Loss of sub faction support?

[Schlitzaf]

13 hours ago, Halandaar said:

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.

 

 

 
Alot of folks complained alot about how Subfaction codexes didn’t have tbeir own subfaction options. My honest opanion, I tbink WE, DG, & TSon should been supplements ala how the Loyalist chapters were).

 

For me I’d do; Strats is complicated honetlt I think 3-6 sre fine for subfactions. Main issue is we get copy paste versions ala like the “Sgt ger Relic Strats” for example.

[Halandaar]

An issue I foresee with that is that the community always works out what the "best" combo is before too long. So instead of just having every army in a faction running the same handful of traits, it'd be every army in the entire game because they're all picking from the same small pool. 

 

 

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

28 minutes ago, Halandaar said:

An issue I foresee with that is that the community always works out what the "best" combo is before too long. So instead of just having every army in a faction running the same handful of traits, it'd be every army in the entire game because they're all picking from the same small pool. 

 

 

That’s not an issue, at least not if you don’t think it’s currently an issue.

power gamers can power game with the ‘best’ traits, and people who don’t care about power gaming will have the options to make their armies unique.

Edited March 19, 2023 by Inquisitor_Lensoven

[OttoVonAwesome]

I don't think traits are the problem. The meta subfactions are usually chosen beacuase of the secondaries and strategems they have access to. There's better sub faction traits that aren't being used cuase they don't have that jank secondary or twisted strategem combo that's winning them games for example Black Legion. 

[Helias_Tancred]

When it comes to GW and 40k rules by default I have low to mid expectations in anything they do. With this I can see both sides. I own and play Blood Angels and Dark Angels. Two very unique space marine chapters, distinct from the codex compliant ones. I would probably quit 40k for whatever rules edition made them basic marines with a different paint scheme. I'd also do the same if GW is tailoring the 40k game to tournaments. 

[Halandaar]

8 hours ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

That’s not an issue, at least not if you don’t think it’s currently an issue.

power gamers can power game with the ‘best’ traits, and people who don’t care about power gaming will have the options to make their armies unique.

 

But if you're going down that route why not just split the two like I proposed before? A small pool of fixed rules for competitive play, mix-and-match free for all for every one else.

[MARK0SIAN]

46 minutes ago, Halandaar said:

 

But if you're going down that route why not just split the two like I proposed before? A small pool of fixed rules for competitive play, mix-and-match free for all for every one else.

The problem with this is that it assumes everyone who prioritises balance is a competitive player. I don’t consider myself a competitive player, I don’t play in tournaments, I don’t meta chase, I don’t only field optimum units or choose my army based on its secondaries or anything like that. However, if I was writing a priority list of things I’d want for 10th edition then straight in at number one would be a balanced game.

 

Too often it’s assumed that people either only care about thematics or only care about winning but there is a middle ground who want a flavoursome game that is balanced. Those people accept that compromises have to be made in both directions to achieve that, you can’t have a total free for all in one direction but equally we don’t want zero faction flavour in the other direction.  

[Orange Knight]

Every player wants a fair game, even in a casual pick-up environment. I think we can all agree on that.

 

Currently the game isn't fair and the Chapters are wildy imbalanced. There are too many variables that impact too many units that can compound effects into creating this lack of balance and fairness.

 

It's why the unique abilities of chapters need to be toned down and reworked .

[Guest Triszin]

For balance reasons I think the pick and choose build your own needs to be tossed.

 

I think have balanced functional prebuilt subfaction. Choose the one that you think best fits your choice.

 

And I put emphasis on functional.

At the event level you hardly see strange builds, because most of the subfaction build your own options just suck.

 

I still would like unique subfactions that no one else can clone rules wise. To add to there uniqueness.

 

 

Like da. If battle forged let them take a unit (1) of deathwing or ravenwimg as a troops slot. They gain (core) keyword if they didn't have it

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

6 hours ago, Halandaar said:

 

But if you're going down that route why not just split the two like I proposed before? A small pool of fixed rules for competitive play, mix-and-match free for all for every one else.

Because then the only people who realistically get to use the narrative rules will be people with established gaming groups, because we already have that, and no one plays the narrative rules in pick up games 

[Closet Skeleton]

On 3/18/2023 at 3:30 PM, 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.

 

I say this every time it comes up but a tournament is just 3+ pick up games in a row with a leaderboard so its natural that what's fair for tournaments is fair for pick up games.

