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:

 Dysartes wrote:

Breton wrote:
I'm actually fairly worried we're going to see Combat Patrol turn into the mechanics for 2,000 point armies as well. You'll be given pre-generated 2,000 point armies that have this HQ with this load out, these units with these loadouts, and those other characters with those other loadouts, and each 2,000 point army will have bespoke datasheets just for that army box.

I would be more than happy to see that happen - for tournament play only.

Want to prove you've actually got some skill? Win events using a list GW built for you... and let everyone else enjoy the game without the limitations that the actions of the tryhards end up causing GW to inflict on the rest of the playerbase.

As tournaments go so does the rest of the pickup games. So you'll lose support for DIY Armies.

While fixed lists might be good for balance, they are bad for sales. Once you have everything you need to field it, there is no reason to buy more minis. It works for CP because they are the start point of your collection. A 2k list is the end goal, and you do not want a firm stopping point. You can always buy more units to chase the meta and shake things up.

OK to get this back on track..

It's perfectly possible to make a black template list with crusaders primaris crusaders and chaplains and emperors champion. You can make a list with sanguinor and dante and sanguinary guard and death company easily.
You can make a space wolf list with blood claws and wolves and long fangs and terminator pack leaders.

But what about raven guard. Salamanders. Imperial fists. Iron hands. Ultrasmurfs. White scars.
Apart from the epic heroes there is nothing these chapters can take that sets them apart from other chapters just listed

Ok, and? What is your point here because the two posts you have made are completely different.

 Corennus wrote:
OK to get this back on track..

It's perfectly possible to make a black template list with crusaders primaris crusaders and chaplains and emperors champion. You can make a list with sanguinor and dante and sanguinary guard and death company easily.
You can make a space wolf list with blood claws and wolves and long fangs and terminator pack leaders.

But what about raven guard. Salamanders. Imperial fists. Iron hands. Ultrasmurfs. White scars.
Apart from the epic heroes there is nothing these chapters can take that sets them apart from other chapters just listed

RG: Take more phobos, scout, and jump units than you otherwise might to better reflect your fluff. Probably take the sneaky detachment.

Salamanders: take more flamers and probably the flamer detachment.

Today I represented Iybraesil by taking a second banshee squad instead of something stronger. Iyanden players don't complain that they're not special enough because an Ulthwe army can field the same units they do. What is this spoiled marine nonsense?

 Corennus wrote:
OK to get this back on track..

It's perfectly possible to make a black template list with crusaders primaris crusaders and chaplains and emperors champion. You can make a list with sanguinor and dante and sanguinary guard and death company easily.
You can make a space wolf list with blood claws and wolves and long fangs and terminator pack leaders.

But what about raven guard. Salamanders. Imperial fists. Iron hands. Ultrasmurfs. White scars.
Apart from the epic heroes there is nothing these chapters can take that sets them apart from other chapters just listed

The current players don't give a GAK about 40K. they care about the game as a game, not the lore, not the universe, not the fluff. your position and the position of the player base GW is catering to are completely different. they are not the company they were when i started playing.

You either build a community of players looking for the same things you are or you move on to some other game system that is that and support it.

I fully understand what you are saying. it is why i helped build the oldhammer group i play with. we don't play it just as a game or even a more simulation style wargame that it is. we play it because it is 40K. that includes the lore and fluff being in the rules. we play factions because they are flanderized and we like it. we like the restrictions and the benefits of playing it that way. we do not want chess like "balance" that was never supposed to be what 40K was about and at this point is effectively impossible with all the factions GW is supporting without dumbing it down and sanitizing or making it bland. especially now that they are directly trying to make it a balanced chess like game where they do frequent balance passes to keep win rate metrics that they care about on par.

Because players are people, no matter how you make the rules some players are going to try and find exploits to feed their need to powergame. the only thing that stops that kind of behavior is the community you play in. If you act like a GAK enough you usually run out of people to play with in a regular active group.

As other have pointed out space marines although being incredibly rare in the setting are the flagship product from GW as they have always been central to the story that is why they get the most attention. variant factions of eldar, orks and even guard got more lore based attention in the 3rd-5 ed era with craftworld, clanz and regimental rules as well but tend to get forgotten since they are not space marines.

preatorians, tallarn, mordians, vostroyans,, elysians, and DKOK at one point had their own special stuff aside from cadians and catachans that always get the most attention for example.

If you as a player like the current system and like chasing the meta train more power to you. then support it. GW will keep taking your money.


Many of us though who think the current game is a dumpster fire that wears a 40K skin suit will play other rules sets, older editions, or support other games and we will get by just fine. it isn't even a GW thing. i still enjoy WM MKIII and i hate MKIV same with infinity. N2 was the best version of the game. N4 is the same tournament focused garbage GW is doing.

At least with classic battle tech there is no "current edition" the core mechanics have not changed in over 30 years and there are books full of official optional rules for players to pick and choose from that are as old as the game or new versions catalyst have added recently.

 Wyldhunt wrote:

Iyanden players don't complain that they're not special enough because an Ulthwe army can field the same units they do.

Well, Iyanden players are still high from getting the only craftworld specific supplement ever back in 6th.

What is this spoiled marine nonsense?

Spoiled Marines are the foundation of the setting. Daddy doesn't love me. I'll show him. Cue the Heresy.

 aphyon wrote:

 Corennus wrote:
OK to get this back on track..

It's perfectly possible to make a black template list with crusaders primaris crusaders and chaplains and emperors champion. You can make a list with sanguinor and dante and sanguinary guard and death company easily.
You can make a space wolf list with blood claws and wolves and long fangs and terminator pack leaders.

