The importance of subfaction variation

[jaxom]

Feet off the pedals, folks.

 

Personally, I'm hesitant for a return to any subfaction being "The same as the rest of the faction... but better!" even if there is points cost for it. I feel it devalues the core faction identity. We saw it with the Ultramarines and their "we do everything you do but better" era and it sucked the life out of every other chapter.

 

I continue to hope for something to help differentiate subfactions from each other, I just don't think we're likely to see it until codexes start coming out.

[Arkangilos]

1 minute ago, Interrogator Stobz said:

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

I don’t recall BA doing so well in the tournaments, but I admit I haven’t followed them. Do you have the BA win ratios?

[Interrogator Stobz]

12 minutes ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

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

So no. Did you have a chainsword or did you attempt to grapple and strike?

It's a terrible example.

[Arkangilos]

3 minutes ago, jaxom said:

 

I continue to hope for something to help differentiate subfactions from each other, I just don't think we're likely to see it until codexes start coming out.

Agreed. And I stand by what I said that 4th edition marine codex seemed to have that done the best.

1 minute ago, Interrogator Stobz said:

So no. Did you have a chainsword or did you attempt to grapple and strike?

It's a terrible example.

Have you ever been into a fight with a guy on PCP? Were you armed?

Edited April 9, 2023 by Arkangilos

[Interrogator Stobz]

9 minutes ago, Arkangilos said:

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.

 

Can you tell me what I’ve put forward?

 

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

 

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

 

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. 
 

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.

 

What do you think is fair?

I've spent 24 years in the army and am still in security ten years later teaching and doing police tactics.

Don't worry about RL, it doesn't have a place here.

 

Fair is the small example I already put forward. It meets the fluff entirely. With the downside that for every BA model that gains from the Thirst another loses trying to control their Brother.

 

You don't have to agree with me. Please tell me what you think is fair.

8 minutes ago, Arkangilos said:

I don’t recall BA doing so well in the tournaments, but I admit I haven’t followed them. Do you have the BA win ratios?

I was speaking about all your historical claims. BA sucked to play against in the past because they were horribly unbalanced.

Edited April 9, 2023 by Interrogator Stobz

[Blindhamster]

genuine question, what about the idea of /not/ getting the frankly overpowered and impossible to balance oath of moment ability and instead getting better representation of the red thirst suggests blood angels players are concerned more about power than just getting represented properly? 
 

oath of moment is already being highlighted as bonkers good, and I’d still rather have a bonus on the charge and couple it with a disadvantage relating to control. (A negative to the OC stat on any turn you benefit from the red thirst charge bonus would be smart - making elite BA units incapable of scoring, and battle one less good at it seems a logical and major negative)

[Arkangilos]

Just now, Interrogator Stobz said:

Ypu don't have to agree with me. Please tell me what you think is fair.

Honestly I think that depends on if it replaces Oath of Moment or not (codex faction vs subfaction).
If we keep oath of moment, raise the cost of the marines, and on a roll of one you move towards the closest enemy, and if you are in range you charge and get +1S (same roll of 1 as before)

 

If we lose oath of moment, then +1S on all charges, but on a roll of one a unit has to move forward seems fair to me. 

 

5 minutes ago, Interrogator Stobz said:

Don't worry about RL, it doesn't have a place here.

It isn’t to pry into your RL. An unarmed trained, and in my experience even an armed trained guy against an unarmed PCP guy has a high chance of losing if the guy is within charging distance. I’ve seen cops in the hospital and spoken to other cops I’ve worked with about it that can attest to it. 
 

A guy in full on armor who is tripping on the thirst is going to be similar to a full on armored guy who isn’t, but now the guy on “PCP” has muscle memory to go with it.

 

 

[Interrogator Stobz]

1 minute ago, Blindhamster said:

genuine question, what about the idea of /not/ getting the frankly overpowered and impossible to balance oath of moment ability and instead getting better representation of the red thirst suggests blood angels players are concerned more about power than just getting represented properly? 
 

oath of moment is already being highlighted as bonkers good, and I’d still rather have a bonus on the charge and couple it with a disadvantage relating to control. (A negative to the OC stat on any turn you benefit from the red thirst charge bonus would be smart - making elite BA units incapable of scoring, and battle one less good at it seems a logical and major negative)

That's a very reasonable downside Brother. 

