Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Tyran wrote:
Eh army restrictions are still there and no one plays an army of Hive Tyrants.

For all the issues 10th has, I don't believe lack of army restrictions is one of them.

I believe that's a reference to Index 8th.

Oh yeah early 8th did had that issue.

 Tyran wrote:
Eh army restrictions are still there and no one plays an army of Hive Tyrants.

This is largely why the Rule of Three currently exists - because people were spamming Hive Tyrants! (amongst other OP units)

 Lord Damocles wrote:

 kodos wrote:
first of all, the people who learned those lessons are not longer working for GW...

If only human civilisations could develop a method of passing knowledge from one person to another over a span of time and/or distance... some arcane method of transcribing thought and knowledge which would be legible to those who follow...

but this cost money and you need to pay the time people need for that while if you don't to it, the game will still sell
doing something simple as that is wasted money if it does not influence sales

 Lord Damocles wrote:

 kodos wrote:
and than lessons learned from the previous Edition only work with the previous core rules (why we see rather big changes with the on release Errata)

Except that isn't true. Everybody with an above room temperature IQ knows that players will spam the best units/options (like taking multiples of Lash of Submission apparently taught GW in 4th ed.); yet somehow nobody conceived that removing army building restrictions to the point where you could make an entire army of flying Hive Tyrants might cause an issue...

but the reason to remove them was because GW struggled in balancing slots
as they did not understand that an army were all good units were in the same slot and limited to 3 total was weaker and therefore not sold as much as an army with a good unit in each slot therefore having 9 such units
that in addition the slots were based on fluff instead of rules making the problem even worse
than we take the rumour that the initial 8th edition was planned to follow AoS in style and because that game crashed it was changed and they just released old faction rules with new core rules figuring stuff out on the way simply because no one thought about it before because this was supposed to be different

that they needed to learn with the new core rules is shown by the initial errata for 8th and you can see the point were they learned that certain things work differently (like trying to balance pink, blue and yellow horrors with points until it made click and they realised that they need to change the ward save)

the reset for 10th was done because now they try to make a game instead of building on a patchwork, which makes sense but than the generic corporation stuff makes this a much harder task than it should be.
the different index showing that there was not much communication during writing, and going by GW that they don't want people to know the full picture to prevent leaks, everyone was working on their own and the combined work was released without ever looking closer into it of the combination works (because this costs time and money and people buy it anyway)

 kodos wrote:
but the reason to remove them was because GW struggled in balancing slots as they did not understand that an army were all good units were in the same slot and limited to 3 total was weaker and therefore not sold as much as an army with a good unit in each slot therefore having 9 such units that in addition the slots were based on fluff instead of rules.

Not even that really.

The old FOC was fluffy when applied to Space Marines and to lesser degree other somewhat conventional armies*. It never made much sense for less conventional factions like Tyranids or Daemons.

Sure a Hive Tyrant should be HQ and a Termagant troop... but Warriors flipflopped bewteen HQ, Elites or Troop depending on the edition and I have no idea why Hive Guard were Elite instead of Heavy Support, why Trygons were Heavy Support instead of Fast Attack and why I could not make an army of pure Raveners and other snakeish Tyranids Jormungandr-style?

*And even then the IG was macking a mockery of it since 5th with tank and aircraft squadrons.

If you want to use army construction rules as a balancing factor, then you have to apply an understanding of what makes a unit powerful and the whole army powerful. The FOC just lumped units into broad categories based mostly on the appearance and gut feelings. It didn't factor in the points efficiency of individual units, unit synergy, or the impact of skew lists.

And to be fair, writing rules that can tackle those considerations is hard. So instead we ended up with the rule of 3 which lets you build pretty much any army you want but also only lets you spam a hypothetical OP unit so many times.

I feel like the way they've handled strats and psychic powers and such in recent editions is also part of their attempts to deter spamming 3 of the best unit. If unit X is top tier but only when using a stratagem (which you can only use once per phase), then you're often better off taking 1 or 2 of unit X and then branching out into whatever your next best unit is.

 Wyldhunt wrote:

Me too! I think I'm just a little more lenient on how that lore is represented and also more conscious of the potential feels-bads your approach holds for those not wanting to lean into their army's stereotypes. Sincere question: do you think that a non-WS player who wants to run a bike army for fluff/aesthetic reasons should have to be at an automatic disadvantage compared to a WS bike list? Because that's the scenario I worry your approach creates.

Yes, WS are better known for fielding bikes than Salamanders are, but if a player likes the idea of a Salamander bike army (maybe to represent a specific campaign or just to carve out his own little corner of the setting), then I don't feel like he should have to play at a disadvantage because our hypothetical WS players won't feel special enough otherwise.

I think this hypothetical is a little off base in a chicken and egg kind of way. Those stereotypes go a long way in informing player army choices. I think a player who was interested in bikes wouldn't have started a Salamanders army in the first place. There were guys who were hard core into Salamanders before 5th when they magically got more popular for really inscrutable reasons. Some of them were so hard core they got named in the Nick Kyme novels. Having chosen Salamanders they confine themselves to playing the army in accordance with the fluff as much as possible. If the Salamanders don't use bikes much, then they won't put them on the tabletop much. And I'm not sure that they'll be sad that their bikes aren't as good as the Scars.

It's like the saga of chaos in the change from the beloved 3.5 dex to the reviled 4th edition book, often derided as "codex renegades." The writers said at one point that they felt the 3.5 book was too restrictive and they wanted the new book to give players as much freedom as possible to make their army their own. What they failed to grasp was that many players were wedded to those restrictions as a way to validate their armies. The proof was in how you conformed to the archetypes. "Here is my Word Bearers army. You can tell it's a Word Bearers army because it has an Apostle, only undivided icons and marks, and there's some daemons."

In the current environment space marine players have a lot of freedom in building their armies through the detachments, but this freedom erases the meaning in the choice of chapter. If everyone can run bikes equally well, then what value is there in choosing White Scars? Why would anyone continue to choose them if the only thing that makes them different is that painting white is a chore?

 Arschbombe wrote:

 Wyldhunt wrote:

Me too! I think I'm just a little more lenient on how that lore is represented and also more conscious of the potential feels-bads your approach holds for those not wanting to lean into their army's stereotypes. Sincere question: do you think that a non-WS player who wants to run a bike army for fluff/aesthetic reasons should have to be at an automatic disadvantage compared to a WS bike list? Because that's the scenario I worry your approach creates.

Yes, WS are better known for fielding bikes than Salamanders are, but if a player likes the idea of a Salamander bike army (maybe to represent a specific campaign or just to carve out his own little corner of the setting), then I don't feel like he should have to play at a disadvantage because our hypothetical WS players won't feel special enough otherwise.

I think this hypothetical is a little off base in a chicken and egg kind of way. Those stereotypes go a long way in informing player army choices. I think a player who was interested in bikes wouldn't have started a Salamanders army in the first place. There were guys who were hard core into Salamanders before 5th when they magically got more popular for really inscrutable reasons. Some of them were so hard core they got named in the Nick Kyme novels. Having chosen Salamanders they confine themselves to playing the army in accordance with the fluff as much as possible. If the Salamanders don't use bikes much, then they won't put them on the tabletop much. And I'm not sure that they'll be sad that their bikes aren't as good as the Scars.

