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.

Dudeface wrote:
[
There is no real justification for giving a subfaction anything that can make it more essential or better than the others at specific army builds. Battleline is a rule and has rule interactions, which I suspect will be expanded upon later in the edition. All it takes is for terminators or bladeguard or whatever to suddenly be "the best marine unit" and everyone is magically either ultramarines in the wrong paint or you have ultras players deploying their recon company and wondering why they can't 6 units of infiltrators simply because they're not painted in black etc.

Sure there is - their Primarch had some tendencies which are passed down to the Legion affecting their tactics and training even to the present day. The wolves look down on Jump Packs because walking was good enough for Russ. Ergo the younglings are put into Blood Claw Packs which until recently had Jump Packs. Even the successor chapters may more closely align with (this) aspect of their Primarch than (that) aspect of their Primarch - see: Imperial Fists and Black Templars. You keep including an assumption that flaws your premise. Chapter X being able to make Army Y different than Chapter Z makes Chapter X better. Sure GW screwed up and the ability to turn assorted units into Battleline for non-standard (Say Biker/Phobos/whatever instead of Intercessor/Tacs) Dets should be on the Det for everyone. But making IF Aggressors a better match in Boltstorm, while Salamander Aggressors a better match with Flamers doesn't make either of them inherently "better".

Breton wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
[
There is no real justification for giving a subfaction anything that can make it more essential or better than the others at specific army builds. Battleline is a rule and has rule interactions, which I suspect will be expanded upon later in the edition. All it takes is for terminators or bladeguard or whatever to suddenly be "the best marine unit" and everyone is magically either ultramarines in the wrong paint or you have ultras players deploying their recon company and wondering why they can't 6 units of infiltrators simply because they're not painted in black etc.

Sure there is - their Primarch had some tendencies which are passed down to the Legion affecting their tactics and training even to the present day. The wolves look down on Jump Packs because walking was good enough for Russ. Ergo the younglings are put into Blood Claw Packs which until recently had Jump Packs. Even the successor chapters may more closely align with (this) aspect of their Primarch than (that) aspect of their Primarch - see: Imperial Fists and Black Templars. You keep including an assumption that flaws your premise. Chapter X being able to make Army Y different than Chapter Z makes Chapter X better. Sure GW screwed up and the ability to turn assorted units into Battleline for non-standard (Say Biker/Phobos/whatever instead of Intercessor/Tacs) Dets should be on the Det for everyone. But making IF Aggressors a better match in Boltstorm, while Salamander Aggressors a better match with Flamers doesn't make either of them inherently "better".

"Making something better doesn't make them inherently better" is not a very consistent position.

 JNAProductions wrote:
"Making something better doesn't make them inherently better" is not a very consistent position.

Making something DIFFERENT does not inherently make it better.

Breton wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
"Making something better doesn't make them inherently better" is not a very consistent position.

Making something DIFFERENT does not inherently make it better.

Your quoted post literally says better.

 JNAProductions wrote:

Breton wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
"Making something better doesn't make them inherently better" is not a very consistent position.

Making something DIFFERENT does not inherently make it better.

Your quoted post literally says better.

Which quoted post? I even tried to put your quotation in CTRL+F and got no results on this page or the previous one. Could you use the Quote Feature to link to where I said that, perhaps while also adding some sort of emphasis to make it clear?

I did. It’s quoted in the post you quoted.

 JNAProductions wrote:
I did. It’s quoted in the post you quoted.

No, its not. CTRL+F the phrase "Making something" only shows results starting with your post where you manually quoted ""Making something better doesn't make them inherently better". That can't be found in the page before you manually quoted it - thus why I asked you to quote post it and add some emphasis like color, underlining, etc.

Breton wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
I did. It’s quoted in the post you quoted.

No, its not. CTRL+F the phrase "Making something" only shows results starting with your post where you manually quoted ""Making something better doesn't make them inherently better". That can't be found in the page before you manually quoted it - thus why I asked you to quote post it and add some emphasis like color, underlining, etc.

You didn't say "different" you said "better match". Which is paramount to making them better, unless this is misunderstood.

Breton wrote:[ But making IF Aggressors a better match in Boltstorm, while Salamander Aggressors a better match with Flamers doesn't make either of them inherently "better".

What would you propose to do to IF aggressors to make them "a better match" I.e. make them better with boltstorm gauntlets, compared to a Salamanders unit with boltstorm gauntlets?

