The importance of subfaction variation

[Crimson Longinus]

21 minutes ago, Arkangilos said:

From Warhammer Community:

”

Select Detachment Rules

Here’s where the differences begin to show themselves. Instead of choosing a subfaction or constructing your own, you now choose a single set of Detachment rules for your whole army. These include special abilities, Enhancements, Stratagems, and unit restrictions. 

Because you will be locked into unit restrictions.

 

Also, if you go back and reread the article, you’ll see it doesn’t say you can pick any unit. 
 

It says you can pick up to 3 of any of the same data sheet, but you can include 6 of the same data sheet if it says it is battleline or dedicated transport.

 

Essentially it says this:

”If you take terminators, you can only have three squads of the same terminator data sheet max.” 
“But, you can take up to six of the same battleline designated squad.”

 

Mix that with what I quoted above, a jump pack detachment would be, “You can take up to three of the same vanguard veteran data sheets, and up to six assault squads.”

 

I don't believe the detachments will work that way. Six battleline, three others is not a detachment rule, and I doubt it will be altered often. Unit restrictions will be things like "Eternal Crusade" not being able to have librarians etc. But it remains to be seen how it actually works. 

[Loishy]

If the Crusade game is reworked for the 10th do you think these two modes could coexist ? 

 

- Match play without subfaction rules. A minimum of rules to approach a good balance for tournaments. A kind of "basic" rules for all armies. The balance Dataslate and point update will be based on this mode.  

- Crusade with all the specifications you love on subfaction for all non competitive games. There is no power level anymore so there are no more differences with match play games in list building, and maybe you can start with 2k points list and add some items with another ressource (I'm not familiar with the current crusade mode, but I think it's work with another ressource). No need to start with a small army and evolve it. You can keep doing that, but you can also just do a one-off game with a really good army customization. 

With good communication from GW on this, I really think it could work and satisfy everyone. 

 

Edited April 8, 2023 by Loishy

[Arkangilos]

1 minute ago, Crimson Longinus said:

I don't believe the detachments will work that way. Six battleline, three others is not a detachment rule, and I doubt it will be altered often. Unit restrictions will be things like "Eternal Crusade" not being able to have librarians etc. But it remains to be seen how it actually works. 

It doesn’t say “six battleline, 3 others”

It says, “six max of the same battleline, 3 max of the same other”

[Crimson Longinus]

5 minutes ago, Arkangilos said:

It doesn’t say “six battleline, 3 others”

It says, “six max of the same battleline, 3 max of the same other”

Sure. I meant that. My point was that I doubt that the detachments tend to overwrite this. I'm sure there will be some exceptions, but  I believe that mostly that's the "FOC."

[Arkangilos]

@Crimson LonginusTo give an example, based on the rules:

 

Lets say I want to have an army of ten of what was before known as troops.

 

I must 1) have at least one character (HQ).

So I choose a captain.

2) I can only have six of the same battleline card, but I can have more than six battleline units. 
 

So my army will be 1 Captain, 6 Tactical Squads (I cannot take anymore tactical squads than six), and 4 Intercessor Squads (I can have up to six, but since I’m only taking ten squads, that fills it out). 
 

Let’s say I want to add an elite: well I can only add up to 3 terminator squads. 
 

However, based on the detachment blurb, it will say that I have restrictions based on the detachment (so a gladius will be required to take x of y unit.)

Edited April 8, 2023 by Arkangilos

[Crimson Longinus]

1 minute ago, Arkangilos said:

To give an example, based on the rules:

 

Lets say I want to have an army of ten of what was before known as troops.

 

I must 1) have at least one character (HQ).

So I choose a captain.

2) I can only have six of the same battleline card, but I can have more than six battleline units. 
 

So my army will be 1 Captain, 6 Tactical Squads (I cannot take anymore tactical squads than six), and 4 Intercessor Squads (I can have up to six, but since I’m only taking ten squads, that fills it out). 
 

Let’s say I want to add an elite: well I can only add up to 3 terminator squads. 

 

Yes, and?

[Arkangilos]

1 minute ago, Crimson Longinus said:

 

Yes, and?

That is without taking a detachment. 
Detachments add unit restrictions.

[Crimson Longinus]

5 minutes ago, Arkangilos said:

That is without taking a detachment. 
Detachments add unit restrictions.

 

As the GW preview was sparse we don't know for sure, but I don't believe they will in the way you seem to think.  I don't believe there will be another "FOC" on top of this basic "FOC". Restrictions will be just rare flavour things. But we'll see.

[Arkangilos]

Just now, Crimson Longinus said:

s the GW preview was sparse we don't know for sure, but I don't believe they will in the way you seem to think.  I don't believe there will be another "FOC" on top of this basic "FOC". Restrictions will be just rare flavour things. But we'll see.

