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.

 JNAProductions wrote:

Dai wrote:
"Playing against the spirit of the game", ie what would today be called competitively, was definitely a thing back when 2nd was current. White Dwarf used to tell people not to do it on a regular basis, oh how time changes things!

Is the spirit of the game cooperative?
Because, as best I can see, it's a direct fight between two (or more) sides, with a defined winner and loser.

Obviously you should be sporting and, outside of actual tournaments, you should be doing your best to make sure everyone has fun. But it's still a competitive game.

It isn't just a question of cooperative or competitive- there's a third category: Narrative.

A narrative game IS still competitive... It's just that competition is secondary to the narrative. Like you tried to win... You tried really hard to win. But sometimes the foot of Gork (or is it Mork?) just scatters into your best laid plans. And you KNEW that could happen when you chose to play the game, but you played anyway because it would make a cool story.

There's evidence to this day that GW doesn't actually play the game the same way customers do- they literally pick "rule of cool" narrative lists all the time and they thought that everybody did. It's weird, because yes, it is clear that they are mechanically catering to tournament play... But somehow they still seem to assume people will build narrative lists instead of optimized ones.

Rogue Trader reads like a roleplaying game that uses models,,, And while the shift in second was extreme, you can still see the RT roots. Now the only thing I remember about 3rd is the Witch Hunter dex, which is still one of the greatest books GW has ever produced. But see, as a Sisters player, we had to use that book in 3rd, 4rth and 5th. I think one of those had a WD Dex, which I did play once or twice, but the only thing I remember is Frateris Militia units.

The 3rd ed dex was compatible with the rules for all three editions, and it's what I used most often because it's the book I used to build the army... I should say armies because that's how it was built: 1500 point Penitent Legion led by Inquisitors and Arbites + 1500 Holy Choir army of nuthin but nuns. That book included it's own antagonist rules and units and narrative missions, that's how hardcore it was!

I think all the narrative rulesets that came after, whether it's Cityfight or BRB progression systems and minigames, I think they were all efforts to help players try to find their way to playing the game more like its designers played it. Strats, love'em or hate'em, marked a clear shift toward tournament friendly, as did so many other features of 8th-10th... But GW still tried to keep the narrative spirit alive with Crusade and campaign books.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
But come on. 2e had 3 Marine codexes out of 13, 3e had 4 out of 20 not counting reprints and campaign supplements, 5 out of 20 if you are counting Daemonhunters as a Marine codex (which I think is fair).
23% Marine books in 2e vs 25% Marine books in 3e is not that big of a difference.

The issue absolutely gets magnified because Marines ALWAYS get an update in every edition, including a bunch of new models, while other armies often had to wait 2 editions in the cold before getting an update.

But I don't lay the blame for that at 3e's door.

There are a couple of differences, though. The 2nd ed. Marine books were spaced out over several years and - more importantly - they were mostly about background. How much of the Horus Heresy was sketched out through those three books? I had no interest in Angels of Death to play, but I did like reading the book. Same with Space Wolves.

What're you on about exactly? An easy Google search would show you that SM related codex releases for every edition also span a # of years. 10 being no different btw - we're a year in & all we have Codex wise is SM & DA. Only 2/7 Marine factions currently being sold have their actual Codex so far & the edition ends July 2026....

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:
Now look at 3rd. For one thing, they cranked out three Marine books in the first few months: Space Marines, Black Templars and Blood Angels. Way to front-load the game, guys.

I think 20+ years is clouding your memory a bit.
SM (1998, right alongside the Dark Eldar), BA (98), DA (99) - then we go a whole year (April 2k) & 5 other Codexes before the next dose of SM, the SW, arrive.

So… to the post that said the first three Codecs were marines, your rebuttal is that they were?

Also, only 2/7 Space Marine factions have their books now.
How many factions do GSC have?
Nids? Eldar have three, but are probably only getting two Codecs (Harlequins in the Eldar one, most likely). CSM have four, admittedly-but they can’t intermix detachments like Loyalists can. Guard only gets one. Ad Mech only gets one.

Marines get way too much focus-though admittedly, that’s not an edition specific complaint. That’s a GW complaint.

 JNAProductions wrote:
So… to the post that said the first three Codecs were marines, your rebuttal is that they were?

