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.

 Arschbombe wrote:

 Wyldhunt wrote:

To make sure we're on the same page, this is essentially how it works for every non-marine faction, right? See: Iyanden players don't complain that Ulthwe players can use wraith units. Nor do they complain that their wraith units aren't inherently stronger than Ulthwe's wraith units.

You cannot mourn what you have not lost. Iyanden never got special rules for their wraith units. In 6th when they got a real separate codex supplement, they got an option for a council of spiritseers, a Iyanden themed warlock power to replace conceal/reveal, a seperate warlord traits table and 5 relics. Making Wraithguard troops was in the base codex if you took a Spiritseer. Way back in 3rd Iyanden was a variant list that did some FOC swaps (wraithguard and wraithlords to troops, guardians to elite etc) and added a Spiritseer upgrade to a warlock. More recently in 9th Iyanden was two craftworld traits, one warlord trait, one relic, and one strategem. So Iyanden players are not jealous of other craftworlders using wraith units. But marines players are keenly aware that they used to have more. And now they have less. That's why all these threads about boringness and flavor circle around the drain of just what it means to a special marine in the grimdark.

Well they had the rules but without the restrictions (aside from IA 11 as that craft world list had restrictions) that many marine chapters had.

The 4th ed eldar book that our group prefers to use in our oldhammer games allows for every core army troop faction option to run each of the well known craftworlds so you can build a legal list based off of the specific one you enjoy or just one you made up. the issue with marines is that each legion during the heresy had a specialization. and they never lost that when they became chapters.

It sounds like what you want (and forgive me if I'm misrepresenting you) is for WS to not only favor bikers but to also have better biker rules than everyone else (except RW and WS successors). And if that is your stance, I just don't agree with you..

We will disagree then, what i enjoy and want out of 40K is for the armies to fit the lore.

The WS should have better bike forces set up for close combat than any other marine faction because that is their specialization along with the other aspects of the chapter such as mechanized deployment. same as BA spending so much focus on assault jump infantry, or iron warriors breaking fortifications. this doesn't make the generalist poster boy ultra marines less than, in fact as the poster boys they got the most attention with a slew of special characters and access to all the gear. they are just not specialized in one specific style of war fighting in the 40K setting like many of the other chapters of renown.

This also applies across other factions. they may not have as many restrictions, but if i am running a bad moons clan for an ork army i should be investing heavy into flashgitz, or the farsite enclave should be crisis suit focused and so on.

It comes back to the fact that if you are into the setting as a basis for playing the game you are playing these factions because of why they draw your interest as a player. the bonuses and restrictions are both a positive to represent the faction on the table. the thing about fandom is that the IP draws you in and keep you coming back. We as fans get into it at various levels. rather it is dedication to a particular marine chapter in 40K a great house or clan in battle tech and so on.

In the OPs point if all the chapters are just vanilla marines with the only real variation is different colors painted on their armor. it diminishes the interest in the setting and game.

It is one of several reasons current 40K holds zero interest for me.

 aphyon wrote:

The WS should have better bike forces set up for close combat than any other marine faction

You lose me here too: White Scars should have Special/Different rules for their bike forces, but not better.

your problem will be that in 40k the lore is changing over time to fit new model releases and the rules are changed to fit that lore

the 40k you want is not what GW is selling and a good chance it never will be because they hardly go back

so you are better of playing the edition were the lore and rules fit what you want

 kodos wrote:
your problem will be that in 40k the lore is changing over time to fit new model releases and the rules are changed to fit that lore

the 40k you want is not what GW is selling and a good chance it never will be because they hardly go back

so you are better of playing the edition were the lore and rules fit what you want

Oh they go back all the time. USRs. Grenades. Formations/Dets just to name some obvious ones.

 kodos wrote:
your problem will be that in 40k the lore is changing over time to fit new model releases and the rules are changed to fit that lore

the 40k you want is not what GW is selling and a good chance it never will be because they hardly go back

so you are better of playing the edition were the lore and rules fit what you want

That is exactly what i have done. i made the effort to build a community and we have a steady regular group that plays core 5th ed but we use whichever codex we feel best represents the armies in the lore. for the most part 3rd-5th ed codexes are preferred as they are the ones most directly tied to the original designers of the universe.

I fully understand i am no longer GWs target customer. I really don't need anything from them any more either. with thousands of points in 3 different armies i can field a wide variety of stuff to keep games interesting.

As i said the current iteration of 40K holds zero interest, if anything i hold a strong dislike for it.

That however does not make me blind to what the current game is about or how it works. there is a reason these topics keep coming up in the forums. even if they do not know the previous editions some of the newer players feel that they are missing something in the game. so we discuss it here.

Wargaming is my main recreational hobby and one i have been active with for over 20 years. i play regularly and i play a lot of games (see sig). if i didn't then it would not be a hobby i would spend this much time, effort, or money on.

This is how i spend 12+ hours of any typical Saturday every weekend. -

You lose me here too: White Scars should have Special/Different rules for their bike forces, but not better.

Better in the sense they are good at close combat while ravenwing is good at shooting as bike centric armies, call it different or better. i see it as the same thing.

