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.

Breton wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

Breton wrote:
Better rules in IF and better rules in RG - as has been outlined plainly and you still duplicitously imply hasn't been - doesn't make either version better overall.

Demonstrate it's possible to have them balanced, to at least a reasonable degree.

What subfaction trait is equally good for Devastators from White Scars, Imperial Fists, and Ultramarines?

White Scars (Lightning Strike) count as stationary even if they moved but didn't advance.

Imperial Fists (Seige Warfare) get +1 to wound vs Vehicles and Fortifications

Ultramarines (Codex Compliant) get +1 to wound vs OOM Target.

I'm not sure that's 100% even - but its pretty close and should get you in the ballpark.

Conditional +1 to-hit (I say conditional because it only helps if you move but don't Advance, when Devastators don't need to move all that often) vs. +1 to-wound against common targets or the most important target?
That's not close. The second two are blatantly better than the first.

 JNAProductions wrote:

Breton wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

Breton wrote:
Better rules in IF and better rules in RG - as has been outlined plainly and you still duplicitously imply hasn't been - doesn't make either version better overall.

Demonstrate it's possible to have them balanced, to at least a reasonable degree.

What subfaction trait is equally good for Devastators from White Scars, Imperial Fists, and Ultramarines?

White Scars (Lightning Strike) count as stationary even if they moved but didn't advance.

Imperial Fists (Seige Warfare) get +1 to wound vs Vehicles and Fortifications

Ultramarines (Codex Compliant) get +1 to wound vs OOM Target.

I'm not sure that's 100% even - but its pretty close and should get you in the ballpark.

Conditional +1 to-hit (I say conditional because it only helps if you move but don't Advance, when Devastators don't need to move all that often) vs. +1 to-wound against common targets or the most important target?
That's not close. The second two are blatantly better than the first.

So the +1 to hit is conditional on not being able to see their target or needing to move into an objective, etc, but the other +1's aren't conditional even though the other Devastator Squads can't see their target sometimes, or Lascannon into a big block of Boys you need to be your OOM target aren't that useful, what about Imperial Fists who never see a Fortification or vehicle? Everything is conditional - worst casing one condition while best casing the others?

And again, this is just stuff that's more or less already in the game. +1 to wound vs Vowed Objectives? Not really that different than Vehicles and Fortification or OOM Targets. Everything gets assault? That's one of the Det abilities. I just tried to work something that had already been done but stacked rather than duplicated it while fiting with the Lightning Assault theme WS have.

Breton wrote:

Better rules in IF and better rules in RG - as has been outlined plainly and you still duplicitously imply hasn't been - doesn't make either version better overall.

You literally said that you wanted the units to be a better match for their respective chapters. You used an example of bolt equipped units for IF and Flamers for Salamanders, then immediately said, when JNA questioned about the fact that paint scheme locked rules would make the units objectively better, that wasn't the intent.

You've then spent 3 pages unable to back it up, you've throw out liar, you've hand waved it as being fine if it doesn't affect things equally, you can't produce a viable example when asked.

Before I'm a liar again, I asked about how the magical equal value applies to devastators with heavy bolters/plasma cannons using the IF trait as it was your answer:

Breton wrote:

Well for starters I'd say 4x Plasma Devs don't get anything from a bonus to bolt weapons.

You acknowledge that unit gets less benefit and hence if we extrapolate, should be cheaper than the same squad in ravenguard who benefitted from the whole chapter tactics. That's ignoring that siege master being ignores light cover, is notably worse than gaining both light and dense cover by simply existing.

Again: I've not lied, certainly not by intent, I've tried to interpret your mess of a train of logic and you don't seem to see the holes or understand anything beyond a factual plain text response.

Dudeface wrote:

Breton wrote:

Better rules in IF and better rules in RG - as has been outlined plainly and you still duplicitously imply hasn't been - doesn't make either version better overall.

You literally said that you wanted the units to be a better match for their respective chapters. You used an example of bolt equipped units for IF and Flamers for Salamanders, then immediately said, when JNA questioned about the fact that paint scheme locked rules would make the units objectively better, that wasn't the intent.

For starters, paint job doesn't lock rules. I've seen more than enough black, yellow, and so on Marneus Calgars.

You've then spent 3 pages unable to back it up, you've throw out liar, you've hand waved it as being fine if it doesn't affect things equally, you can't produce a viable example when asked.

Before I'm a liar again, I asked about how the magical equal value applies to devastators with heavy bolters/plasma cannons using the IF trait as it was your answer:

Its not "again" its still as you're about to prove below.

Breton wrote:

Well for starters I'd say 4x Plasma Devs don't get anything from a bonus to bolt weapons.

You acknowledge that unit gets less benefit and hence if we extrapolate, should be cheaper than the same squad in ravenguard who benefitted from the whole chapter tactics. That's ignoring that siege master being ignores light cover, is notably worse than gaining both light and dense cover by simply existing.

Again: I've not lied, certainly not by intent, I've tried to interpret your mess of a train of logic and you don't seem to see the holes or understand anything beyond a factual plain text response.

Plasma Devs don't get something from Bolter Discipline, but they do get something from Seige Mastery which you're dishonestly pretending wasn't brought up. Why don't Tyranid Warriors with Boneswords get something from Bolter Discipline?! Its not a gotcha to point out that not everything gets something from the One Thing, and it is a lie by omission to say Someone doesn't get anything because they get their bonus from the Other thing you're omitting.

Breton wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

Breton wrote:

Better rules in IF and better rules in RG - as has been outlined plainly and you still duplicitously imply hasn't been - doesn't make either version better overall.