True, but it seems more likely that a gladius strike force will be composed of units the gladius strike force was previously composed of and not a free range army with any unit you want. 

[Crimson Longinus]

8 minutes ago, Arkangilos said:

True, but it seems more likely that a gladius strike force will be composed of units the gladius strike force was previously composed of and not a free range army with any unit you want. 

 

We just don't know. 

[Nephaston]

5 hours ago, ThePenitentOne said:

we just keep the three ways to play... And in fact they've already pretty much stated that this is the plan, because they've announced that there will be ways to import existing Crusades, and we now about Combat Patrol.

Combat patrol is a very good shout actually. Unless the lineup of boxes changes and some suddenly vanish without replacement one could infer that, along with space marines, BA/DA/SW/DW/BT will stick around as separate factions.

 

Now admittedly this could also mean that these factions might be a CP-only deal, depending on how divergent it is from the main mode of 40k, or how flexible Combat Patrol as a mode is overall.

 

There's also the very minute possibility, since crusade armies can be ported straight over, that all these rules regarding Factions are for matched play only  and crusade keeps the usual sub-factions.

 

I wish GW would just tell us, but the drip feed just keeps on dripping.

[Rain]

7 hours ago, Scribe said:

 

Its not even an issue regardless. Simply run as counts as. I ran Night Lords as Blood Angels in 5th.

Yep. “Counts as” was a major way that Chaos players coped with the “balanced and streamlined” 4th edition Codex.

 

I never did it myself, but the Space Wolves rules back then allowed World Eaters to run actually scary close combat heroes, and to run jugger riders (Thunderwolf cavalry) something we *still* don’t have to this day, despite getting our own codex, and them being an obvious unit to give us, even appearing in art riding with Incovatus.

 

Edit: the “but why should yellow marines be worse than red marines” argument is odd to me. Different forces have different rules. Some edition say, Orks might be much weaker than IG, but that doesn’t mean that Orks and IG should have the same rules.

 

It just means that the balance team should do a better job, and/or people should recognize that this game is not well balanced by nature, and either pick another game to play competitively, or bite the bullet and meta chase.

Edited April 9, 2023 by Rain

[Orange Knight]

6 hours ago, Rain said:

Edit: the “but why should yellow marines be worse than red marines” argument is odd to me. Different forces have different rules. Some edition say, Orks might be much weaker than IG, but that doesn’t mean that Orks and IG should have the same rules.

 

You buy the space marine codex. You flick through the pages and see the different chapters. You decide you like the look of one and paint an army in that colour. 

 

Oops, your decision means that you will be stuck with greatly inferior rules for years to come.

 

The problem here is that GW can't decide if the divergent chapters are even a different faction or not. Take the Dark Angels - they share a main codex with all other Marine chapters. They get extra options and rules, and lose no options. Same with the Blood Angels and Space Wolves. 

At least in the case of the Chaos Marines, the divergent Legions have specific unit selections and omissions.

 

So how do you balance one chapter against another, both of which share a common core book, when one of them has significantly more options, rules, support, etc? 

 

I'm nor suggesting unique models are taken away, but when it comes to unlocking rules and abilities on the tabletop the codex needs to be equalised for all chapters.

[Arkangilos]

32 minutes ago, Orange Knight said:

So how do you balance one chapter against another, both of which share a common core book, when one of them has significantly more options, rules, support, etc? 

Upping the points for the same units. A BA tac squad can be more expensive than an UM tac squad.

Edited April 9, 2023 by Arkangilos

[Orange Knight]

The implication there is that the Blood Angels are better than Ultramarines. That isn't the case.

 

Would a BA player be happy with having better close combat ability but inferior shooting skills? A ballistic skill of 4+?

[Blindhamster]

6 minutes ago, Orange Knight said:

The implication there is that the Blood Angels are better than Ultramarines. That isn't the case.

 

Would a BA player be happy with having better close combat ability but inferior shooting skills? A ballistic skill of 4+?

Blood angels aren’t usually more skilled warriors, but they have traditionally and consistently for more than two decades been shown to hit harder, and often faster in their charges.

 

They aren’t shown to be worst at shooting, they are shown to lose control at times.

 

so no, wouldn’t be happy with 4+ BS because it would be incorrect, I would be happy with a leadership test to avoid moving forward. I’d also be happy to have the new OC stat be reduced in a turn in which they gained the bonus to their charge capabilities.

 

 

[Xanthous]

10 minutes ago, Orange Knight said:

Would a BA player be happy with having better close combat ability but inferior shooting skills? A ballistic skill of 4+?

 

Wouldn't the implication then be that Blood Angels are noticeably worse at shooting than Ultramarines? I've never gotten that impression, but I'm no expert on the Blood Angels so if this is actually the case then fair enough.

