The importance of subfaction variation

[Halandaar]

Agreed, let's park the constant argument about whether BAs are strong or not.

 

If BAs and their ilk are going to get a distinct army rule other than Oath of Moment (which despite my comments about detachments earlier, I do think would be fitting) then that would seem to require that we return to them being a standalone Codex, and that they have their own faction Keyword. Neither of those things are impossible, but it would feel weird for them to not be considered Adeptus Astartes (although I suppose Grey Knights - AKA Sanctic Astartes - have already established a precedent here). 

 

I think it's a given that GW will retain some personality for the big chapters but that it will probably not be until Codexes start arriving that we see that in full. It might be until then, BAs, SWs etc just have to make do as being normie marines with a selection of their own units to add flavour until Codexes start dropping.

 

 

[Blindhamster]

12 minutes ago, Special Officer Doofy said:

This thread is like 3 pages about sub faction's in general and 11 pages of a few people succumbing to the red thirst.

horus! Traitor! I see you!

[jaxom]

A lot of it can be generalized to, "Is a 25% difference in outcome between otherwise identical units representative of lore, or is that too much?"

[Orange Knight]

7 minutes ago, jaxom said:

A lot of it can be generalized to, "Is a 25% difference in outcome between otherwise identical units representative of lore, or is that too much?"

 

It's obviously way too much when applied without restriction across all units and wargear combinations. This could apply to a durability boost, offence boost etc.

 

It should still exist in the game, but achieved under specific conditions with reasonable limitations.

Or... it can't be limited to a single sub faction lol

[Blindhamster]

We will see how it ends up I guess, will be interesting to see what way GW goes 

[ThePenitentOne]

3 hours ago, Special Officer Doofy said:

This thread is like 3 pages about sub faction's in general and 11 pages of a few people succumbing to the red thirst.

True enough- many of us use that as an example.

 

In my case, I'm far more concerned about sisters, but the marines make such good examples of the principles behind the argument because they've had distinct subfactions since second ed.

 

But as I've mentioned elsewhere in the thread, the armies WITHOUT a history of subfaction distinctions need these rules even more. Similarly, the character upgrades have allowed us to create representations of units like the Cannoness Superior (Junith Eruita is the Cannoness Superior of OoOML, but the other Orders don't have one), or the Haemonculus Ancient. Similarly, Drukhari need to keep their favoured units, though I wouldn't mind seeing those made into actual units- the Hand of the Archon from upgrades from KT could become the Trueborn unit, and we could get upgrade frames for Wyches and Wracks.

 

I also have a real thing for Kroot, and I LIKED that there was a Sept whose ability was stronger connections to their Alien Auxiliary units. I'm not sure how I feel about that becoming army-wide; I suppose it's a step up for Kroot to be able to fight well with anyone, but I feel like there are stories that get lost in the change. Perhaps the disadvantages that Kroot faced when allying with other Septs will be gone, but GW will add a new special rule to the former allied Sept to indicate their relationships with the Kroot.

 

Speaking of which, Knarloc Riders and Greater Knarlocs returning in plastic for 10th would be awesome.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

5 hours ago, One Paul Murray said:

I confess to still not fully getting the insistence that BA must get some bonus to strength on the charge. It just feels to me like a lot of talk about fury and anger is being taken to mean strong. But I think that discussion has been all mined out and we're not going to agree.

 

For all the complaints about bloat it does feel a bit like the attempt to reduce it is being seen as undermining the flavour of the factions. So are people saying that flavour and bloat are synonymous?

 

No one is saying flavor and bloat are synonymous.

you can reduce bloat plenty while maintaining flavor.

 

3rd edition wasn’t bloated at all, but for BA players at least our army was very flavorful.

thirst potentially causing marines to go towards the nearest enemy. Random number of marines in the DC with fluffy rules, over charged engines.

 

i agree that an insistence on extra S in the charge isn’t necessary to maintain the chapter’s flavor, but it’s just been the most common representation of the thirst over the years. I think a rule like rapid assault, fits the idea of a controlled or barely controlled thirst just fine.

 

the problem comes in the form of relegating most of the flavor of a chapter to strats, WLT, and relics is when you get bloat.

Foresight is fluffy WLT, but having to pick from 6 others just in the BA supplement alone is bloaty.

that could just be a special rule for SHPs and/or librarians.

so then the problem becomes if we’re cutting the bloat, and limiting sub faction rule support, then where does the flavor come from?

 

 

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

5 hours ago, Orange Knight said:

I don't believe the average Blood Angel is stronger, but he may well be angrier.

 

Once they succumb to their rage and become Death Company Marines they probably will be stronger, that entire condition is some sort of psychic manifestation in them.