Also, only 2/7 Space Marine factions have their books now.
How many factions do GSC have?
Nids? Eldar have three, but are probably only getting two Codecs (Harlequins in the Eldar one, most likely). CSM have four, admittedly-but they can’t intermix detachments like Loyalists can. Guard only gets one. Ad Mech only gets one.

Marines get way too much focus-though admittedly, that’s not an edition specific complaint. That’s a GW complaint.

Look, I get that this is a "sledge on 3rd" thread. I really do get it, but I also get that facts and data should be correct if used in an argument against something. That's the crux of it. The Templars left a PTSD level impression on CvT, and it's coloring his comments. I'll freely admit that they went WAY overboard with that codex, but I also am aware enough to not punish an entire edition for one codex. If that was the case, I'd sandbag 3rd over Chaos 3.5 alone.


Sledge away, by all means. But all I ask is that you sledge in good faith and that the facts don't get bypassed for preference.

 JNAProductions wrote:
So… to the post that said the first three Codecs were marines, your rebuttal is that they were?

Except, they weren't - ccs hasn't been too clear. Wikipedia maintains a list of Codex release dates, for some reason, and if we're willing to accept that as being an accurate source, it spells out the following as the release order:

- Codex: Space Marines (October 98)
- Codex: Dark Eldar (November 98)
- Codex: Blood Angels (December 98)
- Codex: Chaos Space Marines (February 99)
- Codex: Dark Angels (May 99)
- Codex: Orks (July 99)
- Codex: Assassins (July 99)
- Codex: Eldar (August 99)

The above extends to cover the full first year of 3rd ed, with books/pamphlets defined as "Codex Supplements" in italics. IG would appear in November 99, Catachans in February 2000, Space Wolves in April 2000, and Craftworld Eldar in June 2000, then Codex: Armageddon (with 4 supplemental lists in) in August 2000, before we get the next full Codex in February 2001 with the Tyranids. I'm guessing 2000 was a WHFB release year, given the lack of full Codex books, or the Armageddon campaign derailed things.

While the first three full Codexes in 3rd featured 2 in power armour - and 4 of the first 5, if you include the Angels of Death - it wasn't like GW was in a particular rush to get Codexes into peoples' hands. With BA, DA and SW being supplements to the main SM 'dex, rather than full books in their own right, I imagine the early two were released to allow the Studio to concentrate on CSM, Orks and Eldar, while still getting something out there. I do feel sorry for Tyranid players, though, needing to wait over two years to get a full Codex. In an idea world, the "core" Codexes for existing factions (plus Dark Eldar) should've been out first, and ideally all within a year.

 Dysartes wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
So… to the post that said the first three Codecs were marines, your rebuttal is that they were?

Except, they weren't - ccs hasn't been too clear. Wikipedia maintains a list of Codex release dates, for some reason, and if we're willing to accept that as being an accurate source, it spells out the following as the release order:

- Codex: Space Marines (October 98)
- Codex: Dark Eldar (November 98)
- Codex: Blood Angels (December 98)
- Codex: Chaos Space Marines (February 99)
- Codex: Dark Angels (May 99)
- Codex: Orks (July 99)
- Codex: Assassins (July 99)
- Codex: Eldar (August 99)

The above extends to cover the full first year of 3rd ed, with books/pamphlets defined as "Codex Supplements" in italics. IG would appear in November 99, Catachans in February 2000, Space Wolves in April 2000, and Craftworld Eldar in June 2000, then Codex: Armageddon (with 4 supplemental lists in) in August 2000, before we get the next full Codex in February 2001 with the Tyranids. I'm guessing 2000 was a WHFB release year, given the lack of full Codex books, or the Armageddon campaign derailed things.

While the first three full Codexes in 3rd featured 2 in power armour - and 4 of the first 5, if you include the Angels of Death - it wasn't like GW was in a particular rush to get Codexes into peoples' hands. With BA, DA and SW being supplements to the main SM 'dex, rather than full books in their own right, I imagine the early two were released to allow the Studio to concentrate on CSM, Orks and Eldar, while still getting something out there. I do feel sorry for Tyranid players, though, needing to wait over two years to get a full Codex. In an idea world, the "core" Codexes for existing factions (plus Dark Eldar) should've been out first, and ideally all within a year.

For further clarity, Codex: Armageddon is where Black Templars finally showed up in their own list. They didn't get a dedicated codex till 4th edition.