[Orange Knight]

And as I mentioned in the other topic, the D6 doesn't allow for such a nuanced granularity between these forces.

 

It's the most fun dice to play with, and has the most consistent reward/disappointment outcome which makes it exciting, so I still support the use in 40k.

 

A random Blood Angel probably does hit a tiny bit harder than an Ultramarine, and if he favours close combat he probably shoots a tiny bit less accurately, as he practices that less. I don't think you can show that in a D6 system. A Blood Angel would absolutely not be 50% better than an Ultramarine at wounding a base line human.

 

The differences between chapters in what they favour could be shown with detachment specific stratagems, in one detachment the various bonuses that can be unlocked favour close combat ahead of shooting for example.

[Xanthous]

14 minutes ago, Orange Knight said:

The differences between chapters in what they favour could be shown with detachment specific stratagems, in one detachment the various bonuses that can be unlocked favour close combat ahead of shooting for example.

 

That wouldn't solve the complaint that lore flavour shouldn't be tied to potentially overly restrictive detachments, though. Emphasising the 'potentially' because there doesn't actually seem to be any indication of how restrictive the unit restrictions in detachments will actually be, which seems to be a foundational assumption in that complaint; it could be that we will just see limits placed on the number of certain types of unit, similar to how CSM armies currently can't take more cultist units than traitor astartes core. It may be entirely possible to build an entirely ranged army, using the theoretical assault detachment for the fluff. Or it may be impossible to do that. It seems too early to tell.

[Arkangilos]

1 hour ago, Orange Knight said:

And as I mentioned in the other topic, the D6 doesn't allow for such a nuanced granularity between these forces.

Sure it does, it has for two decades.

 

1 hour ago, Orange Knight said:

A random Blood Angel probably does hit a tiny bit harder than an Ultramarine, and if he favours close combat he probably shoots a tiny bit less accurately, as he practices that less. I don't think you can show that in a D6 system. A Blood Angel would absolutely not be 50% better than an Ultramarine at wounding a base line human.

I provided a ton of lore the other day that says otherwise.

 

1 hour ago, Orange Knight said:

The differences between chapters in what they favour could be shown with detachment specific stratagems, in one detachment the various bonuses that can be unlocked favour close combat ahead of shooting for example.

It isn't what they "favor". It's a result of their Flaw. In the Lore, the BA also 1) Live longer than other space marines and so have more time to train (generally), 2) Have an overcharged organ that allows better absorption of skill from eating the dead (to the point that in the Great Crusade and HH it is stated that they would eat the dead and take on their personality as well as their skill into muscle memory), 3) Have a crazy charge fueled by their flaw that makes them more relentless than other marines. 

 

1 hour ago, Orange Knight said:

The implication there is that the Blood Angels are better than Ultramarines. That isn't the case.

That absolutely is the case when it comes to charging. Just like the World Eaters are better than the others in the same light. The BA and the WE are seen as being mirrors.

 

1 hour ago, Orange Knight said:

Would a BA player be happy with having better close combat ability but inferior shooting skills? A ballistic skill of 4+?

No, because that isn't the lore, and they are shown as being standard when it comes to ranged combat. The difference is they often abandon good fighting positions. Hence why we say the drawback should be a potential for them to be forced to move forward (like in 3rd edition), which makes their heavy weapons sometimes less effective.

 

1 hour ago, Blindhamster said:

Blood angels aren’t usually more skilled warriors, but they have traditionally and consistently for more than two decades been shown to hit harder, and often faster in their charges.

 

They aren’t shown to be worst at shooting, they are shown to lose control at times.

 

so no, wouldn’t be happy with 4+ BS because it would be incorrect, I would be happy with a leadership test to avoid moving forward. I’d also be happy to have the new OC stat be reduced in a turn in which they gained the bonus to their charge capabilities.

This.

 

Edit to Add

If you made them more expensive as well (in terms of points), it would also reflect that they are more under strength and make up for them being stronger balance wise.

Edited April 9, 2023 by Arkangilos

[Orange Knight]

If a Blood Angel is better at charging, but no worse at shooting, and your suggestion is that the Blood Angel should cost more points, then the obvious implication here is that the Blood Angel is a superior form of Astartes to an Imperial Fist, as an example.

 

I don't think that the lore can support the opinion that the Blood Angels, or any other chapter for that matter, are better than any of the other 1st founding chapters. They might favour a particular method of war, sure, but they aren't more effective or successful in the grand scheme of things. If anything the Ultramarines would appear to be the best at everything given their illustrious history and minimal losses over the centuries.

 

If we step away from the lore for a moment, no other faction has this issue. 

