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.

Wayniac wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Well, I mean, you might as well tell people that UM,BA, and BT are not playable without players permission, as half their strength is tied to their characters being some of the best in the game. I mean, I see your point, but that's a little extreme.

Well, that being the case is kinda the problem in general, isn't it? You shouldn't be required to take a special character for your faction to function.

Well put. But what game are we playing. The game we are talking about is not the game that we've been playing....ever. Characters and super models have always broken the natural flow. This isn't checkers. You can't create perfect equality. It would be bland and boring. There needs to be at least an appearance of Rock paper scissors. Morty of 9th was essentially an unkillable terrain piece that killed any model that came within range of him. That was unbalanced. 10th is at least trying to address this. But still failing....but I get your point.

PenitentJake wrote:It's funny though: I've seen people claim to like drawbacks in old editions, but not like 9th's subfaction rules, where the drawback was that you'd be specialized in one particular style of warfare, and not others. In 9th, people would call that Falanderization, when there's not even actually a drawback, people just say there is because they feel like everything in which they are not specialized is "something that they are penalized for doing" when no actual penalty exists.

In 8th/9th Ed if you play a bike subfaction but don't take bikes, you effectively get no subfaction bonus in a game balanced around having subfaction bonuses. Your army is strictly worse, to no benefit, because GW has decided that the only 'correct' way to play that subfaction is to spam the units that benefit the most.

In 3rd/4th Ed if you play a bike subfaction but don't take bikes, you are effectively playing a vanilla codex in a game balanced around vanilla codices. The guy who does spam bikes gets a bonus, but he has to pay for it on a per-unit basis. You might still have FOC restrictions, but if those are a problem you can just use the vanilla codex if you like and be perfectly fine.

Flanderization is when the game tacitly punishes you for taking anything other than the one-note stereotypical composition of that subfaction. The 3rd/4th Ed system didn't do that. It let you lean into a subfaction's strengths if you wanted to, but taking a different approach was viable too. It also allowed builds with more nuance- you could play Blood Angels as a tank company but mix in a few units of elite Assault Marines, if you wanted, and that was a viable force.

Lastly, there is zero functional difference between 'getting punished' and 'not getting a bonus everyone else gets and which the game is balanced around'. You can't semantics it away.

Tyel wrote:The problem with drawbacks is that they are even more difficult to balance holistically than advantages.

I mean for example above - "We Stand Alone, can't take allies". Oh no, what a terrible shame in my pure Space Marine list. Then you had classic things like "can take an extra Heavy Support choice, but have to run one less Fast Attack". Oh no, how will my mainly heavy tank army cope?

Its very hard to balance this really. "This perk buffs shooting, but this matching flaw nerfs your close combat ability" - well, my list is full of gunline units that that suck in close combat anyway so who cares?

Virtually all of the combat buffs had an attendant points cost, and the ones that didn't tended to be extremely minor or had implicit disadvantages (eg Close Order Drill for Guard- yes, please put your infantry in base-to-base in a game with templates). They also came with other constraints, be it the force organization limits of Guard regiments or the advantage/drawback system of Marines. Since you're talking 4th Ed Marines- and since that 'this perk buffs shooting, but this matching flaw nerfs your close combat ability' example doesn't actually exist- let's look at a few examples that are actually in the rules.

Imperial Fists- their advantage is Suffer Not The Works of Heretics, which lets you purchase the Tank Hunters skill for Tacs or Devs at 3pts per model. Their disadvantage is Death before Dishonor, which lets your opponent force the game to go an extra turn on a 4+. So your advantage is an optional ability that, if you choose to use, you have to pay points for, and your downside is stubborn pride.

Or Crimson Fists. They can spend 1pt/model to get Preferred Enemy against Orks, but they always get 1 less (each) Elites, Fast Attack, and Heavy Support slots. Not an amazingly powerful ability, but you can always use the vanilla codex if you're not fighting Orks.

Or White Scars. Wow, they get multiple benefits- they can take Bikes as Elites but must buy a Veteran skill at 3ppm, or take them as Troops but they must be 5+ per unit, and all Bikes must buy Expert Riders for 2ppm. Their infantry can also choose to take Counter-Attack and True Grit for 3ppm. As their downside they can only take 0-1 Land Raiders, Predator Destructors, Whirlwinds, or Vindicators, can't use Land Raider Crusaders or Predator Annihilators at all, and transport vehicles take up Fast Attack slots.

