do the rules fit the lore?

[Medjugorje]

Hello,

 

Its always interesting how people have different views on their own and other factions in comparison to other players. Of course the lore never can fit the tabletop exactly - if it does then GK should always win against daemons and Ultramarines would win everytime and a single intercessor would wipe out a whole imp squad per turn. But do you think the playstyle of a chapter should be different or does it fit perfect?

Beside the fact that i am not happy with the current rules about my own chapter, I want to know where you see differences how GW transfer the lore into your chapter when it comes to rules.

do you see any chapter which you think does not fit? For example imo: White Scars should not be that melee focused but more into speed, mobility, bikes etc (like their mongolian counterpart in the real world which used to be more horseriders and their main weapon was a bow) while Blood Angels, Salamanders and Iron Hands fit very well.

 

Or does it fit but not all things are represented in the rules ( black rage and the madness of this flaw ). 

For me its a bit weird because the rules for my BT fit very well when you read them but it cannot be transportet on the table.

 

Example:

Blood Angels are noble, fast aggressive and they are bezerkers when they get into their blood lust.

With their CT they are feel like bezerkers and their +1 to wound and +1 to charges in combination with their datasheets

What I miss here is that they should sometimes go into combat although that would be not an advantage but thats what berzerkers do.

Edited November 3, 2022 by Medjugorje

[tychobi]

I think of the lore as Imperial propaganda. The rules fit fine that way. Makes the lore a bit easier to stomach too 

[Medjugorje]

I mean more in terms of your chapter. Not if a Intercessor is OP as he should be in the lore.

[Ayatollah_of_Rock_n_Rolla]

2 hours ago, Medjugorje said:

 

Or does it fit but not all things are represented in the rules ( black rage and the madness of this flaw ). 

 

I really preferred how 3ed tackled Black Rage and Red Thirst. Being able to carefully plan the number of Death Company doen't sit well with me. For me, together with the forced movement it gave pleasant unpredictability in behaviour of the army. I always enjoyed having to change my plans accordingly, nothing feels the same as building your list around terminators only for 2/3 of them to go WRYYYYYY. Now everything is so cold and calculated, but maybe most people prefer to have full control over their army.

[Medjugorje]

a lot of rules went away from the narrative standpoint. I would love to see rules like in 3rd edition for the death company. But I agree to avoid a Terminator to"loose" that way.

In this case I would prefer a hard reset and changes for competitve VS narrative rules. Not just that cheap CRUSADE upgrade system. 

 

But in terms of how does your Blood Angels feel on the table the death company feels like they should be.

[redmapa]

I think most chapters have at least a good basis for their rules to represent their lore and could use minor tweeking in terms of power and balance, for example Vows are great and fluffy but they certainly need to be changed so there are actual options.

 

Raven Guard and Imperial Fists are the two chapters whose rules do not match their lore, the mechanics for both are confused and achieve little in terms impacting decisions for the player. Are RG snipers or CQC? They can't be both, they are trying to be and clearly fail at it and pushing them to be good at both isn't good for balance. They should focus on one or none, imo the best solution would be to have Sniping and Assault aspects be relegated to Stratagems and/or WLT to open the CT and Doctrine to focus on other aspects like movement or defense so you can still have a rounded chapter with its own niche.

 

IF/CF are the others that need fixing, IF are supposed to be the "Marine's Marine" but UM do vanilla marines better and CF are stubborn defiance incarnate but they just sometimes shoot better,  both rules are barely relevant. Following the comparison between UM/IF I think the Fists CT should promote a similar rounded playstyle, maybe something like rapid fire weapons become pistol 2 if engaged in combat plus keeping their ignore light cover and a heavy weapons buff in their Doctrine without specifying a target will make a shooting chapter that isn't afraid of combat but doesn't excel at it either, just like UM who are the other exemplar of the Codex Astartes.

