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

[jaxom]

4 hours ago, TheMawr said:

 

But this makes it sound to me that the "40k losing the sense of my guys being my guys" is not because of the game, the edition or GW... but rather its mostly the (changed) attitude of a big part of the fanbase/players.

3 hours ago, Timberley said:

 

Hey @jaxom - As things currently stand, it's the models selected for those particular regiments, and their colour schemes that mark them as different from each other.  Within my own lore (tied to my subsector that the Dusk Falcons are part of), they're regiments that come from very different worlds (the 333rd Terrisinian coming from a Feudal World, the 295th from a desert Mining World).  My 'sadness' (for lack of a better word to hand) is more that whilst I have the lore, paint scheme, models, etc. of my regiments (and chapter, warband, et al) there's not really a way to have their particular fighting style be reflected within the rules as a 'regiment rule' or similar.

 

I think these two points are related. I think we used to have our cake and eat it too because there were more rules. It didn't matter which units you took because the subfaction or make-your-own chapter/craftworld/regiment did the heavy lifting. Now the heavy lifting has to be done by unit choice and detachment. Timberley, I think part of the issue is the Guard only have one detachment so you are limited to how you represent your dudes. The Ravenguard are a good example of how a fully fleshed out Codex changes the game.

 

2 hours ago, The Spitehorde said:

I've played against someone at the FLGS who has done precisely that. The whole army was Steel Legion themed (and yes, it looked damn good), but it was a PITA to keep track of which unit on the table was running as which unit in the Index. When you've got big mass of infantry units that look exactly the same but are being played to different data sheets from the Index (4 as Cadian shock troops, 4 as DKOK, and 2 as Kasrkin IIRC) it gets quite messy, and after a while (and not a long while at that), it becomes quite wearing asking which unit is playing as what. 

I've always been of the opinion that WYSIWYG is less important than identifiable silhouette differences.

[Karhedron]

9 hours ago, jaxom said:

 Timberley, I think part of the issue is the Guard only have one detachment so you are limited to how you represent your dudes. The Ravenguard are a good example of how a fully fleshed out Codex changes the game.

 

I think this is actually a big part of the issue. Guard are still in the Index phase and all their lists play a bit like Cadians. Marines got 7 different detachments to play with and Chaos will be getting 8. Assuming Guard get a similar number, that should help bring back some of the flavour thar they are missing currently. 

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

16 hours ago, DemonGSides said:

 

If their owner can, yes, so can I.  There's 0 need to memorize anything, there's a list made that I can check and ask if I'm confused on something.  Are you not providing a list to your opponents?

 

If they can't keep it straight, well, then they're cheating and I probably won't continue making game plans with them.  Problem solved. 

 

Like I said, a little social magic goes a long way.

What good is it to have a list of 8/10 units all look identical but 6/10 have different weapons loadouts?

 

some people make it a bit easier to identify squads with colored markings on the base or a helmet or shoulder pad, but then it’s on you to memorize ‘blue squad has X, Y, and Z wargear’

[DemonGSides]

1 hour ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

What good is it to have a list of 8/10 units all look identical but 6/10 have different weapons loadouts?

 

some people make it a bit easier to identify squads with colored markings on the base or a helmet or shoulder pad, but then it’s on you to memorize ‘blue squad has X, Y, and Z wargear’

 

Make a note? Like it takes 5 seconds to write down something if it's that hard to manage, and once again, if they're doing this intentionally to sow confusion, put em on blast. 

 

I still don't think this is the widespread concern some of y'all are acting like it is. 

[Deus_Ex_Machina]

Losing "your guys" had been a thing in the past too. Lets take a stroll across memory lane with the Catachans:

 

2nd 40K: Specific Guard regiments existed in the fluff. Rules wise there were no differences. However you could assign veteran abilities to every Guard infantry squad to give them some kind of flavour (e.g. Stealthy to simulate Catachans).

 

 

3rd 40K: The Catachans got their own codex! The devs noted that you could use the Catachan models like in this new book or use them as vanilla Guard as described in the 3rd 40K IG codex.

