The importance of subfaction variation

[Arikel]

5 minutes ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

You’re the one who wrote a whole essay about paint colors and how someone gave you a funny look that one time.

 

Circle the wagons and the arguments all you want. You seem utterly focused on paint color as opposed to any of the actual contents of my posts. I salute you master troll for yet again derailing an attempt to get this thread back on topic. 

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

19 hours ago, Arikel said:

 

Circle the wagons and the arguments all you want. You seem utterly focused on paint color as opposed to any of the actual contents of my posts. I salute you master troll for yet again derailing an attempt to get this thread back on topic. 

Your whole post was devoid of anything meaningful, but I’m a troll for engaging you on your post about how you got a funny look one time.

[Arikel]

On 4/11/2023 at 1:20 AM, Arikel said:

I presented a theory or two which seems dashed by the currently available info from GW. They didn’t mention subfactions at all in the last article which means they either won’t have any, or that they will be considered their own faction, which makes a lie of their statement of army color not mattering.

 

Given the current info, it would seem that the only difference between space marines will be unique characters, and perhaps, bespoke units fielded by specific chapters and their succesors.

 

In this case, one would need to play into the character of their chapter to provide the distinction they seek. This would mean building a list that fits the fighting style and traditional themes of their chapter. A chapter noted for their aggression and preference for close combat could be simulated by taking appropriate units that allow one to close with the enemy quickly, not just jump packers or bikers, but mechanized tacticals/intercessors and heavy support, as well as  weapons to suit that style like flamers , meltas and other close range weapons that can be shot on the move instead of lascannons or missile launchers, all while arming your squad leaders and heroes with the best melee options available because you want them to hit as hard as they themselves would wish too were they real.

 

Once the list is built, a suitable detachment would theoretically provide appropriate stratagems and enhancements that would complement your chosen fighting force’s combat style. It would then be up to you as the player to play the way you would expect your army to fight, without any further specific rules support that benefits or restricts you.
 

One difference to the current form of the game is that you aren’t necessarily locked into that  style choice. You could choose a different detachment at any time to use with your minis, that might be better suited to fighting certain opponents, or in a situation where it simply wouldn’t be tactically sound to use the traditionally preferred strategies/tactics of  your dudes, without any additional drawbacks. Space Marines are supposed to be flexible enough to fight in any situation, after all.

 

Addenda: In response to the fellow some pages back where he mentioned he had never heard of space marine squads switching armaments if needed according to battlefield needs, I do admit that I can’t find any specific passage in my codexes to support that. 
 

I may have been inferring too much from their training, which traditionally goes from scout to dev company to assault company to tactical reserve company to a battleline company, as well as specific crosstraining with bikes and speeders, where it is stated specifically they can use them if needed. 
 

This does, in my opinion, imply that any fully trained marine in a battle company would have at least basic competence with most of the space marine armoury,  and be able to serve in any of the 3 roles should duty require it. In my mind they would equip as needed for the mission at hand, within the limits of what equipment they have available at the time, but as you mention this is not specifically stated anywhere I could find.

 

 

 

 

 

 

You mean this post here, my dear Inquisitor? Me thinks you wish to continue beating dead horses. There are plenty of points you could attempt to engage on, yet instead you simply wish to lock your jaws like a bulldog on a single issue because you don't understand how colour is as much a part of the identity and lore of subfactions as any rules they may have had 3 decades ago. I am refreshed and ready, having had my nap and morning tea. Jeffrey! Fetch me my fighting trousers!

[Rain]

Oh my, this thread has certainly…gone places. On reflection, I think what GW is most likely to do is remove in-book subfactions, while releasing BA, DA, SW, BT, and cult Chaos Legions as separate armies from the vanilla books. This would actually be a fine compromise.

 

Most other books, like Orks, SOB, Eldar, etc. would probably lose their in-book subfactions as well. Maybe *maybe* each book will have 1 or 2 “armies of renown” which will swap the 2 page spread and act as subfactions, but it would still cut down on needless nonsense like Thousand Sons  having 9 subfactions just to conform with every book having them.

[Focslain]

So adding into the discussion. What I betting we are going to see is not the lost of sub-factions, but custom traits.

 

Basically we will have a 'faction' sheet for whatever chapter, house, league, craftworld etc that will be the base faction sheet with a minor twik and replace a strat/relic/trait with a sub-faction one. Much like how every codex since the Tau each of the cononical sub-factions have added a strat, relic and warlord trait to the mix. 