 

CF character is supposed to be a stubborn defiance that pushes to overcome against all odds, personally I think their rules should focus on objectives like a FNP or an Assault buff when on an objective/area terrain or something just so they can be more than IF lite and have their own niche.

[Medjugorje]

ohh yes. Those 2 need an update (and not just for power on the table)

 

[Arkangilos]

22 hours ago, Medjugorje said:

Blood Angels are noble, fast aggressive and they are bezerkers when they get into their blood lust.

With their CT they are feel like bezerkers and their +1 to wound and +1 to charges in combination with their datasheets

What I miss here is that they should sometimes go into combat although that would be not an advantage but thats what berzerkers do

I actually miss the third edition rule for the BA where they had to roll every turn, and on a one they had to move towards the nearest enemy, and agree with the others that it was better when DC were determined before the battle by dice roll. 

 

I think in general the table top rules better reflected lore in 3rd edition than now. At least for the BA.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

It was fairly easy to have a large squad of DC with double Chaplain and using the Flesh Tearer rules, take a lot of five man squads so sergeants who were inducted had powerfists. The 3rd edition codex was their most competitive.

[Medjugorje]

54 minutes ago, BLACK BLΠFLY said:

It was fairly easy to have a large squad of DC with double Chaplain and using the Flesh Tearer rules, take a lot of five man squads so sergeants who were inducted had powerfists. The 3rd edition codex was their most competitive.

maybe.

 

lore and codex strenght dont have to compete. 

[Xenith]

9th is the most lore-as-rules driven edition yet. Stratagems, army interactions/special rules and secondaries come together all in one big thematic narrative mess.

 

In 3rd ed, your BT's were just black space marines that could take crusaders, larger units with scouts, and no librarians, who would aim to stand in one part of the battlefield until the game was over.

 

Now every game you have to swear an oath before the battle, fight in the way that marines do (with heavy weapons, then close up, then get stuck into combat), with marines performing heroic above-normal feats of strength or toughness (gene forged and transhuman) all while trying to secure the centre of the battlefield, or deploy teleport homers, or retrieve data from servo skulls. 

 

The rule fit the lore so much that it's actually a detriment to the game, too much book keeping, complex army design and resource (CP) management in a game that is not a resource management or card game. 

 

Look at Chaos Knights for example - their rules are all lore driven, and they're complex, clunky, unwieldy and un-fun. 

 

So to answer the question, I do think that the rules fit the lore, in most cases. Are they what most people want or envisage? No. Are they how I would have done it? No. But it is what it is. 

 

Blood Angels for example - the regular +1" to run and assault. Nice and reliable for a bunch of blood crazed madmen. They should have had the white scar rules - assault after running - that encourages the BA player to push their luck and risk not shooting in an attempt to get a lucky charge off - echoing the 3rd ed red thirst. 

 

Scars, the masters of mobile warfare, shouldnt be moving random distances. I'd have made their trait a flat +1"/2" move to INFANTRY/Everything else, and given fall back and charge. 

 

Edited November 4, 2022 by Xenith

[Medjugorje]

1 hour ago, Xenith said:

9th is the most lore-driven edition yet. Stratagems, army interactions/special rules and secondaries come together all in one big thematic narrative mess.

 

In 3rd ed, your BT's were just black space marines that could take crusaders, larger units with scouts, and no librarians, who would aim to stand in one part of the battlefield until the game was over.

 

Now every game you have to swear an oath before the battle, fight in the way that marines do (with heavy weapons, then close up, then get stuck into combat), with marines performing heroic above-normal feats of strength or toughness (gene forged and transhuman) all while trying to secure the centre of the battlefield, or deploy teleport homers, or retrieve data from servo skulls. 

 

The rule fit the lore so much that it's actually a detriment to the game, too much book keeping, complex army design and resource (CP) management in a game that is not a resource management or card game. 

 

Look at Chaos Knights for example - their rules are all lore driven, and they're complex, clunky, unwieldy and un-fun. 