 

Would anyone like to see models for the actual vampiric monsters the Blood Angels can become?

I kinda do and have toyed with using vampire counts models for them, and wolfen rules, but I also don’t want the chapter to be pigeonholed even more into the angry emo vampire meme any more than they already are.

[Arkangilos]

7 hours ago, One Paul Murray said:

I confess to still not fully getting the insistence that BA must get some bonus to strength on the charge. It just feels to me like a lot of talk about fury and anger is being taken to mean strong.

I’ve said to you multiple times strength does not necessarily mean individual bulk strength of a man. 
 

The S stat represents the force of a hit. So a chapter that is said to have ferocious charges that are known to devastate enemies and turn the tides of battles would have the “Furious Charge” rule, which just so happen to give +1 S and +1 Init.

 

Here:

”Blood Angels are gripped by the spirit of Sanguinius and are prone to entering a berserk frenzy of bloodletting in battle.

This is terrifying to behold as they unleash their righteous fury, butchering any enemy that lie in their path. All Blood Angels models gain +1 Strength and +1 Initiative in the turn in which they charge into close combat.”

 

Which shows +1 S is the force of the Charge.

 

But, even if that isn’t, you could address the lore we’ve posted about how the Red Thirst is said to actually make them stronger when they give into it.

 

 

Edited April 10, 2023 by Arkangilos

[Scribe]

I'm sorry at this point I think people are willfully trying to ignore what is being said.

[jaxom]

3rd edition still had a lot of ties to the earlier, more roleplaying-game influenced mechanics of earlier editions (mostly through the guys who wrote the rules). The largest problem with that style of gaming is it either requires an adjudicator or it requires both players really being on the same page for what they want out of the game and for their personal feeling of how the armies "should" function to be near-identical. Removing the RPG-esque mechanics makes it easier to approach 40k as a pick-up game.

 

I think there's a design space for what it seems like a lot of the frater and soror want, but I don't think it's going to be 10th edition. Having said that, it seems to me like hacking 10th edition is going to be super easy and I may well end up pausing one of my other projects to do so once the indexes are out.

[spessmarine]

8 hours ago, Halandaar said:

I think it's a given that GW will retain some personality for the big chapters but that it will probably not be until Codexes start arriving that we see that in full. It might be until then, BAs, SWs etc just have to make do as being normie marines with a selection of their own units to add flavour until Codexes start dropping.

Something bold might be to have all the datasheets free and online, would enable chopping out a lot of pages from a codex. Though, it is more so Codex Space Marines that needs it with its evergrowing roster and group of special chapters.

If all the marine sheets are free and off on their own, it makes it easier to just need your chapter supplement to play rather than a brick of a book or multiple books.

 

Playing BA? All the marine datasheets are available wherever, your supplement has your special rules, enhancements, blood magics, Crusade/Boarding stuff, fluff, etc and is all you need. Don't need the marine codex for the Eliminators supporting your Death Company mob. Nor does the supplement needs to be filled with 100 or whatever count datasheets.

[One Paul Murray]

3 hours ago, Arkangilos said:

I’ve said to you multiple times strength does not necessarily mean individual bulk strength of a man. 
 

The S stat represents the force of a hit. So a chapter that is said to have ferocious charges that are known to devastate enemies and turn the tides of battles would have the “Furious Charge” rule, which just so happen to give +1 S and +1 Init.

 

Here:

”Blood Angels are gripped by the spirit of Sanguinius and are prone to entering a berserk frenzy of bloodletting in battle.

This is terrifying to behold as they unleash their righteous fury, butchering any enemy that lie in their path. All Blood Angels models gain +1 Strength and +1 Initiative in the turn in which they charge into close combat.”

 

Which shows +1 S is the force of the Charge.

 

But, even if that isn’t, you could address the lore we’ve posted about how the Red Thirst is said to actually make them stronger when they give into it.

 

 

In fairness I may have missed that, but I haven't seen any lore that says that explicitly, either myself or in this thread, and I'm not trying to be awkward there. If it exists I've missed it so feel free to point me at it. However, as I've said, I have read at least one short story that referred to the Black Rage increasing strength (the one where a Flesh Tearers thunderhawk gets shot down and a dude escapes on Armageddon), so I kind of assume that the two are being conflated.

 

As for the passage above; I hear you but it still doesn't sound to me like what you describe. When doing my degree ages ago I remember a similar passage describing the last ever charge of a Macedonian pike phalanx; the guy describing it spoke of terror and awe... but the Romans still split into small groups, used the uneven ground to break the pike wall and then cut them to pieces. So "terrifying to behold" doesn't intrinsically call out extra properties, just the sense of horror that a given situation (such as 8ft monsters going wild) spreads.

