Switch Theme:

Extra ability for complete mono-forces  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Blood-Drenched Death Company Marine




Little Rock, Arkansas

So this is kinda half proposed rule/half discussion. I erred on the side of discussion since I'm not seriously trying to make a rule/get feedback, but rather just want to see some hypothetical opinions on what the different abilities would be.

So the setting is that all armies receive an additional ability that is similar to army tactics, but is only active if all units in all detachments share the same most-specific faction keyword. (IE army is 100% Raven Guard, no IG, assassins, knights etc.)

What would you expect to see from some of the specific army abilities?

I would expect Blood Angels to get something like "Accurate descent: units that have an ability that allows them to enter play > 9" away from enemies may instead be > 6" away instead."

Whatcha got?

20000+ points
Tournament reports:
1234567 
   
Made in au
Repentia Mistress





I could envision a pure SoB force gaining an additional 2+ army wide AoF. Or even the SoF invo increasing to a 5++ and/or the DtW roll being useful and being taken on 2d6 or d6+x.
   
Made in ca
Monstrously Massive Big Mutant






I think I like the idea. In practice it might be just too much additional rules for people to want, and people like t-sons and the like with no actual legions or chapters might find themselves salty unless they get their own too.

Id probably give World Eaters an ability to add 1 to their charge rolls. Simple, easy, and powerful.
   
Made in us
Douglas Bader






I prefer a simpler rule: if your army has the same most-specific keyword it gains "this is a legal 40k army and may be used". Obviously armies that don't get this rule can't be used.

There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





Steelcity

You save money on multiple codices and time spent building an army. That's your bonus ability.

Keeper of the DomBox
Warhammer Armies - Click to see galleries of fully painted armies
32,000, 19,000, Renegades - 10,000 , 7,500,  
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Northridge, CA

 vaklor4 wrote:
Id probably give World Eaters an ability to add 1 to their charge rolls. Simple, easy, and powerful.
Honestly just give us back Blood Tithe. I'm hoping we see it returned in CA, I don't want to wait till next year for it Q_Q
   
Made in us
Deathwing Terminator with Assault Cannon






Battleforged 3 CP is granted only if your army is mono faction.
   
Made in vn
Battlefortress Driver with Krusha Wheel






Maybe make it where everything has to share a regiment/klan/ect keyword to unlock a universal bonus... because competitive players will always use soup so it would be nice as a dedicated fluff casual player to have a little bonus in my game to show dedication to a certain faction.

Maybe, as someone already suggested, an extra few cps or even an extra strat like ignoring all negative hit modifiers for 1 phase once in the game because you can clearly see who is and is not the enemy because you're fighting with troops you should know personally.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/05/26 14:30:31


 
   
Made in it
Waaagh! Ork Warboss




Italy

 skchsan wrote:
Battleforged 3 CP is granted only if your army is mono faction.


Yeah, I also think that earning more CPs is a fair reward for mono faction armies.

 
   
Made in it
Whiteshield Conscript Trooper




Italy

 skchsan wrote:
Battleforged 3 CP is granted only if your army is mono faction.


This.

Overall I like the idea, and could motivate to create less soup and more fluffy armies.
I would like for the Tempestus to have a separate set of orders pretty much like in the 7th
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




 Peregrine wrote:
I prefer a simpler rule: if your army has the same most-specific keyword it gains "this is a legal 40k army and may be used". Obviously armies that don't get this rule can't be used.


GW made the commitment to Super Friends/Soup lists a couple of editions ago. They aren't going back.
   
Made in gb
Been Around the Block




 skchsan wrote:
Battleforged 3 CP is granted only if your army is mono faction.

I'd go one further. Battalion back down to 3CP and Battleforged for Mono lists 5CP.
Doesn't stop soup, but a big incentive to stay mono.
   
Made in us
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle





In My Lab

I'm a fan of encouraging mono armies, since they're inherently weaker than soup, but not punishing soup, since soup is fun too.

Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! 
   
Made in us
Deathwing Terminator with Assault Cannon






MarkM wrote:
 skchsan wrote:
Battleforged 3 CP is granted only if your army is mono faction.