 Wyldhunt wrote:

To make sure we're on the same page, this is essentially how it works for every non-marine faction, right? See: Iyanden players don't complain that Ulthwe players can use wraith units. Nor do they complain that their wraith units aren't inherently stronger than Ulthwe's wraith units.

Wanted to come back to this- I really think this is an issue with Marine Chapters being so small. Given the amount we know about them, it is entirely plausible that the largest Aspect shrines are as big or larger than typical Chapters.

Lorewise, Ulthwe is easily big enough to accommodate a formation of Black Guardian jetbikers as skilled as the Wild Riders of Saim-Hann, and Biel-Tan is big enough to have at least some veteran Ranger Pathfinders in its diaspora, even if they are less numerous than those originating from Alaitoc.

However, in the lore White Scars are better bikers than Ultramarines but worse at holding positions etc. The Ultramarines legion probably had a few specialist companies of veteran bikers that could compare to White Scars, but if these survived the Heresy they likely would have been parcelled off into a separate successor like the Aurora Chapter armoured specialists. Therein lies the lore issue of how small and fragmented Marine forces are.

Breton wrote:

 aphyon wrote:

The WS should have better bike forces set up for close combat than any other marine faction

You lose me here too: White Scars should have Special/Different rules for their bike forces, but not better.

I prefer that there are rules for Elite Bikers - that you can select for a Chapter that in a particular battle is using those asests - lore friendly and not forcing people to have rules that only work for one "Special" Chapter.

Same as for example - speclaist inflitrators/Snipers, creature riders, berserkers, Terminators etc etc _ pretty much everything that is supposedly a signature of the Chosen three chapters is present in other chapers - just with different names etc.

 aphyon wrote:

It sounds like what you want (and forgive me if I'm misrepresenting you) is for WS to not only favor bikers but to also have better biker rules than everyone else (except RW and WS successors). And if that is your stance, I just don't agree with you..

We will disagree then, what i enjoy and want out of 40K is for the armies to fit the lore.

Me too! I think I'm just a little more lenient on how that lore is represented and also more conscious of the potential feels-bads your approach holds for those not wanting to lean into their army's stereotypes. Sincere question: do you think that a non-WS player who wants to run a bike army for fluff/aesthetic reasons should have to be at an automatic disadvantage compared to a WS bike list? Because that's the scenario I worry your approach creates.

Yes, WS are better known for fielding bikes than Salamanders are, but if a player likes the idea of a Salamander bike army (maybe to represent a specific campaign or just to carve out his own little corner of the setting), then I don't feel like he should have to play at a disadvantage because our hypothetical WS players won't feel special enough otherwise.

The WS should have better bike forces set up for close combat than any other marine faction because that is their specialization along with the other aspects of the chapter such as mechanized deployment. same as BA spending so much focus on assault jump infantry, or iron warriors breaking fortifications.

Counterpoint: a chapter preferring/usually defaulting to certain tactics doesn't necessarily mean that they're significantly better at those tactics than everyone else. Just because White Scars will opt for a bike-based solution to a problem 9 times out of 10 doesn't necessarily mean that an Iron Hands biker force is significantly less competent at riding bikes in comparison.

This also applies across other factions. they may not have as many restrictions, but if i am running a bad moons clan for an ork army i should be investing heavy into flashgitz, or the farsite enclave should be crisis suit focused and so on.

I feel like you're making my point for me here. Bad Moons can feel like Bad Moons simply by choosing the appropriate units. Farsight can feel like Farsight simply by choosing the appropriate units. So why then, when it comes to marines, is choosing the appropriate units suddenly not enough? Why are WS not sufficiently White Scar-ish when they field an army full of bikes and transports?

It comes back to the fact that if you are into the setting as a basis for playing the game you are playing these factions because of why they draw your interest as a player.

Counterpoints:
A.) There are reasons to like a faction other than their tactics. Maybe you're really drawn Salamanders because they're the "nice guy" marines and you love their treasure hunting lore, but you're just not all that enthused about shoving as many flamers into your list as possible.

B.) There is also an appeal to playing against type a bit. You like Salamanders. You go online to see that everyone and their mom is running flamer spam Salamanders, and you want to feel a bit unique. So you think, "Hey! Salamanders have bikes too! Maybe my games could follow the exploits of the Salamander bike company." But alas, you then find out that your bike army isn't allowed to use bike stratagems and do bike things because those rules are paint-locked to white armor. And you play every game knowing your rules don't support your army as well as they could because aphyon disapproves of your taste in fluff.

In the OPs point if all the chapters are just vanilla marines with the only real variation is different colors painted on their armor.

The thing is, you can still impose limitations/thematic choices on yourself. If you think Salamanders should always lean into termies and flamer spam instead of bikes, you can do that. But if our friend wants to run Salamanders on bikes instead, 10th edition lets him do that. Insisting that he should be punished for doing so feels contrary to our ultimate goal of having a fun time with the game/hobby.

