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

[TheNicronomicon]

1 hour ago, jaxom said:

A $60 kit including a Chapter Master, a Master of Sanctity, and a Chief Librarian.

 

A second $60 kit including a Captain, Lieutenant, and Apothecary.

 

A third $60 kit including a Chaplain, Judiciar, and something.

And something = jump pack chaplain? Are these all the same armor mark?

I know we’re wishcasting here but GW won’t look at that as making $60, they’ll see every kit as losing $80 

[Tacitus]

That's about 20 more kits.  8 Loyalist Legions - the Big Four = 4 Loyalists + 2 Imp Fists Successors is 6 x 3 kits each = 18 kits.

 

One Upgrade Sprue per chapter = 10 (+1 Generic/DIY =11?) One Character Body Kit per "armor type" = (Phobos, Mounted, Jump Pack, Terminator, Gravis) = 5 Blisters  total of 15/16  (17 if you make an optional cosmetic "Robed Tacticus Armor" for Stern/Blade/etc Guard motifs) and that not only can make the entire Chapter Command, but can also make the entire Chapter Command in all Armor types.   To do that with the 3 packs, you're looking at 18 kits x 5 types = 90ish kits.

[The Praetorian of Inwit]

I fully agree. 

 

About time Imperial Fists get some unique units. 

 

A 40k Breacher Squad would be epic. 

[One Paul Murray]

I find discussions like this one a bit baffling, I must confess. 

 

The level of contempt towards GW for building something that is the reason we're all here is really quite mental. I get that as a company they'll do things that consumers don't like and all that, and they'll occasionally do some things fully wrong... but they aren't stupid. They aren't all incompetents. They don't hate their clients. 

 

If you take those things as read then this debate becomes a lot easier to have, in my opinion.

 

Would it be ideal to have more flavourful options for non-divergent chapters? Yeah, 100% it would. But there is a trade off for game design that makes it harder to balance as you expand the Codex.

 

Should someone be able to use libs in the BT book because that is the way his custom chapter plays? Yeah, that'd be great. Until some unforeseen future scenario triggers an interaction between lib skills and BT unique units that smashes game balance and catapults pseudo-BTs into the stratosphere. 

 

There has to be a line that they draw between the fluff and the tabletop and for me I don't really think that they've been unreasonable. 

 

To the example of Bladeguard with hammers, why not just model them that way? Why does it matter - if fluff is your objective - that you lose out on a +1 strength, +1 attack, +1 AP etc? The point I would advance is that GW are balancing Bladeguard as an honour guard style formation so just model it your way and don't sweat the rest.

 

Could I see an argument that says you rein in or expand the access to divergent units? Yeah, fair enough. Do away with van vets and have sanguinary guards base profile be the model for a jump pack honour guard that can be modelled with dual lightning claws for the Ravenguard. 

 

Equally there's no reason that Deathwing Knights can't be a model stat line for fancy terminators.

 

I get that each of us will have a different point where the line needs to be drawn based upon our own interpretation, but people should stop assuming GW are idiots and try to understand their perspective. Doesn't mean you need to agree with it, but a bit of empathy goes a long way in calming the angst it seems to cause.

[jaxom]

2 hours ago, One Paul Murray said:

To the example of Bladeguard with hammers, why not just model them that way? Why does it matter - if fluff is your objective - that you lose out on a +1 strength, +1 attack, +1 AP etc? The point I would advance is that GW are balancing Bladeguard as an honour guard style formation so just model it your way and don't sweat the rest.

 

*SNIP* 

 

Equally there's no reason that Deathwing Knights can't be a model stat line for fancy terminators.

I’ve long been an advocate for Counts-As. I cannot think of a single First Founding Chapter or archetype that cannot reasonably be represented by using the current rules from one book or another. I think it comes down to a mix of yearning for the same level of attention across all Marines and wanting official kits.

[DemonGSides]

1 hour ago, jaxom said:

I’ve long been an advocate for Counts-As. I cannot think of a single First Founding Chapter or archetype that cannot reasonably be represented by using the current rules from one book or another. I think it comes down to a mix of yearning for the same level of attention across all Marines and wanting official kits.

 

Yeah some people are always gonna want more.

 

If people just got out of their own way, between the "divergent" chapters and base Codex: SM you can field pretty much any type of SM chapter you want.  Just gonna take a little imagination. 

[One Paul Murray]

1 hour ago, jaxom said:

I’ve long been an advocate for Counts-As. I cannot think of a single First Founding Chapter or archetype that cannot reasonably be represented by using the current rules from one book or another. I think it comes down to a mix of yearning for the same level of attention across all Marines and wanting official kits.