You literally said that you wanted the units to be a better match for their respective chapters. You used an example of bolt equipped units for IF and Flamers for Salamanders, then immediately said, when JNA questioned about the fact that paint scheme locked rules would make the units objectively better, that wasn't the intent.

For starters, paint job doesn't lock rules. I've seen more than enough black, yellow, and so on Marneus Calgars.

You've then spent 3 pages unable to back it up, you've throw out liar, you've hand waved it as being fine if it doesn't affect things equally, you can't produce a viable example when asked.

Before I'm a liar again, I asked about how the magical equal value applies to devastators with heavy bolters/plasma cannons using the IF trait as it was your answer:

Its not "again" its still as you're about to prove below.

Breton wrote:

Well for starters I'd say 4x Plasma Devs don't get anything from a bonus to bolt weapons.

You acknowledge that unit gets less benefit and hence if we extrapolate, should be cheaper than the same squad in ravenguard who benefitted from the whole chapter tactics. That's ignoring that siege master being ignores light cover, is notably worse than gaining both light and dense cover by simply existing.

Again: I've not lied, certainly not by intent, I've tried to interpret your mess of a train of logic and you don't seem to see the holes or understand anything beyond a factual plain text response.

Plasma Devs don't get something from Bolter Discipline, but they do get something from Seige Mastery which you're dishonestly pretending wasn't brought up. Why don't Tyranid Warriors with Boneswords get something from Bolter Discipline?! Its not a gotcha to point out that not everything gets something from the One Thing, and it is a lie by omission to say Someone doesn't get anything because they get their bonus from the Other thing you're omitting.

Breton. Did imperial fist plasma devs get full use of the chapter tactics you argue is baked into their point costs?

The answer is no. The bolter discipline is the relevant half, because its the half they don't get.

Salamanders would give that unit 2 bonii, not 1 like fists do. Ergo the fists unit should be cheaper, no?

It's not dishonesty, you just aren't applying any level of critical thought and latching onto irrelevant details to avoid facing the flaws in your stance.

Dudeface wrote:

Breton wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

Breton wrote:

Better rules in IF and better rules in RG - as has been outlined plainly and you still duplicitously imply hasn't been - doesn't make either version better overall.

You literally said that you wanted the units to be a better match for their respective chapters. You used an example of bolt equipped units for IF and Flamers for Salamanders, then immediately said, when JNA questioned about the fact that paint scheme locked rules would make the units objectively better, that wasn't the intent.

For starters, paint job doesn't lock rules. I've seen more than enough black, yellow, and so on Marneus Calgars.

You've then spent 3 pages unable to back it up, you've throw out liar, you've hand waved it as being fine if it doesn't affect things equally, you can't produce a viable example when asked.

Before I'm a liar again, I asked about how the magical equal value applies to devastators with heavy bolters/plasma cannons using the IF trait as it was your answer:

Its not "again" its still as you're about to prove below.

Breton wrote:

Well for starters I'd say 4x Plasma Devs don't get anything from a bonus to bolt weapons.

You acknowledge that unit gets less benefit and hence if we extrapolate, should be cheaper than the same squad in ravenguard who benefitted from the whole chapter tactics. That's ignoring that siege master being ignores light cover, is notably worse than gaining both light and dense cover by simply existing.

Again: I've not lied, certainly not by intent, I've tried to interpret your mess of a train of logic and you don't seem to see the holes or understand anything beyond a factual plain text response.

Plasma Devs don't get something from Bolter Discipline, but they do get something from Seige Mastery which you're dishonestly pretending wasn't brought up. Why don't Tyranid Warriors with Boneswords get something from Bolter Discipline?! Its not a gotcha to point out that not everything gets something from the One Thing, and it is a lie by omission to say Someone doesn't get anything because they get their bonus from the Other thing you're omitting.

Breton. Did imperial fist plasma devs get full use of the chapter tactics you argue is baked into their point costs?

The answer is no. The bolter discipline is the relevant half, because its the half they don't get.

Salamanders would give that unit 2 bonii, not 1 like fists do. Ergo the fists unit should be cheaper, no?

It's not dishonesty, you just aren't applying any level of critical thought and latching onto irrelevant details to avoid facing the flaws in your stance.

Sure its dishonest. As I've repeatedly and repeatedly pointed out and you're still lying about - Chapter Tactics usually had two rarely overlapping bonuses, despite your lies about critical thinking. A unit that didn't get one often but not always got the other. Thus Plasma Devs in an IF Det would get Seige Mastery. Thus Blood Angels Baal Predators wouldn't get much from The Red Thirst, but would from Supercharged engines. You can continue to lie all you want, but I'll keep pointing out how you're lying about the existence of the second half of the Chapter Tactics.

Breton wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

Breton. Did imperial fist plasma devs get full use of the chapter tactics you argue is baked into their point costs?

The answer is no. The bolter discipline is the relevant half, because its the half they don't get.

Salamanders would give that unit 2 bonii, not 1 like fists do. Ergo the fists unit should be cheaper, no?

It's not dishonesty, you just aren't applying any level of critical thought and latching onto irrelevant details to avoid facing the flaws in your stance.

Sure its dishonest. As I've repeatedly and repeatedly pointed out and you're still lying about - Chapter Tactics usually had two rarely overlapping bonuses, despite your lies about critical thinking. A unit that didn't get one often but not always got the other. Thus Plasma Devs in an IF Det would get Seige Mastery. Thus Blood Angels Baal Predators wouldn't get much from The Red Thirst, but would from Supercharged engines. You can continue to lie all you want, but I'll keep pointing out how you're lying about the existence of the second half of the Chapter Tactics.