 

So to answer the question, I do think that the rules fit the lore, in most cases. Are they what most people want or envisage? No. Are they how I would have done it? No. But it is what it is. 

 

Blood Angels for example - the regular +1" to run and assault. Nice and reliable for a bunch of blood crazed madmen. They should have had the white scar rules - assault after running - that encourages the BA player to push their luck and risk not shooting in an attempt to get a lucky charge off - echoing the 3rd ed red thirst. 

 

Scars, the masters of mobile warfare, shouldnt be moving random distances. I'd have made their trait a flat +1"/2" move to INFANTRY/Everything else, and given fall back and charge. 

 

the first part is simply NOT TRUE. The vows existed in 3rd edition - and by the way --> they used to be worked  far better.

BT had some cool army rules and were not allowed to use Devastor squads and whirlwinds... something that can be used now.

3rd edtion had really good restrictions which should be integrated in 10th edition imo.

 

If "it is what it is" is your opinion - I can understand it. But as you said --> would you have done so? "NO?????" 

This last part is what I want to know from all of you. How do you have made it or would have prefered it, like in your example for WS vs BA (Which I fully agree)

[Xenith]

20 minutes ago, Medjugorje said:

3rd edtion had really good restrictions which should be integrated in 10th edition imo.

 

 

GW specifically went away from the restrictive design mentality, and removed 0-1 limits for certain units, etc, as they want people to be able to play with all their toys. 

 

That said, currently 40k rules are very much units have 90% upsides with no downsides, removing any tactical nuance. Monsters used to be able to be tarpitted, but now they all get a sweep attack to kill like 10-20 models per turn. Berzerkers get to fight twice, but no longer have to move towards or charge the nearest enemy unit (5th ed rage rule). But none of this is really to do with lore, just gameplay. 

 

From that perspective, things aren't perfect, but they're good enough - in fact I'd like to see less lore-impacting rules in some respects, maybe totally removed from matched play and being narrative only. 

[Ayatollah_of_Rock_n_Rolla]

7 hours ago, Xenith said:

fight in the way that marines do (with heavy weapons, then close up, then get stuck into combat), 

 

I cannot agree that this is the way marines are supposed to fight. They are meant to be highly adaptable jack-of-all-trades force with proper tools for the job. The doctrine system is anything but it. While it encourages you to build your list in a more balanced way, on the battlefield it's a rigid system which works only if enemy sits idly waiting for your gradual approach. Anything outside of this scheme breaks the system. You make drop assault or somebody drops in your face? - sorry, we're not supoosed to know how to use chainswords yet.  You finally got into fight but the enemy manages to get out and establish second line of defence? - we forgot how to pull a trigger. It reminds me of the French interwar bataille méthodique doctrine - it forces you to fight an impossible battle unable to adapt to circumstances.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

Some chapters can manipulate with doctrine is active.

[Medjugorje]

6 hours ago, Xenith said:

 

GW specifically went away from the restrictive design mentality, and removed 0-1 limits for certain units, etc, as they want people to be able to play with all their toys. 

 

That said, currently 40k rules are very much units have 90% upsides with no downsides, removing any tactical nuance. Monsters used to be able to be tarpitted, but now they all get a sweep attack to kill like 10-20 models per turn. Berzerkers get to fight twice, but no longer have to move towards or charge the nearest enemy unit (5th ed rage rule). But none of this is really to do with lore, just gameplay. 

 

From that perspective, things aren't perfect, but they're good enough - in fact I'd like to see less lore-impacting rules in some respects, maybe totally removed from matched play and being narrative only. 

??? Things like Berserkers have to go to next enemy unit is not LORE for you? I think this feels more cinematic then 95% of rules we have now.  Auras for example feel more as a mathematic thing (esspecially when you see it on the table) then loredriven.