 

I really am going to stop here because there is a wider thread to be had about subfactions that doesn't need my musings. But in summary; I still haven't been shown anything that states baseline BA troops are stronger than other Astartes by virtue of a geneseed benefit, so I don't see why they should require special dispensation ahead of other assault troops for any reason other than game diversity.

 

Not that game diversity is a bad reason, but I do feel that other marine factions can feel legitimately slighted if they get no unique units and are just given the same generic package as everyone else, whereas BAs, DAs and SWs get unique units and a whole load of extra polish. 

[Arkangilos]

16 minutes ago, One Paul Murray said:

In fairness I may have missed that, but I haven't seen any lore that says that explicitly, either myself or in this thread, and I'm not trying to be awkward there. If it exists I've missed it so feel free to point me at it. However, as I've said, I have read at least one short story that referred to the Black Rage increasing strength (the one where a Flesh Tearers thunderhawk gets shot down and a dude escapes on Armageddon), so I kind of assume that the two are being conflated.

What I quoted when I said “here:” was from a BA codex. That is the lore that explicitly states they get +1S and +1I on charge. It has been consistent through EVERY edition. 
 

Furious Charge was the rule they got in 4, 5, 6, and 7th edition, and it gives +1S and +1 Init. It was said in those codices they get Furious Charge because of the the thirst. 
 

In 8th and 9th edition, they got +1 S chapter wide on charge because of the Red Thirst. 
 

So now that I’ve provided quotes and rules from all 9 editions, you can stop saying, “I haven’t heard of such a thing.”

 

Red thirst gives them a furious charge, furious charge gives +1 S, therefore it has nothing to do with the marine getting literally stronger, but with him being berserk and a madman on the charge.

 

As for them actually transforming into wild and strong beasts because of the Thirst, I recommend four books:

 

Blood Quest: Volume II, 
Dante

Devastation of Baal

Sanguinius: The Great Angel.

 

Anyways, this is why I asked you if you have ever fought anyone on PCP. They aren’t physically stronger because they are on PCP and tripping. But they are “stronger” for all practical purposes because they don’t hold back like all humans naturally do. It’s why when you are full of adrenaline you can lift and move things you couldn’t before. You can hit harder, too. You didn’t gain muscle, but you appear stronger and can do stuff you normally couldn’t do.

 

 

Edited April 10, 2023 by Arkangilos

[jaxom]

For Sanguinius’ sake take it to the BA sub forum at this point.

[Arkangilos]

2 hours ago, jaxom said:

For Sanguinius’ sake take it to the BA sub forum at this point.

I mean it isn’t our fault no one else is defending subfaction variation. 

If a BT, DA, or anyone else want to argue in favor of their special rules no one is stopping them.

[WrathOfTheLion]

What purpose would that serve? I have no case to make to anyone, as whoever makes those decisions is 1. not here (because they work for GW) and most importantly, 2. already made them. If someone wants to have a discussion of what they think will happen in the context of the rules presented so far and how such mechanics may work, that would be interesting. The argument on the validity of having them or not is not interesting, as it will have no effect on what occurs or doesn't occur. It won't magick something into existence when the rules have already been penned. Which approach they'll take, I don't know. There are a few paths they may take, and we frankly don't know until at the earliest when the Index comes out, and possibly as late as when the Codexes are coming out.

Edited April 11, 2023 by WrathOfTheLion

[ThePenitentOne]

17 hours ago, One Paul Murray said:

 

For all the complaints about bloat it does feel a bit like the attempt to reduce it is being seen as undermining the flavour of the factions. So are people saying that flavour and bloat are synonymous?

 

You don't see a lot of people complaining about limiting each detachment to six strats, or each army's rules to two pages, or the sub-in 1:1, do you?

 

That's because no one here (even me, who LOVES bloat because I play the game differently than anybody else) is against reducing bloat.

 

What we have been arguing about for 15 pages is mostly whether we think it is best for a special flavour rule to be granted on the basis of subfaction or detachment. That's it. Same number of rules... It's just the source.

 

Couple of caveats:

 

1) We have veered off the "source of the flavour rule" argument a couple of times- ie. questioning whether or not a second flavour rule (beyond the army-wide one) is necessary at all, or questioning the appropriateness of a given flavour rule... But it's all been part of justifying a position in the subfaction source vs. detachment source for flavour rules.