Whatever works for you bud, I literally pointed out the example unit benefits from both halves of the salamanders tactic in the same post you're calling me a lair for not acknowledging both halves.

My point, much as everyone else's still stands - you cannot apply a blanket rule to the army and assume they're all of equal impact/value. You continue to fail to address it and just keep screeching liar over an irrelevant point you've manufactured as a distraction.

Dudeface wrote:

Breton wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

Breton. Did imperial fist plasma devs get full use of the chapter tactics you argue is baked into their point costs?

The answer is no. The bolter discipline is the relevant half, because its the half they don't get.

Salamanders would give that unit 2 bonii, not 1 like fists do. Ergo the fists unit should be cheaper, no?

It's not dishonesty, you just aren't applying any level of critical thought and latching onto irrelevant details to avoid facing the flaws in your stance.

Sure its dishonest. As I've repeatedly and repeatedly pointed out and you're still lying about - Chapter Tactics usually had two rarely overlapping bonuses, despite your lies about critical thinking. A unit that didn't get one often but not always got the other. Thus Plasma Devs in an IF Det would get Seige Mastery. Thus Blood Angels Baal Predators wouldn't get much from The Red Thirst, but would from Supercharged engines. You can continue to lie all you want, but I'll keep pointing out how you're lying about the existence of the second half of the Chapter Tactics.

Whatever works for you bud, I literally pointed out the example unit benefits from both halves of the salamanders tactic in the same post you're calling me a lair for not acknowledging both halves.

My point, much as everyone else's still stands - you cannot apply a blanket rule to the army and assume they're all of equal impact/value. You continue to fail to address it and just keep screeching liar over an irrelevant point you've manufactured as a distraction.

If you don't want people to point out you're a liar, maybe don't lie. Like when you claim you counted both options on the Salamanders when its pointed out you did NOT count both options on the Imperial Fists.

Also which were the Both Options of the Salamaders? Do Flamestorm Aggressors have Thunderhammers? Wasn't their Both Options Flamer/Melta and Thuinderhammers?

Breton wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

Breton wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

Breton. Did imperial fist plasma devs get full use of the chapter tactics you argue is baked into their point costs?

The answer is no. The bolter discipline is the relevant half, because its the half they don't get.

Salamanders would give that unit 2 bonii, not 1 like fists do. Ergo the fists unit should be cheaper, no?

It's not dishonesty, you just aren't applying any level of critical thought and latching onto irrelevant details to avoid facing the flaws in your stance.

Sure its dishonest. As I've repeatedly and repeatedly pointed out and you're still lying about - Chapter Tactics usually had two rarely overlapping bonuses, despite your lies about critical thinking. A unit that didn't get one often but not always got the other. Thus Plasma Devs in an IF Det would get Seige Mastery. Thus Blood Angels Baal Predators wouldn't get much from The Red Thirst, but would from Supercharged engines. You can continue to lie all you want, but I'll keep pointing out how you're lying about the existence of the second half of the Chapter Tactics.

Whatever works for you bud, I literally pointed out the example unit benefits from both halves of the salamanders tactic in the same post you're calling me a lair for not acknowledging both halves.

My point, much as everyone else's still stands - you cannot apply a blanket rule to the army and assume they're all of equal impact/value. You continue to fail to address it and just keep screeching liar over an irrelevant point you've manufactured as a distraction.

If you don't want people to point out you're a liar, maybe don't lie. Like when you claim you counted both options on the Salamanders when its pointed out you did NOT count both options on the Imperial Fists.

Also which were the Both Options of the Salamaders? Do Flamestorm Aggressors have Thunderhammers? Wasn't their Both Options Flamer/Melta and Thuinderhammers?

No Breton, I didn't need to include both halves for the fists, the fact they don't benefit at all from one half was the point. That's reductionism, not deception.

Salamanders was ap-1 on incoming attacks counts as ap0 and 1 free hit/wound/damage reroll iirc. Aggressors don't have thunder hammers either.

Edit: If it helps, you made a comment that if chapter tactics were worth 20 points it doesn't matter because they're all worth 20 points. Now lets imagine for simplicity bolter discipline and siege masters are worth 10 each. Likewise the ap reduction and rerolls are worth 10 each in the salamander chapter.

If a unit is base 100 points with no chapter tactics, the plasma devs are 110 for fists because they don't get bolter discipline. Whereas that unit for salamanders is 120, as it benefits from both halves. You would absolutely be correct in the assumption that the salamanders unit is categorically better as a result.

For the sakes of discussion, the fact they both benefit from at least 1 half is irrelevant, as the 1 that is missing is what causes the hypothetical 10 point gap.

This thread has already pushed my buttons more than once, and I tried to stay away from it as a result. Boredom sometimes makes us do things we wouldn't otherwise do.

Dudeface wrote:


Whatever works for you bud, I literally pointed out the example unit benefits from both halves of the salamanders tactic in the same post you're calling me a lair for not acknowledging both halves.

My point, much as everyone else's still stands - you cannot apply a blanket rule to the army and assume they're all of equal impact/value. You continue to fail to address it and just keep screeching liar over an irrelevant point you've manufactured as a distraction.

I think Breton's point is that every subfaction's bonus will affect some units in the list more than others, and that is a possible equalizing factor. Some subfaction rules will favour shooters. The fact that those rules do nothing for melee IS one of the things balances the improved ability for shooters.

And yes, players using that subfaction may try to "Get around the rule" by bringing only shooters... But that's not actually getting around the rule, because if they do that, then their lack of melee BECOMES the liability (as opposed to melee units being unaugmented).

In the end, it does come down to whether you believe balance is more important or flavour is more important. It is a matter of personal taste.