But what about raven guard. Salamanders. Imperial fists. Iron hands. Ultrasmurfs. White scars.
Apart from the epic heroes there is nothing these chapters can take that sets them apart from other chapters just listed

The current players don't give a GAK about 40K. they care about the game as a game, not the lore, not the universe, not the fluff. your position and the position of the player base GW is catering to are completely different. they are not the company they were when i started playing.

You either build a community of players looking for the same things you are or you move on to some other game system that is that and support it.

I fully understand what you are saying. it is why i helped build the oldhammer group i play with. we don't play it just as a game or even a more simulation style wargame that it is. we play it because it is 40K. that includes the lore and fluff being in the rules. we play factions because they are flanderized and we like it. we like the restrictions and the benefits of playing it that way. we do not want chess like "balance" that was never supposed to be what 40K was about and at this point is effectively impossible with all the factions GW is supporting without dumbing it down and sanitizing or making it bland. especially now that they are directly trying to make it a balanced chess like game where they do frequent balance passes to keep win rate metrics that they care about on par.

Because players are people, no matter how you make the rules some players are going to try and find exploits to feed their need to powergame. the only thing that stops that kind of behavior is the community you play in. If you act like a GAK enough you usually run out of people to play with in a regular active group.

As other have pointed out space marines although being incredibly rare in the setting are the flagship product from GW as they have always been central to the story that is why they get the most attention. variant factions of eldar, orks and even guard got more lore based attention in the 3rd-5 ed era with craftworld, clanz and regimental rules as well but tend to get forgotten since they are not space marines.

preatorians, tallarn, mordians, vostroyans,, elysians, and DKOK at one point had their own special stuff aside from cadians and catachans that always get the most attention for example.

If you as a player like the current system and like chasing the meta train more power to you. then support it. GW will keep taking your money.


Many of us though who think the current game is a dumpster fire that wears a 40K skin suit will play other rules sets, older editions, or support other games and we will get by just fine. it isn't even a GW thing. i still enjoy WM MKIII and i hate MKIV same with infinity. N2 was the best version of the game. N4 is the same tournament focused garbage GW is doing.

At least with classic battle tech there is no "current edition" the core mechanics have not changed in over 30 years and there are books full of official optional rules for players to pick and choose from that are as old as the game or new versions catalyst have added recently.

If you care more about the lore than the rules, what’s stopping you from just running a lore-appropriate Salamanders/Imperial Fists/Ultramarines/other chapter force within the rules? You don’t need bespoke tactics to say “I’m playing Raven Guard,” you just need to run a force that RG would.

If you care more about the lore than the rules, what’s stopping you from just running a lore-appropriate Salamanders/Imperial Fists/Ultramarines/other chapter force within the rules? You don’t need bespoke tactics to say “I’m playing Raven Guard,” you just need to run a force that RG would.

you miss the point-

the rules have to reflect the lore of the setting.

the point of your question-you literally cannot. 10 edition is not designed to support it.

this



does not equal

'Just run it the way you think it should look by taking specific units with the best detachment you can find'...that every other chapter has the same access to, and then hope that by not just taking the most optimal spam units doesn't get your teeth kicked in on the table.

In our oldhammer games i can take a thematic force such as above or just any legal combinations of models or units i like the look of and with average dice rolls along with good generalship on the table top i have the opportunity to win no matter what i am facing. some armies could be my exact counter making it a tougher game but it is not a forgone conclusion in the same way 10 ed works.

Sure, 10th isn't good. I don't much like it either.
But that doesn't mean you NEED rules to represent your specific faction. If you don't care about the game rules that much, what does it matter that any Marines can run bikes well?

...and then hope that by not just taking the most optimal spam units doesn't get your teeth kicked in on the table.

Let's pause to acknowledge that this is a mostly-unrelated issue. Playing in a more competitive meta where less competitive options can prevent you from having an enjoyable game is a thing. However, it's also *always* been a thing, and the potential for thematic choices for one army to be weak compared to another's does not mean that options for playing a thematic army don't exist. You could discuss ways to buff the underpowered options or nerf the overpowered options so that all armies are in the same ballpark and more likely to have close games, but that's not the same as claiming it's impossible to run a thematic army.

Also, going through the rules on that screenshot...

* Specific units may be used: Some units getting sent to Legends is a bummer, but the option still exists. Pretty sure most if not all of those units are still available, and running an army made up of bikes and models in transports is certainly a thng.

* Born in the Saddle: Not sure if difficult terrain still exists at all. If it did, this would be a pretty niche rule, but enhancements for making your bikers faster definitely exist. The +1 Attacks thing sort of went away (unless there's a strat for it), but this is also a my-bikes-are-better-than-your-bikes rule. That sort of thing is kind of its own can of worms. (See: problems with 8th/9th edition detachments and 7th edition formations).

* Bike Squadrons: I'm going off Battle Scribe, so I'm not 100% sure if 10-man units are still possible, but it appears that you can at least get very close to the same squad size and wargear options as before. Again, with the asterisk that Legends is a bit of a mixed bag.

* Mounted Veterans: Legends, but still a thing.

* Counter-Attack: Seems like this is a pretty niche/nitty gritty thing. I doubt people are frequently struggling to get most of their squad into engagement range. There's also the Countercharge strat for a similar feel.

* Flankers: You can put your bike units into strategic reserves.

* Hit & Run: While not 100% the same, the Storm Talon's Lightning Assault rule reflects this pretty well. With the option to also shoot after falling back available as an enhancement.

* Drop Pods: Exist.