Surely having the option for bolters/flamers means the unit is a flavour choice for each chapter anyway? If you want to do Literally anything to the balance of those units due to the paint job, you're making them better/worse arbitrarily.

We've danced this dance before recently.

Dudeface wrote:

Breton wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
I did. It’s quoted in the post you quoted.

No, its not. CTRL+F the phrase "Making something" only shows results starting with your post where you manually quoted ""Making something better doesn't make them inherently better". That can't be found in the page before you manually quoted it - thus why I asked you to quote post it and add some emphasis like color, underlining, etc.

You didn't say "different" you said "better match". Which is paramount to making them better, unless this is misunderstood.

Breton wrote:[ But making IF Aggressors a better match in Boltstorm, while Salamander Aggressors a better match with Flamers doesn't make either of them inherently "better".

What would you propose to do to IF aggressors to make them "a better match" I.e. make them better with boltstorm gauntlets, compared to a Salamanders unit with boltstorm gauntlets?

Surely having the option for bolters/flamers means the unit is a flavour choice for each chapter anyway? If you want to do Literally anything to the balance of those units due to the paint job, you're making them better/worse arbitrarily.

We've danced this dance before recently.

1 dollar is a better MATCH to 1 penny than a $100,000 bill. This does not make the $1 bill better. Better match is not inherently better. A Skeleton with a sword and shield is a better match for Tombkings. This doesn't make skeleton warriors inherently better than Swordmasters of Hoeth. But thank you for confirming I didn't say better (period).

Can you give an example how they would be a better match for one Chapter?

Breton wrote:


1 dollar is a better MATCH to 1 penny than a $100,000 bill. This does not make the $1 bill better. Better match is not inherently better. A Skeleton with a sword and shield is a better match for Tombkings. This doesn't make skeleton warriors inherently better than Swordmasters of Hoeth. But thank you for confirming I didn't say better (period).

No, you agreed that imperial fist should just take boltstorm aggressors as that unit better matches their fluff, no extra rules needed. Glad we agree at last!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

a_typical_hero wrote:
Can you give an example how they would be a better match for one Chapter?

The wrinkle here is "more than they do now", because you can build fluffy armies for most chapters via the detachments and unit range.

Dudeface wrote:

Breton wrote:


1 dollar is a better MATCH to 1 penny than a $100,000 bill. This does not make the $1 bill better. Better match is not inherently better. A Skeleton with a sword and shield is a better match for Tombkings. This doesn't make skeleton warriors inherently better than Swordmasters of Hoeth. But thank you for confirming I didn't say better (period).

No, you agreed that imperial fist should just take boltstorm aggressors as that unit better matches their fluff, no extra rules needed. Glad we agree at last!

Like I said "better match" is better? I mean I've been pretty clear over and over that the rules should tweak builds based on the fluff, but if you want to lie about what other people say... again. Its up to you.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

a_typical_hero wrote:
Can you give an example how they would be a better match for one Chapter?

The wrinkle here is "more than they do now", because you can build fluffy armies for most chapters via the detachments and unit range.

Considering they don't at all now, yeah more than they do now. As I just pointed out in your last lie - I've been pretty clear - every chapter should be able to run every (or Almost Every) Det, and each chapter should have a couple traits that tweak how each chapter plays each det. IF may get a minor boost to Boltstorms, Salamanders might get a minor boost to flamers, Space Wolves might get a minor boost to the power fists. UM might get an even more minor boost to all three, while Dark Angels might not get a boost to any of the three profiles, instead getting a boost to Terminators.

a_typical_hero wrote:
Can you give an example how they would be a better match for one Chapter?

As per your question I've given some theory examples before, but a couple traits for IF that brings back Bolter Drill, and Siege Masters style rules (Not Tested for Balance examples) Bonus -1AP for Bolt weapons, +1 to Wound vs Fortifications and vehicles. So IF can run what players consider the "archtype" IF Det Anvil Seige Force and get bonuses to the Intercessor and Aggressor and whatever else bolters etc, and to their heavy weapons chunking holes out of vehicles and fortifications. At the same time they can run an IF Force in the archtype White Scars Det, with the Outriders getting a bonus to their bolt weapons, the ATV Multi Melta getting a bonus vs Vehicles and Fortifications as do the Desolators riding around in the Impulsors. Meanwhile White Scars can run their flavor Det, getting those rules, and their chapter traits: +1D on the charge, and everything gets ASSAULT keywords. So the Terminators with Lightning Claws piling out of the Land Raider Charge and get a bunch of D2 Lightning Claw attacks, and the Outriders riding around 15ish inches at a time, while still gunning people down. - then they go into the IF Siege Det pounding Fortifications with D3 Devastating Thunderhammers, and Multi-meltas advancing into range of the Fortifications. Chapter Traits should be low impact general (hits everything or nearly everything) boosts that coincide with the flavor of the Chapter.

