The importance of subfaction variation

[Blindhamster]

The more I think on it, the more I think itll

end up with the big marine chapters (not the ones traditionally included in the core codex) going back to being distinct factions.

 

with a different army wide rule, I just don’t see them doing it any other way.

 

but I also don’t think it’ll mean/do anything at the launch of the edition. They’ll all be marines, till they each get distinct books

[Orange Knight]

Losing the Oath of Monent ability in exchange for something else could work? 

[Blindhamster]

6 minutes ago, Orange Knight said:

Losing the Oath of Monent ability in exchange for something else could work? 

I think that’s what we ( @Arkangilos and I) have probably been advocating anyway.

[jaxom]

I swear, someone just needs to make a game mode/rule set with 3rd edition lore/rpg sensibilities.

[ZeroWolf]

Do we have confirmation that the other chapters won't get index rules? Seems to me that what weve seen will only apply to non-SW/BA/BT/DW/DA/GK chapters. Basically everyone that has a codex or codex supplement will get index rules and in these rules will be different faction rules and detachment rules...or am I looking too optimistically into this?

[Arkangilos]

1 hour ago, Blindhamster said:

I think that’s what we ( @Arkangilos and I) have probably been advocating anyway.

Yeah.

 

1 hour ago, Orange Knight said:

Losing the Oath of Monent ability in exchange for something else could work? 

I think it is fair to lose Oath of Moment (and fluffy), to gain the Red Thirst.

 

1 hour ago, Blindhamster said:

The more I think on it, the more I think itll

end up with the big marine chapters (not the ones traditionally included in the core codex) going back to being distinct factions.

 

with a different army wide rule, I just don’t see them doing it any other way.

 

but I also don’t think it’ll mean/do anything at the launch of the edition. They’ll all be marines, till they each get distinct books

One hundred percent.

It also opens up for the successors. 

For the BA Codex you would have the BA detachments, then you'd have the FT detachments, then you'd have the BD detachments, etc.

 

 

[WrathOfTheLion]

1 hour ago, Orange Knight said:

Losing the Oath of Monent ability in exchange for something else could work? 

If they're to be separate factions, then it'd be expected that you'd have a completely different faction ability.

 

I wonder, if the Datasheet cards are published from the Index, will they change at the release of the Codex, or are those profiles a little more permanent? If they do go so far as to actually separate the profiles outside of the book, there's now no logistical reason why you wouldn't have Codex: Dark Angels again for instance. It'll be interesting to see how they handle this.

Edited April 9, 2023 by WrathOfTheLion

[Arkangilos]

@ArbedarkOh come on, that one wasn't even antagonistic, it was just full of emphasis xD

[Evil Eye]

If any scientific institutions are looking for a perfectly definitive circle to measure roundness/circularity, I think we should forward them to this argument...

 

Seriously though, the idea that "my faction got crummy subfaction rules, so nobody should get unique subfaction rules" is ridiculous. Does it suck when subfactions get terrible rules? Absolutely, ask Word Bearers players during 8th or Chaos players in general after the release of the 4E 'dex (to the point IIRC a lot of 4E centric groups happily allow the use of the 3.5E Chaos book because the 4E one is that bad). But the solution is to make the subfaction rules not suck. You'll never get perfect balance, there will always be "winners" and "losers" but it's possible to narrow the divide between them such that in a normal game with sensible, respectful players, every faction has a shot at victory even if some are much harder to use. The solution isn't just to remove subfactions altogether. It'd be like me complaining that because Tyranids historically don't have a huge amount of long-ranged anti-tank weapons (itself a bit silly as, at least in earlier editions, a vehicle being in charging range of a Carnifex was usually a death sentence for the vehicle crew!) that nobody else should be allowed them either, or that tanks should be removed from the game- even assuming that Tyranids do have difficulties with busting tanks, the solution is to give them anti-armour tools, not take armour away from everyone else!

