Wh40k 10th Edition Faction Focus: Space Marines

[Captain Idaho]

2 hours ago, Doctor Perils said:

I can't even understand how you could come up with an example that supports my point more than yours - Night Lords flavour is already currently summed up by "use raptors" in current editions, without even having named characters or jump pack characters - let's not kid ourselves, the leadership rules don't really impact anything. Detachment rules would provide more choices on _how_ to run those raptors, and also give you a more focused flavour for the rest of your army.

 

Plus, you can choose to run a Night Lords army that doesn't fit with the stereotype, like having an armoured company, which fits the lore, makes for more interesting narrative options, and wouldn't be entirely pigeonholed.

 

 

I think you're misunderstanding the point I'm been making. If there aren't any rules to represent the difference between Night Lords and Iron Warriors, then an Iron Warriors army with Raptors is a Night Lords army.

 

It's cool if that's what you want, but I don't think everyone agrees.

 

So I take it you're in favour of Black Templars, Blood Angels, Space Wolves and Dark Angels also being rolled into Codex Space Marines? ;)

 

2 hours ago, Doctor Perils said:

More importantly, it means players have a choice on _how_ they run their faction and units, without bogging down the rules with added layer upon added layer like previous versions would have had. I personally find the new version liberating, and I hope you'll come to see it that way too

 

I'm very much happy with being able to run my army as flexibly as I can. That I agree with you whole heartedly with. But an Ultramarines Terminator army won't be the same as a Raven Guard Terminator army.

 

I just had the thought about where they could introduce faction rules without overloading us with more special rules - since GW said they want to be able to pop rules in and out so as not to overwhelm us, perhaps the factions can have an alternative faction rule to plug in that replaces the Detachment rules? Or adjust the existing rules.

Edited May 3, 2023 by Captain Idaho
Autocorrect check

[DemonGSides]

3 minutes ago, Captain Idaho said:

 

I think you're misunderstanding the point I'm been making. If there aren't any rules to represent the difference between Night Lords and Iron Warriors, then an Iron Warriors army with Raptors is a Night Lords army.

 

There's literally no reason to think this is true beyond wild speculation.  Index Warhammer was light on fluffiness last time, will be light on fluffiness this time, and will get fleshed out with full codex releases.

[Captain Idaho]

@KrakenBorn oh yeah I totally feel the same. I'm a Dread-nut and fill up on Terminators and Dreads like some sort of Iron Hands fan, but I'm an Ultramarines player.

 

I just don't see why we can't have both a fluffy faction flavour (say that quickly three times!) and still take an army theme or composition that tickles our fancy. I don't think they're mutually exclusive.

 

The best example of this is Blood Angels, Dark Angels, Space Wolves and most prominently, Black Templars. Players of those armies mostly don't want to lose their flavour and be rolled into Codex Space Marines, which I get. So the same principle applies to White Scars, Ultramarines, Imperial Fists etc.

 

 

[Arbedark]

41 minutes ago, Captain Idaho said:

But an Ultramarines Terminator army won't be the same as a Raven Guard Terminator army.

 

I think this is where the two 'camps' with regards to Space Marine faction variety often clash.

 

In my view, an UM 1st Company Terminator army and a RG 1st Company Terminator army shouldn't play any differently on the tabletop - they are both marines, and yes, one chapter has a penchant for being sneaky, whilst the other favours tactical flexibility, which I think can be adequately conveyed through the flexibility to pick different detachments, but in terms of actual in-game mechanics I don't think they warranty completely different rules for what is functionally the same detachment.

 

I would even go so far as to say that the only areas where RG and UM 1st Company Terminator armies should differ with regards to a Deathwing army are in terms of unit selection / availability, not actual faction rules.

[sandrorect]

56 minutes ago, Captain Idaho said:

 

 

I'm very much happy with being able to run my army as flexibly as I can. That I agree with you whole heartedly with. But an Ultramarines Terminator army won't be the same as a Raven Guard Terminator army.

 

I just had the thought about where they could introduce faction rules without overloading us with more special rules - since GW said they want to be able to poet rules in and out so as not to overwhelm us, perhaps the factions can have an alternative faction rule to plug in that replaces the Detachment rules? Or adjust the existing rules.

 

Well maybe GW launch a 1st Raven Guard company with rules diferent of the generic 1st space marine company. No in the codex but maybe later. This is one of de advantage of the detachments: there are like indapendant armys itselfs so GW can make a lot of without the bloat of rules of 9th editions because every detachment is independet of others.

