Losing a sense of 'my guys' within the hobby. Anyone else?

[Timberley]

Hi all,

 

Recently, I got the Solar Auxilia box with the intent of finally creating an Imperial Guard army to complement the others I have (Farsight Enclaves, my custom chapter, a Chaos warband).  It'd be easy enough right?  I'd have the Auxilia as a mechanised regiment (333rd Terrisinan Fusiliers), using Tempestus Scions as their Elite Infantry, with Leman Russes, maybe a Rogal Dorn, and some artillery.  They'd be supported by a light infantry regiment of converted Van Saars (295th Morganthan Rifles) with Sentinel support (converted Arachni-rigs), and some Rough Riders (converted Serberys) which would be their scouts and infiltrators.

 

Then, finally going through the IG Index, I realised that General Purpose Rough Riders, GP Scout-types, and so on don't exist (I should point out that the last time I checked our IG as an army was around 3rd Edition - I have some old OG Stormtroopers amongst my minis).  The Index leans towards you taking units from named Regiments (Cadian, Catachan, etc.), rather than creating a comprehensive force of 'your guys' that fulfil the same requirements.  Is their intention that you build up 'your guys' then use 'counts as' for rules purposes?  If so, why not just have GP units and a 'Named Regiment' keyword that gives you a slightly different rule for taking that Regiment (like a Chaos Mark or similar)?  

 

I watched a couple of videos on tournament lists, and saw that a lot of them include all of the following; Lord Solar, Ursula Creed, Cadian Command Squads, Cadian Shock Troops, Catachan Jungle Fighters, Gaunt's Ghosts, and a Tank Commander in a Demolisher.  Apart from Gaunt being knackered from being in so many places at once, why can't the Cadians have a scout unit that fulfils the same purpose (like the old Cadian Scout-snipers)?  Similarly, why can't the Catachan have a Command Squad that uses their 'Jungle Fighters' rule (the models exist)?

 

When I finalised the Dusk Falcons in 8th, I could pick things from the Raven Guard supplement that made them feel more like a RG successor.  In 10th Edition, the only way to do this is to take the Vanguard Spearhead.  That said, top tier Marine lists were Ultramarines with their characters and an infiltrating block of Aggressors with Calgar, and Ventris deep striking a block of Centurions, using the Vanguard Spearhead (proving that, as always, the Raven Guard way of battle is the superior option)... So, what's the point of taking a Raven Guard successor when the poster boys can do the same thing, but better?  Also, why can't I have a Raven Guard-type enhancement for an officer (Lt/Captain) that allows me the same thing as Ventris' ability?

 

In a similar vein, I'd just started painting up 'The Eight' for my T'au Farsight Enclaves army, and they've just dropped the new Crisis suits updates, which means that two of the loadouts for members of the Eight are now illegal in tournament play. They've also removed the Iridium Suit and the Onager Gauntlet (both of which were in Bravestorm's loadout), which were some quirky wargear that they could use and made them stand out.  I'm quietly surprised they've kept the rule that if you have Farsight you can't have Ethereals, though I'm also surprised that they're allowing Shadowsun to be taken with Farsight.

 

In conclusion, I think we're losing things that make 'your guys' personal, in preference for having everything fit neatly into currently released miniatures and named Detachments that can be easily adjusted (usually with a nerf hammer).  Things like chapter relics, regimental rules, etc. that make things 'fluffier' and allow for some personalisation (and maybe some meta combos), don't feel like they exist any more.

 

Would the panel agree, or is there something I'm missing here?

[Cpt_Reaper]

10th edition is in a weird point of "we'll split the difference" in terms of gameplay representing "our guys". It's kind of like 5th edition where you took a named Character to show you were playing that Sub-faction, but it's more open ended in that Detachments represent a fighting style rather than any one force. The issue lies in armies with codexes versus armies with an index, with the latter only having a single generic detachment.