I suspect you're right, and it's kind of fair enough to an extent. But as I say, I just suspect that the knock-on impact of balancing it all becomes terrifically unwieldy.

[Tacitus]

6 hours ago, jaxom said:

I’ve long been an advocate for Counts-As. I cannot think of a single First Founding Chapter or archetype that cannot reasonably be represented by using the current rules from one book or another. I think it comes down to a mix of yearning for the same level of attention across all Marines and wanting official kits.

The only problem with counts-as is people tend to try and include mixing and matching when it was balanced for As or Bs but not As and Bs.

[One Paul Murray]

36 minutes ago, Tacitus said:

The only problem with counts-as is people tend to try and include mixing and matching when it was balanced for As or Bs but not As and Bs.

I think one of us has the wrong end of thr stick on this...

 

I meant, and I thought the "counts-as" comment supported, the idea that you just model them however you want and use Bladeguard rules. So if Bladeguard are armed with master-crafted power swords, but you want a unit with thunder hammers, then just model them as that and from a rules perspective those hammers are power swords.

[TheNicronomicon]

26 minutes ago, One Paul Murray said:

I think one of us has the wrong end of thr stick on this...

 

I meant, and I thought the "counts-as" comment supported, the idea that you just model them however you want and use Bladeguard rules. So if Bladeguard are armed with master-crafted power swords, but you want a unit with thunder hammers, then just model them as that and from a rules perspective those hammers are power swords.

GW has already done exactly this—Wolf Guard for example use “Relic Weapons” regardless of what’s on the sprue or in their hands. Hammer, axe, sword; it all “counts as” same RW profile. 

[jaxom]

3 hours ago, Tacitus said:

The only problem with counts-as is people tend to try and include mixing and matching when it was balanced for As or Bs but not As and Bs.

To be more explicit; when I say I'm an advocate of Counts-As, I am referring to using game-legal rules and compositions. For example, using Blood Angels LAG and Death Company units to represent the Sable-Marked Raven Guard or a Gladius Task Force and Deathwing Knights to represent Iron Hands accompanied by Cyborg Terminators or Stormlance and Ravenwing for White Scars. I am not, to paraphrase from an old article on DIY chapters, advocating for how one's super special chapter is so good at going fast and so good at mobile warfare that they can use Sanguinary Guard, Ravenwing, and Thunderwolf Cavalry all in one army. Personally, I've never seen or experienced the latter, only the former.

[Tacitus]

3 hours ago, One Paul Murray said:

I think one of us has the wrong end of thr stick on this...

 

I meant, and I thought the "counts-as" comment supported, the idea that you just model them however you want and use Bladeguard rules. So if Bladeguard are armed with master-crafted power swords, but you want a unit with thunder hammers, then just model them as that and from a rules perspective those hammers are power swords.

That's counts-as on a small scale, but when it hits large scale you're sometimes looking at cross-faction or cross sub-faction trying to use Deathwing Terminators in a Blood Angels army etc and that doesn't work because Deathwing Knights weren't balanced for Blood Angel detachments.  Its actually mix-and-match masquerading as Counts-As. 

[One Paul Murray]

In reference to my original comments and the subsequent "counts as" bits, I would say that I saw it one of two ways:

 

- we accept the game as is, with restrictions / freedoms that feel a bit unfair and arbitrary;

- the unique chapters lose most of their 'uniqueness' and their units become folded into the main codex as more generic things like 'jump pack honour guard with relic weapons', or 'elite terminator with relic weapons' etc etc. As I say, probably means there would need to be a reduction in some base units to avoid duplication (such as van vets).

 

In the latter instance there would still be some truly unique units (mainly space wolves with wolves and wulfen, and death company), but they would be limited to the really rare. You could make a case for others to be added, such as Mor Deythan for instance, where there is a non-wargear rationale for the inclusion. 

 

I think either is fine, personally, but I do think you have to accept that with any approach there are trade-offs.

 

What I don't think is a really sustainable idea is for there to be nine flavours of honour guard units (or 10 really, as Sword Brethren exist) each of which has it's own fluffy uniqueness, or specific interaction with a flavourful detachment. It would be nice, but personally I think that way madness lies.

 

But more than anything I think when people need to always be mindful that any change comes with a flip-side. There is always a trade-off of some description when making changes.

 

Sorry, just editing to add; personally I don't see why the second option needs to be taken, because (going back to the Salamanders hammerers) I don't see why people can't just model Bladeguard with hammers and use base Bladeguard rules. They are still your elite unit, you can headcannon who and what they are, do you need a rule to differentiate them too?