It's like the saga of chaos in the change from the beloved 3.5 dex to the reviled 4th edition book, often derided as "codex renegades." The writers said at one point that they felt the 3.5 book was too restrictive and they wanted the new book to give players as much freedom as possible to make their army their own. What they failed to grasp was that many players were wedded to those restrictions as a way to validate their armies. The proof was in how you conformed to the archetypes. "Here is my Word Bearers army. You can tell it's a Word Bearers army because it has an Apostle, only undivided icons and marks, and there's some daemons."

In the current environment space marine players have a lot of freedom in building their armies through the detachments, but this freedom erases the meaning in the choice of chapter. If everyone can run bikes equally well, then what value is there in choosing White Scars? Why would anyone continue to choose them if the only thing that makes them different is that painting white is a chore?

So Salamanders NEVER field bikes?
You can get to 1,000 pretty easily with maybe two dozen bikes and bike-like models.

It might be unusual to see Salamanders field a bike list, but it's certainly possible. If someone were to collect a whole chapter of Salamanders, even with less bikes than Ultramarines have, they could easily do a mounted force for a 1,000 point game. Harder to do for a 2,000 game, but still possible, especially with Legends on the table.
Should that list be worse than a White Scars list of the same models?

 JNAProductions wrote:


It might be unusual to see Salamanders field a bike list, but it's certainly possible. If someone were to collect a whole chapter of Salamanders, even with less bikes than Ultramarines have, they could easily do a mounted force for a 1,000 point game. Harder to do for a 2,000 game, but still possible, especially with Legends on the table.
Should that list be worse than a White Scars list of the same models?

No, it should be different. The White Scars force should include some mechanized infantry, it should be a little faster and more adept at moving and acting (Advance/Fallback and Charge/Shoot) the Salamanders should include more flamers and melta that may or may not be mounted/mechanized - there should be HQ options beyond the Chaplain on Bike - for example a Captain on a Bike swinging a Thunderhammer for the Salamanders.

 JNAProductions wrote:

So Salamanders NEVER field bikes?
You can get to 1,000 pretty easily with maybe two dozen bikes and bike-like models.

No one is saying that. I'm just saying that bikes are not what Salamanders are known for and therefore players who are interested in bikes tend to look elsewhere. So there's no pressing need to ensure that when a Salamanders army does use bikes that they are just as special as the bikes from the chapter that is known for using bikes.

It might be unusual to see Salamanders field a bike list, but it's certainly possible. If someone were to collect a whole chapter of Salamanders, even with less bikes than Ultramarines have, they could easily do a mounted force for a 1,000 point game. Harder to do for a 2,000 game, but still possible, especially with Legends on the table.
Should that list be worse than a White Scars list of the same models?

I think it would be ok if they were worse. We're arguing about flavor versus fairness. That's what the thread is about. If you go all in on fairness then you lose all the flavor and chapters are just paint schemes in a book. If you go all in on flavor then you lose fairness and perhaps eventually balance. I think this is reflected in the perception of the index versions of 40k. Some people liked index 40k at the start of 8th because it felt fair. Others hated it because it was bland. As the codices came out the blandness started to fade and the fairness went out the window. 10th started over with indexes again and we've had multiple threads about lack of flavor because of that. The difference this time is that even the codices seem to be bland.

Anyway, people choose their chapters for a reason and they like to see those reasons reflected on the tabletop even if it means their chapter is better or worse at some things than the other guy's chapter. Look at HH. It's all marines all the time. From a xenos perspective it can't get any more boring than that. But HH take pains to ensure there are differences not just between loyalist and heretic, but also within those groups.

 Arschbombe wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

So Salamanders NEVER field bikes?
You can get to 1,000 pretty easily with maybe two dozen bikes and bike-like models.

No one is saying that. I'm just saying that bikes are not what Salamanders are known for and therefore players who are interested in bikes tend to look elsewhere. So there's no pressing need to ensure that when a Salamanders army does use bikes that they are just as special as the bikes from the chapter that is known for using bikes.

It might be unusual to see Salamanders field a bike list, but it's certainly possible. If someone were to collect a whole chapter of Salamanders, even with less bikes than Ultramarines have, they could easily do a mounted force for a 1,000 point game. Harder to do for a 2,000 game, but still possible, especially with Legends on the table.
Should that list be worse than a White Scars list of the same models?

I think it would be ok if they were worse. We're arguing about flavor versus fairness. That's what the thread is about. If you go all in on fairness then you lose all the flavor and chapters are just paint schemes in a book. If you go all in on flavor then you lose fairness and perhaps eventually balance. I think this is reflected in the perception of the index versions of 40k. Some people liked index 40k at the start of 8th because it felt fair. Others hated it because it was bland. As the codices came out the blandness started to fade and the fairness went out the window. 10th started over with indexes again and we've had multiple threads about lack of flavor because of that. The difference this time is that even the codices seem to be bland.

Anyway, people choose their chapters for a reason and they like to see those reasons reflected on the tabletop even if it means their chapter is better or worse at some things than the other guy's chapter. Look at HH. It's all marines all the time. From a xenos perspective it can't get any more boring than that. But HH take pains to ensure there are differences not just between loyalist and heretic, but also within those groups.

There are a couple of additional problems - one of which is when players of Chapter X feel that they should get everything that all the other Chapters get and then also be better at them in specific areas - so Dark Angels should have all the standard Marine stuff, but in addition the Best Terminators cos Lore, the Best bikers cos lore, the best plasma cos lore etc and don;t want any downsides of any kind becuase they have kept getting the bonsues previously. Now many other Chapters also have excellent bikers, terminators etc.

So Option One: GW keep trying to make DA "unique" by giving them extra rules for various units or even worse as they have been doing - keep making up super special new units so that they can better justify the same rules but if they do not also have the same or better units that every other Chapter has then they are screamed at as having "nerfed" DA.

Meanwhile those who want to use Terminator armies but not DA will also be penalised for not painting them as DA and will so often play them as DA but with different lore, painting scheme and may well have people having issues that they are not DA models/ etc.....whilst others will just sigh and play DA as they are the Terminator army.....

Option Two is as they have done is to have all Terminator focussed Chapters/armies use the same rules but then people get very upset feel that this is too bland as their favoured Chapter does alone not have super special rules.....

No win really.

When referring back to those 3rd edition lists, some of them were deliberately restricted compared to the default list as a representation of their lore. The Cursed Founding rules for example had some extra rules your squads still paid to upgrade with, in exchange for more limited heavy units, the loss of And They Shall Know No Fear, no allies, and no drop pod assault. Overall a nerf because these Chapters do often struggle against unfair odds in the lore. It is entirely a list for lore building.

 Mr Morden wrote:


There are a couple of additional problems - one of which is when players of Chapter X feel that they should get everything that all the other Chapters get and then also be better at them in specific areas - so Dark Angels should have all the standard Marine stuff, but in addition the Best Terminators cos Lore, the Best bikers cos lore, the best plasma cos lore etc and don;t want any downsides of any kind becuase they have kept getting the bonsues previously. Now many other Chapters also have excellent bikers, terminators etc.

