The "Codex Compliant" Chapters can, and absolutely should, have access to Unique units.

[Brother Tyler]

Disclaimer: I haven’t read every post in this discussion. While I have read a few of the replies, my reply is focused almost solely on the premise established in the topic title (The “Codex Compliant” Chapters can, and absolutely should, have access to Unique units.) and the first post.

 

I agree with the argument to a point.

 

In general, Codex: Space Marines (or whatever the baseline Adeptus Astartes codex is called for the edition) represents those aspects of the Codex Astartes that are visible on the tabletop. While there is some notional “true” Codex Astartes (not least whatever Roboute Guilliman says it is), the fact is that there are different versions of the Codex Astartes scattered throughout the Imperium, each with small differences, omissions, and possibly additions. And this is compounded by the reality of different interpretations. As a result, two different Chapters can each have what they consider to be “the” Codex Astartes while having differences from each other. For example, the Red Scorpions consider themselves to be completely faithful to the Codex Astartes while giving their Chief Apothecary a preeminent role in the Chapter’s leadership that is not present in [most] other Chapters. Whether this is the result of interpretation on their part or variation in their translation is unknown to us, but the end result is that they are a “Codex Compliant” Chapter that is different from other Chapters. To allow for these variations, Codex: Space Marines should allow for a degree of flexibility that is within the standard deviation for interpretation/translation of the Codex Astartes. That flexibility should cover a broad segment of “divergences” that require rules.

 

Some Chapters may have a strong rationale for unique units. These may be simple rules add-ons, such as (and this is just hypothetical), giving Salamanders Terminators the option to replace their power fists with thunder hammers (which they could do in the 3rd edition version of their rules). Alternately, these unique units may require more complex rules, creating truly bespoke units. Realistically, there is even room for truly “divergent” units, even in so-called Codex Compliant Chapters. I think that both the Blood Angels and Dark Angels are good examples of this – while each of these Chapters is mostly Compliant to the Codex Astartes, they have a few notable differences that diverge significantly. In the aggregate, however, they remain Codex Compliant (albeit with a few quirks).

 

My personal opinion is that the vast majority of “divergences” should either be within the scope of the Codex: Space Marines rules or they should require only minor rules (via something like a Codex Supplement in White Dwarf Magazine). There is certainly room for some number of Chapters to have “divergences” that require bespoke units, but I think that those would be in the minority (and I’m not going to suggest some ratio there beyond a gut feeling that it’s something less than 3:1).

 

While some deviations from the Codex Astartes may require unique rules (detachments, stratagems, etc.), many deviations won’t. These might be things that are flavorful and obvious, such as titles (e.g., the Raven Guard having “Shadow Captains” instead of “Captains”) and livery (e.g., the unique company markings of the Salamanders). Many deviations won’t even be things that we notice on the tabletop – things like feast days, specific sequencing of Scout training methodologies, etc. Sometimes they might be preferences or focuses that are still within the standard rules (e.g., a Chapter that tends to take flamer weapons and hammers wherever possible).

 

It would be nice if Games Workshop gave us methods for incorporating some minor deviations as part of Codex: Space Marines. Something a little more flexible than what we’ve seen with the Chapter Tactics would be helpful, though I favor a little structure there to prevent the kind of shenanigans that we saw with the Chapter Traits (which led to a lot of optimizing based on army composition rather than Chapter attributes). I would keep these to things that give small flavorful changes without making the Chapter too divergent. And then it would be nice to see a range of codex supplements (article-sized, not book-sized) with divergent rules for those Chapters that need them. Despite the room for translation/interpretation differences, not every Chapter needs unique rules/units to represent their divergences. Personally, I would ensure that at least one of the “First Founding” Chapters doesn’t have a unique unit (i.e., a new datasheet), just to set the precedent that not everyone is going to get such units. In fact, I would suggest that most of the “First Founding” Chapters don’t need unique units, but they could have special wargear allowances for existing units that make them unique (e.g., Salamanders Terminators being able to replace power fists with thunder hammers). Disclaimer: I’m stuck in the 3rd edition Index Astartes rules .

 

Short answer: I think that most Chapters’ “unique units” should be represented by small modifications to existing units or a small rule or two at the Chapter level; and a small minority of Chapters actually need new units (i.e., datasheets) to represent unique units (that can’t be created via small rules).

 

The majority of “divergences,” however, don’t require any form of rules.