 

Now, personally I do prefer the custom army faction rules that include "example builds" to represent canon chapters (assuming the example builds are accurate to the character of the chapters), but then I've always found the Your Dudes aspect of the game one of the most interesting and fun, and if subfaction rules based on existing "canon" subfactions still adequately allow someone to represent their own unique army then that's fine too.

[Rain]

21 minutes ago, Evil Eye said:

Seriously though, the idea that "my faction got crummy subfaction rules, so nobody should get unique subfaction rules" is ridiculous. Does it suck when subfactions get terrible rules? Absolutely, ask Word Bearers players during 8th or Chaos players in general after the release of the 4E 'dex (to the point IIRC a lot of 4E centric groups happily allow the use of the 3.5E Chaos book because the 4E one is that bad).

Important to note that the major reason the 4E CSM codex was so reviled was that it killed all subfaction rules. You were no longer playing Word Bearers, or Night Lords, or World Eaters, you were just playing differently colored Black Legion.

 

This actually comes with its own balance issues. For example, one of the few really strong units in the codex was a Daemon Prince of Slaanesh with wings and the Lash of Submission psychic power. The internal balance of the codex assumed that you could take up to 2 of these. But what if you play World Eaters? Well, there’s nothing ruleswise preventing you from taking these guys, but are you even a WE player when you’re taking Slaanesh psykers?

So, a “themed” WE player would not take Lash Princes for obvious reasons, thereby nerfing an already weak list even further without any improvement to Khorne in recompense. God I hated that codex so much.

[Scribe]

4 hours ago, jaxom said:

I swear, someone just needs to make a game mode/rule set with 3rd edition lore/rpg sensibilities.

 

If GW supported 3rd party rule sets with an SRD, I'd 1000% do this.

20 minutes ago, Rain said:

Important to note that the major reason the 4E CSM codex was so reviled was that it killed all subfaction rules. You were no longer playing Word Bearers, or Night Lords, or World Eaters, you were just playing differently colored Black Legion.

 

Easily the darkest age of CSM gaming.

[One Paul Murray]

Not being funny, but there seems to be a consensus that the Blood Angels are stronger... but are they?

 

I remember novels commenting that those succumbing to the Black Rage were stronger as they were pushing beyond their endurance levels, to the extent that their bodies broke down, but not that the Red Thirst made them stronger.

 

"Furious" and "blood thirsty" are not synonyms for stronger.

 

Now, I may be wrong in that thought, please feel free to correct me if that is the case.

 

Without wanting to start an argument over it, one thing I would observe having gone through this thread is that it does feel a bit like when people talk about "fluffy" and "thematic" rules, they only seem to want them in a positive sense. Hence the Blood Angels (who a lot of this seems to resolve around) all want extra strength and attacks, but rarely seem to advocate their units moving without their choosing to do so, or Death Company units degrading in power as the battle wears on. Being honest, if someone talked about furious charges and advocated a strength boost and additional attacks, but with penalties to hit simulating the erratic behaviour, it would feel more reasonable and less like people weren't getting too invested in their own lore.

[Arkangilos]

11 minutes ago, One Paul Murray said:

Not being funny, but there seems to be a consensus that the Blood Angels are stronger... but are they?

Stronger on the charge. And yeah. The lore consistently says it.

 

Also the Red Thirst physically affects them when they start giving in.

11 minutes ago, One Paul Murray said:

they only seem to want them in a positive sense.

Then you haven’t read any of my posts or @BlindhamsterWe said repeatedly that we should have the negative side. Heck, the second post on this page shows I said we should have the drawback.

Edited April 9, 2023 by Arkangilos

[Blindhamster]

13 minutes ago, One Paul Murray said:

Not being funny, but there seems to be a consensus that the Blood Angels are stronger... but are they?

 

I remember novels commenting that those succumbing to the Black Rage were stronger as they were pushing beyond their endurance levels, to the extent that their bodies broke down, but not that the Red Thirst made them stronger.

 

"Furious" and "blood thirsty" are not synonyms for stronger.

 

Now, I may be wrong in that thought, please feel free to correct me if that is the case.

