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

[Timberley]

Yeah, I'm playing my Raven Guard Successor chapter as Ultramarines Vanguard Spearhead in current games, with my Company Captain 'counts as' Uriel Ventris, and my Chapter Master 'counts as' Calgar, because they're painted up nicely in the their deep grey, and it's the only way to get them to play the way they're written in my lore.  As you say, rules are ephemeral, so who cares if they're not actually Ultramarines.

[Karhedron]

7 hours ago, Timberley said:

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? 

 

I see your point. You want RG successors to play differently to IF successors, even if they are playing an "armoured company" style list?

 

The problem with this is that it becomes harder to balance lists. Instead of having 7 different detachments for example, you have 7×7=49 combos to test for balance. You also run into problems that anyone wanting to play an Infiltrators-style list will feel the need (either thematically or rules-wise) to play RG.

 

You are asking for extra differentiation but previous editions have shown that in practice, it also bring both balance issues and restrictions. I love playing my Space Wolves but I am enjoying mixing things up a bit and trying out the Firestorm Detachment without having to ditch all my wolf units and play counts-as-Salamanders.

[Rain]

IG are kind of a special case, as GW butchered the faction by making the various regiments into specific units meant to be souped together. This is unlikely to be fixed by a Codex, and all but requires “counts as” to run a themed army.

 

For Marines, the really divergent chapters are/will still get their own sets of supplements so that you can play different styles of army with while still fundamentally being, say, Dark Angels. 

That said, the other side of this is that having a “chapter trait” and separate “detachment” layer usually leads to an optimal combo that everyone takes anyway. So, you’d probably just end up with models painted as Salamanders “counting as” Raven Guard if the player wanted to run the stealth detachment, etc. anyway. 

[apologist]

11 hours ago, Rain said:

[…]

That said, the other side of this is that having a “chapter trait” and separate “detachment” layer usually leads to an optimal combo that everyone takes anyway. So, you’d probably just end up with models painted as Salamanders “counting as” Raven Guard if the player wanted to run the stealth detachment, etc. anyway. 

Yeah, this gets to the root of the problem, I think. The desire for GW to create balanced options for competitive Matched Play works against the roleplay element of having as much freedom and as many options as possible.

 

While GW continue to focus on Matched Play and keep Narrative and Open Play leashed to it, that’s always going to warp and restrict the options available.

[Doghouse]

I think the issue with the game being so tied to balance is that the game was never intended to be balanced full stop. It was intended to be wargaming which traditionally had roleplay scenario elements and not what it has become which is something more akin to being forced into an e-sport product mentality.

 

I think that there is still room in the form of house rules to allow more creativity for personalised armies but it means finding like minded players that are willing to play in the sandbox that 40k was intended to be rather than stay within the confines of the little box of officialdom that it has become.

 

I can totally appreciate people still find it fun and fair play to them but it deeply saddens me to say that to me personally it's it's become a vapid and soulless superficial product grind.

 

In my day the creativity was the focus where it was making models or house rules to share with others but to me now it's all about leaks, rules, youttube promotion and fomo these days.

[Dr. Clock]

19 hours ago, Karhedron said:

You want RG successors to play differently to IF successors, even if they are playing an "armoured company" style list?

It's easy to leave out the part where unit choices (and actual modeling/painting) are and must always be the biggest lever for making your collection coherent, interesting and unique.

 

While it's clearly true that choices have narrowed and lost some 'distinction' in terms layers of rules to go on top of the basic unit identities, it is still completely possible to run the same list, even the same skew list, and take on some of the traditional identities or hallmarks of a 'canon faction'. Well - at least for marines or anyone with multiple detachments at this point.

 

Like - one can still make a vanguard or siege force with lots of tanks, we're just maybe not going to be leveraging those detachment bonuses in the most efficient way if we do. And I think that's perfectly okay! I think it's good to challenge yourself and take more interesting and unexepected choices from time to time.

 

One thing I love about the new rules is precisely the way that I can see how a single list usually has about 3 potential detachment options that are at least interesting and comparable on paper, and I do need to actually answer a question about how I intend to use the army. I always have a choice as a commander to try some different tools even if the selection of models never changes.

 

I fully appreciate that 'finding the anchor' for an army these days seems a bit tougher because they have made the anchors less obvious and eliminated much of the connection between rules and paintjobs. In this anarchy, there is still great potential for expression.

 

Cheers,

 

The Good Doctor.

[Timberley]

On 3/30/2024 at 8:16 PM, Karhedron said:

 

I see your point. You want RG successors to play differently to IF successors, even if they are playing an "armoured company" style list?