 

2) The "same number of rules" statement means same number of rules per unit. So for example, there would only be one rule on the two page spread that was swapped for the generic faction spread whether that swapped in 2 pages represented a faction or a detachment... But there might be fewer detachments per faction than there were subfactions, and if there are, it will result in fewer rules total. Conversely, we could end up with even more detachments than we had subfactions, in which case sticking with subfactions as the source of the flavour rule would be the option that reduced the total number of rules.

 

Okay, that point got a little wordier than I intended. The point is that saying that flavour rules should be dependant upon subfaction rather than detachment is not defending bloat.

 

[jaxom]

1 hour ago, Arkangilos said:

I mean it isn’t our fault no one else is defending subfaction variation. 

If a BT, DA, or anyone else want to argue in favor of their special rules no one is stopping them.

Attempts to make the conversation more general, to work in more factions, was almost immediately buried under the weight of Blood Angel conversation. But that's neither here nor there at this point. I think @WrathOfTheLion said it best and, for me at least, this thread is of no more interest.

[Arkangilos]

2 hours ago, WrathOfTheLion said:

What purpose would that serve? I have no case to make to anyone, as whoever makes those decisions is 1. not here (because they work for GW) and most importantly, 2. already made them. If someone wants to have a discussion of what they think will happen in the context of the rules presented so far and how such mechanics may work, that would be interesting. The argument on the validity of having them or not is not interesting, as it will have no effect on what occurs or doesn't occur. It won't magick something into existence when the rules have already been penned. Which approach they'll take, I don't know. There are a few paths they may take, and we frankly don't know until at the earliest when the Index comes out, and possibly as late as when the Codexes are coming out.

This thread is called, “the purpose of subfaction variation”. 
 

So the case, here, is to discuss the purpose of subfaction variation, and the merits of it. 
 

55 minutes ago, jaxom said:

Attempts to make the conversation more general, to work in more factions,

It isn’t my fault people didn’t reply to those people but kept the arguing going in the BA direction. 
 

It wasn’t the BA players not responding (in fact I responded favorably to it ), but the rebuttals were directed at us. They could have responded to @ThePenitentOne , or they could have responded to any of the other ones, but they chose to specifically continue to be against the BA specifically getting the rules. So it isn’t that the BA people kept it going in the BA direction, it’s that the focus has been space marine codex and what it means for space marine subfactions, and the most participation has been from the BA and from people who didn’t like the BA special rule. 
If anyone wants to discuss any other faction and the responders want to respond to that rather than to the BA topic I’m all for it, but don’t make it sound like it was a one way street to focus on the one chapter.

I am going to be honest, I thought the BA subplot was resolved last night with @Interrogator Stobzamd Blind Hamster.

 

Edited April 11, 2023 by Arkangilos

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

Seems like people are upset that BA are more popular than other chapters lol

[WrathOfTheLion]

11 minutes ago, Arkangilos said:

This thread is called, “the purpose of subfaction variation”. 
 

So the case, here, is to discuss the purpose of subfaction variation, and the merits of it. 

Well don't summon us then. We were summoned, and I gave the reason why many of us weren't participating.

[Arkangilos]

9 minutes ago, WrathOfTheLion said:

Well don't summon us then. We were summoned, and I gave the reason why many of us weren't participating.

I didn’t summon you. I don’t even remember saying you name until I replied to you, lol

[WrathOfTheLion]

9 minutes ago, Arkangilos said:

I didn’t summon you. I don’t even remember saying you name until I replied to you, lol

I was being somewhat dramatic, but essentially you implied that we (non BA players) should defend the rules or otherwise participate to make it not focused on the topic stated (only on BA). So my point was that it was at least subtly implied that we should participate, and so I gave my reason why I didn't want to.

 

So carry on.

 

* The implication you gave being it's our (DA, BT, etc. players) fault that the topic is too BA-focused by us not participating. I'm rebutting this and saying we have our various reasons not to, which means you should be making an effort to keep the conversation general, or take it to the BA forum.

Edited April 11, 2023 by WrathOfTheLion

[Special Officer Doofy]

44 minutes ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

Seems like people are upset that BA are more popular than other chapters lol

 

More so BA fans think they are more special than the other chapters, but spin it however you like. The only reason BA are more popular than most of the other chapters is because they got their own books and models early on. Weird how GW supports a chapter more, so people support it more too (and that's the order it went, not the other way around). I mean you're not special, it's just the loyalist version of red = angry marines. BA even have the same paint scheme as the world eaters, instead of a nail you guys have dead daddy issues.

 

This whole thread is just BA fans going "we are special and we demand special rules like we have always received for no reason other than GW put us in a separate book in 2E" and the rest of us being like "we don't care, we just want a balanced game, and sometimes that means nobody is special". Neither side cares about the others opinion.