The argument has avoided bringing the extra special chapters into the mix because the issues are ameliorated by having separate codices that make them separate armies. A separate DA codex can fully make DA marines+1 in all areas and it's fine assuming it's appropriately costed.

 Arschbombe wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:


There are a couple of additional problems - one of which is when players of Chapter X feel that they should get everything that all the other Chapters get and then also be better at them in specific areas - so Dark Angels should have all the standard Marine stuff, but in addition the Best Terminators cos Lore, the Best bikers cos lore, the best plasma cos lore etc and don;t want any downsides of any kind becuase they have kept getting the bonsues previously. Now many other Chapters also have excellent bikers, terminators etc.

The argument has avoided bringing the extra special chapters into the mix because the issues are ameliorated by having separate codices that make them separate armies. A separate DA codex can fully make DA marines+1 in all areas and it's fine assuming it's appropriately costed.

I'd argue "assuming its appropriately costed" works in general for subfaction lists, but I think the one thing everyone agrees on in this thread is that nobody trusts GW to be able to come close to doing that

Didn't I see a video by Auspex tactics that the top list at majors now is a DA list of Super heavy Flyers, a dark Shroud, and some infantry with Azrael? I mean, I don't think SM are dead. I think they are only ever one balance patch away from top tier or broken, which makes their popularity come in waves?

 Mr Morden wrote:

There are a couple of additional problems - one of which is when players of Chapter X feel that they should get everything that all the other Chapters get and then also be better at them in specific areas - so Dark Angels should have all the standard Marine stuff, but in addition the Best Terminators cos Lore, the Best bikers cos lore, the best plasma cos lore etc and don;t want any downsides of any kind becuase they have kept getting the bonsues previously. Now many other Chapters also have excellent bikers, terminators etc.

So Option One: GW keep trying to make DA "unique" by giving them extra rules for various units or even worse as they have been doing - keep making up super special new units so that they can better justify the same rules but if they do not also have the same or better units that every other Chapter has then they are screamed at as having "nerfed" DA.

Not better. Different.

Meanwhile those who want to use Terminator armies but not DA will also be penalised for not painting them as DA and will so often play them as DA but with different lore, painting scheme and may well have people having issues that they are not DA models/ etc.....whilst others will just sigh and play DA as they are the Terminator army.....

I have never seen a rule that says to use DA rules you must paint your minis exactly like they appear in the Citadel Colour App.

Option Two is as they have done is to have all Terminator focussed Chapters/armies use the same rules but then people get very upset feel that this is too bland as their favoured Chapter does alone not have super special rules.....

No win really.

Option 3 - and I think the best option - is to give everyone a couple minor fluffy subfaction boosts that tweak units so they're not better or worse, just different. Deathwing Terminator units that can take a Plasma Canon are not "better". They're actually/arguably worse right now with Cyclones being the "best", and Assault canon being "better". Likewise your claim that DA got "better" Terminators without any tradeoff is also inaccurate. Until recently DA did not have Vanguard Vets or Sternguard Vets. That was part of their tradeoff for bespoke Terminator Units.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Didn't I see a video by Auspex tactics that the top list at majors now is a DA list of Super heavy Flyers, a dark Shroud, and some infantry with Azrael? I mean, I don't think SM are dead. I think they are only ever one balance patch away from top tier or broken, which makes their popularity come in waves?

Probably not - I don't follow the tournament scene, but Super Heavy Fliers are pretty rare? It may have been full of regular flyers - and I'm pretty sure someone predicted that a little ways back when they saw the 0-2 per Army flyer restriction was gone and would be returning shortly after someone abused it. As with all things GW its pretty much cyclical - we did the Whirlwind/Thunderfire/Desolator Indirect abuse, and the flyer abuse was likely to be next in the pipeline.

Arschbombe wrote:

 Wyldhunt wrote:

Me too! I think I'm just a little more lenient on how that lore is represented and also more conscious of the potential feels-bads your approach holds for those not wanting to lean into their army's stereotypes. Sincere question: do you think that a non-WS player who wants to run a bike army for fluff/aesthetic reasons should have to be at an automatic disadvantage compared to a WS bike list? Because that's the scenario I worry your approach creates.

Yes, WS are better known for fielding bikes than Salamanders are, but if a player likes the idea of a Salamander bike army (maybe to represent a specific campaign or just to carve out his own little corner of the setting), then I don't feel like he should have to play at a disadvantage because our hypothetical WS players won't feel special enough otherwise.

I think this hypothetical is a little off base in a chicken and egg kind of way. Those stereotypes go a long way in informing player army choices. I think a player who was interested in bikes wouldn't have started a Salamanders army in the first place.

Choosing Salamanders over WS if you like bikers might be slightly odd, but I don't think it's unheard of or unreasonable. Again, maybe they really like the nice-guy-marines thing. Maybe they started with a more conventional Salamanders army, but then they fell in love with the bike models or just really like the mental image of Salamander bikers for whatever reason.

At the end of the day, if someone shows up to the store with a bike army painted green, do you think it's good for the game/hobby/person in front of you for his army to be penalized for its paint scheme? As I said to Aphyon on the previous page:

A.) Should an army be allowed to have a Salamanders paint scheme/lore and field a list focused on/consisting primarily of bikes?

B.) If so, is it acceptable/good for the game and player experience for such a list to be notably less powerful than a list with White Scars paint/lore? i.e. if the green bikes and the white bikes play Bob's orks 100 times each, the green bikes will win 30 games compared to the white bikes' 50 games because the green bikes' stratagems and special rules don't synergize with their selected units as well?

Breton wrote:
No, it should be different. The White Scars force should include some mechanized infantry, it should be a little faster and more adept at moving and acting (Advance/Fallback and Charge/Shoot) the Salamanders should include more flamers and melta that may or may not be mounted/mechanized - there should be HQ options beyond the Chaplain on Bike - for example a Captain on a Bike swinging a Thunderhammer for the Salamanders.

Breton wrote:
Option 3 - and I think the best option - is to give everyone a couple minor fluffy subfaction boosts that tweak units so they're not better or worse, just different. Deathwing Terminator units that can take a Plasma Canon are not "better".

Ehh. Like I said, I'm open to reading rules for the various different-but-equal rules for different chapters. But how many different rule sets are we talking about? 9 for the original chapters, +1 for DW, +2 for BT and Crimson Fists? And then you have the infinite homebrew chapters. Do they just choose the chapter they think fits their fluff best? If I write up a chapter called the Palamanders who happen to like bikes and wear green armor, are they allowed to use the WS rules? And if so, why faction lock things in the first place?

As for very minor distinctions like the plasma cannon example, I'm not necessarily opposed to it, but I feel like that's a lot of work to create intentionally meaningless distinctions that, again, don't necessarily fit minor canonical chapters or homebrewed chapters. It seems better to me to just let units have all the options they reasonably can, and then leave it to the players to follow the fluff as much as they want.

Likewise your claim that DA got "better" Terminators without any tradeoff is also inaccurate. Until recently DA did not have Vanguard Vets or Sternguard Vets. That was part of their tradeoff for bespoke Terminator Units.

Ehhh. Unless there's major synergy between termies and vets, I feel like this is sort of a false tradeoff in the same way that "giving up" FA slots (that you weren't going to use anyway) to gain more HS slots was a false trade-off in past editions. It's only a trade-off if you really wanted to take vets in the first place.