Do you see the theme here? The upsides that actually boost your combat ability all need to be paid for or have built-in downsides (eg 6+ invuln, but you can't ever benefit from cover), and whether you choose to use them or not, you also take a downside of some form. The subfaction abilities could make a significant difference, but with how many disadvantages are baked in unless you're going for a certain theme you might consider just using the vanilla codex (and that was allowed, and perfectly fine).

The closest this system ever got to 'something for nothing' was the rearranging of FOC slots, but since you still had to pay for every unit you weren't actually getting anything for free, just getting more options that could have balance implications. It wasn't 'perfectly balanced', but it was a system with more flavorful subfaction differentiation than just making every Blood Angel punch harder, where taking an army that didn't neatly fit into a particular archetype didn't put you at a disadvantage, and most of all where GW could actually balance the game worth a damn because they didn't have to somehow pick one points cost for a unit that could be anywhere from mediocre to amazing depending on what subfaction it's in.

Tyel wrote:
The problem with drawbacks is that they are even more difficult to balance holistically than advantages.

I mean for example above - "We Stand Alone, can't take allies". Oh no, what a terrible shame in my pure Space Marine list. Then you had classic things like "can take an extra Heavy Support choice, but have to run one less Fast Attack". Oh no, how will my mainly heavy tank army cope?

Its very hard to balance this really. "This perk buffs shooting, but this matching flaw nerfs your close combat ability" - well, my list is full of gunline units that that suck in close combat anyway so who cares?

The Iron Warriors lost two fast attack choices to gain a heavy support choice, so doing so heavily altered the list composition. In 3rd and 4th edition, there was a lot more mission variety available in the core rulebook, so reducing mobility probably had a bigger impact in some mission types than others. For example, a gunline list might be pretty good at cracking bunkers in Bunker assault, but lack mobility if attacked in an Ambush mission and can result in being outdeployed in a Meatgrinder mission.

But then I feel like varying up missions more to shake up what units are valuable is generally good for the game. I hated that my friends preferred kill points over any other mission type in 5th edition. So boring.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

Wayniac wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Well, I mean, you might as well tell people that UM,BA, and BT are not playable without players permission, as half their strength is tied to their characters being some of the best in the game. I mean, I see your point, but that's a little extreme.

Well, that being the case is kinda the problem in general, isn't it? You shouldn't be required to take a special character for your faction to function.

Well put. But what game are we playing. The game we are talking about is not the game that we've been playing....ever. Characters and super models have always broken the natural flow. This isn't checkers. You can't create perfect equality. It would be bland and boring. There needs to be at least an appearance of Rock paper scissors. Morty of 9th was essentially an unkillable terrain piece that killed any model that came within range of him. That was unbalanced. 10th is at least trying to address this. But still failing....but I get your point.

Not true, special characters used to require the permission of your opponent to play and were a smaller part of the game in general. They were also tied to army size. An important character could only be taken in 2000pts or larger forces, for example.

I'm not going to ask for my opponent's permision to field the OOO or Swarmlord or DeathLeaper.

This thread is making miss 3rd-4th edition, truly the best period of time for the game even though balance may have been not so great. People talk about flanderization in the 9th faction traits but I would say that 10th detachments are so much worse. I look at Tyranids and each of their detachments basically tells you exactly how to build the army, some cases like the Assimilation Swarm being so restrictive on what units get the bonus that you have to dedicate so much of your points to a small pool of FOUR units. How is a detachment that pushes me to play four units any less flanderization than a 9th faction trait, such as Leviathan, giving my entire army a form of FNP?

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:


Well put. But what game are we playing. The game we are talking about is not the game that we've been playing....ever. Characters and super models have always broken the natural flow. This isn't checkers. You can't create perfect equality. It would be bland and boring. There needs to be at least an appearance of Rock paper scissors. Morty of 9th was essentially an unkillable terrain piece that killed any model that came within range of him. That was unbalanced. 10th is at least trying to address this. But still failing....but I get your point.

Hmm. I guess nobody told the DG players I faced the most often in 9th that.
Combined I killed their Morties a dozen times + throughout the edition.

 aphyon wrote:

In practical terms? Yes. They should. Or rather, it should be up to the individual IF player whether or not they should. Because:
A.) As a rule of thumb, there are probably more detachments that could reasonably run by most subfactions than not. And
B.) To do otherwise is to be a fluff snob telling people they're enjoying their hobby wrong.