 

The problem with this is that it becomes harder to balance lists. Instead of having 7 different detachments for example, you have 7×7=49 combos to test for balance. You also run into problems that anyone wanting to play an Infiltrators-style list will feel the need (either thematically or rules-wise) to play RG.

 

You are asking for extra differentiation but previous editions have shown that in practice, it also bring both balance issues and restrictions. I love playing my Space Wolves but I am enjoying mixing things up a bit and trying out the Firestorm Detachment without having to ditch all my wolf units and play counts-as-Salamanders.

 

In answer to your first point; exactly.  Not completely differently, but something that adds more flavour to the subfaction choice beyond the paint job and one's own lore.  In tournament play, we know that players who are min-maxing their opportunities to win will pick the 'meta' subfaction to go with a detachment, which is expected.

 

I see your point about it creating additional balance issues, and I completely agree.  I can see some form of nightmare from trying to balance more of this sort of thing!

 

In answer to your final statement, this is one where you've half-shown my point.  The Space Wolves get their own units (Blood Claws, etc.) that are similar to the default units, but have distinctions that mark them apart (similarly to the other divergent chapters).  It's great, as Space Wolves (my original Marine army back in the 90s) are set up to be entirely different from the more Codex-compliant chapters and this is shown in the rules .  However, this distinction that you enjoy is technically lost for me, because my parent chapter is more Codex-compliant (despite their chapter organisation being more in line with the Space Wolves in my lore).  Hence I need to play 'counts as' to bring it more in line with the vision/lore for my chapter.  Either way feels like I've lost something that you haven't, if you follow me.

 

[Rain]

12 hours ago, Doghouse said:

I think the issue with the game being so tied to balance is that the game was never intended to be balanced full stop. It was intended to be wargaming which traditionally had roleplay scenario elements and not what it has become which is something more akin to being forced into an e-sport product mentality.

 

I think that there is still room in the form of house rules to allow more creativity for personalised armies but it means finding like minded players that are willing to play in the sandbox that 40k was intended to be rather than stay within the confines of the little box of officialdom that it has become.

 

I can totally appreciate people still find it fun and fair play to them but it deeply saddens me to say that to me personally it's it's become a vapid and soulless superficial product grind.

 

In my day the creativity was the focus where it was making models or house rules to share with others but to me now it's all about leaks, rules, youttube promotion and fomo these days.

The removal of armories and unit armament choices really hurt this personalization element. Having different unit leaders with different gear, the same type of unit kitted out for different roles based on weapon upgrades, and HQ choices with meaningful wargear choices gave a quasi-RPG feel to the game which has totally been lost.

 

Now most units feel like a card in a TCG. For many units, each individual squad is totally identical ruleswise (eg, Berzerkers, which have effectively no options) which kills a lot of the “your dudes” feel.

[ThaneOfTas]

2 hours ago, Rain said:

The removal of armories and unit armament choices really hurt this personalization element. Having different unit leaders with different gear, the same type of unit kitted out for different roles based on weapon upgrades, and HQ choices with meaningful wargear choices gave a quasi-RPG feel to the game which has totally been lost.

 

Now most units feel like a card in a TCG. For many units, each individual squad is totally identical ruleswise (eg, Berzerkers, which have effectively no options) which kills a lot of the “your dudes” feel.

Could not agree hard enough. There's such a disconnect between the rules and any model that I try and make a bit more personalised. I've never felt more that they are Game Pieces, rather that "my guys" that I can also use in a game. And for people whose primary motivation for this hobby is the game/competitive side then thats fantastic I'm sure, but seeing as I am more narrative and lore focused, it kinda sucks for me. Especially seeing as Crusade, as much fun as I had with it last edition, is still shackled to the restricted options inherent in matched play 10th.

 

Personally I don't have any real issues with the new detachment system/lack of chapter tactics, maybe it's because I mainly play Blood Angels and as such I don't really have any fewer options than I used to/never relied on them, but for me the issue is much more focused on the unit level, rather than the detachment level.

[DemonGSides]

9 hours ago, ThaneOfTas said:

Could not agree hard enough. There's such a disconnect between the rules and any model that I try and make a bit more personalised. I've never felt more that they are Game Pieces, rather that "my guys" that I can also use in a game. And for people whose primary motivation for this hobby is the game/competitive side then thats fantastic I'm sure, but seeing as I am more narrative and lore focused, it kinda sucks for me. Especially seeing as Crusade, as much fun as I had with it last edition, is still shackled to the restricted options inherent in matched play 10th.

