The importance of subfaction variation

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

So as not to clutter up the rules changes thread, this is something i think should be discussed in further detail here. I will find quotes from the other thread and paste them here as well so there's context as people not in that discussion don't think i'm just pulling extremes out of my butt.

 

Quote

Chapter traits that are not individually costed for every unit make balancing the game impossible*. Why should an army with a lot of assault marines that is painted red be simply better than an army with the exact same units painted blue? It is just a balancing nightmare. And in the end marines are marines. Paint the models to represent the lore and pick units that you feel fit that lore; that's all that is needed.

 

* And of course such individual costs would be way too complicated.

since the example given here is obviously directed at blood angels, it's because of the red thirst, it's because genetically BA have an affinity for flight(or in this case long powered jumps.)
another comment to the same effect but citing detachments should be the source of special rules, the same logic can be applied. if a detachment is designed to build an army of jump infantry, why would an assault marine in any color be better at assaulting just because most of the rest of the army has jump packs, or is assaulting, vs if they're just in a the lone assault squad?

to me, and i think to many if not most other people, faction and subfaction identity trumps perfect balance, and would very likely ruin the game, if subfaction identity was sacrificed in favor of perfect or near perfect balance.

[Scribe]

Faction -> Space Marines -> Faction Rules

Subfaction -> Blood Angels -> Subfaction Rule, Relics, Warlord Traits, Strats (if we must) and Detachment.

 

I'd suggest that on a "one in, one out" basis, Relics, and Warlord Traits would be that 'one in one out' and maybe a keyword on Blood Angel.

 

Subsubfactions, like Flesh Tearers, would have an additional distinction I would think, but may not their own Stratagems?

 

If there is no difference between Word Bearers, and Night Lords, GW failed. Thats all I know.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

16 minutes ago, Scribe said:

Faction -> Space Marines -> Faction Rules

Subfaction -> Blood Angels -> Subfaction Rule, Relics, Warlord Traits, Strats (if we must) and Detachment.

 

I'd suggest that on a "one in, one out" basis, Relics, and Warlord Traits would be that 'one in one out' and maybe a keyword on Blood Angel.

 

Subsubfactions, like Flesh Tearers, would have an additional distinction I would think, but may not their own Stratagems?

 

If there is no difference between Word Bearers, and Night Lords, GW failed. Thats all I know.

I completely agree.

i think BA rules replacing vanilla marine rules would be an acceptable 1in-1out, along with WLTs, strats, relics etc. all replacing any vanilla options. 
 

 

[Special Officer Doofy]

Perfect balance is a weird game of chess where nobody goes first and everyone wins. Nobody is calling for perfect balance, just better balance (which I think GW has the right idea, armies having a 45-55% win rate). I don't think it's fair one color skittle has perma transhuman on their whole list and enjoying a 60% win rate when another color skittle is below 45% and has terrible rules. GW has a hard time balancing their game, and everything they add on top of a datasheet and point cost is just that much harder for them to balance. Chapter trait, mono bonus, second mono bonus, faction/subfaction specific secondaries, faction/subfaction specific warlord traits, faction/subfaction specific relics, faction/subfaction specific spells, faction/subfaction specific strats... It can be a bit much.

 

The proof is in the pudding, why is there such a large disparity in win rates between sub factions of marines? Because they are not balanced. The units and point costs are the same, but the many stacking rules are different and lead to different outcomes. Flamestorm aggressors with the old double tap in salamander lists were amazing, and just good in other chapters. Then it got nerfed and lost the double tap and became good for salamanders and sub par for everyone else. Individual sub faction rules create extra balance issues. I use marines as the example because that is where a majority of the complaining is coming from. 

 

Now don't get me wrong, I still want some sub faction identity. But not at the cost of balance. I think marines are getting some generic Detatchment rules at first, but when they get their codex they will get more flavor. This is GW we are talking about, codex creep and trying to sell the latest codex is ingrained in their blood.

 

If you look outside of space marines, things are in a weird place. Death Guard is already a sub faction of chaos space marines, yet they have 7 sub factions within themselves. Their "chapter trait" doesn't even apply to all the vehicles in their codex, unlike marines. Some factions need some reworks more than others.

 

My biggest issue with GW is they created this large marine fan base, and those players only typically see things through a marine only lense. GW makes more models and has more support for marines, so people tend to flock to them more than any other faction. Just like within the marine faction, there are generally more people that play dark angels, blood angels and space wolves more so than the generic codex sub factions. But that is entirely because they got more support, got their own codexes in angels of death and the space wolves codexes, and got unique units. It's not a case of they were more popular first so GW gave them more support, it's a case of GW gave them more support first so those subfactions became more popular. If GW supported their non marine lines as much as the marine line, more people would play them.