I strongly disagree with this entire sentiment. the reason players in general...that are not power gaming faction hoppers looking for the new comp hotness. are drawn to the sub factions because of the lore, the way they fight and the way they do not fight. GW already skillfully addressed making the armies your own in previous editions when lore mattered more than tournaments. through the trait system for marines, the craftworlds for eldar etc...
If anything locking iconic factions into a specific play style prevents abuse, while supporting the setting. were back to that feeling of sanitized blandness or lost soul that started this discussion.

Nobody is telling them they are enjoying it wrong, if anything it helps them enjoy the hobby more by finding the faction or creating their own that fits what they are after. my view of 40K overall is what led me back to playing oldhammer. it is for epic fun battles in the setting. where my love of flame weapons matches the compassionate and noble Salamanders who love flame and melta weapons for lore reasons. or my love of wraith constructs draw me to playing the Iyanden craftworld that was forced into reforming itself around them because of the setting.

With the fists specifically, sitting here looking at my index astartes book. they do not directly eschew stealth but they prefer direct in your face aggression that precludes it along with special bonuses for destroying or fighting from fortifications.

The great thing about playing old hammer is i will never have to worry about balances passes invalidating armies or models or GW screwing things over ever again by rediculous rules changes that are directly the result of tournament win rates.

When i see a scars army or a templar army or a fists army on the table i know what i am up against just as much as if i were fighting alaitoc or bad moons.

Or it could be an entire custom chapter or an army of purple orks.....that you will never see coming..sneaky gitz.

detachments, like stratagem bloat and formation bloat before them were more of a detriment to the game from the marketing department at GW to push new sales than anything that should be in the game. but then NU-40K isn't 40k at all in my book. it just pretends to be.

So it's only real 40K if they force you into a box? I guess that's grimdark.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JNAProductions wrote:

ccs wrote:
I think that what the OP is largely noticing is that they don't need to waste time adding up wargear costs.
And then doing it again with the next Balance Sheet..

Because rules? There's plenty of rules. Every unit has 1,2, 3+ unique rules. And 1/2+ of the weapons as well.

And a lot of the rules feel pretty dull or unimpactful.
Plus, without any costs for anything besides unit size (in bulk) there's often a clear winner in terms of gear to pick.

Which units have rules that are more dull than what they had in 9th? Are we just talking weapon options here?

9th Edition wasn't exactly a bastion of interesting rules either.

Arbiter_Shade wrote:
This thread is making miss 3rd-4th edition, truly the best period of time for the game even though balance may have been not so great. People talk about flanderization in the 9th faction traits but I would say that 10th detachments are so much worse. I look at Tyranids and each of their detachments basically tells you exactly how to build the army, some cases like the Assimilation Swarm being so restrictive on what units get the bonus that you have to dedicate so much of your points to a small pool of FOUR units. How is a detachment that pushes me to play four units any less flanderization than a 9th faction trait, such as Leviathan, giving my entire army a form of FNP?

Now we're just pulling at everything to argue both sides of the coin.

You're coming from the opposite direction on this. If I have a bunch of endless swarm units I can look at the available detachments and find which fits the style I want to play. No one is going to take their monster mash list into assimilation instead of crusher just like no one is going to take assimilation if they don't like using harvester units.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JNAProductions wrote:
9th Edition wasn't exactly a bastion of interesting rules either.

So is paying 3 points for Tank Hunters more or less interesting?

 JNAProductions wrote:
9th Edition wasn't exactly a bastion of interesting rules either.

Which is ironic as a lot of people in here feel it was.

Can you give us a spread of some of the interesting rules you miss though so we have a frame of reference please?

9th edition was a bastion of rules but I wouldn't call them interesting.

Edit2: the 4th ed Marines codex had some major flaws too- White Scars being limited in vehicles incl. transport vehicles being the most obvious. They should have added a different major flaw for them that represented a distaste in slow troops on foot. "All infantry except scouts requires a dedicated transport or to be upgraded with bikes or jump packs", for example.

the trait system in 4th was pretty flavorful but i default to index astartes for some marine sub faction. the white scars were far more detailed as i posted earlier as were the iron hands. in alignment with the 3.5 chaos codex the dark angels codex 3.5 mini dex spent 2 pages to make the dark angels who they are known for. when it comes to BA or wolves their 5th ed codexes are superior to everything they had before or since. same with the 4th ed black templar codex.