No one will call a player out for running their Bork'an painted Tau using the rules for the Vior'la Sept - it's simply not even considered and even GW doesn't seperate them in their faction reporting. 

 

It would be better for the game to consolidate all Space Marines under a single faction banner. The greater narrative remains unchanged. Players can build armies that look and play according to the lore, and can invest down this path as much as they want,  but this no longer comes at the expense of bloating the game, punishing players or facilitating wild internal balance issues within a singular codex book.

 

GW probably think this way also, at least for the initial Index phase. It remains to be seen what happens when the codex drops. In 8th and 9th editions, models we're expressly nerfed for all Marine factions just because one particular chapter was able to utilise them to greater effect. My Imperial Fist tanks were utter garbage because Iron Hands could make them more durable.

 

The detachment idea presented does resolve a lot of these issues.

[Arkangilos]

1 minute ago, Orange Knight said:

If a Blood Angel is better at charging, but no worse at shooting, and your suggestion is that the Blood Angel should cost more points, then the obvious implication here is that the Blood Angel is a superior form of Astartes to an Imperial Fist, as an example.

Only if you tie cost to "better". But so what, let's say it is better than an Imperial Fist (at charging) and costs more? That fits the lore. If you want the better charger than the standard space marine, you go with the BA (and the draw backs that come with it).

 

3 minutes ago, Orange Knight said:

I don't think that the lore can support the opinion that the Blood Angels, or any other chapter for that matter, are better than any of the other 1st founding chapters.

I provided actual lore citations that suggested otherwise. The Sons of Sanguinius (BA, FT, BD, etc.) are better at charging than others. Not everyone is equal in all things. UM are better at their stuff, DA are better at their stuff, and BA are better at their stuff. Being better in one aspect of war doesn't make you better over all.

 

5 minutes ago, Orange Knight said:

They might favour a particular method of war, sure, but they aren't more effective or successful in the grand scheme of things.

Well I mean, they are. 

 

5 minutes ago, Orange Knight said:

If anything the Ultramarines would appear to be the best at everything given their illustrious history and minimal losses over the centuries.

Citation needed that they are better at everything. 

 

Also, minimal losses doesn't make you "better". The BA aren't "worse" because they have more losses. They have more losses because they have the Flaw. It is a trade off. 

 

7 minutes ago, Orange Knight said:

No one will call a player out for running their Bork'an painted Tau using the rules for the Vior'la Sept - it's simply not even considered and even GW doesn't seperate them in their faction reporting. 

I've never seen anyone call out a player for running Yellow Fist as BA. In fact, several people have already told you that they used to run Chaos armies as Blood Angels and Space Wolves. 

 

9 minutes ago, Orange Knight said:

It would be better for the game to consolidate all Space Marines under a single faction banner.

We disagree.

 

9 minutes ago, Orange Knight said:

Players can build armies that look and play according to the lore,

We literally cannot. That is what we have been telling you. A Blood Angel army that looks and plays according to the Lore is +1S on Charge for all of their units to represent the thirst, no matter what detachment they take. I should be able to take a Devastator only detachment and still have +1S on Charge for every devastator squad, with the gun upgrades that come with the Devastator Detachment.

 

11 minutes ago, Orange Knight said:

punishing players or facilitating wild internal balance issues within a singular codex book.

It punishes the players you are jealous of for having unique thematic rules. It punishes players who don't care about your level of competitive gaming.

 

12 minutes ago, Orange Knight said:

My Imperial Fist tanks were utter garbage because Iron Hands could make them more durable.

Yeah, Iron Hands have better tanks. What of it? That's the lore. Why should your tanks be as good as the Iron Hands' tanks when their whole thing is mechanicum stuff. 

 

Your IF weren't garbage because the IH rules fit their fluff. They were garbage because their own special rule didn't seem to do much. The solution: Fix the IF rules.

[Orange Knight]

The rules should still exist to reflect all the things you mentioned, but they should be available to everyone equally in the same way that all other factions operate.

[Arkangilos]

7 minutes ago, Orange Knight said:

The rules should still exist to reflect all the things you mentioned, but they should be available to everyone equally in the same way that all other factions operate.

Then they don't reflect the lore, and don't exist to reflect the things I mentioned. Why should Imperial Fists get the Red Thirst when they don't have it?

Edited April 9, 2023 by Arkangilos

[Orange Knight]

They shouldn't get that specifically, but we don't know if such a rule even exists.

The bonuses that rule confers could be represented by a combination of Universal Special Rules tied to a detachment, and every player can use that detachment if they so desire.

 

Edit:

 

I do actually think that GW will actually create some themed detachments for the more unique chapters when the codex drops. Their rules might be portrayed by mixing various abilities from other detachments, or they could be unique.

Edited April 9, 2023 by Orange Knight