* Power Lances: Not 100% the same, but biker sergeants can take all the usual power weapons. Between power weapons, thunder hammers, and power fists, surely one of those profiles is close enough that any power lances you've modeled feel reasonably well represented, no? There's also Fury of the Storm if you want that on-the-charge bonus.

* Horsetail Talismans: This is basically just the Advance rule, no? There's also Portents of Wisdom if you want to feel extra speedy when advancing.

* Chapter Banner: I see Ancients, Chaplains, Captains, and Champions on bikes listed as options. I don't know 10th edition marines super well, but surely one of those represents the concept of an inspiring flagpole reasonably well.

So with all that in mind, and with the acknowledgement that using Legends can be slightly awkward, what aspect of the WS rules in that screenshot do you feel aren't present in 10th? It seems like most of it still exists or has a close equivalent with the exceptions of the bespoke lances (again, you have multiple melee weapon profiles and an enhancement to help represent those) and the +1 Attacks in melee.

Am I overlooking something? Or is it literally just that people are upset other chapters somewhere in the galaxy are similarly good at riding bikes and aren't punished (read: given fewer buffs than White Scars) when doing so?

 Wyldhunt wrote:

...and then hope that by not just taking the most optimal spam units doesn't get your teeth kicked in on the table.

Let's pause to acknowledge that this is a mostly-unrelated issue. Playing in a more competitive meta where less competitive options can prevent you from having an enjoyable game is a thing. However, it's also *always* been a thing, and the potential for thematic choices for one army to be weak compared to another's does not mean that options for playing a thematic army don't exist. You could discuss ways to buff the underpowered options or nerf the overpowered options so that all armies are in the same ballpark and more likely to have close games, but that's not the same as claiming it's impossible to run a thematic army.

Also, going through the rules on that screenshot...

* Specific units may be used: Some units getting sent to Legends is a bummer, but the option still exists. Pretty sure most if not all of those units are still available, and running an army made up of bikes and models in transports is certainly a thng.

* Born in the Saddle: Not sure if difficult terrain still exists at all. If it did, this would be a pretty niche rule, but enhancements for making your bikers faster definitely exist. The +1 Attacks thing sort of went away (unless there's a strat for it), but this is also a my-bikes-are-better-than-your-bikes rule. That sort of thing is kind of its own can of worms. (See: problems with 8th/9th edition detachments and 7th edition formations).

* Bike Squadrons: I'm going off Battle Scribe, so I'm not 100% sure if 10-man units are still possible, but it appears that you can at least get very close to the same squad size and wargear options as before. Again, with the asterisk that Legends is a bit of a mixed bag.

* Mounted Veterans: Legends, but still a thing.

* Counter-Attack: Seems like this is a pretty niche/nitty gritty thing. I doubt people are frequently struggling to get most of their squad into engagement range. There's also the Countercharge strat for a similar feel.

* Flankers: You can put your bike units into strategic reserves.

* Hit & Run: While not 100% the same, the Storm Talon's Lightning Assault rule reflects this pretty well. With the option to also shoot after falling back available as an enhancement.

* Drop Pods: Exist.

* Power Lances: Not 100% the same, but biker sergeants can take all the usual power weapons. Between power weapons, thunder hammers, and power fists, surely one of those profiles is close enough that any power lances you've modeled feel reasonably well represented, no? There's also Fury of the Storm if you want that on-the-charge bonus.

* Horsetail Talismans: This is basically just the Advance rule, no? There's also Portents of Wisdom if you want to feel extra speedy when advancing.

* Chapter Banner: I see Ancients, Chaplains, Captains, and Champions on bikes listed as options. I don't know 10th edition marines super well, but surely one of those represents the concept of an inspiring flagpole reasonably well.

So with all that in mind, and with the acknowledgement that using Legends can be slightly awkward, what aspect of the WS rules in that screenshot do you feel aren't present in 10th? It seems like most of it still exists or has a close equivalent with the exceptions of the bespoke lances (again, you have multiple melee weapon profiles and an enhancement to help represent those) and the +1 Attacks in melee.

Am I overlooking something? Or is it literally just that people are upset other chapters somewhere in the galaxy are similarly good at riding bikes and aren't punished (read: given fewer buffs than White Scars) when doing so?

That was an awful lot of Let Them Eat Legends Cake And Pretend It Isn't Moldy. There are better reasons to side eye that list. Like being 20 years old and way out of date, but you glossed over a lot of reasonable points. The Power Lance wasn't about the Strength and Damage Profile - it was about the +1 Initiative (think Fights First on the charge) vs a tradeoff (think Fights Last everywhere else).

And pointing out there's a Bike Champion in Legends is not the same as an entire Command Squad.

And I'm really not sure how an Ancient that only adds 1OC is pretty much the same as an Ancient that adds 1OC and extra movement. You didn't engage with any of that list beyond a superficial reading - and that's obvious by you pointing out Drop Pods exist. The WS Drop Pod rule had nothing to do with whether the Drop Pods exist or not. It had to do with what Army Building Choices you had if you did or did not take Drop Pods.

Yeah many of these rules are available (To everyone) but the point is these rules used to make White Scars stand out from other marines. Counter Attack: White Scars Bike units can use the Counter Charge strat for 0CP even if its' been used by someone else yadda yadda would be a more accurate translation to current. Now this list isn't really my cup of tea for Chapter individuality but I'm willing to discuss it on its merits not just pointing out Drop Pods exist.