 

If anything its easier to find narrative and thematic lists at a big tournament than in the local gaming store. Especially if its a casual or highlander tournament which are quite popular when run in the right city.

 

  

1 hour ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

Because then the only people who realistically get to use the narrative rules will be people with established gaming groups, because we already have that, and no one plays the narrative rules in pick up games 

 

There's never going to be a substitute to a regularly meeting gaming club but organised narrative 'tournaments' do exist.

Edited March 19, 2023 by Closet Skeleton

[Helias_Tancred]

11 hours ago, Orange Knight said:

Every player wants a fair game, even in a casual pick-up environment. I think we can all agree on that.

 

Currently the game isn't fair and the Chapters are wildy imbalanced. There are too many variables that impact too many units that can compound effects into creating this lack of balance and fairness.

 

It's why the unique abilities of chapters need to be toned down and reworked .

 

I can agree to that! Sensible. 

 

 

[MARK0SIAN]

12 hours ago, Orange Knight said:

Every player wants a fair game, even in a casual pick-up environment. I think we can all agree on that.

 

Currently the game isn't fair and the Chapters are wildy imbalanced. There are too many variables that impact too many units that can compound effects into creating this lack of balance and fairness.

 

It's why the unique abilities of chapters need to be toned down and reworked .

Everyone wanting a fair game isn’t the same as everyone putting it high on the priority list though. 
 

The chapters definitely do need a more level playing field but the disparity doesn’t really come from from the fact that Blood Angels have a different chapter tactic than imperial fists. The problem is that those differences between chapters/subfactions don’t have an equal shot with the way the game works. Armies/subfactions live and die by too many factors that are nothing to do with their identity like secondary objectives, stratagems, mission design etc. You’re right that there’s too many variables, but it’s the other elements that generally need to be reworked rather than the unique abilities of certain chapters. That said, I will admit that permanent transhuman is something of an outlier in that regard.

[jaxom]

On 3/17/2023 at 3:16 PM, 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. 

 

On 3/18/2023 at 10:06 AM, Ioldanach said:

1. 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.

 

There's definitely room for compressing down sub-faction rules. Some are very different, like Raven Guard and Salamanders. Others, not so much. For example, which Chapter is well known for disciplined bolter fire and stubbornly refusing to giving up? Need another hint, they tend towards Terminator assault tactics and have a particularly conservative Terminator Captain. Yep, it's the ImpDarerkial Anfiselts. Take out the Terminators and we could be talking about the Iron Hands. Alternatively, who are often described as the Toughest Marines - Salamanders and Iron Hands. Particularly vicious in close combat - Blood Angels and Raven Guard. Mobile hunters - Wolves and Scars. A Marine codex could easily have three or four types of Chapters, then 2-3 individual WLTs, 3-4 relics, and 1-2 strategems for each of the gene-lines.

 

On 3/18/2023 at 1:29 PM, Scribe said:

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.

 

Yeah, I really like the direction of the World Eater's codex (at least within the reality of official 40k rules). A single page of strats, max, where each one really stresses how the army should play and isn't a lazy replacement for pointing out equipment upgrades.

 

21 hours ago, OttoVonAwesome said:

I don't think traits are the problem. The meta subfactions are usually chosen beacuase of the secondaries and strategems they have access to. There's better sub faction traits that aren't being used cuase they don't have that jank secondary or twisted strategem combo that's winning them games for example Black Legion. 

 

30 minutes ago, MARK0SIAN said:

Everyone wanting a fair game isn’t the same as everyone putting it high on the priority list though. 
 

The chapters definitely do need a more level playing field but the disparity doesn’t really come from from the fact that Blood Angels have a different chapter tactic than imperial fists. The problem is that those differences between chapters/subfactions don’t have an equal shot with the way the game works. Armies/subfactions live and die by too many factors that are nothing to do with their identity like secondary objectives, stratagems, mission design etc. You’re right that there’s too many variables, but it’s the other elements that generally need to be reworked rather than the unique abilities of certain chapters. That said, I will admit that permanent transhuman is something of an outlier in that regard.

 

It's both, and it's two separate but related issues. I think you're completely right about the way secondary objectives impact a list's ability to win a game. For example Blood Angels don't benefit from Codex Warfare like Iron Hands do. On the other hand, Imperial Fists - who I think one might have expected to have a similar aptitude towards Devastator Doctrine - are just bad compared to Iron Hands, Ravenwing, and Ultramarines - the last of who is technically a Tactical Doctrine army. 