 Wyldhunt wrote:

Breton wrote:
Option 3 - and I think the best option - is to give everyone a couple minor fluffy subfaction boosts that tweak units so they're not better or worse, just different. Deathwing Terminator units that can take a Plasma Canon are not "better".

Ehh. Like I said, I'm open to reading rules for the various different-but-equal rules for different chapters. But how many different rule sets are we talking about? 9 for the original chapters, +1 for DW, +2 for BT and Crimson Fists? And then you have the infinite homebrew chapters. Do they just choose the chapter they think fits their fluff best? If I write up a chapter called the Palamanders who happen to like bikes and wear green armor, are they allowed to use the WS rules? And if so, why faction lock things in the first place?

The same way its always been. GW picks the combos for the Chapters GW made. The Primogenitors, a couple-few successors (Crimson Fists, Black Templars, Blood Ravens, and a couple I'm forgetting). They create a DIY combo system like they have in the past. Here's a list, Pick Two, or Use a Primogenitor.

As for very minor distinctions like the plasma cannon example, I'm not necessarily opposed to it, but I feel like that's a lot of work to create intentionally meaningless distinctions that, again, don't necessarily fit minor canonical chapters or homebrewed chapters. It seems better to me to just let units have all the options they reasonably can, and then leave it to the players to follow the fluff as much as they want.

It wasn't meaningless. They didn't get Sternguard and Vanguard because all their veterans were in Terminator Armor - so add Knights and Deathwing Terminator datasheets to give them the four Squad Veteran Datasheets. Additionally the Deathwing Squad was more than the Plasma Canon, they also were able to mix Shoot and Fight loads. The thing you should be objecting to was that DA was the only chapter with a Terminator Lieutenant, and Command Squad.

Likewise your claim that DA got "better" Terminators without any tradeoff is also inaccurate. Until recently DA did not have Vanguard Vets or Sternguard Vets. That was part of their tradeoff for bespoke Terminator Units.

Ehhh. Unless there's major synergy between termies and vets, I feel like this is sort of a false tradeoff in the same way that "giving up" FA slots (that you weren't going to use anyway) to gain more HS slots was a false trade-off in past editions. It's only a trade-off if you really wanted to take vets in the first place.

Vanguard Vets are an Elites choice not a Fast Attack choice. Have been. So they were all competing for the same slot, it was 12" move vs 5" move and 2+/5++ or 12" TH/4++ vs 5" TH and 4++ etc.

Wyldhunt was referring to the 3.5th Chaos Iron Warriors list, which could exchange 2 fast attack slots for a single extra heavy support slot.

IMO, such changes to FOC and limited options matter less in typical pick-up games with limited mission variety, but do matter if mission variety is high and in particular for linked campaign games. To take the 3.5th book in its context- some missions did not favour heavy support, so skewing a list like that came with disadvantages.

aphyon wrote:Second-the very concept of a salamanders bike army tells me you don't really care about the lore or love the salamanders.

The fact that you discredit the idea of a Salamanders bike army tells me that you don't care or understand the lore.

The Salamanders don't refuse to field bikes. The White Scars don't refuse to field tanks and artillery. To reduce them to such is to massively overlook that these are CODEX CHAPTERS of the Space Marines - and as such, field a variety of forces according to the tactical situation.

The Salamanders absolutely field Bike and Outrider squads, and even if the Chapter is stereotyped as slow and fire obsessed, they still field Assault Marines, Bike Squads, and Land Speeders. If you don't recognise that, politely, I don't think you're in a position to quote "lore" to people.

Instead of trying to force yourself on the setting you should be immersing yourself in the setting.

Yes, *you*, aphyon, should be - and the setting says that Salamanders take bikes just like every other Codex Chapter.

If someone rocks up with an all Bike Salamanders army, that's entirely possible in the setting, and if you have a problem with that, maybe you should be the one immersing yourself in the setting better.

So you have nearly a dozen options in the "bike army" concept in the game already without having to force it on a faction that should not be running such a force to begin with.

And why *should* they not be? Salamanders have always had the option to take Bikes. They're a Codex Chapter - they absolutely have the capacity to field bike squads. They're not allergic to them.

Sounds like you need to "immerse yourself in the setting" better.

If you take out the flavor and the lore based rules, you may get that magic "balanced" game system, but you also lose the fact it is supposed to be a 40K game.

Define a "40k game" in a way without reverting to an opinion.

Arschbombe wrote:I think this hypothetical is a little off base in a chicken and egg kind of way. Those stereotypes go a long way in informing player army choices. I think a player who was interested in bikes wouldn't have started a Salamanders army in the first place. There were guys who were hard core into Salamanders before 5th when they magically got more popular for really inscrutable reasons. Some of them were so hard core they got named in the Nick Kyme novels. Having chosen Salamanders they confine themselves to playing the army in accordance with the fluff as much as possible. If the Salamanders don't use bikes much, then they won't put them on the tabletop much. And I'm not sure that they'll be sad that their bikes aren't as good as the Scars.

Some people enjoy taking obscure formations and groups, because they feel a greater sense of ownership over them. Like someone who doesn't play the Ultramarines 2nd company because everyone else does, but instead plays the Ultramarines 6th company (a predominantly Biker company) - and that's completely canon too! There's nothing wrong with someone taking the "obvious" choice, but to reduce the faction to "they ONLY take XYZ" or "they NEVER take ABC" is more "lore breaking" than anything aphyon is yapping on about.

There's very few Space Marine groups that outright REFUSE to field certain units and formations, because most Chapters follow the Codex, and even those that don't fully follow it still usually take a lot from it.

Choosing a chapter like Salamanders doesn't mean that ALL players will be in love with the whole "slow moving" part - they might like the colour scheme, or the dragon symbolism, or the forge part. Choosing a Chapter like White Scars doesn't mean that all players will enjoy the "bikes" part - some people might choose them for their cultural trappings, or their colour scheme, or their mechanised infantry.

In the current environment space marine players have a lot of freedom in building their armies through the detachments, but this freedom erases the meaning in the choice of chapter. If everyone can run bikes equally well, then what value is there in choosing White Scars? Why would anyone continue to choose them if the only thing that makes them different is that painting white is a chore?

I started playing in 5th. Back then, there were no differences at all in how you played White Scars compared to Salamanders. Are you telling me that no-one played White Scars or Salamanders or Imperial Fists or Ultramarines or Crimson Fists or Iron Hands in 5th edition because they were all mechanically the same?

Breton wrote:

 Wyldhunt wrote:
Ehh. Like I said, I'm open to reading rules for the various different-but-equal rules for different chapters. But how many different rule sets are we talking about? 9 for the original chapters, +1 for DW, +2 for BT and Crimson Fists? And then you have the infinite homebrew chapters. Do they just choose the chapter they think fits their fluff best? If I write up a chapter called the Palamanders who happen to like bikes and wear green armor, are they allowed to use the WS rules? And if so, why faction lock things in the first place?

The same way its always been. GW picks the combos for the Chapters GW made. The Primogenitors, a couple-few successors (Crimson Fists, Black Templars, Blood Ravens, and a couple I'm forgetting). They create a DIY combo system like they have in the past. Here's a list, Pick Two, or Use a Primogenitor.