 

This will help balance a littel and it gets rid of the multiple mixes one can get by combining x/y/z trait together. 

 

Only exception in 9th to this was the Guard, but that might have been an experiment. We could be seeing the return of Regiments with thier codex.

 

So for list building you would select the best sub-'faction' sheet that represents your army as a whole, then the detactment to best represent the force for the battle. Enhancement to taste and done.

 

We won't have long to see if this is and case as the nid codex will be on the front line as will the marines. In the nid book we'll see the sub-faction in play as the different Hive Fleets.

 

By having this set up they can also release others at a later date via WD and the app. You would just need access to a copier/printer/device and your good to go.

[Brother Tyler]

Focusing primarily on the basic concepts of this discussion as identified in the first post, I think that sub-faction variation is extremely important because it relates to one of the key elements of the game that helps to give it broad appeal - allowing players to make the game their own.

 

TLDR: Sub-faction variation is important, but so is game balance.

 

In the first edition of the game there were far fewer options. The Space Marines had very little variation, with sub-factions like the White Scars, Space Wolves, and Grey Knights having their own army lists while other Chapters simply followed the basic Space Marine army list. This changed in 2nd edition, with the Ultramarines codex serving as the basic blueprint for Space Marines, Codex: Angels of Death showing us a couple of Chapters (the Blood Angels and Dark Angels, along with their successors) with slight variation (but not too much, really), and the Space Wolves serving as the black sheep of the bunch. The Grey Knights were only allowed as squads back then. Other factions didn't have sub-faction variation except through units from sub-factions (e.g., Chaos Space Marines, Imperial Guard). Then 3rd edition came and sub-faction variation expanded considerably, especially for the Space Marines and Chaos Space Marines, but also for the [Craftworld] Eldar. The problem I saw with the 3rd edition variation was that the balance varied. The Raven Guard, for example, were extremely powerful whereas the Iron Hands were much weaker. For the most part, the current character of each Chapter was really defined in those 3rd edition Index Astartes articles. True, some of the Chapters had pre-existing lore, but it was previously only for flavor and not for rules. The 3rd edition Index Astartes articles took pre-existing lore for those Chapters that had it, created lore for those that didn't (e.g., the Raven Guard), and then converted that lore into rules. Too often, however, the rules were far more than was necessary and hindered game balance.

 

GW tried to tone things down a bit in the 4th edition of the game, with the Chapter Traits structure providing a range of options that players could use to represent the official Chapters as well as their homegrown efforts. The main problem with the Chapter Traits, however, was that the drawbacks really weren't a drawback. Players simply chose drawbacks that didn't adversely affect their armies. In addition, we saw lore evolved, with certain aspects emphasized for more distinctiveness. For example, the Blood Angels weren't perceived as a jump pack/fast attack army until late 3rd edition and onwards. Up through the publication of their 3rd edition codex, they were just a Codex Chapter that had to deal with the Red Thirst/Black Rage. The rules, however, made them an assault army and players started to emphasize the use of jump packs and the like in order to benefit from the Chapter's rules. This focus was then incorporated in the 4th edition rules and lore, shaping the present perception of the Chapter.

 

Representing sub-faction distinctiveness is important, but it should definitely not be at the expense of game balance. While "perfect balance" is impossible in a game with as much (sub-)faction variation as Warhammer 40,000, there is still some range of balance that the developers should strive for. With sub-factions, everything that makes the sub-faction better than or different from the standard should come with a cost - either increased points value, limited/restricted use of normal units/weapons/wargear/options, or rules-based drawbacks that have a tangible impact on the army (rather than the throwaway "drawbacks" of the 3rd edition Chapter Traits system).

 

It's also important to recognize when some element of sub-faction character is just hyperbole and when it's something that is really tangible. For example, just about every Chapter has lore proclaiming how [some] members of the Chapter embody some aspect(s) of their Primarch. While the Blood Angels Legion Successors have a clear rules-based element of this in the Red Thirst/Black Rage, most other Chapters simply have some personality traits that they inherit from their Primarch. The stubbornness and secretive nature of the Unforgiven don't make them better than (i.e., stronger/tougher) their peers in other Chapters; the Ultramarines' adherence to the Codex Astartes doesn't make them better than any other Chapters that similarly follow the Codex Astartes; etc. In addition, while Chapters may have certain preferences, those preferences shouldn't necessarily limit them unless their lore says that it does. For example, the White Scars are known for their use of bikes and vehicles. Their army lists (or detachments or whatever) shouldn't limit them to those assets, however (which was a major flaw in their 3rd edition rules). Similarly, while Alaitoc Craftworld is known for its heavy use of Rangers, there may be times when the Rangers don't accompany an Alaitoc warhost. In this, sub-faction variation should allow for accurate representation of the sub-faction nature while also allowing for sub-faction armies to be different.