 

14 hours ago, Halandaar said:

 

But if you're going down that route why not just split the two like I proposed before? A small pool of fixed rules for competitive play, mix-and-match free for all for every one else.

 

Personally, I think this kind of exists in the form of ITC style missions versus Eternal War missions. That, at least, removes the secondary objectives issue. As for separate rules, @Orange Knight said it best, "Every player wants a fair game, even in a casual pick-up environment." The knock-down effect, I think, would be the same level of support we're currently seeing for these "competitive play" rules while "mix-and-match free for all" never gets touched by anyone because most would view as a system for inherently unfair match ups.

 

 

 

[WrathOfTheLion]

I kind of see them like the strategems in Codex: World Eaters. It has quite well proved that you could completely delete 2/3 of the strategems in a codex, and then spend more effort making sure the remaining 1/3 are flexible and varied, and still retain the flavor. For subfactions, in particular custom ones, you could remove the majority of traits, then spend effort making sure the remaining set that are actually worth taking and you'd get more mileage at representing your chapter or other subfaction.

Edited March 20, 2023 by WrathOfTheLion
missed a word

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

1 hour ago, WrathOfTheLion said:

I kind of see them like the strategems in Codex: World Eaters. It has quite well proved that you could completely delete 2/3 of the strategems in a codex, and then spend more effort making sure the remaining 1/3 are flexible and varied, and still retain the flavor. For subfactions, in particular custom ones, you could remove the majority of traits, then spend effort making sure the remaining set that are actually worth taking and you'd get more mileage at representing your chapter or other subfaction.

Except for the customization that people like you can’t just get rid of 2/3 of the traits and expect people be cool with it if their goal is a cool unique army and they don’t care if their army is particularly strong.

[jaxom]

14 hours ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

[one] can’t just get rid of 2/3 of the traits and expect people be cool with it if their goal is a cool unique army and they don’t care if their army is particularly strong.

I think I get it? The idea being that a lack of appropriate rules will have a chilling effect on what people think they can play? Like, if I want a to play a World Eater Teeth of Khorne army full of Heavy Bolter Havoc Squads and Autocannon Predators, there aren't immediate rules in the Codex to let me do that, and I'd have to include one Troop if I were to bring in the Havocs as part of a Codex:CSM Allied Detachment. Or I have an idea for a custom Tyranid hive fleet that is based on birds of prey, so I look for rules that let me have more units with Fly and a way to give them Assault After Falling Back.

[Orange Knight]

15 hours ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

Except for the customization that people like you can’t just get rid of 2/3 of the traits and expect people be cool with it if their goal is a cool unique army and they don’t care if their army is particularly strong.

 

I agree. And GW need to support the narrative and campaign side.

 

We already have Crusade rules and relics that are unique to narrative play. Double down on this to allow people to express themselves for narrative gaming.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

40 minutes ago, Orange Knight said:

 

I agree. And GW need to support the narrative and campaign side.

 

We already have Crusade rules and relics that are unique to narrative play. Double down on this to allow people to express themselves for narrative gaming.

Again, narrative/crusade play is largely relegated to playing amongst established gaming groups.

 

most games played outside of those groups are unlikely to be those kinds of games.

 

just have universal traits that way if one combo is super strong it’s balanced for tournaments because meta chasers can all use the same combo of army traits to use in tournaments.

 

there can be narrative add ons to the base rules like titles for special boosts and the like.

 

Straight up having 2 rule sets will simply result in one rule set being under used and one being the primary rule set same as it is now.

[Helias_Tancred]

1 hour ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

 

 

Straight up having 2 rule sets will simply result in one rule set being under used and one being the primary rule set same as it is now.

 

Well said and true.

[Orange Knight]

If you want people to play Crusade and with more Narrative rules you have to advocate for them.

 

Make the effort and arrange the kind of game you want to play. It sounds blunt but it's the reality. This is a game that requires consent between players - it's not impossible to find like-minded individuals unless your local scene is isolated and limited in size. 

 

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

3 minutes ago, Orange Knight said:

If you want people to play Crusade and with more Narrative rules you have to advocate for them.