[Doctor Perils]

24 minutes ago, Captain Idaho said:

I think you're misunderstanding the point I'm been making. If there aren't any rules to represent the difference between Night Lords and Iron Warriors, then an Iron Warriors army with Raptors is a Night Lords army.

 

It's cool if that's what you want, but I don't think everyone agrees.

 

Well, either I'm misunderstanding your point because you weren't being clear or you're moving the goalposts - but I'll use Hanlon's razor and assume it's the former :) in either case, you're wrong, because an Iron Warriors army with Raptors can be themed around assaulting battlements by using a potential siege Detachment, whereas a Night Lords army may use a potential Raptor Cult Detachment using many Raptors and Warp Talons, or use psychological warfare with its own detachment without a single Raptor. But since we don't actually know what detachments will be available to either, you are fear-mongering irrationally; I am simply keeping an open mind until the day the codex is released, and I reserve the right to moan and groan at that time if it is warranted. Your relentless pessimism only serves to steer topics off track (as the current example shows)

 

24 minutes ago, Captain Idaho said:

So I take it you're in favour of Black Templars, Blood Angels, Space Wolves and Dark Angels also being rolled into Codex Space Marines? ;)

 

This is a non-sequituur, it bears no relationship to what either of us were saying and is putting words in my mouth. This is very passive-aggressive, as you are evidently attempting to poison the communities opinion of me, while attempting to maintain a facade of civility. It is also off-topic, as the discussion it starts does not pertain to the 10th edition faction focus for Space Marines - we already know those sub-factions are split off from their Codex, so the question is moot.

 

For the record, yes, I would be in favour of them being within the Space Marine Codex, as I believe there is no reason an Ultramarines army should be disallowed the Storm Raven while the Blood Angels are disallowed the Centurions, as was the case in 5th edition because of the schedule of their respective Codex and model releases. This is all on favour of maintaining freedom, whether in modelling or in playing - certain specific units should remain sub-faction specific (named characters, elite units like the Sanguinary Guard), but most should be opened up to their Codex counterparts (why should the Stormwolf be dedicated to the Space Wolves and not be available to the likes of the Black Templars for example).

Similarly, I would be in favour of the Chaos Cult Legions being joined back into the main Traitoris Astartes Codex - I find it ridiculous the Death Guard have more artillery choices than the Iron Warriors and I find it ridiculous the World Eaters can't access Terminator Lords - in contrast, cultists should be split off into a separate Lost and Damned Codex, because they have little tactical overlap with the traitor legions; and grey Knights and Deathwatch should remain separate entities from the main Space Marines Codex, as they fight completely differently from their standard chapter counterparts - they could join a greater inquisition or Imperial Agents Codex for example.

 

24 minutes ago, Captain Idaho said:

I'm very much happy with being able to run my army as flexibly as I can. That I agree with you whole heartedly with. But an Ultramarines Terminator army won't be the same as a Raven Guard Terminator army.

 

Again, we don't know what Detachment options there will be (let alone unit options). I agree that model wise, lore wise and gameplay wise an Ultramarines Terminator army and a Raven Guard Terminator army needn't be that similar. But they also needn't all work in the same way between missions - one mission the Raven Guard Terminators might be called down planet side next to a scout's teleport homer, the other they may be arming themselves with heavy flamers to cleanse a space Hulk accompanied by Centurions and Aggressors. These options become available to players with this Detachment system and the rule of 3, whereas they wouldn't be available under any previous sub-faction system

 

But don't let that stop you from crying about the sky falling ;)

 

24 minutes ago, Captain Idaho said:

I just had the thought about where they could introduce faction rules without overloading us with more special rules - since GW said they want to be able to poet rules in and out so as not to overwhelm us, perhaps the factions can have an alternative faction rule to plug in that replaces the Detachment rules? Or adjust the existing rules.

 

Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean about GW "poeting rules".

However, as what you just described is the exact system you are arguing so vehemently against, I shouldn't be surprised your spellchecker has no better idea of what you are saying.

[Captain Idaho]

@Arbedark yeah that probably is the sticky wicket that isn't so easy to reconcile between opposing views eh.

 

I agree they probably shouldn't have their own rules for (your example of 1st Company's of various Chapters) in the name of balance and stream lining, but then we point to Dark Angels or Black Templars and are left wondering why they deserve it.

 

30K Heresy also blurs the line somewhat, as there's plenty of Detachments variables for all Legions but each has their own rules too. So we see it working there.

[bigtrouble]

I’m pleased with all the rules reveals so far. I especially like the doctrines being single use and movement focused. Really looking forward to more faction focus articles so we can see if this edition will have variety and unique rules. 

