The importance of subfaction variation

[Crimson Longinus]

2 minutes ago, Arkangilos said:

If I were playing a WW2 game, I would expect an American army to use American rules, regardless of what color their uniform is. I would expect a Russian army to use Russian rules no matter what color their uniforms are.

 

Are you fine with someone using Tyrannid rules instead of UM rules if they declared they are playing UM?

If you declare your army, you should use the rules of the army you declared.

 

With marines, it is mostly the paint which differentiates one chapter from another. This is not the case with marines and tyranids. You earlier insisted that you didn't care how one paints their army and said tournaments dictating such was foolish. Yet here you demand exactly that. You're not being coherent. 

[Crimson Longinus]

Tenth edition detachments are different thing than ninth edition detachments. And they're merely a way for organising the rules. The things that previously were under subfaction header are now under detachment header. But this is merely a change in organisation and nomenclature of the rules. 

 

 

Edited April 4, 2023 by Tyriks
removed quote

[Orange Knight]

@Arkangilos

 

My Chapter is Imperial Fists.

 

If you can guarantee that GW will support and balance all chapters equally then I will renege on my praise for what they intend to do.

 

That's basically what it comes down to. A few people want to retain thematic ownership of what a faction should be at the expense of anyone who doesn't benefit.

 

In the lore the difference between chapters isn't as significant anyway. I don't believe that the Blood Angels are 16% better in combat than all Ultramarines, as an example, just as I don't believe Dante has any chance of defeating Marneus Calgar in single combat.

 

Should the Ultramarines, the "superlative" chapter with the most illustrious history, somehow be 10% better than average in all categories? They have produced fine swordsmasters, snipers, tank commanders, etc. I certainly don't think so.

 

Either way, if a detachment allows for an aggressive melee playstyle, then Blood Angels can use that and retain their theme.

 

 

[gaurdian31]

To explain it a slightly different way, if you bring red marines and play using Ultramarine rules, you are playing Ultramarines and should have their flavor. If you bring yellow marines and play using Blood Angels rules you are playing Blood Angels and should have their flavor. The color of the marines don't matter, the ruleset you choose to play with and declare you are playing with matters.

[Orange Knight]

Just now, gaurdian31 said:

To explain it a slightly different way, if you bring red marines and play using Ultramarine rules, you are playing Ultramarines and should have their flavor. If you bring yellow marines and play using Blood Angels rules you are playing Blood Angels and should have their flavor. The color of the marines don't matter, the ruleset you choose to play with and declare you are playing with matters.

 

And if the detachments are themed after various chapters, isn't that the same thing?

[Crimson Longinus]

7 minutes ago, Arkangilos said:

So you ignore the lore then. Good to know.

 

I'd rather not have others police how I interpret the lore.

 

7 minutes ago, Arkangilos said:

Ok, let me slow down even more for you:

Lamenters. are. yellow. Lamenters. Have. Blood. Angel. Rules.

 

Color. Does. Not. Affect. Geneseed.

 

Now, give me one quote where I said color should dictate rules.

 

"Colour" of course means the paintjob as a whole, markings and other identifying features included. 

 

[Arkangilos]

2 minutes ago, Crimson Longinus said:

"Colour" of course means the paintjob as a whole, markings and other identifying features included. 

 

I mean if someone declares they are playing the Imperial Fist then they should use the Imperial Fist rules. Just like if someone says they are playing a German army should use German rules.

[Scribe]

19 minutes ago, DesuVult said:

"Or whatever it is today"

 

I feel this is part of the disconnect.  It is rather arbitrary and is going to change.  Rules don't always properly reflect an army.  Being utterly bound to the rules defining your army is not how I see 40k and the push foe rhat is part of the problem in 40k.

 

GW's inability to write good consistent rules, and support factions throughout the edition churn, is not something we should reinforce.

 

They should simply do better.

[Tyriks]

Locked temporarily due to tempers flaring.

[Tyriks]

We are reopening the thread. Please stay respectful of each other so conversation can continue!

[Mr. Oddity]

Based on a few different historical factors (and for the sake of discussion), let's assume that the current supplement chapters (BA, BT, DA, SW) will be receiving codex releases of their own since we can assume future codexes are going to be a bit slimmer. As a general question to my fellow fraters, were these codexes to share detatchments with a main Adeptus Astartes codex but swap out the Oaths of Moment rule for something more chapter-specific (and give access to chapter-specific units of course) would that be viewed as enough flavor or differentiation? As several frater have noted even the more divergent chapters are still Astartes with all the depth and breadth of tactics and training that entails. Oaths of Moment is presumably a bonus to an elective target - would losing this in favor of a more general but perhaps lower-magnitude buff to a combat type be acceptable?

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

2 hours ago, Mr. Oddity said:

Based on a few different historical factors (and for the sake of discussion), let's assume that the current supplement chapters (BA, BT, DA, SW) will be receiving codex releases of their own since we can assume future codexes are going to be a bit slimmer. As a general question to my fellow fraters, were these codexes to share detatchments with a main Adeptus Astartes codex but swap out the Oaths of Moment rule for something more chapter-specific (and give access to chapter-specific units of course) would that be viewed as enough flavor or differentiation? As several frater have noted even the more divergent chapters are still Astartes with all the depth and breadth of tactics and training that entails. Oaths of Moment is presumably a bonus to an elective target - would losing this in favor of a more general but perhaps lower-magnitude buff to a combat type be acceptable?