When it comes to the other factions GW never put it in hard parameters. what they did do was put all the options in the codexes/forge world books and if you as a player well versed in the lore wanted to, could build a list themed around a particular craftworld or ork clan.

So it's only real 40K if they force you into a box? I guess that's grimdark.

Perhaps you missed the point or ignored it.

You as the player choose the "box" because you like it and if you do not like a particular box you had the freedom in the rules to actually create your own and were at one time encouraged to from GW no less. see the trait system above.

Your point is akin to playing Americans in flames of war and complaining that you are being forced into a box because you have to use Sherman tanks and not German panzers.

JNAProductions wrote:I'll repeat a point I've made before-the majority of named characters should just be certain builds that you make from generic characters.

Calgar might be a unique individual, but Chapter Master with Twin Power Fists shouldn't be locked to Ultras exclusively.

I kind of both agree and disagree. I feel like "special characters" should only have bespoke datasheets if they're actually so unlike another unit that wargear just doesn't cover it. So something like the Parasite of Mortrex or Ephrael Stern and her harlequin buddy definitely make sense as bespoke datasheets. But Marneus Calgar? He could probably be pretty well represented with just a generic chapter master datasheet and some wargear options. And speaking as someone who does play marines on occassion, the same is true for most marine characters. Most of them are just a more killy version of one of the generic datasheets. Eldrad mostly falls into this category too, though being the only seer with the Doom power gives him a bit of an excuse.

So yes, most special characters should be builds made with generic character rules, but also they should basically not be "special characters" at that point; just generic characters with canon background and a bespoke model.

Wayniac wrote:To be completely honest I'd be totally fine with special characters being narrative or opponent's permission only. We went from them being special to being all over the place, often being "auto includes" because of their special abilities.

I get where people with this view are coming from, but also that sort of stinks for anyone who happens to really love a certain character and goes out to build their army around it. You can imagine it would be pretty disheartening for someone who gets into the game and wants to build a ynnari army to find out their central character is veto-able.

And also, if a special character is an auto-include because they're more powerful/points efficient than a generic character, then they're probably in need of a points increase or a power nerf.

Wayniac wrote:That's why I feel the 30k Rites of War is the best way that I've seen that does a good compromise.

I like Rites of War. I think doing faction-agnostic Rites of War would be a great approach. Thorough changes to how an army is built and behaves, but don't tie them to specific paint schemes.

 aphyon wrote:

Edit2: the 4th ed Marines codex had some major flaws too- White Scars being limited in vehicles incl. transport vehicles being the most obvious. They should have added a different major flaw for them that represented a distaste in slow troops on foot. "All infantry except scouts requires a dedicated transport or to be upgraded with bikes or jump packs", for example.

the trait system in 4th was pretty flavorful but i default to index astartes for some marine sub faction. the white scars were far more detailed as i posted earlier as were the iron hands. in alignment with the 3.5 chaos codex the dark angels codex 3.5 mini dex spent 2 pages to make the dark angels who they are known for. when it comes to BA or wolves their 5th ed codexes are superior to everything they had before or since. same with the 4th ed black templar codex.


When it comes to the other factions GW never put it in hard parameters. what they did do was put all the options in the codexes/forge world books and if you as a player well versed in the lore wanted to, could build a list themed around a particular craftworld or ork clan.

I agree re. White Scars and Iron Hands. Salamanders were also much more interesting in their Codex: Armageddon/Index Astartes form. Essentially, I think the more divergent a Chapter was from the Codex Astartes, the more flavourful their 3rd edition incarnation was vs the 4th edition traits (if they had a 3rd edition format, obviously the trait system could be used to create all kinds of Chapters).

I also have a soft spot for the number of multi-faction units in 3rd edition. For example, any Space Marine force could take an Emperor's Champion, not just Black Templars. The latter were more associated with the Emperor's Champion of course.

Arbiter_Shade wrote:
This thread is making miss 3rd-4th edition, truly the best period of time for the game even though balance may have been not so great. People talk about flanderization in the 9th faction traits but I would say that 10th detachments are so much worse. I look at Tyranids and each of their detachments basically tells you exactly how to build the army, some cases like the Assimilation Swarm being so restrictive on what units get the bonus that you have to dedicate so much of your points to a small pool of FOUR units. How is a detachment that pushes me to play four units any less flanderization than a 9th faction trait, such as Leviathan, giving my entire army a form of FNP?

