army, and then simulating those engagements against my friend who has done the same, then the various post-game Crusade mechanics and written battle reports which followed - along with the story that created. However, Crusade is merely one aspect and largely handled outside of the actual battles.

10th edition by far has the least amount of this trait than any previous edition in 40k. Morale is barely considered beyond Battleshock, and Battleshock serves no real purpose in terms of storytelling but rather is a purely gameplay mechanic revolving around standing on objective circles. The objective circles themselves are largely interacted with in two ways: Standing on them or standing on them and doing "an action". Armies are not constructed by any real logical structure that would be sensible in a battle; you simply grab what you minis you want and put them on the table. Army loadouts are internally balanced and limited to what comes in the packaged GW box rather than encouraging players to kitbash, to build their particular squad in a different manner to alter what role they play on a battlefield, or other opportunities of creative expression. Yes, there is still some of that where I give a unit of Rubrics flamers or bolters or equip Legionnaires with boltguns or chainswords, but you have to admit that those options have been considerably reduced as editions have progressed and it is only getting more and more homogenized. A unit's role is largely predetermined and GW is doing more and more to reduce any potential deviation from that predetermined role.

All of that makes for a perfectly fine tournament game, but the heart of 40k was not as a tournament game. Tournaments always existed, sure, but you can't deny they have become more and more a central focus of the game's community. Tournament performance is more of a determining factor for an army's rules than it used to be. How much of a factor it is can be debated, but you cannot deny that this difference exists.

The game is moving further away from simulation and more into the realm of being purely a marketed game for wider accessibility. It is no longer about "a battle between the Red Corsairs and the Craftworld Drehanon over the fate of the planet Moreldain" and more so about "2k points CSM raider detachment vs Aeldari wraith detachment". The community itself has changed as well reflecting this change in focus.

That is what makes 40k 40k and why the game has felt like it has less soul than it used to.

 aphyon wrote:
[spoiler]

I think this attitude is the biggest rub for me with what 40K has turned into. i am drawn to the game for the lore i want to game to reflect the factions in the lore i don't give a GAK about how close each faction is to parity with marines. i want them to all reflect their unique fighting style. i play the game for epic battles in the 40K setting. i expect each faction to have weaknesses or be "imbalanced" as it is your job as the general to make up for these by what you do on the table top aside from just list building or popping gotcha card/stratagems. without it the game is sanitized, bland, or otherwise lost it's soul as the other topic on this was titled.. the setting and the devotion players have to various factions is what keeps them interested and drawn to the game. you might as well play a generic battlegame named "x" without that.

Wayniac wrote:

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?

PenitentJake wrote:

Breton wrote:


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.

My point wasn't that more people wanted to play any one alien species than humans. My point was that that there are a lot of people who don't want to play humans. Looking at the numbers you've provided, it seems I'm right.

15% play humans. That means 85% don't, right?

Thanks for proving my point.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

But that isn't an RG army, is it? About half the stuff in Vanguard is keyed to only scout / phobos. It isn't a scout / phobos only detachment, because that would make diverse list building pretty difficult.

It's only difficult because they removed Infiltrators/Incursors from being "Troop" equivalents. If either of them had been left as Battleline, suddenly it is not that difficult.

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.

a_typical_hero wrote:

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.

Yes, you are right about the Cha class, but there is no inherent bonus to taking any race over the other, as there are no racial modifiers to attributes (in BG3) and every race can be every class. Racial feats are such a minor bonus that they are largely irrelevant, especially for a singleplayer or co-op game. Even then, Humans are the worst race to pick from an optimisation PoV, though.

I'm not denying that other factors...factor into the popularity for Space Marines, but "looks like me" is a big plus imho.

 Haighus wrote:

I agree "looks like me" is a factor, but given human factions seem to be around 15% in these RPG settings and Space Marines are more like 50%... I suspect other factors are playing a bigger role. Appearing in every starter set and having much more reliable range + rules support are probably bigger factors IMO, along with some mechanical advantages in elite armies being more affordable.

Wayniac wrote:
Ignoring the humans-as-popular argument, I suppose the question then is if you have subfaction rules which encourage specific units, but not flanderizing them (e.g. you might get a bonus for X unit, but you aren't restricted to taking only X unit like a caricature), is that going to be enough? Again, I feel that faction identity should be an important choice, not one that gets used when the rule is good and ignored when the rule is not, which we too frequently see. I do not want to see an Ultramarines army suddenly played as Iron Hands because Iron Hands have the better rules at the moment, and then next dataslate they count as Raven Guard because IH got nerfed and RG is the next "best" one. Short of enforcing paint schemes though (which has its own set of problems and loopholes) I don't see a valid way to encourage people to pick a subfaction and actually stick with it through thick and thin, not change whatever subfaction they're playing to fit the "meta", without making the subfaction choice largely superfluous or generic enough (as in the current detachments which might lean to a subfaction but does nothing to enforce them) that it becomes a meaningless decision.