 

Personally, while I definitely want sub-faction variation in the game, I want to see it toned down considerably. Most of the "better than" hyperbole for sub-factions should be left to levels that are outside of (or far above) the tabletop level. For example, the Imperial Fists' use of the Pain Glove shouldn't make Imperial Fists Space Marines physically/mentally tougher than other Space Marines; and their heavy use of the dueling shouldn't make them better swordsmen than other Space Marines. Small things here and there are nice, but we don't need every sub-faction to have wildly divergent rules that are intended to make them "better" than their peers. Deathwing Terminators should not be any better than Terminators from any other Chapter; the Wych Cult of Strife should not be any better than other Wyches. Yes, there will be exceptions to this, but those exceptions should be clearly justified (demanded even) by established lore. For example, the Deathwatch Chapter should, man-for-man, be more effective against Xenos than other Adeptus Astartes Chapters; the Grey Knights should, man-for-man, be more effective against Daemons than other Adeptus Astartes; etc. In all of those cases, however, the advantages that such sub-factions enjoy over their counterparts should be offset by tangible costs so that there is an acceptable level of balance (not necessarily perfect balance, but something relatively close). Too often, the hyperbole is used to justify variation that is unnecessary.

 

The counter to all of this, of course, is that GW wants to make each (sub-)faction appealing to (prospective) hobbyists. To do that, they often emphasize those areas where sub-factions differ from their counterparts; and making units effective often bolsters sales of the models. And hobbyists are, as a group, historically prone to clamoring for "their" sub-faction to be represented on the tabletop in a way that matches their perceptions of the sub-faction's superiority over related sub-factions. Much of this is fair, but some also derives from a false sense of entitlement and any [perceived] imbalances are justified by official hyperbole, even when it is misinterpreted/misrepresented. It's a tricky thing to balance and I won't try predicting how GW will provide sub-faction variation, the amount of sub-faction variation we might see, or how balanced the results will be. I just hope that they achieve a level of success, however.

 

As far as the debate about paint color goes, there isn't a simple black and white answer (see what I did there?). Much of it, I think, comes down to the setting and observation of WYSIWYG. At a basic level, if an army is painted to clearly represent a specific sub-faction with official rules (e.g., Angels Encarmine, Alaitoc, Argent Shroud), it's perfectly understandable that an opponent will expect the appropriate sub-faction rules to be used. And contrary to some members' posts, this has been an official rule at some points in the past. However, I think there's some flexibility here. In a dedicated competitive environment such as a tournament, such an expectation might be fair (though it isn't necessarily a given). In a more friendly environment, however, there's a lot more freedom. If a player is trying some sub-faction rules out using an established army, there's definitely room to maneuver (one shouldn't be doing this in a tournament environment, however). One must also consider an opponent's nature. I've played with/against some people on the autism spectrum and their more literal approach to things means that it is often more difficult for them to look past the outward appearance. Similarly, many hobbyists that approach the game from the perspective of historical wargaming, where accurate representation is often a significant part of the hobby, might have less tolerance for accepting an army that looks like, say, the Space Wolves but played as Blood Angels. This doesn't necessarily make such people jerks, however. Ultimately, we all have the choice of who we play against and the settings in which we play, so we can opt to avoid those settings/players that won't deal with the unexpected well. However, not every yellow Space Marine army is Imperial Fists (it might be Lamenters or Angels of Vigilance or Libators or one of any number of yellow Chapters). As I stated at the top of this post, the ability to make the game your own is one of the big draws of the hobby, so the sub-factions should allow for hobbyists to paint what appeals to them without being a straightjacket. Hobbyists need to be realistic, however - if it looks like a duck and walks like a duck, people are going to expect you to call it a duck and not say it's a ferret. That's why I prefer distinctive homegrown color schemes - I can then use the army to represent any sub-faction that I want without my opponent having to reconcile things.

[Orange Knight]

I have meditated on this subject, and I do recognise that people do want the theme of certain sub factions to be preserved, and that it's a valid desire to have.