 

And if/when Roboute Guilliman replaces the Codex Astartes with the Codex Imperialis, the only thing about the above that will change is that divergences will have much less of a basis in different translations (I’m pretty sure the Regent will impose fairly strict quality control in the reproduction, distribution, and implementation of the new Codex) and will be based more in (likely small) variations in interpretation and preservation of Chapter-specific traditions. There will probably be a bit more flexibility built in. We'll still have "Codex Adherent" and "Codex Compliant" and "Codex Divergent" terminology, but that terminology will relate the new standard (Codex Imperialis) and not the old standard (Codex Astartes).

 

From a practical perspective, Games Workshop will impose limits based on model/kit possibilities. We may see a few unique kits or conversion kits, but these will be extremely limited. That’s just an unfortunate reality of how Games Workshop has shifted gears in the wake of legal cases and its ability to control its intellectual property. So while many of us might be able to point to certain Chapters and come up with justifications for why they need some form of unique unit, we’re not likely to see official rules for the vast majority of those units. The good news, though, is that players don’t have to play strictly according to the official rules when they’re playing friendly games, so your gaming buddies/groups may allow you to come up with unique units (within reason). That’s obviously not a solution for everyone, but it works well enough for many of us that want more flexibility.

 

Just my worthless opinion. 

[Tacitus]

5 minutes ago, Brother Tyler said:

 

 

My personal opinion is that the vast majority of “divergences” should either be within the scope of the Codex: Space Marines rules or they should require only minor rules (via something like a Codex Supplement in White Dwarf Magazine). There is certainly room for some number of Chapters to have “divergences” that require bespoke units, but I think that those would be in the minority (and I’m not going to suggest some ratio there beyond a gut feeling that it’s something less than 3:1).

 

 

Short answer: I think that most Chapters’ “unique units” should be represented by small modifications to existing units or a small rule or two at the Chapter level; and a small minority of Chapters actually need new units (i.e., datasheets) to represent unique units (that can’t be created via small rules).

 

The majority of “divergences,” however, don’t require any form of rules.

One point:  Not all bespoke units are a divergence.  As someone else pointed out Sanguinary Guard are just a Command/Honor Squad - and bespoke because they belong to Blood Angels who like to Jump.  The Ultramarines had a Power Armor Honor Guard with Suzerain (The winged) Helmets, Axes of Ultramar and Bolters - plus a Chapter Champion and a Chapter Ancient carrying the Chapter Banner.  They were (originally) sold as a unit with Calgar the Chapter Master.  The Sanguinary Guard were fluffed a little different and didn't necessary always have the Chapter Ancient etc but its pretty close to a parallel. 

 

Likewise the Deathwing Terminators (And Deathwing Knights) are still 1st company Terminators.  Not really a divergence.  Giving Iron Hands an evolved (i.e. different but obviously descended from) Gorgon Terminator Unit doesn't make for divergence either, just character.

 

With that said most of the actual divergences will absolutely require new rules and datasheets.  The Bike and Boxes White Scars army can't really be made right now.  The only datasheet available is the Chaplain on Bike.   Some of the rules are already there in the "White Scars" detachment from the main book.  They probably need Bike Cap, Bike Libby and a bespoke bike unit.  I also preferred when they all had their own bespoke Librarius discipline.  I mean yeah most of the powers were minor variations on each other - Witchfire 6A S5 -1 D1 just from a flying boulder, or a nimbus of cloud lightning, or eldritch smiting, balefire etc- but a couple in each one was fluffy - earthy sand pit traps for Imperial Fists, coalescing shadow shields for Raven Guard etc. 

[casb1965]

Reading this thread makes me think what you want is 8th ed Chapter Tactics where you could create your own Chapter to your liking from a list of traits.

It won't give you different units but it changes playing style massively. 

[Tacitus]

30 minutes ago, casb1965 said:

Reading this thread makes me think what you want is 8th ed Chapter Tactics where you could create your own Chapter to your liking from a list of traits.

It won't give you different units but it changes playing style massively. 

Somewhat.  I'd like to Hybridize several editions and release a new system for creating HQ models with datasheets.  I like Chapter Tactics being on the Detachment not the Chapter better.  Just because Salamanders prefer to do the flaming melta thing doesn't mean some company of the Imperial Fists aren't also into the melting flame approach to Seigecraft.  I'd like to see all the Chapter Command for each of the Primogenitor chapters and the couple successors released so everyone has roughly the same bespokes after you also add in the units like Gorgon Terminators, Dark Fury Assault Squads, and so on the 30K units updated for the 40K Tabletop.  I want every one of the officially supported (mainstream) chapters to have full options, and each of them being able to make at least two different builds that are also different from other chapters, and that are roughly comparable in power.   To put it another way there are 9 Loyalist legions which add 2 more second foundings for 11ish officially supported Marine Codex armies.  I want to be able to play 10 games, and not feel like any of them were a repeat. 