 

 

4th 40K: All the specific regiments received detailed doctrines to really show how they operated. Catachans were melee specialists, jungle fighters, had access to veterans (more than one squad), ogryns and specialist squads.

 

 

5th 40K: The beginning of everything goes. Rules for specific regiments are now a thing of the past. If you wanted to play like Catachans you needed to take one of three special characters (or all three) namely Straken, Harker and Sly Marbo who had baked in special rules which would simulate the play style you were looking for.

 

If you didn´t take these you were stuck with vanilla rules. Insult to injury named characters were not confined to a specific regiment. You could do a conversion of the special Tallarn officer who allowed to use the Outflank USR and include him with your Catachan dudes. The explanation was that the galaxy was a big place and people like Sly Marbo grew on trees. So every specific regiment could have a dude cosplaying as the one-man-army.

 

 

Suffice to say imo 2nd to 4th 40K was acceptable of how to represent a regiment while 5th was not.

[Scribe]

The loss of army optional rules, the leaning into 'its the box, you buy it, thats the unit' the leaning into bespoke special characters instead of making your own 'avatar' of the army to lead it, and the leaning into 'legends' rules/units segregation?

 

Yeah, "my guys" is dead in that environment of the main game line.

[ThePenitentOne]

Like I've said, Crusade is now the realm of your dudes.

 

Other than oppressive store communities that don't let players do anything but 2k matched, I have no idea why anyone who wants "Their dudes" would do anything but Crusade.

[Marshal Rohr]

Crusade doesn’t fix datasheets

[TheMawr]

Reading deus-ex-machina's post and re reading some others.. I think there is a distinction from the very beginning to what "my guys" means.

 

When I think "my guys" I dont think playing imperial guard as catachans, cadians or krieg... thats "their guys", when I think "my guys" I think something like that that red/purple with white converted guard army that during 8th was used more in 40k articles than the actually available guard armies where. ( it had a name but I forgot... with the plume helmts.)

 

and I see people agreeing with each other how "my guys" is ruined now who I know for a fact have opposing views on the matter.

 

This

6 hours ago, Deus_Ex_Machina said:

 The explanation was that the galaxy was a big place and people like Sly Marbo grew on trees. So every specific regiment could have a dude cosplaying as the one-man-army.

 

Is for me a very "My guys" friendly thing, but its something that ruins the "Their guys" thing.. because now Sly Marbo, and thus Catachans feel less special.

Same with replacing for example <Ultramarines> faction rules, with a more generic Gladius strike force detachment. Its a win for those who want to play "My guys" but a loss for those who play "GW guys" ( and make no mistake.. I dont think one is objectively better than the other, but subjectively I prefer the my guys side.)

 

The loss of FoC for me also is more "my guys" friendly, Though probably pushed too far for the rules balance* side... the division in 2nd maybe was better and clearer; Characters/Squads/Support.

 

The only oft repeated "current" change that I think is objectively "my guys" unfriendly ( in both interpretations of the concept.) is options sticking to whats in the box, or worse. ( Ork nobz cant even take an option thats actually in their box.)

But I might misremember, but thats the case for almost a decade, its not a new thing ( or eldar had it longer, options hasnt been their thing for a long time.)

 

But as I said in the beginning of this post... the "conflict" already starts by the very different interpretation of "my guys" and that kind of thing truelly fascinates me :)

 

 

*Mind you that rule balance and to a certain effect game and faction identity will always have the potential to limit the "my guys" side.. its something we have to accept. If someones "My guy" is a perpetual custodes that has a horde of undying grots with eldar missile launchers that worship him and follow him around, well thats not a "my guy" moment anyone should expect to be supported.

 

[TheMawr]

A bit divergent but still relevant to the topic;

 

Last year we had a topic here, this was pre-10th edition, regarding troops, the FOC and troop tax ( I think it was in reaction on that last detachment of 10th that threw a lot of restrictions out of the window, but its name escapes me.)