The other 4 lists in Codex: Armageddon were Ork speed freeks, Salamanders, mechanised Imperial Guard, and Armageddon PDF (yeah there are actually 5 lists in the book that states it contains 4, although the later two are pretty small tweaks to the standard IG codex and you can combine into a mechanised PDF force).

Codex: Armageddon is how I rough out a Salamanders list to this day.

So I guess I'll give ONE thing to 3rd in that arena

 Just Tony wrote:
Look, I get that this is a "sledge on 3rd" thread. I really do get it, but I also get that facts and data should be correct if used in an argument against something. That's the crux of it. The Templars left a PTSD level impression on CvT, and it's coloring his comments. I'll freely admit that they went WAY overboard with that codex, but I also am aware enough to not punish an entire edition for one codex. If that was the case, I'd sandbag 3rd over Chaos 3.5 alone.
Sledge away, by all means. But all I ask is that you sledge in good faith and that the facts don't get bypassed for preference.

The Black Templars were the epitome of that edition. They featured very prominently in the artwork on the box. I'm merely accepting GW's decision to use them as the flagship Marine chapter at its launch.

If my math is correct, there are 14 books listed and within them were rules for 7 flavors of space marine (which includes Chaos). That some hefty fan service for the boys in power armor.

And to reiterate - the 2nd ed. books were as much about background as anything else. The central narrative of the 40k universe is the Horus Heresy and its aftermath, so piecing it together via the perspectives of the various chapters is appropriate.

In 3rd, they were basically selling army lists, and to reiterate, each list got it special goodies that usually offset whatever disadvantage they got.

 PenitentJake wrote:
A narrative game IS still competitive... It's just that competition is secondary to the narrative. Like you tried to win... You tried really hard to win. But sometimes the foot of Gork (or is it Mork?) just scatters into your best laid plans. And you KNEW that could happen when you chose to play the game, but you played anyway because it would make a cool story.

There's evidence to this day that GW doesn't actually play the game the same way customers do- they literally pick "rule of cool" narrative lists all the time and they thought that everybody did. It's weird, because yes, it is clear that they are mechanically catering to tournament play... But somehow they still seem to assume people will build narrative lists instead of optimized ones.

The problem with giving GW the benefit of the doubt on this is that they were the ones pushing tournaments and going with hyper-legalistic rules arguments that blatantly violated the spirit of the rules. For example, the core rules say movement affects shooting, but some players twisted an ork upgrade to allow a vehicle to count as stationary while moving.

The sensible, "narrative-driven" approach would be to say "Guys, get a clue - stationary means it doesn't move. Stop using cheaty rules exploits!"

But that's not what GW did. They said that if you rolled well, your cheat worked. The company itself was endorsing rules exploits, and players picked up on that attitude.

Going to point out again that whilst Black Templars were the poster faction on the rulebook and in the starter set, they didn't actually get subfaction rules until a third of the way through the edition. Before that they were identical to Ultramarines in rules.

I also want to reiterate that I firmly think that 3rd edition had better quality lore than 2nd (on the whole), but I do agree the early codices in particular were significantly devalued with much less lore within them (although the lore they did have was great). However, across the sources* in the edition lore was fantastic and laid down more-or-less the current version of 40k lore to this day (pre-Great Rift). The 2nd edition versions were the foundations but substantially polished from 3rd onwards.


*Especially White Dwarf and the contemporary Black Library background books.

...


Really? That's it? One piece of artwork, maybe featured in the painting tutorial, and they're the poster child of the edition? Like how they were on the cover of the Space Marines codex? No, wait, that was the Crimson Fists. Like how they featured in every battle report? Not even close. They were rules wise identical to Ultramarines and every other non-deviant chapter until Codex Armageddon. I'm seriously curious now where the BT hate REALLY comes from.

And as far as the "Every list got goodies to offset the negatives?" That happened in 2nd Edition as well. Once again, every argument has thus far been sledging for the same things that your preferred edition did. Just say "super special bestest." It's what I do, and it's very liberating to make it clear you're showing a preference rather than attempting to frame it as empirical data.

 Just Tony wrote:
[spoiler]Really? That's it? One piece of artwork, maybe featured in the painting tutorial, and they're the poster child of the edition? Like how they were on the cover of the Space Marines codex? No, wait, that was the Crimson Fists. Like how they featured in every battle report? Not even close. They were rules wise identical to Ultramarines and every other non-deviant chapter until Codex Armageddon. I'm seriously curious now where the BT hate REALLY comes from.