[DemonGSides]

14 hours ago, Tacitus said:

So you're saying the Lore that makes them divergent has nothing to do with GW giving them divergent rules?  I'm really not sure what point you think you're making here.  Is there a Codex Compliant Keyword?  Is the Codex Astartes a rule book we're supposed to be following?  I mean the entire definition of Divergent vs Compliant is lore based, right?

 

I'm saying that when people are talking about the divergent chapters, they aren't speaking about the lore in any shape way or form (IE Are they compliant or not?), because they're taking about the game that GW has created where only four chapters of space Marines have a preponderance of bespoke units and rules, and we refer to them differently because is this, NOT because they are actually not codex compliant, because it's easier than having this explanation typed out every time.

 

I literally am not speaking about the Lore (where half of the "divergent" chapters being mentioned are actually fully codex compliant (as much as any of it can be since, once again, there is no factual Codex Astartes to point to)), but that people are quick to confound the discussion of models with the lore when it doesn't necessarily apply.

 

Then you went and did it again.  Exhausting.

Edited February 14 by DemonGSides

[Brother Tyler]

By definition, anything that diverges (or deviates) from the norm is divergent (or deviant). If Codex: Space Marines represents the "norm" established by the Codex Astartes, anything that needs different/additional rules to be represented is divergent (and a lot of things that aren't rules-based, such as livery and lore) might be divergent, too.

 

The examples provided are poor: The Sanguinary Guard are divergent because they have weapons that are not available to the comparable Codex Astartes unit, the Command Squad. The Deathwing are divergent because they mix the wargear of Terminator and Terminator Assault squads (and the Deathwing Company is composed solely of squads wearing TDA rather than allowing power armoured veteran units. Players can't create these units using the rules in Codex: Space Marines, so they are clearly divergent (as opposed to just being divergences of preference). While there are "divergences" that allow for representation within the confines of the standard rules (i.e., preferences), anything that requires a bespoke set of rules, whether some add-on or a distinct datasheet, is clearly divergent.

 

Yes, many Chapters have lore that would support having bespoke units (White Scars veteran bikers, Raven Guard veteran scouts) and/or modeling solutions (power lances for the White Scars, left-handed power fists for the Salamanders Firedrakes).

 

The real issue is quantifying divergences to determine when the aggregate results in a Chapter being Divergent (capital D). The Blood Angels and Dark Angels have notable divergences while still being considered Codex Compliant. The Ultramarines, too, have divergences and they are considered the poster boys of Codex Compliance (even though lore bits have claimed that there are other Chapters that might equal/exceed the Ultramarines in this regard, such as the Crimson Fists, Imperial Fists, and Black Consuls). I recall a discussion that took place at the B&C 12 or more years ago where we tried to wrap our heads around this concept - quantifying and representing Compliance/Divergence visually. I initially proposed a model using polar math, though I later decided that model didn't work. Regardless, that discussion never went anywhere because (a) it's a highly subjective issue, and (b) we don't have the actual guidelines of the Codex Astartes with which to build any model. We have a lot of evidence from the codices and lore (Insignium Astartes for the win!), but not enough to create a concrete model that would allow for definitive visual representation.

 

From a game balance perspective, some system of rules allowing for divergence (not to reach our notional concept of Divergence) would be nice. Any such flexibility, however, requires trade-offs. The end result should be that any divergence results in a Chapter being different without being better than the standard. I think that this was much easier to implement with points, but there may be ways to do this under the current model. Again, though, I'll point to the Chapter Traits system as an example of how incorporating such differentiation is ripe for abuse. It was a fun system and it ushered in a flurry of DIY Chapter creation activities, but the execution was often different from the intent. The more flexibility a system affords, the more vulnerable it is to such abuse. The game is already difficult enough to balance given all of the factions and sub-factions. Many of the distinct elements of Chapters don't require unique units (which often require a modeling solution - a constraint for Games Workshop*), but could instead be represented by other rules.

 

 

 

* But this is something that players can address on an unofficial basis, and this is a long-standing practice within this community via homegrown rules. My default recommendation for players that strongly believe that other Chapters need their own unique units/characters is to develop them here. If Games Workshop ever decides to follow this concept, great. If not, players are free to trawl through the contributions of other members of the community to enrich their gaming experience.