[Arkangilos]

10 minutes ago, Interrogator Stobz said:

I was speaking about all your historical claims. BA sucked to play against in the past because they were horribly unbalanced.

I still don’t recall them doing particularly well and have always remembered complaints, but again I’ve never really cared about the competitive scene as much. 
 

By the way, I hope I’m not coming off as abrasive. On my end I think this is a good conversation and my tone seems pretty decent to me.

[Blindhamster]

19 minutes ago, Interrogator Stobz said:

BA sucked to play against in the past because they were horribly unbalanced.

which editions exactly? In 8th and 9th, BA didn’t suck to play against, smash captains sucked (till everyone got them and usually did them better) and sanguinary guard sucked (whilst AoC was a thing), neither thing had a fat lot to do with the red thirst rules. Regular BA armies not using those crutches in those editions were average at best. 
 

do your mean 6th and 7th when BA outright sucked? 
 

do you mean 5th? if so, why exactly? They were good, but not top tier
 

the 4th Ed white dwarf codex was also middling at best.

 

3rd Ed maybe was the problem?

 

p.s. to be clear, really interested in this as someone that has rarely played anything other than blood angels. Through the editions I’ve had them be anything from good to terrible personally, and very much felt like they’ve been under dogs in many editions. But I too only rarely watch tournament scores 
 

 

Edited April 9, 2023 by Blindhamster

[jaxom]

8 minutes ago, Arkangilos said:

I don’t recall BA doing so well in the tournaments, but I admit I haven’t followed them. Do you have the BA win ratios?

They have... odd stats at the moment. The Sanguinary Guard + Death Company list did quite well at higher levels of play because they had good secondaries and not as many hard-counters as Harlequins. However, even with Armor of Contempt, it wasn't an easy army to use. Blood Angels made up 30% of the Marine lists at LVO, with a 53% win rate, including the championship.

 

Since then, Armor of Contempt has gone away and the Blood Angels win rate got hit hard by that, because 1) high level meta-players jumped ship to easier to get secondary objective armies (like Iron Hands and Dark Angels), 2) they're less tough and don't benefit from being able to stay in Devastator Doctrine. They had a 29% win rate over last weekend which brings the 5 week win rate down to 41%, compared a 48% win rate back in March.  

[Interrogator Stobz]

1 minute ago, Arkangilos said:

I still don’t recall them doing particularly well and have always remembered complaints, but again I’ve never really cared about the competitive scene as much. 
 

By the way, I hope I’m not coming off as abrasive. On my end I think this is a good conversation and my tone seems pretty decent to me.

My memory is far different. But those were the days before stats were such a huge part of the competition scene.

 

As far as abrasive is concerned, (Gentle Mod hat on for a split second): always address the argument merits/faults and never the Frater and you'll be fine... despite your obvious passion for BA .

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

28 minutes ago, Interrogator Stobz said:

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.

Horribly unbalanced? We have like 45-50% win rate last I saw. That sounds pretty balanced to me.

[Blindhamster]

As blood angels, Sometimes the rage takes us. Lol

[Interrogator Stobz]

2 minutes ago, Blindhamster said:

which editions exactly? In 8th and 9th, BA didn’t suck to play against, smash captains sucked (till everyone got them and usually did them better) and sanguinary guard sucked (whilst AoC was a thing), neither thing had a fat lot to do with the red thirst rules. Regular BA armies not using those crutches in those editions were average at best. 
 

do your mean 6th and 7th when BA outright sucked? 
 

do you mean 5th? if so, why exactly? They were good, but not top tier
 

the 4th Ed white dwarf codex was also middling at best.

 

3rd Ed maybe was the problem?
 

 

When did BA have +1S and I? 

Because those are the examples that come up the most often here.

I sure don't want that back as it was unbalanced.

 

Also, I only compared with other Marines, some editions all Marines sucked, but some worse than others.

[Arkangilos]

Just now, jaxom said:

The Sanguinary Guard + Death Company

To be fair, I personally think that except for in very special cases SG and DC should be more restricted than they are.

 

 SG should only be one unit per warlord except in narrative games where the Chapter Master is present. It won’t happen but that’s what should happen. 

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

28 minutes ago, Interrogator Stobz said:

So no. Did you have a chainsword or did you attempt to grapple and strike?

It's a terrible example.

I literally have no clue what you’re talking about.

 

for the sake of clarity is english your first language?

