Wh40k 10th Edition Faction Rules

[Cryptshadow]

17 hours ago, Marshal Valkenhayn said:

I'm

 

Also, though I don't want to put words in OK's mouth, using 'Color' as tongue and cheek for faction is pretty normal. We call Ultra Marines Smurfs for a reason. They are the blue boys. Trying to argue that anyone can be blue is the worst kind of pedantic yammering. 

First of all smurfs and ultramarines arent even the same color, apace wolves are smurfed colored, i think these old guys who called them smurfs had really bad eye sight ;p. 

Also lots of blue chapters, crimson fists, emeperors spears etc. It will be interesting to see how they handle that or if everyone is getting some universal stuff across the faction. 

[ThePenitentOne]

1 hour ago, Karhedron said:

 

This bit to me implies that Oath of Moment is not all that Marines will get. In fact we know that Doctrines still exist in some fashion. So it is possible that we get Marine Faction rules (e.g. Doctrines) and still get Chapter Subfaction rules (e.g. Red Thirst, Vows etc). That means even if you play a Gladius Strike Force, it will play differently between Chapters.

 

 

Marines DO get more than Oath of Moment: they also get a trait that comes from the detachment. GW has been very explicit about this. They have also been very explicit that we DON'T get traits based on subfaction.

 

Space Marines and CSM stand alone, in that they have a history of SOME of their subfactions getting either their own dexes or supplements. IF GW repeats this idea in 10th, I suspect that those subfactions will have a different set of army rules than the parent faction, and hence swap the Blood Agel rule in for Oath of Moment, and still pick up a detachment trait. 

 

For all other factions though, there's little to no chance that they get a subfaction book that allows them to swap out their army's special rule for the subfaction special rule. We'll get one special rule for our army, that we keep regarless which subfaction we play, and we get another based on detachment- just like any Marines or CSM who don't get their own dex/ supplement.

 

 

[ThoricTheMad]

14 minutes ago, ThePenitentOne said:

Marines DO get more than Oath of Moment: they also get a trait that comes from the detachment. GW has been very explicit about this. They have also been very explicit that we DON'T get traits based on subfaction.

 

Space Marines and CSM stand alone, in that they have a history of SOME of their subfactions getting either their own dexes or supplements. IF GW repeats this idea in 10th, I suspect that those subfactions will have a different set of army rules than the parent faction, and hence swap the Blood Agel rule in for Oath of Moment, and still pick up a detachment trait. 

 

For all other factions though, there's little to no chance that they get a subfaction book that allows them to swap out their army's special rule for the subfaction special rule. We'll get one special rule for our army, that we keep regarless which subfaction we play, and we get another based on detachment- just like any Marines or CSM who don't get their own dex/ supplement.

 

 

I would go so far to guess that oaths of moment will NOT be changed out for any SM army. I would guess there will be additional detachments that have a special rule that only applies if a particular keyword subfaction plays them. Other sub factions can use them but may not get full benefit. Crusader detachments, blood angel flying circuses, whatever. 

[Iron Father Ferrum]

That's what I've been saying from the first.  Without specific sub-faction bonuses -- something they've already stated isn't happening -- you need to impart bonuses to reflect different Chapters' ways of war using the different detachments which they have already stated each comes with a different bonus.

 

So, all Marines get Oath of Moment.  Period.

Gladius Strike Force Marines get Combat Dotrines.

There could be an Outrider Detachment that powers up bike squads, a March of the Ancients Detachment that powers up Dreadnoughts, an Armored Fist Detachment that powers up tanks, a 1st Company Detachment that powers up Terminators, etc etc.  This fits the stated intention that subfactions are gone and Marines are Marines regardless of paint scheme while still providing bonuses to specific archetypal army builds that are traditional to specific subfactions.  Ultramarines players can run an Outrider Detachment, sure.  But White Scars players will want to run an Outrider Detachment.

 

Do I think it's a better system than currently with subfactions?  No.  I played Iron Hands in 5th Edition when we didn't have any specific subfaction rules or characters, so I either "counts-as"-d another Chapter's character (usually Lysander) or I played black-painted Ultramarines.  I'd have slapped Matt Ward for that if given the opportunity, but while this presumed method of specializing given above isn't as pleasing as assigned subfactions it at least works within what we've been told is the framework moving forward.