 

I mean thats why I like some armies and why I dont like others when it comes to the game. You should be driven as a White Scars player to play Bikes instead of Devastor squads or Jump Packs while Blood Angels should have many of the last mentioned.

 

But again .... THIS THREAD should be for everyone who have some ideas about thier subfaction or about any marine chapter which they feel is not good represented on the table top.

Or at least have good rules but are played different because people want to play more efficiently.

[Xenith]

On 11/4/2022 at 6:47 PM, Medjugorje said:

??? Things like Berserkers have to go to next enemy unit is not LORE for you?

 

One has to balance game mechanics with things that are 'fun' for the players and give them agency. The "models with RAGE must always move as fast as possible to the nearest visible enemy" rule was removed as it was an army essentially on autopilot, where the player made no choices of their own, just moved the models, and the opponent, by moving their own models, could actually control where the RAGE models moved. 

 

A fluffy mechanic for sure, but poor game design. 

[Xenith]

On 11/4/2022 at 5:14 PM, Ayatollah_of_Rock_n_Rolla said:

I cannot agree that this is the way marines are supposed to fight.

 

Almost every standard engagement starts out an longer range then the distances close. Marines dont drop immediately into H2H combat, then fall back to start firing away with bolters and plasma, then retreat further to get going with the heavy weapons. If being proficient with and using all kinds of weapons to maximum effect is not jack of all trades I dont know what is. 

 

It's not the only way they fight*, nor is your hyperbole about them not knowing how to use chainswords until T3 accurate - they just get more killy in T3 once they have worked themselves up into a battle frenzy. 

 

*Drop pod assault, 8th company actions, boarding actions, but one should not base the general rules on the exceptions. 

Edited November 7, 2022 by Xenith

[Lord_Ikka]

On 11/4/2022 at 11:14 AM, Ayatollah_of_Rock_n_Rolla said:

I cannot agree that this is the way marines are supposed to fight. They are meant to be highly adaptable jack-of-all-trades force with proper tools for the job. The doctrine system is anything but it. While it encourages you to build your list in a more balanced way, on the battlefield it's a rigid system which works only if enemy sits idly waiting for your gradual approach. Anything outside of this scheme breaks the system. You make drop assault or somebody drops in your face? - sorry, we're not supoosed to know how to use chainswords yet.  You finally got into fight but the enemy manages to get out and establish second line of defence? - we forgot how to pull a trigger. It reminds me of the French interwar bataille méthodique doctrine - it forces you to fight an impossible battle unable to adapt to circumstances.

How does increasing AP on weapons based on the turn it is and the weapons' range, have anything to do with forcing SM to not fight like they should? At the base level, removing chapter specific super-doctrines for the moment, all Doctrines do is give an AP bonus based on what most people would consider standard engagement ranges per turn (i.e.- you will be most likely to fire more Heavy Weapons than Rapid-fire/Assault on turn 1, more Rapid-fire Assault on Turn 2, and more Pistol/Melee in turn 3+). That doesn't deter SM from not doing that, such as Ravenwing Advancing and Assault-firing in turn 1, or having a Drop Pod of Assault Marines crash down and charge turn 1- it just gives a slight game mechanic benefit that is chapter/tactics agnostic. You don't have any disadvantage placed on you for firing an Assault weapon first turn, or a Heavy weapon after it, you just get a slight (and with AoC it is slight) advantage for your weapons when they are used during a turn that they would logically be used.

 

It would be different if the base Doctrine bonus effected BS or WS, then you would have a case to say that GW is definitely guiding/steering players down a certain path, but they aren't and they aren't deviating from the fluff at all. They are showing that SM weapons work better when they are employed when they should be- heavy weapons are better at the beginning of most engagements when the range is long, with the corresponding shorter-ranged weapons getting better as the SM move up the battlefield. 