 

Personally I don't have any real issues with the new detachment system/lack of chapter tactics, maybe it's because I mainly play Blood Angels and as such I don't really have any fewer options than I used to/never relied on them, but for me the issue is much more focused on the unit level, rather than the detachment level.

I'm the opposite of a tournament/Competitive player, and this edition has been the best with letting me do whatever I want to make my guys feel like mine.  I can equip them with whatever I want, and know that I'm not getting penalized if I do want to play the game.  My chaplain has two swords; who cares?  The unit is bespoke, so we know what it's going to do in the rules, but the model itself is my guy; I built him, I painted him, I made him mine.  So what if the rules don't let me take two power swords?  The rules are delineated so that those concerns are gone; a chaplain has a crozius and a pistol, and my opponent knows that so they can play the game in their way, and I can continue having my cake and eat it too; I get to field my favorite models and I get to play the game, without having to worry if suddenly because I'm not playing a WYSIWYG list, I'm suddenly out of luck.

Especially great with the Blood Angels you used as an example; if I want to play a very 'traditional' blood angels list with a couple of Death Company, a couple of Dreads, a couple of jump pack guys and Dante leading them all with a 5 man of Sanguinary Guard, I am encouraged to.  By that same metric, if one game I want to play a more vehicle oriented Blood Angels list, I'm not penalized because my guys are painted red; they can take Ironstorm just like anyone else, and it can mesh with whatever head canon I wanted it, whereas in previous editions, I'm playing "Iron Hands, but Red".  Now I can drop that whole nonsense and just say "I'm playing Armored Column Blood Angels" and it's fine, no weird hoop jumps necessary.

Now, I think a lot of people need to take that whole idea one step farther (And ideally GW would as well), and just start ignoring the "heroic characters" actual names.  Like lets say you wanted to play a bespoke offshoot Space Marine Chapter, but you REALLY like Vulkan He'Stan's datasheet, just wish it wasn't Vulkan.  Okay, so it's not Vulkan.  It's Gregorious Schlaborpius, who just happens to do a lot of things like Vulkan He'Stan, he just has a different name.  That type of "counts as" should be literally no issue with anyone, as long as you're playing the game correctly (And you're not obviously modeling for advantage either).

Basically; I think a lot of people see what GW puts out, and their critical thinking brain turns off and just goes "Well the company said no".  It's toy soldiers, you can kinda do whatever you want, as long as you're willing to talk about it.  As long as the person on the other end is trying to engage in good faith, I think most situations can be handled, and you can still feel your "My guys" with your toy soldiers.  I just think marrying the rules to toys is less interesting than letting someone make some cool toys and fit the rules around them.

Edited April 1 by DemonGSides

[DemonGSides]

I also think there's a lot of historical precedent for "I have my list, any tweaks are small tweaks, not units being switched out or whole new lists being made." whereas the past years have definitely leaned far more towards "Have a variety of units, plug them into a list and use what I'm feeling in the moment", much more akin to a TCG or deck-builder style game.

Like, how many older threads exist where someone is like "Here's the 2000 points I have collected of space marines, I don't have much else but I got these ones fully painted and I like playing the list"?  Quite a few!  Whereas modern style is much more "Have 10-20 hellblasters, but sometimes you don't even play 5".  Definitely a by-product of the Tournament style game being the focus over the hobbyist side. (Also the Rule of 3 basically just letting people know "Buy 3x of this kit, you're good forever)

I don't think it's a GOOD thing, but it's worth understanding and appreciating that the way things are done has changed, which definitely can layer onto that "These aren't my guys."  I think the answer to that problem is not to just be frustrated or try to force the old way, but to either adapt the thought process or change the direction on how you make the toys "your guys".  I totally understand a lot of the frustration around losing options to make the models and the rules mesh and become your guys; I don't necessarily LOVE the way that 7th ed did war gear but having a lot more options was definitely a way to represent your guys.  I just think that A) That way was madness for balance, and also for understanding the game (Too many options can get burdensome with making sense of what's doing what) and B) there are good tools right now for making the rules feel like your guys without making anyone feel left out, leaving the hobbyist side to make up the difference for that feeling of "My guys", which, at least to me, is a good thing, as it should be the visuals that make them your guys, not just that you've got bespoke rules (Which makes "your guys" a whole lot like everyone else's 'my guys' because you're all playing the same "special thing", whereas if you are all expecting to play similar rules but have cool looking armies and specialized army lists, gives you that feeling while also not being a rules nightmare of interlocking puzzles).