 

And speaking of 5th Edition, the method of "take Character X and get your chapter rules". . . please no.  That was so constraining to army builds that it hurt my soul.

 

Oh, and someone also said that only Marines and CSM had rules-differentiated subfactions in prior editions?  False.  Craftworld Eldar had them as far back as 3rd Edition.

[Orange Knight]

If every subfaction received the same levels of support and had rules that were equally good then I would certainly be making a case for them to keep the distinctions, but as such an outcome will not occur I am in favour of detachments that aren't locked to colour choices, but can still be used to portray an army in a lore accurate way.

 

40k will probably never stray away from the D6. There isn't enough granularity to balance even a marginal boost of a stat that impacts an entire range of models, but only applies to one chapter.

 

Here is a hot take:

 

The D6 is the only dice that is actually fun to roll and play with.

GW should not embrace any other dice in main 40k

[Scribe]

37 minutes ago, Orange Knight said:

40k will probably never stray away from the D6. There isn't enough granularity to balance even a marginal boost of a stat that impacts an entire range of models, but only applies to one chapter.

 

This is why 'balance' is absolutely not going to happen if there is any kind of diversity between factions. A d6 just isnt going to cut it.

 

Which is fine, I dont need 40K to be hardcore balanced, but people need to understand that.

[Blindhamster]

As a d&d (and other rpg) player, I resent that

[Orange Knight]

I think you could probably achieve a decent level of balance between the 20 or so main factions.

 

But when each of those 20 factions splits into 10 individual subfaction that have various bonuses, that become far more difficult. 

 

And this doesn't even cover the internal balance within a singular codex. Imperial Fists have a win rate of 29% whilst Dark Angels have a win rate above 55%. I have been punished for my chapter choice for years, limited in what rules I can use or apply, and it simply isn't fair to me, or to any player looking for a fair experience. 

 

Our reactions to what GW are doing vary based on our personal experiences and desires. I am simply aware that narrative and balanced are often opposing forces that are hard get right, and that 40k as a game is simply far too colossal for such a thing to happen in any realistic way.

 

The game is more than a vehicle for the narrative. It is a social experience that can bring people together in both a casual setting and a competitive tournament, but in both cases it's safe to say that the hobbyists want a fair experience. 

[Iron Father Ferrum]

3 minutes ago, Blindhamster said:

As a d&d (and other rpg) player, I resent that

 

As a Shadowrun player, I often roll more dice at a time than I do during 40K.

 

Do I think 40K could benefit moving to a d8 or d10 system?  Sure.  But I don't think it will and that's a topic for a different thread in any case.

 

[Blindhamster]

I think it actually does have some baring on the topic of factions actually, because it’s true that you can’t balance 20 factions, let all be 100-200 subfactions with the lack of granularity that a d6 provides.

 

@Orange Knight has a very valid point that how each (sub)faction feels will no doubt have had a strong impact on the reactions people have had to the previewed rules so far. 
 

as is obviously clear, I’m a blood angel player, and I’ve had a strong (sub)faction in 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 8th and portions of 9th. They weren’t great in 6th or 7th and they were alright in 4th (mostly just marred by a joke of a white dwarf codex). Personally, I’m more invested in having a way to portray my favourite chapter as accurately as possible and yeah I’m absolutely concerned that that looks like it may go or get shoehorned potentially into dumb things like “take loads of assault marines”, but I can absolutely also see why for an imperial fist player the idea of levelling the playing field for the chapters would be very appealing!

 

Tying subfaction abilities to characters will be bad, but there’s no indication that is happening.

 

they outright state “instead of subfaction” select a detachment, so it’s pretty clear cut that if you had flavourful rules for your subfaction, they’ve likely been gutted until a codex appears and till then, if you’re space marines, you have Gladius and you have oath of moment, so everyone is an ultramarine for the time being.*

 

Will be interesting to see how they handle unique units though, kind of feel like if they’re going to say no unique subfactions, we will either see a return to the 4th-8th approach of “the big 4” divergent chapters going back to having their own books (which allows GW to handle the unique units without tying them to colour schemes**) or maybe they’ll just say all those units are free for all and paint them however you like.***

 

I swear I saw something about subfactions still being a thing at one point, but I went through all the articles again and couldn’t see it now so must have been imagining it.