 

Using your example, a Vanguard Spearhead could represent the Raven Guard's preference for stealth and speed but it could also represent a taskforce of Imperial Fists sent to undermine enemy siege emplacements. In the Guard squads might be named after famous regiments, but they don't have to be that regiment. Ignore the Regiment name and it makes more sense. Shock Troopers are for rapidly taking objectives and moving on, so don't come with heavy weapons, while a Death Korp unit brings 3 special weapons and is designed to hold ground with many defensive abilities. Nothing says you can't have Cadian "Death Korp" or Krieg "Shock Troopers". When the codex comes out with more detachments it'll make more sense.

[Timberley]

I'm with you there, and agree that the Detachments show the facets of the various chapters, and the idea of Krieg 'Shock Troops' or Cadian 'Death Korps' is something I can also see.

 

My point is more that, for example, I can't take a Firestorm Detachment, but have some universal rule for my chapter that allows me to Infiltrate an infantry unit, as they're RG successors.  Similarly, continuing your example, I'd say that the Fists (and their successors) could have a rule similar to the 'Stoic Defender' Enhancement from the Anvil Siege Force, which would be in play even if they were using the Vanguard Spearhead.  It could be one rule or 'choose from a list', to give greater variation (like the old Warlord Traits).

 

To go with the IG from my initial thoughts, if I had a bunch of units tied together to make a regiment (the 295th Rifles), would the units take the individual rules for the units?  So, I'd have a unit of Rifles scouts with the Catachan special rule, my Rifles cavalry with the Attilan rule, and Rifles line infantry with the Cadian rule.  There's no overall "the 295th model themselves on the Cadians/Krieg/Elysians/whatever, so have 'X' rule to show this" that ties them together. 

 

Combine that with the lack of named wargear beyond that carried by named characters, and 'my guys' could be the same as 'your guys' but with a different paintjob.  It takes some of the excitement out of creating 'my guys'.

[utahraptor232]

Guard player here, I agree with everything and yeah it's been rough. The idea of the Lord Solar, the literal top general of the guard, only a few below Guilliman in the army command structure if I remember correctly, being auto-include in everything above a 1.5k point game with not much more than 60 models is ridiculous. Logically there's no reason he should be there. I think it's happening more and more with 10th being very competitive-oriented, I've honestly started to consider trying out the older editions. I feel like GW has gone the route of "You don't want named characters? Or these regiments? Just do some kitbashing and get over it." Of course, stuff like generic leaders exist in other factions like the Chaos lords or Marine Captains and whatnot, but Guard doesn't get off well in that regard either.
I'd be playing only Heresy at this point if it had proper Xenos and the like, it's where you get the real bulk of customizability and narrative play. Everything is generic and great most of the time. 60% of the time it works 100% of the time.


 

[ThaneOfTas]

I totally get where you're coming from. Arguably I don't have it quite as bad in some respects, mainly playing marines, but it is very much starting to feel more like playing a deck building card game, rather than Warhammer.

 

Like that isn't the 2nd Squad of the 2nd Company, lead by Sergeant Leon Dominiel, who like to advance rapidly up the field and are more than willing to get stuck into melee if required, no now it's just another intercessor squad, exactly the same of the other one that I'm fielding, and the same as the one across the table.

 

Its not Squad Ventarus, the 5th Squad of the 1st Company who specialise in taking down enemy tanks and monsters and have the combi melta loadout to prove it, no it's just a Sternguard Vet with weird looking bolters because I'm leaving points on the table if I take combi weapons. Then combined with all of the old models I'm proxi-ing these days, and it just feels like such a massive disconnect between the models on the table and the units in the game. And frankly it was more the models that I got into Warhammer for.

[Noserenda]

If ive learned anything over the years is thats rules are the absolute worst thing to hang your forces identity off of, especially these days when they are outright transient :D You never know if the next guard codex will abandon regimental traits, roll the infantry squads into one datasheet or change the ones you might have focused on beyond usefulness :( 

It sounds like you have a strong identity for your force already though! 

(Id also argue you can always tweak the rules yourselves if your opponents are down for it but i know its not always easy!) 

[TheMawr]

Im ( as seems to become a standard here ) of the opposite mind. Im getting more the feeling of freedom and personalising (the models) that 2nd edition gave me.