 

This dire love for subfaction identity is not unique to marines, but marine players are the ones complaining the most about it (my personal experience on forums and in person). Every marine subfaction recieved their own supplement and character in 8th. Iron warriors, alpha legion, night lords and word bearers are still waiting for a named character. A majority of xenos factions don't have unique characters for all their subfactions either. No sub factions have recieved near the support that marines have.

 

I for one look forward to the changes. When I play marines in 10th the feeling will be I'm playing the army with the most unit options that can do a bit of everything, and based on the unit choices they made and the Detatchment bonus they picked, will lean into one play style more than another. The color of the marine matters alot less. That seems way better than what it is now. Oh it's the yellow imperial fist? This should be an easy win. Oh it's the bone colored dark angels and I can only wound them on 4+? Well I'm going to lose. And by the way, that's a thing. I've yet to lose to imperial fists once in 9th and while I've beaten dark angels once or twice, it was barely and I mostly lost to them. I care more about game balance than I do about a dark templar player feeling like a unique snowflake.

Edited April 3, 2023 by Special Officer Doofy
Grammar

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

3 minutes ago, Special Officer Doofy said:

Perfect balance is a weird game of chess where nobody goes first and everyone wins. Nobody is calling for perfect balance, just better balance (which I think GW has the right idea, armies having a 45-55% win rate). I don't think it's fair one color skittle has perma transhuman on their whole list and enjoying a 60% win rate when another color skittle is below 45% and has terrible rules. GW has a hard time balancing their game, and everything they add on top of a datasheet and point cost is just that much harder for them to balance. Chapter trait, mono bonus, second mono bonus, faction/subfaction specific secondaries, faction/subfaction specific warlord traits, faction/subfaction specific relics, faction/subfaction specific spells, faction/subfaction specific strats... It can be a bit much.

 

The proof is in the pudding, why is there such a large disparity in win rates between sub factions of marines? Because they are not balanced. The units and point costs are the same, but the many stacking rules are different and lead to different outcomes. Flamestorm aggressors with the old double tap in salamander lists were amazing, and just good in other chapters. Then it got nerfed and lost the double tap and became good for salamanders and sub par for everyone else. Individual sub faction rules create extra balance issues. I use marines as the example because that is where a majority of the complaining is coming from. 

 

Now don't get me wrong, I still want some sub faction identity. But not at the cost of balance. I think marines are getting some generic Detatchment rules at first, but when they get their codex they will get more flavor. This is GW we are talking about, codex creep and trying to sell the latest codex is ingrained in their blood.

 

If you look outside of space marines, things are in a weird place. Death Guard is already a sub faction of chaos space marines, yet they have 7 sub factions within themselves. Their "chapter trait" doesn't even apply to all the vehicles in their codex, unlike marines. Some factions need some reworks more than others.

 

My biggest issue with GW is they created this large marine fan base, and those players only typically see things through a marine only lense. GW makes more models and has more support for marines, so people tend to flock to them more than any other faction. Just like within the marine faction, there are generally more people that play dark angels, blood angels and space wolves more so than the generic codex sub factions. But that is entirely because they got more support, got their own codexes in angels of death and the space wolves codexes, and got unique units. It's not a case of they were more popular first so GW gave them more support, it's a case of GW gave them more support first so those subfactions became more popular. If GW supported their non marine lines as much as the marine line, more people would play them.

 

This dire love for subfaction identity is not unique to marines, but marine players are the ones complaining the most about it (my personal experience on forums and in person). Every marine subfaction recieved their own supplement and character in 8th. Iron warriors, alpha legion, night lords and word bearers are still waiting for a named character. A majority of xenos factions don't have unique characters for all their subfactions either. No sub factions have recieved near the support that marines have.

 

I for one look forward to the changes. When I play marines in 10th the feeling will be I'm playing the army with the most unit options that can do a bit of everything, and based on the unit choices they made and the Detatchment bonus they picked, will lean into one play style more than another. The color of the marine matters alot less. That seems way better than what it is now. Oh it's the yellow imperial fist? This should be an easy win. Oh it's the bone colored dark angels and I can only wound them on 4+? Well I'm going to lose. And by the way, that's a thing. I've yet to lose to imperial fists once in 9th and while I've beaten dark angels once or twice, it was barely and I mostly lost to them. I care more about game balance than I do about a dark templar player feeling like a unique snowflake.

perfect balance doesn't mean nobody loses, it means the game is balanced evenly for both sides, and no one is saying some balance is bad. obviously no one should be sitting at a 25% win rate, obviously something is wrong there.
i have no problem balancing rules against each other, but removing interesting and fluffy rules in order to make all marines the same is stupid and will ruin the game.