 

ultimately, the game is getting a shakeup, they seem insistent on clinging to certain things (space marine baseline attribute; use of d6) but are shaking up other things that will clearly (as seen in this thread alone) have mixed reception. Reminds me of a certain thing that happened with 8th edition all over again lol. Time will tell how good or bad it will all end up being, personally I’m somewhat divided in my opinions of the things I’ve seen, but then again, I didn’t much like 9th either (I was excited for the overall change in direction of 8th)

 

* ultramarines with non ultramarines units and characters presumably!

** but would reintroduce the inconsistencies where a storm shield for dark angels ends up being worse than space marines for more than an entire edition. Or a more recent example where some chapters intercessors were devoid of weapon options.
 

** I don’t really see this happening, but more to highlight that with unique units, things are still tied to chapters and as such colour schemes to a varied extent.

 

p.s. 40K has never been and never will be balanced, I fall into the crowd that had more fun when it was more narrative focused and less competitive focused, when it was more about having fun and telling fun stories with the armies being used it was better than the focus on winning or losing it tends to have now.

Edited April 8, 2023 by Blindhamster

[jaxom]

I think it will be along the lines of subfaction unique units not being in core faction ‘dexs. Then a simple rule would be players can take units from the core codex and only one other source (be it a codex supplement or WD or whatever).

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

53 minutes ago, Orange Knight said:

I think you could probably achieve a decent level of balance between the 20 or so main factions.

 

But when each of those 20 factions splits into 10 individual subfaction that have various bonuses, that become far more difficult. 

 

And this doesn't even cover the internal balance within a singular codex. Imperial Fists have a win rate of 29% whilst Dark Angels have a win rate above 55%. I have been punished for my chapter choice for years, limited in what rules I can use or apply, and it simply isn't fair to me, or to any player looking for a fair experience. 

 

Our reactions to what GW are doing vary based on our personal experiences and desires. I am simply aware that narrative and balanced are often opposing forces that are hard get right, and that 40k as a game is simply far too colossal for such a thing to happen in any realistic way.

 

The game is more than a vehicle for the narrative. It is a social experience that can bring people together in both a casual setting and a competitive tournament, but in both cases it's safe to say that the hobbyists want a fair experience. 

Is it safe to say that hobbyists want a fair experience?

if that were true to you, why would you continue to play IF rules instead of playing DA rules? Paint color is irrelevant.

 

if that were true then why do so many people choose to play units just for the cool factor regardless of how underpowered they are?

 

fair and balanced would be nice, but it seems outside of the tournament scene most people just enjoy playing with the models they think are cool, and the (sun)factions that speak to them from a lore perspective.

[Nephaston]

Just because Balance is difficult to achieve and GW, as we know, struggles with it doesn't mean they shouldn't try.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

1 minute ago, Nephaston said:

Just because Balance is difficult to achieve and GW, as we know, struggles with it doesn't mean they shouldn't try.

No one says they shouldn’t try, but they shouldn’t gut the heart and soul of the game in order to achieve it.

 

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again.

 

people who want extreme balance in a war game came to the wrong game when they chose 40k.

it has never once been balanced, and as long as GW puts any serious priority on (sub)faction flavor it never will be(particularly on a D6 system.)

[Lemondish]

9 hours ago, OttoVonAwesome said:

I think the problem is the drip feed. It drives everyone to madness. The soulless beancounters at GW think it's good marketing building hype and all that but we all know that's not really the case.

I'm so glad you're so well informed and can speak for all of us

7 hours ago, Lord_Ikka said:

Containing all the rules for codex-complaint chapters, with a couple of specific detachments to theme your forces around. No longer sub-factions for Ultra/IF/CF/RG/IH/Sallies...

 

7 hours ago, Lord_Ikka said:

DA/BA/BT/SW codices...

Hey! You forgot about the Deathwatch! Rude!