No, it wasn't one piece of artwork, they were quite literally the POSTER CHILD of the edition. Rule book, boxed set, promotional materials.

And as far as the "Every list got goodies to offset the negatives?" That happened in 2nd Edition as well. Once again, every argument has thus far been sledging for the same things that your preferred edition did. Just say "super special bestest." It's what I do, and it's very liberating to make it clear you're showing a preference rather than attempting to frame it as empirical data.

So are you. You're trying to pretend that the Black Templars weren't the face of 3rd edition. That's empirical data. You want the starter box, you get Black Templars. Rule book? Black Templars. I'm not making them the face of the edition - they were an obscure paint job buried in one of the 2nd edition codecies prior to 1998. GW elevated them.

And as far as "empirical data," it's an indisputable fact that GW massively increased the amount of special rules, and each army came with it's own fun little trick. As was pointed out a page or so ago, you could create themed marine (or Chaos or Ork, or Eldar) armies in 2nd simply through your choice of units and style of play. You may want to review that, because it's the thrust of what I am talking about.

In 2nd, you made a "theme" army through unit selection; in 3rd you got special rules that allowed you to bypass the org chart and get "compensated" for not taking the units you didn't want anyway.

That pushed up the power curve and GW accelerated this process by abandoning common sense and embracing rules lawyering so that "stationary" vehicles can actually move.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:
You want the starter box, you get Black Templars. Rule book? Black Templars. I'm not making them the face of the edition - they were an obscure paint job buried in one of the 2nd edition codecies prior to 1998. GW elevated them.

The cover was Templars, the rules and lore inside the book was not - the 'typical space marine army' (literally the name of the page in the rulebook) was ultramarines, as were the marines in the example battle report.

In the whole rulebook the Templars were only mentioned in passing amongst a list of chapters and in a few of the pictures of models. The space marine rulebook codex did have a section on variant chapter rules - the templars were not included.

They were the face of 3rd edition in the same way orks were the face of 5th edition - except you couldn't paint the orks blue and call them ultramarines :p

That's so weird, they had them on the box art but barely mentioned them? I 've no dog in this fight but GW gonna GW.

A.T. wrote:
In the whole rulebook the Templars were only mentioned in passing amongst a list of chapters and in a few of the pictures of models. The space marine rulebook codex did have a section on variant chapter rules - the templars were not included.

The Emperors Champion was an HQ option in the 3rd edition Space Marine Codex.

I'm not what the last few posts are actually arguing about...

My views on 3rd Edition are rather more positive than many. I think it was, overall, a far better game that the current iteration of WH40k.

Some personal context (since this is always a factor when discussing WH40k's different versions):
I have been involved in WH40k since RT. I bought nearly all the RT-era models, and even painted a lot of them, but didn't play the game very often. It seemed to me that it didn't feel quite sure what kind of game it was. I initially liked the look of 2nd Edition as a game, but I didn't like its aesthetics and found it clunky to play. When 3rd Edition arrived, I was actually losing interest in WH40k. 3rd Edition got me back into the game in a big way - the the point where I built and painted whole armies and attended several tournaments.

The bad (getting this out of the way first):
1. The level of abstraction was quite high, especially after the granularity of 2nd Edition.
2. There was an in-built imbalance between monstrous creatures and vehicles.
3. The codexes were sparsely illustrated and skimped on flavour.
4. The level of model support was pretty poor by today's standards, and of course most of the models were metal.

The good:
1. It was dynamic. Games moved fast (in my experience) tended to reward good tactics.
2. It balanced shooting and melee.
3. Vehicles fought differently to other models.
4. While list building was quite restrictive compared to the current approach, it led to more 'realistic' looking armies. I can see why GW has made army lists a lot more flexible (because people want to use their favourite toys, and that sells more models), but in my view this hasn't made the game better.
5. It was, for the most part, better balanced than current iterations. Various armies that went through periods of being in favour (and there were definitely some match-ups that were one-sided), but it didn't feature the wild swings we see now.

3rd Edition was also when I joined Dakka. The community was growing and vibrant. There was still plenty of whining, it overall it was very positive. The relative lack of model support also fostered a lot of creativity in terms of modelling. It was a good time to be in the hobby, and I miss it.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:
In 2nd, you made a "theme" army through unit selection; in 3rd you got special rules that allowed you to bypass the org chart and get "compensated" for not taking the units you didn't want anyway.