 

Without wanting to start an argument over it, one thing I would observe having gone through this thread is that it does feel a bit like when people talk about "fluffy" and "thematic" rules, they only seem to want them in a positive sense. Hence the Blood Angels (who a lot of this seems to resolve around) all want extra strength and attacks, but rarely seem to advocate their units moving without their choosing to do so, or Death Company units degrading in power as the battle wears on. Being honest, if someone talked about furious charges and advocated a strength boost and additional attacks, but with penalties to hit simulating the erratic behaviour, it would feel more reasonable and less like people weren't getting too invested in their own lore.

please scroll up and note I straight up called out a desire to see a return of the chance to move involuntarily or to have a reduced OC for some scenario (leadership check for either of the above would work)

 

clearly calling out the fact that we want a positive and a negative in line with the lore of the flaws 

Edited April 9, 2023 by Blindhamster

[One Paul Murray]

To be fair I should have caveated that last point, because it has been said by some.

 

As for "the lore consistently says it", but does it? It seems a bizarre thing for the lore to suggest that Blood Angels are stronger charging in. Surely they'd either be stronger, or not.

 

Is it not more likely that the Blood Angels are supposed to be aggressive chargers in the lore, so game designers tried to craft a mechanic to encourage players to emulate that? In which case, the argument that BT and other melee chapters would be just the same would apply.

 

Again, I could be wrong here, but are Blood Angels and successors supposed to be stronger? I just don't remember ever reading that as canonical.

[Rain]

2 minutes ago, One Paul Murray said:

To be fair I should have caveated that last point, because it has been said by some.

 

As for "the lore consistently says it", but does it? It seems a bizarre thing for the lore to suggest that Blood Angels are stronger charging in. Surely they'd either be stronger, or not.

 

Is it not more likely that the Blood Angels are supposed to be aggressive chargers in the lore, so game designers tried to craft a mechanic to encourage players to emulate that? In which case, the argument that BT and other melee chapters would be just the same would apply.

 

Again, I could be wrong here, but are Blood Angels and successors supposed to be stronger? I just don't remember ever reading that as canonical.

40k has long represented “being really really angry” as +1S on the charge. Hence the old Furious Charge USR granted +1S. Think of it as the additional momentum of the charge itself (which is extra kinetic from being really angry) granting greater force to the initial melee strikes.

 

You can argue that it should be +1A or whatever instead, but it should be something to represent the really angry melee factions.

[Arkangilos]

12 minutes ago, One Paul Murray said:

As for "the lore consistently says it", but does it? It seems a bizarre thing for the lore to suggest that Blood Angels are stronger charging in. Surely they'd either be stronger, or not.

 

Is it not more likely that the Blood Angels are supposed to be aggressive chargers in the lore, so game designers tried to craft a mechanic to encourage players to emulate that? In which case, the argument that BT and other melee chapters would be just the same would apply.

 

Again, I could be wrong here, but are Blood Angels and successors supposed to be stronger? I just don't remember ever reading that as canonical.

If by stronger you mean physically more bulked up, then no we aren’t saying they are “stronger.”

 

When we say “stronger on the charge” we mean more likely to do damage. 
 

When we say that is shown in +1S, it is because since at least 3rd Edition it was +1 S and +1 I. Once I went away it was just +1 S.

[Arkangilos]

15 minutes ago, One Paul Murray said:

In which case, the argument that BT and other melee chapters would be just the same would apply.

I guess I would just ask this:

Would you compare a BT to a WE? 
 

The BA are compared to the WE. The difference is the BA have a natural calling, where as the WE have an implanted calling.

[Rain]

14 minutes ago, Arkangilos said:

I guess I would just ask this:

Would you compare a BT to a WE? 
 

The BA are compared to the WE. The difference is the BA have a natural calling, where as the WE have an implanted calling.

World Eaters also have a natural calling. The Horus Heresy Black Book lore was that the War Hounds were incredibly violent even before the Nails, with duels to the death being a manner of settling disputes between legionaries, and the Legion mostly being held in reserve as an implied threat; being an extermination force when unleashed. The Nails just took this up to 11.