Edited February 21 by One Paul Murray

[Orange Knight]

1 hour ago, One Paul Murray said:

Sorry, just editing to add; personally I don't see why the second option needs to be taken, because (going back to the Salamanders hammerers) I don't see why people can't just model Bladeguard with hammers and use base Bladeguard rules. They are still your elite unit, you can headcannon who and what they are, do you need a rule to differentiate them too?

 

Why don't GW scrap all the chapter unique options? People can just kitbash them and use counts as.

 

What point are you trying to make? That people shouldn't express a desire for Games Workshop to make more unique models and rules for their chosen factions?

 

 

[One Paul Murray]

2 hours ago, Orange Knight said:

 

Why don't GW scrap all the chapter unique options? People can just kitbash them and use counts as.

 

What point are you trying to make? That people shouldn't express a desire for Games Workshop to make more unique models and rules for their chosen factions?

 

 

My point would be that adding more chapter-specific options is not a victim-less action, in the sense that is has consequences for game balance, faction bloat and so on. Not to ignore the commercial implications for GW trying to maintain niche model lines and moulds, which has to be paid for by consumers.

 

I'm not saying you are wrong for wanting it, but my original point was that the reason it isn't there is because doing so comes with implications, not that GW hates it's customers.

 

The rest is my personal opinion. Do I think you need IF breachers? I think they would be cool, but what niche do they fill? Are they a super tank line option, or an elite honour guard unit? If the latter then you have Bladeguard with shields and they can be modelled with pistols, so why do you need a specific unit?

 

In answering that I think you come back to another point made; aside from the rule of cool (which is fair, I'm not knocking it) you want it because you want some special rules to go alongside. Which then triggers the rules bloat and the balancing issues and so on.

 

In conclusion; I don't have an issue with you expressing a desire, but I don't think it is practical unless you take a more radical approach such as standardising some of the divergent units into the main codex (such as the aforementioned use of Sanguinary Guard datasheets as a generic jump pack honour guard unit). I also PERSONALLY don't think it is necessary as there are enough options within the marine codex to differentiate armies and I PERSONALLY don't think you need to carve out more bespoke units that have spurious differentiators such as a +1 here or there.

 

What I also said was that I think people rile themselves up by anti-GW rhetoric that clouds their judgement on some of these matters.

[TheNicronomicon]

3 hours ago, One Paul Murray said:

The rest is my personal opinion. Do I think you need IF breachers? I think they would be cool, but what niche do they fill? Are they a super tank line option, or an elite honour guard unit? If the latter then you have Bladeguard with shields and they can be modelled with pistols, so why do you need a specific unit?

I'm with you right up to this point and want to go one step farther. BGV are tuned entirely to the Fight phase, while Breachers ought to be tuned for Shooting first. Why can't GW simply offer an IF-only datasheet for BGV modeled with pistols that has a different ability more in line with what breachers do? It's the Hounds of Morkai route--same unit, different paint job/bling, different rules. Yes, it's more playtesting and balancing but I think adding 4-5 units (1 per non-SW/BA/DA/BT/UM Chapter, so White Scars, Imperial Fists, Iron Hands, Salamanders, Raven Guard) that differ slightly from a baseline unit (for example giving White Scars Biker Veterans a charge of d3+3" or a free fall back move or something, maybe they all have a yellow lightning bolt on their helmet or their bikes are all red or something to denote they're not "normal" Outriders. Maybe the Fists Breachers get -1 damage on one attack per turn or a better save or FNP in place of the variable BGV ability, and they all have black helmets with a white or gold stripe). Units like these could just be datasheet units. Shoot, most officer models are this already: a Space Marine Lieutenant works for any chapter, and even with divergence, since you can make a unique Space Wolves LT just by ensuring the model has both a bolt rifle and a power weapon. Same blister, same sprue, different datasheets depending on your Chapter. (You can already buy a box that contains the ingredients for two units--look at almost any Tyrannies box--so it's not like this is wildly new territory, even if you want to discount the Hounds of Morkai as a divergent aberration.)

Now it may be that GW has specific and sensible corporate business reasons to not want to do this, but if they wanted to, they could, and without deviating very far from their current strategies.

[Osteoclast]

Something I didn’t see mentioned (did skip a couple pages when it looked like fluff arguments), but the unique character model abilities should be available as enhancements rather than stuck to particular characters imho. No reason why Ultramarines should be the only ones to teleport Centurions around for instance. 

[jaxom]

That was the last version. Each special character came with one of the (usually) 6 warlord traits available.