Guess it would depend on what the OoM replacement is.

 

For BA a simple +1 to charge rolls would be very disappointing. 
+1 to charge/advance rolls and +1 S in melee if the unit engaged the melee via charge or heroic intervention 

 

and I’d be fine with it, and a separate replacement for DC armies.

Also the reason it’s marine players complaining is this is primarily a marine focused forum, as such most people here play marines, some will play other armies too, but by and large ‘marine’ is the common language of the board, so talking using marines as a reference point just makes more sense than using guard or DE or orks as a reference point.

[Scribe]

13 minutes ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

Also the reason it’s marine players complaining is this is primarily a marine focused forum, as such most people here play marines, some will play other armies too, but by and large ‘marine’ is the common language of the board, so talking using marines as a reference point just makes more sense than using guard or DE or orks as a reference point.

 

Necrons should get theirs.

CSM should get theirs.

Sisters have Orders.

Guard have Regiments.

Orks have the clans or whatever.

Eldar have the craftworlds.

Hivefleets.

 

And on and on.

 

Subfactions are a fundamental aspect of the game, and if they are removed it will be really unfortunate.

[DesuVult]

14 minutes ago, Scribe said:

 

Necrons should get theirs.

CSM should get theirs.

Sisters have Orders.

Guard have Regiments.

Orks have the clans or whatever.

Eldar have the craftworlds.

Hivefleets.

 

And on and on.

 

Subfactions are a fundamental aspect of the game, and if they are removed it will be really unfortunate.

Subfactions have been rather limited in the past and reliant on supplements for a single subfaction at times.

[Scribe]

1 minute ago, DesuVult said:

Subfactions have been rather limited in the past and reliant on supplements for a single subfaction at times.

 

True. The driest, most bland edition of all time, 4th, certainly had limited subfactions.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

38 minutes ago, Scribe said:

 

Necrons should get theirs.

CSM should get theirs.

Sisters have Orders.

Guard have Regiments.

Orks have the clans or whatever.

Eldar have the craftworlds.

Hivefleets.

 

And on and on.

 

Subfactions are a fundamental aspect of the game, and if they are removed it will be really unfortunate.

I agree, I was just giving an explanation for why it’s ‘only marine players are complaining’

[DesuVult]

24 minutes ago, Scribe said:

 

True. The driest, most bland edition of all time, 4th, certainly had limited subfactions.

It wasn't just 4th that has had limited subfaction support for non-marines.

Edited April 5, 2023 by DesuVult

[Scribe]

4 minutes ago, DesuVult said:

It wasn't just 4th that has had limited subfaction support for non-marines.

 

No, but it was one of them, and was the worst for it.

[Arikel]

On 4/5/2023 at 5:54 PM, DesuVult said:

It wasn't just 4th that has had limited subfaction support.

For most editions, it has only been DA, BA, BT, and SW that get support. The basic Space marine codex covered everything else, through an Ultramarines lens. Even the other first foundings got little besides the odd named character. 
 

To expand on some thoughts I had in the datasheet topic, what we could see on the sheet is that their is a faction rule, and a faction keyword, in the terminators case this is Oaths of Moment, and Adeptus Astartes.
 

If they are going to support the more popular subfactions as they have in the past, we could see the faction keyword change to something like blood angels or Sanguine Astartes, for example, and the faction rule could change to reflect that as well, something like Black Rage or Red Thirst.

 

Using the one in, one out philosophy, the faction keyword could unlock unique enhancements that replace the relics, warlord traits, and perhaps even stratagems available to the Adeptus Astartes faction, but otherwise the chapters would use the same detachments as  all other loyalist Astartes.

 

Following this line of thinking, the faction keyword would also unlock the unique heroes  and units of that faction as well, so to use crusader squads and the Emperor’s Champion you would need the Black Templar faction keyword, while the space wolves keyword would unlock runepriests, the various pack types and such. Again they would still choose a standard astartes detachment type to field these unique units in.

Done right, I think this could provide enough flavour, while not including overwhelming amounts of subfaction rules, that could likely fit in one single space marine codex, even if they  supported all 9 first foundings and the BT’s.

[jaxom]

I don't think GW would spin subfactions off into new factions because it seems they liked being able to adjust common units in one core 'dex. , but @Arikel's comment got me thinking about the Terminator data slate. It doesn't have <Chapter> like we're used to seeing. Yet I would assume that somehow subfaction would come up along the lines of "no mixing-and-matching units with different subfaction keywords," if only to prevent special character crossover. So there's probably going to be something for dealing with subfactions that doesn't have to do with what we've seen.

[ThePenitentOne]

On 4/4/2023 at 2:54 PM, Arkangilos said:

 

 

BA don’t have more assault squads than the UM. They have the exact same company structure. They use the exact same Demi-company detachments.

 

UUUHHMM, what?