[sandrorect]

1 hour ago, Captain Idaho said:

@Arbedark yeah that probably is the sticky wicket that isn't so easy to reconcile between opposing views eh.

 

I agree they probably shouldn't have their own rules for (your example of 1st Company's of various Chapters) in the name of balance and stream lining, but then we point to Dark Angels or Black Templars and are left wondering why they deserve it.

 

30K Heresy also blurs the line somewhat, as there's plenty of Detachments variables for all Legions but each has their own rules too. So we see it working there.

 

Because Blood Angels or Black Templars have more diferents units and rules and a history of indepent codex than Iron Hands or Raven Guard. GW try to change that in 9th edition, but maybe they don´t know how to do the same with the 10th army contruction rules and they decide make these chapters indepent again.

[BluejayJunior]

2 hours ago, Captain Idaho said:

The best example of this is Blood Angels, Dark Angels, Space Wolves and most prominently, Black Templars. Players of those armies mostly don't want to lose their flavour and be rolled into Codex Space Marines, which I get. So the same principle applies to White Scars, Ultramarines, Imperial Fists etc.

 

 

Don't speak for all of us.

I'd have no problem with Blood Angels getting rolled into Codex Space Marines as long as we keep our unique units. That's enough flavor for me (although not for everyone). It doesn't change the lore of the Blood Angels, which is what drew me to them in the first place. And I'd like to be able to take vehicles and shooting units without feeling like I'm handicapping myself by giving up a huge part of my Chapter Tactic. Blood Angels aren't just stabby-stabby all the time. They are still Space Marines that fight mostly like other chapters. Just with the occasional blood fueled charge into enemy lines. 

[Khornestar]

7 minutes ago, BluejayJunior said:

Don't speak for all of us.

I'd have no problem with Blood Angels getting rolled into Codex Space Marines as long as we keep our unique units. That's enough flavor for me (although not for everyone). It doesn't change the lore of the Blood Angels, which is what drew me to them in the first place. And I'd like to be able to take vehicles and shooting units without feeling like I'm handicapping myself by giving up a huge part of my Chapter Tactic. Blood Angels aren't just stabby-stabby all the time. They are still Space Marines that fight mostly like other chapters. Just with the occasional blood fueled charge into enemy lines. 

I feel similarly about my Black Templars. I sometimes see statements like, “it’s not fluffy for them to have shooting.” I tend to think The emperor’s angels of death are going to utilize every tool at their disposal to wage war against the foes of the imperium. I really like this new situation coming in 10th. No matter what the BT rules are, being able to use the gladius seems like a great starting point.

Edited May 3, 2023 by Khornestar

[Doobles57]

2 hours ago, Captain Idaho said:

The best example of this is Blood Angels, Dark Angels, Space Wolves and most prominently, Black Templars. Players of those armies mostly don't want to lose their flavour and be rolled into Codex Space Marines, which I get. So the same principle applies to White Scars, Ultramarines, Imperial Fists etc.

 

 

I get this to an extent, however the difference between a lot of those is unique units. Blood Angels, Dark Angels, Space Wolves, Black Templars all have a good number of unique units that also reinforce their divergence from the codex. I'd argue the additional units give enough content to warrant their own codexes/supplements in some fashion, though I'm not totally opposed to rolling them in.

 

Ultramarines are THE codex chapter and while they have a bunch of unique characters etc I've always felt they should be the baseline of what a Codex Space Marine chapter is. Imperial fists, Raven Guard, White Scars, Iron Hands have, what, 1 or 2 special characters? With strats being scaled back and layers of army rules being reduced, what is there left to warrant a standalone book for them that can't be covered in a good range of detachments? The fast bike heavy detachment? The dread focussed detachment? The phobos/sneaky detachment? 10th's system seems to allow for it (obviously not at Index stage though). 

[sitnam]

14 minutes ago, Khornestar said:

I feel similarly about my Black Templars. I sometimes see statements like, “it’s not fluffy for them to have shooting.” I tend to think The emperor’s angels of death are going to utilize every tool at their disposal to wage war against the foes of the imperium.

That’s just a issue with subfactions in several factions. The defining unit or tactic  of a sub faction isn’t the only unit or tactic they use. Blood Axe Lootas and Deathskullz Kommandos both exist. Iron Hands Phobos and Raven Guard Dreads both exist. 

[apologist]

Recasting the various Chapters as 'Space Marines first, Chapter second' is something that I think is a positive – both for the faction as a whole, and the broader game.

 

It certainly fits the streamlining design philosophy (something I'm generally a fan of), and will be easier for non-Marine players to keep in their heads.

 

Further, this approach facilitates future-proofing.