Dudeface wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
Ignoring the humans-as-popular argument, I suppose the question then is if you have subfaction rules which encourage specific units, but not flanderizing them (e.g. you might get a bonus for X unit, but you aren't restricted to taking only X unit like a caricature), is that going to be enough? Again, I feel that faction identity should be an important choice, not one that gets used when the rule is good and ignored when the rule is not, which we too frequently see. I do not want to see an Ultramarines army suddenly played as Iron Hands because Iron Hands have the better rules at the moment, and then next dataslate they count as Raven Guard because IH got nerfed and RG is the next "best" one. Short of enforcing paint schemes though (which has its own set of problems and loopholes) I don't see a valid way to encourage people to pick a subfaction and actually stick with it through thick and thin, not change whatever subfaction they're playing to fit the "meta", without making the subfaction choice largely superfluous or generic enough (as in the current detachments which might lean to a subfaction but does nothing to enforce them) that it becomes a meaningless decision.

This is the root of the whole thing, positive and negative. People rules hop because their collections or environments promote them using other chapters rules to avoid being a 2nd rate army for no reason other than paint job.

There is no way to do this without generalising rules to make them openly available to all, which is where we ended up. Otherwise you'll always have your Salamanders ballistus priced like it has the survivability of a stealth RG one, access to IH repair buffs or the extra offensive push of fists maybe.

These rules balance points result in none-preffered units being actively "bad" for some chapters because they're forced to be balanced around their use in "intended" chapters.

I cannot see any solutions beyond enforcing paint schemes to rules, or making them wide open to all players. 9th tiptoed around the first point and 10th, unwilling to deal with it, fell to the 2nd.

I imagine that for Breton a lot of the issue is they can't comprehend that people would be a big RG fan and still want a dread list which is naturally better suited to IH for example and doesn't want to acknowledge the internal balance issues.

 Tyran wrote:
Regarding subfactions, not everyone is Marines. Marines in particular have been developed with heavy emphasis on their subfactions.

But everyone else? maybe Guard and Sisters also have a somewhat strong subfaction theme, but I doubt Orks, Eldars and Necrons players started their armies by choosing a subfaction.

I know for a fact I didn't start my Tyranids as Leviathan, Behemoth or Kraken, and it was a standard and very accepted practice among Tyranid players to disregard paint and play as whatever hive fleet supported their preferred playstyle and/or was meta.

I definitely did it and would do so again if I'm forced to pick a subfaction, because I like playing Tyranids as a whole and experimenting with the different playstyles the faction as a whole supports, not only one.

 Tyran wrote:
Regarding subfactions, not everyone is Marines. Marines in particular have been developed with heavy emphasis on their subfactions.

But everyone else? maybe Guard and Sisters also have a somewhat strong subfaction theme, but I doubt Orks, Eldars and Necrons players started their armies by choosing a subfaction.

I know for a fact I didn't start my Tyranids as Leviathan, Behemoth or Kraken, and it was a standard and very accepted practice among Tyranid players to disregard paint and play as whatever hive fleet supported their preferred playstyle and/or was meta.

I definitely did it and would do so again if I'm forced to pick a subfaction, because I like playing Tyranids as a whole and experimenting with the different playstyles the faction as a whole supports, not only one.

Dudeface wrote:
This is the root of the whole thing, positive and negative. People rules hop because their collections or environments promote them using other chapters rules to avoid being a 2nd rate army for no reason other than paint job.

There is no way to do this without generalising rules to make them openly available to all, which is where we ended up. Otherwise you'll always have your Salamanders ballistus priced like it has the survivability of a stealth RG one, access to IH repair buffs or the extra offensive push of fists maybe.

These rules balance points result in none-preffered units being actively "bad" for some chapters because they're forced to be balanced around their use in "intended" chapters.

I cannot see any solutions beyond enforcing paint schemes to rules, or making them wide open to all players. 9th tiptoed around the first point and 10th, unwilling to deal with it, fell to the 2nd.

I imagine that for Breton a lot of the issue is they can't comprehend that people would be a big RG fan and still want a dread list which is naturally better suited to IH for example and doesn't want to acknowledge the internal balance issues.

 Tyran wrote:
Regarding subfactions, not everyone is Marines. Marines in particular have been developed with heavy emphasis on their subfactions.

But everyone else? maybe Guard and Sisters also have a somewhat strong subfaction theme, but I doubt Orks, Eldars and Necrons players started their armies by choosing a subfaction.

I know for a fact I didn't start my Tyranids as Leviathan, Behemoth or Kraken, and it was a standard and very accepted practice among Tyranid players to disregard paint and play as whatever hive fleet supported their preferred playstyle and/or was meta.

I definitely did it and would do so again if I'm forced to pick a subfaction, because I like playing Tyranids as a whole and experimenting with the different playstyles the faction as a whole supports, not only one.