 

UM have:

 

Assault squad, max 10 (x6)

Vanguard Vets, max 10 (x3)

 

Nine possible units of 90 jump troops. That's it.

 

BA have:

 

Dante (x1)

Lemartes (x1)

Astorath (x1)

Jump Chaplain (x3)

 

Sanguinary Guard max 5 (x3)

Assault squad  max 10 (x6)

Death Company max 10 (x3)

Vanguard Vets max 10 (x3)

 

That's 21 units of 141 jump troops. Tell me again with a straight face that our organization is the same. And if you manage to get through that then just remember... EVERY. SINGLE. BA. is a ticking time bomb who will eventually become a ravenous, psychotic killer so bent on tearing their enemies to pieces that they lose the ability to maintain formation when combat opportunities present themselves.

 

Whereas Ultramarines are really good at coordinated battle strategies, leadership and organization.

 

NOTE: I am not enough of a marine player to be 100% certain of the max troop sizes and battlefield roles of all of these units- I just took my best guess.

 

Linking rules to detachment type instead of sub-faction cuts so much flavour out of the game that I really struggle to understand how anyone can support it. Over at Dakka there's a thread right now about 40k jokes, so I wrote one:

 

 

An army of Whitescar Bikers and an army of Ravenwing Bikers are chasing down a notorious Kult of Speed, hoping to cut them off before they can get to a lightly defended Imperial city. They're confident they can get into position before the Orks, but they want to be sure they'll have a big enough force to win the battle so they call for back-up.

Just before they arrive in position, an army of Bikers from the Mudskippers chapter emerges from cover and struggles to catch up. One of the Scars and one of the Ravenwing drops back to parlay with their reinforcements.

"I am Kotaro Khan, and I was born to the saddle, " says the Scar.

"I am Brother Arathiel, and my performance on a bike saw me hand-picked by Sammael himself to join the Ravenwing," says the DA.

"We don't recognize your colours and we're concerned about your ability to keep pace with us as we head off the Greentide."

"I am Chad of the Mudskippers Chapter; our homeworld is swamp that is unsuitable to wheeled vehicles, but don't worry: I'm part of an Outriders detachment too."

[Cactus]

I think some people are assuming that detachments are something like the force org chart and basing their conclusions on that. Is it possible that detachments are more like the current sub-faction rules? So a Blood Angels detachment, for example, doesn't necessarily mean 'moah jump tr00pz' and could include rules representing the Red Thirst that are applicable to all units.

[WrathOfTheLion]

I think you missed the point? He mentioned Assault Squads in the company structure of the chapter itself, not the number of jump troops you can conceivably field on the tabletop.

 

Since the Company structure of the Blood Angels is the same, they'd have 2 per battle company, which are the 2nd through 5th companies, then 10 in the 8th reserve company. Assuming the more classic squad formations pre-Primaris for simplicity. This would mean there are up to 18 assault squads in the Blood Angels Chapter, as well as up to 18 assault squads in the Ultramarines Chapter.

Edited April 6, 2023 by WrathOfTheLion

[Arkangilos]

1 hour ago, ThePenitentOne said:

 

UUUHHMM, what?

 

UM have:

 

Assault squad, max 10 (x6)

Vanguard Vets, max 10 (x3)

 

Nine possible units of 90 jump troops. That's it.

 

BA have:

 

Dante (x1)

Lemartes (x1)

Astorath (x1)

Jump Chaplain (x3)

 

Sanguinary Guard max 5 (x3)

Assault squad  max 10 (x6)

Death Company max 10 (x3)

Vanguard Vets max 10 (x3)

 

That's 21 units of 141 jump troops. Tell me again with a straight face that our organization is the same. And if you manage to get through that then just remember... EVERY. SINGLE. BA. is a ticking time bomb who will eventually become a ravenous, psychotic killer so bent on tearing their enemies to pieces that they lose the ability to maintain formation when combat opportunities present themselves.

 

Whereas Ultramarines are really good at coordinated battle strategies, leadership and organization.

 

NOTE: I am not enough of a marine player to be 100% certain of the max troop sizes and battlefield roles of all of these units- I just took my best guess.

 

Linking rules to detachment type instead of sub-faction cuts so much flavour out of the game that I really struggle to understand how anyone can support it. Over at Dakka there's a thread right now about 40k jokes, so I wrote one:

 

 

 

I am talking about in the lore. In the lore, they only have the codex number of assault squads.. It literally says that they don’t have more assault squads than any other codex compliant chapter. 

Edited April 6, 2023 by Arkangilos

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

43 minutes ago, WrathOfTheLion said:

I think you missed the point? He mentioned Assault Squads in the company structure of the chapter itself, not the number of jump troops you can conceivably field on the tabletop.

 

Since the Company structure of the Blood Angels is the same, they'd have 2 per battle company, which are the 2nd through 5th companies, then 10 in the 8th reserve company. Assuming the more classic squad formations pre-Primaris for simplicity. This would mean there are up to 18 assault squads in the Blood Angels Chapter, as well as up to 18 assault squads in the Ultramarines Chapter.

And then there’s 25 sanguinary guard.