The importance of subfaction variation

[Scribe]

12 minutes ago, ThePenitentOne said:

Again: GW has explicitly stated that subfaction identity no longer grants special rules.

 

Sorry but can you link/screenshot that or was it in the video portion?

[Arkangilos]

8 hours ago, Orange Knight said:

, is that painting choice will no longer tie players to a particular playing style.

For the one hundredth time, painting choice never determined the rules. 
 

Declared army and key words determined the rules.

Edited April 8, 2023 by Arkangilos

[Orange Knight]

5 minutes ago, Arkangilos said:

For the one hundredth time, painting choice never determined the rules. 
 

Declared army and key words determined the rules.

 

What's the difference between a Blood Angel and an Imperial Fist Intercessor?

 

Different paint and transfers

[Arkangilos]

6 minutes ago, Orange Knight said:

 

What's the difference between a Blood Angel and an Imperial Fist Intercessor?

Chosen key words and faction rule.

 

And the BA has the red thirst (as do any successor chapters that have the flaw).

Edited April 8, 2023 by Arkangilos

[Scribe]

6 minutes ago, Orange Knight said:

 

What's the difference between a Blood Angel and an Imperial Fist Intercessor?

 

Different paint and transfers

 

Special rules based on the lore. lol

[Orange Knight]

Obviously there is lore associated with those paint jobs, and to clarify I am aware of the different factions.

 

But I'm also aware that because I painted my army as Imperial Fists, I have endurer 3 years of misery on the tabletop with unfairly weak rules.

 

Can anyone here guarantee that everyone can have a fair game regardless of chapter choice? Or anything close to one?

[Arkangilos]

4 minutes ago, Orange Knight said:

Obviously there is lore associated with those paint jobs, and to clarify I am aware of the different factions.

And so you are also aware that if you wanted to use BA rules you could say they were a BA successor chapter, the Fists of Sanguinius, and take the BA keyword and that would allow you to use the BA rules?

 

6 minutes ago, Orange Knight said:

But I'm also aware that because I painted my army as Imperial Fists, I have endurer 3 years of misery on the tabletop with unfairly weak rules.

We have all been there. BA had its moments. 
 

In fact, +1 S on charge hasn’t been that much of a game changer.

 

7 minutes ago, Orange Knight said:

 

Can anyone here guarantee that everyone can have a fair game regardless of chapter choice? Or anything close to one?

No one in life can guarantee fairness. In fact, by trying to force fairness you end up becoming unfair by nature.

 

”My toys and chosen rules are weak, so I’m going to delight in the taking away of the special rules that makes them unique” is also unfair to the person who has invested in his army for the lore and it’s representation. 

[Orange Knight]

Lol I should add (and this is kind of funny) that my playing experience with my Imperial Fists in 9th was so miserable that I ended up splurging on a 4 thousand point Ultramarine army for the Horus Heresy.

 

And then it transpired that Imperial Fists are the strongest Legion in the HH game lol.

[Orange Knight]

@Arkangilos

 

OK, but you are telling me that I shouldn't complain about having a sub-faction that is ignored by GW and that you should keep all your bells and whistles to the detriment of others?

 

I understand why people are against it, I really do. Narrative rules and balanced rules can be opposing forces, especially when they are as expansive as they are in 40k.

 

[Arkangilos]

Just now, Orange Knight said:

OK, but you are telling me that I shouldn't complain about having a sub-faction that is ignored by GW and that you should keep all your bells and whistles to the detriment of others?

The exact opposite of what I’ve been saying. I think if that is what you think I’ve said, then I understand why you would disagree with me.

 

But what I did say was:

1) Factions should be better represented and supported. An example I used earlier: The sons of Dorn should have a rule that boosts them in what they are known for (stubbornness, enduring pain, etc.)

2) One of my favorite SM chapter rule sets was 4th edition where you could pick traits and drawbacks.

 

3) The BA trait should also have a drawback.

 

4) The solution is not to abandon chapter distinctions because it is poorly implemented, but to fix it for the ones that are weak.

[Orange Knight]

Except that if you want distinction to even be a fair concept in the game, then we need to have over 150(is it more) seperate sub factions.

 

Each one with distinctive rules, each one equally supported and balanced against the next.

 

Will you champion 10 different Eldar supplements? I don't think anyone would. Marines are a special case due to their popularity, and that popularity can't be an excuse to make the game unfair.

[Blindhamster]

I think it’s more that the vibe is happiness at others losing what made their armies feel accurate to their lore, just makes it feel kinda… mean?

 

who knows though, maybe it’ll all work out!

 

honestly, if blood angels got to keep current red thirst but didn’t get new oath of moment, the blood angels would be weaker for it, but I’d still be more happy with that outcome lol.