 

The last few posts have given me a lot to ponder. Longer post later when I have time.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

On 2/20/2025 at 7:41 AM, One Paul Murray said:

I find discussions like this one a bit baffling, I must confess. 

 

The level of contempt towards GW for building something that is the reason we're all here is really quite mental. I get that as a company they'll do things that consumers don't like and all that, and they'll occasionally do some things fully wrong... but they aren't stupid. They aren't all incompetents. They don't hate their clients. 

 

If you take those things as read then this debate becomes a lot easier to have, in my opinion.

 

Would it be ideal to have more flavourful options for non-divergent chapters? Yeah, 100% it would. But there is a trade off for game design that makes it harder to balance as you expand the Codex.

 

Should someone be able to use libs in the BT book because that is the way his custom chapter plays? Yeah, that'd be great. Until some unforeseen future scenario triggers an interaction between lib skills and BT unique units that smashes game balance and catapults pseudo-BTs into the stratosphere. 

 

There has to be a line that they draw between the fluff and the tabletop and for me I don't really think that they've been unreasonable. 

 

To the example of Bladeguard with hammers, why not just model them that way? Why does it matter - if fluff is your objective - that you lose out on a +1 strength, +1 attack, +1 AP etc? The point I would advance is that GW are balancing Bladeguard as an honour guard style formation so just model it your way and don't sweat the rest.

 

Could I see an argument that says you rein in or expand the access to divergent units? Yeah, fair enough. Do away with van vets and have sanguinary guards base profile be the model for a jump pack honour guard that can be modelled with dual lightning claws for the Ravenguard. 

 

Equally there's no reason that Deathwing Knights can't be a model stat line for fancy terminators.

 

I get that each of us will have a different point where the line needs to be drawn based upon our own interpretation, but people should stop assuming GW are idiots and try to understand their perspective. Doesn't mean you need to agree with it, but a bit of empathy goes a long way in calming the angst it seems to cause.

Modelling=/=fluff

 

A BGV is a BGV no matter what kitbashing you do to them. Just like intercessors with giant shields being run as HIs are still only HIs. Theres nothing fluffy about an interesting kitbash, if it’s still just a basic normal unit.

 

people want to be able to represent fluffy armies on the table top, both in the models themselves as well as the rules/mechanics.

 

this thought process is like saying ‘why not just use terminator models to represent aggressors if you like terminators? Why does GW need to make new terminators?’

 

I want some of my models to use tridents, so I model them with tridents. Do I think a trident should have its own statline? No.

 

but thunder hammers are their own profiles already, and some chapters may have a preference for their use, so it would make sense to give that chapter a unique veteran unit that uses shields and a hammer.

a better argument would be build BGVs, give them hammers, and use the assault terminator datasheet.

however that could get rather confusing for an opponent.

 

21 hours ago, One Paul Murray said:

I think one of us has the wrong end of thr stick on this...

 

I meant, and I thought the "counts-as" comment supported, the idea that you just model them however you want and use Bladeguard rules. So if Bladeguard are armed with master-crafted power swords, but you want a unit with thunder hammers, then just model them as that and from a rules perspective those hammers are power swords.

Because people want to use thunder hammers, not power swords…

Edited February 21 by Inquisitor_Lensoven

[ThaneOfTas]

Gee, if only there were a way to put all the potential weapon options into a list, give them points values there, and then allow you to select which weapons a unit is equipped with while creating your army list. Some sort of wargear list perhaps?

 

Then your BGVs could be equipped with any from the list of melee weapons, or you could have the option to lose its melee weapon and pistol in exchange for a bolter..

 

Of course that would require GW letting us have options other than what is in the original box. And could make balance more difficult to attain, so perhaps it could be limited to non competitive games.

[One Paul Murray]

Well you could do that. And you could do what the previous poster suggested.

 

There's no argument that those things are not reasonable, it is about where you feel that line needs to be drawn.

 

But my point would be; if you allow hammers, do you allow claws? If you allow pistols do they have to be bolt, or can they be plasma or melta?

 

You get multiple options straight off the bat, and every time you have one you end up with the challenge that it is an opportunity for a unit with specific wargear options to become more efficient, every time you do it you run the risk that a strat catapults one unit / configuration beyond what you intended in game design.

 

I'm not saying that can't be done, I'm saying that there has to be a line drawn and if GW draw that line before reaching that point then I don't think that's unreasonable. 

Edited February 22 by One Paul Murray

[Orange Knight]

I don't support the ides of returning to having lots of wargear options for individual units.

 

1: Wargear is never balanced. Every time GW allow you to customise, the models always end up being the same anyway. Every Captain used to have a Jump pack and Thunderhammer. Before that they were all on bikes, etc etc.