Sincere question: do you think that a non-WS player who wants to run a bike army for fluff/aesthetic reasons should have to be at an automatic disadvantage compared to a WS bike list? Because that's the scenario I worry your approach creates.

I do not see it as a disadvantage. GW already addressed this with the 4th ed codex trait system. you can "build your own" bike centric list and also give that list a few extra perks an ultra marine list cannot take. But not the same exact combination of skills found in the WS as a close combat focused bike force or ravenwing as a shooting focused bike force. it is similar to the 3.5 chaos codex. you could make a thematic close combat themed undivided army, but it will not operate in the same what a khorne marked berserker close combat thematic army does. the latter gaining special war gear, and other effects from serving their preferred chaos god. but it also comes with restrictions chaos undivided does not suffer.

I feel like you're making my point for me here. Bad Moons can feel like Bad Moons simply by choosing the appropriate units. Farsight can feel like Farsight simply by choosing the appropriate units. So why then, when it comes to marines, is choosing the appropriate units suddenly not enough? Why are WS not sufficiently White Scar-ish when they field an army full of bikes and transports?

I am actually not, all the restricted specialized lists for xenos factions similar to what marines got through sub codexes or index astartes supplements do exist in previous editions they were just all in the forge world imperial armor books.

Additionally eldar aspect warriors serve an aspect shrine that is exactly the same across all craftworlds. they in effect separate from the nature of the craftworld they may serve as the aspect is a higher calling. where as specific space marine legions/chapters are not and do not operate the same. they be the same race/faction but each was modeled after a primarch who embodies an aspect of the emperor or some role he wished them to fullfill in his great plan. As such the entire legion/chapter is specialized for that task. you keep implying that players are being forced into playing this or that marine faction when the reality is that they choose it because it fits what they want to play. of course i am coming at this from a different edition where any perceived disadvantages you may think exist on paper can be overcome by what you do with your force on the table. opposing forces being thematic as well as possibly imbalanced is part of the 40K setting and something that i see as a positive feature of the game. some of the best games i have had have been really hard fought where i lost but still had a great time.

 Mr Morden wrote:

Breton wrote:

 aphyon wrote:

The WS should have better bike forces set up for close combat than any other marine faction

You lose me here too: White Scars should have Special/Different rules for their bike forces, but not better.

I prefer that there are rules for Elite Bikers - that you can select for a Chapter that in a particular battle is using those asests - lore friendly and not forcing people to have rules that only work for one "Special" Chapter.

Same as for example - speclaist inflitrators/Snipers, creature riders, berserkers, Terminators etc etc _ pretty much everything that is supposedly a signature of the Chosen three chapters is present in other chapers - just with different names etc.

Yeah, I'm not a fan of 200 points for outriders, 2PPM for ELITE outriders that all will STILL operate the same. Its fake variety. If ELITE is worth 2PPM everyone will do it, if its not nobody will. If UM Bikers are a little better shooting and little better fighting, or WS Bikes are a little better moving, and a little better fighting, or Ravenguard Bikers are a little harder to shoot, and a little better something else then they all play different. Nobody is "ELITE" they're just different. I prefer the Det to be about the units, and the Chapter to be about how the units play. I like that everyone can play every Det (until you get to the Supplements, and the inherent problems with this first run at the Dets). I think the variety inside each Det (the Chapter Tactics if you will) should tweak how those same units play. The Biel-Tan Warlock Skyrunning Conclave might be slightly better bikers, while the Ulthwe Warlock Skyrunning Conclave might be slightly better psykers.

 aphyon wrote:

I am actually not, all the restricted specialized lists for xenos factions similar to what marines got through sub codexes or index astartes supplements do exist in previous editions they were just all in the forge world imperial armor books. .

What xenos subfaction stuff was in FW IA books? Raid on Kastorel-Npvem had the Ork Dreadmob list, Doom of Mymeara had the Corsairs list and... That's it? Everything else was additions to the existing lists.

Meanwhile, Speed Freeks were in Codex: Armageddon, Eldar subfactions were in Codex: Craftworlds with an additional list in Codex: Eye of Terror, Chapter Approved included rules for Kroot Mercenaries, Feral Orks, the 6 Ork clans, and an alternative Tyranid list. Genestealer Cults and Harlequins featured in Citadel Journal. The 3rd ed Tyranid codex also had "mutable genus" rules for DIY hive fleets.

So most of the subfaction rules appeared in 3rd edition magazines or codices.

IA 3-tau auxiliaries
IA 8-dredd mob list
IA 11 craftworld mymeara and corsairs army lists
IA 12 dark harvest necron army list
IA 13 renegades and heretics army list

Of course that is also not counting the DKOK army list, elysian army list and special lists for the astral claws/tyrants legion, red scorpions, minotaurs, Carcharodons, the latter being the focus of the siege assault army list options.

Forgot about the dark harvest list.

The auxiliaries in IA3 were just extra units for the standard Tau list, not a whole subfaction.

Way more xenos subfaction rules were by GW proper overall.

Renegades and Heretics were a successor to the Lost and the Damned list in Codex: Eye of Terror (a pretty good one IMO). I didn't mention them because they were not xenos.