At the moment named characters feel more like a "this is just an example of such a character, but in my army its my own character" than they did past 3 editions.. coming closer to how named characters felt for me in 2nd. ( dropping named <subfactions> helps a lot there.) and no FoC + a combined codex (in the case of eldar) instead of every element getting a seperate codex creates the freedom to really built my own army, while the changes in approach to wargear allows each model to be much more personally individualised... especially with a lesser need for WYSIWYG.

 

However that is ofcourse on the modelling/visual army building side ( wich is the thing I care most about.) I can see how its less so in rules, though from what Ive read.. apart from 2nd edition it wasnt much better in other editions, just a different bad.

 

As an example, the way the (Autarch) Wayleaper datasheet is setup creates such a template that since reading it, not for a moment I feel the desire nor need to use the official model for that... It can be represented by a character riding a hellion hoverboard and be perfectly fine for example.

I can make corsair characters based on Yriel and the Ynnari characters datasheets, and add a psyker based on the eldrad datasheet.. and I dont for a second have to worry about <subfaction> restrictions. And many other things like that.

 

Though it could be that 2 things are at play here; Changes to eldar are possibly done different than the changes to imperial factions and second Im mentally used to proxying things as, since 2nd edition I went for exodites and pirates (and eventually dark eldar), and the majority of my models have been converted proxies for decades. I also have quite some chaos models ( mostly daemons), some orks, some tyranids and 3 boxes of original kroot, but Ive never looked into rules or actual army building of any of them.

 

 

[MegaVolt87]

40k is borked currently. If you like guard and SA, you would be happier just using the SA in HH and your IG as milita and cults in HH. Did the same with my IW's, couldn't be happier myself. 

[Rusted Boltgun]

2 hours ago, TheMawr said:

 

At the moment named characters feel more like a "this is just an example of such a character, but in my army its my own character" than they did past 3 editions.. coming closer to how named characters felt for me in 2nd. 

 

 

 

I feel the latest issue of WD - 498 - supports this with the Rogue Trader Combat Patrol for 40k

 

The art and model for the Rogue Trader in the article are that of the model available in the Elucidian Starstriders box but the character for the combat patrol is not Elucia Vhane -  Eidelwynne Vantarrion appears and supporting fluff and Combat Patrol rules have been created accordingly.

 

To my knowledge, Vhane has not been in 'big 40K' before and maybe could have been introduced here but instead the model has been repurposed.

 

The stats for the character and their entourage are the same as those for a generic Rogue Trader in the Imperial Agents index.

 

So there is nothing to stop you replacing the generic character from an index with your own character as long as you use the existing datasheet. Whilst GW have used the same model, it serves to sell new models and existing art can be re-used. For your own tabletop, an alternative model or a kitbash would serve (in my head).

 

I appreciate this doesn't address the issue of 'I had a cool model with a loadout I can't use any more' or WYSIWYG. 

 

My preference would be for 30k style list building but I can see how they are trying to make 10e easier to pick up and play.

[Wormwoods]

I absolutely hate named characters. I'm working on Tau for the first time since 3rd, and as much as I like how 10th handles characters in general - joining them to squads is fun, I like it - the fact that I have whole character types that only exist as EPIC HEROES makes me want to rip my face off. 

 

It's a stealth army. The vibe is being sneaky. The only thematically appropriate characters - pathfinder, stealth suit - are named. 

 

And I mostly play Crusade. 

 

I've found it easy enough to make an ARMY very my-guy-ish, that's never been that hard if you're not chasing an optimal list or going to tournaments. So what if I'm shooting myself in the foot (hoof?) by not taking crisis suits? I'm playing casual, so I can have fun with a recon force that feels like it's mine. 

 

I just really, really want some non-named character options for an army other than Space Marines. 

[ThePenitentOne]

@Wormwoods

 

I find playing Crusade helps, because the models may not start off feeling like "Your Dudes" but they become "Your Dudes" over time. It sounds like what you need is battle honour that can provide stealth to a leader or character, but I'm not sure one exists yet.