Edited April 1 by DemonGSides

[Rain]

Well, two things:

 

(a.) I actually agree with regard to converting your own version of Special Characters. My "Khârn" is a conversion with my own headcanon for him. He's a loyalist that was captured at Istvaan and experimented upon. He still thinks that he is on Instvaan, and that the enemy are the "traitors." Occasionally he has moments of lucidity which cause him to kill his own side, before the nails kick in again. That said, I still liked it better when I could build my own bespoke characters.

 

(b.) The current rules let you stick whatever on your Chaplain, and call it a day, but under the old system there were actually meaningful differences that reflected in gameplay in how you equipped your dudes. Sure there was always a "meta" loadout, but it was fun to occasionally build dudes with niche loadouts, and to try to get them to actually work. Your double sword Chaplain is like having a MTG card with alternate art. It's the same card, that does the same thing as every other card with that name. It's not the same as building your own "card" with a list of costed upgrades. Finally, there was plenty of "yeah, this big flail is a Relic Blade, I just thought it looked cooler" even when armories were a thing. This is not an advent of the Brave New World of PL for all.

 

 

[DemonGSides]

32 minutes ago, Rain said:

Well, two things:

 

(a.) I actually agree with regard to converting your own version of Special Characters. My "Khârn" is a conversion with my own headcanon for him. He's a loyalist that was captured at Istvaan and experimented upon. He still thinks that he is on Instvaan, and that the enemy are the "traitors." Occasionally he has moments of lucidity which cause him to kill his own side, before the nails kick in again. That said, I still liked it better when I could build my own bespoke characters.

 

(b.) The current rules let you stick whatever on your Chaplain, and call it a day, but under the old system there were actually meaningful differences that reflected in gameplay in how you equipped your dudes. Sure there was always a "meta" loadout, but it was fun to occasionally build dudes with niche loadouts, and to try to get them to actually work. Your double sword Chaplain is like having a MTG card with alternate art. It's the same card, that does the same thing as every other card with that name. It's not the same as building your own "card" with a list of costed upgrades. Finally, there was plenty of "yeah, this big flail is a Relic Blade, I just thought it looked cooler" even when armories were a thing. This is not an advent of the Brave New World of PL for all.

 

I think the alternate art style is a better practice than trying to let people build their own cards.  It never worked well in practice; was tough to deal with in gameplay (Slower rolls because your units are singularly bespoke instead of being a bespoke entry in the datacards), and made balancing a nightmare (Allowing everyone everything is not the way to making a clean and easy to pick up game).

Now, you can still make that really cool guy, but the game doesn't suffer for you trying to be special.  Everyone gets equal treatment, everything works more swimmingly.

And I never said Counts as didn't exist, thanks. I just said that counts-as is no longer as difficult to monitor or deal with as it did back in the day.  Something you, ostensibly, would be happy to see, considering you're saying it happened all the time anyways!

[SkimaskMohawk]

We can look back to the 4th edition and 5th edition marine codexes a bit and see that one had a lot of customization in the chapter rules, and the other only changed when you took a faction specific character.

 

But even with the rather detachment-like faction rules of 5th, there wasn't a big loss of individualism. You still had a pretty expansive armoury, you had the variable squad size, you had some interesting flavour units (chapter master, honour guard) and multiple archetypes like drop pods, mech, and bikes. You could still really make your own army, even if you were on Combat Tactics, and imo the biggest part was that there weren't these complete trap units. Stuff had some overlapping roles, but you didn't lose if you took options B and C instead of A; you could take the units you wanted and equip them to do a role and be good.

 

[jaxom]

On 3/30/2024 at 8:23 AM, Timberley said:

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? 

I'm going to talk about this purely from a Space Marine perspective because I don't know a lot about T'au.

 

One of the key features in game design is granularity: how much does each turn of the "dial" impact outcome? A larger number of outcomes creates smaller grains; a dial with 100 notches means each notch is 1% of the dial, while a dial with 6 notches means each notch is 16.7% of the dial. Warhammer uses a d6; it is equivalent to our six-notched dial. A +1 bonus to a roll increases the percentile by 16.7 percentile points. From another perspective, BS3+ with +1 to hit has a 25% increase in effectiveness (Goonhammer has an article breaking down all this stuff).