I feel the thread has evolved into one we had a few weeks ago on a different subject, but to chip in...

To my mind the point of subfactions are to expand a roster. If you have a certain codex, with a certain set of rules (from both the codex and the game itself), you are likely to hit on a certain combination of "good stuff" that is better than the rest.

The way to get beyond this, is by having subfaction rules. I.E. if you can pick to be choppy, shooty or have better vehicles, you potentially have 3 different armies, composed of different units and playing in a different way. Since GW are not great at balance/design, you are likely to find one is still better than the rest, but you theoretically have more depth in the codex versus one set of rules.

Its not unreasonable that Eldar for example should have rules to buff Guardians+Psykers, Wraithguard or Aspect Warriors - and these match the craftworlds that typically push those specific units. I personally wouldn't tie them to a craftworld though, as that brings in paint colours.

The problem is when you hit Marines - as Marine chapters are simultaneously portrayed as being factions and a subfaction. I.E. you are meant to have choppy/shooting/mech Marines. But you are also meant to have choppy/shooty/mech Space Wolves and Dark Angels, Imperial Fists and White Scars, down to, who knows, Emperor's Spears.

This unsurprisingly doesn't really work.
I think what GW have done is reasonable sensible. A Space Marine is a Space Marine. If he gets on a bike or into terminator armour, what matters for the game rules is whether he's in the biker or terminator detachment - or neither. Not that he's in the Ultramarine's 3rd company as opposed to being a Fleshtearer.

You could try and resolve all this with points, but I think you are getting into the weeds.

Dudeface wrote:

No Breton, I didn't need to include both halves for the fists, the fact they don't benefit at all from one half was the point. That's reductionism, not deception.

Salamanders was ap-1 on incoming attacks counts as ap0 and 1 free hit/wound/damage reroll iirc. Aggressors don't have thunder hammers either.

Saying you didn't need to include the entire premise is pretty much how you were lying. Its not "reductionism" its lying by omission.

I don't think that was anything I came up with for Salamanders. The iconic thing I remember for them was a bonus to Flame/Melta and MC Thunderhammers.

PenitentJake wrote:
This thread has already pushed my buttons more than once, and I tried to stay away from it as a result. Boredom sometimes makes us do things we wouldn't otherwise do.

Dudeface wrote:


Whatever works for you bud, I literally pointed out the example unit benefits from both halves of the salamanders tactic in the same post you're calling me a lair for not acknowledging both halves.

My point, much as everyone else's still stands - you cannot apply a blanket rule to the army and assume they're all of equal impact/value. You continue to fail to address it and just keep screeching liar over an irrelevant point you've manufactured as a distraction.

I think Breton's point is that every subfaction's bonus will affect some units in the list more than others, and that is a possible equalizing factor. Some subfaction rules will favour shooters. The fact that those rules do nothing for melee IS one of the things balances the improved ability for shooters.

And yes, players using that subfaction may try to "Get around the rule" by bringing only shooters... But that's not actually getting around the rule, because if they do that, then their lack of melee BECOMES the liability (as opposed to melee units being unaugmented).

In the end, it does come down to whether you believe balance is more important or flavour is more important. It is a matter of personal taste.

I think you're probably right, but that isn't what they've said. The statement was that the unit is of equal value regardless of subfaction as a package, so that falls apart when you get a mismatch as you note:

Breton wrote:
There is no need to make a 30 point aggressor cost IF 50 points because it also costs 50 points for Space Wolves for the fighting, and 50 points for the UM for the fighting and the shooting and so on.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Breton wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

No Breton, I didn't need to include both halves for the fists, the fact they don't benefit at all from one half was the point. That's reductionism, not deception.

Salamanders was ap-1 on incoming attacks counts as ap0 and 1 free hit/wound/damage reroll iirc. Aggressors don't have thunder hammers either.

Saying you didn't need to include the entire premise is pretty much how you were lying. Its not "reductionism" its lying by omission.

I don't think that was anything I came up with for Salamanders. The iconic thing I remember for them was a bonus to Flame/Melta and MC Thunderhammers.

They had strats and warlord traits for melta/flamers and it was their super doctrine as well, glad the layered rules have confused you as well though.

That said, I'll follow PentientJakes example here and leave it be - I'm running out of ways to tell you that isn't lying. If a stranger gives you 10(insert currency) and your friend 5(insert currency), when your friend points out they got 5 less than you I don't think calling them a liar for omitting that they still got 5 is going to make it all better.

Tyel wrote:
I feel the thread has evolved into one we had a few weeks ago on a different subject, but to chip in...

To my mind the point of subfactions are to expand a roster. If you have a certain codex, with a certain set of rules (from both the codex and the game itself), you are likely to hit on a certain combination of "good stuff" that is better than the rest.

The way to get beyond this, is by having subfaction rules. I.E. if you can pick to be choppy, shooty or have better vehicles, you potentially have 3 different armies, composed of different units and playing in a different way. Since GW are not great at balance/design, you are likely to find one is still better than the rest, but you theoretically have more depth in the codex versus one set of rules.

Its not unreasonable that Eldar for example should have rules to buff Guardians+Psykers, Wraithguard or Aspect Warriors - and these match the craftworlds that typically push those specific units. I personally wouldn't tie them to a craftworld though, as that brings in paint colours.