Yep..... the old "but" argument-make the point then ignore everything before the "but"

the actual point was in accordance with the original FOC, that every faction had to follow for 4 editions, it allowed the WS to fight differently to everybody else as the lore held. it made them unique as an entire faction, not the current "only this one unit in my entire army this turn remembers the thousands of years of tradition and training of the chapter" via a strat. that they promptly forget about the rest of the game. it's a trap card. if you like MTG then it fits, if you want to play in the 40K universe then it doesn't as it was a built in rule(s) for the entire force that always works.

And yes to brentons point the lore based rules are 20 years old but were still compatible for 4 editions (3rd-7th ed). it does not work with 10th or anything past 7th for that matter. and that was the point. 10th ed is not 40K, it is a game designed to be balanced for tournaments that wears a 40K skin suit. as such lore based rules of playing in the 40K setting do not work for a system designed to be a mix of chess and a card game with tokens.

I almost feel bad for the rules dev team. they get handed this huge pile of factions that GW wants to support model sales for and are told to "make it all balanced against each other based off win rates" then i remember it is current GW and i feel less bad.

That WS list also had restrictions- getting the +1 attack cost +1pt per model for example. Bikes were already pretty expensive in 3rd edition (35pts per biker vs 15pts per tactical marine) so without that they could get overwhelmed by numbers.

They also had some pretty heavy restrictions on list building- the only infantry that wasn't forced to take transports is scouts, and many of the heavy firepower options are quite restricted (no Dreadnoughts, no Devastators, Land Raiders only as transports to already-expensive units). Terminators cannot teleport unless the list is in drop pods. Sticking every unit in a transport or on a bike added a lot of points quickly. Such a list would be quite small in body count compared to a balanced Marine list.

Essentially similar to, say, mechanised Guard of the same period. A powerful option, but paid for in being forced to take expensive units (a Chimera was 85pts).

Also, WS would struggle in some mission types. For example, attacking in sentry missions (only the scouts could sneak, if you took any). Which I think highlights the importance of mission variety to balancing out skew lists, at least in linked games like campaigns.

Such a list would be quite small in body count compared to a balanced Marine list.

i have a few pics of example lists at 1,850 points-





of course this isn't just the WS, i could give examples of many of the other thematic lore based lists from the 3.5 chaos dex, Armageddon steel legion, craft world alaitoc etc...

32-41 models plus a handful of vehicles seems pretty low in body count for 1850. Those are great looking armies, but they do highlight the cost of taking so many bikes. You could have 60 tactical marines for half that cost in a standard list, but they would be much less mobile and hit less hard individually.

The biker meta of 5th was driven by a big points reduction per bike (~25pts per model IIRC).


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I'm big for lore-themed lists btw, my main force is mechanised Steel Legion. Very similar list with high mobility but low bodycount (compared to most Guard forces).

Also, Bikers went up that important point to T5, meaning they became markedly more resilient. Couple that with their speed, and being able to move and rapid fire (and charge maybe?) they became tricky to take out, with many enemy units being S3, they were left fishing for sixes in HTH.

You could have 60 tactical marines for half that cost in a standard list,

yeah you could, but then you would not be playing white scars, that's kind of the point.

My old 3.5 ravenwing army was more about my love of land speeders but comparatively as a bike army the scars excelled at being a close combat bike army where as the ravenwing were all about ranged high mobility shooting and were even more restricted-land speeder tornados or tempests, bikes, attack bikes and the master of the ravenwing either on bike or in his speeder (you always took the speeder if you had the points as it helped out the overall army with it's wargear) were all that was allowed.

At least with the deathwing back in the day any member of the inner circle could lead a pure deathwing army rather it was azrael himself or asmodai (belial and sammael were not a thing) or any other captain, interrogator chaplain or librarian.

 aphyon wrote:

You could have 60 tactical marines for half that cost in a standard list,

yeah you could, but then you would not be playing white scars, that's kind of the point.

Given that the White Scars, like the Blood Angels are with a few cultural exceptions Codex compliant - it would absolutely represent a WS army.

Now rather than Codex Bikes, Codex Wolfs or Codex Blood - I would rather as in the current edition that options exist for all Chapters that allow you to both field armies that can capute what people see as the style of a given Chapter but also alow people to do the same with the other 990 Chapters many of whom have equally unique cultures, companies, units etc but have always had to be ignored in favour of the same four or five Chapters that have always got everything - both in 40k and in HH but have also been flanderised to the point where they bear little or any resemblance to what they used to be.

 Mr Morden wrote:

 aphyon wrote:

You could have 60 tactical marines for half that cost in a standard list,

yeah you could, but then you would not be playing white scars, that's kind of the point.

Given that the White Scars, like the Blood Angels are with a few cultural exceptions Codex compliant - it would absolutely represent a WS army.

Now rather than Codex Bikes, Codex Wolfs or Codex Blood - I would rather as in the current edition that options exist for all Chapters that allow you to both field armies that can capute what people see as the style of a given Chapter but also alow people to do the same with the other 990 Chapters many of whom have equally unique cultures, companies, units etc but have always had to be ignored in favour of the same four or five Chapters that have always got everything - both in 40k and in HH but have also been flanderised to the point where they bear little or any resemblance to what they used to be.

Codex Compliant does not mean Cookie Cutter. It would represent an anything army. There is nothing to it that represents any specific chapter.

They have done DIY Chapter creation in the past, and should still be doing it.

Can you explain what has been flanderised in any of the non-wolf Supplement supported chapters? I mean I'll grant that the Wolves are pretty wonky right now, but the Dark/Blood Angels are still pretty much the same as they were. Same with White Scars, Ravenguard and so on.

Breton wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

 aphyon wrote:

You could have 60 tactical marines for half that cost in a standard list,

yeah you could, but then you would not be playing white scars, that's kind of the point.