Which rules allowed the bypassing of the Force Org? Other than the 3.5 Chaos Codex nothing is coming to mind.
You mean Craftworld Eldar?
Dark Angels could always run all Terminators/Landraiders/Dreadnaughts or Speeders/Bikes couldnt they?
Blood Angels had the cool random Death Company Roles but that was an army rule for a unit... not really bypassing force org.
Space Wolves had to take an HQ for every 750 points they were using or whatever but again that was an army rule and not really altering the Force Org.
The mutating Tyranids was 4th.
The Nobz and Grey Knights were 4th or 5th.

Dai wrote:
That's so weird, they had them on the box art but barely mentioned them? I 've no dog in this fight but GW gonna GW.

I suppose it helps sales to keep changing the colour of the space marine on the cover, get the kids to buy new models rather than 2nd hand.
Templars were promptly replaced as the cover marine faction by Crimson Fists in the actual codex. It was at least more interesting than their long stretch of ultramarines.


Speaking of being limited by models the latter 5e Sisters of Battle codex was equal parts amusing and depressing using the same models they had painted for the 3rd edition release. Cruddace had a 'making of' journal on the GW website to paint up the half dozen extra models for the 5e command squad - to give some indication of how little he cared about the whole thing he only got as far as base coating them before packing it in, an effort equalled by the rules where he didn't even change the points cost after copy/pasting it from the marine dex.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:


As was pointed out a page or so ago, you could create themed marine (or Chaos or Ork, or Eldar) armies in 2nd simply through your choice of units and style of play. You may want to review that, because it's the thrust of what I am talking about.

Sure, but like 10th: the thing is, "defining" your army using these methods falls apart when a different army makes the EXACT same choices, proving to you that YOUR dudes are not YOUR dudes.

"Look, I'm playing White Scars, and I know this because I brought the maximum number of bikes and all my infantry are in transports and we focus on hit and run tactics."

"I'm playing Ultramarines; I brought the maximum number of bikes and all my infantry are in transports and we focus on hit and run tactics."

"I'm playing Blood Angels; I brought the maximum number of bikes and all my infantry are in transports and we focus on hit and run tactics."

"I'm playing Space Wolves; I brought the maximum number of bikes (even though Space Wolves live in a frozen wasteland of ice and snow where bikes are as practical as bikinis) and all my infantry are in transports and we focus on hit and run tactics."

So yeah, how did you actually think your expression of your chapters uniqueness was unique when ANY Chapter could do it?

And again, don't get me wrong: I understand why some people think flavour rules for subfactions is limiting, and I get the "flanderization" argument, and even I've said on record that it's nice to be able to use the new Drukhari detachment with the same army that used the old one. I get it. But that doesn't mean that people get to pretend that making a choice that's available to any other subfaction makes your faction unnique, because it objectively doesn't. If I can do anything you can do by making the same choices, your abilities are not unique, and no amount of you saying so (or thinking so) will make it true.

It doesn't mean that either system is superior to the other- it's a matter of preference. But unless there is a thing that your subfaction can do that other subfactions cannot, there is nothing meaningfully unique about your subfaction except your paint job (which doesn't affect the game at all) or your lore (which also doesn't affect the game at all).

Uptonius wrote:

A.T. wrote:
In the whole rulebook the Templars were only mentioned in passing amongst a list of chapters and in a few of the pictures of models. The space marine rulebook codex did have a section on variant chapter rules - the templars were not included.

The Emperors Champion was an HQ option in the 3rd edition Space Marine Codex.

Ironically the Emperors Champion was genericised to all Space Marine flavours (incl. Blood Angels, Dark Angels, Space Wolves) by Chapter Approved 2003.

Uptonius wrote:

A.T. wrote:
The space marine rulebook codex did have a section on variant chapter rules - the templars were not included.

The Emperors Champion was an HQ option in the 3rd edition Space Marine Codex.

I refer to the marine codex in the rulebook itself (with the templars on the cover) as it had a mini chapters section for Blood Angels, Dark Angels, and Wolves prior to the release of their own books.

The actual 3e templars codex had an ork on the cover... (codex:armageddon)

 Haighus wrote:

Uptonius wrote:

A.T. wrote:
In the whole rulebook the Templars were only mentioned in passing amongst a list of chapters and in a few of the pictures of models. The space marine rulebook codex did have a section on variant chapter rules - the templars were not included.

