Loss of sub faction support?

[WrathOfTheLion]

Mechanically, the World Eaters Codex is like that. I expect that codex will not be too far different in 10E, although obviously invalidated.

[MegaVolt87]

I'll be honest, we can put sub faction rules into existing codex's if we make them bigger. If the 40k loyalists and traitor books were like the 30k libers, its easily done. That should be the rules model for all 40k space marines. 

[Schurge]

@ThePenitentOne

 

Yeah, I wouldn't mind wrestling with you as I don't fit in the box you want to put me in but this isn't the place. @Scribe and @Sothalor have already elaborated on my point as well as I could.

 

I'm glad you like Crusade but it doesn't come close to making this game fun to me... And it doesn't make the game more fluffy than I was already making it myself by roleplaying and kitbashing and proxying many editions ago.

 

Your post glitched out it seems, I would have been interested in seeing what you had to say about the last two points you quoted.

 

Anyway, according to WarCom it looks like they are preserving your Crusade rules. We shall see if I'm included in 10th edition. I doubt it. That's okay.

[ThePenitentOne]

1 hour ago, Schurge said:

@ThePenitentOne

 

Yeah, I wouldn't mind wrestling with you as I don't fit in the box you want to put me in but this isn't the place. @Scribe and @Sothalor have already elaborated on my point as well as I could.

 

I'm glad you like Crusade but it doesn't come close to making this game fun to me... And it doesn't make the game more fluffy than I was already making it myself by roleplaying and kitbashing and proxying many editions ago.

 

Your post glitched out it seems, I would have been interested in seeing what you had to say about the last two points you quoted.

 

Anyway, according to WarCom it looks like they are preserving your Crusade rules. We shall see if I'm included in 10th edition. I doubt it. That's okay.

 

Yeah, sorry dude- my reaction was a bit much. I think it was @Scribe who put it another way and made me see that I might have misinterpreted some of what you said- I shoulda posted back about that earlier, but got caught up in all the post-preview hype.

 

I've got some thoughts on how the Crusade rules might go and what the transition might look like, and I'll likely start a dedicated conversation about it, but I'm tired from staying up to watch the stream last night. Peace Frater, and sorry about any abrasive commentary.

 

 

 

 

[Orange Knight]

Looks like sub-faction rules will be streamlined but are sticking around.

 

The various chapters will also be able to express unique abilities via stratagems that are themed around them, but don't drown us is needless bloat and choices.

 

I'm chosing to be optimistic here. Perhaps GW will find the right balance between themed abilities and practical gameplay. I definitely don't want them to go back to a staggered release for all the chapters across the duration of an entire edition. If they really have streamlined the factions as they claim, perhaps the entire Astartes range can be compiled into two codex books - one for the generic units, and one for the Chapter Specific units and abilities.

 

[Redcomet]

On 3/21/2023 at 4:35 AM, Scribe said:

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.

Wizards see its players as sheeps to be fleezed. Not really a shining beacon. They are actively killing Magic for short gain profit and threw away years of goodwill on d&d. Its CEO cares nothing for its players unless they spend all the money. 

[Scribe]

4 hours ago, Redcomet said:

Wizards see its players as sheeps to be fleezed. Not really a shining beacon. They are actively killing Magic for short gain profit and threw away years of goodwill on d&d. Its CEO cares nothing for its players unless they spend all the money. 

 

I'm aware. But they care about that money so much, that they at least have an idea of what their playerbase looks like.

 

I think outside the two (?) survey's on the community site, I havent seen one from GW. I've done dozens for Wizards.

[Evil Eye]

On 3/26/2023 at 1:40 PM, Redcomet said:

Wizards see its players as sheeps to be fleezed. Not really a shining beacon. They are actively killing Magic for short gain profit and threw away years of goodwill on d&d. Its CEO cares nothing for its players unless they spend all the money. 

Precisely this. GW has its issues- oh BOY does it have its issues- but WOTC is a genuine blight on the industry to the point it makes GW look borderline saintly. Also Hasbro's current CEO, Chris Cocks (heh heh) was from WOTC and he's been driving the entire company into the ground. (Source: Transformers fan here.)

[Rain]

2 hours ago, Evil Eye said:

Precisely this. GW has its issues- oh BOY does it have its issues- but WOTC is a genuine blight on the industry to the point it makes GW look borderline saintly. Also Hasbro's current CEO, Chris Cocks (heh heh) was from WOTC and he's been driving the entire company into the ground. (Source: Transformers fan here.)

 

The Masters in Business Administration degree and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race 

[BrainFireBob]

On 3/21/2023 at 5:33 AM, Scribe said:

Again, keep some traits/warlord traits.

 

It's strats and secondary objectives, that are my real issue with the game.

 

Strats as a way to level the differences between troops and other choices were a good concept, execution was poor.

 

I'm interested in linking strats to task force, as is rumored. If secondaries are similarly linked, might be fun

[Guest Triszin]

I really think each "faction/subfaction" will get custom detachments

[WrathOfTheLion]

5 hours ago, Triszin said:

I really think each "faction/subfaction" will get custom detachments

Not quite every subfaction, but yes, I think the really big ones will have them.

Craftworld Ulthwé for instance won't have its own custom detachments. But DA/SW/BA/etc. may for Space Marines, having more recently been a separate codex.