 

In short :

Troop tax sucks, troops being better than specialists makes no sense.. but in many cases neither do armies without their troops. Back then you had Objective secured and now better OC to give them relevance, but there is/was both too many exceptions to it and it isnt really satisfying or sometimes motivating enough.

 

In that topic I made the suggestion, altough its possible I never hit the submit reply button as I often dont do that, that troops really should have a total re-evaluation, and something Timberley said reminded me of this. In the end of the day, troops are the ones where the identity of a subfaction ( wether their guys or your guys) is most relevant... a striking scorpion, a warp talon or a tempestus scion are specialists that will always have a similar identity to their peers no matter where they are, as this is in their nature.

 

But a guardian from Saim Hann is a very different being than a guardian from Iyanden, or its equivalent but something where the seperation is supported by seperate models and rules a Catachan and a Cadian soldier.

 

And in that aspect I felt that troops could really shine and have their identity, both having expanded modularity perhaps even going beyond whats in the box for a change... including being the unit that has point modularity.

And something like the following, wich I think is what @Timberley meant as well, choosing from a pool of options some sort of Core enhancement.. wich applies to all your "troops", but also only to the troops, the tacticessors, the guardians ( or voidreavers ) etc. Probably have it coming from a pool of generic ones, or Faction determinded.. maybe Detachments and/or who is your warlord could add to the pool but, you always only pick 1 from the available pool.

 

 

 

 

[Scribe]

17 hours ago, ThePenitentOne said:

Like I've said, Crusade is now the realm of your dudes.

 

Other than oppressive store communities that don't let players do anything but 2k matched, I have no idea why anyone who wants "Their dudes" would do anything but Crusade.

 

Which is really just such a non-starter.

 

An alternative rule set is not required, 3rd-5th proved it.

[ThePenitentOne]

1 hour ago, Scribe said:

 

Which is really just such a non-starter.

 

An alternative rule set is not required, 3rd-5th proved it.

 

Yeah, but if you want to play 10th, but you still want your dudes, Crusade is a way to get closer to that.

 

Yes, if you have a group that will retro game, by all means- have at. But most people don't have that, so I thought I'd try to be helpful and suggest a way for people to get a "your dudes" vibe from the current edition. I feel like talking about how any of us think GW should change the current edition to conform to our personal preferences is far more of a "non-starter" than suggesting ways to use the tools currently available to get what we want because 1) No matter how much we want them to make changes, this edition has two years left in it and 2) even when the next edition comes, GW won't be listenning to any of us to decide what to do with their intellectual property.

 

But then, your mileage may vary.

[Scribe]

41 minutes ago, ThePenitentOne said:

Yeah, but if you want to play 10th,

 

Yeah, I'm not really sold on that one to say the least.

 

You are right though, just as with other games, the answer is to take the rules into the hands of the community. GW does not have our interests in mind. They are out for one thing, and one thing only.

 

"To make the best miniatures, and sell them, (at grotesque mark up) forever."

[Karhedron]

It seems the term "my guys" means different things to different people.

 

Rather than using subjective terms, what specifically do people want that is not available in the rules? Bearing in mind that Guard do not have a codex yet so assume that they will be getting a Codex fairly soon with half-a-dozen detachments.

[Scribe]

1 hour ago, Karhedron said:

Rather than using subjective terms, what specifically do people want that is not available in the rules? Bearing in mind that Guard do not have a codex yet so assume that they will be getting a Codex fairly soon with half-a-dozen detachments.

 

System of special rules that are applicable to the army, that are respectful of the lore, and reinforce that there is a setting behind all of this.

System of special rules that is not dependent upon the purchase of potentially multiple special characters to 'turn on' your army rules which are respectful of the lore.

Having these rules baked into main line of the game.

Having these rules represent not only the known factions (World Eaters, Word Bearers, etc) but a selection of options that are distinct and can be used to 'make your own'.

System of rules that has some kind of unit of measure, lets call it Points, which reflects a granularity and effectiveness of a given option, and unit.

Rules that do not require a bespoke, existing model, just for the rules to exist.

 

Examples of all of this have existed, in the past editions, just go back to 3rd to 5th, some components of 9th (not Strats) and there you go.

