The importance of subfaction variation

[Arkangilos]

3 minutes ago, One Paul Murray said:

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.

They are flaws, but that doesn't mean they don't benefit peple. It isn't opinion, it is objective fact that the lore says both of those things enhance their combat abilities. In fact, the BA Supplement (9th Edition) says the following on the Red Thirst: "To succumb to it is a mark of shame in any but the most dire of circumstances, where victory can only be achieved with ferocious savagry. On occasion, the Blood Angels choose to unleash it as a weapon under the careful guidance of the Sanguinary Priests, and only then as a last resort." (p. 10)

 

So right there we see that it gives them a great strength, but they find shame in using. 

 

 

[One Paul Murray]

15 minutes ago, Arkangilos said:

They are flaws, but that doesn't mean they don't benefit peple. It isn't opinion, it is objective fact that the lore says both of those things enhance their combat abilities. In fact, the BA Supplement (9th Edition) says the following on the Red Thirst: "To succumb to it is a mark of shame in any but the most dire of circumstances, where victory can only be achieved with ferocious savagry. On occasion, the Blood Angels choose to unleash it as a weapon under the careful guidance of the Sanguinary Priests, and only then as a last resort." (p. 10)

 

So right there we see that it gives them a great strength, but they find shame in using. 

 

 

Fair enough man, but I don't necessarily read that as you do.

 

If you were talking about giving into "ferocious savagery", you aren't implicitly stating that you're getting greater strength. You could just as much argue that it gives them a berserker-like edge that allows them to fight through pain.

 

I'm not trying to be antagonistic, it just doesn't say to me that BAs are stronger than others in passages like that.

[Blindhamster]

32 minutes ago, One Paul Murray said:

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.

whats most likely, is that GW will simply revert to half the chapters getting no special rule, honestly I highly doubt blood angels, wolves, dark angels, death watch or black templars will lose theirs though.

 

2 minutes ago, One Paul Murray said:

Fair enough man, but I don't necessarily read that as you do.

 

If you were talking about giving into "ferocious savagery", you aren't implicitly stating that you're getting greater strength. You could just as much argue that it gives them a berserker-like edge that allows them to fight through pain.

 

I'm not trying to be antagonistic, it just doesn't say to me that BAs are stronger than others in passages like that.

you don't need to "read it as he does".

 

fact is, blood angels are actually one of the few chapters to have legitimately consistent rules from 3rd to 9th. They've always had either a flat bonus to strength or +1 to wound across all those editions, including the horus heresy. And it's always been tied to charging. I'm not sure any other chapter has had that consistency across games. So read it how you like, the rules and lore for blood angels have always been that they hit harder than other marines. And I just don't believe that'll get lost now.

 

 

Edited April 9, 2023 by Blindhamster

[Arkangilos]

5 minutes ago, One Paul Murray said:

If you were talking about giving into "ferocious savagery", you aren't implicitly stating that you're getting greater strength. You could just as much argue that it gives them a berserker-like edge that allows them to fight through pain.

 

I'm not trying to be antagonistic, it just doesn't say to me that BAs are stronger than others in passages like that.

I think you are reading “strength” too literally in this context.

 

Out of curiosity, have you ever fought someone on PCP?

[One Paul Murray]

5 minutes ago, Blindhamster said:

whats most likely, is that GW will simply revert to half the chapters getting no special rule, honestly I highly doubt blood angels, wolves, dark angels, death watch or black templars will lose theirs though.

 

you don't need to "read it as he does".

 

fact is, blood angels are actually one of the few chapters to have legitimately consistent rules from 3rd to 9th. They've always had either a flat bonus to strength or +1 to wound across all those editions, including the horus heresy. And it's always been tied to charging. I'm not sure any other chapter has had that consistency across games. So read it how you like, the rules and lore for blood angels have always been that they hit harder than other marines. And I just don't believe that'll get lost now.

 

 

Well that's all true, but there was mention earlier of this being a geneseed thing, which meant that the BAs were distinct from someone like the BTs and deserved separate treatment. 

 

I'm not sure anything I've read in fluff supports that view. 

 

Clearly in the game that is how it's been modelled though, no doubt there.

[Arkangilos]

12 minutes ago, One Paul Murray said:

Well that's all true, but there was mention earlier of this being a geneseed thing, which meant that the BAs were distinct from someone like the BTs and deserved separate treatment. 

 

I'm not sure anything I've read in fluff supports that view. 

I recommend picking up the codex and giving it a read. The codices literally say it. In another thread I even quoted several of the passages.

 

Also, I’m not opposed to BT getting rules that show their uniqueness in combat either. It’s not a “either/or.”