The key difference here is that the anhilation swarm isn't the only detachment for any given hivefleet. If you like the idea of the assimilation swarm and/or have a collection that happens to benefit from the swarm , then you're welcome to use it. Otherwise, you're welcome to use whichever of the detachments you find the most appropriate/enjoyable for your army. In contrast, the 9th edition approach told you which set of rules your canon subfaction "had to" use. Imagine if GW decided that the anhilation swarm was Behemoth's "thing" for whatever reason (just as an example, I know they'd probably use the stampede), and everyone with a Behemoth paint scheme was expected to use the anhilation swarm every game. Or alternatively, you explain to your opponent that while you're painted like the anhilation swarm army, you're actually using the crusher stampede army's rules.

So 9th edition white scars are "flanderized" in that 90% of their rules revolve around bikes. You can technically run something like a gunline or tank army with their rules, but you'll functionally be playing at a disadvantage because less of your army will benefit from your subfaciton rules. 10th edition white scars are equally welcome to use the bike detachment or the sneaky detachment or the terminator detachment, or whatever they're in the mood to field that day. Maybe you find it fun and fluffy to remind people that white scars devastators exist so you take the detachment that best supports a bunch of heavy weapon infantry.

I really don't see the problem with special characters and haven't for the past decade or two that this idea has been floated.

It can be bad when GW clearly make a special character OP - or a necessary crutch - and so it appears in just about every single list for a given faction. But then I often think this is the limits of the fluff problem. I.E. how often have I seen Thousand Sons players run Ahriman or Magnus? Most of the time. Especially when they were good - but frankly often even when they were not. Because they were a main reason why people had got into Thousand Sons in the first place.

After all what else is there? "I just really like magic and having bolters with better AP?" (I'm sure this isn't true for everyone and you can easily make your own characters up, but still.)

I mean I thought the same with Eldrad and Eldar 30~ years ago. Eldrad was part of the reason I liked Eldar those decades ago. Why wouldn't I want to run him as opposed to just a regular farseer?

 Haighus wrote:
I also have a soft spot for the number of multi-faction units in 3rd edition. For example, any Space Marine force could take an Emperor's Champion, not just Black Templars. The latter were more associated with the Emperor's Champion of course.

Characters in the 3rd edition codex were chapter locked.

Arbiter_Shade wrote:
How is a detachment that pushes me to play four units any less flanderization than a 9th faction trait, such as Leviathan, giving my entire army a form of FNP?

At least you have the choice of which narrow, prescriptive army archetype you want to play, rather than being railroaded into one of them by your choice of paint scheme.

Really, 10th Ed is just letting every named subfaction do what homebrew subfactions could in 8th-9th- pick whatever archetype feels most appropriate to the style of list you want to play.

Tyel wrote:
Why wouldn't I want to run him as opposed to just a regular farseer?

If you're into Eldar for their jetbikes or aesthetics or aspect warriors or anything other than Eldrad and don't want the named character in your Your Dudes army, then it's really obnoxious when GW either balances the rest of the army around whatever buffs he provides, or ties options to including him in your list (eg in 5th, I think it was, when you had to take a named character to play Deathwing).

I play Tyranids. I have no interest whatsoever in the Swarmlord. It was frustrating when 8th Ed saw my Genestealers nerfed into the ground because they could wombo-combo with the Swarmlord to throw them across the table. I don't mind the Swarmlord existing in rules or being taken by people who like it or whatever, I just don't want my army to have a Swarmlord-shaped hole because the designers assume I love all their named characters too.

Oh, one side effect of the 8th to 9th subfaction paradigm is that GW needed to come up with a whole bunch of subfaction rules for armies they hadn't bothered to before, so couldn't easily pilfer lore-themed rules from 3rd edition. However, that doesn't mean those subfactions didn't already have lore...

An example that comes to mind is Stygies VIII, a forge world with longstanding lore about their superior capability for crafting ballistic weaponry, seen in their successful attempt to revive the Vanquisher cannon and the long-barrelled autocannons on their Hydra variant. Then 8th edition comes along and Stygies is the sneaky electronic warfare forge world and a different subfaction are the master weapon smiths... At least they kept Ryza's plasma affinity.

Dudeface wrote:

Can you give us a spread of some of the interesting rules you miss though so we have a frame of reference please?