 

Relics, Warlord Traits, and Army Attributes/Rules. Oh and the FoC and Points. Its not hard, GW just wanted to release a worse game over time.

[Evil Eye]

The thing that gets me is you don't even have to go RT-levels of crazy with in-depth rules to get a decent "your dudes" feel. 3.5E and early 4E both did a stellar job of enabling incredible flexibility and flavour potential with fairly simple rules. I think part of that was the "few datasheets, many options" system; Veterans were one datasheet but could be equipped to be basically whatever you wanted. Bladeguard are basically just Veterans with storm (or combat) shields and power weapons, and a veteran skill if desired. Likewise, there was only one Carnifex datasheet for 4E Tyranids, and it could be made into basically whatever the hell you wanted it to be, from a cheap and disposable bullet sponge that would still destroy anything it touched in close combat (and could be taken as an Elite choice) to an absolute indestructible murder machine. Zoanthropes could be your standard psychic artillery/synapse lynchpins or debuff/support creatures. Spore mines did different things! Chaos (in 3.5e, which works just fine for 4E) got one of the most impressive books the game has ever had. And when you throw in Chapter Approved, Imperial Armour and WD supplements, you could basically make anything you wanted. All with a straightforward and easy to understand rules system.

 

Unfortunately, GW's removal of armour value and blast markers, which weren't even complicated anyway and were an objectively superior way of managing such weapons if you/your opponent isn't a difficult and their doubling down on "What's in the box is what you can use and preffered use of Special Characters" no-model-no-rules stupidity, the only way this will ever get better is if GW receives a complete change of leadership. And even then that's assuming their replacement isn't even worse...

Edited March 23 by TrawlingCleaner
Removal of Unconstructive parts

[apologist]

1 hour ago, Karhedron said:

Rather than using subjective terms, what specifically do people want that is not available in the rules?

Personally, I want in-game choices that are as minimally leashed to specific individuals or locations as possible.

 

I’d like rules for Captains, Farseers, Warbosses etc. that allow you to select from as broad a variety of wargear as possible. Do I want Marneus Calgar to exist? Yes – but if I decide I want to make the Ultramarines Chapter Master from M36, I want to have the option to have the Gauntlets of Ultramar without Calgar’s personal rules.

 

I’d like to be able to arm my Mordian sergeant with a rifle; my retro-themed Guardians with lasblasters; I’d like my Space Marines to be able to clamber into a Rhino or a Repulsor without having to demonstrate they have a particular implant. I’d like my Tau Pathfinders to be accompanied by a local kroot guide; my Space Marine Captain to be able to take his personal wargear and warlord trait to a mission regardless of whether he decides to wear Terminator or Scout Armour. I’d like my Khorne Champion to be able to bring the dread axe Facewrecker to battle, whether he’s riding a juggernaut, wearing a jump pack, or in Terminator armour. I’d like Thousand Sons Rubric Marines that can carry something other than a boltgun or flamer.
 

Smaller than this, I’d like my cowboy-themed Rough Riders to have the option to just have a lasgun and leave their lance at home. I’d like Rotgub to have a shoota, even it Gutdreg decides to take a slugga and choppa. I’d like my Night Lords to have an Apothecary. I’d like my Catachans to share the same stats whether they’ve got a grenade launcher or a flamer. I’d like my Shas’El to be able to walk on foot (hoof?) every so often – and for my Lamb’s World Senior Officer to take the field on his own occasionally, without having to pretend to be a Cadian.

I’d like to be able to play a particular subfaction without their iconic character – for when they’re out of action, not born yet, or simply just a few miles away from the battlefield. I’d like to be able to make my own Blood Angel Chief Librarian, or create a Salamander carrying a special character’s relic home. 

 

I’d like to be able to give my Commissar Lord a camo cloak like his men and a special power sword; or perhaps a power klaw and a bionic laser-eye – or perhaps a smelly adjutant with a melta gun. Or perhaps just a laspistol, trenchcoat, bad attitude and nothing more, because that’s on the model I made.