The Imperium definitely got the bulk of IA unique lists with 2 DKoK lists (siege, assault), 2 Elysian lists (standard, D-99), Imperial Guard armoured battlegroup, a limited Tallarn list piggybacking off the 3.5th IG doctrines, and the Siege Assault Vanguard list (which I personally associate most with the Star Phantoms assault on the Palace of Thorns, but is generic). As you say, several Chapters got additional rules to varying degrees consistent with however GW was presenting Chapter rules at the time (4th ed chapter traits, 5th ed chapter tactics locked to characters, proper chapter tactics later on etc.).

I am unsure if this has been mentioned or not, but one thing about Space Marines that burns my biscuts is that all the unit versatility of tacticals has been gutted for hyper-focused units, that only do one thing. Instead of tacticals taking a squad of bolters, a plasma gun, and maybe a HB, we have Just Plasma Intercessors, or just HB Intercessors (Heavy Intercessors), it's taken all the squad versatility out of SMs, and made them just specilized squads of dudes that will likely do one thing well, then be pointless for the rest of the time. Also, will someone please explain to me how any single variant of a "Bolt rifle" does more damage than a ball of Sun hot fire plasma? How is a ball of plasma D1 but a gun bolt is d2/3? Make it make sense?

Are you referring to Heavy Bolters? Standard are D1. Plasma goes to D2 when overcharged.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

it's taken all the squad versatility out of SMs, and made them just specilized squads of dudes that will likely do one thing well, then be pointless for the rest of the time.

I think that's probably in response to the competitive community. Versatile units are inefficient units. That was always identified as one of the reasons why vanilla space marines haven't been super competitive in most editions.

 Arschbombe wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

it's taken all the squad versatility out of SMs, and made them just specilized squads of dudes that will likely do one thing well, then be pointless for the rest of the time.

I think that's probably in response to the competitive community. Versatile units are inefficient units. That was always identified as one of the reasons why vanilla space marines haven't been super competitive in most editions.

It’s also easier for new players. None of those “how should I equip my tactical squad” questions like in the days of yore. Buy your box of intercessors, build your box of intercessors, field your box of intercessors. No questions.

Ok, I'm just responding to the OP's thesis, not the validity or reasoning behind tactical loadouts of yore. The reason I find a lot of Space Marines boring now is that player choice in the very essence of the game (Playing with plastic dolls) has been gutted, and now everyone has to play with the exact same dolls. No one can have different dolls. Everyone's dolls must stand on the same rocks, carry the same weapon, mono-pose, and whatnot. The only variant options now are what bits and bobs you choose to attach. If you choose to attach grenades, knife, pistol in holster, etc. Otherwise, two Space Marine armies, bought by two different players, on the same day of last week, assembled according to the book, will look almost identical. This is the biggest reason I can point to for the "Army being boring now...."

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Ok, I'm just responding to the OP's thesis, not the validity or reasoning behind tactical loadouts of yore. The reason I find a lot of Space Marines boring now is that player choice in the very essence of the game (Playing with plastic dolls) has been gutted, and now everyone has to play with the exact same dolls. No one can have different dolls. Everyone's dolls must stand on the same rocks, carry the same weapon, mono-pose, and whatnot. The only variant options now are what bits and bobs you choose to attach. If you choose to attach grenades, knife, pistol in holster, etc. Otherwise, two Space Marine armies, bought by two different players, on the same day of last week, assembled according to the book, will look almost identical. This is the biggest reason I can point to for the "Army being boring now...."

It used to be marines had a lot of options for getting the same job done. How you chose to do it would flavor the army a lot. You want melta to blow up tanks? Tac squad in a rhino, SG with combis in a drop pod. Bikes. Attack bikes. Land speeders. Tons of choices to choose from. Now? We have eradicators? One of the storm speeders?

The roles needed for an army are largely the same, but the tools are basicly a bucket of monotaskers.

And once you start getting competitive, you are going to want to take the most efficent one.

Through that lense, yes. Marine armies are boring.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Ok, I'm just responding to the OP's thesis, not the validity or reasoning behind tactical loadouts of yore. The reason I find a lot of Space Marines boring now is that player choice in the very essence of the game (Playing with plastic dolls) has been gutted, and now everyone has to play with the exact same dolls. No one can have different dolls. Everyone's dolls must stand on the same rocks, carry the same weapon, mono-pose, and whatnot. The only variant options now are what bits and bobs you choose to attach. If you choose to attach grenades, knife, pistol in holster, etc. Otherwise, two Space Marine armies, bought by two different players, on the same day of last week, assembled according to the book, will look almost identical. This is the biggest reason I can point to for the "Army being boring now...."

Given that even now Marines have a vast bloated list of actual unit options which continue to grow with a huge variety of options of how to play before you even look at "Chosen" chapter options the idea that all marine armies look the same is hilarious.

And even then there is an entire second range of Marine models that can be used to personalise an army.

Variety of models or units is really not a Marine issue.