 

Chapter super-doctrines are completely different and that is where fluff comes into play. You have BA/SW getting benefits when they are in Assault Doctrine as they should since they are Chapters that have strong melee mindsets, while Ultramarines gain benefits for staying in the Tactical doctrine to emphasize their flexibility, and so on. Not all of the chapter super-doctrines work well, nor does the system work great in regard to chapters that get benefits during Devastator doctrine (really should have the option to go turn 1/2 Devastator like Tactical can go 2/3 if you want), but there is where you get benefits that can significantly impact how an SM army functions. AP by itself does not hugely benefit SM, but when it is combined with super-doctrines that give stuff like being Stationary even if Moved, extra attacks, bonuses to Hit/Wound, etc..., then you get the real benefit of the Doctrine system. 

 

Is it clunky, yeah. Does it work for every chapter, no. But at its core it also doesn't force SM to fight in any specific way- that depends on what chapter you choose and their own super-doctrines that attempt to stay true to the fluff with their benefits.

Edited November 7, 2022 by Lord_Ikka

[Blindhamster]

On 11/4/2022 at 6:47 PM, Medjugorje said:

I mean thats why I like some armies and why I dont like others when it comes to the game. You should be driven as a White Scars player to play Bikes instead of Devastor squads or Jump Packs while Blood Angels should have many of the last mentioned.

 

No, both are codex chapters, both deviate only a small amount from standard codex chapter structure, blood angels a little more than white scars, but still codex compliant save for where the flaw forces their hand. They still have the same number of battle companies and still primarily fight with battleline units.

That is the LORE for them. I've always hated when you get pidgeonholed into using a particular unit because chapter benefits are tied to it.

 

I also agree with Xenith that a rule like the old black rage, forcing you to move toward nearest enemy was just not good game design, because it makes the player lose agency. If you want good game design and lore, give death company a benefit IF they attack the nearest enemy unit, this way the player can decide if it's the right choice. It's also worth noting that the rage turns you into mini sanguinius, not an unthinking berserker. This is well represented in some novels. (It’s actually the red thirst that makes some blood angels lose it and just go into battle frenzy)

I do miss the old death company generation rules, but I don't think the way it is now is bad, it means you can make a fluffy blood angel army with limited death company if you want, or you can do a yawn-worthy "oh look, half a company fell to the black rage all at once again" army.

I actually like the blood angel rules currently, they're pretty appropriate in that they make all blood angels better in melee, and the promote movement. They're applicable to just about any unit, so it's good. I thought the crusade rules for blood angels were too harsh with too high a chance of succumbing to the rage, but they are characterful.

 

Edited November 7, 2022 by Blindhamster

[Ayatollah_of_Rock_n_Rolla]

If you excuse a joint reply, I’ll first give some general thoughts on common themes in the posts of both of you and then move to more personalised answers.  

The rules, both army wide and those of particular units, are supposed to guide you in building and playing your army. They reflect how designers intend your army to behave. Am I free to ignore them? Sure I am. I can force my army to do whatever I want. If I fancy, I can take my SW Assault Marines and kite with bolt pistols for the whole battle, but this is not what they are meant to do. And it’s the same with doctrines – they show how designers imagine a Marines’ army fights. And they imagine it exactly as you both pointed out: our whole army begins at long range gradually closing at the enemy. No matter the army’s composition, no matter the units’ roles, no matter the enemy’s actions. There’s a schema, which Marines are expected to force every battle into. There is no reason, why performance of long-range weapons (and grenades, lol) or any other weapons should be dependent on a rigid time schedule. I could understand if it was dependent on the range, but as for now you can spend whole game immobile shooting from one table edge to another and your firing efficiency will decrease after turn 1, because it turns out that big guns tire pretty quickly. And that’s even before we start asking, why long-range weapons should be less effective at closer distances at all considering that in lore, with exception of the indirect-fire artillery, accuracy and penetration of at least some of them (if not most) should increase.