[DemonGSides]

43 minutes ago, Brother Tyler said:

By definition, anything that diverges (or deviates) from the norm is divergent (or deviant). If Codex: Space Marines represents the "norm" established by the Codex Astartes, anything that needs different/additional rules to be represented is divergent (and a lot of things that aren't rules-based, such as livery and lore) might be divergent, too.

 

The examples provided are poor: The Sanguinary Guard are divergent because they have weapons that are not available to the comparable Codex Astartes unit, the Command Squad. The Deathwing are divergent because they mix the wargear of Terminator and Terminator Assault squads (and the Deathwing Company is composed solely of squads wearing TDA rather than allowing power armoured veteran units. Players can't create these units using the rules in Codex: Space Marines, so they are clearly divergent (as opposed to just being divergences of preference). While there are "divergences" that allow for representation within the confines of the standard rules (i.e., preferences), anything that requires a bespoke set of rules, whether some add-on or a distinct datasheet, is clearly divergent.

 

The attempt to pull it back with making the distinction with divergent and Divergent is noble, but it's just going to make people who already can't suss out the nuance even more confused; I get what you're saying, but other poster's can't even get past the idea that the tabletop and the lore aren't 1:1 with each other, and they REALLY can't get around their heads that sometimes people are speaking purely from gameplay perspective, not worrying about what the Lore would specifically determine.

 

When talking about Lore, "Divergent" (with a capital D) is most likely just Non-Compliant; these wouldn't be BA, or DA, but SW and BT would qualify.  When talking about the tabletop, "divergent" (Small d) is talking about all of those Space Marine forces that aren't wrapped up in Codex: Space Marines (Including DW on top of the other mentioned above), and has NOTHING to do with the Lore implications of Big D Divergent (Which I think is more or less easily described as "Non-Compliant", since there's no "Well they are sort of Compliant" with this distinction; sort of compliant is still compliant, as has been established with BA and DA for decades).

This is, quite literally, where this entire thread hails from, as OP thinks that Compliant Chapters could have bespoke units; I do as well, but the response to the thread has been grounded in Lore when it's really a thread about the models and gameplay, and I think it creates a weird soup where people are mostly talking past each other.

Edited February 14 by DemonGSides

[Brother Tyler]

The problem there, though, is that justification for unique units is derived from lore. Granted, Games Workshop can make up or modify whatever lore it wants to justify whatever unique units they create. For us hobbyists, though, there will be considerable debate over whether or not some [proposed] new unit has any basis in lore. Ultimately, you can't examine the premise of this discussion without considering lore.

 

I don't know that I'm trying to "pull it back" in my posts, however. Or maybe I am - I suppose it depends upon what you mean. My basic argument is that I sort of agree with the OP's argument - I think that some Chapters, including those that are considered "Codex Compliant" need actual unique units (whether through simple rules or through bespoke datasheets), but that many don't (i.e., their "unique" units still fall within the boundaries of whatever Codex: Space Marines allows). And this is all based on what I see the lore justifying.

[DemonGSides]

1 hour ago, Brother Tyler said:

The problem there, though, is that justification for unique units is derived from lore. Granted, Games Workshop can make up or modify whatever lore it wants to justify whatever unique units they create. For us hobbyists, though, there will be considerable debate over whether or not some [proposed] new unit has any basis in lore. Ultimately, you can't examine the premise of this discussion without considering lore.

 

I don't think this is true, nor is it relevant to the discussion of terminology that needed to happen prior to the 4 pages of posts that I tried to get out ahead of literally right off the bat, no one listened, and then it was 3 pages of arguing what boils down to semantics.  I'm not arguing about whether a unit has basis in lore (Though, I do think GW would gladly throw out any lore if they thought they had a cool model, and I think we all know this), but whether the conversations really need to be intertwined; in this discussion, I think it's more germane to discuss rules/models as opposed to getting tied up in circuitous arguments about the exact thing you posted about, quantifying how much divergence makes a chapter non-compliant; there's no way to do so, we literally ONLY have GW's words to go on, we have GW themselves calling DA and BA codex compliant and arguing otherwise is a fools errand.

 

1 hour ago, Brother Tyler said:

 

I don't know that I'm trying to "pull it back" in my posts, however. Or maybe I am - I suppose it depends upon what you mean. My basic argument is that I sort of agree with the OP's argument - I think that some Chapters, including those that are considered "Codex Compliant" need actual unique units (whether through simple rules or through bespoke datasheets), but that many don't (i.e., their "unique" units still fall within the boundaries of whatever Codex: Space Marines allows). And this is all based on what I see the lore justifying.