 

Why do I bring this up? Because of how these dials are used in game design. A major factor a designer has to wrestle with is, "How different are these two things relative to my dials?" And the 40k rules-writers decided that Space Marine gene-heritage is not worth a 25% difference in effectiveness and that Space Marines doing Space Marine things are the same across the board when doing the same thing in the same way. Consider the images of three different Chapters taking breach in a fortification:

Spoiler

 

 

 

 

Astartes in power armour, delivering a lot of violence. That's the core fantasy. "But Raven Guard are sneaky!" Yes, when they are trying to be sneaky which is more often than other Chapters. They use Vanguard detachments more often, they field more units in Phobos armour more often. But this:

Spoiler

is just as stealthy as this:

Spoiler

 

TL;DR @DemonGSides described it quite well with "if Brazen Annihilators are all about Dreadnoughts ... and the Dusk Falcons are all about Gladiators, ... the two armies will play different enough even within the same detatchment ....  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."

 

Edit: apparently page 4 didn’t load so there’s a bunch that got added. To address the options issue: sounds like Ironstorm should have Dusk Falcon Infiltrators for infantry while Brazen Bulls

would use Heavy Intercessors.

Edited April 1 by jaxom

[Halandaar]

The only advice I can give anyone in this hobby is build your dudes the way you like them and to hell with the rules, because they are temporary (and to a large extent, cyclical)

 

Come 12th edition different combi weapon profiles and the like will be back and GW will be telling us what a great new change it is to be able to to tailor your models to deal with specific threats, and combined with a brand new granular points system you'll have an unprecedented level of customisability. 

[MegaVolt87]

On 3/31/2024 at 3:34 AM, DemonGSides said:

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.

 

Agree, I also think people's "my guys" also begin to drift into main character syndrome territory when making homebrew lore. It's hard to hear for example, your HQ lore has basically become one punch man/ Goku etc. Need to dial that back. 

[jaxom]

I always liked @Octavulg's take on coming up with lore for 'your guys.' 

 

[Timberley]

On 4/1/2024 at 8:25 PM, jaxom said:

I'm going to talk about this purely from a Space Marine perspective because I don't know a lot about T'au.

 

One of the key features in game design is granularity: how much does each turn of the "dial" impact outcome? A larger number of outcomes creates smaller grains; a dial with 100 notches means each notch is 1% of the dial, while a dial with 6 notches means each notch is 16.7% of the dial. Warhammer uses a d6; it is equivalent to our six-notched dial. A +1 bonus to a roll increases the percentile by 16.7 percentile points. From another perspective, BS3+ with +1 to hit has a 25% increase in effectiveness (Goonhammer has an article breaking down all this stuff).

 

Edit: apparently page 4 didn’t load so there’s a bunch that got added. To address the options issue: sounds like Ironstorm should have Dusk Falcon Infiltrators for infantry while Brazen Bulls

would use Heavy Intercessors.

 

To be honest, I think we're in agreement in so far as keeping rules/features to a minimum to prevent the issues you describe above.  I remember poring over countless books mid-game in earlier editions, which made games seem to last forever.

 

Your edit is very much the sort of thing I was thinking of when I initially started this thread; you've said it much better than I have!  Something like having the Battleline Infantry squads have a rule dependant on the Founding Chapter.  Admittedly that's 6 extra rules/enhancements to balance (assuming the non-compliant chapters retain their supplements), and I'm confident that some sort of meta would appear in the Tournament scene, but I really like it.  It could make Battleline Infantry feel more useful, particularly in an edition where there's all manner of specialists that get picked over standard squads (as current winning tournament lists show).

 

Looking outside the Marines, we could apply similar ideas to the other factions.  I've not really looked closely at a lot of the other factions, so I'm not sure how mono-organisation they are compared to Marines, but I think it'd fit.

 

One slight tangent (but bear with me as it comes back to 'your guys') is that I recently found my old 2E Imperial Guard Codex (and my OG metal Stormtroopers) when I went home for a visit.  In it, the named captains were replacements for mandatory generic HQ captains, whilst others (e.g. Yarrick) were independent, and the rest of the army list was generic (Command HQ, Storm Troopers, Veterans, etc.).

 

In the current Index, the IG suffer from unit duplication, with the difference being down to their regimental abilities.  They've got 7 named characters (if you count Gaunt's Ghosts as a single character) and a generic character in the Cadian Castellan.  There's a distinct lack of high-level generic characters (Company HQ, Regimental HQ, etc.) for us to use, which leads to everyone using Lord Solar and Ursula Creed, even if they might not fit 'your guys', and employing 'counts as' when your Ursula Creed is actually your old painted Yarrick model, and Lord Solar is a converted Freeguild Cavalier Marshal.

 

However, if we had a Regimental Colonel HQ choice, which can issue 2 Orders and has the Senior Officer ability, which you can replace with Ursula Creed (who has her special abilities instead), that'd be great for the 'my guys' idea.  We would also have a generic Veterans Squad, which have the Kasrkin statline and abilities (Warrior Elite and Scouts 6"). 