 

5 hours ago, Xenith said:

 

Almost every standard engagement starts out an longer range then the distances close. Marines dont drop immediately into H2H combat, then fall back to start firing away with bolters and plasma, then retreat further to get going with the heavy weapons. If being proficient with and using all kinds of weapons to maximum effect is not jack of all trades I dont know what is. 

 

It's not the only way they fight*, nor is your hyperbole about them not knowing how to use chainswords until T3 accurate - they just get more killy in T3 once they have worked themselves up into a battle frenzy. 

 

*Drop pod assault, 8th company actions, boarding actions, but one should not base the general rules on the exceptions. 

 

And here’s my problem – they are not being proficient with using all kinds of weapons to maximum, they are proficient with using a certain kinds of weapons to maximum at a strictly defined time period.  My two part hyperbole was meant to highlight the logic governing the rules according to which shooting capabilities of marines, and marines only, deteriorate quickly, while they mele capabilities increase for no reason. Your eagerness explanation would be neat, if it was not time bound, because for now your unit can fight from turn 1 or chill for the whole battle without even seeing the enemy,  and both will get the same bonus turn 3. In the designers’ minds it’s not linked with what is happening on the table/battlefield but with steps in the battle scheme we have to tick off.

I have also to disagree when it comes to drop pods. Marines are not only a planetary assault force per se but also there is tendency among a few BL authors to depict them as rapid response forces used to break enemy strongpoints, take out command centres, concentrae on the most vital infrastructure and so on before redeploying to another frontline. I do not believe that the doctrine system reflects well such a versatile force.

 

4 hours ago, Lord_Ikka said:

How does increasing AP on weapons based on the turn it is and the weapons' range, have anything to do with forcing SM to not fight like they should? At the base level, removing chapter specific super-doctrines for the moment, all Doctrines do is give an AP bonus based on what most people would consider standard engagement ranges per turn (i.e.- you will be most likely to fire more Heavy Weapons than Rapid-fire/Assault on turn 1, more Rapid-fire Assault on Turn 2, and more Pistol/Melee in turn 3+). That doesn't deter SM from not doing that, such as Ravenwing Advancing and Assault-firing in turn 1, or having a Drop Pod of Assault Marines crash down and charge turn 1- it just gives a slight game mechanic benefit that is chapter/tactics agnostic. You don't have any disadvantage placed on you for firing an Assault weapon first turn, or a Heavy weapon after it, you just get a slight (and with AoC it is slight) advantage for your weapons when they are used during a turn that they would logically be used.

 

It would be different if the base Doctrine bonus effected BS or WS, then you would have a case to say that GW is definitely guiding/steering players down a certain path, but they aren't and they aren't deviating from the fluff at all. They are showing that SM weapons work better when they are employed when they should be- heavy weapons are better at the beginning of most engagements when the range is long, with the corresponding shorter-ranged weapons getting better as the SM move up the battlefield. 

 

Chapter super-doctrines are completely different and that is where fluff comes into play. You have BA/SW getting benefits when they are in Assault Doctrine as they should since they are Chapters that have strong melee mindsets, while Ultramarines gain benefits for staying in the Tactical doctrine to emphasize their flexibility, and so on. Not all of the chapter super-doctrines work well, nor does the system work great in regard to chapters that get benefits during Devastator doctrine (really should have the option to go turn 1/2 Devastator like Tactical can go 2/3 if you want), but there is where you get benefits that can significantly impact how an SM army functions. AP by itself does not hugely benefit SM, but when it is combined with super-doctrines that give stuff like being Stationary even if Moved, extra attacks, bonuses to Hit/Wound, etc..., then you get the real benefit of the Doctrine system. 

 

Is it clunky, yeah. Does it work for every chapter, no. But at its core it also doesn't force SM to fight in any specific way- that depends on what chapter you choose and their own super-doctrines that attempt to stay true to the fluff with their benefits.