 

I am merely pointing out that the BA has an advantage on the charge, per lore and per constant rules given, and this advantage is explicitly stated to be part of their geneseed, and to also be a flaw.

Edited April 9, 2023 by Arkangilos

[One Paul Murray]

6 minutes ago, Arkangilos said:

I recommend picking up the codex and giving it a read. The codices literally say it. In another thread I even quoted several of the passages.

I'll leave it here, because I'm not looking to kick off an argument, but my last on it would be that you posted a comment a minute ago that I don't think actually says it.

 

Are these statements explicit? Or is it fluff about fury, rage and so on, that you interpret that way? Which wouldn't be unreasonable given the rules mind you.

 

The crux of which would be that if the extra strength is a rules thing as opposed to a lore thing, then it wouldn't be unreasonable to change it. Provided that you can give the BA a means to play their army in a thematic manner, which could be achieved through their units.

[Arkangilos]

Just now, One Paul Murray said:

Are these statements explicit? Or is it fluff about fury, rage and so on, that you interpret that way? Which wouldn't be unreasonable given the rules mind you.

It literally says the fury/rage/etc. is from the Red Thirst, which is a genetic flaw that all the sons of Sanguinius suffer from.

 

There is another one called the Black Rage, suffered by the same people.

 

Google “Blood Angels” and read up on their geneseed. Just ignore the “Rafen/Arkio/Civil War” stuff. It was thankfully retconned out by the shield of Baal campaign.

3 minutes ago, One Paul Murray said:

I'll leave it here, because I'm not looking to kick off an argument, but my last on it would be that you posted a comment a minute ago that I don't think actually says it.

Also don’t sweat it man. I’m not mad and I am enjoying this conversation. 

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

1 hour ago, One Paul Murray said:

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. 

The thirst isn’t a flaw, it’s a built in feature the Emperor intentionally created.

the rage is a flaw.

 

however in 3rd I think there was a roll necessary either for the thirst or the rage that decided if a squad moved towards the nearest enemy or where you actually wanted them to be.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

35 minutes ago, Arkangilos said:

I think you are reading “strength” too literally in this context.

 

Out of curiosity, have you ever fought someone on PCP?

I have. 

[Arkangilos]

4 minutes ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

The thirst isn’t a flaw, it’s a built in feature the Emperor intentionally created.

To be fair, it’s considered a flaw by the BA who didn’t know it was built in until Cawl came in and told them. Even then it can be said to be a flaw in that it is a side effect of their overactive omephagia organ.

1 minute ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

I have. 

Yeah, but you and I agree so the example doesn’t do anything for you :p

 

Also, Third Edition had the roll to move because it simulated when a squad would lose itself to the thirst.

Edited April 9, 2023 by Arkangilos

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

16 minutes ago, One Paul Murray said:

I'll leave it here, because I'm not looking to kick off an argument, but my last on it would be that you posted a comment a minute ago that I don't think actually says it.

 

Are these statements explicit? Or is it fluff about fury, rage and so on, that you interpret that way? Which wouldn't be unreasonable given the rules mind you.

 

The crux of which would be that if the extra strength is a rules thing as opposed to a lore thing, then it wouldn't be unreasonable to change it. Provided that you can give the BA a means to play their army in a thematic manner, which could be achieved through their units.

Bro, BA literally mutate into massive bat like monsters (even by marine standards) if they completely give into the rage, and as was posted earlier there’s been fluff stating it takes multiple other battle brothers to restrain a brother who is in the grip of the thirst until he can regain his composure.

[Arkangilos]

4 minutes ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

Bro, BA literally mutate into massive bat like monsters (even by marine standards) if they completely give into the rage,

Honestly, the Red Thirst beast transformation call back from Devastation of Baal was one of my favorite things. A lot of people don’t know, but that happened waaaaaaaaay back in the Blood Quest comics from when I was a kid. 

[Blindhamster]

poor cleuten 

 

 

[jaxom]

1 hour ago, Arkangilos said:

They are flaws, but that doesn't mean they don't benefit peple. It isn't opinion, it is objective fact that the lore says both of those things enhance their combat abilities. In fact, the BA Supplement (9th Edition) says the following on the Red Thirst: "To succumb to it is a mark of shame in any but the most dire of circumstances, where victory can only be achieved with ferocious savagry. On occasion, the Blood Angels choose to unleash it as a weapon under the careful guidance of the Sanguinary Priests, and only then as a last resort." (p. 10)

 

So right there we see that it gives them a great strength, but they find shame in using. 

 

 

Huh, this makes me think the Blood Angels-as-Codex-Army thing may very well be purposeful. They normally don't want to benefit from the Red Thirst, but a Sanguinary Priest (unique Blood Angel unit) can unlock it, as if he had a special rule to do so. That's currently the "always on Assault Doctrine," but that's going away. Perhaps it is getting replaced with +1S and +1A on the charge for a unit he chooses.