 Dysartes wrote:

Breton wrote:
I'm actually fairly worried we're going to see Combat Patrol turn into the mechanics for 2,000 point armies as well. You'll be given pre-generated 2,000 point armies that have this HQ with this load out, these units with these loadouts, and those other characters with those other loadouts, and each 2,000 point army will have bespoke datasheets just for that army box.

I would be more than happy to see that happen - for tournament play only.

Want to prove you've actually got some skill? Win events using a list GW built for you... and let everyone else enjoy the game without the limitations that the actions of the tryhards end up causing GW to inflict on the rest of the playerbase.

Orrrrrr...

We could stop letting GW's laughable attempts at balancing their own game, which they've had ten editions of now, slide by blaming everything on mean ol' tournament players.

 aphyon wrote:

Sincere question: do you think that a non-WS player who wants to run a bike army for fluff/aesthetic reasons should have to be at an automatic disadvantage compared to a WS bike list? Because that's the scenario I worry your approach creates.

I do not see it as a disadvantage. GW already addressed this with the 4th ed codex trait system. you can "build your own" bike centric list and also give that list a few extra perks an ultra marine list cannot take. But not the same exact combination of skills found in the WS as a close combat focused bike force or ravenwing as a shooting focused bike force. it is similar to the 3.5 chaos codex. you could make a thematic close combat themed undivided army, but it will not operate in the same what a khorne marked berserker close combat thematic army does. the latter gaining special war gear, and other effects from serving their preferred chaos god. but it also comes with restrictions chaos undivided does not suffer.

Yeah, I'm not a fan of 200 points for outriders, 2PPM for ELITE outriders that all will STILL operate the same. Its fake variety. If ELITE is worth 2PPM everyone will do it, if its not nobody will. If UM Bikers are a little better shooting and little better fighting, or WS Bikes are a little better moving, and a little better fighting, or Ravenguard Bikers are a little harder to shoot, and a little better something else then they all play different. Nobody is "ELITE" they're just different. I prefer the Det to be about the units, and the Chapter to be about how the units play. I like that everyone can play every Det (until you get to the Supplements, and the inherent problems with this first run at the Dets). I think the variety inside each Det (the Chapter Tactics if you will) should tweak how those same units play. The Biel-Tan Warlock Skyrunning Conclave might be slightly better bikers, while the Ulthwe Warlock Skyrunning Conclave might be slightly better psykers.

In theory, I'm not opposed to an equal-but-different approach. My concern is in the execution.

First, are we talking about writing bespoke variations on the Stormlance rules for each chapter, or just bringing back an army-wide one-size-fits-all buffs like we had in 8th and 9th? If the former, that's a lot of rules writing. If the latter, you have to make sure that a given chapter's rules are equally beneficial for the units focused on by each detachment type. That is, if the Imperial Fists chapter rule is more beneficial to bikes than the Salamanders rule is, then an IF biker army is going to simply be more powerful than a Salamanders biker army. And whatever chapter-specific rules you create have to not only be equally beneficial to bikes, but also to any other units that benefit from them. That is, the extent to which the WS and Salamander rules are beneficial to bikes must be equal, the extent to which they are beneficial to terminators must be equal, beneficial to vehicles must be equal, etc. "Equally" here meaning equally enough that nobody ends up feeling like they're playing at a disadvantage due to their choice of chapter+detachment.

And even if you take on that project with the best intentions, the job becomes harder the more chapters you want to support. The original 9 loyalist chapters gives you tons of opportunities to fail already. Adding DW or Crimson Fists or Black Templars or whatever into the mix adds a bunch more. If that's a job you want to take on, I wish you well and would love to read the results. It just seems like an impractically difficult project when the alternative is to just let all bikers be good at biking.

You could even have few variations on the existing detachments to highlight different prominent modus operandi. It's just that faction-locking them makes them that much harder to do well without someone feeling bad.

I feel like you're making my point for me here. Bad Moons can feel like Bad Moons simply by choosing the appropriate units. Farsight can feel like Farsight simply by choosing the appropriate units. So why then, when it comes to marines, is choosing the appropriate units suddenly not enough? Why are WS not sufficiently White Scar-ish when they field an army full of bikes and transports?

I am actually not, all the restricted specialized lists for xenos factions similar to what marines got through sub codexes or index astartes supplements do exist in previous editions they were just all in the forge world imperial armor books.

I'm looking at it through the context of more recent editions. Personally, I don't think people should have to buy separate Bad Moons or Farsight Enclave books. Iyanden got its own supplement in 6th, but it really wasn't necessary. You could play an Iyanden-feeling list by just fielding lots of wraiths and maybe Yriel if the mood took you. This approach seems to be considered sufficient for all the non-marine armies. I dislike the idea that marines warrant an extra book or layer of rules to convey their fluff when non-marines seem to be able to pull it off to acceptable standards without those extra bells and whistles.

Additionally eldar aspect warriors serve an aspect shrine that is exactly the same across all craftworlds. they in effect separate from the nature of the craftworld they may serve as the aspect is a higher calling.