I've seen way too many yellow, blue, other blue, green, other green and grey, and DIY Marneus Calgars to think anyone is locked into specific rules by paint scheme. This is a misnomer. Whatever color you paint your little dudes you're locked into the rules for one subfaction - and that's a good thing. The bad thing is that for many of these Theme Dets you're also locked into one Chapter (regardless of paint) because only one chapter has the HQ's that can support the Det. White Scars wanting to do their archtype have to be Ravenwing so they can get a Sammael Captain and a Ravenwing Command Squad with the Champion sort of being the Lieutenant. Squatting all the HQ's is really hampering the theme Dets. For anyone wanting to do the Biker Det without using DA rules, you're limited to exactly one HQ to stick Enhancements on: The Chaplain on Bike.

The problem is when you hit Marines - as Marine chapters are simultaneously portrayed as being factions and a subfaction. I.E. you are meant to have choppy/shooting/mech Marines. But you are also meant to have choppy/shooty/mech Space Wolves and Dark Angels, Imperial Fists and White Scars, down to, who knows, Emperor's Spears.

This unsurprisingly doesn't really work.
I think what GW have done is reasonable sensible. A Space Marine is a Space Marine. If he gets on a bike or into terminator armour, what matters for the game rules is whether he's in the biker or terminator detachment - or neither. Not that he's in the Ultramarine's 3rd company as opposed to being a Fleshtearer.

You could try and resolve all this with points, but I think you are getting into the weeds.

It does get into the weeds, and its not really necessary. If everybody (Marine Chapters, Tau Septs, Chaos Legions, Hive Fleets, etc) gets 2PPM of Veteran Skill and similar boosts, it doesn't really matter what those boosts are (as long as they're appropriately thematic for the fluff) Everbody gets 2PPM of boosts that just cancel out on the points per model.

To my mind subfactions are for variety. Every chapter should be able to do a Biker and Speeder, or Biker and APC detachment. The Chapter Tactic should just change HOW you do it. Ultramarines "thing" to me is doing a little bit of everything so the UM force should shoot a little better, and fight a little better. Blood Angels "thing" is the Red Thirst (and Supercharged Engines) So their biker force will fight a little better, and drive a little faster. and so on and so on.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dudeface wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:
This thread has already pushed my buttons more than once, and I tried to stay away from it as a result. Boredom sometimes makes us do things we wouldn't otherwise do.

Dudeface wrote:


Whatever works for you bud, I literally pointed out the example unit benefits from both halves of the salamanders tactic in the same post you're calling me a lair for not acknowledging both halves.

My point, much as everyone else's still stands - you cannot apply a blanket rule to the army and assume they're all of equal impact/value. You continue to fail to address it and just keep screeching liar over an irrelevant point you've manufactured as a distraction.

I think Breton's point is that every subfaction's bonus will affect some units in the list more than others, and that is a possible equalizing factor. Some subfaction rules will favour shooters. The fact that those rules do nothing for melee IS one of the things balances the improved ability for shooters.

And yes, players using that subfaction may try to "Get around the rule" by bringing only shooters... But that's not actually getting around the rule, because if they do that, then their lack of melee BECOMES the liability (as opposed to melee units being unaugmented).

In the end, it does come down to whether you believe balance is more important or flavour is more important. It is a matter of personal taste.

I think you're probably right, but that isn't what they've said. The statement was that the unit is of equal value regardless of subfaction as a package, so that falls apart when you get a mismatch as you note:

Breton wrote:
There is no need to make a 30 point aggressor cost IF 50 points because it also costs 50 points for Space Wolves for the fighting, and 50 points for the UM for the fighting and the shooting and so on.

Yes, that was pretty much the statement. I included the caveat that not everything would be so, but that was the general idea. Yet again you're only including PART of the premise in a lie by omission. Just like you just omitted the rest of the explanation - the theory that IF get shootier Aggressors, Wolves get Fightier Agggressors, and UM get a smaller boost to both. But that appears to be... omitted in your quote. Lying by omission.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Breton wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

No Breton, I didn't need to include both halves for the fists, the fact they don't benefit at all from one half was the point. That's reductionism, not deception.

Salamanders was ap-1 on incoming attacks counts as ap0 and 1 free hit/wound/damage reroll iirc. Aggressors don't have thunder hammers either.

Saying you didn't need to include the entire premise is pretty much how you were lying. Its not "reductionism" its lying by omission.

I don't think that was anything I came up with for Salamanders. The iconic thing I remember for them was a bonus to Flame/Melta and MC Thunderhammers.

They had strats and warlord traits for melta/flamers and it was their super doctrine as well, glad the layered rules have confused you as well though.

That said, I'll follow PentientJakes example here and leave it be - I'm running out of ways to tell you that isn't lying. If a stranger gives you 10(insert currency) and your friend 5(insert currency), when your friend points out they got 5 less than you I don't think calling them a liar for omitting that they still got 5 is going to make it all better.

At least you're done lying about your lying. Or at least claiming you are. I didn't come up with their Super Doctrine. Someone asked me to make some examples, and I did. I don't know that I ever did pick an example for Salamanders, but what you claimed was their boost in this hypothetical isn't what I would have come up with. Once again so you can lie about it later: The theory is 2 small boosts -these boosts will rarely overlap on the same model. If a model doesn't get one boost it likely gets the other. Past editions can be a guilde but should not be directly transplanted due to overlap/conflicts with the Dets.

PenitentJake wrote:
I think Breton's point is that every subfaction's bonus will affect some units in the list more than others, and that is a possible equalizing factor. Some subfaction rules will favour shooters. The fact that those rules do nothing for melee IS one of the things balances the improved ability for shooters.

And yes, players using that subfaction may try to "Get around the rule" by bringing only shooters... But that's not actually getting around the rule, because if they do that, then their lack of melee BECOMES the liability (as opposed to melee units being unaugmented).