I'd go one further. Battalion back down to 3CP and Battleforged for Mono lists 5CP.
Doesn't stop soup, but a big incentive to stay mono.
To go even 1 step further, for matched plays, mono faction battleforge grants 3CP. If you army does not contain any multiples of the same detachments, (i.e. battalion, outrider & vanguard) it grants 5CP instead.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 JNAProductions wrote:
I'm a fan of encouraging mono armies, since they're inherently weaker than soup, but not punishing soup, since soup is fun too.
Fluffy soup should be encouraged. CP batteries should not, however.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/05/26 15:20:14


 
   
Made in au
Regular Dakkanaut




Subfaction rules are already a tricky balance - so much so that they’re all over the place. Adding another layer to that is going to make that worse. You think Alaitoc is bad? Now imagine as the extra rule they got -1 to wound or something as well. I reckon you’re barking up the wrong tree adding rules to everyone.

I reckon the better path is to make soup have a tax. The problem balance-wise is that going with soup gives you the advantage of being able to build an army without inherent weaknesses. It’s basic game design that if one side has less weaknesses, it must have less strengths too. If soup has no weaknesses, then its strengths must be blunted. I say we do this by taking away their Chapter Tactic and their Chapter-specific Stratagem, Relic and Warlord Trait (not all their Stratagems, Relics and Warlord Traits mind you - just the Chapter-specific ones).

This should be easy enough to arrange - all Codexes have a paragraph that essentially says ‘An Imperial Fists Detachment is a Detachment containing only units with the Imperial Fists keyword. An Imperial Fists Detachment may use the Imperial Fists specific Chapter Tactic, Warlord Trait, Relic and Stratagem.’ You’d just need a small section in Chapter Approved that replaced the word Detachment with Army. You could then add a Mercenary rule that gives an exception to armies such as the Inquisition, Knights and Harlequins.

Edit: And please, please don’t give me the sob story about how ‘my entire army is broken by taking away my Chapter Tactic’ or whatever. Frankly, it isn’t. If your entire army revolves around -1 to hit or Overwatch on 5+ or something then it was a cheap gimmick army that you likely weren’t playing for fluff but for a competitive edge that would be taken away from you.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/05/26 15:33:00


 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut





UK

 Blackie wrote:
 skchsan wrote:
Battleforged 3 CP is granted only if your army is mono faction.

Yeah, I also think that earning more CPs is a fair reward for mono faction armies.

Agreed, that is a perfect antidote to soup armies right there!

I stand between the darkness and the light. Between the candle and the star. 
   
Made in gb
Mekboy on Kustom Deth Kopta






I like this idea and definitely think it has merit.

The bonus should probably be the same for any army though, rather than different rules.

I would think that a bonus of extra CP for armies that have the same faction would be great. It encourages fluffy play too, which is always a bonus to me.

The idea of a "CP battery" might disappear and it would help balance the non-soup armies vs Imperium and Chaos.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut




 An Actual Englishman wrote:
I like this idea and definitely think it has merit.

The bonus should probably be the same for any army though, rather than different rules.

I would think that a bonus of extra CP for armies that have the same faction would be great. It encourages fluffy play too, which is always a bonus to me.

The idea of a "CP battery" might disappear and it would help balance the non-soup armies vs Imperium and Chaos.

The CP battery won't disappear for Imperium as long as Imperial Guard have access to an easy way to bring in that many command points for no reason.

One idea I had to help prevent the easy Warlord Commander was to make a rule saying that the Warlord can't be from a detachment making up less than 25% of your army, with the Primarchs getting an exception to that. So any Warlord's detachment needs more commitment with 500 points minimum into them.

I really don't think most fixes need to be as drastic as you guys want.

CaptainStabby wrote:
If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.

 jy2 wrote:
BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.

 vipoid wrote:
Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?

 MarsNZ wrote:
ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




I agree that rather than having a bonus for being mono faction, it would be better to have a CP penalty or other limitations for not being mono faction.
   
Made in gb
Norn Queen






Or how about you just adapt to how the game works?
   
Made in us
Douglas Bader






Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
with the Primarchs getting an exception to that.