[Interrogator Stobz]

11 minutes ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

I have. 

Could they shoot accurately? Could they use any CC technique?

This a very poor RL example in a weapon based game. Crazy doesn't mean better.

 

We have established that the Thirst is both a weakness and a gift. Both should be represented in rules. Fairly. With unavoidable downsides.

 

We have established that the thirst is only succumbed to occasionally, so any rules should Not be either permanent nor automatic. 

Eg: BA unit charges, roll D6 for each mini, on 1 they get a bonus and a penalty.

 

When BA are not succumbed with the Thirst they are the same as every other Marine.

 

If BA players really want to play frothing madmen then use counts as Khorne rules.

If they want to play normal marines that fight like Berzerkers then pay Berzerker points. I don't have the Khorne dex, how much is a Zerker?

 

 

 

[Arkangilos]

7 minutes ago, Interrogator Stobz said:

Could they shoot accurately? Could they use any CC technique?

This a very poor RL example in a weapon based game. Crazy doesn't mean better.

 

In context of what it was addressing, it is a decent example, because even if he isn’t as well reasoning and in their training they can be a serious threat to a person one on one, and even one on two.

 

9 minutes ago, Interrogator Stobz said:

We have established that the Thirst is both a weakness and a gift. Both should be represented in rules. Fairly. With unavoidable downsides.

Which is what I’ve said repeatedly.

 

 

10 minutes ago, Interrogator Stobz said:

We have established that the thirst is only succumbed to occasionally, so any rules should Not be either permanent nor automatic. 

Eg: BA unit charges, roll D6 for each mini, on 1 they get a bonus and a penalty.

It’s unwillingly succumbed to rarely, sure (on a roll of one they are forced to advance towards the nearest enemy). 
But I’ve provided blurbs before that talked about how tactical squads, veterans, and devastators have honed it be able to use it as a weapon. So on the charge it makes sense they would always use it as a weapon.

 

 

12 minutes ago, Interrogator Stobz said:

If BA players really want to play frothing madmen then use counts as Khorne rules.

Why? We already had rules to represent us. So you want us to get rid of our rules, be happy, and use a chaos codex?

 

12 minutes ago, Interrogator Stobz said:

If they want to play normal marines that fight like Berzerkers then pay Berzerker points. I don't have the Khorne dex, how much is a Zerker?

Did you not literally just do the confused reaction on the post where I said we should increase the cost of our marines to compensate for it? So why would you act confused on that and then suggest the same thing?

[Arkangilos]

17 minutes ago, Interrogator Stobz said:

If they want to play normal marines that fight like Berzerkers then pay Berzerker points.

Yup, I just checked. You did do a confused react when I suggested paying updated costs on our units since they have the Thirst.

 

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

27 minutes ago, Interrogator Stobz said:

Could they shoot accurately? Could they use any CC technique?

This a very poor RL example in a weapon based game. Crazy doesn't mean better.

 

We have established that the Thirst is both a weakness and a gift. Both should be represented in rules. Fairly. With unavoidable downsides.

 

We have established that the thirst is only succumbed to occasionally, so any rules should Not be either permanent nor automatic. 

Eg: BA unit charges, roll D6 for each mini, on 1 they get a bonus and a penalty.

 

When BA are not succumbed with the Thirst they are the same as every other Marine.

 

If BA players really want to play frothing madmen then use counts as Khorne rules.

If they want to play normal marines that fight like Berzerkers then pay Berzerker points. I don't have the Khorne dex, how much is a Zerker?

 

 

 

Luckily they didn’t have a gun to shoot but they’re significantly stronger than a normal person.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

29 minutes ago, Interrogator Stobz said:

Could they shoot accurately? Could they use any CC technique?

This a very poor RL example in a weapon based game. Crazy doesn't mean better.

 

We have established that the Thirst is both a weakness and a gift. Both should be represented in rules. Fairly. With unavoidable downsides.

 

We have established that the thirst is only succumbed to occasionally, so any rules should Not be either permanent nor automatic. 

Eg: BA unit charges, roll D6 for each mini, on 1 they get a bonus and a penalty.

 

When BA are not succumbed with the Thirst they are the same as every other Marine.

 

If BA players really want to play frothing madmen then use counts as Khorne rules.

If they want to play normal marines that fight like Berzerkers then pay Berzerker points. I don't have the Khorne dex, how much is a Zerker?

 

 

 

Rarely is a very subjective term in this sort of game.

 

space marines very rarely show up on the battlefields of the 41st millennium, yet most games of 40k have at least one of the armies being space marines.