 

I'll have my Tau dex in two weeks. It's actually a really big test of 10th for me; in 9th Tau were at the top of the list for awesome Crusade content. I am very anxious that 10th will "streamline it" and make it "Simplified not Simple" and let it lose all its falvour. The book will be the first 10th ed dex I've seen, and it will go a long way to determining how far I go with 10th.

[DemonGSides]

"I need special rules to be special" is an arms race mentality. Your guys are special because you made them, lovingly, and play with them and create stories for them.

[Karhedron]

I prefer to look at it the other way. I create the backstory for my guys in my head and I model them up as I like. Now in 10th edition we have a clear situation where paint != rules.

 

I look on this as a positive thing because it means my army is no longer bound to a particular set of rules. For my Eldar, I play Iyanden and have done ever since the lore of them almost wiped out by the Nids back in 2nd edition. I always include a couple of Wraith units both for fluff reasons and because I love the models (the rules have varied a lot over the years). I also tend to play other infantry lightly with squads of Guardians never outnumbering the Wraith units.

 

Past versions of Iyanden's rules were quite restrictive. For instance in 3rd edition, Wraithguard were Troops but pretty much everything else was Elite and back then, they were limited to 0-3 in the Force Org chart. If I wanted to play "my" faction, I found it brought more restrictions than benefits. Now we have a situation where almost any list is viable which means I can run my Iyanden army how I like. And if I want to go Aspect heavy from time to time, that is no problem.

 

Rather than looking on the lack of structure as a problem, consider it an opportunity. You define what units your army favours and write your personal head canon to support that. Then pick the Detachment that you feel best conveys that. The good thing is that it doesn't matter if that Detachment notionally represents a different faction because the rules are not locked to the models and paint scheme you are using. It also means that if you want to use your army differently one day, just change the detachment and switch out a few units and you can get a very different play experience.

 

The only real restriction is that you cannot stack sets of bonuses. This is probably a good thing from a balance POV. You can have Marneus Calgar being sneaky one day and lead a Vanguard Strikeforce. He is 300+ years old and has mastered every form of warfare in the Codex. What you can't do it stack the bonuses from the Vanguard and Gladius detachments at the same time. I actually think GW have done a good job with factions in 10th as painting your army in a particular style (or even particular Epic Heroes) does not lock you into a single style of play. You are free to choose your ruleset with the only caveat being that you only get one.

Edited March 19 by Karhedron

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

Wut?

 

there’s nothing about the codex forcing you to use any kind of specific models.

 

you can literally do exactly what you described…who gives a :cuss: what the name on the datasheets is?

[Dr. Clock]

14 hours ago, Timberley said:

The Index leans towards you taking units from named Regiments (Cadian, Catachan, etc.), rather than creating a comprehensive force of 'your guys' that fulfil the same requirements.  Is their intention that you build up 'your guys' then use 'counts as' for rules purposes?  If so, why not just have GP units and a 'Named Regiment' keyword that gives you a slightly different rule for taking that Regiment (like a Chaos Mark or similar)? 

Alot of this is just a legacy branding/naming problem. The boxes and instructions on the kits already include the names of the regiments, so they absolutely need to avoid a situation where the name on the datasheet is different from what's on the box... and they are not going to repackage stuff if they can avoid it.

 

They also are clearly not interested in putting the 'special rules levers' anywhere other than at the level of detachment rules. Marine epic heroes and special units is the exception to this, obviously... and it is rather unfortunate that there are haves and have-nots for them.

14 hours ago, Timberley said:

So, what's the point of taking a Raven Guard successor when the poster boys can do the same thing, but better?  Also, why can't I have a Raven Guard-type enhancement for an officer (Lt/Captain) that allows me the same thing as Ventris' ability?

 

First - the point is that the look you chose will actually correspond to the sneaky detachment rules. Sneaky Ultras? I guess if you paint all the terrain ultra blue? As a raven guard successor you're still gonna get the hobby cred for maining the stealthy detachment, which I would tend to value more than game cred...