Given that the White Scars, like the Blood Angels are with a few cultural exceptions Codex compliant - it would absolutely represent a WS army.

Now rather than Codex Bikes, Codex Wolfs or Codex Blood - I would rather as in the current edition that options exist for all Chapters that allow you to both field armies that can capute what people see as the style of a given Chapter but also alow people to do the same with the other 990 Chapters many of whom have equally unique cultures, companies, units etc but have always had to be ignored in favour of the same four or five Chapters that have always got everything - both in 40k and in HH but have also been flanderised to the point where they bear little or any resemblance to what they used to be.

Codex Compliant does not mean Cookie Cutter. It would represent an anything army. There is nothing to it that represents any specific chapter.

They have done DIY Chapter creation in the past, and should still be doing it.

Can you explain what has been flanderised in any of the non-wolf Supplement supported chapters? I mean I'll grant that the Wolves are pretty wonky right now, but the Dark/Blood Angels are still pretty much the same as they were. Same with White Scars, Ravenguard and so on.

As I said the current structure allows for the other 990 Chapters rather than IMO having everything rules wise revolving the chosen 3 Chapters and trying constantly to make them more and more special.

The Blood Angels went through a horrible process of having a large proportion of their units and weapons having the word Blood stuck in front them - the Dark Angels had the same with Dark but with an ever growing emphais on their "secret" to the exclusion of anything else of interest.

As you say the Wolves are little more than the word Wolf used in every single possible combination

As someone with both SW and DA armies - I am ashamed to field them in their current lore state :(

The White Scars and Ravenguard have not yet suffered to the same extent - mainly due to the slavish attention constantly focussed on the previous three armies - however if they had had the attention they would have the same issues. They also did not get the vast raft of "signature" units, rules etc - same as the Iron Hands and Salamanders.

All First Founding Chapters, all with a complex and unqiue military structure never represented in the rules - the same as the other 990 Chapters who often have equivalent units to those of the "Chosen Three" Chapters.

The so-called Cookie cutter approach allows for a vast variety of different Chapters

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Also, Bikers went up that important point to T5, meaning they became markedly more resilient. Couple that with their speed, and being able to move and rapid fire (and charge maybe?) they became tricky to take out, with many enemy units being S3, they were left fishing for sixes in HTH.

This is true (except for instant death) but the durability increase was less obnoxious when they cost 35pts than 25pts. A single 35pt biker was not as tough as 2 15pt tactical marines, it was the whole package that made the bike worth it. I think the problems with bikers came when they became too cheap for what they brought to the table.

aphyon wrote:

You could have 60 tactical marines for half that cost in a standard list,

yeah you could, but then you would not be playing white scars, that's kind of the point.

My old 3.5 ravenwing army was more about my love of land speeders but comparatively as a bike army the scars excelled at being a close combat bike army where as the ravenwing were all about ranged high mobility shooting and were even more restricted-land speeder tornados or tempests, bikes, attack bikes and the master of the ravenwing either on bike or in his speeder (you always took the speeder if you had the points as it helped out the overall army with it's wargear) were all that was allowed.

At least with the deathwing back in the day any member of the inner circle could lead a pure deathwing army rather it was azrael himself or asmodai (belial and sammael were not a thing) or any other captain, interrogator chaplain or librarian.

You are missing my point- I'm referring back to the discussion in the thread and referencing how skew lists can be balanced and how there were multiple ways to build marine forces. Essentially, taking all bikes wasn't a straight upgrade because they were expensive and White Scars couldn't take cheaper units easily.

Mr Morden wrote:

 aphyon wrote:

You could have 60 tactical marines for half that cost in a standard list,

yeah you could, but then you would not be playing white scars, that's kind of the point.

Given that the White Scars, like the Blood Angels are with a few cultural exceptions Codex compliant - it would absolutely represent a WS army.

Now rather than Codex Bikes, Codex Wolfs or Codex Blood - I would rather as in the current edition that options exist for all Chapters that allow you to both field armies that can capute what people see as the style of a given Chapter but also alow people to do the same with the other 990 Chapters many of whom have equally unique cultures, companies, units etc but have always had to be ignored in favour of the same four or five Chapters that have always got everything - both in 40k and in HH but have also been flanderised to the point where they bear little or any resemblance to what they used to be.

The 3rd edition rules were explicitly flexible regarding choice of lists- if you wanted infantry White Scars, you just used the default list in Codex: Space Marines. Lorewise this would be easily explained for a White Scars force that was not able to deploy via drop pods or on bikes- boarding actions, underhives, extended campaign where fuel reserves are low etc.

Also, given every chapter is a successor of a first founding chapter, having various lists meant you could theme your successor chapter to more fighting styles than just the default codex. These archetypal lists allow more variety than a single list. I think the key thing here is choice.

Argee re. flanderisation since then though.

Breton wrote:
That was an awful lot of Let Them Eat Legends Cake And Pretend It Isn't Moldy.

aphyon wrote:Yep..... the old "but" argument-make the point then ignore everything before the "but"

Did I not point out the mold enough? I acknowledged that some of the Scars' most iconic units being in legends isn't ideal multiple times. If you want to make the case that the old biker units should be brought out of legends, I'm all for it. If that's not the case you're making, then it feels like you're using their legends status to dismiss my point that a lot of the rules aphyon pointed to as being responsible for making WS flavorful seem to still have modern counterparts.

There are better reasons to side eye that list. Like being 20 years old and way out of date, but you glossed over a lot of reasonable points. The Power Lance wasn't about the Strength and Damage Profile - it was about the +1 Initiative (think Fights First on the charge) vs a tradeoff (think Fights Last everywhere else).