 

If, however, I am to support an extensive ruleset to reflect each divergent chapter, GW need to go further in making these sub factions distinctive. Something akin to the Legion books for the various traitor forces.

 

This would mean unique rules and a more defined identity,but it would also mean sacrificing some existing options - I think it's wrong for a faction to have it's cake and eat it too.

As things stand, a chapter like the Dark Angels is just Astarts +1. They have access to everything in the codex, and get a bunch of units on top, some of which have been abused for their rules in 9th edition or prior. 

 

Let's start with the Black Templars. Perhaps they shouldn't have access to Intercessors, Scouts, or Bladeguard Veterans. Also access to some HQs would be restricted. They instead have units that take the place of these squads.

 

Blood Angels should lose access to some of the dedicated long range units. They do boast of having more jump-pack assault infantry. They must have given something up for this in the past.

Again, perhaps no Bladeguard, Desolators, etc. Instead would have Sanguinary Guard and Death Company. 

 

Dark Angels have their unique Terminator. They should lose the generic variants and the assault Terminators as a result. Make them truly distinctive, not merely optionally so.

 

The same would apply to the Space Wolves, and some other units associated with these chapters.

 

How would people feel about this?

 

 

[Kastor Krieg]

14 minutes ago, Orange Knight said:

Let's start with the Black Templars. Perhaps they shouldn't have access to Intercessors, Scouts, or Bladeguard Veterans. Also access to some HQs would be restricted. They instead have units that take the place of these squads.

We already can't take Librarians. I would be fine with losing basic Intercessors and Scouts. Not so much with Bladeguard, they're a primaris fighty thematic unit for us.

[Scribe]

37 minutes ago, Orange Knight said:

How would people feel about this?

 

 

Negative.

 

The target should not be SM +1, the target should be SM +1/-1, aka: Different.

 

World Eaters should not have the joke of a roster they released with. They should have CSM with Bolters, and Havocs, and Chosen. It should have been 3.5, or Traitor Legions, not this abomination like the DG/TS/WE books.

[Arkangilos]

1 hour ago, Orange Knight said:

They do boast of having more jump-pack assault infantry.

No they don’t. Not army wide. (Unless you mean our honor guard are jump pack, then yeah. But I think every chapter should be able to take jump pack honor guard). But that is the only extra JP specific unit we have no one else has. The rest are just options, and options that I don’t think should be limited to us.
 

Personally, I would be willing to sacrifice Aggressors, Centurions, and anything that is big and heavy (but I think Blade Guard should be kept).

 

The reason I don’t think Blade Guard should be traded off just because we have SG is because the SG is the HG replacement. It’s a one to one switch. We get Sanguinary Guard but we lose Honor Guard.

 

Also that’s something I kept trying to say: 

Blood Angels aren’t a “Jump Pack army”, they are a “Codex Army” with a flaw. The flaw should be represented in both positive and negative aspects without forcing me into “Jump pack mostly”.

Edited April 15, 2023 by Arkangilos

[Noserenda]

Sacrificing units is always meaningless unless it actually hurts you to lose them, like (and i know this is unfluffy, its an example) Black Templars give up Chaplains to get their special units for example. They have better melee units but lose a key melee buff character to level it out and make the choice meaningful.

Giving up units you had no intention of taking isnt balance, or "flavour" its a waste of page space and ink.

 

[WrathOfTheLion]

Many already do lose units. For example, Space Wolves lose tacticals, assault marines, devastators, vanguard veterans and sternguard veterans off the top of my head. Dark Angels lose vanguard veterans and sternguard veterans.

 

Back in 8E there was more difference in roster, but that was trimmed down as a casualty of merging into Codex: Space Marines this past edition.

 

Note as that was three years ago almost, has already happened, and the edition is about to roll over, I don't have an opinion on that change, as it's not relevant until more information comes out. Just relaying as it stands today.

Edited April 15, 2023 by WrathOfTheLion
grammar

[Special Officer Doofy]

7 hours ago, Scribe said:

The target should not be SM +1, the target should be SM +1/-1, aka: Different.

 

I agree. That was my big issue with dark angels this edition. Other chapters got a chapter trait, doctrines, and mono bonus. Dark angels got a chapter trait, doctrines, mono bonus (speed of the raven, fire discipline and implacable) AND jink and inner circle, not to mention have access to their special units at the cost of not really losing any. That's just a straight +1, jink, inner circle and chapter specific units. That was 100% favoring "sub faction identity" over balance. That's why I'm a fan of what we know so far about 10th and the 2 page rules. To get inner circle and jink DA would have to lose other rules, presumably balancing out (or at least attempting it).