 

Literally the only reason to take a 'true Raven Guard' force is if you want to field Shrike. If you'd prefer your captain to be a Ventris clone, nobody reasonable will bat an eye, especially if it's a successor chapter... 

 

I understand that there's something great about having your personal army label 'endorsed' or matched directly in the game, but I prefer the freedom that's been created by 10th's explosion of most of the army construction barriers. I happen to love a good counts-as special character and those creative projects tend to cement the collection as 'my guys' alot more than slavishly reproducing the more narrow selections that used to be forced on players.

 

Cheers,

 

The Good Doctor.

 

 

 

[DemonGSides]

Yeah if someone wants to take the Kasrkin model from the WH+ subscription and call it Ursula Creed, that's super A-OK. 

 

Same as if they want to take their lovingly crafted Vostroyans and run them as Cadian Shock Troops; as long as they aren't using an identical squad as Infantry Squad, I couldn't care less.  As long as there is a logic to how you're dealing with their things, I don't think the current rules are a hindrance; if anything, the current rules let this happen easier than ever before.

 

Attilan rough riders aren't what they are BECAUSE they are Attilan. They're Attilan cuz that's trademarkable, but if all of your rough riders are bedecked in Krieg gear and you don't wanna play with legends, a person would have to be the biggest possible :cuss: in the world to not let you play those horsies as ARR; the important part of the unit is that it's a mounted model on the correct sized base, not that it follows the exact picture GW attached to the App. 

[Marshal Rohr]

Replacing army list with Magic the Gathering Card style datasheets killed Your Dudes. You used to be able to give your guardsmen pistols and ccws en masse. Was it good? Nope. But those were your feral and medieval worlders. To take conscript blobs you had to select a doctrine. All that is dead now. Big Management says one squad can reroll shooting but only take these weapons and another can punch hard but can only have flamers and you’ll like it. 

[Evil Eye]

Yeah, if you want to enjoy "Your Dudes" escapades, play an older edition. Actually, just play an older edition anyway, current 40K is completely screwed.

[jaxom]

21 hours ago, Timberley said:

I'd have the Auxilia as a mechanised regiment (333rd Terrisinan Fusiliers), using Tempestus Scions as their Elite Infantry, with Leman Russes, maybe a Rogal Dorn, and some artillery.  They'd be supported by a light infantry regiment of converted Van Saars (295th Morganthan Rifles) with Sentinel support (converted Arachni-rigs), and some Rough Riders (converted Serberys) which would be their scouts and infiltrators.

 

Then, finally going through the IG Index, I realised that General Purpose Rough Riders, GP Scout-types, and so on don't exist (I should point out that the last time I checked our IG as an army was around 3rd Edition - I have some old OG Stormtroopers amongst my minis).  The Index leans towards you taking units from named Regiments (Cadian, Catachan, etc.), rather than creating a comprehensive force of 'your guys' that fulfil the same requirements.  Is their intention that you build up 'your guys' then use 'counts as' for rules purposes?  If so, why not just have GP units and a 'Named Regiment' keyword that gives you a slightly different rule for taking that Regiment (like a Chaos Mark or similar)?  

19 hours ago, Timberley said:

To go with the IG from my initial thoughts, if I had a bunch of units tied together to make a regiment (the 295th Rifles), would the units take the individual rules for the units?  So, I'd have a unit of Rifles scouts with the Catachan special rule, my Rifles cavalry with the Attilan rule, and Rifles line infantry with the Cadian rule.  There's no overall "the 295th model themselves on the Cadians/Krieg/Elysians/whatever, so have 'X' rule to show this" that ties them together. 

 

Combine that with the lack of named wargear beyond that carried by named characters, and 'my guys' could be the same as 'your guys' but with a different paintjob.  It takes some of the excitement out of creating 'my guys'.

 

GW's been making a lot of decisions lately to stress their intellectual property which is why we didn't get generic unit names.