 

You're a mod/admin, even when not in official color chat you're still going to have an effect on the conversation; in this case you're "pulling back" the talking past each other that people are doing by trying to lay out terminology in a manner that everyone can agree with (Which I think is a good thing); I mostly agree with your points, just that I wouldn't bother with "Divergent" and "divergent", instead just leaving divergent to be a discussion of the models/rules and "Non-Compliant" when discussing the lore, as per the entire post I wrote.

 

THe actual point of "Should codex compliant chapters have bespoke units" is well, duh, obviously.  BA and DA are right there, they have had them for years.  Should GW make a unit for each chapter?  IDK about 'should' in this case, but I don't think they'd be wrong to do so, or suddenly make those chapters non-compliant by doing so.

[Tacitus]

7 hours ago, DemonGSides said:

 

I'm saying that when people are talking about the divergent chapters, they aren't speaking about the lore in any shape way or form (IE Are they compliant or not?), because they're taking about the game that GW has created where only four chapters of space Marines have a preponderance of bespoke units and rules, and we refer to them differently because is this, NOT because they are actually not codex compliant, because it's easier than having this explanation typed out every time.

 

I literally am not speaking about the Lore (where half of the "divergent" chapters being mentioned are actually fully codex compliant (as much as any of it can be since, once again, there is no factual Codex Astartes to point to)), but that people are quick to confound the discussion of models with the lore when it doesn't necessarily apply.

 

Then you went and did it again.  Exhausting.

And I'm saying you're wrong.  In the first place, I'm people, and I'm talking lore - which is what you're complaining about while saying people don't do that.  And you're categorically wrong because almost the entire basis for determining divergent vs compliant is lore based.  There are no rules in Codex:SM that tells you your 250,000 point army must be contained within 10 companies of 100 marines.  That's entirely a lore based critera.  There are no keywords.  No rules - beyond a few that enforce the lore - about how to collect or play your chosen chapter.

 

Now you could say there are two different ways Divergent vs Compliant is used, and there's some point to that but even then lore is a driving factor for that. 

[DemonGSides]

29 minutes ago, Tacitus said:

And I'm saying you're wrong.  In the first place, I'm people, and I'm talking lore - which is what you're complaining about while saying people don't do that.  And you're categorically wrong because almost the entire basis for determining divergent vs compliant is lore based.  There are no rules in Codex:SM that tells you your 250,000 point army must be contained within 10 companies of 100 marines.  That's entirely a lore based critera.  There are no keywords.  No rules - beyond a few that enforce the lore - about how to collect or play your chosen chapter.

 

Now you could say there are two different ways Divergent vs Compliant is used, and there's some point to that but even then lore is a driving factor for that. 

 

I think you're still misunderstanding me (Willfully, I might add, but who knows, really) but I don't think it's worth continuing to discuss it.  Exhausting, as I mentioned.

Edited February 14 by DemonGSides

[Tacitus]

3 hours ago, DemonGSides said:

 

I don't think this is true,

That's your problem right there.  You're complaining about the other people telling you otherwise but you're not thinking about it.  Codexes have more lore than rules.  30K is lore to 40K.  Black Library - especially the Horus Heresy Novel series in this case - is lore.  That's the source of most of the bespoke units and various rules.  UM veterans paint their helmets white because of the Polar Fortress stand.  Sergeants paint their helmets red because of Ventanus (I think?)  The lore had Gol Vorback long before the first model.   Deathwing was part of the Hexagramaticon. In the Lore the Sanguinor and the Sanguinary Guard - then known as the Ikisat were at the Seige of Terra - and that's why we see them today. 

Just now, DemonGSides said:

 

I think you're still misunderstanding me (Willfully, I might add, but who knows, really) but I don't think it's worth continuing to discuss it.  Exhausting, as I mentioned.

No, I'm willfully disagreeing with you with basic logic.  I don't disagree with you because I don't understand you.  I fully understand you're trying to separate the lore from the rules.  I disagree with you because you're wrong.  The Lore informs the rules.  You can dislike it, but its fact.  