 

7 hours ago, Scribe said:

World Eaters should not have the joke of a roster they released with. They should have CSM with Bolters, and Havocs, and Chosen. It should have been 3.5, or Traitor Legions, not this abomination like the DG/TS/WE books.

 

GW dropped the ball with WE (and with TS). DG got a fully fleshed out release. As a DG player I don't even want new units, I just want a redone rhino and helbrute, something all the Chaos marine subfactions would benefit from. DG is a definite +1/-1. We lose access to over 20 units and gain less units, with most not being a one for one. We share none of the core rules of vanilla chaos Marines, no mark system and we can't even get our legion trait to apply to our friggin' daemon engines. DG gain endurance in the form of some higher T values and DR, but at the cost of less movement and higher point costs. That's +1/-1. And it's not like DG were rock stars, the lethality of the game made their endurance mean nothing, DG had just about the lowest mono win rate towards the end of 8th and never enjoyed too much success in 9th.

 

Flavor should not come at the cost of balance. GW did it to themselves though by putting the marine factions all back into one book, while still making some +1. Never made sense to me after all those years and finally pulling the cult Legions out of the Chaos book just to put all the loyalist ones back into one. GW is a mystery to me.

[jaxom]

8 hours ago, Special Officer Doofy said:

DG is a definite +1/-1. We lose access to over 20 units and gain less units, with most not being a one for one. We share none of the core rules of vanilla chaos Marines, no mark system and we can't even get our legion trait to apply to our friggin' daemon engines. DG gain endurance in the form of some higher T values and DR, but at the cost of less movement and higher point costs. That's +1/-1.

^This. But it also illustrates the problem. If Death Guard are +1/-1 then most other "subfactions" are +0.25/-0.25. For tournament play and riding-the-wave, at that point I feel like it's just a crapshoot of whose +0.25 better synergises with whatever the game currently favors (i.e. Devastator Doctrine and Codex Warfare before latest update or Harlequin shenanigans). I think it also makes it harder for that -0.25 to feel meaningful.

 

Again, I think there are certain of the areas of the setting that don't work well on the tabletop unless playing the game as an exploration of setting, rather than as a wargame. @Scribe noted how well Chaos was put together in 3.5 and I think that was because it was the final hurrah of 40k still incorporating the miniatures-RPG aesthetic of Rogue Trade (and 2nd edition).

 

[Evil Eye]

Re: Death Guard, World Eaters etc, one big problem with Chaos subfactions is that due to the sheer amount of in-fluff variation between different warbands with the same alignment, let alone from drastically different legions, combined with GW's current datasheet style (specifically with regards to heroes, see the Death Guard specialists) a single 3.5 edition style book that covers every possible permutation of Chaos Space Marine warband would be GARGANTUAN. And whilst some people (notably me) would be down for that, it would be tricky to balance. Having the separate books would be fine if the backlash against faction mixing ("soup") due to a few netlist builds hadn't been so severe.

[Rain]

I don’t mind the unit cuts in mono Legion books per se, but what I do mind is the weird slapdash of unique units provided as replacement. Who asked for World Eaters specific cultists? Where are my Red Butcher terminators? Where are my Berzerker Surgeons? Why do the Exalted Eightbound models look like they ride the short Dreadclaw to chopping school?

 

That said, I’d still take this over just using Codex: CSM with a trait and a relic.

[spessmarine]

19 hours ago, Orange Knight said:

I have meditated on this subject, and I do recognise that people do want the theme of certain sub factions to be preserved, and that it's a valid desire to have.

 

If, however, I am to support an extensive ruleset to reflect each divergent chapter, GW need to go further in making these sub factions distinctive. Something akin to the Legion books for the various traitor forces.

 

This would mean unique rules and a more defined identity,but it would also mean sacrificing some existing options - I think it's wrong for a faction to have it's cake and eat it too.

As things stand, a chapter like the Dark Angels is just Astarts +1. They have access to everything in the codex, and get a bunch of units on top, some of which have been abused for their rules in 9th edition or prior. 

 

...