[Doctor Perils]

1 hour ago, KrakenBorn said:

 

You're coming off a little bit rude here my guy I think theres a bit of a misunderstanding going on here.

From previous discussions with him, I know @Captain Idaho appreciates a robust exchange of opinions as opposed to passive aggressive reactions :)

[CL_Mission]

2 hours ago, BluejayJunior said:

Don't speak for all of us.

I'd have no problem with Blood Angels getting rolled into Codex Space Marines as long as we keep our unique units. That's enough flavor for me (although not for everyone). It doesn't change the lore of the Blood Angels, which is what drew me to them in the first place. And I'd like to be able to take vehicles and shooting units without feeling like I'm handicapping myself by giving up a huge part of my Chapter Tactic. Blood Angels aren't just stabby-stabby all the time. They are still Space Marines that fight mostly like other chapters. Just with the occasional blood fueled charge into enemy lines. 

Similar feelings for Dark Angels. I appreciate having a separate codex for the extra art and lore and so on but on the rules side of things I'm not so fussed. It's nice having our own bells and whistles but for me what really makes the army stand out is the unique units; Deathwing Knights, Ravenwing Black Knight, etc. A White Scars army and a Revenwing army could both use the same Gotta-Go-Fast Detachement but look very different on account of the Ravenwing's unique bikes/speeders/flyers.

I'm particularly fond of the Deathwing and I'd like to see a detachment that allows me to create a fluffy Terminator heavy list but I don't mind sharing that detachement with Ultramarines or Salamanders or whoever, if they want to bring a whole heap of Termies to the table more power to them.

 

That being said I can see the advantage of having separate codexes for DA/BA/BT/SW just so you can separate out all the extra datasheets and the space marine codex doesn't become super chonky. With individual cards it's not such an issue since you can leave the ones you don't need at home but since GW are still probably going to print a book with the datasheets in including all the them from these chapters and the generic units would make it massive. (plus the lovely art and lore you can give each chapter, but I'd buy that book even if it had no rules in)

 

I'm not against chapters having their own special rules at all but I'm personally not worried about losing them for my dudes so much.

Edited May 3, 2023 by CL_Mission

[dickyelsdon]

What 10th needs to allow is any space marine player to be able to run a generic marine army and still be effective. Too much in the last few editions Chapter special rules meant basic units were worthless vs following a set path. Too many Chapters were stuck only taking their gimmick.

 

For sure there needs to be rules to show specialism of each chapter, but those should be tied into an appropriate negative to balance the options, in the past only bonus rules were given. Hopefully the new format will manage this by restricting specialist lists somehow, while less effective basic armies will have more flexibility in their choices.

[spessmarine]

10 minutes ago, dickyelsdon said:

What 10th needs to allow is any space marine player to be able to run a generic marine army and still be effective. Too much in the last few editions Chapter special rules meant basic units were worthless vs following a set path. Too many Chapters were stuck only taking their gimmick.

 

For sure there needs to be rules to show specialism of each chapter, but those should be tied into an appropriate negative to balance the options, in the past only bonus rules were given. Hopefully the new format will manage this by restricting specialist lists somehow, while less effective basic armies will have more flexibility in their choices.

I feel the benefits should be a bit more open-ended to avoid forcing people to certain units. Like the HH rules for WS improves mobility a bit to represent them being speedy rather than force biker spam. 

[AceofCase]

The way I see with the various chapters is this:

 

If the difference from the "baseline" chapter is tactical, it can be represented by a detachment. If the difference is organizational, then it can be represented by being a separate faction. 

 

For example, the Raven Guard are a regular codex compliant chapter that favors it's own sneaky tactics. This can easily be represented by running a complimentary detachment. You don't need 6 relics, 6 warlord traits, and a whole host of stratagems to represent that army. 

 

The Blood Angels however have their glaring genetic flaw, as well as unique organizations of Death Company and Sanguinary Guard. Same goes for the unique structures of the Dark Angels, Space Wolves, and Black Templars. Thus it's better represented by an actual faction change instead of just one detachment. 

 

Subfaction rules leaving the game is probably one of the best possible changes for the entire line of armies. We no longer have to deal with the outright embarrassing rules forced upon various armies and have way more free reign about how we play, while still being able to represent our favorite subfactions with how we build our lists, play the actual game, and how we paint our models. 