9th edition Tyranids were IMHO quite interesting, because they were OP it was pretty much the first and only time the Synapse was an actual rule system that gave buffs and could chain abilities. Having a varied and strong synaptic web was highly rewarded. Sure it lacked the customization of 4th and 3rd (but it still had more than 8th and 10th) but I'm unsure you can make those systems work with an unit roster that is 3-4 times larger.

a_typical_hero wrote:

 Haighus wrote:
I also have a soft spot for the number of multi-faction units in 3rd edition. For example, any Space Marine force could take an Emperor's Champion, not just Black Templars. The latter were more associated with the Emperor's Champion of course.

Characters in the 3rd edition codex were chapter locked.

The Emperor's Champion got updated rules in Chapter Approved (easiest to find in Chapter Approved: 2003) where it could be taken by any Chapter, although had to be taken by Black Templars. See the text at the top:

 Wyldhunt wrote:

Arbiter_Shade wrote:
This thread is making miss 3rd-4th edition, truly the best period of time for the game even though balance may have been not so great. People talk about flanderization in the 9th faction traits but I would say that 10th detachments are so much worse. I look at Tyranids and each of their detachments basically tells you exactly how to build the army, some cases like the Assimilation Swarm being so restrictive on what units get the bonus that you have to dedicate so much of your points to a small pool of FOUR units. How is a detachment that pushes me to play four units any less flanderization than a 9th faction trait, such as Leviathan, giving my entire army a form of FNP?

The key difference here is that the anhilation swarm isn't the only detachment for any given hivefleet. If you like the idea of the assimilation swarm and/or have a collection that happens to benefit from the swarm , then you're welcome to use it. Otherwise, you're welcome to use whichever of the detachments you find the most appropriate/enjoyable for your army. In contrast, the 9th edition approach told you which set of rules your canon subfaction "had to" use. Imagine if GW decided that the anhilation swarm was Behemoth's "thing" for whatever reason (just as an example, I know they'd probably use the stampede), and everyone with a Behemoth paint scheme was expected to use the anhilation swarm every game. Or alternatively, you explain to your opponent that while you're painted like the anhilation swarm army, you're actually using the crusher stampede army's rules.

So 9th edition white scars are "flanderized" in that 90% of their rules revolve around bikes. You can technically run something like a gunline or tank army with their rules, but you'll functionally be playing at a disadvantage because less of your army will benefit from your subfaciton rules. 10th edition white scars are equally welcome to use the bike detachment or the sneaky detachment or the terminator detachment, or whatever they're in the mood to field that day. Maybe you find it fun and fluffy to remind people that white scars devastators exist so you take the detachment that best supports a bunch of heavy weapon infantry.

Why limit yourself because of a paint job? I have never met anyone who would care if you used Leviathan rules with an army that looked like Behemoth because most people don't know the difference.

Your position seems to be that lore shouldn't matter at all in game because that one fringe weird person wants to run devastator White Scars. If someone really likes devastators and heavy weapons then why the hell do they like White Scars? If you just like the color white, go right ahead and paint them white. White with a Mongolian theme? Who cares? Now, no army has any identity because all armies are the same within a faction. There is nothing unique about playing any chapter of space marines except for the blessed few that get their own unique models.

I feel like the best way I can describe is it is that I enjoy fast cars so I invest into a fast car to go fast. Then you come along and replace my car with an SUV that can still go a little fast but can also do a lot of other things well; telling me that it is okay cause I can still go fast, just not as fast and look at all the other things I get with this car! But I don't care about those other things, I just wanted a fast car.

Detachments are really just the exact same as faction traits just wrapped up in an extremely boring way that walks all over established history of the game and setting for who? Who benefits from the change from GW TELLING you that this color space marine gets these rules and GW TELLING you that no color matters. The change from faction rules to detachment rules just forces you to take specific units, sure you might like those units but I much prefer when my entire army benefits from a umbrella rule rather than just some of my models.

You can like White Scars without being so completely devoted to bikes that the only way you can possibly imagine playing the game is to do so with bikes. Sometimes people want to play with other options without having to buy a completely new army.

Arbiter_Shade wrote:
If someone really likes devastators and heavy weapons then why the hell do they like White Scars?

If you're so uninvested in the setting and lore that you can't fathom liking a subfaction for any reason besides what one-dimensional stereotypical army build they represent, why do you care whether GW lets other color schemes pick the same rules?

 Haighus wrote:
The Emperor's Champion got updated rules in Chapter Approved (easiest to find in Chapter Approved: 2003) where it could be taken by any Chapter, although had to be taken by Black Templars. See the text at the top:

I stand corrected.