 

That's a bit long-winded (sorry, brevity isn't my strong point), but the crux is that the Guard currently lack some generic units you can apply 'your guys' to (the other part of my 'your guys' musings). If they had a 'Regimental Doctrine' they could choose too, then it'd be a winner in my book.

 

I agree with @Halandaar about having fun with your lore and models and not getting hung up on the rules (using 'counts as' where appropriate), but I also like the old approach of having a whole bunch of generic units, which the named characters replace.  We could even circle that back to the Marines, with a generic 'Master of the Fleet' captain, which can be replaced by Ventris, where his named wargear is the difference between them.

 

[Interrogator Stobz]

There are some great points here.

One of the things I have been pondering about how we're losing the 'feels' is one of scale.

By that, I mean the granularity you can achieve inside unit level vs. the whole army.

 

As an ex service person, we knew well the value of small team bonding, up to about 10 people is it, then there are rapidly diminished bonds between those members and members of other small units. 

Now, each unit needed to know it was part of something bigger, but the details of those in other groups were unimportant. 

 

Back to our game and this issue; having almost zero granularity at unit level whilst having a few at army level feels impersonal. That is absolutely fine at the Apoc and Epic scale games, but not so much for me at this larger skirmish level.

 

Editions where you could personalize individual minis both in rules and looks felt great. Every time you created and painted a new unit, it was like being posted to a new and exciting team and you took that to the table.

 

Now minis feel vanilla even though they have 'special' rules on each datasheet, no individual gets the chance to resonate as a team player.

PL and their equivalents are awful for a small unit game.

 

Now, its true, too many bonus rules at the army level have really warped balance over the years, on the D6 having every single mini 16% better was way too much, as are many of the Strats and Armywide special rules, but things like a few Sgt equivalents here and there as Vets, and that special weapon guy with the lucky melta always felt great and immersed you back into each unit.

 

Just my 2c. But I think that's why I prefer Deathwing to vanilla TDA, variety within the team.

 

[jaxom]

Spoiler

8 hours ago, Timberley said:

 

To be honest, I think we're in agreement in so far as keeping rules/features to a minimum to prevent the issues you describe above.  I remember poring over countless books mid-game in earlier editions, which made games seem to last forever.

 

Your edit is very much the sort of thing I was thinking of when I initially started this thread; you've said it much better than I have!  Something like having the Battleline Infantry squads have a rule dependant on the Founding Chapter.  Admittedly that's 6 extra rules/enhancements to balance (assuming the non-compliant chapters retain their supplements), and I'm confident that some sort of meta would appear in the Tournament scene, but I really like it.  It could make Battleline Infantry feel more useful, particularly in an edition where there's all manner of specialists that get picked over standard squads (as current winning tournament lists show).

 

Looking outside the Marines, we could apply similar ideas to the other factions.  I've not really looked closely at a lot of the other factions, so I'm not sure how mono-organisation they are compared to Marines, but I think it'd fit.

 

One slight tangent (but bear with me as it comes back to 'your guys') is that I recently found my old 2E Imperial Guard Codex (and my OG metal Stormtroopers) when I went home for a visit.  In it, the named captains were replacements for mandatory generic HQ captains, whilst others (e.g. Yarrick) were independent, and the rest of the army list was generic (Command HQ, Storm Troopers, Veterans, etc.).

 

In the current Index, the IG suffer from unit duplication, with the difference being down to their regimental abilities.  They've got 7 named characters (if you count Gaunt's Ghosts as a single character) and a generic character in the Cadian Castellan.  There's a distinct lack of high-level generic characters (Company HQ, Regimental HQ, etc.) for us to use, which leads to everyone using Lord Solar and Ursula Creed, even if they might not fit 'your guys', and employing 'counts as' when your Ursula Creed is actually your old painted Yarrick model, and Lord Solar is a converted Freeguild Cavalier Marshal.

 

However, if we had a Regimental Colonel HQ choice, which can issue 2 Orders and has the Senior Officer ability, which you can replace with Ursula Creed (who has her special abilities instead), that'd be great for the 'my guys' idea.  We would also have a generic Veterans Squad, which have the Kasrkin statline and abilities (Warrior Elite and Scouts 6"). 

 

That's a bit long-winded (sorry, brevity isn't my strong point), but the crux is that the Guard currently lack some generic units you can apply 'your guys' to (the other part of my 'your guys' musings). If they had a 'Regimental Doctrine' they could choose too, then it'd be a winner in my book.