Well, you'll generally already fight first on the charge in 10th, so it sounds like the main difference between the old power lance and a modern power sword (or other power weapon) is the Always Fights Last when not on the charge? Not trying to be a jerk here, but I do think it's worth asking how important/impactful that weapon option is to the flavor and identity of WS. You could reasonably give Saim-Hann wildriders power lances for similar reasons. It would be fluffy and neat, but I'm not going to try to make the case that Saim-Hann is boring if they don't have exclusive access to that sort of weapon.

And pointing out there's a Bike Champion in Legends is not the same as an entire Command Squad.

I haven't done a ton with my marines in a while. Maybe it's showing. What's the difference between a squad of veteran bikers lead by an apothecary or champion and "an entire command squad?" Is it just that you can't have the apothecary, champion, and an ancient all in the same unit?

And I'm really not sure how an Ancient that only adds 1OC is pretty much the same as an Ancient that adds 1OC and extra movement.

Well, he adds extra movement (or at least advance rerolls) with an enhancement. Is the extra movement a big factor in whether WS are "boring"? Again, asking in good faith. I acknowledge it's not 100% the same, but on paper the difference seems pretty minor. To me. A guy who does not play White Scars.

You didn't engage with any of that list beyond a superficial reading - and that's obvious by you pointing out Drop Pods exist. The WS Drop Pod rule had nothing to do with whether the Drop Pods exist or not. It had to do with what Army Building Choices you had if you did or did not take Drop Pods.

I still feel like I'm missing something. The drop pod rule basically says you should stick your whole army on bikes or in transports unless you're sticking most of it in drop pods instead, right? You can choose to do that in 10th. You're not required to do so, sure, but if the point is that you want to represent a fluffy army, then whether the fluffy thing is mandatory or not doesn't seem relevant? Unless your point is that doing the fluffy thing is so inefficient that you're not able to enjoy games in your local meta?

Yeah many of these rules are available (To everyone) but the point is these rules used to make White Scars stand out from other marines. Counter Attack: White Scars Bike units can use the Counter Charge strat for 0CP even if its' been used by someone else yadda yadda would be a more accurate translation to current. Now this list isn't really my cup of tea for Chapter individuality but I'm willing to discuss it on its merits not just pointing out Drop Pods exist.

the actual point was in accordance with the original FOC, that every faction had to follow for 4 editions, it allowed the WS to fight differently to everybody else as the lore held.

Correct me if I'm misrepresenting you, but it sounds like the sticking point for you is that these rules aren't exclusive to WS. I get that it's neat to have your own thing, but I dislike chapter locking those sorts of rules for a couple reasons:
A.) It's a big galaxy. There's probably another chapter out there that also thought of giving its bikers polearms, sticking most of their chapter on bikes, etc. Locking what should probably be generic options behind specific chapters is how you end up with things like only BA having psychic dreadnaughts.
B.) If the chapter-locked rules make a given playstyle straight up more powerful, then you're kind of making every other chapter's equivalent feel crummy in comparison. "Oh, you liked the idea of a bike army? Too bad you like Salamanders fluff. Guess you'll just have to play every game knowing that your bikes are worse than mine. Have fun playing my army -1."

Whereas 10th's approach is basically to identify the general style of army you're playing and then give you some rules to lean into that.

it made them unique as an entire faction, not the current "only this one unit in my entire army this turn remembers the thousands of years of tradition and training of the chapter" via a strat. that they promptly forget about the rest of the game. it's a trap card. if you like MTG then it fits, if you want to play in the 40K universe then it doesn't as it was a built in rule(s) for the entire force that always works.

This is a valid criticism. Worth noting that it's not necessarily a marine-specific one though. I think it's weird that only one of my eldar units can use the barrel roll stratagem each turn compared to past editions where all my skimmers/bikes could jink. A lot of enhancements could reasonably just be army-wide wargear options rather than being tied to specific characters. Strats as a concept show some of their limitations here.

And yes to brentons point the lore based rules are 20 years old but were still compatible for 4 editions (3rd-7th ed). it does not work with 10th or anything past 7th for that matter. and that was the point. 10th ed is not 40K, it is a game designed to be balanced for tournaments that wears a 40K skin suit. as such lore based rules of playing in the 40K setting do not work for a system designed to be a mix of chess and a card game with tokens.

I almost feel bad for the rules dev team. they get handed this huge pile of factions that GW wants to support model sales for and are told to "make it all balanced against each other based off win rates" then i remember it is current GW and i feel less bad.

I do wish there was a more obvious focus on narrative/crusade for this reason. Tournament games being relatively balanced is great and all, but competitive play was never really 40k's strong suit. And in trying to lean into the tournament style of play, it definitely feels like they've sacrificed a lot of the flavor/narrative support. So again, valid, but not marine-specific.

A.) It's a big galaxy. There's probably another chapter out there that also thought of giving its bikers polearms, sticking most of their chapter on bikes, etc. Locking what should probably be generic options behind specific chapters is how you end up with things like only BA having psychic dreadnaughts.
B.) If the chapter-locked rules make a given playstyle straight up more powerful, then you're kind of making every other chapter's equivalent feel crummy in comparison. "Oh, you liked the idea of a bike army? Too bad you like Salamanders fluff. Guess you'll just have to play every game knowing that your bikes are worse than mine. Have fun playing my army -1."

A- GW already dealt with this correctly in the past-run your own DIY chapter as a successor using the same rules but your own paint scheme, or the 4th ed trait system for marine chapters to create your own unique combination.