[Arkangilos]

4 minutes ago, Interrogator Stobz said:

When did BA have +1S and I? 

Because those are the examples that come up the most often here.

I sure don't want that back as it was unbalanced.

Since 3rd edition to when I was lost.

 

But back in 3rd you had a random number of DC based on what you rolled, and every DC you got reduced one guy from your army.

Edited April 9, 2023 by Arkangilos

[Blindhamster]

1 minute ago, Arkangilos said:

To be fair, I personally think that except for in very special cases SG and DC should be more restricted than they are.

 

 SG should only be one unit per warlord except in narrative games where the Chapter Master is present. It won’t happen but that’s what should happen. 

Agreed

[Interrogator Stobz]

2 minutes ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

Horribly unbalanced? We have like 45-50% win rate last I saw. That sounds pretty balanced to me.

Were vs. Have.

We're talking about different parts of the three decades of gaming.

 

[Interrogator Stobz]

1 minute ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

I literally have no clue what you’re talking about.

 

for the sake of clarity is english your first language?

Yes it is  ,  but just because you're not following me doesn't mean it doesn't make sense.

Arkangilos understood, that's enough for me 50% is a pass.

[Interrogator Stobz]

4 minutes ago, Arkangilos said:

Since 3rd edition to when I was lost.

 

But back in 3rd you had a random number of DC based on what your rolled, and every DC you got reduced one guy from your army.

 

 +1S and I made them better for free. That is unbalanced. 

 

The 3rd Ed DC rule was excellent, actually a rule which reflected the lore. Bring something like that back and I'd be stoked.

[Schlitzaf]

26 minutes ago, Blindhamster said:

genuine question, what about the idea of /not/ getting the frankly overpowered and impossible to balance oath of moment ability and instead getting better representation of the red thirst suggests blood angels players are concerned more about power than just getting represented properly? 
 

oath of moment is already being highlighted as bonkers good, and I’d still rather have a bonus on the charge and couple it with a disadvantage relating to control. (A negative to the OC stat on any turn you benefit from the red thirst charge bonus would be smart - making elite BA units incapable of scoring, and battle one less good at it seems a logical and major negative)

 
 

I somehow doubt that your gonna lose that, like the rule seems to be replacing Combat Doctrines more than Chapter Tactics.

 

Also for my 2 cents, 4th Ed System was terrible and prone to abuse, “my drawbacks, I don’t take allies or pyskers”. As a classic example. 

 

As for “well my tactics suck”, well sure. But often times those armies in 8th and 9th had bonkers WT, Relics or Strategems. World Bearers F&F had easily some of the strongest stratagems just for example. 
 

But ultimately; Sub Faction separation is done best by UU Roster access or movement (Bikers to Troops for Scars or equivalent to that), and a basic chapter tactic. And if you get “well my tactics for (army) suck I’m gonna to go play (Better Subfaction).” I roll my eyes. 
 

If you have subfactions, someone gonna end up being better off and some are gonna be worse off. Its a fact of life. And cause folks keep bringing it up, I hear the love of 3.5 Codex, but simply put every story I hear is “I made busted army/unit”. 
 

Don’t get me wrong I like my varied colored subfactions. And was it a bit much? Yeah. Each snowflake getting 12 odd some unique strats several of which were repeated (looking at you WT, Sgt and Relic Strats). Was not greatest idea. But there can be a happy medium. And I think we should wait before we start doomsaying.

 

(for clarity Hamster most of my post was not in reference to you)

Edited April 9, 2023 by Schlitzaf

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

12 minutes ago, Interrogator Stobz said:

Were vs. Have.

We're talking about different parts of the three decades of gaming.

 

I’d love to know where your data for 3rd and 4th edition comes from

[Arkangilos]

9 minutes ago, Interrogator Stobz said:

+1S and I made them better for free. That is unbalanced. 

Alright, so hear me out.

1) No oath of moment

2) +1S on all charges.

3) However, like @Blindhamstersuggested, if it is used it reduces the scoring stat on the objective.

4) Sanguinary Guard is one unit per warlord (with the new 1 warlord rule) unless it is a narrative game that includes the chapter master and his host.

5) 3rd Edition DC generation rule.

 

Would you say that sounds fair? If so, and we end up losing our special rule and become generic unless we pick a special detachment, these are the rules I would want house ruled in if we ever played.

Edited April 9, 2023 by Arkangilos