Pretty sure that's mostly false, but I don't want to muddy the discussion with an eldar fluff tangent.

where as specific space marine legions/chapters are not and do not operate the same. they be the same race/faction but each was modeled after a primarch who embodies an aspect of the emperor or some role he wished them to fullfill in his great plan. As such the entire legion/chapter is specialized for that task.

I feel you're overstating things pretty dramatically. Chapters, especially the codex-compliant ones, are more alike than different. They have their own preferences and philosophies, but at the end of the day they're all still capable of fielding a bunch of bike boys to pop wheelies. I guess I can understand why you'd be so insistent on them all having bespoke options and such if you really think they're actually that "specialized," but I simply don't think that they are. And further, it's a big galaxy with how many different chapters out there? Surely White Scars aren't the only chapter in the galaxy with a thing for riding bikes. There's absolutely an Iron Hands or Ultramarine or Fists successor out there that makes more sense using The Good Bike Rules than not.

you keep implying that players are being forced into playing this or that marine faction when the reality is that they choose it because it fits what they want to play.

Half-true. As I mentioned in an earlier post, play style/tactics aren't the only factor in what army someone plays. And as I also mentioned, playing against type can be fun in its own right. You seem to be implying that anyone who wants to play bike marines must obviously want to play White Scars or that anyone who wants to field White Scars must obviously want to lean exclusively into bikers, and neither of those are necessarily true.

of course i am coming at this from a different edition where any perceived disadvantages you may think exist on paper can be overcome by what you do with your force on the table. opposing forces being thematic as well as possibly imbalanced is part of the 40K setting and something that i see as a positive feature of the game. some of the best games i have had have been really hard fought where i lost but still had a great time.

Respectfully, this comes across like you're saying,

"Bad rules writing is fine because you can just get good. Bad matchups are super cool, actually. Sometimes I have fun even when I lose, and that's why you should be happy that your Salamander bikers are worse than White Scar bikers."

Your last couple points here seem to be moving away from the notion that biker armies from other chapters should be different-but-equal, instead making the case that different-and-unequal is fine because they could've (should've) just run White Scars if they wanted a bike army or because being at a disadvantage is fun. Not trying to put words in your mouth, but that's the vibe I'm getting. So to check in again, do you think that a player who wants to run a non-WS biker army should be at a disadvantage compared to a WS biker army? Not against each other necessarily, but against a wide field of opponents. Should a Salamanders bike army just be a WS bike army -1?

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I am unsure if this has been mentioned or not, but one thing about Space Marines that burns my biscuts is that all the unit versatility of tacticals has been gutted for hyper-focused units, that only do one thing. Instead of tacticals taking a squad of bolters, a plasma gun, and maybe a HB, we have Just Plasma Intercessors, or just HB Intercessors (Heavy Intercessors), it's taken all the squad versatility out of SMs, and made them just specilized squads of dudes that will likely do one thing well, then be pointless for the rest of the time. Also, will someone please explain to me how any single variant of a "Bolt rifle" does more damage than a ball of Sun hot fire plasma? How is a ball of plasma D1 but a gun bolt is d2/3? Make it make sense?

I'm not sure Tacs are all that versatile in the new system where everyone can shoot everything. When units have to be tuned against an entire unit of Las/Plas/Melt/Elemental Flavor Of The Month, one plasma gun approaches paint scratching levels to the unit as a whole. Even now, with Tacs being all but Primaris in name with two wounds and so on, you're not seeing Tac Squads very often. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see a list of 60 Tacs, 20 Assaults, 20 Devs - which can sort of be made today - I'm not sure how effective it would be.

As for the HB/Plas question? Getting shot by a big heavy hypersonic mass of metal doesn't splash - it goes through you. Getting hit by a ball of liquid/gaseous superheat will splash and flow - so the ball hits with less of its potency harder - and has less potency because its undercharged for speed over damage.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Ok, I'm just responding to the OP's thesis, not the validity or reasoning behind tactical loadouts of yore. The reason I find a lot of Space Marines boring now is that player choice in the very essence of the game (Playing with plastic dolls) has been gutted, and now everyone has to play with the exact same dolls. No one can have different dolls. Everyone's dolls must stand on the same rocks, carry the same weapon, mono-pose, and whatnot. The only variant options now are what bits and bobs you choose to attach. If you choose to attach grenades, knife, pistol in holster, etc. Otherwise, two Space Marine armies, bought by two different players, on the same day of last week, assembled according to the book, will look almost identical. This is the biggest reason I can point to for the "Army being boring now...."

Also one of the reasons I 3D Print bits. I found some plans for Marneus Calgar's banner+pole. I've made one where he's wearing it, and it looks SUPER cool with his Gravis Armor. But it also makes him 40 feet tall - Hopefully most of the people I play will compromise in some way - only the original parts can be "seen" or only actually damageable bits instead of flags and antennae.

But just in case I did some looking and found a "servitor" that could be fluffed as a "remembrancer" with a little mobile writing desk I could attach the banner to and it would work like a little Watcher In The Dark i.e. a token that has no effect etc on the rules. - and as an added bonus the Sons of Guilliman carting around a Remembrancer to write down all sorts of reports for Gulliman to digest feels pretty fluffy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lord Damocles wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

Breton wrote:
I'm actually fairly worried we're going to see Combat Patrol turn into the mechanics for 2,000 point armies as well. You'll be given pre-generated 2,000 point armies that have this HQ with this load out, these units with these loadouts, and those other characters with those other loadouts, and each 2,000 point army will have bespoke datasheets just for that army box.