 

I think you will find most answers in the first paragraph. The doctrine system is time based, not ranged based. If I am deprived of bonuses because I did not fight on a certain turn with a certain unit type, I consider myself punished by the rules. By committing too late or too early, I am diminishing my damage output. Doctrine system is the same part of Marines rules as anything else and I do not understand why you wave it off as if it was any less meaningful for how our armies are supposed to fight than chapter specific rules. It’s a faction wide rule and if anything, it shows better how GW imagines a vanilla marines army in action – chapter specific rules are meant to give you the edge in some part of the fighting system, but the system remains the same nevertheless. My BA may be beasts in close combat, but not before turn 3.

If you have problem with the phrase “forced to” substitute it with “meant to”, “wanted to”, “expected to” or anything.

[Xenith]

19 minutes ago, Ayatollah_of_Rock_n_Rolla said:

If I am deprived of bonuses because I did not fight on a certain turn with a certain unit type, I consider myself punished by the rules.

 

This is maybe a philosophical thing, but consider it more being rewarded if you do a certain thing in a certain way, instead of being punished for not doing it? Like, you get a bonus if you do something, you get nothing taken away if you don't do it. 

 

19 minutes ago, Ayatollah_of_Rock_n_Rolla said:

Marines are not only a planetary assault force per se but also there is tendency among a few BL authors to depict them as rapid response forces used to break enemy strongpoints, take out command centres, concentrae on the most vital infrastructure and so on before redeploying to another frontline. I do not believe that the doctrine system reflects well such a versatile force.

 

And they break those enemy strongpoints, first with targeted salvoes from heavy weapons, then accurate deadly bolter fire as they close, then by ripping apart the occupants of those strongpoints in close combat. 

 

On 11/4/2022 at 6:47 PM, Medjugorje said:

I mean thats why I like some armies and why I dont like others when it comes to the game. You should be driven as a White Scars player to play Bikes instead of Devastor squads or Jump Packs while Blood Angels should have many of the last mentioned.

 

But that's exactly the situation we have now. Scars bikers are great, and blood angels jump pack units get the most out of the BA chapter ability. They just don't only affect those units - those units just get more benefit from the chapter rules than other units do. 

Edited November 7, 2022 by Xenith

[WARMASTER_]

I consider the Models + Tabletop Game + Lore to be separate aspects of the same hobby 

 

Each has their own merit and inherent value, but each is an aspect that doesn’t often overlap 

 

Just how the models can never really match some of the amazing artwork I also don’t think that the game can never really match the lore but that’s ok they’re not meant to each has its place and value 

 

On 11/3/2022 at 5:53 AM, Medjugorje said:

White Scars should not be that melee focused but more into speed, mobility, bikes etc (like their mongolian counterpart in the real world which used to be more horseriders and their main weapon was a bow)

Just as a note don’t forget that the White Scars like all Chapters created by GW aren’t just based on a single culture of reference, Whilst the white scars definitely draw from Mongolian influences they also draw from Japanese and Chinese with an added load of SCIFI so using swords and being melee focused is a good things IMO 

 

Other good examples are Space wolves, They’re meant to be based on a wide verity of “Barbarian” + Dark age cultures Germanic, Saxon etc But because Pop Culture being the way it is people notice the Viking influences more 

Edited November 7, 2022 by WARMASTER_

[tychobi]

The space marine doctrine rules fit lore pretty well to my eye. Space Marines are not soldiers. They are zealots who fight according to ancient decree not actual military tactics so following the codex doctrine is how they were trained and how they will act no matter the situation.  The situation is always honour the emperor. The word "marine" is a bit misleading in my opinion.  Rules will always be a clunky approximation of the fantasy but over all 40k does fairly well most of the time. 

[phandaal]

Dark Angels' rules fit their lore pretty well. Only change that comes immediately to mind is the Brilliant Tactician warlord trait.

 

Roll one unit within 6" back to the previous turn's doctrine? Embarrassing.