B-replace "more powerful" with different. i pointed it out before. yes you could run a bike centric army from every chapter and many as troops WS did not fight like raven wing, or wolf guard bikers.

the only real difference is if you run a bike centric army out of a codex compliant ultra marines generic force they get nothing special because they are supposed to be generic.

To me. A guy who does not play White Scars.

i do not play them either, but i will fight for them because removing the lore from the game diminishes it for everybody.

then it feels like you're using their legends status to dismiss my point that a lot of the rules aphyon pointed to as being responsible for making WS flavorful seem to still have modern counterparts.

Except they don't, you had to dig around for something somewhat similar that could be applied to make a facsimile of WS rules that are not actual WS rules that could in fact apply to any chapter. re-enforcing the OPs point is that all marines are effectively the same generic army and the chapter you choose is effectively irrelevant no matter the paint scheme. you must then choose only the most optimal units that best fit the current meta skew or just have bad games. the latter tends to chase players from the hobby.

As i posted previously, if that's what you like -the current balanced focused generic tournament edition-then GW will keep taking your money no harm no foul.

But if you want to play 40K as battles in the setting proper you do so because you want the lore to apply in the rules. rather you feel it is flanderized or not.
unfortunately current 40K does not support this style of play anymore. not in the core mechanics and not in the armies.

B-replace "more powerful" with different. i pointed it out before. yes you could run a bike centric army from every chapter and many as troops WS did not fight like raven wing, or wolf guard bikers.

the only real difference is if you run a bike centric army out of a codex compliant ultra marines generic force they get nothing special because they are supposed to be generic.

See, this is one of the potential problems. Ideally, any chapter would be able to run a bike-heavy army (or whatever other archetype you care to name) and have it be different-but-equivalent-to any other chapter's version of the same. But if WS are running around with biker buffs and stratagems that support a biker army archetype while UM simply don't have such things, then a UM army is essentially playing White Scars -1. Which feels bad. 10th's approach bypasses this issue by just saying, "Oh, you're playing a biker list? Here are the rules to support that." You don't have to miss out on the rules that support your playstyle because you painted your army the wrong color.

And this is essentially wat the DIY successor rules were doing in 9th, just presented differently. In 9th, if you wanted to play an army that's good at X, you used the rules that supported X. You just also got poo-poo'd by people who disapproved of your suspiciously UM-colored "White Scars successors."

It sounds like what you want (and forgive me if I'm misrepresenting you) is for WS to not only favor bikers but to also have better biker rules than everyone else (except RW and WS successors). And if that is your stance, I just don't agree with you.

re-enforcing the OPs point is that all marines are effectively the same generic army and the chapter you choose is effectively irrelevant no matter the paint scheme.

To make sure we're on the same page, this is essentially how it works for every non-marine faction, right? See: Iyanden players don't complain that Ulthwe players can use wraith units. Nor do they complain that their wraith units aren't inherently stronger than Ulthwe's wraith units.

you must then choose only the most optimal units that best fit the current meta skew or just have bad games. the latter tends to chase players from the hobby.

This is a logical fallacy or at least a separate discussion, right? Not trying to attack you when I say that, but

"I have to use only the most optimized units to have a good match."

does not necessarily follow from

"All subfactions in the codex have access to the same rules."

As i posted previously, if that's what you like -the current balanced focused generic tournament edition-then GW will keep taking your money no harm no foul.

But if you want to play 40K as battles in the setting proper you do so because you want the lore to apply in the rules. rather you feel it is flanderized or not.
unfortunately current 40K does not support this style of play anymore. not in the core mechanics and not in the armies.

I consider myself way more interested in fluffy, casual games than in tournament play. I'm not sure I've been to a tournament since... 8th edition? And I agree that modern 40k is missing a lot of the flavor we had in past editions. I just don't feel that sub-faction-locking options is the way to bring back that flavor. If your priority is to make sure that marines have access to evocative rules that satisfyingly represent White Scars, then I'm all for said rules. But if you then want to say that my (hypothetical) Iron Hands successor chapter that also likes to field a bunch of bikes can't use those same rules, that's where you and I disagree.

 Wyldhunt wrote:

To make sure we're on the same page, this is essentially how it works for every non-marine faction, right? See: Iyanden players don't complain that Ulthwe players can use wraith units. Nor do they complain that their wraith units aren't inherently stronger than Ulthwe's wraith units.

You cannot mourn what you have not lost. Iyanden never got special rules for their wraith units. In 6th when they got a real separate codex supplement, they got an option for a council of spiritseers, a Iyanden themed warlock power to replace conceal/reveal, a seperate warlord traits table and 5 relics. Making Wraithguard troops was in the base codex if you took a Spiritseer. Way back in 3rd Iyanden was a variant list that did some FOC swaps (wraithguard and wraithlords to troops, guardians to elite etc) and added a Spiritseer upgrade to a warlock. More recently in 9th Iyanden was two craftworld traits, one warlord trait, one relic, and one strategem. So Iyanden players are not jealous of other craftworlders using wraith units. But marines players are keenly aware that they used to have more. And now they have less. That's why all these threads about boringness and flavor circle around the drain of just what it means to a special marine in the grimdark.

 Arschbombe wrote:

 Wyldhunt wrote:

To make sure we're on the same page, this is essentially how it works for every non-marine faction, right? See: Iyanden players don't complain that Ulthwe players can use wraith units. Nor do they complain that their wraith units aren't inherently stronger than Ulthwe's wraith units.