Another example (Also not tested for balance) Imperial Fists are reknown for their expertise with Bolters even next to other Space Marine Chapters. Dark Angels as the first legion are known for having entire armories of forgotten and lost technologies like Sammaels Jet Bike, and pre-historical Plasma weapons that don't OVERHEAT because they're not HAZARDOUS - so maybe all Dark Angels Plasma weapons use the Hazardous Profile without the Hazardous fallout. And that's ok as long as Melta, Las, Plas, Flame and Grav are all relatively equial. Right now Melta is probably a little weak, and Flame has been weak for a long long time. Bump them up a bit - but the problem with flame and melta isn't because of chapter tactics, its a problem with flame and melta.

Breton wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

Breton wrote:


1 dollar is a better MATCH to 1 penny than a $100,000 bill. This does not make the $1 bill better. Better match is not inherently better. A Skeleton with a sword and shield is a better match for Tombkings. This doesn't make skeleton warriors inherently better than Swordmasters of Hoeth. But thank you for confirming I didn't say better (period).

No, you agreed that imperial fist should just take boltstorm aggressors as that unit better matches their fluff, no extra rules needed. Glad we agree at last!

Like I said "better match" is better? I mean I've been pretty clear over and over that the rules should tweak builds based on the fluff, but if you want to lie about what other people say... again. Its up to you.

I'm not lying. You either want to alter the rules to make some units "fit better" for some subfactions, in which case JNA was on point and you lied through obscure wording. Or alternatively you're in agreement that units shouldn't be "better" in subfactions, instead people build to a theme that fits their fluff.

You've created 2 possible narratives here by refusing to define "better match". Even your weird monetary point ignores that a dollar isn't a match ro comparable to a penny because its is an order of magnitude better for the owner.

Dudeface wrote:

Breton wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

Breton wrote:


1 dollar is a better MATCH to 1 penny than a $100,000 bill. This does not make the $1 bill better. Better match is not inherently better. A Skeleton with a sword and shield is a better match for Tombkings. This doesn't make skeleton warriors inherently better than Swordmasters of Hoeth. But thank you for confirming I didn't say better (period).

No, you agreed that imperial fist should just take boltstorm aggressors as that unit better matches their fluff, no extra rules needed. Glad we agree at last!

Like I said "better match" is better? I mean I've been pretty clear over and over that the rules should tweak builds based on the fluff, but if you want to lie about what other people say... again. Its up to you.

I'm not lying. You either want to alter the rules to make some units "fit better" for some subfactions, in which case JNA was on point and you lied through obscure wording. Or alternatively you're in agreement that units shouldn't be "better" in subfactions, instead people build to a theme that fits their fluff.

You've created 2 possible narratives here by refusing to define "better match". Even your weird monetary point ignores that a dollar isn't a match ro comparable to a penny because its is an order of magnitude better for the owner.

You just quoted me defining better match, not that better match is particularly hard to understand. Goes better together. Complements each other.

1
a
: a person or thing equal or similar to another
b
: one able to cope with another
He was no match for his opponent.
c
: an exact counterpart
a lake that was almost the match of one he remembered from Switzerland
2
: a pair suitably associated
carpet and curtains are a match
3
a
: a contest between two or more parties
a golf match
a soccer match
a shouting match
b
: a contest (as in tennis or volleyball) completed when one player or side wins a specified number of sets or games
4
a
: a marriage union
b
: a prospective (see PROSPECTIVE sense 2b) partner in marriage
would make a good match for any man

And just so you don't pretend to not understand which definition of "match" we're using here:
: a pair suitably associated

You either want to alter the rules to make some units "fit better" for some subfactions, in which case JNA was on point and you lied through obscure wording.

