Loss of sub faction support?

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

Auspex Tactics is predicting less support for subfactions.

 

i really hope not. If they scrap dedicated preset rules for custom rules options like the current guard codex that’s fine, but lack of support for differing subfactions is super lame to me.

 

it makes sense though considering GW seems to be trying to make the game more tournament friendly and easier to balance this would be necessary.

this however is not how I enjoy the game as I posted in another thread.

 

 

 

[Redcomet]

I quite liked the way they did it in the new Guard codex. Really opens the field for custom forces. Would also save a lot of hassle balancing them. 

[Focslain]

This is taken from the rumor of simplification of the new 'edition' coming. Which good bet is based on the fact that the sub-factors for marines didn't get an updated codex supplement book during 9th (UM/IF/WS).

 

It's also a well known fact that many want simplified rules for balance, so this plays into that general consensus.

 

Personally I agree with you, I like having some customization, even if I don't personally use them.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

29 minutes ago, Redcomet said:

I quite liked the way they did it in the new Guard codex. Really opens the field for custom forces. Would also save a lot of hassle balancing them. 

I agree the guard army traits are great, but it’s too hard to balance such rules.

if you’ve seen in the guard section there’s a whole thread dedicated to the fact that born soldiers is so broken compared to the rest of the traits, and GW seems to be trying hard to cater to an organized competitive community.

[Special Officer Doofy]

Some of the subfaction stuff does get a little silly. Do subfactions need their own subfaction trait, Secondary mono bonus, warlord traits, spells, relics, and/or strats? It can get hard to balance. Death guard, who are already a subfaction of chaos space marines, have 7 subfactions within them. Kind of silly if you ask me.

 

There is a fine line between subfaction identity and balance. The win/loss rate of Death Guard is not defined by which little sub-subfaction someone chooses, but it is with space marines, where they get a whole new slew of rules. Can't say space marines are doing great if half the sub factions are below 45% win rate but dark angels still have obsec termies and perma trans human and are above 55% (numbers made up for the example mind you, but I'm sure they are not too far off). There are more players for certain marine subfactions than there are for entire xenos ranges. Not saying that's a bad thing, but it's why loyalist marines get more support than any other faction by a long shot.

 

Depends on how badly you want the game to be balanced vs how much you want sub faction identity and customization. I care more for balance than I do for flavor, but I don't want to play chess with painted sci-fi minis. It will be interesting to see what GW does with 10th. I'm equal parts excited as I am nervous haha.

Edited March 18, 2023 by Special Officer Doofy

[Halandaar]

Agree that stuff like Death Guard having sub-subfaction rules is daft; it'd be like Blood Angels having rules for each individual company. But equally it's not Death Guard plague companies throwing the game out of whack so I guess that proves it's not about quantity of options, but how strong the options are.

 

Anyway, IMO leave "choose-your-own" subfaction rules for Crusade (or whatever form narrative takes in 10th) and then for matched play just have your 6 or so predetermined faction rules, and anybody playing a non-GW-defined chapter/regiment/sept/clan etc just has to use one of those. Much easier to balance a limited number of choices rather than the free for all we have now, but it doesn't take options away from players who aren't playing with a competitive mindset.

 

 

Edited March 18, 2023 by Halandaar

[MARK0SIAN]

I think they should just stick to fixed subfactions like Blood Angels, Deathguard, Leviathan etc. 
 

Choose your own subfactions sounds nice but even if the combinations were fixed there’d still always be a ‘best’ option, the same as there’s usually a best of the standard subfactions. 
 

As for subfactions within subfactions like Deathguard, that’s just daft and should definitely go.

[Cpt_Reaper]

GW can pry my custom traits from my cold, dead hands. I know running Fearsome Aspect and Long Range Marksmen isn't good...but it's my Chapter on the tabletop. Not diet Dark Angels.

 

Honestly GW dropped the ball with Chaos Marines. They should have released supplements for the Legions too. I got lucky with Guard, as the options presented match my Regiment perfectly (Mechanised) but there are no Drop Troopers, which upset a few people I know.

[Orange Knight]

They can definitely tone things down a significant amount whilst still keeping unique flavours for different chapters.

 

One big issue is that it's extremely hard to balance faction and units. When you add these additional chapter rules and bonuses, in particular to a codex that has over 100 datasheets, not to mention chapter specific units, combinations pop up that can swing the power too much.

 

It's how we've ended up in a scenario where one chapter has a win rate that dominates the meta, whilst another in the same codex is languishing in last place.