You cannot mourn what you have not lost. Iyanden never got special rules for their wraith units. In 6th when they got a real separate codex supplement, they got an option for a council of spiritseers, a Iyanden themed warlock power to replace conceal/reveal, a seperate warlord traits table and 5 relics. Making Wraithguard troops was in the base codex if you took a Spiritseer. Way back in 3rd Iyanden was a variant list that did some FOC swaps (wraithguard and wraithlords to troops, guardians to elite etc) and added a Spiritseer upgrade to a warlock. More recently in 9th Iyanden was two craftworld traits, one warlord trait, one relic, and one strategem. So Iyanden players are not jealous of other craftworlders using wraith units. But marines players are keenly aware that they used to have more. And now they have less. That's why all these threads about boringness and flavor circle around the drain of just what it means to a special marine in the grimdark.

As a marine player, I feel like I have more. I used to have no real ability to run half the codex without buying a whole new army. Now I have actual playstyle options.

I don't think Necron players would feel like something was added if Hypercrypt Legion had a line at the bottom that said, "you can only use this rules if your robots are green".

 Arschbombe wrote:

 Wyldhunt wrote:

To make sure we're on the same page, this is essentially how it works for every non-marine faction, right? See: Iyanden players don't complain that Ulthwe players can use wraith units. Nor do they complain that their wraith units aren't inherently stronger than Ulthwe's wraith units.

You cannot mourn what you have not lost. Iyanden never got special rules for their wraith units. In 6th when they got a real separate codex supplement, they got an option for a council of spiritseers, a Iyanden themed warlock power to replace conceal/reveal, a seperate warlord traits table and 5 relics. Making Wraithguard troops was in the base codex if you took a Spiritseer. Way back in 3rd Iyanden was a variant list that did some FOC swaps (wraithguard and wraithlords to troops, guardians to elite etc) and added a Spiritseer upgrade to a warlock. More recently in 9th Iyanden was two craftworld traits, one warlord trait, one relic, and one strategem. So Iyanden players are not jealous of other craftworlders using wraith units. But marines players are keenly aware that they used to have more. And now they have less. That's why all these threads about boringness and flavor circle around the drain of just what it means to a special marine in the grimdark.

Regarding the 3rd edition Craftworld Eldar lists- GW was keen for those lists to not be faction-locked either, but they represented the typical for each Craftworld:

 Haighus wrote:

Regarding the 3rd edition Craftworld Eldar lists- GW was keen for those lists to not be faction-locked either, but they represented the typical for each Craftworld:

I know. That was back in the day where things were less constrained in many ways. I don't things really got subfaction locked until 8th edition and the introduction of the keyword system.

 LunarSol wrote:

As a marine player, I feel like I have more. I used to have no real ability to run half the codex without buying a whole new army. Now I have actual playstyle options.

I don't think Necron players would feel like something was added if Hypercrypt Legion had a line at the bottom that said, "you can only use this rules if your robots are green".

Exalted.

 Mr Morden wrote:


As I said the current structure allows for the other 990 Chapters rather than IMO having everything rules wise revolving the chosen 3 Chapters and trying constantly to make them more and more special.

The Blood Angels went through a horrible process of having a large proportion of their units and weapons having the word Blood stuck in front them - the Dark Angels had the same with Dark but with an ever growing emphais on their "secret" to the exclusion of anything else of interest.

As you say the Wolves are little more than the word Wolf used in every single possible combination

As someone with both SW and DA armies - I am ashamed to field them in their current lore state :(

The White Scars and Ravenguard have not yet suffered to the same extent - mainly due to the slavish attention constantly focussed on the previous three armies - however if they had had the attention they would have the same issues. They also did not get the vast raft of "signature" units, rules etc - same as the Iron Hands and Salamanders.

All First Founding Chapters, all with a complex and unqiue military structure never represented in the rules - the same as the other 990 Chapters who often have equivalent units to those of the "Chosen Three" Chapters.

The so-called Cookie cutter approach allows for a vast variety of different Chapters

The Blood Angels are about at the top of acceptable. The Blood Chalice held by a Sanguinary Priest? Totally Works. Blood Claws on a Furioso Dread? I didn't even know they were a thing, and yeah they could have been Dreadnaught Lightning Claws. The Blood Crozius is a little too on the nose. Whoever named it must have done so at 4:59pm on Friday. The Sanguinor was probably named at 4:45 because they didn't name him Blood Jesus not that Sanguine+Saviour is a hard code to crack. Azkaellon The Lost/Damned would have been better for a fluff tie in, and cross-combo with the Lost And The Damned.

As for DA, I only see two "Dark"s - the Darkshroud that totally works. A speeder with some sort of cloaking device? Yeah. The Dark Talon is meh. The Nephilim Fighter is much better. And again there's a code Dark+Nephilim I think Shadow Talon would have been better, and would have given you Shadow+Nephilim so everyone can wink and nod on Dark Giants/Fallen Angels. My main gripe for the names in DA are the swords. The Sword of X. Nobody was putting the work in here. DA are vaguely Tuetonic/Arthurian. Toss in a little anglicized German/Celtic from a search engine was too much to ask? The Sword of Secrets? How about The Rúnblade (rún is supposedly Celtic for Secret). The Sword Of Silence! Whats wrong with just naming it Tranquility? The Raven Sword? Hey at least its not The Sword Of The Raven. But it could have been Obsidius.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Arschbombe wrote:

 Haighus wrote:

Regarding the 3rd edition Craftworld Eldar lists- GW was keen for those lists to not be faction-locked either, but they represented the typical for each Craftworld:

I know. That was back in the day where things were less constrained in many ways. I don't things really got subfaction locked until 8th edition and the introduction of the keyword system.

They used the keyword system to lock factions, but the keywords weren't why they were faction locked, it was the abuse of soup.