No, it hasn't. 5th edition didn't have any specific difference between Codex Chapters.

Back then, Ultramarines played just like White Scars who played just like Salamanders.

Lose the attitude, Smudge, at least when you're talking a load of guff.

You can't claim that they're Codex-compliant when they field have seven companies instead of ten, even if those seven are over-sized compared to the Codex-specified Company size.

And as early as the Salamanders Index Astartes article back in t'day, something along these lines has been said about them:

"In an interesting example of juxtaposition, however, the fluctuating gravity of Nocturne makes training with certain units such as Land Speeders and Assault Bikes difficult, therefore the Chapter makes little use of them, favouring instead Devastator Squads and Terminator Squads (the Chapter has 120 Veterans as opposed to the typical 100)."

While "little use" doesn't preclude any use, it does make a Salamanders army of all bikes and/or Land Speeders unlikely, and you would expect such units to not perform as well on the battlefield even compared to regular Chapters, let alone those who specialise in such techniques (like the Ravenwing or the White Scars).

Somehow the Salamanders managed to replace their vehicle pool with the new Primaris grav tanks though...

Sgt smudge- Says a bunch of opinions about salamanders lore while ignoring it and not giving any evidence to the contrary.

I literally quoted from the index astartes article that appeared in WD that explains the chapter at length and it quite clearly states because of the conditions on nocturn they do not regularly train with or invest much in bikes, jump infantry or land speeders. it did not say they didn't have any, just that they didn't have very much. This is re-enforced in the 4th ed trait system restrictions for salamanders that only allows 0-1 fast attack for the entire army but does allow them to replace most special or heavy weapons with melta or flamer equivalents. as such saying the lore would support a full bike, jump or speeder centric salamanders army isn't an opinion it is just flat out wrong and counter to the game rules laid out by the original designers (most of whom left the company before 5th ed ended).

I started playing in 5th. Back then, there were no differences at all in how you played White Scars compared to Salamanders. Are you telling me that no-one played White Scars or Salamanders or Imperial Fists or Ultramarines or Crimson Fists or Iron Hands in 5th edition because they were all mechanically the same?

Breton wrote:

 Wyldhunt wrote:
Ehh. Like I said, I'm open to reading rules for the various different-but-equal rules for different chapters. But how many different rule sets are we talking about? 9 for the original chapters, +1 for DW, +2 for BT and Crimson Fists? And then you have the infinite homebrew chapters. Do they just choose the chapter they think fits their fluff best? If I write up a chapter called the Palamanders who happen to like bikes and wear green armor, are they allowed to use the WS rules? And if so, why faction lock things in the first place?

The same way its always been. GW picks the combos for the Chapters GW made. The Primogenitors, a couple-few successors (Crimson Fists, Black Templars, Blood Ravens, and a couple I'm forgetting). They create a DIY combo system like they have in the past. Here's a list, Pick Two, or Use a Primogenitor.

No, it hasn't. 5th edition didn't have any specific difference between Codex Chapters.

Back then, Ultramarines played just like White Scars who played just like Salamanders.

I see you managed to ignore the entire thread and just misdirect. the 5th edition core SM codex went to a character unlock system for each codex chapter that gave them slightly different alternate combat tactics or special rules in the case of salamanders it gave them buffed flamers, meltas, and thunder hammers. in the case of WS it gave the khans unit hit and run and furious charge while the rest of the army got outflank.

That isn't what we are talking about. most of the chapter rules with hard restrictions that set the flavorful lore based rules some of us prefer to use come from the original design team from 3rd and 4th ed codexes/index astartes and a few of the alternate 5th ed chapter codexes like BA and SW. in addition to the special lists in IA books.

While i do find the 5th ed core rules (aside from wound allocation) to be the best of 3rd-7th. most of the codex lore based rules/restrictions from 3rd and 4th are far superior to most of the marine specific codexes (and many xenos ones to boot) in 5th.

Dysartes wrote:Lose the attitude, Smudge, at least when you're talking a load of guff.

Of everyone to lose attitude, I'd say that there's been plenty people in this thread who've shown a more consistently unpleasant attitude - aphyon for one. If I'm gonna be called out for that, which I accept, I expect it to apply to *all*.

You can't claim that they're Codex-compliant when they field have seven companies instead of ten, even if those seven are over-sized compared to the Codex-specified Company size.

I *also* said that even Chapters that didn't full comply with the Codex still drew from it in terms of organisation and structure. And, to quote the 8th and 9th edition Codexes, and Index Astartes IV "The Salamanders comply with much of the Codex Astartes, but instead of ten companies continues to maintain the seven warrior houses of the original Legion", "Whilst the Salamanders altered their squad-level organisation to follow the strictures of the new Codex Astartes, they were able to retain much else of their Legion organisation", and "As one can imagine, this preference for Flamers and Meltas leads to a strong affinity among the Salamanders for close-range firefight when in combat, although they are just as capable at other aspects of Space Marine battle doctrine.", as well as "Though the Salamanders can fight in any theatre under any conditions, they have a special proclivity towards close combat through the use of Flame Weapons."

Plus, the 5th edition Codex, and every Codex since (can't speak for 4th and earlier), lists Salamanders as a Codex compliant Chapter.

A load of guff, huh?

And as early as the Salamanders Index Astartes article back in t'day, something along these lines has been said about them:

"In an interesting example of juxtaposition, however, the fluctuating gravity of Nocturne makes training with certain units such as Land Speeders and Assault Bikes difficult, therefore the Chapter makes little use of them, favouring instead Devastator Squads and Terminator Squads (the Chapter has 120 Veterans as opposed to the typical 100)."

While "little use" doesn't preclude any use, it does make a Salamanders army of all bikes and/or Land Speeders unlikely, and you would expect such units to not perform as well on the battlefield even compared to regular Chapters, let alone those who specialise in such techniques (like the Ravenwing or the White Scars).

I've not said anything about "expecting units to perform as well as" - I'm simply responding to aphyon's "guff" about "THE SALAMANDERS DON'T TAKE BIKES SO WHY WOULD YOU EVER WANT TO TAKE BIKES IN A SALAMANDERS ARMY", or words to that effect. That same article you cite also says:
"As one can imagine, this preference for Flamers and Meltas leads to a strong affinity among the Salamanders for close-range firefight when in combat, although they are just as capable at other aspects of Space Marine battle doctrine.", as well as "Though the Salamanders can fight in any theatre under any conditions, they have a special proclivity towards close combat through the use of Flame Weapons."

Again, if people can take the individual Adrax Agatone in their Salamanders lists, I'm sure they can also take some bikes.

aphyon wrote:gt smudge- Says a bunch of opinions about salamanders lore while ignoring it and not giving any evidence to the contrary.

I just quoted my sources above - sources you'd know if you knew the lore like you claim you do.

I literally quoted from the index astartes article that appeared in WD that explains the chapter at length and it quite clearly states because of the conditions on nocturn they do not regularly train with or invest much in bikes, jump infantry or land speeders. it did not say they didn't have any, just that they didn't have very much.

They also only have one Adrax Agatone, yet you wouldn't complain if he showed up in a Salamanders list.