 

In short, I’m not looking for an advantage – I’m looking to be able to reflect the stories my friends and I (or GW themselves) come up with; or – even more fundamentally than that – to be able to field models that combine bits from more than one kit because they look cool. 

[Karhedron]

1 hour ago, Scribe said:

1. System of special rules that are applicable to the army, that are respectful of the lore, and reinforce that there is a setting behind all of this.
2. System of special rules that is not dependent upon the purchase of potentially multiple special characters to 'turn on' your army rules which are respectful of the lore.
3. Having these rules baked into main line of the game.
4. Having these rules represent not only the known factions (World Eaters, Word Bearers, etc) but a selection of options that are distinct and can be used to 'make your own'.
5. System of rules that has some kind of unit of measure, lets call it Points, which reflects a granularity and effectiveness of a given option, and unit.
6. Rules that do not require a bespoke, existing model, just for the rules to exist.

 

I would argue that you do have most of this in 10th edition. I have numbered your issues.

1. The detachments system provides this
2. Detachments are independent of special characters. In fact, you can run characters in detachments with which they are not traditionally associated.
3. Codexes are about as mainline as you get
4. OK, make your own traits are not present in 10th as they were in 9th. I accept that point.
5. I am not sure I understand this one. Can you elaborate?
6. Detachments do not require special characters to exist

[Bonehead]

What I want is a set of rules, a set of profiles, and a set of equipment options. And nothing more. I want to play a game where I win because I came up with a better plan and an army to carry it out, or lose because my opponent did. I absolutely do not want to be told that there's a special rule that means a unit takes no damage because someone pulled a card out of a stack. Special rules can do one. Special characters too. Definitely not a fan.

But I appreciate I'm probably in the minority, and when you get right down to it an appreciative gaming group and some house rules would probably do the trick. In reality I'll probably just carry on painting and modelling and get over it by engaging with other hobbies. Talking of which, I'm off to see if I can finish Portal Revolution.

[Scribe]

1 hour ago, Karhedron said:

• The detachments system provides this
• Detachments are independent of special characters. In fact, you can run characters in detachments with which they are not traditionally associated.
• Codexes are about as mainline as you get
• OK, make your own traits are not present in 10th as they were in 9th. I accept that point.
• I am not sure I understand this one. Can you elaborate?
• Detachments do not require special characters to exist

 

1. Granted, but I believe they are still limited in comparison to even the initial release of books from 9th, or the 'trait heavy' books of late 3rd early 4th (or was it just the 3.5 books, I'm old now...)

2. Yes, which is fine enough for the limited detachments provided. I do wish there was limitation though. That SC shouldnt be in that 'detachment' if the detachment is a reflection of the lore, which in the most real sense it kind of isnt as you point out with the 'not traditionally...' bit.

3. True.

4. OK.

5. I think that the 'my guys' and 'my army' reflects, flexibility. The removal of the points system, the 'you can get this per 3 only, and you can only have 3 or 6 models' unless you want to throw away 'power level' is just not as flexible as the points system of prior editions. This is a contribution to my army no longer feeling like its mine, its a cookie cutter, buy the box and build it, mass consumption tool for GW to push purchases. The every changing rules and points via 'metawatch' is another sign of this. "just keep chasing the tiger, you'll get there'.

6. Yes.

[Timberley]

22 hours ago, TheMawr said:

In that topic I made the suggestion, altough its possible I never hit the submit reply button as I often dont do that, that troops really should have a total re-evaluation, and something Timberley said reminded me of this. In the end of the day, troops are the ones where the identity of a subfaction ( wether their guys or your guys) is most relevant... a striking scorpion, a warp talon or a tempestus scion are specialists that will always have a similar identity to their peers no matter where they are, as this is in their nature.

 

But a guardian from Saim Hann is a very different being than a guardian from Iyanden, or its equivalent but something where the seperation is supported by seperate models and rules a Catachan and a Cadian soldier.

 

And in that aspect I felt that troops could really shine and have their identity, both having expanded modularity perhaps even going beyond whats in the box for a change... including being the unit that has point modularity.