And no - I want to make the rules fit together better, but JNA was not on point - making IF better with boltstorm and Salamanders better with Flamestorm doesn't make either Boltstorm or Flamestorm better.

Breton wrote:

You either want to alter the rules to make some units "fit better" for some subfactions, in which case JNA was on point and you lied through obscure wording.

And no - I want to make the rules fit together better, but JNA was not on point - making IF better with boltstorm and Salamanders better with Flamestorm doesn't make either Boltstorm or Flamestorm better.

So we can finally cut to it:

You are. You are encouraging a "correct" or "best" way to play units based on arbitrary restrictions. By making a unit better if it's painted yellow, you create rules that are the default better way of using that unit. Worse, you're then punishing people who want to use that unit elsewhere, because the unit has to be priced as if its in its "correct" usage.

I don't understand what makes that hard to grasp? Why do you need to keep dancing around it?

There is no "better match" you're making a unit flat out better, but only if it's painted yellow.

Dudeface wrote:

Breton wrote:

You either want to alter the rules to make some units "fit better" for some subfactions, in which case JNA was on point and you lied through obscure wording.

And no - I want to make the rules fit together better, but JNA was not on point - making IF better with boltstorm and Salamanders better with Flamestorm doesn't make either Boltstorm or Flamestorm better.

So we can finally cut to it:

You are. You are encouraging a "correct" or "best" way to play units based on arbitrary restrictions. By making a unit better if it's painted yellow, you create rules that are the default better way of using that unit. Worse, you're then punishing people who want to use that unit elsewhere, because the unit has to be priced as if its in its "correct" usage.

I don't understand what makes that hard to grasp? Why do you need to keep dancing around it?

There is no "better match" you're making a unit flat out better, but only if it's painted yellow.

Because its not true? If almost all the units get the Chapter Traits, the Chapter Traits are a base cost. a 20 point bump for Ultramarines vs a 20 point bump for Imperial Fists vs a 20 point bump for Some Other Chapter is still a 20 point bump and can be baked into unit costs. 10 points of shoot, and 10 points of fight is 20 points of bonus. 20 points of shoot is 20 points of bonus. 20 points of fight is 20 points of bonus. 20 points of Craftworld Attribute is 20 points of Hive Fleet Adapatation is 20 points of Chapter Tactic. I even pointed out that this unit painted green gets better bolt shooting, painted yellow gets better bolt shooting, painted grey gets better fighting, painted white gets better charge range, painted blue gets less better shooting and less better fighting, painted black gets better avoids-getting-shot, and on and on. There is no need to make a 30 point agressor 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. And to prevent another of your gambits, the points numbers are made up to avoid posting the stuff we're not supposed to because it makes GW Angry and the actual point number doesn't matter for the theory.

Breton wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

Breton wrote:

You either want to alter the rules to make some units "fit better" for some subfactions, in which case JNA was on point and you lied through obscure wording.

And no - I want to make the rules fit together better, but JNA was not on point - making IF better with boltstorm and Salamanders better with Flamestorm doesn't make either Boltstorm or Flamestorm better.

So we can finally cut to it:

You are. You are encouraging a "correct" or "best" way to play units based on arbitrary restrictions. By making a unit better if it's painted yellow, you create rules that are the default better way of using that unit. Worse, you're then punishing people who want to use that unit elsewhere, because the unit has to be priced as if its in its "correct" usage.

I don't understand what makes that hard to grasp? Why do you need to keep dancing around it?

There is no "better match" you're making a unit flat out better, but only if it's painted yellow.

Because its not true? If almost all the units get the Chapter Traits, the Chapter Traits are a base cost. a 20 point bump for Ultramarines vs a 20 point bump for Imperial Fists vs a 20 point bump for Some Other Chapter is still a 20 point bump and can be baked into unit costs. 10 points of shoot, and 10 points of fight is 20 points of bonus. 20 points of shoot is 20 points of bonus. 20 points of fight is 20 points of bonus. 20 points of Craftworld Attribute is 20 points of Hive Fleet Adapatation is 20 points of Chapter Tactic. I even pointed out that this unit painted green gets better bolt shooting, painted yellow gets better bolt shooting, painted grey gets better fighting, painted white gets better charge range, painted blue gets less better shooting and less better fighting, painted black gets better avoids-getting-shot, and on and on. There is no need to make a 30 point agressor 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. And to prevent another of your gambits, the points numbers are made up to avoid posting the stuff we're not supposed to because it makes GW Angry and the actual point number doesn't matter for the theory.