Again, the sources I've cited emphasise that the Salamanders still make use of them. A player showing up with Salamanders bikers isn't showing disrespect for the lore.

This is re-enforced in the 4th ed trait system restrictions for salamanders that only allows 0-1 fast attack for the entire army but does allow them to replace most special or heavy weapons with melta or flamer equivalents. as such saying the lore would support a full bike, jump or speeder centric salamanders army isn't an opinion it is just flat out wrong and counter to the game rules laid out by the original designers (most of whom left the company before 5th ed ended).

The "original designers" also didn't introduce those features in the previous editions. In terms of the length of the game, you're cherry picking a very specific time to base your entire premise around. Sounds like selective memory to me.

And, again, the lore that you're so eager to cite from never enforces a 0-1 mechanic (unless you also want to argue that no more than 3 Bike Squads can show up in White Scars lists, if you want to argue mechanics), and explicitly states that Salamanders are "just as capable at other aspects of Space Marine battle doctrine".

Sorry, but you're being flat out wrong - and the only thing I'm being contrary to is *your* headcanon and limited view of a very expansive setting.

I started playing in 5th. Back then, there were no differences at all in how you played White Scars compared to Salamanders. Are you telling me that no-one played White Scars or Salamanders or Imperial Fists or Ultramarines or Crimson Fists or Iron Hands in 5th edition because they were all mechanically the same?

Breton wrote:

 Wyldhunt wrote:
Ehh. Like I said, I'm open to reading rules for the various different-but-equal rules for different chapters. But how many different rule sets are we talking about? 9 for the original chapters, +1 for DW, +2 for BT and Crimson Fists? And then you have the infinite homebrew chapters. Do they just choose the chapter they think fits their fluff best? If I write up a chapter called the Palamanders who happen to like bikes and wear green armor, are they allowed to use the WS rules? And if so, why faction lock things in the first place?

The same way its always been. GW picks the combos for the Chapters GW made. The Primogenitors, a couple-few successors (Crimson Fists, Black Templars, Blood Ravens, and a couple I'm forgetting). They create a DIY combo system like they have in the past. Here's a list, Pick Two, or Use a Primogenitor.

No, it hasn't. 5th edition didn't have any specific difference between Codex Chapters.

Back then, Ultramarines played just like White Scars who played just like Salamanders.

I see you managed to ignore the entire thread and just misdirect. the 5th edition core SM codex went to a character unlock system for each codex chapter that gave them slightly different alternate combat tactics or special rules in the case of salamanders it gave them buffed flamers, meltas, and thunder hammers. in the case of WS it gave the khans unit hit and run and furious charge while the rest of the army got outflank.

And yet you didn't HAVE to take those characters, and in many cases, you could take ALL of those characters in the same list. You could have Calgar, Khan, and Vulkan He'stan in the same list!

That isn't what we are talking about. most of the chapter rules with hard restrictions that set the flavorful lore based rules some of us prefer to use come from the original design team from 3rd and 4th ed codexes/index astartes and a few of the alternate 5th ed chapter codexes like BA and SW. in addition to the special lists in IA books.

Yes, but in that, you admit that you're cherrypicking a specific mechanical implementation, and that this was not always canon, and that in many cases, *did not reflect an accurate depiction of the Chapter* (ie, White Scars Devastators, Salamanders Bikers, etc)

While i do find the 5th ed core rules (aside from wound allocation) to be the best of 3rd-7th. most of the codex lore based rules/restrictions from 3rd and 4th are far superior to most of the marine specific codexes (and many xenos ones to boot) in 5th.

Yes, but that is a *preference*, not a hard and fast RULE that has "always" existed. You *chose* a system you liked, because it fitted with what you believe is the "best" version - but even the lore you cite doesn't support that!

Again, I wouldn't be having so much of an issue with your statements *if you didn't make all this fuss about how "canon" and "lore friendly" they are*. You going on to say "if someone's taken Salamanders bikes, they clearly don't care about the lore" exemplifies this - taking Salamanders bike squads, plural, IS lore accurate - but you've been so blinded by your insistence on FORCING certain armies to play a certain way that you've forgotten or missed that fact.

There's nothing wrong with how YOU want to play, or how YOU'D play a Salamanders list, but not ever Salamanders player wants to play like that, and that's valid both in the real life, AND in the lore. Like Index Astartes IV says, they are "just as capable at other aspects of Space Marine battle doctrine".

Ok wow, you have discovered...salamanders are space marines!

As space marines they could fight like every other space marine chapter.....except they don't....and if they did, well you have 10th edition where all are pretty much that....almost like it is the contention of this thread the OP started

none of the lore you cited contradicts what index astartes IV says or the traits the 4th ed codex assigns to them. they have bikes, jump infantry and land speeders but not very many and not overly trained on them so taking an army based on the chapter centered around those units would not make any sense nor would a player looking for that style of play be drawn to them.

See here is the thing. 40K started out as a joke. because in the late 80s WHFBs was the GW cash cow, it wasn't until 2nd edition that they realized they needed to really define the game/setting. it was 3rd ed 1998-2004 that everything about the lore and the marine chapters specifically was set in stone by the people who designed their very existence. this didn't start changing in any significant way until all those guys left the company and people who inherited the IP and currently arguably do not know or care about it outside of what the marketing department wants to sell.

I do not see it offensive to say i am going to go with the original designers (Andy, Phil, Rick etc..) who created the universe as opposed to what a player may want it to be or somebody a decade later decides to change the setting.

As for attitude Wyldhunt and i for the most part have been having a civil discussion about the merits of game balance/blandness VS the level of acceptable thematic play represented in the rules. he wants to make sure anybody who wants to play doesn't feel put out because the set lore isn't how particular factions used to prefer to play. i just disagree with the premise of why people choose factions in the first place that would negate the argument. if you think that conversation is unpleasant, you are entitled to your opinion.

As i said before-i am in a fantastic space when it comes to gaming generally and 40K specifically. we have a very active community and when we 40K we play it for fun. as such as gentlemans agreements go, if 2 of our players say "hey would it be ok if we used this rule or that rule in our 5th ed games" they discuss it and decide how they want that game to play outside the framework of 5th ed core rules.

It is kind of how classic battletech does it right-core mechanics are unchanged, but there is an entire tome of optional rules. and you can play in any era or setting while doing it.

P.S. on the 5th ed characters thing- they are HQ choices so at most you can take 2 in the same army list, however as per the rules you must choose which one is actually in command so their special rules apply to the army. the other ones is ignored out side their own abilities.

So Salamander bikers are less common than Vulkan or Adrax?
Because, to my knowledge, you have no issue with them showing up.

aphyon wrote:Ok wow, you have discovered...salamanders are space marines!

As space marines they could fight like every other space marine chapter.....except they don't....

Except they can, and do. According to literally all the sources I showed you.

Yes, they LIKE using certain tactics, but they don't use them exclusively. The White Scars don't EXCLUSIVELY fight on bikes. The Imperial Fists don't exclusively fight in sieges. The Raven Guard don't always fight stealth wars.