 

I agree with @Halandaar about having fun with your lore and models and not getting hung up on the rules (using 'counts as' where appropriate), but I also like the old approach of having a whole bunch of generic units, which the named characters replace.  We could even circle that back to the Marines, with a generic 'Master of the Fleet' captain, which can be replaced by Ventris, where his named wargear is the difference between them.

 

 

5 hours ago, Interrogator Stobz said:

There are some great points here.

One of the things I have been pondering about how we're losing the 'feels' is one of scale.

By that, I mean the granularity you can achieve inside unit level vs. the whole army.

 

As an ex service person, we knew well the value of small team bonding, up to about 10 people is it, then there are rapidly diminished bonds between those members and members of other small units. 

Now, each unit needed to know it was part of something bigger, but the details of those in other groups were unimportant. 

 

Back to our game and this issue; having almost zero granularity at unit level whilst having a few at army level feels impersonal. That is absolutely fine at the Apoc and Epic scale games, but not so much for me at this larger skirmish level.

 

Editions where you could personalize individual minis both in rules and looks felt great. Every time you created and painted a new unit, it was like being posted to a new and exciting team and you took that to the table.

 

Now minis feel vanilla even though they have 'special' rules on each datasheet, no individual gets the chance to resonate as a team player.

PL and their equivalents are awful for a small unit game.

 

Now, its true, too many bonus rules at the army level have really warped balance over the years, on the D6 having every single mini 16% better was way too much, as are many of the Strats and Armywide special rules, but things like a few Sgt equivalents here and there as Vets, and that special weapon guy with the lucky melta always felt great and immersed you back into each unit.

 

Just my 2c. But I think that's why I prefer Deathwing to vanilla TDA, variety within the team.

 

 

 

I've become increasing convinced that as messy as killing the Old World was, at least it created a clean break. As 8th became 9th became 10th, and I've been able to compare what's happened in 40k to AoS, I think it's resulted in a lot of unhappiness among the 40k community (which we didn't see once AoS settled) because there are still too many artifacts of earlier editions. The problem is that those earlier editions are based on a completely different design philosophy. It's like trying to understand chemistry if you were only taught alchemy. One is clearly descended from the other, and a lot of the basic vocabulary and concepts are the same, but the philosophy which drives development and understanding of one is completely different from the other. 

 

Personally, I can't enjoy the system GW is trying to make as much because the artifacts make things too messy. Meanwhile, I feel it's disingenuous to try to pass off the new system as an extension of the old because the design philosophy behind it is completely different. I know other people on the board don't feel that way, but comparing editions 3.5 and earlier to now is apples and oranges. They're both fruit, spherical, and tasty, but they don't taste the same.

 

@Interrogator Stobz put it excellently, "One of the things I have been pondering about how we're losing the 'feels' is one of scale. By that, I mean the granularity you can achieve inside unit level vs. the whole army." I appreciate 10th edition as a large quantity 28mm-scale miniatures war game for more than five factions. Maybe it's nostalgia glasses, but the following 2nd edition armies seem smaller compared to 2,000 points today. They're both about 35 models. 

Spoiler

 

 

 

[One Paul Murray]

From as objective a perspective as I can get I have felt that the original post, and a number of subsequent ones, do feel a bit unfair. Whether it be complaining about a lack of variety before your codex lands (which is different gripe) to asking for huge customisation in a game where most people also want good balance, both seem a tad unfair on GW to me.

 

I could not agree more with the comments on scale though. The increased lethality of the game and the whole 'trading piece' mentality is (I think) antithetical to the idea of investing emotion into your models as battlefield characters. If you pick up entire units on the regular then they just become chess pieces.

 

Jumping back up the thread too, I also agree with the people decrying special characters. That isn't for me, to be fair, and I think is another issue that arises from the sense of scale warping. Back in the day you would never have had enough points to have Guilliman and Ventris and and and... plus they used to limit the percentage of points for characters more strictly as we all probably remember. Because of those constraints I always remember thinking that in both 40k and WFB the characters were never worth it, but it feels like now they are essential. Probably as a result of their rules getting relentlessly improved due to their increasing presence.

[ThePenitentOne]

For me, I don't mind special characters, but I do think we need generic equivalents; as a Crusade player, named characters are essentially generics that have managed to achieve Legendary rank, and their battle honours are the special rules and custom wargear that they come with- you just don't get to choose it. Since half the fun in Crusade is earning your battle honours, it's more engaging to use generic characters, but there aren't always characters to use.

 

If I COULD choose Incubi Shrine Master instead of picking Drazhar, I absolutely would; the Shrine Master would have the ability to grow as I see fit, where Drazhar does not.