The Emperors Champion was an HQ option in the 3rd edition Space Marine Codex.

Ironically the Emperors Champion was genericised to all Space Marine flavours (incl. Blood Angels, Dark Angels, Space Wolves) by Chapter Approved 2003.

The Emperor's Champion in the Space Marine Codex was already available to any Chapter; in fact, it's the only non-Chapter specific Special Character in the Codex!

 Lovejoy wrote:

 Haighus wrote:

Uptonius wrote:

A.T. wrote:
In the whole rulebook the Templars were only mentioned in passing amongst a list of chapters and in a few of the pictures of models. The space marine rulebook codex did have a section on variant chapter rules - the templars were not included.

The Emperors Champion was an HQ option in the 3rd edition Space Marine Codex.

Ironically the Emperors Champion was genericised to all Space Marine flavours (incl. Blood Angels, Dark Angels, Space Wolves) by Chapter Approved 2003.

The Emperor's Champion in the Space Marine Codex was already available to any Chapter; in fact, it's the only non-Chapter specific Special Character in the Codex!

Eh... Characters weren't really locked to subfactions at the time Codex: Space Marines was published in 1998, but the entry does say "A Black Templars army...":

Maybe they edited it in a reprint?

The Chapter Approved: 2003 entry is:

This one explicitly notes it can be taken by any Chapter, and I don't see why they'd bother if the previous incarnation was already generic.

 Haighus wrote:

Eh... Characters weren't really locked to subfactions at the time Codex: Space Marines was published in 1998, but the entry does say "A Black Templars army...":....
Maybe they edited it in a reprint?

I reckon it must be a reprint thing... my copy definitely has all the other characters as 'An Ultramarines army may...' or 'A Crimson Fists army may...', but has the Emperor's Champion as 'any Space Marine army over 1000 points':

 Lovejoy wrote:

 Haighus wrote:

Eh... Characters weren't really locked to subfactions at the time Codex: Space Marines was published in 1998, but the entry does say "A Black Templars army...":....
Maybe they edited it in a reprint?

I reckon it must be a reprint thing... my copy definitely has all the other characters as 'An Ultramarines army may...' or 'A Crimson Fists army may...', but has the Emperor's Champion as 'any Space Marine army over 1000 points':

Interesting That aligns much closer with the Chapter Approved. I didn't realise they reprinted the Marine dex in 3rd. Looking closer, the version I've got states reprinted in 1999 on the title page.

 PenitentJake wrote:

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:


As was pointed out a page or so ago, you could create themed marine (or Chaos or Ork, or Eldar) armies in 2nd simply through your choice of units and style of play. You may want to review that, because it's the thrust of what I am talking about.

Sure, but like 10th: the thing is, "defining" your army using these methods falls apart when a different army makes the EXACT same choices, proving to you that YOUR dudes are not YOUR dudes.

"Look, I'm playing White Scars, and I know this because I brought the maximum number of bikes and all my infantry are in transports and we focus on hit and run tactics."

"I'm playing Ultramarines; I brought the maximum number of bikes and all my infantry are in transports and we focus on hit and run tactics."

"I'm playing Blood Angels; I brought the maximum number of bikes and all my infantry are in transports and we focus on hit and run tactics."

"I'm playing Space Wolves; I brought the maximum number of bikes (even though Space Wolves live in a frozen wasteland of ice and snow where bikes are as practical as bikinis) and all my infantry are in transports and we focus on hit and run tactics."

So yeah, how did you actually think your expression of your chapters uniqueness was unique when ANY Chapter could do it?

And again, don't get me wrong: I understand why some people think flavour rules for subfactions is limiting, and I get the "flanderization" argument, and even I've said on record that it's nice to be able to use the new Drukhari detachment with the same army that used the old one. I get it. But that doesn't mean that people get to pretend that making a choice that's available to any other subfaction makes your faction unnique, because it objectively doesn't. If I can do anything you can do by making the same choices, your abilities are not unique, and no amount of you saying so (or thinking so) will make it true.

It doesn't mean that either system is superior to the other- it's a matter of preference. But unless there is a thing that your subfaction can do that other subfactions cannot, there is nothing meaningfully unique about your subfaction except your paint job (which doesn't affect the game at all) or your lore (which also doesn't affect the game at all).

I’m sorry, do you think all the Great Companies fight the same?