 

Make the effort and arrange the kind of game you want to play. It sounds blunt but it's the reality. This is a game that requires consent between players - it's not impossible to find like-minded individuals unless your local scene is isolated and limited in size. 

 

Or just have 1 set of rules with 1 set of custom traits. It’s not a difficult situation to navigate 

[Arikel]

3 hours ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

Or just have 1 set of rules with 1 set of custom traits. It’s not a difficult situation to navigate 

The issue here is that the rules are, to put it politely, not great. Pretty much everyone here agrees on that. They are messy, unintuitive, unwieldy and also allow the same army to either be overpowered or underpowered depending on what colour you happened to paint your minis or which custom traits you have chosen. At least some of it has to go to get some semblance of balance.

 

For SM, What I would propose first is a good set of basic army rules that would cover the iconic armies SM are known for:

 

Tactical Formation: Your classic half company with veteran support, as exemplified by Ultramarines, Imperial Fists, and DA greenwing

Veteran Formation: For those rare times when the 1rst Company fights as one, as exemplified by the Deathwing of the Dark Angels

 

Assault Formation: Get there fast, get in close, get it done. Blood Angels would be the poster boy here.

 

Biker Formation: Bikes backed up with speeders. Ravenwing and White scars come to mind.

 

Devastator Formation: Heavy Weapons to blow down citadels. Iron Hands and Fist look good here too.

 

I would also propose a crusade and a pack formation for Templars and wolves, though they might be the only chapters truly divergent enough to have their own codex, the others are all very similar in structure and force organization.

 

Each formation could provide a selection of bonuses and obsec to units based on it’s theme.

 

On top of that, a trait or two could be provided based on chapter. Most equipment should be chapter agnostic, though a relic or 2 per chapter would be ok. Same with units, they should essentially be chapter agnostic for the most part with very few exceptions. 
 

You can make custom unique forces tailored to your tastes with a few simple building blocks. Special rules and complexity for it’s own sake is where bloat truly comes from.

 

 

 

[ThePenitentOne]

8 hours ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

Again, narrative/crusade play is largely relegated to playing amongst established gaming groups.

 

most games played outside of those groups are unlikely to be those kinds of games.

 

just have universal traits that way if one combo is super strong it’s balanced for tournaments because meta chasers can all use the same combo of army traits to use in tournaments.

 

there can be narrative add ons to the base rules like titles for special boosts and the like.

 

Straight up having 2 rule sets will simply result in one rule set being under used and one being the primary rule set same as it is now.

 

Crusade was the best part of 9th, and while I suspect they'll try and keep a narrative play mode alive in 10th, it's literally not possible for them to do justice to Crusade if we return to Index Hammer. That's the biggest reason I'm unlikely to go down the 10th ed rabbit hole.

 

It's almost a trigger to me when I see people suggest the wholesale removal of Crusade. It suggests to me a profound ignorance of the notion of inclusive gaming. GW doesn't just want MANY or even MOST gamers in its player base... It wants ALL OF THEM. It wants warband roleplayers and Inquisitor 28 and Blanchitsu house-rulers and the Oldboys who buy Ambulls and Zoats as much as it wants ignorant tournament players who either forget that the rest of exist, or worse, actively try to erase us.

 

For the record, I think it would be just awesome if GW took the thing they currently call Matched play and reduce it to what you and all the other minimalist, balance-at-all-costs types want it to be, and left the big messy sandbox that is Crusade to the rest of us. And that includes all of the strats that are "useless" to tournament players, but are gold for campaign play and mission building, where story-hooks disconnected from the simple binary of win/loss may influence the use of strats- for example, in Urban Conquest, certain territories conferred the ability to use particular strats based on objective control.

 

If you think anyone who has enjoyed Crusade is going to be satisfied with titles for special boosts and the like, then you probably haven't been paying much attention to just how much Crusade has to offer narrative players. Just because a ruleset isn't used by you, or any of the people at your store, or even any of the people you know, that does not mean that it isn't used... And no one really knows the demographics of 40k's player base. GW insiders may have some idea, but it's vague at best.

 

There are organized Narrative Play events... I think a Grand Narrative just finished up in November? Apparently it's a quarterly circuit that culminates in the Grand event.

 

 

[Scribe]

I highly doubt GW has any clue what its playerbase looks like.

 

Wizards of the Coast actively engages its players. It polls them. It surveys them.

 

GW? No.