 

I think what you've talked about shows why it's more important than ever to have an idea of who 'your guys' are. You talk about having the 333rd Terrisinian having Elite Infantry and Tanks. Okay, what tells me those models are from the same regiment? What tells me the 295th Morganthan Rifles' Sentinels are from a different regiment than the tanks? You've already picked out some conversion ideas, but why did you choose those models? Even if it's just because they're cool, how can you tie it into the narrative about the regiment?

 

How has their world or combat doctrine impacted both infantry and armour? Or one, but not the other?

 

4 hours ago, Marshal Rohr said:

Replacing army list with Magic the Gathering Card style datasheets killed Your Dudes. You used to be able to give your guardsmen pistols and ccws en masse. Was it good? Nope. But those were your feral and medieval worlders. To take conscript blobs you had to select a doctrine. All that is dead now. Big Management says one squad can reroll shooting but only take these weapons and another can punch hard but can only have flamers and you’ll like it. 

I kind feel like that's missing the forest for the trees. Sure, rules can inspire who Your Dudes are going to be, but it can go both ways. You say pistols and ccws are for feral worlders, but it also covers high-tech duelists armed with vibro-blades and pulse pistols. For the former, 40k is in a drought right now for the former, but for the latter it's the same as it ever was.

[Marshal Rohr]

I don’t know how former and latter work, so I’m going to assume you’re agreeing with me. 

[ThePenitentOne]

11 hours ago, DemonGSides said:

"I need special rules to be special" is an arms race mentality. Your guys are special because you made them, lovingly, and play with them and create stories for them.

 

Well hey, I'm not going to say your opion isn't valid or anything- there are a lot of other people who feel that way too. I get it.

 

But here's the thing:

 

An "arms race" happens when players are trying to win- your opponent brings a "big gun" and you lose, so next game, you bring a bigger gun, and maybe the opponent loses, and then he brings a bigger gun.... Arm's race.

 

That's not a game problem, it's a player problem, and it happens in any collectible game as easily as it happens in 40k. But wanting the Order of Our Martyred Lady to behave differently on the table than Sacred Rose isn't necessarily the same thing; I don't care whether my subfaction is stronger than another subfaction, I just want them to be different. D&D has statistical, mechanical differences between fighters and thieves. And the could just say "Make a dude. And if you're a fighter, that just means you choose to fight, and if you're a thief, that just means you choose to steal." TSR decided not to make that game, I'm presuming because they knew it would be a bit on the dull side. And surprise, 50 years later, D&D has survived, while many a leaner, cleaner system has been and gone.

 

Now I know, it's a bit of a false equivalency to compare subfaction to class; faction to class is more appropriate.  Subfactions are more analogous to prestige classes, and they have changed from edition to editon, and sometimes they aren't present at all.

 

In the end, it is a matter of personal preference- though it can be influenced by other factors... Things like the orthodoxy of a local pick-up night at the FLGS that doesn't give players as much opportunity to explore alternate ways of playing.

 

Like I said, I see the appeal of the detachment based system. I can paint a unit of BSS for every major order and field them with the Triumph. If I get sick of playing the detachment that best suits Martyred Lady, I'm free to switch detachment without feeling bad for "counts as." I get it.  And structurally, I can still approximate the subfaction feel by choosing detachments that are consistent with the lore for the subfaction I happen to be playing, so none of this is a deal breaker for me.

 

But part of me does miss the distinction by subfaction, and I believe it did a better job of maintaining the lore, which does associate particular specializations to particular subfactions.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

26 minutes ago, ThePenitentOne said:

 

Well hey, I'm not going to say your opion isn't valid or anything- there are a lot of other people who feel that way too. I get it.

 

But here's the thing:

 

An "arms race" happens when players are trying to win- your opponent brings a "big gun" and you lose, so next game, you bring a bigger gun, and maybe the opponent loses, and then he brings a bigger gun.... Arm's race.