This is what I mean by you clearly being a hypocrite when you complain about people "not getting the lore" - because you're the one who doesn't read it!

and if they did, well you have 10th edition where all are pretty much that....almost like it is the contention of this thread the OP started

So, in other words, you don't like the lore as it's actually presented, and want to force everyone else to have to play your flanderised version of how every Chapter fights?

none of the lore you cited contradicts what index astartes IV says or the traits the 4th ed codex assigns to them. they have bikes, jump infantry and land speeders but not very many and not overly trained on them so taking an army based on the chapter centered around those units would not make any sense nor would a player looking for that style of play be drawn to them.

An army isn't the entire Chapter, and they're still trained on them, as much as ANY Chapter is trained in their use. If you look at the Salamanders Chapter breakdown, they have Bikes in the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th Companies. That's a whole table's worth of Bikers, even if you're to assume that they only have one squad in each! They also have Land Speeders in all of those above companies - making AT LEAST 6 Land Speeders. The 2nd, 3rd, and 4th companies all maintain two close support squads, which in pre-Primaris days would have likely been either Bike Squads or Assault Squads - so that's at least 6 jump pack squads, or bike squads. Which is, ironically, the same amount of close support squads per battle company as ANY OTHER CODEX CHAPTER.

People don't HAVE to take armies "based on the Chapter". They can take an army that represents a PART of that Chapter - and someone might choose to represent an obscure or less known part of that Chapter. See again my example of someone taking a 6th Company all bikers Ultramarine army. That's still an Ultramarines army, but it represents a different part of the Chapter.

If you think that the ONLY way to play a Space Marine army is to take "only chapter based units", I'm afraid that you're horribly mistaken. You say it makes no sense - why not? It's lore approved. And you say that "no player looking for that style of play would be drawn to that" - why not? After all, in 5th, early 8th, and now 10th, it makes no difference what Chapter you say your bikes are from. If a player loved the green fire iconography of the Salamanders, and the idea of taking the fight to the enemy fast with flamers mounted on bikes and flame iconography up the sides of their bikes, why wouldn't they like this idea?

Again, according to the very MINIMUM of what the Salamanders can field, in terms of their jump pack, bike, and land speeder units, we have
3x Assault Squads
5x Bike Squads
Scout Bike Squad
6x Land Speeders

That's starting to look like an army there, yes?

See here is the thing. 40K started out as a joke. because in the late 80s WHFBs was the GW cash cow, it wasn't until 2nd edition that they realized they needed to really define the game/setting. it was 3rd ed 1998-2004 that everything about the lore and the marine chapters specifically was set in stone by the people who designed their very existence. this didn't start changing in any significant way until all those guys left the company and people who inherited the IP and currently arguably do not know or care about it outside of what the marketing department wants to sell.

Again, in other words, you're cherrypicking a select time in the history of 40k to say "yes, that's the definitive version, and nothing else matters", despite future editions disagreeing with you, and you choosing to write those off. And that's fine, if YOU want to - but don't act like yours is the only correct way.

I do not see it offensive to say i am going to go with the original designers (Andy, Phil, Rick etc..) who created the universe as opposed to what a player may want it to be or somebody a decade later decides to change the setting.

You're making one hell of an assumption by claiming that those people decreed that Thou Shalt Never Have More Than One Bike Squad If You Play Salamanders.

Call them up, ask them - if you're so keen on needing their validation to back up your argument (which you seem to be), ask them to support your claim.

As for attitude Wyldhunt and i for the most part have been having a civil discussion about the merits of game balance/blandness VS the level of acceptable thematic play represented in the rules. he wants to make sure anybody who wants to play doesn't feel put out because the set lore isn't how particular factions used to prefer to play. i just disagree with the premise of why people choose factions in the first place that would negate the argument. if you think that conversation is unpleasant, you are entitled to your opinion.

You disagree, but you've made some pretty damn stupid and shortsighted comments. Perhaps I was a tad too harsh on language, but my points all stand - you claim to cite lore, but you don't seem to recognise that it says PRECISELY THE OPPOSITE of what you claim!

You claim that "if you care about the lore, you'd only field X", when the lore makes it pretty clear that this simply isn't true, and instead of just admitting "okay, I messed up" or "I only care about lore from this time, and that means that my version of 40k is different from yours", you try and paint this idea of "One True Version of 40k", and that anyone who deviates from that is playing the game wrong. And that's kinda messed up.

Again, you say "thematic", but only the themes that YOU have decided are valid. A Salamanders Bike army is not only canon, but themeatic if someone makes a cool story around it (such as Captain Mulcebar leading a contingent of fast moving biker troops to intercept a fast Ork Speed Freek column before they can destroy a refugee convoy - because of the inclement storms, the Chapter can't deploy drop pods or aircraft to transport troops, and the Chapters vehicles are being used elsewhere on the planet. Mulcebar has taken the Chapter's fastest units, loaded them up with flamer and melta, and is leading them across the plain to meet the orks in a cavalry clash - now THAT'S got theme.)

You've made a lot of assumptions about WHY people choose the factions they do. And I feel it's relevant to call that out. I didn't start playing Ultramarines because of their tactical flexibility, or their history in the Tyrannic War. I painted them as Ultramarines because I liked the blue and gold aesthetic. Why is that out of the question for someone who maybe really loves the aesthetic of the Salamanders, and also Space Marine bikes?

As i said before-i am in a fantastic space when it comes to gaming generally and 40K specifically. we have a very active community and when we 40K we play it for fun. as such as gentlemans agreements go, if 2 of our players say "hey would it be ok if we used this rule or that rule in our 5th ed games" they discuss it and decide how they want that game to play outside the framework of 5th ed core rules.

I don't care about your group. I'm happy for you. But your group doesn't involve me, nor do I care about it. I fail to see why what house rules you choose to play with have any bearing on this conversation, and why they seem to absolve you from the rules that other people choose to play with (such as "hey, Salamanders can take more than one bike squad").

P.S. on the 5th ed characters thing- they are HQ choices so at most you can take 2 in the same army list, however as per the rules you must choose which one is actually in command so their special rules apply to the army. the other ones is ignored out side their own abilities.

But you could still take them. And, just to refresh your memory, not ALL named characters had the Chapter Tactics rule - namely, the Ultramarines characters. You could have "Calgar" and Vulkan He'stan, and "Calgar" would ALWAYS defer to Vulkan's bonuses to flamers and meltas. In fact, Chaplain Cassius was BETTER played with Vulkan than he was with Calgar, because he carried a combi-flamer.

Wyldhunt wrote:
Choosing Salamanders over WS if you like bikers might be slightly odd, but I don't think it's unheard of or unreasonable. Again, maybe they really like the nice-guy-marines thing. Maybe they started with a more conventional Salamanders army, but then they fell in love with the bike models or just really like the mental image of Salamander bikers for whatever reason.

I still don't think this actually happens this way. When I was starting out a common question that faced new space marine players was what chapter to pick. The conventional wisdom at the time was that you could choose one of the first founding chapters or you could make up your own. The advantage of making up your own was understood to be complete freedom in the rules that you used. So you could run them as Blood Angel successors one week and Dark Angels the following week. It was strongly implied that if you chose to run one of the actual big named chapters then you were bound to adhere to their rules.