 

2:  Deep customisation of wargear on a unit by unit basis is better suited to a skirmish game, not a tabletop wargame.

 

3: It's outright not needed because the range now offers ability and weapon profiles across the various units that cover all bases. Again, it would be great in a skirmish game where you need a single unit to engage a variety of enemies.

 

And finally:

 

4: This topic is not about discussing weapon profiles in existing units.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

6 hours ago, ThaneOfTas said:

Gee, if only there were a way to put all the potential weapon options into a list, give them points values there, and then allow you to select which weapons a unit is equipped with while creating your army list. Some sort of wargear list perhaps?

 

Then your BGVs could be equipped with any from the list of melee weapons, or you could have the option to lose its melee weapon and pistol in exchange for a bolter..

 

Of course that would require GW letting us have options other than what is in the original box. And could make balance more difficult to attain, so perhaps it could be limited to non competitive games.

And yet a ‘breacher’ squad was never available when we had such a mechanic

 

2 hours ago, One Paul Murray said:

Well you could do that. And you could do what the previous poster suggested.

 

There's no argument that those things are not reasonable, it is about where you feel that line needs to be drawn.

 

But my point would be; if you allow hammers, do you allow claws? If you allow pistols do they have to be bolt, or can they be plasma or melta?

 

You get multiple options straight off the bat, and every time you have one you end up with the challenge that it is an opportunity for a unit with specific wargear options to become more efficient, every time you do it you run the risk that a strat catapults one unit / configuration beyond what you intended in game design.

 

I'm not saying that can't be done, I'm saying that there has to be a line drawn and if GW draw that line before reaching that point then I don't think that's unreasonable. 

I mean, they could just do away with strats…that’s one of the largest sources of rules bloat there is.

 

either you memorize all your strats or you spend 15 minutes per phase per turn reviewing your strats to see if you have any that apply, or for the sake of time you only use the few you do have memorized and put yourself at a disadvantage.

 

2 hours ago, Orange Knight said:

I don't support the ides of returning to having lots of wargear options for individual units.

 

1: Wargear is never balanced. Every time GW allow you to customise, the models always end up being the same anyway. Every Captain used to have a Jump pack and Thunderhammer. Before that they were all on bikes, etc etc.

 

2:  Deep customisation of wargear on a unit by unit basis is better suited to a skirmish game, not a tabletop wargame.

 

3: It's outright not needed because the range now offers ability and weapon profiles across the various units that cover all bases. Again, it would be great in a skirmish game where you need a single unit to engage a variety of enemies.

 

And finally:

 

4: This topic is not about discussing weapon profiles in existing units.

I’ve said it once, I’ll say it again.

 

this is a skirmish game.

unless you’re playing something like a 5k point game it doesn’t come close to being two armies clashing.

 

a platoon or two of infantry and a few tanks (guard) is not an army it’s recon in force (aka a skirmish force)

 

just like a dozen or so super soldiers a one or two war coffins aren’t an army. It’s a skirmish force.

 

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/skirmish

 

Sure you can say ‘it’s a piece of a larger battle’ but the exact same thing can be applied to KT. It’s just a small window of a larger battle.

 

playing 40K as a true wargame is impractical and unwieldy.

[Orange Knight]

If you use real world logic in army size then yes, it's a skirmish game.

 

This is not real life.

 

In the realm of tabletop, it's most certainly a wargame. The games are already long and complex without micro-managing the shooting and combat phases of the individual units, especially when it often adds nothing of value. Eg: a single special weapon in a Tactical Squad.

 

Skirmish games are things like Necronunda, Kill Team, Malifaux, Infinity, etc 

 

 

Edited February 22 by Orange Knight

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

48 minutes ago, Orange Knight said:

If you use real world logic in army size then yes, it's a skirmish game.

 

This is not real life.

 

In the realm of tabletop, it's most certainly a wargame. The games are already long and complex without micro-managing the shooting and combat phases of the individual units, especially when it often adds nothing of value. Eg: a single special weapon in a Tactical Squad.

 

Skirmish games are things like Necronunda, Kill Team, Malifaux, Infinity, etc 

 

 

Well if we exclude logic then sure! Anything goes!

im not using ‘real world’ logic. I’m using in universe logic. Combat patrol is warhammer 40K, but clearly skirmishes. Boarding actions are warhammer 40K, but are clearly skirmishes.

 

so you’re saying necromunda and killteam don’t fall under the umbrella of wargaming? If I go to a generic wargaming forum or FB group there won’t be people discussing KT or necromunda there?

Edited February 22 by Inquisitor_Lensoven