Uptonius wrote:


The Emperors Champion was an HQ option in the 3rd edition Space Marine Codex.

True, but IIRC the champion wasn’t called out as being specific to the Black Templars in the third codex. I remember running one with my dark angels, understanding it to be fluffy, then getting blind-sided in 4th when that stuff was cleared up and elaborated on.

 morganfreeman wrote:

Uptonius wrote:


The Emperors Champion was an HQ option in the 3rd edition Space Marine Codex.

True, but IIRC the champion wasn’t called out as being specific to the Black Templars in the third codex. I remember running one with my dark angels, understanding it to be fluffy, then getting blind-sided in 4th when that stuff was cleared up and elaborated on.

See the conversation above- at least one version of the codex locked it to Black Templars, but another print did not. Chapter Approved clarified with access to all Marine flavours.

 RaptorusRex wrote:

Spoiler:

 PenitentJake wrote:

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:


As was pointed out a page or so ago, you could create themed marine (or Chaos or Ork, or Eldar) armies in 2nd simply through your choice of units and style of play. You may want to review that, because it's the thrust of what I am talking about.

Sure, but like 10th: the thing is, "defining" your army using these methods falls apart when a different army makes the EXACT same choices, proving to you that YOUR dudes are not YOUR dudes.

"Look, I'm playing White Scars, and I know this because I brought the maximum number of bikes and all my infantry are in transports and we focus on hit and run tactics."

"I'm playing Ultramarines; I brought the maximum number of bikes and all my infantry are in transports and we focus on hit and run tactics."

"I'm playing Blood Angels; I brought the maximum number of bikes and all my infantry are in transports and we focus on hit and run tactics."

"I'm playing Space Wolves; I brought the maximum number of bikes (even though Space Wolves live in a frozen wasteland of ice and snow where bikes are as practical as bikinis) and all my infantry are in transports and we focus on hit and run tactics."

So yeah, how did you actually think your expression of your chapters uniqueness was unique when ANY Chapter could do it?

And again, don't get me wrong: I understand why some people think flavour rules for subfactions is limiting, and I get the "flanderization" argument, and even I've said on record that it's nice to be able to use the new Drukhari detachment with the same army that used the old one. I get it. But that doesn't mean that people get to pretend that making a choice that's available to any other subfaction makes your faction unnique, because it objectively doesn't. If I can do anything you can do by making the same choices, your abilities are not unique, and no amount of you saying so (or thinking so) will make it true.

It doesn't mean that either system is superior to the other- it's a matter of preference. But unless there is a thing that your subfaction can do that other subfactions cannot, there is nothing meaningfully unique about your subfaction except your paint job (which doesn't affect the game at all) or your lore (which also doesn't affect the game at all).

I’m sorry, do you think all the Great Companies fight the same?

Reread my post and the post I was responding to, and what I meant should be obvious. The good Commissar, like many before him, was advocating for a system in which subfaction identity was mostly about fluff, unit choice and playstyle rather than having unique rules. And that's a valid preference, and I understand the reason for it. But it also allows people to play their Spacewolves identitically to how a Whitescars play might design and play there army.

So if your question is do I think that all Spacewolf companies play the same, no I don't. But I also don't believe that any of them ride bikes as well as Whitescars, because nothing in the fluff of either chapter has ever indicated that this is the case. As I result, a system which allows you to build a SW bike army that's identical to and as good as a WS bike army doesn't suit my preferences; I believe a system that allows this undermines the fluff of both SW and WS, because... And again, I cannot stress this enough, references to WS lightning raids and bikes in the lore are many, consistent, and have been for multiple editions, while the references to SW being particularly good at those things in the lore are non-existant, or at best, inconsistent.

Yes, according to Toussaint, 2nd came closer to letting you do it. Yes, 10th lets you do it. And yes, I can see why many players might prefer this type of system. But it isn't lore friendly to have SW be as good at bikes as WS.

It is more lore friendly than every Ultramarine player having to run a "Blue WS" army if they want to have a good bike list.

I'd argue it's lore friendly to have all marines great on bikes, I'd argue it's lore friendly to allow white scars to have more of them, as they have a preference for them. I don't consider it lore friendly for them to be objectively better by enough that they need rules perks.

If you're playing a stereotypical army, build the stereotype. A stereotypical space wolves army won't have 3+ unit of bikes, which isn't to say they can't, but we're talking about the stereotypes here.