They matter in reality because not all units benefit from them equally, unless you're suggesting a unit of devastators get the same benefit from +2s on the charge as assault intercessors do, or that in the reverse giving the assault intercessors bonus to bolt weapons is as much value as it is for the 4x heavy bolter devs, or better yet 4x plasma cannon devs.

Subfaction traits are not all made equal or of equal value to all units, this is why it went wrong before. Stack that with potential ally rules so you get the best versions of each variety of unit mixed in and it all goes to pot.

Dudeface wrote:

They matter in reality because not all units benefit from them equally, unless you're suggesting a unit of devastators get the same benefit from +2s on the charge as assault intercessors do, or that in the reverse giving the assault intercessors bonus to bolt weapons is as much value as it is for the 4x heavy bolter devs, or better yet 4x plasma cannon devs.

Subfaction traits are not all made equal or of equal value to all units, this is why it went wrong before. Stack that with potential ally rules so you get the best versions of each variety of unit mixed in and it all goes to pot.

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

Secondly I'd point out that's why most Chapter Traits were at least two (things) that didn't overlap much if at all - so while the 4 Plasma Devs don't get anything from Bolter Discipline, they would have gotten something from Siege Mastery. Yes, not everything will hit everything but it can be generic enough to be at least GW quality pretty easy. I mean its not like all units are "viable" in all editions. When's the last time you saw someone spam 18 Centurion Assault Squads? Yeah the goal is to make two different chapters running the same army in the same Det play at least a little different, but it could easily make some otherwise unused units cross the line into useful. Say White Scars get +1 Damage on the charge (Again not tested, just for the sake of argument) That might make 2LC Terminators cross the line into "good". And that's ok too.

I'm out, you've established in your own example the hypothetical point cost value of a paint job doesn't apply fairly to all units, so as far as I'm concerned that's concrete enough for me to not gain value continuing any further.

I'd also add that falling back to pointing out internal balance isn't great historically isn't validation for encouraging it to continue.

Please carry on as you were.

Dudeface wrote:
I'm out, you've established in your own example the hypothetical point cost value of a paint job doesn't apply fairly to all units, so as far as I'm concerned that's concrete enough for me to not gain value continuing any further.

I'd also add that falling back to pointing out internal balance isn't great historically isn't validation for encouraging it to continue.

Please carry on as you were.

You were never going to gain any value anyway. You've made up your mind you want cookie cutter, and derailed a soup conversation into whining about IF using UM rules.

I'd counter that internal balance has generally been less than perfect but good enough to make the game endure - and anyone who thinks GW can't do Chapter Tactics fairly enough but that they can fix internal balance - even by making 2,000 Point Premade Combat Patrols may not be thinking it through.

Breton wrote:

a_typical_hero wrote:
Can you give an example how they would be a better match for one Chapter?

As per your question I've given some theory examples before, but a couple traits for IF that brings back Bolter Drill, and Siege Masters style rules (Not Tested for Balance examples) Bonus -1AP for Bolt weapons, +1 to Wound vs Fortifications and vehicles. So IF can run what players consider the "archtype" IF Det Anvil Seige Force and get bonuses to the Intercessor and Aggressor and whatever else bolters etc, and to their heavy weapons chunking holes out of vehicles and fortifications. At the same time they can run an IF Force in the archtype White Scars Det, with the Outriders getting a bonus to their bolt weapons, the ATV Multi Melta getting a bonus vs Vehicles and Fortifications as do the Desolators riding around in the Impulsors. Meanwhile White Scars can run their flavor Det, getting those rules, and their chapter traits: +1D on the charge, and everything gets ASSAULT keywords. So the Terminators with Lightning Claws piling out of the Land Raider Charge and get a bunch of D2 Lightning Claw attacks, and the Outriders riding around 15ish inches at a time, while still gunning people down. - then they go into the IF Siege Det pounding Fortifications with D3 Devastating Thunderhammers, and Multi-meltas advancing into range of the Fortifications. Chapter Traits should be low impact general (hits everything or nearly everything) boosts that coincide with the flavor of the Chapter.