[Arkangilos]

4 minutes ago, Orange Knight said:

Will you champion 10 different Eldar supplements?

I am all in favor. But it doesn’t even have to be supplements, just have the fourth edition space marine Perk and Drawback selection for the Eldar.

 

And oh man, the IG rules, too. In the past they would get Regimental Doctrines they could choose from.

 

Edit to add:

If I make an argument in favor of army distinctions, don’t think I am limiting it to the army currently being argued.

 

I am a principalist. If I lay out the principle for this over here, and the same principle can be applied to that over there, my stance will be the same.

Edited April 8, 2023 by Arkangilos

[Blindhamster]

1 minute ago, Orange Knight said:

Except that if you want distinction to even be a fair concept in the game, then we need to have over 150(is it more) seperate sub factions.

 

Each one with distinctive rules, each one equally supported and balanced against the next.

 

Will you champion 10 different Eldar supplements? I don't think anyone would. Marines are a special case due to their popularity, and that popularity can't be an excuse to make the game unfair.

But… the chapters with unique units and characters will almost certainly get distinct subfaction books in some form, so it’s not going to be any different? Unless you’re also advocating axing most of the unique units and characters too?

 

like it or not, a lot of the games rules are based on legacy at this point, any game designer knows it’s significantly harder to take things away than it is to add them if you want to keep your fans happy. It’s why AoS was a disaster for years and why primaris were seen as such a problem for many, it’s why GW actively avoided “squatting” old marine units for so long. There are many players so invested in the hobby that you end up turning them away if you mess things up too far. Of course, there are plenty others that stick around regardless (I myself will continue to play blood angels even if they end up gutted of tabletop identity), but it’s a gamble for GW to do it.

[Blindhamster]

Tbh, they probably should have just a generic list of bonus and negative pairs that you pick one for your army, regardless of faction… the majority of 40K subfactions tend to fall into one or:

- really shooty

- really choppy 

- really fast

- really tough

- adaptable

- really psychic

and they could have “legendary” subfactions have a proscribed one from the same list (blood angels choppy, Siam hann fast etc)

Edited April 8, 2023 by Blindhamster

[Arkangilos]

1 minute ago, Blindhamster said:

Tbh, they probably should have just a generic list of bonus and negative pairs that you pick one for your army, regardless of faction… the majority of 40K subfactions tend to fall into one or:

I can see the argument for that. 

What I liked so much about the 4th edition one, though, was it was back when there was a little more freedom. 
 

There was a perk you could take (iirc) for your chapter that made it where you could take apothecaries as your squad leaders. But you also had negative rules you were forced to take as well. 
I wish I had the codex on hand with me. 

[Blindhamster]

2 minutes ago, Arkangilos said:

I can see the argument for that. 

What I liked so much about the 4th edition one, though, was it was back when there was a little more freedom. 
 

There was a perk you could take (iirc) for your chapter that made it where you could take apothecaries as your squad leaders. But you also had negative rules you were forced to take as well. 
I wish I had the codex on hand with me. 

I remember it well, the red scorpions at the time had that very rule, think they had the negative of “pride in colours”.

 

you could still do something similar now though, have every army have the same 10 positives and negatives, say if you take a positive, you have to take a negative. So long as the negatives generally slightly outweigh the positives (in the same way most trpgs tend to handle such systems) it would work fine.

Edited April 8, 2023 by Blindhamster

[Scribe]

49 minutes ago, Orange Knight said:

But I'm also aware that because I painted my army as Imperial Fists, I have endurer 3 years of misery on the tabletop with unfairly weak rules.

 

Counts as.

[Evil Eye]

51 minutes ago, Orange Knight said:

But I'm also aware that because I painted my army as Imperial Fists, I have endurer 3 years of misery on the tabletop with unfairly weak rules.

Shouldn't you be wishing for the subfaction rules to be better written rather than non-existent then?

[Scribe]

3 minutes ago, Evil Eye said:

Shouldn't you be wishing for the subfaction rules to be better written rather than non-existent then?

 

Its not even an issue regardless. Simply run as counts as. I ran Night Lords as Blood Angels in 5th.

[Arkangilos]

@Orange KnightI think one of the problems is you haven’t played with people like @Scribe or myself :p

 

Let’s say we were playing, and you just hated your rule set because it was weak. All you would have to do is ask if you could use faction x’s rules. 
 

I would say yes in a heart beat. I would also ask for the lore behind them (after I already said yes), to see if we could come up with some cool reason they had the rules you chose. 
 