Edited April 9, 2023 by Rain

[Arkangilos]

12 minutes ago, Rain said:

World Eaters also have a natural calling. The Horus Heresy Black Book lore was that the War Hounds were incredibly violent even before the Nails, with duels to the death being a manner of settling disputes between legionaries, and the Legion mostly being held in reserve as an implied threat; being an extermination force when unleashed. The Nails just took this up to 11.

Oh snap, that's fair! But that actually further supports my position that BA and WE are more similar than BT and WE, and so if two factions were to have a rule like that it would make sense it would be BA and WE.

[Orange Knight]

All this Blood Angels talk... I decided to paint up a Carmine Blade as a little experiment lol

 

 

[Blindhamster]

Small more recent lore thing too - blood angels under the effects of the red thirst with no enemies left to kill require multiple other blood angels to hold them back. Oh and they can go full roid monster and need to be locked up.

 

the fact is, blood angels absolutely do have more going on than most marines in the physical department (though not all, space wolves similarly have wulfen and there’s some hints than black dragons have.. something).

 

anyway, ultimately, I think the point is, blood angels have been represented as being particularly good shock troops even among a faction of shock troops, albeit unpredictable ones at times with control (or lack of control) issues. Many people that play blood angels were drawn to them for that in the same way many people were drawn to world eaters as the chaos melee equivalent. If we lose it, or are forced into a gimmicky detachment based on jump infantry to get an army that feels blood angely, it’ll be a sad day for those fans.

 

id much rather than each of the first founding chapters had an interesting faction rule, and honestly I’d like it if each of the chaos legions mirrored them. But that doesn’t seem to be likely based on oath of moment, so next best desire is that the divergent chapters go back to being distinct like the more extreme chaos chapters. But we shall see

[One Paul Murray]

I hear what people are saying here to be fair. 

 

It's obviously all just opinions and that, but for me it sounds like Butcher's Nails and the Red Thirst are flaws, which really should be weaknesses. So if we looked at something fluffy and lore-adjacent these would be modelled as uncontrolled movements. The 'orc and goblin' animosity of 40k. However in the push to diversify the factions, GW have instead modelled it through an incentive to certain behaviour.

 

To bring this full circle, applying my logic to it I think it makes sense for these "bonuses" to be available to anyone with a melee approach, regardless of being BA or IF, or whatever it maybe. Smoothing disparities between Marine armies' rules seems to be a step in the right direction. 

 

Where the major subfactions should differentiate should be in the unique units that they have, and the rules that those present. Although I could see a benefit to constructing AoR for each, where you can really lean into certain strengths by imposing specific weaknesses, but in a more contained way. 

[One Paul Murray]

8 minutes ago, Blindhamster said:

 

 

id much rather than each of the first founding chapters had an interesting faction rule, and honestly I’d like it if each of the chaos legions mirrored them. But that doesn’t seem to be likely based on oath of moment, so next best desire is that the divergent chapters go back to being distinct like the more extreme chaos chapters. But we shall see

Is the issue here though that you cannot have 9 meaningful AND different Marine traits? There are only so many things you can change and all the math seems to suggest that certain things (extra attacks, extra resilience, etc) have a noticeably higher value than the rest.

[spessmarine]

This seems to overlap heavily with the factions thread in news, so copy-pasting my preference here

 

Quote

 

Yeah, it'd be annoying if the only faction flavouring is flanderized detachments. White Scars? Oops all bikes or nothing.

I'd hope that the faction abilities follow line with HH legion trait. Simple, fitting, but not pigeonholing.

White Scars move a bit faster, DA Wings each have a buff that applies to them, Salamanders are more durable against heat weapons and so forth. The Rites are where the restrictions for list building get pronounced but you don't have to be locked into it to play that legion.

 

Fists get their +1 to hit for bolt/auto guns but whether you want to drown people in Boltstorm, Hurricane, or Punisher Rotary shots it is up to you.