Edited April 3, 2023 by Inquisitor_Lensoven

[Special Officer Doofy]

3 minutes ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

perfect balance doesn't mean nobody loses, it means the game is balanced evenly for both sides

 

Perfect balance is not obtainable considering it's a game and one player goes first unlike in the real world where things happen simultaneously. You can't have it be "evenly for both sides" if one person goes first.

[Special Officer Doofy]

4 hours ago, Scribe said:

If there is no difference between Word Bearers, and Night Lords, GW failed. Thats all I know.

 

Oh the irony. Every Night Lords player I know would gladly trade their Night Lord's legion trait for the much better Word Bearers one.

[Scribe]

5 minutes ago, Special Officer Doofy said:

 

Oh the irony. Every Night Lords player I know would gladly trade their Night Lord's legion trait for the much better Word Bearers one.

 

I wouldnt know, its an old gripe from like...6th. :D

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

41 minutes ago, Special Officer Doofy said:

 

Perfect balance is not obtainable considering it's a game and one player goes first unlike in the real world where things happen simultaneously. You can't have it be "evenly for both sides" if one person goes first.

But you can have faction rules that are even and equal, and that’s what we’re talking about here.

you keep trying to obfuscate, and it’s already getting old

 

i provided a quote for context and you’re still reaching way outside the scope of the argument to the opposite extreme, though tbh if BA sucked and had a 25% or lower win rate, but had fluffy rules, Id rather that over a 50-55% win rate and no faction identity on the tabletop beyond ‘red marines’

Edited April 3, 2023 by Inquisitor_Lensoven

[DesuVult]

5 hours ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

if a detachment is designed to build an army of jump infantry, why would an assault marine in any color be better at assaulting just because most of the rest of the army has jump packs, or is assaulting, vs if they're just in a the lone assault squad?

Because they trained for it.  A battle company with 2 squads of jump infantry will have those jump infantry cross trained or trained to operate with foot infantry.  A company of just jump infantry are trained to work just as jump infantry with jump infantry doing jump infantry things.

[Special Officer Doofy]

8 minutes ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

But you can have faction rules that are even and equal, and that’s what we’re talking about here.

you keep trying to obfuscate, and it’s already getting old

 

i provided a quote for context and you’re still reaching way outside the scope of the argument to the opposite extreme, though tbh if BA sucked and had a 25% or lower win rate, but had fluffy rules, Id rather that over a 50-55% win rate and no faction identity on the tabletop beyond ‘red marines’

 

You can have (sub?)faction rules that are "even" and "equal", but we don't. And are you meaning subfaction rules, not faction rules? And would you care to back up your argument that I'm trying to obfuscate? The title of your thread is "the importance of sub faction rules", I was merely arguing that balance is more important than sub faction identity, a position that I, others and apperently GW take.

 

You said this on page 26 of the rules thread in response to someone that wanted more balance via less subfaction differences:

 

"It’s ok to feel however you want, but what’s the point of completely changing a game into something it’s never been, when there are other games that give you what you want."

 

Strats were not always in the game, so we can get rid of those. All the various subfactions (and even some factions) were not always in the game either, let's can those too while we are at it. Seems like a weird way of gatekeeping and telling people to play other games because you like 40k a certain way. My response to you is why don't you play a different game then?

[ThePenitentOne]

On 4/3/2023 at 12:51 PM, Scribe said:

Faction -> Space Marines -> Faction Rules

Subfaction -> Blood Angels -> Subfaction Rule, Relics, Warlord Traits, Strats (if we must) and Detachment.

 

I'd suggest that on a "one in, one out" basis, Relics, and Warlord Traits would be that 'one in one out' and maybe a keyword on Blood Angel.

 

Subsubfactions, like Flesh Tearers, would have an additional distinction I would think, but may not their own Stratagems?

 

If there is no difference between Word Bearers, and Night Lords, GW failed. Thats all I know.

 

If this is how it works, it's tolerable, but the statement from GW that the rule comes from the detachment and not the subfaction seems to imply that the detachment won't be restricted to the subfaction. If it WAS restricted to the subfaction, why not just attach the rule to the subfaction as it is now, rather than inventing all of these bespoke detachments for each of the subfactions?

 

And what that means is that there's a flying assault detachment, and it's just as likely that a chapter descended from wolf man Russ will use it as it is the chapter descended from the winged primarch, who have multiple jump pack equipped characters both named and generic.