And something like the following, wich I think is what @Timberley meant as well, choosing from a pool of options some sort of Core enhancement.. wich applies to all your "troops", but also only to the troops, the tacticessors, the guardians ( or voidreavers ) etc. Probably have it coming from a pool of generic ones, or Faction determinded.. maybe Detachments and/or who is your warlord could add to the pool but, you always only pick 1 from the available pool.

 

 

In essence, this is what I'm arguing for - a Core Enhancement that marks 'your guys' as different to 'my guys', outwith the rules surrounding detachments.  For something like IG this could be a tricky one if there's multiple regiments within the army, but I addressed that below, and think it would work.

 

5 hours ago, Karhedron said:

It seems the term "my guys" means different things to different people.

 

Rather than using subjective terms, what specifically do people want that is not available in the rules? Bearing in mind that Guard do not have a codex yet so assume that they will be getting a Codex fairly soon with half-a-dozen detachments.

 

My interpretation of 'my guys' was a homebrew or named unit (no matter how big or small) that had a core rule/enhancement attributed to them that was entirely separate to the Detachment they were being deployed as.  To give a few examples of 'my guys':

Commander Farsight (Model: Farsight - Cadre plays like: Farsight Enclaves)

Major Arin Olisero - 333rd Terrisinian Fusiliers (Model: Solar Auxilia Captain - Regiment plays like: DKOK)

295th Morganthan Rifles Squad (Models: Van Saar gang - Regiment plays like: Scout-types)

270th Kerriban Armoured Infantry Squad (Models: DKOK Engineers - Regiment plays like: Armageddon Steel Legion)

Dusk Falcons Tactical Squad (Models: Mk IV Marines - Chapter plays like: Raven Guard)

 

As an example (and because I only have the current Astartes Codex); if I took a Dusk Falcons 2000pts Anvil Siege Force, I'd like to have the Anvil Enhancements available, as well as a rule that shows them to be successors to the Raven Guard. In this case, Shield of The Imperium & Architect of War (from Anvil), and Shadow Masters (the Vanguard Spearhead Detachment Rule).  This means I have an overall rule that applies uniformly across my chapter (Shadow Masters), independent of the Detachment being used (the crucial part).

 

Alternatively, have a list of rules on a datacard (we could call it, say, The Chapter Axiom) that you can use to provide that extra bit of rules-based character to your army. 

 

To get away from the mono-archetype Astartes chapters, a similar card could be used for the Imperial Guard (called, say, The Regimental Regulations), which allows the army to be made of different regiments, with each regiment picking a single Ability, including those normally used by the named regiments (Cadia, Krieg, Catachan, etc.). e.g.:

333rd Terrisinians - Grim Demeanour (DKOK Ability)

295th Morganthan - Rifleman's Gait (Each Infantry Unit adds 2" to their basic move characteristic)

270th Kerriban - Industrial Efficiency (Infantry: 2xA with [Rapid Fire] weapons within 18", Vehicles: if attacked by AP-1 weapons, reduce to AP0, i.e. the old ASL rule)

 

That way, the detachments in the eventual Guard Codex can be used as a "Commander's Directive", to allow such things.  With the current Guard Index, that would mean that the 270th Kerriban infantry squad I have (those converted DKOK Engineers) defending an objective would have Benefit of Cover (Defenders of Humanity),  double their lasgun shots (Industrial Efficiency), with a [Lethal Hits] modifier (Born Soldiers), and whatever orders my ubiquitous Lord Solar gave them... If it was the 295th Rifles (the converted Van Saar), they'd have Benefit of Cover, and the [Lethal Hits] modifier, plus Lord Solar's orders, and would've gotten there sooner (Rifleman's Gait).  In both cases, the detachments are still intact with their intent, and the 'my guys' rule has been applied.

 

Apologies for the wall of text!