In a deeper game this might be a credible balancing factor, where min-maxing to lean hard into your buff leaves you without some key capability. In the 40K we play, that isn't the case, and armies that (largely) omit melee have done just fine.

In any case, what you are suggesting is that Unit A under Subfaction X may be better than Unit A under Subfaction Y, but that's okay because Unit B is better in Subfaction Y than Subfaction X and on the whole it balances out. I think it's pretty clear from the last two editions that that's not how it works out in practice- and Unit A ends up getting balanced around Subfaction X, making it not very useful in Subfaction Y- but I see the logic.

That is not what Breton is arguing. Breton is saying you can design subfaction traits such that Unit A is comparably powerful regardless of whether it's under Subfactions X, Y, or Z, and so a single points cost can reasonably reflect the power of the unit. To make this point they are using as an example a mixed-capability unit that benefits from a wide variety of buffs, but once you start looking at more specialized units it doesn't work.

Breton wrote:
The Chapter Tactic should just change HOW you do it. Ultramarines "thing" to me is doing a little bit of everything so the UM force should shoot a little better, and fight a little better. Blood Angels "thing" is the Red Thirst (and Supercharged Engines) So their biker force will fight a little better, and drive a little faster. and so on and so on.

And to the above point: Devastators get nothing useful from Red Thirst or Supercharged Engines. Those bonuses are worthless to them. They are not comparably effective to Imperial Fists Devastators getting Bolter Discipline and Siege Mastery, nor do they warrant the same cost.

This system doesn't work for what you want it to do. It's just bringing back the 8th/9th subfactions with all the same balance issues they had then.

 catbarf wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:
I think Breton's point is that every subfaction's bonus will affect some units in the list more than others, and that is a possible equalizing factor. Some subfaction rules will favour shooters. The fact that those rules do nothing for melee IS one of the things balances the improved ability for shooters.

And yes, players using that subfaction may try to "Get around the rule" by bringing only shooters... But that's not actually getting around the rule, because if they do that, then their lack of melee BECOMES the liability (as opposed to melee units being unaugmented).

In a deeper game this might be a credible balancing factor, where min-maxing to lean hard into your buff leaves you without some key capability. In the 40K we play, that isn't the case, and armies that (largely) omit melee have done just fine.

I wouldn't be sorry if including Chapter Traits etc. results in a deeper game. Its pretty much one of the major reasons I want them to come back. Its also one of the reasons I want Morale to become a bigger thing.

In any case, what you are suggesting is that Unit A under Subfaction X may be better than Unit A under Subfaction Y, but that's okay because Unit B is better in Subfaction Y than Subfaction X and on the whole it balances out. I think it's pretty clear from the last two editions that that's not how it works out in practice- and Unit A ends up getting balanced around Subfaction X, making it not very useful in Subfaction Y- but I see the logic.

That is not what Breton is arguing. Breton is saying you can design subfaction traits such that Unit A is comparably powerful regardless of whether it's under Subfactions X, Y, or Z, and so a single points cost can reasonably reflect the power of the unit. To make this point they are using as an example a mixed-capability unit that benefits from a wide variety of buffs, but once you start looking at more specialized units it doesn't work.

Breton wrote:
The Chapter Tactic should just change HOW you do it. Ultramarines "thing" to me is doing a little bit of everything so the UM force should shoot a little better, and fight a little better. Blood Angels "thing" is the Red Thirst (and Supercharged Engines) So their biker force will fight a little better, and drive a little faster. and so on and so on.

And to the above point: Devastators get nothing useful from Red Thirst or Supercharged Engines. Those bonuses are worthless to them. They are not comparably effective to Imperial Fists Devastators getting Bolter Discipline and Siege Mastery, nor do they warrant the same cost.

This system doesn't work for what you want it to do. It's just bringing back the 8th/9th subfactions with all the same balance issues they had then.

It depends on what is in The Red Thirst. Maybe it doesn't hit the Devs with something worthwhile. Maybe it does. Its certainly possible to do it so it does hit them, but its not horrible if it does something to the now squatted Eviscerators and DC thunderhammers etc to turn them into fast moving Jump "Devastators" and instead of using long rage firepower they use faster harder jump troops with power fists and melta pistols. They still have a unit that can do the job and its definitely not part of the cookie cutter.

This whole conversation is so bonkers to me.

There is one meaningful difference in Chapter Tactics vs Detachments, that is that in a Chapter Tactic system ALL units in an army go the bonus and in the Detachment system only a few specific units in your army get a bonus. The argument is if you want your bonus tied to fluff or if you want it tied to an arbitrary attempt at balancing, that is just as garbage as the system before it. Detachments fail for me because it means that a lot of units in your army end up with no bonus what so ever. The argument that Chapter Tactics made people run the most powerful combination and ruined all other choices because of it is a non-starter for me. Detachments have the same issue, people are finding the best combinations with the best units and spamming the most powerful stuff. The only reason you now see variation in tournaments is because everything is so bland and devoid of special rules that all that matters anymore are stat blocks.

Almost every pro or anti argument for either system could realistically apply to BOTH systems because, shocker, GW is horrible at writing rules.

Arbiter_Shade wrote:

Almost every pro or anti argument for either system could realistically apply to BOTH systems because, shocker, GW is horrible at writing rules.

I feel like this needs to be pinned to the top of every thread in the forum

Arbiter_Shade wrote:
This whole conversation is so bonkers to me.