 

A common defense of this connection between rule and detachment rather than rule to subfaction is that subfactions will be less "Flanderized" - but I actually see this detachment stuff as being MORE flanderized- like now you're only blood angels if you're in a flying assault detachment and you're only white scars or ravenwing if you take the biker detachment. At least in the current system, the flanderization is a result of player choice, occurring only because players seek the most efficient build. With the new system, it sounds like you're going to have to mimic a subfaction identity by picking from a set number of detachments to find the one that's the closest fit for the way you think your subfaction is supposed to behave.

 

I am trying to be positive, and I am hoping it's not as bad as it sounds. But it sounds pretty bad- ESPECIALLY when you walk away from Marines. What if GW decides that in Order to Fight like I think Bloody Rose should fight, I must be in a detachment with no Exorcists? What if Sacred Rose can't take Repentia?

 

What if shooty GSC can only be lead by a Magus or Primus and fighty GSC must be lead by a Patriarch?

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

22 minutes ago, Special Officer Doofy said:

 

You can have (sub?)faction rules that are "even" and "equal", but we don't. And are you meaning subfaction rules, not faction rules? And would you care to back up your argument that I'm trying to obfuscate? The title of your thread is "the importance of sub faction rules", I was merely arguing that balance is more important than sub faction identity, a position that I, others and apperently GW take.

 

You said this on page 26 of the rules thread in response to someone that wanted more balance via less subfaction differences:

 

"It’s ok to feel however you want, but what’s the point of completely changing a game into something it’s never been, when there are other games that give you what you want."

 

Strats were not always in the game, so we can get rid of those. All the various subfactions (and even some factions) were not always in the game either, let's can those too while we are at it. Seems like a weird way of gatekeeping and telling people to play other games because you like 40k a certain way. My response to you is why don't you play a different game then?

Seems I’m quite clearly talking about subfaction rules.

 

weird assumption that GW is prioritizing balance over fluffy subfaction rules, when we have absolutely no evidence of that.

[Special Officer Doofy]

Just now, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

Seems I’m quite clearly talking about subfaction rules.

 

weird assumption that GW is prioritizing balance over fluffy subfaction rules, when we have absolutely no evidence of that.

 

By GW giving bonuses based on a list of Detatchments any of the faction can choose versus what color the guys are painted (sub faction) shows GW is prioritizing balance over identity (fluffy subfaction rules). At least for now. Who knows as the codexes get released. 

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

Just now, Special Officer Doofy said:

 

By GW giving bonuses based on a list of Detatchments any of the faction can choose versus what color the guys are painted (sub faction) shows GW is prioritizing balance over identity (fluffy subfaction rules). At least for now. Who knows as the codexes get released. 

And yet we don’t know if there will or won’t be subfaction rules. Like I said that’s one hell of an assumption.

[sitnam]

On 4/3/2023 at 6:34 PM, ThePenitentOne said:

 

 

I am trying to be positive, and I am hoping it's not as bad as it sounds. But it sounds pretty bad- ESPECIALLY when you walk away from Marines. What if GW decides that in Order to Fight like I think Bloody Rose should fight, I must be in a detachment with no Exorcists? What if Sacred Rose can't take Repentia?

 

What if shooty GSC can only be lead by a Magus or Primus and fighty GSC must be lead by a Patriarch?

 

 

I highly doubt GW is going to cut into their own sales by restricting what players can take. I'm sure some subfactions will promote some units over others, but outright denying the use of units to certain sub factions make no sense.

[Special Officer Doofy]

7 minutes ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

And yet we don’t know if there will or won’t be subfaction rules. Like I said that’s one hell of an assumption.

 

Then why are you and others worried about your subfaction identity if none of that is going away? I thought they mentioned the "Enhancements" (which people said in AoS is similar to relics and warlord traits) and strats were tied to the Detatchment type, not the subfaction. Isn't that why some people are upset? Isn't that less rules based on the subfaction, hence less subfaction identity? Your detatchment type (within the faction) determines those 2 pages of rules?

Edited April 3, 2023 by Special Officer Doofy
Grammar

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

5 minutes ago, Special Officer Doofy said:

 

Then why are you and others worried about your subfaction identity if none of that is going away? I thought they mentioned the "Enhancements" (which people said in AoS is similar to relics and warlord traits) and strats were tied to the Detatchment type, not the subfaction. Isn't that why some people are upset? Isn't that less rules based on the subfaction, hence less subfaction identity? Your detatchment type (within the faction) determines those 2 pages of rules?

No one is worried, we’re arguing against people advocating for it, which if not provided pushback, GW could see these calls and take it away in the future at some point.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

So in the rules thread some one mentioned maybe subfaction identity coming from WLTs AND detachments.