 

Edit: To add to the wall of text, I'd like them to create generic profiles for IG Scout/Infiltrator units, Cavalry units, and Senior Officers before the Guard Codex is released.  That way we can have Cadian Scout-Snipers (remember them?), converted Atalan Jackals as cavalry, and our own senior officers that can issue more than 1 Order at a time (Regimental Colonel (3 orders), and Company Major (2 orders) for example), rather than relying on Gaunt's Ghosts, Attilan Rough Riders, and Lord Solar (hideous model) to be everywhere, with Ursula Creed right beside him...

Edited March 23 by Timberley
Reworded a couple of things and bad speelung...

[TheMawr]

2 hours ago, Karhedron said:

It seems the term "my guys" means different things to different people.

 

Rather than using subjective terms, what specifically do people want that is not available in the rules? Bearing in mind that Guard do not have a codex yet so assume that they will be getting a Codex fairly soon with half-a-dozen detachments.

 

A lot of years long wishlists I had from the core gamesystem have been resolved with 10th.. from a core game mechanic point of view, but not necessarily the execution of it so far.

 

The main "changes" Id like ( thats also keeping up with the my guys topic, no matter how one means that.) have all to do with enhancements.

 

When they talked about enhancements a year ago, they talked about all these different upgrade options that exists.. Master haemonculi, Relics, certain spells, warlord traits, specific traits some army or HQ type had.. all collected into a single mechanic. I also expected non character stuff like exarch upgrades etc. to fall under this, but thats on me.

I really liked that.. but thats not what enhancements are right now, they feel more like barebones relics than what was initially described.

 

More enhancements and a wider scope of the definition. Because of keywords, you really dont need to have generic exclusion rules, beyond perhaps epic heroes ( as their enhancements are baked in.)

 

it doesnt have to be 100s of them, its just that the 4 we have now is minimal. Id rather have less Detachment specific stratagems than detachment specific enhancements.

 

Another thing Id like is Modulable troops cost, while Im not as concered with the loss of the point lists for taking options as others here, the same cannot be said for the choice between taking and not taking options, and for battleline types.. you should have that choice. A squad with a medic, two special weapons and a heavy weapon should have a different cost than the same squad without any of that or just one of those options. Though I prefer it more collective, adding a heavy weapon to a squad costs X points, but the individual heavy weapons themselves balanced not in cost, but in effect*

 

Personally I also prefer points to be on a per model basis, even in units, as I dont get the need that every unit has to be 5, 10 or 15... yes, people complained a lot about it, but I dont get it, if the amount of models is freer, you can still make them 5, 10 etc. if you want that.

 

 

* And I know, its not that GW does the balance very well, but, just from reading comments in the past, its not as if they did a much better job when everything did cost points.

 

 

btw: Im not even sure if Im now just repeating myself, I hope Im not.

 

 

 

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

On 3/20/2024 at 7:12 PM, Timberley said:

 

Hey @jaxom - As things currently stand, it's the models selected for those particular regiments, and their colour schemes that mark them as different from each other.  Within my own lore (tied to my subsector that the Dusk Falcons are part of), they're regiments that come from very different worlds (the 333rd Terrisinian coming from a Feudal World, the 295th from a desert Mining World).  My 'sadness' (for lack of a better word to hand) is more that whilst I have the lore, paint scheme, models, etc. of my regiments (and chapter, warband, et al) there's not really a way to have their particular fighting style be reflected within the rules as a 'regiment rule' or similar.

 

 

I think we're of similar mind there @Iron Father Ferrum.  I've been led to believe that HH has some elements of 'old school' GW within it that may be good for my Guard regiments.

 

Sorry I've not replied to most of you who've been engaging in this debate, I've been working in the middle of nowhere for a wee while.  It's been interesting reading all of the responses.

 

Overall, my thoughts boil down to; with the current edition, I can create elaborate lore for my various armies (or use the in-game stuff in the case of Farsight), paint up my models (badly), and so on, yet there's nothing I can use as a universal rule to show 'my guys' adopt a doctrine similar to 'X' named chapter/regiment/etc. (being more sneaky as RG successors, having more Farseers/Warlocks as Ulthwé, and so on) that plays out no matter which 'detachment' I select.  The Uriel Ventris example is one way where the named character (and his ties to the Ultramarines) provides a rule that'd be perfect for my Falcons (and the main RG), but I can't take it (in my mind anyway) because they're not Ultramarines.