 

In the end, whether Shrine Master is more powerful than Drazhar or not really doesn't matter to me. What matters is that Shrine Master has a backstory that comes from the games I've played with him, as opposed to a backstory written by GW before the model ever appeared at my table. I don't object to the existence or use of the special character, I just want a generic version to exist along side the named version so that people can choose.

 

Prine Yriel and Illic Nightspear are particular examples that need generic versions- Corsair Felarch and Anrathe Leaders would allow players to field what feels like a Corsair army or a Ranger army. Named characters don't give us the same vibe- they make us feel like the army is a specific army of renown or some such thing, because the army can only be fielded if "that particular dude'" shows up.

 

Of course, none of that matters unless there's a Corsair detachment or a Ranger detachment... And there won't be (though the Alaitoc detachment may feel close).

[Rogue]

From a rules point of view, the times that I've felt most like my models were also 'my guys' was in 4th with Marines, and in 9th with GSC (in both cases, my main army at the time).

 

The 4th edition Marine codex introduced chapter traits, and I spent most of the edition running around with souped-up assault squads (fierce and stern, maybe), and no tanks. It wasn't incredibly different, but it was fun, and I was the only person I knew playing Marines that way.

 

And in 9th, I ended the edition really leading into the creeds and relics that gave me very powerful psykers whilst doing nothing for the other 95% of my models. But it didn't matter, because that was the vibe I wanted to lean into - they were my guys, and over time, the Magus had become (narratively) the linchpin of the force (with the Patriarch as more of a over-powered experiment/minion.

 

Which leads into my other take on 'my guys'. My armies have felt more like 'my guys' when I've had a narrative investment in them. Across 7th and 8th, a friend and I created a ongoing narrative out of every game we played (and occasionally used it to create scenarios too) - in the end, we had a whole history of the Uktramarines' attempt to subdue the Stalinvast uprising: named characters, events, notorious engagements, rivalries, the lot. Both armies were more than playing pieces - they were full of characters.

 

Similarly, although less extensively, I had a game against a different friend's Necrons that involved grabbing an object from the centre of the board and holding it till the game ended. My Marines slammed a rhino up the table, jumped out, grabbed the McGuffin and ran. The rest of the game involved the Necrons ruthlessly eliminating unit after unit, but never getting quite enough to prevent the survivors passing off the relic to the next unit. It was fi e turns of self-sacrifice that ended with the Captain holding the relic, surrounds by the few survivors of a devastor squad, and then pulling off some ridiculous shot to bring down the only necron that could have reached him. Clearly the relic was a powerful weapon, and ever since, that captain carried a relic bolter, because if it costs that many marine lives to get it, he better be using it as often as possible. Again, the narrative made him 'my guy'.

 

These weren't crusade games - just regular battles with a narrative gloss, but it really went a long way to personalising the armies we were using.

[ThePenitentOne]

That's a good point- you CAN add these kind of Narrative hooks without going down the Crusade Rabbit Hole like I did.

 

I find that Crusade gave me a lot of extra tools... But I ALWAYS played that way. My Sisters managed to capture an objective in an epic six player Apocalypse game many, many years ago (2008 to be exact), and I decided that not only was it a Praesidium Protectiva from the Witch Hunter dex, but specifically THE Praesidium Protectiva carried into battle by Saint Katherine herself on behalf of Alicia Dominica.

 

Years later when the Triumph of Saint Katherine was released, and the Praesidium Protectiva was displayed as the Order Relic, it took me a while to catch my breath, because I felt like someone at GW was watching that game and said "This guy gets it- we should make this official." Since you're a GSC fan, I have a similar story about the Kelermorph. After watching as much Mystery Science Theatre 3000 as I could get my hands on, I decided that a GSC might train hybrids to understand humans better by exposing them to human television...

 

So I created a unit of hybrids (based on the terrible plastics from the Genestealer expansion of Space Hulk) with buckstore cowboy hats, and one with a feather head dress from the same buckstore kit- he had a scratch-built compound bow. I put one of them on a horse, and used a toothpaste tube to build him a long coat; another had a toothpaste tube poncho. I called the unit "Cowboys from Hell" after the Pantera tune. And years later, I was positive someone at GW someone had a window into my gaming room, saw my Billy the Stealer conversion and decided to make the Kelermorph.

 

Back in the day, I made up the rules that allowed a sisters unit to swear a vow, become Repentia until they are redeemed in battle and return with greater glory. With Crusade, it's just easier because I didn't have to make them up and no one can whine about my house rules anymore, because it's in the book.