No. No special snowflakes. You want a primarch, you take a full detachment from that chapter.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 BaconCatBug wrote:
Or how about you just adapt to how the game works?


Or you adapt the game to work properly and don't treat GW's stupid decisions with blind obedience.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/05/26 18:29:14


There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. 
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut





I am in favor of bumping up mono factions a bit without hurting soup too much. I also think command points would be the easiest way to go about it. I'm thinking of getting rid of the 3 cp battleforge bonus and replacing it with maybe a 6 cp bonus for having a mono army. This would give a 6 cp swing from what we have now, which would certainly cut down on the amount of cp batteries without really hurting the people who just like to run with allies.

Maybe there could be a few other small bonuses such as a more liberal distribution of objective secured or something.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/05/26 19:47:35


 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut




 Peregrine wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
with the Primarchs getting an exception to that.


No. No special snowflakes. You want a primarch, you take a full detachment from that chapter.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 BaconCatBug wrote:
Or how about you just adapt to how the game works?


Or you adapt the game to work properly and don't treat GW's stupid decisions with blind obedience.

I meant in regards to my suggestion, as all the Primarchs are in a LoW slot, so they wouldn't be able to be Warlords otherwise, or are you suggesting they need to go up in cost?

CaptainStabby wrote:
If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.

 jy2 wrote:
BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.

 vipoid wrote:
Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?

 MarsNZ wrote:
ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
 
   
Made in ca
Longtime Dakkanaut





I don't play competitive tournaments, so I don't know how much soup armies have impacted that scene, but I think that soup has limitless advantages in terms of generating stories and fluff; as such, I would hate to see it nerfed.

I know that loose faction rules can be abused, and some alliances don't make sense, but among some Imperial forces, soup is way fluffier than mono. There may be some Space Marine fortress worlds that don't have an otherwise large Imperial presence, but for the most part, I think Imperial forces are far more likely to be encountered working in tandem rather than on their own.

Any shrine world large enough for a commandery of sisters will also have PDF forces; in previous versions of the game, I would also mention Adeptus Arbites, but I'm not sure what GW is doing with them this time around. The PDF would have a sizeable motorpool, requiring the presence of Adeptus Mechanicus support- likely a single, tiny patrol detachment, as they wouldn't be necessary in large numbers.

Specialists like assassins, inquisitors, and sisters of silence would almost never be on a battlefield without support from either the Imperial Guard or Space Marines, and of course in the case of Inquisitors, Grey Knights, Deathguard and Adepta Sororitas are the official chambers Militant of the Ordos Malleus, Xenos and Heriticus (respectively), so here, soup is explicitly the fluff.

Specialist can and do work alone, but when they do, it's seldom at the scale of a full fledged battle. The old Inquistor stand alone game was always a better venue for mono assassins/ inquisitors etc- think Blanchitsu.

GW's recent Brotherhood rules are already punishing certain armies for not having HQ choices. You literally cannot field Sisters of Silence or Assassins as genuine detachments without suffering some kind of penalty, whether it's getting no command benefits (for a mixed detachment) or -1 command point (for an auxiliary detachment). If you play Sisters and you think flying vehicles add depth and flavour to the game, guess what? It's soup or STFU because we don't have flying vehicles. Taking a penalty shouldn't be a precondition of playing a bunch of models you purchased and painted.

So that's what you'd be punishing if you penalize soup, and it wasn't designed to win at all costs (though it might); rather it is far fluffier than an IG mechanized platoon going to war without a mechanic or the Church turning down the support of Sisters or inquisitors bringing only acolytes to fight a Waaagh!

This makes rewarding mono the best solution to remedying any negative impact soup may have had among you competitive types. :-)

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/05/26 21:40:39


 
   
Made in fr
Trazyn's Museum Curator





on the forum. Obviously

 Peregrine wrote:
I prefer a simpler rule: if your army has the same most-specific keyword it gains "this is a legal 40k army and may be used". Obviously armies that don't get this rule can't be used.