So let’s say you wanted to try out the BA rules but still wanted to say they were actual IF (as opposed to the Fists of Sanguinius). If you didn’t have an idea as to why you used BA rules, I would suggest something like this:

”Strike Force Algeron (or whatever force you had), was fighting against a WE demon prince in their last campaign. It was bloody, hard fought, and took it’s toll. Unknown to them, the demon has used warp tomfoolery to influence them towards the path of Khorne. Over the coming campaign, they found themselves struggling to stop from rushing out of their fortified positions. (Red Thirst universal rule). Some of them even began mumbling as madmen and could only be restrained by a chaplain (count as Death Company). 
The Chapter Honor Guard that was present decided dawn jump packs to give them a “better vantage point” for “strategy”. (Count as Sanguinary Guard).”

 

ETA: we could even build a whole campaign together for them searching for a way to cure this madness before they returned home and got exterminated for warp taint. 

Edited April 8, 2023 by Arkangilos

[Crimson Longinus]

2 hours ago, ThePenitentOne said:

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.

 

GW's faction preview was unfortunately sparse so we have to keep guessing, but I won't believe this is the case. I don't believe detachments are FOCs, and you can mostly put whatever units you want in them. So you can put your BA tanks in "Sanguine Attack Wing" detachment and have your (useless) assault buffs etc. 

 

 

18 minutes ago, Arkangilos said:

@Orange KnightI think one of the problems is you haven’t played with people like @Scribe or myself :p

 

Let’s say we were playing, and you just hated your rule set because it was weak. All you would have to do is ask if you could use faction x’s rules. 
 

I would say yes in a heart beat. I would also ask for the lore behind them (after I already said yes), to see if we could come up with some cool reason they had the rules you chose. 
 

So let’s say you wanted to try out the BA rules but still wanted to say they were actual IF (as opposed to the Fists of Sanguinius). If you didn’t have an idea as to why you used BA rules, I would suggest something like this:

”Strike Force Algeron (or whatever force you had), was fighting against a WE demon prince in their last campaign. It was bloody, hard fought, and took it’s toll. Unknown to them, the demon has used warp tomfoolery to influence them towards the path of Khorne. Over the coming campaign, they found themselves struggling to stop from rushing out of their fortified positions. (Red Thirst universal rule). Some of them even began mumbling as madmen and could only be restrained by a chaplain (count as Death Company). 
The Chapter Honor Guard that was present decided dawn jump packs to give them a “better vantage point” for “strategy”. (Count as Sanguinary Guard).”

 

ETA: we could even build a whole campaign together for them searching for a way to cure this madness before they returned home and got exterminated for warp taint. 

 

And similarly you now can weave narrative for various chapter/detachment combos. I really don't see what's the issue is. 

 

 

Edited April 8, 2023 by Crimson Longinus

[Arkangilos]

22 minutes ago, Crimson Longinus said:

GW's faction preview was unfortunately sparse so we have to keep guessing, but I won't believe this is the case. I don't believe detachments are FOCs, and you can mostly put whatever units you want in them. So you can put your BA tanks in "Sanguine Attack Wing" detachment and have your (useless) assault buffs etc. 

From Warhammer Community:

”

Select Detachment Rules

Here’s where the differences begin to show themselves. Instead of choosing a subfaction or constructing your own, you now choose a single set of Detachment rules for your whole army. These include special abilities, Enhancements, Stratagems, and unit restrictions. 

22 minutes ago, Crimson Longinus said:

And similarly you now can weave narrative for various chapter/detachment combos. I really don't see what's the issue is. 

Because you will be locked into unit restrictions.

 

Also, if you go back and reread the article, you’ll see it doesn’t say you can pick any unit. 
 

It says you can pick up to 3 of any of the same data sheet, but you can include 6 of the same data sheet if it says it is battleline or dedicated transport.

 

Essentially it says this:

”If you take terminators, you can only have three squads of the same terminator data sheet max.” 
“But, you can take up to six of the same battleline designated squad.”

 

Mix that with what I quoted above, a jump pack detachment would be, “You can take up to three of the same vanguard veteran data sheets, and up to six assault squads.”

Edited April 8, 2023 by Arkangilos

[jaxom]

Well, that seems to a suck, but I’ll reserve judgement until there’s more of a picture of 1) what different detachments can do (including limitations) and 2) if the game alone is fun to play without every army being a special snowflake.

[Arkangilos]

Just now, jaxom said:

Well, that seems to a suck, but I’ll reserve judgement until there’s more of a picture of 1) what different detachments can do (including limitations) and 2) if the game alone is fun to play without every army being a special snowflake.

Yeah, I want to be clear I’m not raging against the new system as a whole, or at all.

 

I am merely disagreeing with the current interpretations and the reasons those interpretations are given. 
 

As a whole, I think this is a good direction (detachments and such). What I don’t think is a good direction is if they are going to lock BA, SW, etc. special rules to a detachment. But we don’t know if that is the case yet. The BA, SW, etc. might just get their own faction with their own detachments.