There is one meaningful difference in Chapter Tactics vs Detachments, that is that in a Chapter Tactic system ALL units in an army go the bonus and in the Detachment system only a few specific units in your army get a bonus. The argument is if you want your bonus tied to fluff or if you want it tied to an arbitrary attempt at balancing, that is just as garbage as the system before it. Detachments fail for me because it means that a lot of units in your army end up with no bonus what so ever. The argument that Chapter Tactics made people run the most powerful combination and ruined all other choices because of it is a non-starter for me. Detachments have the same issue, people are finding the best combinations with the best units and spamming the most powerful stuff. The only reason you now see variation in tournaments is because everything is so bland and devoid of special rules that all that matters anymore are stat blocks.

Almost every pro or anti argument for either system could realistically apply to BOTH systems because, shocker, GW is horrible at writing rules.

The difference is that a white Scars player can now pick an armoured force and pick ironstorm which will benefit them more than being forced into their chapter tactics and doctrine.

What was in the old system, is forcing play styles to be associated with fluff based archetypes. Using Raven Guard as an example they were forced down the road of ranged assassination, if you wanted to play a different style you needed to be a different chapter. Now you can be Raven Guard in any given detachment and have a benefit/focused rules that suit the play style, not the paint job.

Neither is perfect, but imo detachments are less punishing and force fewer "wrong choices" on people.

Yeah, of course chapter tactics and detachments have the same pros and cons because they're the same damn system. The difference is just that detachments codify the counts-as that everyone did anyways to deal with the un-fun railroading of the system.

If it wasn't viable to avoid obnoxious balance issues in either system, it certainly isn't viable to achieve it with both systems active simultaneously.

 catbarf wrote:
Yeah, of course chapter tactics and detachments have the same pros and cons because they're the same damn system. The difference is just that detachments codify the counts-as that everyone did anyways to deal with the un-fun railroading of the system.

Not to be the "actually" guy, but detachments in 10th also determine which enhancements and which strats you get.

In the 9th ed system, your subfaction gave ONE bespoke WL Trait, Relic and Strat, but all the generic options for the faction as a whole continued to be available. And that is a HUGE difference.

PenitentJake wrote:

 catbarf wrote:
Yeah, of course chapter tactics and detachments have the same pros and cons because they're the same damn system. The difference is just that detachments codify the counts-as that everyone did anyways to deal with the un-fun railroading of the system.

Not to be the "actually" guy, but detachments in 10th also determine which enhancements and which strats you get.

In the 9th ed system, your subfaction gave ONE bespoke WL Trait, Relic and Strat, but all the generic options for the faction as a whole continued to be available. And that is a HUGE difference.

That's also not entirely representative for marines, or "you're lying by omission"

Belonging a chapter got you a whole lot more than 1 of each of those, but I'd argue that reducing the level of possible issues they brought might be a good thing.

Dudeface wrote:

Arbiter_Shade wrote:
This whole conversation is so bonkers to me.

There is one meaningful difference in Chapter Tactics vs Detachments, that is that in a Chapter Tactic system ALL units in an army go the bonus and in the Detachment system only a few specific units in your army get a bonus. The argument is if you want your bonus tied to fluff or if you want it tied to an arbitrary attempt at balancing, that is just as garbage as the system before it. Detachments fail for me because it means that a lot of units in your army end up with no bonus what so ever. The argument that Chapter Tactics made people run the most powerful combination and ruined all other choices because of it is a non-starter for me. Detachments have the same issue, people are finding the best combinations with the best units and spamming the most powerful stuff. The only reason you now see variation in tournaments is because everything is so bland and devoid of special rules that all that matters anymore are stat blocks.

Almost every pro or anti argument for either system could realistically apply to BOTH systems because, shocker, GW is horrible at writing rules.

The difference is that a white Scars player can now pick an armoured force and pick ironstorm which will benefit them more than being forced into their chapter tactics and doctrine.

What was in the old system, is forcing play styles to be associated with fluff based archetypes. Using Raven Guard as an example they were forced down the road of ranged assassination, if you wanted to play a different style you needed to be a different chapter. Now you can be Raven Guard in any given detachment and have a benefit/focused rules that suit the play style, not the paint job.

Neither is perfect, but imo detachments are less punishing and force fewer "wrong choices" on people.

Yes, yes, now fluff doesn't matter at all. That is great for some people I am sure, I personally hate it. If I wanted to play White Scars it was because I wanted to play a bike/jump pack fast moving army not because I wanted to play an armor heavy list.

The new system forces you to use a handful of models depending on what detachment you use. Both systems have the exact same problem so they didn't solve anything with the new system unless you really hated fluff having effects on the game.

The only reason there are less "wrong choices" is because they seem hell bent on removing all choice. Army building is very paint by the numbers anymore and I personally hate it. I prefer to have the option to take a sub-optimal choice when considering the new system of no choices. I COULD take an Ironstorm detachment and take no vehicles but that would be as silly as making a White Scars list focused on tanks. You are just moving the line in the sand.

Arbiter_Shade wrote:

Spoiler:

Dudeface wrote:

Arbiter_Shade wrote:
This whole conversation is so bonkers to me.

There is one meaningful difference in Chapter Tactics vs Detachments, that is that in a Chapter Tactic system ALL units in an army go the bonus and in the Detachment system only a few specific units in your army get a bonus. The argument is if you want your bonus tied to fluff or if you want it tied to an arbitrary attempt at balancing, that is just as garbage as the system before it. Detachments fail for me because it means that a lot of units in your army end up with no bonus what so ever. The argument that Chapter Tactics made people run the most powerful combination and ruined all other choices because of it is a non-starter for me. Detachments have the same issue, people are finding the best combinations with the best units and spamming the most powerful stuff. The only reason you now see variation in tournaments is because everything is so bland and devoid of special rules that all that matters anymore are stat blocks.