 

If GW want to continue down the unit cards route, I think it'd be great to have officers/character archetypes be able to pick a single rule from a list that's printed on the card (and the full rules blurb/effects are in the Codex).  As the rules are on the cards, it wouldn't matter which chapter used them, and thus make them applicable to 'your guys'.  If you want to use the named characters, then they come with their rules (which may not be the same as one on the generic character list).  You could argue that people (particularly in tournament play) will field a list of characters that have the best combination of rules, but that's getting towards the competitive end of the player spectrum anyway.  What's everyone's thoughts on that as a sort of mid-way solution?

 

Going back to the Guard, and kind of looking for clarification on @DemonGSides point-of-view here; let's say I turned up with a list that included the following models (to go with my example regiments in my OP):

 

- Solar Auxilia Tactical Command Squad - counts as Platoon Command Squad - 333

- 20x Solar Auxilia - counts as Death Korps of Krieg Infantry Squad - 333

- Aethon Pattern Heavy Sentinel - counts as Armoured Sentinel - 333

- 10x Van Saar Gang - counts as Catachan Jungle Fighters - 295

- 3x Van Saar Arachni-rig - counts as Scout Sentinels - 295

- 10x Tempestus Scions - painted like the Solar Auxilia, but still Scions

- 5x Converted Kerberys (Van Saar riders) - counts as Attlian Rough Riders - 295

- 5x Van Saar Archeoteks & Champions - counts as Kasrkin - 295

- 1x Dracosan - counts as Chimera - 333

- 10x DKOK Engineers - counts as Infantry Squad (Mole Launcher is a mortar) - 270

 

In reality, this is only 3 regiments in my subsector lore: the 333rd Terrisinian Fusiliers; the 295th Morganthan Rifles; and the 270th Kheriban Armoured Regiment.  Would this feel confusing and/or odd?

It seems you’re mostly just annoyed by the lack of detachment options in the index which is ok, it is annoying, but it’s also relatively temporary, as once we get a codex those extra detachments are likely going to be valid for the next 3 years until the next codex which will likely be valid for the following 3 years, etc, until they do another major rules overhaul 

[Timberley]

On 3/25/2024 at 8:54 PM, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

It seems you’re mostly just annoyed by the lack of detachment options in the index which is ok, it is annoying, but it’s also relatively temporary, as once we get a codex those extra detachments are likely going to be valid for the next 3 years until the next codex which will likely be valid for the following 3 years, etc, until they do another major rules overhaul 

Kind of, but it's a bit more than that.  Let's say I take an army of Dusk Falcons (RG successor) and you take an army of Brazen Annihilators (IF successor).  We're both running the Ironstorm Spearhead.  Apart from the paint job, what marks us out as being successors to our respective chapters?  There's no named characters to use, no 'warlord trait', and no 'chapter rule' that operates independently of the Detachment.

 

For T'au, what marks T'au Sept as different to the Farsight Enclaves?  The only difference I can see is that if I take Commander Farsight, I can't have any Ethereals.  However, both can run Mont'ka, or Kauyon, or Retaliation Cadre. 

 

I could go on, but as I said elsewhere, it's more a 'flavour' rule independent of the Detachment that marks out 'your guys'.

[DemonGSides]

The make-up of your army?  Like, if Brazen Annihilators are all about Dreadnoughts (I have no idea what they're about, I haven't heard of either of those successors), and the Dusk Falcons are all about Gladiators, then I think the two armies will probably look different enough on the board (Assuming it's all painted) and play different enough even within the same detatchment that you should have some feeling of "your guys".  And if both chapters are about Dreadnoughts... well then yeah, they're probably gonna feel similar.  There's only so much design space in the game rules to begin with.

But once again, I think the way of madness is to demand that your guys in particular get to feel special; rules are always ephemeral and what's good one year isn't good another.  I would try to shift your mindset that "My guys" are what I put my time and effort into, not what rolls best on the table.

Edited March 30 by DemonGSides