Arbiter_Shade wrote:

 Wyldhunt wrote:

Arbiter_Shade wrote:
This thread is making miss 3rd-4th edition, truly the best period of time for the game even though balance may have been not so great. People talk about flanderization in the 9th faction traits but I would say that 10th detachments are so much worse. I look at Tyranids and each of their detachments basically tells you exactly how to build the army, some cases like the Assimilation Swarm being so restrictive on what units get the bonus that you have to dedicate so much of your points to a small pool of FOUR units. How is a detachment that pushes me to play four units any less flanderization than a 9th faction trait, such as Leviathan, giving my entire army a form of FNP?

The key difference here is that the anhilation swarm isn't the only detachment for any given hivefleet. If you like the idea of the assimilation swarm and/or have a collection that happens to benefit from the swarm , then you're welcome to use it. Otherwise, you're welcome to use whichever of the detachments you find the most appropriate/enjoyable for your army. In contrast, the 9th edition approach told you which set of rules your canon subfaction "had to" use. Imagine if GW decided that the anhilation swarm was Behemoth's "thing" for whatever reason (just as an example, I know they'd probably use the stampede), and everyone with a Behemoth paint scheme was expected to use the anhilation swarm every game. Or alternatively, you explain to your opponent that while you're painted like the anhilation swarm army, you're actually using the crusher stampede army's rules.

So 9th edition white scars are "flanderized" in that 90% of their rules revolve around bikes. You can technically run something like a gunline or tank army with their rules, but you'll functionally be playing at a disadvantage because less of your army will benefit from your subfaciton rules. 10th edition white scars are equally welcome to use the bike detachment or the sneaky detachment or the terminator detachment, or whatever they're in the mood to field that day. Maybe you find it fun and fluffy to remind people that white scars devastators exist so you take the detachment that best supports a bunch of heavy weapon infantry.

Why limit yourself because of a paint job? I have never met anyone who would care if you used Leviathan rules with an army that looked like Behemoth because most people don't know the difference.

Right. Exactly. People were already using the rules that fit their army best. 10th just made that the norm instead of wrapping it in this weird, "Yellow marines should use the yellow marine rules" presentation. To quote catbarf:

Really, 10th Ed is just letting every named subfaction do what homebrew subfactions could in 8th-9th- pick whatever archetype feels most appropriate to the style of list you want to play.

Your position seems to be that lore shouldn't matter at all in game because that one fringe weird person wants to run devastator White Scars. If someone really likes devastators and heavy weapons then why the hell do they like White Scars? If you just like the color white, go right ahead and paint them white. White with a Mongolian theme? Who cares? Now, no army has any identity because all armies are the same within a faction. There is nothing unique about playing any chapter of space marines except for the blessed few that get their own unique models.

If someone likes the idea of playing a build of an army that isn't the immediate stereotypical build for that subfaction, I think they should be allowed to do so. You and I can cringe and poo poo their taste in fluff or armies or whatever, but I'd rather the rules support them doing that than not. The imperial fist bikers and devastator white scars players out there are valid and should be allowed to enjoy the game even if they aren't playing into stereotypes for their factions. Heck, I think playing a less stereotypical branch of a chapter is a cool way to carve out a place for yourself in the lore.

And ultimately, if you're playing an army full of bikers, you should probably have access to the biker strats and the biker enhancements. I don't want my opponent to be stuck with a bunch of less-useful-than-usual strats just because his bike army is painted yellow. A force composed largely of bikers is going to fight like a force composed largely of bikers.

As for there not being anything unique about a specific chapter... That was kind of already the case in 8th and 9th. As previously mentioned, there really wasn't anything stopping you from calling your yellow-painted biker army a "white scars" army despite the imperial fist logos on their shoulder pads. It was just a little more awkward because the rules you were using had another chapter's name on them.

I feel like the best way I can describe is it is that I enjoy fast cars so I invest into a fast car to go fast. Then you come along and replace my car with an SUV that can still go a little fast but can also do a lot of other things well; telling me that it is okay cause I can still go fast, just not as fast and look at all the other things I get with this car! But I don't care about those other things, I just wanted a fast car.

The problem in this analogy being that your car doesn't go as fast? What's that translate to in 40k terms? Do you feel your subfaction is no longer able to reflect its fluff as well as before? Or are you just offended that other factions can also do The Cool Thing now?

Detachments are really just the exact same as faction traits just wrapped up in an extremely boring way that walks all over established history of the game...