 

That's not a game problem, it's a player problem, and it happens in any collectible game as easily as it happens in 40k. But wanting the Order of Our Martyred Lady to behave differently on the table than Sacred Rose isn't necessarily the same thing; I don't care whether my subfaction is stronger than another subfaction, I just want them to be different. D&D has statistical, mechanical differences between fighters and thieves. And the could just say "Make a dude. And if you're a fighter, that just means you choose to fight, and if you're a thief, that just means you choose to steal." TSR decided not to make that game, I'm presuming because they knew it would be a bit on the dull side. And surprise, 50 years later, D&D has survived, while many a leaner, cleaner system has been and gone.

 

Now I know, it's a bit of a false equivalency to compare subfaction to class; faction to class is more appropriate.  Subfactions are more analogous to prestige classes, and they have changed from edition to editon, and sometimes they aren't present at all.

 

In the end, it is a matter of personal preference- though it can be influenced by other factors... Things like the orthodoxy of a local pick-up night at the FLGS that doesn't give players as much opportunity to explore alternate ways of playing.

 

Like I said, I see the appeal of the detachment based system. I can paint a unit of BSS for every major order and field them with the Triumph. If I get sick of playing the detachment that best suits Martyred Lady, I'm free to switch detachment without feeling bad for "counts as." I get it.  And structurally, I can still approximate the subfaction feel by choosing detachments that are consistent with the lore for the subfaction I happen to be playing, so none of this is a deal breaker for me.

 

But part of me does miss the distinction by subfaction, and I believe it did a better job of maintaining the lore, which does associate particular specializations to particular subfactions.

Bruh, that’s not how an arms race in a game like this works.

 

constantly buffing factions or subfactions creates an arms race.

[Iron Father Ferrum]

I totally understand the increasingly-common concept, voiced in this thread, that the lack of hard-coded identification is a good thing.  It's not a terrible idea, and I even utilized the concept back in 5th Edition when my Iron Hands didn't have a named character that triggered a change to how the army functioned.  So I used a black-painted Lysander and played as "counts-as" (which was the term en vogue at the time).  I understand it, I tried it (briefly!), but I didn't like it then.

 

And I still don't like it now.

 

In my experience, the preference for a stricter view of paint schemes and going by what a thing is named is mostly an older-school gamer ideology.  It's how we learned to play, it's what we know.  For me, I'm a very literal person.  I say what I mean and I interpret things how they're initially presented (I was considered quite gullible as a kid).  So if I walk into my LGS and see an army in Raven Guard colors and Raven Guard markings, the last thing I'd expect is for someone to say "my warlord is Uriel Ventris."  I wouldn't like it, and I wouldn't refuse to play that person. . . but I still think it's in poor taste.  Ventris' datasheet has the ULTRAMARINES keyword.  I've read however many novels about him where he's an Ultramarine.  He belongs in an army that is representing the Ultramarines.  Anything else offends that autistic part of my brain that wants everything just so.

 

Getting to OP's real question, though: yes, I do think there's a bit of personalization missing.  Making everything as generic and rigid as possible makes the game more easily balanced, which is a noble goal foisted upon us by the comparatively ignoble idea of catering the game to the tournament crowd.  The lack of real customization on units and characters hurts your ability to explore a theme that's different from the mainstream.  Sorry to say, people like you & I are no longer GW's preferred market for 40K (though some of that is still present in the Heresy rules from what I understand).

 

Now.  All that being said, my golden rule of the hobby still applies: they're your models, you can do what you want with them.

[DemonGSides]

2 hours ago, ThePenitentOne said:

 

Well hey, I'm not going to say your opion isn't valid or anything- there are a lot of other people who feel that way too. I get it.

 

But here's the thing:

 

An "arms race" happens when players are trying to win- your opponent brings a "big gun" and you lose, so next game, you bring a bigger gun, and maybe the opponent loses, and then he brings a bigger gun.... Arm's race.

 

That's not a game problem, it's a player problem, and it happens in any collectible game as easily as it happens in 40k. But wanting the Order of Our Martyred Lady to behave differently on the table than Sacred Rose isn't necessarily the same thing; I don't care whether my subfaction is stronger than another subfaction, I just want them to be different. D&D has statistical, mechanical differences between fighters and thieves. And the could just say "Make a dude. And if you're a fighter, that just means you choose to fight, and if you're a thief, that just means you choose to steal." TSR decided not to make that game, I'm presuming because they knew it would be a bit on the dull side. And surprise, 50 years later, D&D has survived, while many a leaner, cleaner system has been and gone.