 

4 hours ago, Karhedron said:

Of course I could be wrong but it seems to me that Marines will be getting more than just Oath of Moment.

Undoubtedly. The issue at hand, it seems, is which Marines will be getting attention, and what does that attention look like.

 

I personally suspect the faction choices from the index are going to be essentially those listed in GW's metawatch articles. I am thinking we'll see another article on Thursday with World Eaters added to the win rate table. However, with this concept in mind, if you refer to the last article in March you'd see that this table seems to indicate that most Space Marines subfactions will fall under the Adeptus Astartes header while the Dark Angels, Blood Angels, Space Wolves, and Deathwatch remain separate factions.

 

But even then, where do the Black Templars fall?

 

I think that is the source of all this concern. Nobody knows if their preferred faction will be getting the attention they currently enjoy. You may not agree with conclusions being derived from this concern, but at the very least one can say they understand it.

[Lemondish]

2 hours ago, Iron Father Ferrum said:

Ultramarines players can run an Outrider Detachment, sure.  But White Scars players will want to run an Outrider Detachment.

And even more than that, if you consider that a Dark Angels player could run that same Outrider Detachment and make it Ravenwing by virtue of the special units available to him, then you don't even need a subfaction only detachment.

[jaxom]

58 minutes ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

if that were true to you, why would you continue to play IF rules instead of playing DA rules? Paint color is irrelevant.

 

Six pages of discussion on the matter for anyone curious about how this played out previously at the B&C

 

 

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

42 minutes ago, jaxom said:

Six pages of discussion on the matter for anyone curious about how this played out previously at the B&C

 

 

Paint is 100% irrelevant, especially when you consider how many people put unpainted minis on the table.

 

as long as you declare what rules you’re using beforehand, it does not matter one bit.

 

i can paint my minis ultramarine blue and say they’re blood angels, use BA rules, and use BA named characters. Nothing in the rules stops me from doing that.

 

likewise I can paint my minis black and play with WS rules.

 

hell, the minis don’t even matter. I can generally pull out my guard and say “these are proxying as X chapter of marines.” And then I can use those rules.

Edited April 8, 2023 by Inquisitor_Lensoven

[ZeroWolf]

I generally think the paint thing in the GW article was more aimed at tournament players as tournaments are a lot more heavy handed about that thing it seems. Casual was always more easy going (heck I've played lots of games where neither army had a colour )

[spessmarine]

It also merits discussion, just what exactly is defined as a faction from the perspective of GW? Seems obvious but, if you were to visit the most important Warhammer site, the store, it sure looks like there are quite a few space marine factions to pick from. Space Marines, Salamanders, Grey Knights all look like a faction from this view.
This is something to consider from the perspective of a newbie picking a place to start, it sure looks like there are thirteen Space Marine factions.

 

[Interrogator Stobz]

There is a big chance those 13 SM Factions won't go away, and if they do we can choose a Subfaction ruleset by choosing a detachment.

Sounds great.

[Emperor Ming]

Allowing special characters to mix as well would be weird and potentially create balance issues that weren't around previously

 

Hey I'm Shrike of the raven guard  space marine detachment strike force something something

 

Calgar: wt.....fudge are you doing here?

 

Were just adeptus astartes characters these days old bean

Edited April 8, 2023 by Emperor Ming

[Nephaston]

Technically this also seems like a "go for it" for having different paintjobs in one army like Valraks last wall project.

Which does seem very fluffy for a good chunk of battles.

[OttoVonAwesome]

The big question being wich chapters count as factions in thier own right. Is it only Vanilla with oath of moment cuase it really should be they are the codex compliant chapters. I can't imagine World Eaters and Deathguard will all share a faction trait with the Black Legion and the rest and would love some clarity as do all of us it seems.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

4 hours ago, Nephaston said:

Technically this also seems like a "go for it" for having different paintjobs in one army like Valraks last wall project.

Which does seem very fluffy for a good chunk of battles.

Does it though? How many battles are multiple chapters of space marines actually fighting together?

 

from a lore perspective it’s extremely rare to see two marines from different chapters on the same planet let alone the same battlefield (unless we’re talking death watch of course.)

I agree these battleforged army rules seemed kinda silly and frivolous to me.