In my experience I find that players choose chapters for a variety of reasons. They may have wanted to run Imperial Fists, but decided that yellow was too much of a pain so they went with Crimson Fists because the blue was easier and the chapter vibe was similar. Once having made that choice for whatever reasons they tend to lean in to that choice with the intent of following the lore in their army construction and making their army different from everybody else's. So I don't think that a Salamanders player would ever really think of going bike heavy since he would have understood that in the lore the Salamanders don't do that. In the 4th edition codex with chapter traits the Salamanders were characterized by the drawback Eye to Eye. This limited them to only taking 0-1 Land Speeder squadrons, Attack Bike squadrons and Bike squadrons. In exchange for this they could take an extra flamer, plasma gun or meltagun in their tactical squads (in lieu of the heavy weapon) and they could also attempt to extend the game by one turn.

At the end of the day, if someone shows up to the store with a bike army painted green, do you think it's good for the game/hobby/person in front of you for his army to be penalized for its paint scheme? As I said to Aphyon on the previous page:

A.) Should an army be allowed to have a Salamanders paint scheme/lore and field a list focused on/consisting primarily of bikes?

B.) If so, is it acceptable/good for the game and player experience for such a list to be notably less powerful than a list with White Scars paint/lore? i.e. if the green bikes and the white bikes play Bob's orks 100 times each, the green bikes will win 30 games compared to the white bikes' 50 games because the green bikes' stratagems and special rules don't synergize with their selected units as well?

If this ever actually happens I expect him to say "I'm running these as a White Scars today." And I say, "Sure, whatever floats your boat, Mon-keigh."

Sgt_Smudge wrote:
I started playing in 5th. Back then, there were no differences at all in how you played White Scars compared to Salamanders. Are you telling me that no-one played White Scars or Salamanders or Imperial Fists or Ultramarines or Crimson Fists or Iron Hands in 5th edition because they were all mechanically the same?

They weren't mechanically the same. Maybe you started 5th in the middle of the edition so you missed the transitions, but I was there was from the beginning. Here's what I saw. Codex Space Marines drops in September 2008. It says that more than half of all space marine chapters have Ultramarine geneseed. It says Ultramarines are pre-eminent amongst their brothers. You see blue marines everywhere. Rhinos and Razorbacks have dropped in points and the 5th edition rules no longer punish passengers so harshly. Mechanization takes hold of the meta as players realize that a 40 point Razorback is a good deal (it used to cost 70). Because of this trend melta supplants plasma as the special weapon of choice. You have to be able to open the tin can to get to the juicy bits inside. Then someone notices that if you take Vulkan He'stan, your flamers and melta weapons become twin-linked and suddenly those blue marines you saw everywhere started turning green. Choosing Vulkan made your army Salamanders and replaced the combat tactics rule with Salamanders chapter tactics. Combat tactics allowed any non-Fearless space marine unit to automatically fail any morale check it was required to take. Swapping the rules out based on changing your chapter makes a mechanical change to the army.

Similarly, taking Korsarro Khan and running White Scars gave your entire army outflank in lieu of the combat tactics rule. Taking Pedro Kantor with a Crimson Fist army gave you the Stubborn USR and made Sternguard squads scoring units. Shrike gave Raven Guard the Fleet USR so that they could assault after making a run move in the shooting phase. Lysander gave Imperial Fists Stubborn and Bolter Drill.

There are of course problems with this approach. Many objected to having to take a special character in order to unlock their chapter's special trait especially since only a few month prior in 4th edition you couldn't even take a special character without opponent permission.

Anyway, of all these chapter tactics rules Salamanders was the best and the most common. It wasn't until a year later when the Space Wolves codex dropped that things began to shift towards blue grey away from the blue and green marines. Seven months after that they started turning red.

I see somebody need to calm down a bit.

1.certain chapters have specializations. they are all marines yes but they do some things better than others. my conversation was with wyldhunt about if they should have rules that make them better than others.

2. i do not like the lore the new GW employees created as it goes directly against the original creators designs. great news i don't have to play any particular editon. i can also disagree with where they have taken the game in the last few editions.

3. you make a bunch of claims about how many generic fast units are assigned to each of the 7 companies, but when you go through the breakdown about what each companies job is and what combat doctrines they employ, none specialize in bikes, speeders or jump infantry.

You're making one hell of an assumption by claiming that those people decreed that Thou Shalt Never Have More Than One Bike Squad If You Play Salamanders.

Call them up, ask them - if you're so keen on needing their validation to back up your argument (which you seem to be), ask them to support your claim.

I don't have to, you see they did a thing, they wrote it down and then published it in official sources. if you want to ignore that Because of the NU-lore then knock yourself out. your free to play the game however you like. the fact it exists cannot be disputed.

but you've made some pretty damn stupid and shortsighted comments. Perhaps I was a tad too harsh on language, but my points all stand - you claim to cite lore, but you don't seem to recognise that it says PRECISELY THE OPPOSITE of what you claim!

Nice, you have an opinon and a right to it, i think exactly the same things about your position.

You claim that "if you care about the lore, you'd only field X", when the lore makes it pretty clear that this simply isn't true, and instead of just admitting "okay, I messed up" or "I only care about lore from this time, and that means that my version of 40k is different from yours", you try and paint this idea of "One True Version of 40k", and that anyone who deviates from that is playing the game wrong. And that's kinda messed up.

They are not playing it wrong they are in fact playing a completely different game. they call it 40K but it is a different game. 3rd-7th were at least cross compatible. and most of the progressive mechanical improvements in the rules from 3rd-5th were obvious and mostly welcomed improvements of the same core system. what you have now is a "game" and it has rules and it appeals to some people. i will never consider it to be anything other than 40K in name only. that isn't messed up, it is an opinion and it is not forcing anybody else to do anything. the very nature of a real in person game that requires 2 or more players requires a certain level of agreement/permission on what the game is.

Again, you say "thematic", but only the themes that YOU have decided are valid. A Salamanders Bike army is not only canon,

except it isn't, and never was in the written rules published by GW up to a certain point. you of course can come up with any reason you want to run anything you want. nobody is going to force you to or not to do it. especially in the current edition.

So Salamander bikers are less common than Vulkan or Adrax?
Because, to my knowledge, you have no issue with them showing up.

Myself? i never use them, 99% of the time i run a generic master of the forge ( have a thing for tech marines). and occasionally a terminator librarian, or Brey'arth because i also love dreadnoughts.

If this ever actually happens I expect him to say "I'm running these as a White Scars today." And I say, "Sure, whatever floats your boat, Mon-keigh."

Awesome. I would do the same. And if we're letting people use whichever rules best suit their army regardless of paint scheme, the next obvious step to me is to just officially separate the rules from the paint scheme. Which is what 10th (for all its flaws) has done.

Like, if people genuinely believe that players will never ever want to play an army type that doesn't fit with the stereotypes of their paint scheme, then the point is kind of moot. But if you allow for the possibility that sometimes someone will want to run green bikers, and if you don't want to like, tell them they're not allowed to do that, then you may as well just have the rules support that.

Like, we can all theoretically tell the green biker player that we refuse to play against him because his paint scheme contradicts our interpretations of the lore, but I suspect we all probably agree that would be a dick move. So if we're not going to enforce being dicks to the green biker guy... the natural next step is to just frame the rules in such a way that it's clear green bikes are allowed?