I would be more than happy to see that happen - for tournament play only.

Want to prove you've actually got some skill? Win events using a list GW built for you... and let everyone else enjoy the game without the limitations that the actions of the tryhards end up causing GW to inflict on the rest of the playerbase.

Orrrrrr...

We could stop letting GW's laughable attempts at balancing their own game, which they've had ten editions of now, slide by blaming everything on mean ol' tournament players.

As likely to happen as the people pushing "bloat" theories, and claiming Marine Armies aren't cookie cutter when the meta settles.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Wyldhunt wrote:


In theory, I'm not opposed to an equal-but-different approach. My concern is in the execution.

First, are we talking about writing bespoke variations on the Stormlance rules for each chapter, or just bringing back an army-wide one-size-fits-all buffs like we had in 8th and 9th? If the former, that's a lot of rules writing. If the latter, you have to make sure that a given chapter's rules are equally beneficial for the units focused on by each detachment type.

Yeah I'm not interested in Chapter XYZ's Stormlance numbering in the 10,000's. Armywide buffs is the way to go. I'd even say they don't need to be equally beneficial by handful of detachment iconic units. They just need to be relatively equally beneficial before you get to the detachment. One of the cool things about it is that it can make units that may not make the grade suddenly somewhat good. I'm turning this idea over in my head the last week so it keeps coming back to me - The Inner Circle Task Force has a rule for Vowed Objectives. The arguably iconic units for the Inner Circle Task force are Terminators. Its basically the Dark Angels Deathwing Detachment. And there's a lot wrong with it, but its not horrible. One of the things it does is (potentially) makes Vanguard Vets (And Lightning Claw Assault Terminators) pretty good. When is the last time Lightning Claw Terminators were good?

Respectfully, this comes across like you're saying,

"Bad rules writing is fine because you can just get good. Bad matchups are super cool, actually. Sometimes I have fun even when I lose, and that's why you should be happy that your Salamander bikers are worse than White Scar bikers."

Your last couple points here seem to be moving away from the notion that biker armies from other chapters should be different-but-equal, instead making the case that different-and-unequal is fine because they could've (should've) just run White Scars if they wanted a bike army or because being at a disadvantage is fun. Not trying to put words in your mouth, but that's the vibe I'm getting. So to check in again, do you think that a player who wants to run a non-WS biker army should be at a disadvantage compared to a WS biker army? Not against each other necessarily, but against a wide field of opponents. Should a Salamanders bike army just be a WS bike army -1?

First i don't consider it bad rules writing, i consider it to be the game as it was intended-epic battle in the 40K setting. where each army fights in the way it should and battles are not "balanced" however the core mechanics/rules allow both players the opportunity to triumph.

Second-the very concept of a salamanders bike army tells me you don't really care about the lore or love the salamanders. as somebody who has played them since 5th ed i understand and play to the strengths of how the chapter fights in the lore. marginal bike or land speeder use (index astartes IV makes it clear because of the conditions on nocturn they have very few of them) but heavy doses of flamer weapons, melta weapons, heavy armor, dreadnoughts, master crafted wargear and close range (flamer template) shooting with a preference for thunder hammers. a force that is slow to action but when they do move it is with overwhelming force.

Instead of trying to force yourself on the setting you should be immersing yourself in the setting. if you want to run a marine bike army you have many options that make sense-all around generic "codex space marine bikers" ( in the comparable rule set they can take tank hunters so that's a pretty cool thing they get the others don't), close combat assault specialized bikers -white scars, high maneuver ranged attack bikers-raven wing

Or on the chaos side each mark in the 3.5 codex gives their bikes many interesting options and play styles. and that's not counting what necron, ork or eldar bike themed armies can do.

So you have nearly a dozen options in the "bike army" concept in the game already without having to force it on a faction that should not be running such a force to begin with.

If you take out the flavor and the lore based rules, you may get that magic "balanced" game system, but you also lose the fact it is supposed to be a 40K game. it does become sanitzed, boring or otherwise loses it's soul as the other mirror topics discussed at length.

You don't have to agree with me or anybody else. the game is what you make of it and what you enjoy that keeps you there. i already pointed out i am not current GWs target audience. i am in a good place with over a dozen fellow travelers playing oldhammer and enjoying it the way it was intended. where we can throw down a 3.5 chaos list against a 7th ed admech list or an imperial armor list, chapter approved list, index astartes list etc... and have great epic battles.

Even better we never have to worry about GW coming in and mucking things up with edition changes, squatting models, balance passes, errata or FAQs ever again.