Can you explain what you find boring about it? The lore hasn't changed. White Scars are still known for liking their bikes, and they're still good at riding bikes if you take the bikes detachment. And just like before, people are free to write lore saying that their customer chapter is also good at riding bikes. The only difference is that imperial fists (or whomever) don't have to be relatively bad at riding bikes to make White Scars feel special.

Who benefits from the change from GW TELLING you that this color space marine gets these rules and GW TELLING you that no color matters.

I think you may have contradicted yourself there? The people who benefit from subfaction-agnostic detachments are anyone who wants to play their subfaction using non-stereotypical units. I.e. the hypothetical devastator white scars guy. Also, anyone whose GW-assigned subfaction rules weren't necessarily a good fit for that faction's lore.

The change from faction rules to detachment rules just forces you to take specific units, sure you might like those units but I much prefer when my entire army benefits from a umbrella rule rather than just some of my models.

I'm not sure how this differs from 8th and 9th? In 9th, a player using White Scars rules was at a disadvantage if he didn't field a bunch of bikes. He was "forced" to take bike units in that sense. Typically, a 9th edition player would select units/subfaction rules that go together. 10th is doing the same thing. Perhaps you feel that 10th restricts which units benefit from the detachment rules more than 9th edition did?

 aphyon wrote:
Perhaps you missed the point or ignored it.

You as the player choose the "box" because you like it and if you do not like a particular box you had the freedom in the rules to actually create your own and were at one time encouraged to from GW no less. see the trait system above.

Your point is akin to playing Americans in flames of war and complaining that you are being forced into a box because you have to use Sherman tanks and not German panzers.

So you loved 9th then? ( like honestly, because I'm unsure - it's hard to know where people are coming from with multipleideas swirling around )

Here's all the traits from 4th:



You could take any two of those for a major and minor drawback, which was silly easy to game. And based on this we can see that literally no chapter has 'Have Pride In Your Colors' so then any of them could Infiltrate.

Five of these are just force org jumbling, which is irrelevant now. You want an all bike army then go for it. You don't need to pick into it. The rest are upgrades to units...

...which are available in spades and in far greater variety than 4th ever offered on top of having a tactical consideration of their use and strategic consideration of their deployment.


Your point of doing what you want stands in opposition to others here who seem to prefer a rigid framework for each Chapter. What's absolutely befuddling is that both options are available. You can run White Scars as Stormlance and go all bikes ( like they want ) or you can run them in Firestorm as a mixed CQC army ( like you want ).

Both positions by both sides are gatekeepery, because they don't want to see others make Chapters that don't fit their idea of what the Chapter is and you seem to think that there's only one valid state for 40K.

Man its goo to see the same faces are still around!

I've been away from the 40k scene completely for a while and have recently been looking to get back into it.

I played all through 8th and beginning of 9th.

Rules bloat and OP BS was prevailent and was a scourge on 8th ed at certain point (Alitoic rules, rerolls everything auras, then doctirnes and super doctrines layers upon layers).

9th I didn't play much i cant put a finger on it but I just didn't enjoy it.

From what I've seen of 10th based on bat reps it just seems very very drab and frankly boring.

It seems GW in their usual fashion goes from one extreme to the next.

Why do you think it looks boring?

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Five of these are just force org jumbling, whch is irrelevant now. You want an all bike army then go for it. You don't need to pick into it.

Except for that Rule of Three, so take as many bikes as you want except limit it to exactly three squads. As opposed to the 4th ed where you could take twelve Bike Squads with the Chapter Trait unlock.

The rest are upgrades to units...

...which are available in spades and in far greater variety than 4th ever offered on top of having a tactical consideration of their use and strategic consideration of their deployment.

AFAIK Outriders have no upgrades available as a unit, as opposed to the old Bike entry which allowed Specials as upgrades. Every bike could take Meltabombs too actually. The Sergeant in fact could get Terminator Honors, and unlock the character wargear list which included all sorts of stuff. And then of course the Elite unlock for Tank Hunters and Furious Assault, as well as the previously mentioned Skilled Riders.

Not to mention the fact that any independent character could ride a Bike, so your bike army could be led by Captains, Librarians, Chaplains and Techmarines on Bikes.

As a bonus, you could actually get each Bike squad to the traditional Codex ten-man allotment. 8 on bikes and two on the Attack Bike, making it possible to run the entire 8th company on Bikes.

So i dunno . . . @Daedelus?