[Interrogator Stobz]

1. No it was a terrible example. Someone with a lethal weapon is at limited threat to someone on PCP.

 

2. You have not put forward any penalty which is fair and balanced for the bonuses you claim. BA rules have been horribly unbalanced for many past editions and should never be used as a reasonable baseline.

 

3. Flavour is important, but you claim it's their geneseed flaw that gives them the edge, all marines train to used their gifts. It is entirely unreasonable to claim a benefit without the flaws and to claim it when the conditions of succumbing are not met.

 

4. Various Frater have claimed that counts as is a viable alternative to underperforming Marines, it fits that the same can be used by BA players.

Either that or you want awesome rules for BA but not for others. That's unfair and seems like you want to win without really earning it.

Awesome rules available to everyone is much cooler, that looks like what is going to happen. 

 

5. I absolutely saw that, how much do you propose for the gains you want for BA?

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

12 minutes ago, Arkangilos said:

Yup, I just checked. You did do a confused react when I suggested paying updated costs on our units since they have the Thirst.

 

I don’t really think that would balance because vanilla marines would still have some sort of marine special rule that would benefit vanilla marines in a way that BA wouldn’t benefit from.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

5 minutes ago, Interrogator Stobz said:

1. No it was a terrible example. Someone with a lethal weapon is at limited threat to someone on PCP.

 

2. You have not put forward any penalty which is fair and balanced for the bonuses you claim. BA rules have been horribly unbalanced for many past editions and should never be used as a reasonable baseline.

 

3. Flavour is important, but you claim it's their geneseed flaw that gives them the edge, all marines train to used their gifts. It is entirely unreasonable to claim a benefit without the flaws and to claim it when the conditions of succumbing are not met.

 

4. Various Frater have claimed that counts as is a viable alternative to underperforming Marines, it fits that the same can be used by BA players.

Either that or you want awesome rules for BA but not for others. That's unfair and seems like you want to win without really earning it.

Awesome rules available to everyone is much cooler, that looks like what is going to happen. 

 

5. I absolutely saw that, how much do you propose for the gains you want for BA?

I no longer have any clue what you’re talking about.

 

1. someone with a lethal weapon is not a limited threat to someone on PCP, they’re a very serious threat to the PCP person.

4. Why would WE get a unique special rule but not the BA in the first place?

Edited April 9, 2023 by Inquisitor_Lensoven

[Interrogator Stobz]

Better than the whole army auto winning on the charge against a foe with the same units?

BA were horribly unbalanced and any call to go back there is equally horrible. 

Marine Subfaction rules are important (to many) but they need to be toned down, a lot.

[Arkangilos]

Just now, Interrogator Stobz said:

1. No it was a terrible example. Someone with a lethal weapon is at limited threat to someone on PCP.

I don’t know what you do for a living but I’m security at a hospital, and that’s not at all the case in my experience.

 

1 minute ago, Interrogator Stobz said:

2. You have not put forward any penalty which is fair and balanced for the bonuses you claim. BA rules have been horribly unbalanced for many past editions and should never be used as a reasonable baseline.

Can you tell me what I’ve put forward?

 

1 minute ago, Interrogator Stobz said:

3. Flavour is important, but you claim it's their geneseed flaw that gives them the edge,

The Codices for the BA claim that it is their geneseed, not me.

 

2 minutes ago, Interrogator Stobz said:

It is entirely unreasonable to claim a benefit without the flaws

I have whole heartedly endorsed flaws. Not only that, but I’ve endorsed the 4th edition codex: “pick perks and draw backs” system.

 

3 minutes ago, Interrogator Stobz said:

4. Various Frater have claimed that counts as is a viable alternative to underperforming Marines, it fits that the same can be used by BA players.

Either that or you want awesome rules for BA but not for others. That's unfair and seems like you want to win without really earning it.

Awesome rules available to everyone is much cooler, that looks like what is going to happen. 

Or, hear me out: my argument for that has been that rules aren’t tied to color, but to lore, and that if someone was unhappy with their rules I would have no problem letting them play other rules if they wanted to, and at the same time I argued that the rules for their faction should be improved. 
 

6 minutes ago, Interrogator Stobz said:

Either that or you want awesome rules for BA but not for others. That's unfair and seems like you want to win without really earning it.

Serious question, have you actually been reading what I said? I’ve endorsed improving all their rules. I want every faction to have an awesome rule that represents their faction. 
 

Also, I’m not a power gamer. I don’t want the rule so I can “win”, I want the rule so my chapter is represented accurately.

 

8 minutes ago, Interrogator Stobz said:

5. I absolutely saw that, how much do you propose for the gains you want for BA?

What do you think is fair?