Another example (Also not tested for balance) Imperial Fists are reknown for their expertise with Bolters even next to other Space Marine Chapters. Dark Angels as the first legion are known for having entire armories of forgotten and lost technologies like Sammaels Jet Bike, and pre-historical Plasma weapons that don't OVERHEAT because they're not HAZARDOUS - so maybe all Dark Angels Plasma weapons use the Hazardous Profile without the Hazardous fallout. And that's ok as long as Melta, Las, Plas, Flame and Grav are all relatively equial. Right now Melta is probably a little weak, and Flame has been weak for a long long time. Bump them up a bit - but the problem with flame and melta isn't because of chapter tactics, its a problem with flame and melta.

So, a squad of non-IF Aggressors targeting the nearest enemy model, a Rhino, vs. a squad of IF Aggressors doing the same.

A single Aggressor does an average of 11/36ths a point of damage with their Twin-Linked Gauntlets, and just shy of 1/5th with their Blast weapon. .31+.19=.50 Damage per Aggressor
A single IF Aggressor does an average of just shy of 3/4ths a point of damage with the Gauntlets and just over 1/3rd with their Blast weapon. .74+.39=1.13 Damage per Aggressor
How exactly are you going to balance doing more than double shooting damage against the vast majority of Vehicles?

Edit: Just for fun, let's go to the extreme. Non-IF Aggressors vs. IF Aggressors, shooting a Land Raider that's not the closest target.

Glad to see we are all agreed, that Aggressors have always been createded with the SOLE purpose of being SPECIFIC to IF chapters only. No one else really has a use for them. IF they could get into melee, BA might with their melee variants, but as is, 4" movement makes that slightly impractical.

 JNAProductions wrote:

A single Aggressor does an average of 11/36ths a point of damage with their Twin-Linked Gauntlets, and just shy of 1/5th with their Blast weapon. .31+.19=.50 Damage per Aggressor
A single IF Aggressor does an average of just shy of 3/4ths a point of damage with the Gauntlets and just over 1/3rd with their Blast weapon. .74+.39=1.13 Damage per Aggressor
How exactly are you going to balance doing more than double shooting damage against the vast majority of Vehicles?

What playtested and ready for production Chapter Trait did you use for this math? I'm pretty sure I pointed out any ideas I had were specifically not balanced and ready for production but only included for thematic examples based on previous editions that had a different mathematical system?

Edit: Just for fun, let's go to the extreme. Non-IF Aggressors vs. IF Aggressors, shooting a Land Raider that's not the closest target.

Spoiler:

Non-IF
3 shots
2 hits
22/36 or 11/18 wounds
11/108 failed saves

7/2 shots
14/6 or 7/3 hits
7/18 wounds
7/108 failed saves

Total Damage
18/108 or 1/6 points of damage

IF Aggressors
3 shots
2 hits
10/9 wounds
10/27 failed saves

7/2 shots
14/6 or 7/3 hits
7/9 wounds
7/54 failed saves

Total Damage
27/54 or 1/2 points of damage

So, anywhere from double to triple damage against Vehicles of T8+.

"Hey, it's never been done properly before, especially by GW, but I'm sure they're gonna get it right this time!"

I'm not convinced.

 JNAProductions wrote:
"Hey, it's never been done properly before, especially by GW, but I'm sure they're gonna get it right this time!"

I'm not convinced.

That doesn't answer my question about the math. And its a little mutually exclusive for someone who was complaining about it earlier. If you don't hope for GW to do it right eventually why are you still playing? Not to mention you're again quoting something that wasn't actually said. Unless you'd like to link to this quotation somewhere? Why is it that you keep quoting this strange person who says exactly what you want them to say so you can mock the result?

Breton wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
"Hey, it's never been done properly before, especially by GW, but I'm sure they're gonna get it right this time!"

I'm not convinced.

That doesn't answer my question about the math. And its a little mutually exclusive for someone who was complaining about it earlier. If you don't hope for GW to do it right eventually why are you still playing? Not to mention you're again quoting something that wasn't actually said. Unless you'd like to link to this quotation somewhere? Why is it that you keep quoting this strange person who says exactly what you want them to say so you can mock the result?

I'm not playing much since 10th dropped, because I don't like it very much.
I'm still invested in 40k, though.

And unless you're able to come up with something that's balanced and flavorful, I don't believe it can be done within the confines of 40k.
Using the example you gave IF Bolters are anywhere from 2X more effective against T8+ Vehicles (if the AP bonus is irrelevant) to 4X as effective (if they go from 2+ save to 3+ with the bonus AP).