Yep, how it should always have been, really.
The fact that you can min-max by taking different detachments with different faction traits is ridiculous. Its like having allies again.
I get that it sort of works for the Imperials, but the imperial range is bloated anyway, imo.
Ideally, if they wanted to accurately portray how it is in the fluff, there should be a single imperial codex with most of it being composed of Imperial Guard units with the option to take Marines, Inquisitors and SoB as support elements.

What I have
~4100
~1660

Westwood lives in death!
Peace through power!

A longbeard when it comes to Necrons and WHFB. Grumble Grumble

 
   
Made in gb
Norn Queen






Yes, it is EXACTLY like allies again, it's almost like Allies are an intended part of the game.
   
Made in fr
Trazyn's Museum Curator





on the forum. Obviously

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Yes, it is EXACTLY like allies again, it's almost like Allies are an intended part of the game.


Doesn't mean its a good idea. Next you'll be telling me that rerolling 2+ invuls and scat laser spam were intended, and as such completely acceptable instances of game design.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/05/26 21:43:54


What I have
~4100
~1660

Westwood lives in death!
Peace through power!

A longbeard when it comes to Necrons and WHFB. Grumble Grumble

 
   
Made in gb
Norn Queen






 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
 BaconCatBug wrote:
Yes, it is EXACTLY like allies again, it's almost like Allies are an intended part of the game.


Doesn't mean its a good idea. Next you'll be telling me that rerolling 2+ invuls and scat laser spam were intended, and as such completely acceptable instances of game design.

Allies are both intended and good examples of game design.

Some armies aren't designed to work alone. Your suggestion is like saying you couldn't make multicoloured decks in MtG.

It's also consistent with the fluff.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/05/26 21:46:44


 
   
Made in gb
Fixture of Dakka




 BaconCatBug wrote:
 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
 BaconCatBug wrote:
Yes, it is EXACTLY like allies again, it's almost like Allies are an intended part of the game.


Doesn't mean its a good idea. Next you'll be telling me that rerolling 2+ invuls and scat laser spam were intended, and as such completely acceptable instances of game design.

Allies are both intended and good examples of game design.

Some armies aren't designed to work alone. Your suggestion is like saying you couldn't make multicoloured decks in MtG.

It's also consistent with the fluff.

Which armies were incapable of being played alone pre allies?

It's a pretty bad example of game design seeing as GW can't balance anything.

tremere47-fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate, leads to triple riptide spam  
   
Made in fr
Trazyn's Museum Curator





on the forum. Obviously

 BaconCatBug wrote:
 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
 BaconCatBug wrote:
Yes, it is EXACTLY like allies again, it's almost like Allies are an intended part of the game.


Doesn't mean its a good idea. Next you'll be telling me that rerolling 2+ invuls and scat laser spam were intended, and as such completely acceptable instances of game design.

Allies are both intended and good examples of game design.

Some armies aren't designed to work alone. Your suggestion is like saying you couldn't make multicoloured decks in MtG.

It's also consistent with the fluff.


For imperials, maybe. What about other factions? What about necrons? Pretty sure dynasties don't trust each other, and wouldn't necessarily want to join up every Saturday to fight whatever enemy that's bothering them. Ditto for Orks, and how often do you see multiple Hive Fleets converge on the same location? If Kraken, Behemoth and Leviathan are all in your neighbourhood, you've must have skinned puppies at some point, because that's some serious bad karma.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
pm713 wrote:
 BaconCatBug wrote:
 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
 BaconCatBug wrote:
Yes, it is EXACTLY like allies again, it's almost like Allies are an intended part of the game.


Doesn't mean its a good idea. Next you'll be telling me that rerolling 2+ invuls and scat laser spam were intended, and as such completely acceptable instances of game design.

Allies are both intended and good examples of game design.

Some armies aren't designed to work alone. Your suggestion is like saying you couldn't make multicoloured decks in MtG.

It's also consistent with the fluff.

Which armies were incapable of being played alone pre allies?

It's a pretty bad example of game design seeing as GW can't balance anything.


This too.
Before armies could fight solo no problem. No reason why they can't again.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/05/26 21:54:41


What I have
~4100
~1660

Westwood lives in death!
Peace through power!

A longbeard when it comes to Necrons and WHFB. Grumble Grumble

 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K Proposed Rules
Go to: