The importance of subfaction variation

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

2 hours ago, Scribe said:

 

Completely misses the point that there is a fundamental difference between a Blood Angel, and an Iron Hand.

i agree but i think the point a lot of people are trying to make is "whats the difference?" because if a marine army is unpainted, a player can bounce from chapter rules to chapter rules all they want, and no one would question their chapter of choice, particularly if they never played against them, and in general this method would be no different.

[Scribe]

7 minutes ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

i agree but i think the point a lot of people are trying to make is "whats the difference?" because if a marine army is unpainted, a player can bounce from chapter rules to chapter rules all they want, and no one would question their chapter of choice, particularly if they never played against them, and in general this method would be no different.

 

The difference is, the game is at its best when the models, rules, and lore all come together. Having a real difference between Blood Angels and Iron Hands (and not the retconned Iron Hands who have 'feelings' either) is part of that.

 

If GW fails at one of those things, it detracts from the whole.

[Arkangilos]

58 minutes ago, Evil Eye said:

personally quite liked the 4th edition Space Marine book's approach to subfactions where Codex-compliant Chapters could be represented using the custom Chapter rules

Yes. Definitely this. 

Edited April 7, 2023 by Arkangilos

[jaxom]

1 hour ago, Evil Eye said:

I personally quite liked the 4th edition Space Marine book's approach to subfactions where Codex-compliant Chapters could be represented using the custom Chapter rules (with examples given for which bonuses/drawbacks best suited each one)

Definitely fits the one-in-one-out philosophy. 

 

Based on what we've seen so far, I have low expectations for any sort of subfaction mechanic which is not a Detachment. The World Eaters 'dex was clearly a test bed; Disciples of the Red Angel fits too neatly with the idea of subfaction as Detachment/List Composition rather than static bonuses for OG World Eaters and DotRA.

[Scribe]

2 minutes ago, jaxom said:

Based on what we've seen so far, I have low expectations for any sort of subfaction mechanic which is not a Detachment. The World Eaters 'dex was clearly a test bed; Disciples of the Red Angel fits too neatly with the idea of subfaction as Detachment/List Composition rather than static bonuses for OG World Eaters and DotRA.

 

Ugh, back to characters building your army?

[jaxom]

8 minutes ago, Scribe said:

 

Ugh, back to characters building your army?

Perhaps. I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s also unit special rules. Spitballing, I’d assume Death Company get Forlorn Fury built in, and M7 S5 standard to replace the loss of Red Thirst.

 

I could also see a special rule for Space Marines where you voluntarily swap out a Detachment bonus for a Chapter bonus. *Shrug* hopefully the next WarCom article will shed light.

[Special Officer Doofy]

I would imagine there is still some form of sub faction rules because of named characters. Can't have Calgar and Shrike in the same Detatchment type thing. And GW does love their characters, they are the most $$ for the least plastic and shelf space.

[WrathOfTheLion]

41 minutes ago, jaxom said:

Perhaps. I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s also unit special rules. Spitballing, I’d assume Death Company get Forlorn Fury built in, and M7 S5 standard to replace the loss of Red Thirst.

 

I could also see a special rule for Space Marines where you voluntarily swap out a Detachment bonus for a Chapter bonus. *Shrug* hopefully the next WarCom article will shed light.

I suspect you'll have to trade out your SM rules for some DA/BA/SW rules, and doing so will give you access to the units.

However, GW will tell us in time what their rules team has decided to do. They've already decided what they're going to do, it's already been done and we're yet to just have it revealed.

[Nephaston]

Yeah, the Faction Rules article should hit today.

Personally I'm betting that the deluxe chapters will absolutely be differentiated, especially once we consider that the Oath of Moment ability is not written out on the datasheet, so it could be as simple as "To represent the Sons of Sanguinus swap every instance of Oath of Moment with Red Thirst".

And yes I know that the Detachments are the ones meant to be swapped, but we're talking about marines, so special treatment comes default. Lmao.

[spessmarine]

1 hour ago, Nephaston said:

Yeah, the Faction Rules article should hit today.

 

the clock on that article keeps getting reset for some peculiar reason, really makes you think :thinking:

[ThePenitentOne]

@chapter master 454

 

I was going to quote, so that I could respond to specific bits, but I figured I'd just ramble instead. For the record , I'm on team subfaction identity, and I think rules based on detachment is not a good idea; there are better and worse ways to achieve it, but even at its best I like it less than what we have now- though I do agree with your point that we should wait to see before getting too emotionally invested.

 

But I really liked that your argument brought other factions into the discussion, and I think that's where I want to bend the discussion. I believe that subfaction identity is even more important for non-Marines, precisely because we don't have the unique models that some Marine subfactions have. I fight hard for subfaction distinctions because I CAN'T put my bespoke Sacred Rose unit on the table with three or four bespoke Sacred Rose characters... So a subfaction rule or two, a single bespoke WL Trait, a single bespoke Relic and a single bespoke Strat REALLY meant a lot to me. It helped to create and define the character of the Order in ways no BL book or flavour text could. And it gave me solid anchor points for additional headcannon. Because of those rules, I knew what my special characters would look like if I chose to make them- a BR Cannoness who was closer in style and function to a Zephyrim or Repentia Superior, or a Sacred Rose Dogmata, or an Agent Shroud Cannoness who was similar to a tank commander for the Immolator that she shares with her bespoke MSU Dominion Handmaidens. All of these conversion ideas suggest themselves BECAUSE of those bespoke Order rules, WL Traits, Relics and Strats, and if I build those units, the rules allow me to play them as they should be played.

 

And what's better is that because of Crusade, I actually have a ton of content that I can legally add to those units to make them play even MORE like they should. And by playing them in a Crusade, I'm writing their backstory. With Crusade, I began to see that a Named Character is just a base unit plus a given number of Battle Honours... So my lovingly converted SR Dogmata, who is using her Order's WL Trait (which becomes permanent in Crusade) picks up an extra Prayer as a Requisition, and maybe a Faith Based battle honour and voila: now the Sacred Rose has a named Dogmata.

 

Yes Virginia, there is a Santa Claus and any subfaction CAN have a Dante, or a Sammael.

 

Now you can argue that the Crusade rules alone allow me to do this, and there's a certain ammount of truth to that... But for me, the subfaction specific rules, WL Traits Relics and Strats are the anchors that you connect the battle honours to; they are the guiding exemplars upon which we build our flourishes.

 

To suggest using a datachment based set of traits and rules as the Anchors for developing the leadership of a subfaction... It just doesn't work, because as soon as the faction sends a different composition of units into battle, the identity you've built everything upon completely changes, and the character's rules are no longer internally consistent- the Battle Honours no longer share a theme with the detachment traits.

 

Hitting non-Marine subfactions in the flavour department by replacing subfaction rules with detachment based rules wouldn't be as anxiety inducing for me as it is except that I expect that whatever passes for Crusade in 10th will be similarly streamlined, effectively a double whammy against my ability to create bespoke subfaction units that are as well developed as the Named Marines and bespoke Marine units that only Space marine subfactions seem to get.

 

Like I said, ultimately I agree with your advice to wait and see, but in terms of just having a calm, emotionally detached hypothetical conversation, I don't have a lot of evidence to support the idea that I will have as many tools to make the subfactions of non-Marines shine as brightly as they did in 9th, and I'd say there's an already substantial body of evidence to believe that I won't. 

[Arikel]

7 minutes ago, spessmarine said:

the clock on that article keeps getting reset for some peculiar reason, really makes you think :thinking:

They lurk in the ether, laughing as we drift into madness and internecine fighting over our toy soldiers.

 

I still find myself laserfocused on the faction ability, and the faction keyword in particular.  I think here is where we will see a specific ability for the 5 major space marine brands (UM, DA, BA, BT, SW). If they are feeling generous perhaps the lesser 5 first foundings will get something as well, it looks like they have been getting more attention as of late.

 

The faction keyword will unlock the unique units (mostly characters) that each brand has, adding them to the generic SM army list as possible choices. It may also remove or replace certain units with chapter specific variants(BT’s and their hatred of books and their caretakers, as an example) It would also unlock the faction enhancements and perhaps a stratagem or two that represents the chapter’s preferred fighting methods. 
 

What I am very confident of is that there will be no custom chapter options, based on what we have seen in the latest chaos dexes basically being a choose the legion that best represents your custom warband. Easier to manage a small set of fixed rules rather than a mass of choose 2 and try not to accidentally gimp yourself or whoops we didn’t realize those 2 together are way overpowered.

 

The second thing , which I am guardedly certain of, is that all loyalist sm will use the same detachments. There will be no bespoke detachments for different chapters, your flavour comes from the faction keyword that unlocks your unique units, enhancements, and singular faction rule.

However, I do believe that sm will eventually have multiple detachments to choose from, representing Battle Companies, Assault Companies, Bikers, Vanguard/Scout companies, A devastator/heavy support company possibly, and of course a Veteran Company. There may be additional ones added, but I believe that they will have something  like these 6 for us to work with.

 

This would allow a UM 1rst company force composed entirely of terminators using the veteran detachment. A DA deathwing force would use the same detachment, and would have a different faction ability and some unique DA units to choose from. They would both be essentially similar armies,(oops, all terminators!) but I think the possibility is there to give enough flavour to make the armies feel different enough that they aren’t “sucking the flavour right out of the lion’s poor helpless children”, while still providing the UM player the chance to field an all terminator army for once in their life without having to “counts as” Dark Angels.

 

As with the rest of you, this is sheer idle speculation on my part, based on what we have heard about army creation, the one in, one out philosophy, how the unit data sheets we have seen so far are set up, and on G-Dub’s stated intention of simplified, but not simple. 
 

Notice: the above text has some poor attempts at sarcasm and humour, but is meant to be gentle jesting at worst. I can edit that out if anyone takes serious offence, but the general ideas should be sound.

[Antarius]

The older I get and, I guess, the more I think about the subject, the more I think broadly worded but flavourful rules that can be applied to an army to give the impression of a subfaction, whether we’re talking i.e. Blood Angels, a homebrew chapter or just a particularly assaulty army of Ultramarines are the way to go. Even if for no other reason than it being easier to balance and wrap ones head around, when considering 20 or more factions.

 

I love “create your own chapter traits” systems as an idea, but in practice I think it, historically speaking, doesn’t work all that well.

 

I also love the idea that i.e. Blood Angels are more assaulty than generic marines, but otoh, I don’t see why this can’t be represented in a more general way that other assaulty marine armies could also benefit from. Having played since 2nd edition, marine subfactions have always faced the issue of essentially being either “marines +1“ or “marines -1” and honestly, both options are equally bad for the game.

 

I don’t like the 5th ed. solution of special characters unlocking chapter traits either, but I think I would be happy with the option to have generic “special” characters that could be taken with certain types of armies (i.e. “super tanky 1st company captain” that could be Lysander, but could also be a Dark Angels guy and so on). The key here would be that you could take characters that went hard in one direction at the expense of something else, but that we don’t really need the granularity of Dante having one more in whatever characteristic than some other, equally assaulty jump pack chapter master. Historically, I don’t think either designers or players have managed this added granularity very well.

 

At this point, I’d be quite happy with a system that provided all armies of a faction with the option to be i.e. more assaulty at the cost of something else and having the flavour come from the models and the fluff and my own hobby work and storytelling.

[Arikel]

22 minutes ago, ThePenitentOne said:

Worried about non SM armies, cool stuff about crusade

 

I have been focusing on marines, as have most others here, but the same ideas I used above could apply to any faction. 
 

Choose your army, choose a faction within it (in sisters i think there are 4?). The faction chosen unlocks the faction ability and the keyword. The keyword unlocks units and enhancements unique to the faction, and perhaps locks certain unit types off the army list in special cases. You would then choose your detachment to complete your initial army building and  then start choosing your units.

 

This is my optimistic vision for factions and army building, which I am looking forward to seeing. We will see if GW disappoints or lives up to the hype.

 

[Halandaar]

If the new detachment system offers a way to field a Jump-Pack heavy army with bonuses to charges and playing aggressively, is that not a de facto Blood Angels detachment? Why can't you represent your subfaction in a lore-friendly way using that?

 

Same goes for White Scars and a detachment that gives you bonuses for running a lot of bikes and units in transports; you get the rules to play your chapter in a fittingly thematic way, but those rules don't preclude somebody from using them to represent an Ultramarines rapid response force specifically assembled for one mission. As long as there is a detachment that broadly represents the way each subfaction works in 9th then I see it as a win overall.

 

It also means you have the flexibility to run your chapter (let's go with Blood Angels again) in a non-assaulty way and not be stuck with special rules that don't benefit the units you want to take. A lot of the subfaction rules, while thematic, effectively punished you if you didn't want to play in the specific way GW envisioned them. Now if somebody who has played Space Wolves for 30 years fancies running a Long Fangs-focused force for a change, they can do that and not be at a disadvantage for doing so.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Orange Knight]

1 minute ago, Halandaar said:

If the new detachment system offers a way to field a Jump-Pack heavy army with bonuses to charges and playing aggressively, is that not a de facto Blood Angels detachment? Why can't you represent your subfaction in a lore-friendly way using that?

 

I completely agree. It's important that a hobbyist can run an army in a way that reflects the lore of their chosen faction.

 

This should not come ahead of, and to the exclusion of, the game balance and freedom of player expression on the tabletop.

 

This kind of system would liberate players who want to pursue different things from the game, and keep anyone who wants to reflect the lore empowered to do so. Maybe one day I want to make the most thematic army for a game at a friend's house, and on another day I want a list to work in a particular meta. 

[Arkangilos]

1 hour ago, Halandaar said:

If the new detachment system offers a way to field a Jump-Pack heavy army with bonuses to charges and playing aggressively, is that not a de facto Blood Angels detachment?

No, because BA are more than Jump Packs. They have the same number of devastators as every other codex chapter. They have the same number of tactical squads as every other codex. They deploy in codex formations. They deploy in company and Demi-Company formations. 

1 hour ago, Halandaar said:

you get the rules to play your chapter in a fittingly thematic way

With your system, I could only play BA when I take a very specific army that is jump pack heavy. What if I want to play the Angel’s Blade campaign (story wise)? Nope, can’t do it because in Angel’s Blade it was a standard battle company that deployed. Two assault squads, four tactical squads, and two devastator squads. But that isn’t jump pack heavy! Guess I can’t play my Blood Angels and have my blood angel rules.

 

1 hour ago, Orange Knight said:

and keep anyone who wants to reflect the lore empowered to do so.

Actually, it forces me to break the lore because I’m stuck into just the meme you wrongly assigned to them.
 

1 hour ago, Halandaar said:

Now if somebody who has played Space Wolves for 30 years fancies running a Long Fangs-focused force for a change, they can do that and not be at a disadvantage for doing so.

Why play space wolves if you don’t want the pro’s and con’s?

 

The BA rule represents a FLAW. The Flaw benefits them in some cases and hinders them in others. Despite this they  maintain a codex army with codex deployments. This FLAW exists in every single detachment they have, whether it is a devastator only detachment, tactical only detachment, etc. The theme of the BA is that the flaw affects EVERY one of them, at ALL times.
 

What you are describing are people who don’t want to play thematic armies, but min/maxers. “I, as a Space Wolf, don’t want the normal space wolf rules because they don’t benefit my long fangs, so I’m going to play using the UltraFist rules because they benefit my chosen army loudout despite the fact that it doesn’t fit.”

 

People who play thematic armies will say, “the theme of my army is a blood thirsty chapter of the sons of Sanguinius. They are great on the charge as a result, but they don’t benefit from it at range, and don’t have special benefits at range. But that is the theme of the army I chose, and I’ll live with those consequences.”

 

You are literally saying there should be no differences between chapters at all, but every chapter that throws the same units together should have the exact same rules regardless of if it fits their fluff

Edited April 7, 2023 by Arkangilos

[Arkangilos]

1 hour ago, Orange Knight said:

 

I completely agree. It's important that a hobbyist can run an army in a way that reflects the lore of their chosen faction.

Which is ironic, because the way you agreed with doesn’t reflect the lore of any army at all.

[Orange Knight]

@Arkangilos

 

What I'm advocating for is the freedom for you to reflect the lore willingly as far as a given ruleset will allow, but also that you aren't as limited by it should you chose not to.

[Lord_Ikka]

 

=][= This thread is now unlocked. Keep it polite and on topic. =][=

 

Edited April 8, 2023 by Lord_Ikka

[Evil Eye]

22 hours ago, Antarius said:

I love “create your own chapter traits” systems as an idea, but in practice I think it, historically speaking, doesn’t work all that well.

Depends how they're implemented; if they're done well I think they add a lot of depth and flavour to the game. There will always be combinations that are used more than others by meta-chasers, yes, but that's a problem that cannot be solved by any rules changes. Optimal builds/strategies will always exist in some form or another, and there will always be people trying to exploit them. In competitive environments, banlists/restrictions are the solution. In ordinary, narrative-focused games where min-maxing is more of a problem, the answer is just to identify obnoxious powergamers and refuse to play against them. If the choice is gatekeeping netlisters/WAAC types from play or removing fun customization features, I'll go with the former every time.

[Orange Knight]

We shouldn't argue over this as vehemently as we have done, because we all value the same things ultimately.

 

The issue here is that the game exists as more than just a vehicle for the narrative, it also exists as a game that benefits players when it puts them on a fair playing field.

Narrative and balanced rules are something that will often clash, and an equilibrium between these two forces will require some compromise. 

 

Looking beyond Astartes, every faction has a collection of sub factions that in all fairness deserve the same attention and rule granularity as the various Marine chapters have received. The game unfortunately becomes unwieldy if you try to balance 100 sub factions across 20+ unique model ranges.

This is a problem of GW's own making, but only indirectly so. The truth here is that there is no other game that has the sheer scale and unit variety than Warhammer 40k offers, and when you consider that even chess - a game with a limited number of playing pieces across two mirrored sides can't achieve perfect balance, it's not realistic to expect GW to somehow create the variety we demand whilst keeping the game fair and rewarding for all involved.

 

What has been suggested, but only vaguely so as we don't yet have the full picture, is that painting choice will no longer tie players to a particular playing style.

We have not been told that we are to be stripped of the ability to create a force that reflects the narrative. More freedom for everyone will create a more fair playing experience, and that is worth the compromise of a perceived ownership over an army play-style.

[Redcomet]

On 4/4/2023 at 4:47 PM, Kastor Krieg said:

Reposting here since the thread I mistakenly posted in got closed right after.

-------

I don't want my Templars to be "better than". We almost never were a top tier faction. We usually were middling within the SM dex along with it.

I want them to remain as unique as they were for the last six editions, ever since this Holy Book emerged.

 

We have history within the on-table game. We were the faction of an edition starter!
We have immense history within the setting as well.

I would be perfectly fine with either being able to "rebuild" Templar flavour via "pick your traits / Detachment" or getting a Templar-specific one-page swap in set of rules.

If this is completely stripped of us though and we're just a "black armoured chapter of whatever flavour of Detachment you picked Marines", then it's a loss for the entirety of the game. You will lose an interesting opponent faction with its very unique set of challenges among Marines.

No reason to expect that you won’t get your own codex again. And be a separate faction along side BA, DA and SW

[Emperor Ming]

1 hour ago, Redcomet said:

No reason to expect that you won’t get your own codex again. And be a separate faction along side BA, DA and SW

Id imagine the usual chapters that get their own codexs will, gw does love money

 

and if there was less codexs, there would be less profit

 

I would think anyone who suggested less profit, gets sentenced to Servitude Imperpituis

[ThePenitentOne]

7 hours ago, Orange Knight said:

We shouldn't argue over this as vehemently as we have done, because we all value the same things ultimately.

 

The issue here is that the game exists as more than just a vehicle for the narrative, it also exists as a game that benefits players when it puts them on a fair playing field.

Narrative and balanced rules are something that will often clash, and an equilibrium between these two forces will require some compromise. 

 

Looking beyond Astartes, every faction has a collection of sub factions that in all fairness deserve the same attention and rule granularity as the various Marine chapters have received. The game unfortunately becomes unwieldy if you try to balance 100 sub factions across 20+ unique model ranges.

This is a problem of GW's own making, but only indirectly so. The truth here is that there is no other game that has the sheer scale and unit variety than Warhammer 40k offers, and when you consider that even chess - a game with a limited number of playing pieces across two mirrored sides can't achieve perfect balance, it's not realistic to expect GW to somehow create the variety we demand whilst keeping the game fair and rewarding for all involved.

 

What has been suggested, but only vaguely so as we don't yet have the full picture, is that painting choice will no longer tie players to a particular playing style.

We have not been told that we are to be stripped of the ability to create a force that reflects the narrative. More freedom for everyone will create a more fair playing experience, and that is worth the compromise of a perceived ownership over an army play-style.

I really like the tone of this post, and I agree that I should avoid getting emotionally invested to the point of argument and irratation. I'm also really happy to see you think that non-marine factions have just as much right to subfaction distinction as Marines, and I do agree that this is the biggest challenge to balance, and that no other system has remotely this level of detail.

 

I think the precedent is there for something that minimizes the conflict between Narrative and Balance- we just keep the three ways to play... And in fact they've already pretty much stated that this is the plan, because they've announced that there will be ways to import existing Crusades, and we now about Combat Patrol. If you want to keep subfaction identity out of tournament/ matched/ balanced play, fine. But leave it alone for Crusaders and campaigners. Simple.

 

Finally, your last paragraph. As many have pointed out, for them, subfactions have never been about paint job. Many of the folks advocating for subfaction rules have said that they don't care whether those subfactions are cannonically painted- what they care about is that the archetypes of the subfactions they love continue to exist, regardless of which combinations of units we send to a given battle. Again: GW has explicitly stated that subfaction identity no longer grants special rules. Yes, you can continue to simulate the effect of subfaction special rules by choosing to use specific detachments... But you shouldn't have to. Blood Angels should still feel like Blood Angels even when they face a battle where it makes more sense to send armour and artillery than assault units- and if special rules are determined by detachment, this won't be the case: when Blood Angels have to send armour and artillery because that's what the battle demands, the rule which was simulating their subfaction identity will change so that they now get the rule that makes them feel like Iron Hands... and it shouldn't. Because a Blood Angel doesn't become an Iron Hand when they take off their jump pack and get into a tank.

 

And again, IF BA get a supplement, or a dex of their own, this will be moot, because they'll swap Red Thirst for Oath of Moment and it will persist regardless of detachment. But that will only happen for some marines and some CSM.

 

Demonstrating subfaction identity based on unit selection or character inclusion is a far more egregious case of Flanderization than assigning an Identity Trait that is persistent regardless of which weapon a model uses, what unit they join or which detachment they accompany to battle, because the model with the trait is free to use any weapon, join any unit or detachment and still be identified as a member of a particular subfaction. Because of their identity trait, they may not be optimized for the weapon they use in a particular battle, or the unit they join, or the detachment they fight with, but that's the way subfaction traits work- sometimes they're in your favour... Like when the Bloody Rose get into melee, and oither times they have no effect, like when the Bloody Rose sister has to stand and shoot because it's what the mission demands.