[DemonGSides]

2 minutes ago, Tacitus said:

That's your problem right there.  You're complaining about the other people telling you otherwise but you're not thinking about it.  Codexes have more lore than rules.  30K is lore to 40K.  Black Library - especially the Horus Heresy Novel series in this case - is lore.  That's the source of most of the bespoke units and various rules.  UM veterans paint their helmets white because of the Polar Fortress stand.  Sergeants paint their helmets red because of Ventanus (I think?)  The lore had Gol Vorback long before the first model.   Deathwing was part of the Hexagramaticon. In the Lore the Sanguinor and the Sanguinary Guard - then known as the Ikisat were at the Seige of Terra - and that's why we see them today. 

 

This can all be true and has nothing to do with what I'm saying.

 

2 minutes ago, Tacitus said:

No, I'm willfully disagreeing with you with basic logic.  I don't disagree with you because I don't understand you.  I fully understand you're trying to separate the lore from the rules.  I disagree with you because you're wrong.  The Lore informs the rules.  You can dislike it, but its fact.  

 

Yeah like I said, you don't understand what I'm saying.  I'm not going to repeat it, but it has nothing to do with separating lore and rules.  It was about having better language so that people can get around the problems around separating lore and rules for discussion purposes, but you've got the bit in your teeth and are looking for fights, and I'm not interested.  It is willful misunderstanding, because I don't think you're incapable of understanding it.

[Tacitus]

1 hour ago, DemonGSides said:

 

This can all be true and has nothing to do with what I'm saying.

 

 

Yeah like I said, you don't understand what I'm saying.  I'm not going to repeat it, but it has nothing to do with separating lore and rules.  It was about having better language so that people can get around the problems around separating lore and rules for discussion purposes, but you've got the bit in your teeth and are looking for fights, and I'm not interested.  It is willful misunderstanding, because I don't think you're incapable of understanding it.

 

Maybe you don't understand what you're saying. 

Quote

but it has nothing to do with separating lore and rules

followed by

Quote

the problems around separating lore and rules

And you still haven't grasped the fact that I disagree with you.

Quote

It is willful misunderstanding, because I don't think you're incapable of understanding it.

I disagree with the idea of separating rules and lore.  The Lore informs the rules.  The lore is the source of the rules.  Without the lore there are no rules.  They cannot be separated.  The are intrinsically linked.  The premise itself is flawed.

[Evil Eye]

8 minutes ago, Tacitus said:

 

*Snip*

I wouldn't bother arguing with him, you'll just end up with a bunch of snide remarks aimed at you and passive aggressive "Haha" reacts on everything you post.

 

I fully agree with you, for what it's worth; the rules are a vehicle to represent the fluff. Some abstraction may be necessary to make the game more functional but full separation of fluff and crunch is a terrible idea, if even possible at all.

 

Re: DA and BA being "Codex Compliant" per GW, that's less proof that they are and have "always been Codex Compliant" and more proof that GW has absolutely no idea what the hell they're doing with their more recent fluff, and strikes me less as an intentional retcon and more as GW just forgetting what they've already established. Let's not forget the recent Eldar Codex claiming Wraithbone is just a "composite material made from various ores and minerals" rather than the semi-organic psychoplastic miracle metamaterial it had been portrayed as for literal decades after all. Also the whole "everything is canon, not everything is true" thing. And GW's tendency to walk back and retcon fluff at a moment's notice, like the Indomitus Crusade timeline being changed recently. And that's before we even get into the more subjective nitty-gritty of whether more recent fluff is even any good/worth acknowledging at all or not.

[Tacitus]

19 minutes ago, Evil Eye said:

I fully agree with you, for what it's worth; the rules are a vehicle to represent the fluff.

That's more Chicken-Egg to me.  You can't have one without the other, but Rules are for making fluff, vs fluff is there to make rules is a round-and-round.  Sometimes its gone both ways.  I'd imagine the Deathwing Terminators existed before most of the fluff for DA, while DWK came about because the Deathwing fluff expanded.  Likewise Deathwing existing in the fluff and the models probably informed the creation of Gorgon and Justaerin Terminators in the Horus Heresey books while then created them in the models.

[DemonGSides]

46 minutes ago, Tacitus said:

 

Maybe you don't understand what you're saying. 

followed by

And you still haven't grasped the fact that I disagree with you.

I disagree with the idea of separating rules and lore.  The Lore informs the rules.  The lore is the source of the rules.  Without the lore there are no rules.  They cannot be separated.  The are intrinsically linked.  The premise itself is flawed.

 

Like I said a misunderstanding. I'm simply saying better language could be used when talking about both things that would then stop these petty squabbles. It's fine. Just move on. 