 Lord Damocles wrote:

We could stop letting GW's laughable attempts at balancing their own game, which they've had ten editions of now, slide by blaming everything on mean ol' tournament players.

technically speaking they had 1/3 of an Edition to balance because as soon as there are changes to the core rules outside of balancing USRs you start all over again and something very simple like changing point costs means everything you already had is screwed and you start all over

so far as balancing of 40k goes, everything we previously had means nothing with the reset for 10th Edition
while a fresh start has its advantages, the main disadvantage is that balance also start from 0 again

Balance absolutely doesn't start back from zero again. The foundation of 10th edition is still essentially 3rd ed.
There are also endless basic lessons that GW should have learned from past experience ('who could have foreseen people taking Lash of Submission twice!?') but which continue to be issues.

first of all, the people who learned those lessons are not longer working for GW and than lessons learned from the previous Edition only work with the previous core rules (why we see rather big changes with the on release Errata)

and yes, even if you keep everything the same, saying a Marine squad does not pay for upgrades and always cost 200 points messes everything up and you start from 0 again as you can guess things but most work happens with games being played (which is happening after release)

in addition, just because some rules are still similar to 3rd does not mean you can base any experience from pre-8th Edition for 10th

we learned that the hard way when GW thought that with changing how AP and Toughness and that without adjusting the other stats that tanky units will still be tanky

for everything regarding balance, current 40k is not the 10th version of the game but a new game were you start from 0.

Yeah I'm not interested in Chapter XYZ's Stormlance numbering in the 10,000's. Armywide buffs is the way to go. I'd even say they don't need to be equally beneficial by handful of detachment iconic units. They just need to be relatively equally beneficial before you get to the detachment. One of the cool things about it is that it can make units that may not make the grade suddenly somewhat good. I'm turning this idea over in my head the last week so it keeps coming back to me - The Inner Circle Task Force has a rule for Vowed Objectives. The arguably iconic units for the Inner Circle Task force are Terminators. Its basically the Dark Angels Deathwing Detachment. And there's a lot wrong with it, but its not horrible. One of the things it does is (potentially) makes Vanguard Vets (And Lightning Claw Assault Terminators) pretty good. When is the last time Lightning Claw Terminators were good?

My concern is that it seems extremely likely that some chapter rules would benefit some units more than others. Like if you're running an army full of tanks, the old SW +1 to-hit in melee is probably going to be less useful for your tanks than something like counting as being in cover at a distance (RG) or FNP and doubling your wounds for wound bracket purposes (IH). So then if you want to field an Ironwolf army, you might feel like you're shooting yourself in the foot by not playing RG or IH instead.

Whereas 10th's approach basically just says, "What kind of army do you want to play? Okay cool. Here are some rules to support that and make it more interesting."

But again, I'd have no objection to the equal-but-different thing if someone managed to pull it off.

First i don't consider it bad rules writing, i consider it to be the game as it was intended-epic battle in the 40K setting. where each army fights in the way it should and battles are not "balanced" however the core mechanics/rules allow both players the opportunity to triumph.

Second-the very concept of a salamanders bike army tells me you don't really care about the lore or love the salamanders...

"Salamanders" as I've been using it here is just shorthand for marines-whose-chapter-isn't-primarily-associated-with-bikes-the-way-White-Scars-are.

That said, your opposition to a Salamanders bike army might make it a great for-instance for purposes of this conversation. In your opinion:

A.) Should an army be allowed to have a Salamanders paint scheme/lore and field a list focused on/consisting primarily of bikes?

B.) If so, is it acceptable/good for the game and player experience for such a list to be notably less powerful than a list with White Scars paint/lore? i.e. if the green bikes and the white bikes play Bob's orks 100 times each, the green bikes will win 30 games compared to the white bikes' 50 games because the green bikes' stratagems and special rules don't synergize with their selected units as well?

If the answer to A is no or the answer to B is yes, then my concern would be that we're setting up new people to have a bad experience or be disappointed that their green bike army idea isn't supported. Whereas with 10th's approach, all marine bike armies are supported regardless of paint scheme. If Greg really likes the idea of nice guy marine bikers, he can play that army without having to accept that he'll lose more.

Can we agree that your stance that paint scheme should punish some army builds might lead to bad experiences for some people? Or that wanting some paint schemes to perform less well with the same unit composition is ultimately just us being fluff snobs?

i am in a good place with over a dozen fellow travelers playing oldhammer and enjoying it the way it was intended.

That is excellent to hear, and I wish you well.

 kodos wrote:
first of all, the people who learned those lessons are not longer working for GW...

If only human civilisations could develop a method of passing knowledge from one person to another over a span of time and/or distance... some arcane method of transcribing thought and knowledge which would be legible to those who follow...

 kodos wrote:
and than lessons learned from the previous Edition only work with the previous core rules (why we see rather big changes with the on release Errata)

Except that isn't true. Everybody with an above room temperature IQ knows that players will spam the best units/options (like taking multiples of Lash of Submission apparently taught GW in 4th ed.); yet somehow nobody conceived that removing army building restrictions to the point where you could make an entire army of flying Hive Tyrants might cause an issue...

Eh army restrictions are still there and no one plays an army of Hive Tyrants.

For all the issues 10th has, I don't believe lack of army restrictions is one of them.