 

I don't think pigeonholing is required.
Chapter gets its own faction rules rather than build upon base space marines, enhancements, some strategems, and you've got a decent degree of distinction. If GW would stop being weird with regards to Forge World and you could take the legion specific units and that would round out some chapters quite nicely. (It's preposterous that Salamanders wouldn't have Pyroclast-types around still, and their own flavouring of first company/honour guard for example)

 

18 hours ago, Scribe said:

World Eaters should not have the joke of a roster they released with. They should have CSM with Bolters, and Havocs, and Chosen. It should have been 3.5, or Traitor Legions, not this abomination like the DG/TS/WE books.

 

No model, no rules is the core of this. If GW doesn't release the kit, then you're left with gaping roster gaps and you can't convert/bash the answer. WE absolutely have an equivalent of Havocs you could use, Teeth of Khorne callback. And you could convert them out of Havocs, if GW would let you.

[Evil Eye]

16 minutes ago, spessmarine said:

No model, no rules is the core of this.

This, so much. I don't know what could be done to undo this but all the while GW has this "If we don't sell an exact model of it, it doesn't have rules" idea stuck in their brains, 40K is going to suffer for it.

[Scribe]

4 hours ago, spessmarine said:

No model, no rules is the core of this. If GW doesn't release the kit, then you're left with gaping roster gaps and you can't convert/bash the answer. WE absolutely have an equivalent of Havocs you could use, Teeth of Khorne callback. And you could convert them out of Havocs, if GW would let you.

 

Oh absolutely. I'll forever blame Chapterhouse for this, rational or not.

[Halandaar]

Unfortunately I think the obvious solution we can all see to this - replacing the faction ability (i.e. Oath of Moment) with a suitably flavourful subfaction one (i.e. Red Thirst) - seems like it is not going to be the case because every generic Astartes datasheet we've seen so far has "Oath of Moment" written on to it, rather than [Faction Ability goes here] or something like that.

 

So unless there is going to be a BA-specific set of Datacards with Blood Angels Rhinos and Blood Angels Intercessors and so on that can have Red Thirst listed in their cards' faction ability section, that seems to suggest any faction identity will come from somewhere else, if it all. I suppose future BA rules could simply state something like replace all instances of "Oath of Moment" on your units Datacard with "Red Thirst" but that would hardly be the no-referencing solution they seem to be going for.

[Toxichobbit]

Balance wise, it doesn't matter. We've had more editions without sub-faction rules than editions with sub-faction rules and all of them were badly balanced. And then we've had some editions with sub-faction rules and they were also badly balanced. GW gonna GW. Sub-faction rules or not, they'll mess up the balance of the game. I don't know whether it's intentional or if it's incompetence (so I'll just accuse them of both), but I would bet my significant pile of shame that it will happen with 10th. Give it 12-18 months and we'll be wanting a new edition to clean things up.... again. You can't balance something if every time it goes wrong you throw it in the bin and start again with a reset. But you can make a shed load of money by doing that and getting everyone to buy the same product but slightly different every 3 years.

 

I personally think the removal of sub-faction rules is a great loss for the game. I think it's sacrificing theme to make the game more competitive. That said, the advantage of it is that people can paint their armies whatever colour they would like and use whatever rules they would like, which is something I guess. It does suck when you have to spend an edition with your sub-faction having trash rules (or rules from last edition - thanks GW). But the downside is that everything will be more generic. I can see both sides of the argument and although I'd rather have thematic rules that mean if you paint your army as Blood Angels you play them as Blood Angels, there are definitely good reasons to allow people the freedom to use whatever rules they want.

[ZeroWolf]

I don't think blood angel rules are going anywhere. The only sub factions that are in some sort of trouble are the ones who didn't have their own books (supplements or not), so DA, BA, BT, SW will get their own bespoke 2 pages of rules. 

[Orange Knight]

Oath of Moment is a strong ability. Red Thirst would need to be something suitably impressive.

 

Perhaps you can nominate one unit a turn, and that unit gets +1 to hit and +1 to wound in close combat, and gets to re-roll the charge?

[Blindhamster]

30 minutes ago, Orange Knight said:

Oath of Moment is a strong ability. Red Thirst would need to be something suitably impressive.

 

Perhaps you can nominate one unit a turn, and that unit gets +1 to hit and +1 to wound in close combat, and gets to re-roll the charge?

I suspect it won’t be a pick one unit thing. Oath of moment affects the entire army, only against one unit, but the entire marine army still gets the benefit.

[Orange Knight]

But Blood Angels don't all simultaneously succumb to the Red Thirst, or the Black Rage.

 

If all units have the above bonuses at all times then it will be a better ability  especially in an edition where it looks like close combat might be the best way to deal with tough units.