 

this is a method I could see making everyone happy.

 

3-6 WLTs for each subfaction allows for a bit more customization than we have now.

 

so for example in BA, instead of +1 to charge and +1 to wound in first round of combat, you could also choose a flat +1” move for infantry and jump infantry and +2” for vehicles or you could choose trait that requires models to move towards the enemy or laterally and provides a +1S in melee

and then you pair that with a detachment.

 

(first 2 could be different interpretations of the thirst with the second also representing our OC’d engines, while the third represents the rage.)

Edited April 4, 2023 by Inquisitor_Lensoven

[Special Officer Doofy]

14 minutes ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

No one is worried, we’re arguing against people advocating for it, which if not provided pushback, GW could see these calls and take it away in the future at some point.

 

I think you're going to be a sad panda when 10th launches. 

[WrathOfTheLion]

I suspect there'll be detachments representing things like Ravenwing and all, given that's how GW normally works.

 

That said, GW is definitely not going to make decisions and calls based on who thinks they win an internet argument. As of now, whatever they've decided to do already has the ink dry, they probably started printing this stuff before any of us knew any specifics here.

Edited April 4, 2023 by WrathOfTheLion

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

19 minutes ago, WrathOfTheLion said:

I suspect there'll be detachments representing things like Ravenwing and all, given that's how GW normally works.

 

That said, GW is definitely not going to make decisions and calls based on who thinks they win an internet argument. As of now, whatever they've decided to do already has the ink dry, they probably started printing this stuff before any of us knew any specifics here.

No they won’t make decisions based on who they think won an internet argument, but if they see people complaining about something, saying they don’t like something, and there’s no one saying they like that thing, then why wouldnt the rules writers take that into consideration?

 

and no one is talking about this discussion effecting the indexes for 10th  or even the codexes for 10th but might be something they keep in mind for a mid-edition update, or for 11th.

[Scribe]

1 hour ago, ThePenitentOne said:

 

If this is how it works, it's tolerable, but the statement from GW that the rule comes from the detachment and not the subfaction seems to imply that the detachment won't be restricted to the subfaction. If it WAS restricted to the subfaction, why not just attach the rule to the subfaction as it is now, rather than inventing all of these bespoke detachments for each of the subfactions?

 

And what that means is that there's a flying assault detachment, and it's just as likely that a chapter descended from wolf man Russ will use it as it is the chapter descended from the winged primarch, who have multiple jump pack equipped characters both named and generic.

 

A common defense of this connection between rule and detachment rather than rule to subfaction is that subfactions will be less "Flanderized" - but I actually see this detachment stuff as being MORE flanderized- like now you're only blood angels if you're in a flying assault detachment and you're only white scars or ravenwing if you take the biker detachment. At least in the current system, the flanderization is a result of player choice, occurring only because players seek the most efficient build. With the new system, it sounds like you're going to have to mimic a subfaction identity by picking from a set number of detachments to find the one that's the closest fit for the way you think your subfaction is supposed to behave.

 

I am trying to be positive, and I am hoping it's not as bad as it sounds. But it sounds pretty bad- ESPECIALLY when you walk away from Marines. What if GW decides that in Order to Fight like I think Bloody Rose should fight, I must be in a detachment with no Exorcists? What if Sacred Rose can't take Repentia?

 

What if shooty GSC can only be lead by a Magus or Primus and fighty GSC must be lead by a Patriarch?

 

 

Certainly a risk. At this point what I want, is not what I expect.

 

Warlord Traits

Relics

Faction + Subfaction rules based on the lore.

 

No Strats

No unique Secondary Objectives.

No Formations

No Detachments.

 

We already lost the FOC, how much more flexibility do people need?

[DesuVult]

Subfaction rules in 8th and 9th have often been pretty garbage pigeonholing more often than helping.

[ThePenitentOne]

@Scribe We didn't actually use the FOC. Yes, you can play without an FOC, but if you do, you aren't getting special rules- to get those, you must field a particular detachment, which is, you guessed it.... An FOC!

 

@DesuVult The pigeonholing thing is more a product of the competitive instinct to create the most synergized force- it is not a product of the way faction traits are supposed to work. To avoid using a marine example, let's talk sisters, Bloody Rose, whose trait is melee focused. What this CAN mean, and SHOULD mean, is that when the Bloody Rose find themselves faced with a battle that is likely to include a lot of hand to hand, they will be at an advantage over other Orders. But when they are faced with a battle that requires any other skill set, they will be no better or worse than any other Order, unless said Order is specialized in the skill set under consideration.