[Medjugorje]

On 2/13/2025 at 4:32 PM, Valkyrion said:

Space Wolves aren't really that divergent.  They ride on wolves, which is a bit weird, but their structure is broadly that of a standard chapter. They have veterans, bikers, jump packs, devastator equivs, tactical equivs and so on. They might be a bit more Legiony than Chaptery as evidenced by lots of consul type leaders, more focused squads, larger than average squads, but really they share identity with the mainstream. Same with the Black Templars.

 

Having a slightly different organisation, or riding on wolves, or a proclivity for fire based weapons doesn't make you divergent. Neither does growing fangs, having a penchant for drinking blood or having coal black skin. 

Being entirely made up of Psykers does. Being possessed by daemons and then exorcised does. Excising flesh in favour of machinery does. 

 

Having lots of smaller differences makes you more divergent than some, but doesn't mean you are actually divergent.

 

 

SORRY - thats hard to read because its SOOOO wrong.  SW and BT are so divergent in their lore from a structure and from a philosophic way. In the rules they are not close what they are in universe when it comes to their difference to others.

There is a clear lore perspecitve how an army is built and how they warfare. SW and BT do it very differently.

 

But lets be honest. The special treatment by GW is because of style and because their fanbase. Of course Iron Hands are way more divergent then blood angels. 

We are still talking about THE GAME.

 

The game has a problem. If you decide to change from 10th edition detachment system back to chapter specific rules - there is always the problem that people dont see their playstyle fitting. So the only problem is the balancing problem that even Black Templars are better in GTF (which is the most Ultramarine themed) then all divergent chapters. There should be a way to let the Codex compliant chapters shine without being far better then all other chapters in their own themed detachment and its not very easy.

But imo - it should be possible to create characters which make special units Battleline OR work better. Even codex compliant chapters could have their own honor guard for example... or a White Scars a better Outrider squad as an example for a very tiny tiny divergence of the codex astartes and there would be a thing to help  the rest of the compliant chapters to work in the game.

[Medjugorje]

On 2/13/2025 at 8:13 PM, Orange Knight said:

 

I agree we *shouldn't* have both.

 

But some chapters do, so all chapters should. 

 

The ship has sailed.

I dont think so. There are reasons why people love some chapters more then others. Some reasons are quit "questionable" but okay. 

Ultramarines are the main protagonists in the entire story - check

Blood Angels are tragic vampires wit a great style of renaissance of north italy style... - check

Dark Angels are Knights of the round table,..... Black Templars are Knights of the Crusade,..... Space Wolves are Vikings.....

 

 

all tropes which are very beloved. Maybe Imperial fists, Mongolian hordes on bikes and so on are not as beloved to get their own model line.

All first founding chapters can be happy because of the Horus Heresy Novels and Forge Worlds game system introduced. Former 40k has far less interest in most first founding chapters. Iron Hands did not received any special character before 8th. 

 

There are already enough Space Marine chapters out there imo. Death Watch had never be their own army - just a squad as ally but now its too late. But then (from a GWs POV) lets deal with the most beloved chapters.

[Tacitus]

2 hours ago, DemonGSides said:

 

Like I said a misunderstanding. I'm simply saying better language could be used when talking about both things that would then stop these petty squabbles. It's fine. Just move on. 

Again, No, Disagreement.  There is no reason and its not possible to separate the lore from the rules.

[chapter master 454]

Not going to pretend I read the thread but the topic is interesting and I did give some glances to posts here but I do have some concerns over the idea...

 

Mainly, the fact it spits in the face of "I don't want layers on layers" argument that we saw in 9th. Each chapter having a unique twist of some kind is almost nigh impossible unless there is some amount of agreement to what level of complexity we want in the game.

 

To put my stance in clarity: I think the current system we have for factions is a great idea and a good system. Simple and straight forward. Each faction has a core ability that you will always get access to, then on top of that you put the appropriate detachment you want to use whose rules fit onto a double side of A4 paper. There can be some exceptions that could be argued in that some detachment rules require a little more than others but on the whole, 2 sides of A4 is all you need. Thus, with only 2 documents, double sided, you would have your faction rule, detachment rules and all stratagems in a simple place to read (I personally would put the core stratagems on the back of the faction rule piece of paper personally).

This means our rules are simple to grasp and not overly complicated.

However within this system I do feel there are places that are underutilized and some elements that could be explored.

 

The idea of custom chapter "traits" is just calling back to older gimmicks, such as 4th edition where we had the system that allowed us to take boons and curses to modify our chapters to be how we wanted them. This could be something of an interesting central CORE mechanic to space marines that could be spread out to other factions as a core mechanic to all factions in fact.