Edited May 3, 2023 by AceofCase

[jaxom]

3 hours ago, Doobles88 said:

Ultramarines are THE codex chapter and while they have a bunch of unique characters etc I've always felt they should be the baseline of what a Codex Space Marine chapter is. Imperial fists, Raven Guard, White Scars, Iron Hands have, what, 1 or 2 special characters? With strats being scaled back and layers of army rules being reduced, what is there left to warrant a standalone book for them that can't be covered in a good range of detachments? The fast bike heavy detachment? The dread focussed detachment? The phobos/sneaky detachment? 10th's system seems to allow for it (obviously not at Index stage though). 

1 hour ago, dickyelsdon said:

What 10th needs to allow is any space marine player to be able to run a generic marine army and still be effective. Too much in the last few editions Chapter special rules meant basic units were worthless vs following a set path. Too many Chapters were stuck only taking their gimmick.

 

For sure there needs to be rules to show specialism of each chapter, but those should be tied into an appropriate negative to balance the options, in the past only bonus rules were given. Hopefully the new format will manage this by restricting specialist lists somehow, while less effective basic armies will have more flexibility in their choices.

 

And it's entirely possible that we'll eventually see Chapter specific Detachments in future White Dwarf articles, or as part of a narrative campaign book release.

 

Also, I forget where I saw it, but someone (at the time Detachments were announced) wondered if the Chapter box sets were indicators of such"favored" detachments:

• Bastion Strike Force - favors Gravis units
• March of Iron(i.e. March of the Ancients) Strike Force - favors Dreadnoughts
• Ravenstrike Battle Force (i.e. Vanguard Strike Force) - favors Phobos units
• Scions of Macragge (i.e. Gladius Task Force) - favors a balanced approach
• Storm of Chogoris (i.e. Outrider Strike Force) - favors bikes and fast moving units
• Warforged Strike Force - favors close range engagement

 

1 hour ago, AceofCase said:

The way I see with the various chapters is this:

 

If the difference from the "baseline" chapter is tactical, it can be represented by a detachment. If the difference is organizational, then it can be represented by being a separate faction. 

 

For example, the Raven Guard are a regular codex compliant chapter that favors it's own sneaky tactics. This can easily be represented by running a complimentary detachment. You don't need 6 relics, 6 warlord traits, and a whole host of stratagems to represent that army. 

 

The Blood Angels however have their glaring genetic flaw, as well as unique organizations of Death Company and Sanguinary Guard. Same goes for the unique structures of the Dark Angels, Space Wolves, and Black Templars. Thus it's better represented by an actual faction change instead of just one detachment. 

 

Subfaction rules leaving the game is probably one of the best possible changes for the entire line of armies. We no longer have to deal with the outright embarrassing rules forced upon various armies and have way more free reign about how we play, while still being able to represent our favorite subfactions with how we build our lists, play the actual game, and how we paint our models. 

 

The organizational structure is easily reflected by unique units. The big thing, in my opinion, is how different average approach to combat would be. I think we need to wait until tomorrow for the Chaos Marine preview to get a better idea of what a different Astartes Faction rule would look like.

[Scribe]

17 minutes ago, jaxom said:

I think we need to wait until tomorrow for the Chaos Marine preview to get a better idea of what a different Astartes Faction rule would look like.

 

[Evil Eye]

To be honest, I'm not sure what to think about the "is the game actually being streamlined" argument. Whilst bloat is obviously unwanted, I'd argue that as a wargame (and especially a wargame representing as massive a cross-section of different units and factions as 40K), you're gonna need quite a few special rules to prevent the game feeling overly abstract and bland. There is a middle ground to be had between "bloated mess where every game takes a full day from cross-book referencing of obscure rules alone" and "overly-simplistic snoozefest designed around/by someone with the attention span of a fly on bath salts".

 

Now personally I would prefer a full return to the 3E-4E style of design, with a core set of USRs that the majority of units make use of, with actual special rules being slightly rarer, as this allows for a good layer of depth/simulation without needing too much book-keeping... though I also would prefer a return to vehicle armour rules, templates and so forth.

[Doobles57]

1 hour ago, jaxom said:

 

And it's entirely possible that we'll eventually see Chapter specific Detachments in future White Dwarf articles, or as part of a narrative campaign book release.

 

Exactly this. Seems the obvious way to do things like armies of renown in 10th. 

Edited May 3, 2023 by Doobles88

[spessmarine]

Sort of gives me the Rites of War vibe now that I think about it. Hopefully they'll implement them with some thought instead of how you see elsewhere like AoS subfactions where a subfaction may just be themed as "spams X unit" guys.

[Rhavien]

9 hours ago, jaxom said:

I think we need to wait until tomorrow for the Chaos Marine preview to get a better idea of what a different Astartes Faction rule would look like.

*insert generic DA joke here*

 

I agree. It will be very interesting to see what the traitors will get in direct comparison to loyalists.