 

Also it hurts everyone. When Iron Hands were domination in 8th edition and their vehicles were breaking the game, GW ended up nerfing the various tanks. Iron Hands were no longer breaking the game with their tanks, but everyone else now suffered because all these vehicles were simply useless.

 

This has to end. I actually think that the design of the Guard Codex would be the best way forward. Unique rules could be tied to named characters associated with various chapters. It's how Marines operated in 5th edition.

[Cpt_Reaper]

13 minutes ago, Orange Knight said:

This has to end. I actually think that the design of the Guard Codex would be the best way forward. Unique rules could be tied to named characters associated with various chapters. It's how Marines operated in 5th edition.

 

Oh no. No way. Never again...that was an awful design choice back then and should never ever be repeated. it was the single worst thing done to Marines in 5th edition.

 

Balance be damned, giving the player full customisation is always the right answer.

[Orange Knight]

There are two opposing forces at play here. Narrative Theme and a Fair and Balanced play.

 

For the last 3 editions these two opposing forces have not found a happy medium. There are always chapters, units and abilities thar are better than others. This was also a problem in older editions with the BA, DA, SW, etc

 

With Narrative Campaign and Crusade rules the unique abilities can be as elaborate as one would want. 

 

So the solution here is for GW to better support a Narrative system that attempts to create a more fair experience, and a seperate matched play system that still attempts to include the themes associated with each faction but tones them down appropriately in order to balance the game more.

Edited March 18, 2023 by Orange Knight

[Cpt_Reaper]

What about those of us that don't want that hard split between theme and gameplay? That just want to play games without all the struggle of setting up Crusade, who just want to use our armies as we envision them in a regular game? Because your solution takes away from my positive experience of the game.

 

Crusade is good in theory. But it is too much work to take part in, when just regular games still support narrative themes just fine and can do so better with refinement. I would rather give us something each, than take away from either.

[Ioldanach]

1. I would hate if GW went back to limiting sub-faction benefits to named characters. Every Ynnari army isn't going to include Yvraine or the Visarch. Tying sub-faction rules to named characters removes one of the aspects of the game that makes it so appealing - the ability to make it your own. If anything, the opposite mechanism should be used - you can't take named character X unless your army uses the rules for X's sub-faction.
2. I think that the biggest problem GW has is that they've made sub-factions too distinct from the norm. Sub-faction rules should allow for a little bit of flavor and distinctiveness without changing things too much from the main faction. There are (and should be) a few exceptions, such as the Black Templars and Space Wolves compared to other Space Marines. For the most part, however, sub-factions should just be slight variations on the main theme.
3. I would be very disappointed if GW took away sub-faction support. I want the Raven Guard to be different from the Salamanders, and for Ulthwé to be different from Iyanden. I don't need huge differences between related sub-factions, but small things here and there are nice.

Edited March 18, 2023 by Ioldanach
I hate typos that make me look dumber than I am.

[Guest Triszin]

I sadly half expect gw to further water down the wolves for another full edition.

 

 

[Lord Marshal]

I could see them stripping sub-faction rules from everybody else, but not Space Marines.

 

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

2 hours ago, Cpt_Reaper said:

What about those of us that don't want that hard split between theme and gameplay? That just want to play games without all the struggle of setting up Crusade, who just want to use our armies as we envision them in a regular game? Because your solution takes away from my positive experience of the game.

 

Crusade is good in theory. But it is too much work to take part in, when just regular games still support narrative themes just fine and can do so better with refinement. I would rather give us something each, than take away from either.

And let’s face it, pick up games never use the more thematic rules, they use the tournament rules

[Khornestar]

29 minutes ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

And let’s face it, pick up games never use the more thematic rules, they use the tournament rules

I find this to be the case as well. A good friend and I have more or less been exclusively playing against each other for a couple of years now. We enjoy each other’s company, and we also have similar gaming philosophies and approach to the game.

 

Recently joined a Discord for local players and honestly, the notion of pick up games that are not practice matches for competitive style tournaments just does not exist. Almost No one seems to be playing a thematic list of “their guys” so much as whatever the cookie cutter competitive build is for their given faction. This may be an unfair simplification but it does appear to be the case. There’s probably a sample bias, as I’m not literally observing all games that take place, so perhaps there’s hope.

Edited March 18, 2023 by Khornestar

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

41 minutes ago, Khornestar said:

I find this to be the case as well. A good friend and I have more or less been exclusively playing against each other for a couple of years now. We enjoy each other’s company, and we also have similar gaming philosophies and approach to the game.