 

Now I know, it's a bit of a false equivalency to compare subfaction to class; faction to class is more appropriate.  Subfactions are more analogous to prestige classes, and they have changed from edition to editon, and sometimes they aren't present at all.

 

In the end, it is a matter of personal preference- though it can be influenced by other factors... Things like the orthodoxy of a local pick-up night at the FLGS that doesn't give players as much opportunity to explore alternate ways of playing.

 

Like I said, I see the appeal of the detachment based system. I can paint a unit of BSS for every major order and field them with the Triumph. If I get sick of playing the detachment that best suits Martyred Lady, I'm free to switch detachment without feeling bad for "counts as." I get it.  And structurally, I can still approximate the subfaction feel by choosing detachments that are consistent with the lore for the subfaction I happen to be playing, so none of this is a deal breaker for me.

 

But part of me does miss the distinction by subfaction, and I believe it did a better job of maintaining the lore, which does associate particular specializations to particular subfactions.

 

Not for nothing, I think you completely misunderstood what I was saying in response to the op.  Their concern was that their rules don't make their models special, but this way lays madness; much better to make some models you truly love, make them work with the rules as best as possible whenever possible, and enjoy the hobby for the hobby.  Your literal definition of arms race isn't really what anyone was speaking to.

 

[TheMawr]

4 hours ago, Wormwoods said:

I absolutely hate named characters. I'm working on Tau for the first time since 3rd, and as much as I like how 10th handles characters in general - joining them to squads is fun, I like it - the fact that I have whole character types that only exist as EPIC HEROES makes me want to rip my face off. 

 

It's a stealth army. The vibe is being sneaky. The only thematically appropriate characters - pathfinder, stealth suit - are named. 

 

And I mostly play Crusade. 

 

I've found it easy enough to make an ARMY very my-guy-ish, that's never been that hard if you're not chasing an optimal list or going to tournaments. So what if I'm shooting myself in the foot (hoof?) by not taking crisis suits? I'm playing casual, so I can have fun with a recon force that feels like it's mine. 

 

I just really, really want some non-named character options for an army other than Space Marines. 

 

But what about considering Darkstrider just a role, not a name, comparable to a Harlequin Solitaire (also epic hero in rules terms, but not named.) however, I dont know if you can take epic heroes in crusade, and it still means its just the one character option. With a few exceptions for me there is little difference between Lord Solar and Scribbus wretch, both are just names given to a character type they present.

 

But I absolutely do agree there is a lack in generic characters for some armies, and while this isnt a new/now problem ( it exists at least since around 4th, maybe 3rd ) its extra stingy now with the changed and expanded role of characters. ( as opposed to the previous limited HQ slots )

 

I really expected with the leader/bodyguard change that we would see 2-3 generic characters for a lot of armies ( new datasheets if not new models), instead, the focus seems more on removing/replacing ones already there, sometimes in cases where there is a small pool to begin with.

I also think they are being too restrictive on leader/bodyguard combos... it makes sense for their fluff that spacemarines have that.. this is also complimented by both leader and bodyguard side of a certain flavor ( phobos, tacticus, terminator ) having plenty of options. But it makes much less sense in other armies and some definitely do not have the options.

 

Like for your example.. Im not entirely sure why an Ethereal or a Fireblade shouldnt be able to lead pathfinders.. even if lore or rulewise this might not be an optimal combo, and it definitely isnt a substitute for more bespoke characters, but its a bit of creative freedom. I even think there should be some kroot/tau combos allowed there. A trail shaper "leading" a pathfinder unit, not as its hierarchical leader but as their guide on a planet makes a lot of sense to me.

 

While I often focus on a very postive side, I must say while I absolutely like the ideas and mechanics of 10th, that postivity is definitely not as strong for the indexes and Im much less impressed by what the codexes done with it so far.