A simple system that allows players to get certain benefits at the cost of downsides.

This system however needs to be well designed and carefully done so because:

every game is a vacuum.

 

It can be fun to create chapters whose apothecaries could be chapter masters, chapters where the chaplains are also librarians and all sorts of wacky combinations of things that could occur. However, any allowance must be designed as if part of a player's army building composition.

After all, if one of the downsides is "tanks are now BS6+" but I don't take any tanks...in what way am I punished for the benefits I get?

 

Then what about each pre-defined chapter being the only ones with unique benefits?

Then everyone needs to be okay with there being blue white scars, black ultramarines and green templars.

If each of the current chapters were to gain some sort of benefit that only they get access to, this is a component that needs to be looked at NOT as a "fluffy" option, but as part of list building. A layer on army construction. While some people play hardcore fluff and nothing else, others play hardcore crunch. I am personally someone who enjoys fluff but as an avid list builder and tinkerer, I also go deeper into crunch too. If you give me a unique option that I only get by going a certain chapter, it isn't me choosing the chapter, its more I am choosing the option with the restrictions that follow.

 

In fact, we are seeing that now within space marines of all ilks. Divergent vs. Compliant (and Dirty Compliant; detachments of divergents without any special units) where players are being asked: is access to certain units better than the boost to the oath of moment?

I am personally tinkering with this, Deathwing Knights are incredible and have done great work for me but...that +1 to wound is incredibly tempting, especially combined with Gulliman. This however does give layers of complexity that some may find unappealing however, no matter how simple it is it is still a decision players must make.

 

I would love to see some amount of variance brought for the other chapters. As it stands, the Ultramarines have enough on their own to be considered their unique factional bonus: their character access is arguably the best of all space marines bar none as Tigerius, Ventris, Gulliman and Calgar are often seen, commonly all together.

 

The whole idea sounds good but you have to remember, when do you stop adding layers and for who do you stop for?

[Tacitus]

2 hours ago, Medjugorje said:

I dont think so. There are reasons why people love some chapters more then others. Some reasons are quit "questionable" but okay. 

Ultramarines are the main protagonists in the entire story - check

Blood Angels are tragic vampires wit a great style of renaissance of north italy style... - check

Dark Angels are Knights of the round table,..... Black Templars are Knights of the Crusade,..... Space Wolves are Vikings.....

 

 

all tropes which are very beloved. Maybe Imperial fists, Mongolian hordes on bikes and so on are not as beloved to get their own model line.

All first founding chapters can be happy because of the Horus Heresy Novels and Forge Worlds game system introduced. Former 40k has far less interest in most first founding chapters. Iron Hands did not received any special character before 8th. 

 

There are already enough Space Marine chapters out there imo. Death Watch had never be their own army - just a squad as ally but now its too late. But then (from a GWs POV) lets deal with the most beloved chapters.

Ultramarines are the protaganists now, at the beginning they were more 4th of 4 as Greco Romans.

Blood Angels are Spanish.  Luis (Dante) is Spanish, Louis is French, Luigi is Italian.

Dark Angels are Teutonic

Still and all, pretty close.

 

I'm hoping 30K/Horus Heresy results in even more support especially for the "secondary" Codex chapters.  Its easy to draw the line from UM DA and BA special units in Horus Heresy to their 40K descendents.  Time to make the same thing for everyone else.

[VengefulJan]

2 hours ago, Tacitus said:

… its not possible to separate the lore from the rules.

Im sorry, but when you state this, are you saying the lore and the rules of faction are intermittently linked, or that we cannot have a discussion of the rules of a faction without discussing their lore in perspective?

Edited February 15 by VengefulJan
Word error

[Tacitus]

59 minutes ago, VengefulJan said:

Im sorry, but when you state this, are you saying the lore and the rules of faction are intermittently linked, or that we cannot have a discussion of the rules of a faction without discussing their lore in perspective?

I'm saying you can't have a discussion worthy of the name by ignoring the fluff/lore.  How deep is the BA rule discussion if you're not talking about BA inclinations towards Jump Packs, Terminators, etc?  I mean sure, you CAN have a discussion about why Vulkan He'stan gives +1OC to the Inflaminator Squad (Without the lore).  But its going to be a short and pointless one. If you want to talk about Iron Hands getting a bespoke unit you pretty much have to start with the Gorgon Terminators from the Planet Medusae - because of the lore. 

Edited February 15 by Tacitus

[VengefulJan]

 

Ya'll have a nice day.