 

Recently joined a Discord for local players and honestly, the notion of pick up games that are not practice matches for competitive style tournaments just does not exist. Almost No one seems to be playing a thematic list of “their guys” so much as whatever the cookie cutter competitive build is for their given faction. This may be an unfair simplification but it does appear to be the case. There’s probably a sample bias, as I’m not literally observing all games that take place, so perhaps there’s hope.

My local gaming FB page everyone asking for games is talking all about AoO or boarding patrols.

same in my BA and IG FB groups.

 

the only people who can conceivably be playing narrative driven games are people with established gaming groups, or friends who already game.

[Scribe]

GW not having custom traits in the CSM book, sealed the deal on keeping me fully out of 9th.

 

There is a middle ground. Custom army traits, so people can build 'their' army, is the easiest thing GW can do. Right up there with the Warlord Trait. I mean Gods of the Warp, its why people still look back at 3.5 CSM and (a few) of the other books in that era. Why is GW so blind...

 

Its likely WAY too late to prevent any over correction by GW but the issue is not army traits.

 

Stratagems, and Force Org, and Psyker Powers. That is where the work actually needs to be done to simplify. Stratagems specifically need to be fired into the :cuss:ing sun.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

A set of essentially universal army traits solves the issue of balance and customization.

 

a trait that boosts S

a trait that boosts M

a trait that allows disembarking from transports same turn

a trait that allows rerolls for ranged attacks

a trait that allows for rerolling advances/charges

a trait that allows assault weapons to shoot after advance with no penalty

a trait that allows infantry to move and shoot hvy weapons no penalty

a trait that ignores cover

a trait that gives vehicles ObSec (<8W5 models 9-15W10 models 6+W 15 models or something)

 

single choice only traits

exploding 6s to hit

-1 damage to vehicles and characters

Edited March 18, 2023 by Inquisitor_Lensoven

[Scribe]

35 minutes ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

A set of essentially universal army traits solves the issue of balance and customization.

 

a trait that boosts S

a trait that boosts M

a trait that allows disembarking from transports same turn

a trait that allows rerolls for ranged attacks

a trait that allows for rerolling advances/charges

a trait that allows assault weapons to shoot after advance with no penalty

a trait that allows infantry to move and shoot hvy weapons no penalty

a trait that ignores cover

a trait that gives vehicles ObSec (<8W5 models 9-15W10 models 6+W 15 models or something)

 

single choice only traits

exploding 6s to hit

-1 damage to vehicles and characters

 

Eh...I like some unique to faction traits personally. I would also come down like the hammer of thor on anything adding or granting rerolls. I think its one of the worst developments in 40K to just have all this rerolling/exploding 6's garbage.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

There’s been reroll mechanics for a long time, it’s nothing new .

[Scribe]

8 minutes ago, BLACK BLΠFLY said:

There’s been reroll mechanics for a long time, it’s nothing new .

 

There was a dramatic increase after 4th or 5th. Yes its nothing new now, that doesnt mean its actually been good for the game. Fishing for 6's, always having a 'chance' mostly just wastes time and drags out the game. Rerolling everything on top of that is just more wasted dice rolls.

 

Its bad design.

[Khornestar]

1 hour ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

A set of essentially universal army traits solves the issue of balance and customization.

 

a trait that boosts S

a trait that boosts M

a trait that allows disembarking from transports same turn

a trait that allows rerolls for ranged attacks

a trait that allows for rerolling advances/charges

a trait that allows assault weapons to shoot after advance with no penalty

a trait that allows infantry to move and shoot hvy weapons no penalty

a trait that ignores cover

a trait that gives vehicles ObSec (<8W5 models 9-15W10 models 6+W 15 models or something)

 

single choice only traits

exploding 6s to hit

-1 damage to vehicles and characters

This is interesting. Sinny from Blog for the Blood God suggested a similar thing. More options, not fewer; with wider availability to armies so it isn’t some special snowflake bull:cuss but a type of build anyone can take advantage of.

Edited March 18, 2023 by Khornestar

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

1 hour ago, Khornestar said:

This is interesting. Sinny from Blog for the Blood God suggested a similar thing. More options, not fewer; with wider availability to armies so it isn’t some special snowflake bull:cuss but a type of build anyone can take advantage of.

I think guard have like 16 options but I think that most would appeased by 8-12 custom traits to choose from.