Almost every pro or anti argument for either system could realistically apply to BOTH systems because, shocker, GW is horrible at writing rules.

The difference is that a white Scars player can now pick an armoured force and pick ironstorm which will benefit them more than being forced into their chapter tactics and doctrine.

What was in the old system, is forcing play styles to be associated with fluff based archetypes. Using Raven Guard as an example they were forced down the road of ranged assassination, if you wanted to play a different style you needed to be a different chapter. Now you can be Raven Guard in any given detachment and have a benefit/focused rules that suit the play style, not the paint job.

Neither is perfect, but imo detachments are less punishing and force fewer "wrong choices" on people.

Yes, yes, now fluff doesn't matter at all. That is great for some people I am sure, I personally hate it. If I wanted to play White Scars it was because I wanted to play a bike/jump pack fast moving army not because I wanted to play an armor heavy list.

The new system forces you to use a handful of models depending on what detachment you use. Both systems have the exact same problem so they didn't solve anything with the new system unless you really hated fluff having effects on the game.

The only reason there are less "wrong choices" is because they seem hell bent on removing all choice. Army building is very paint by the numbers anymore and I personally hate it. I prefer to have the option to take a sub-optimal choice when considering the new system of no choices. I COULD take an Ironstorm detachment and take no vehicles but that would be as silly as making a White Scars list focused on tanks. You are just moving the line in the sand.

I'm not up on my $COLOR Marine lore, but don't White Scars have (had?) an affinity for mechanized and fast armored forces as well? IIRC they were bigger on...I guess you could call it "strategic mobility" rather than just "vroom vroom iron horsies lol".

Also, I'm a little confused on how everyone having access to a bike-heavy force org means that fluff is irrelevant. From the way they're talked about, detachments sound like they have a core focus and some mandatory units, but it sounds like you should still have room to flesh things out after that (if sub-optimally).

Arbiter_Shade wrote:
]
Yes, yes, now fluff doesn't matter at all. That is great for some people I am sure, I personally hate it. If I wanted to play White Scars it was because I wanted to play a bike/jump pack fast moving army not because I wanted to play an armor heavy list.

You're flanderising the factions for them, ironically you're ignoring a lot of fluff with that stipulation.

The new system forces you to use a handful of models depending on what detachment you use. Both systems have the exact same problem so they didn't solve anything with the new system unless you really hated fluff having effects on the game.

Above you preach the virtue of the White Scars rules because they encouraged you to use a force of a small subset of models...

I COULD take an Ironstorm detachment and take no vehicles but that would be as silly as making a White Scars list focused on tanks. You are just moving the line in the sand.

Again, nothing silly about white scars having an armoured force, unless fluff doesn't matter.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 waefre_1 wrote:

I'm not up on my $COLOR Marine lore, but don't White Scars have (had?) an affinity for mechanized and fast armored forces as well? IIRC they were bigger on...I guess you could call it "strategic mobility" rather than just "vroom vroom iron horsies lol".

Also, I'm a little confused on how everyone having access to a bike-heavy force org means that fluff is irrelevant. From the way they're talked about, detachments sound like they have a core focus and some mandatory units, but it sounds like you should still have room to flesh things out after that (if sub-optimally).

You are 100% spot on.

Allowing for force compositions that exist in the fluff is better at respecting lore than pushing subfactions towards stereotypical builds. If you want to build bike-heavy White Scars, nothing has changed. You just have the option to build out other army archetypes of White Scars without being indirectly penalized for it.

The complaint that the new system removes choice makes no sense; it might be a limited set of options but that at least beats having just one (1) option for your subfaction.

In any case, it seems less like a lore issue and more that some players don't feel like their subfaction is special anymore if other subfactions can field comparable capabilities, and for whatever reason it's disproportionately a Marine thing. I don't remember Steel Legion players getting up in arms when Cadians could choose mechanized infantry doctrine in the 9th Ed codex.

 catbarf wrote:

In any case, it seems less like a lore issue and more that some players don't feel like their subfaction is special anymore if other subfactions can field comparable capabilities, and for whatever reason it's disproportionately a Marine thing. I don't remember Steel Legion players getting up in arms when Cadians could choose mechanized infantry doctrine in the 9th Ed codex.

Orks must be capped at 1 six per 10 dice for every roll unless painted blue!

Man the strawman is real up in here, but what am I to expect from an online conversation.

I am not espousing the virtues of the Chapter Tactic system so much as pointing out that the Detachment system doesn't fix a single thing. It is the same as the Chapter Tactic system just shuffling the names around a bit. I think that it is ridiculous that some of you are arguing that a rule that states that all your units can advance or fall back and charge is somehow more guilty of forcing you into using a small subset of units than a rule that states....*checks notes for Stormlance detachments* All units that advance or fall back can charge.

And this is only through the lens of Space Marines; I play Tyranids and I am disgusted with how much the detachment system shoehorns me into playing specific models. Under the old Hive Fleets I could play any model in any Hive Fleet and get bonuses, under the detachment system only specific model types get bonuses.

I am not saying that the Chapter Tactic system is better but I find it so damn disingenuous when people come in acting like it is so much better because it really is just the same damn thing with a different name. Other armies got screwed on the detachment system because Space Marines get rules that affect their entire army allowing them to build what ever they want while other armies are restricted to bonuses for <UNIT TYPE>

Eh... I mean the Kronos bonuses didn't do anything for e.g. hormagaunts.

Hive Fleet detachments definitely shoehorned us into plating specific models and lists.

I don't think anyone is arguing that the detachments don't push specific models. The difference is that if you want to play with different models, the expectations to switch detachments have largely been removed.