It's comparable to saying it's easy to solve any energy problems-just use fusion power.

 JNAProductions wrote:

Breton wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
"Hey, it's never been done properly before, especially by GW, but I'm sure they're gonna get it right this time!"

I'm not convinced.

That doesn't answer my question about the math. And its a little mutually exclusive for someone who was complaining about it earlier. If you don't hope for GW to do it right eventually why are you still playing? Not to mention you're again quoting something that wasn't actually said. Unless you'd like to link to this quotation somewhere? Why is it that you keep quoting this strange person who says exactly what you want them to say so you can mock the result?

I'm not playing much since 10th dropped, because I don't like it very much.
I'm still invested in 40k, though.

And unless you're able to come up with something that's balanced and flavorful, I don't believe it can be done within the confines of 40k.
Using the example you gave IF Bolters are anywhere from 2X more effective against T8+ Vehicles (if the AP bonus is irrelevant) to 4X as effective (if they go from 2+ save to 3+ with the bonus AP).

It's comparable to saying it's easy to solve any energy problems-just use fusion power.

The example I gave that specifically mentioned it was for thematic not mathematic example only? And your objection is that Non-IF Aggressors scratch the paint on sub-optimal vehicle targets, and IF Aggressors scratch the paint twice? Because IF can kill a Knight Desploiler every turn with 24 Aggressors while White Scars would have to use 48? Unless their Chapter Tactic also gave Aggressors a boost vs knights, perhaps in melee? You never did tell us who this mysterious persion you're quoting with exactly the argument you wish was being made is?

Breton wrote:
Chapter Traits should be low impact general (hits everything or nearly everything) boosts that coincide with the flavor of the Chapter.

Do you honestly think doubling or more damage is "low impact"?

And, how about this-what sorta rules should Iyanden get?
What about Twisted Helix?
Or Kronus Hegemony?
Why do individual Marine chapters, numbering about 1,000 soldiers strong, get extra rules to reflect their flavor, when no one else does?

Speaking for myself, I'd love to have greater customization. But at some point, it's too much. Especially when customization consists of bonus rules on top of existing rules that don't have any kind of points costs.
I also don't think your paint job or army iconography should dictate your rules.

 JNAProductions wrote:

Breton wrote:
Chapter Traits should be low impact general (hits everything or nearly everything) boosts that coincide with the flavor of the Chapter.

Do you honestly think doubling or more damage is "low impact"?

What is double of nothing? What is double of next to nothing? I think figures don't lie but liars can figure. I think you're trying to hide the fact that according to your math it takes 960 points in 24 IF Aggressors to kill a Knight. I think it takes 48/1920 of some other chapters (especially when you don't include any Chapter Trait they might get). I also think any army is pretty much limited to 18 and 720 points of Aggressors. I think you're intentionally trying to slip past things like economics in your example. Probably for the same reason you keep quoting someone nobody else can see when they say exactly what you want to rebut.

And, how about this-what sorta rules should Iyanden get?
What about Twisted Helix?
Or Kronus Hegemony?
Why do individual Marine chapters, numbering about 1,000 soldiers strong, get extra rules to reflect their flavor, when no one else does?

Why do you imply I haven't said this should be extended to all the subfactions, even after I've specifically called out Craftworld Attributes and Hive Fleets and so on? Are you trying to dishonestly suggest I only want this for Marines despite actual quotable evidence to the contrary?

Speaking for myself, I'd love to have greater customization. But at some point, it's too much. Especially when customization consists of bonus rules on top of existing rules that don't have any kind of points costs.
I also don't think your paint job or army iconography should dictate your rules.

Why do you keep claiming these rules don't have any points costs even after I've pointed out Chapter Traits are easily baked into the Unit cost. Heck most of them are just Veteran Skills from a few editions back. And its not like we haven't already done so for editions and editions. Nobody ever paid for And They Shall Know No Fear on a per model cost. It was some portion of the X Points Per Model you paid for everything. Even now, you don't see everyone paying for Oath of Moment? How much do Hormugaunts pay for Surging Vitality to add more distance to their own rule that lets them advance and charge? How much of a Refund do Plague Marines in a Chaos Space Marine army get because they traded Contagion Range for Dark Pacts?

There’s a difference between paying for rules you get, and paying for rules you MIGHT get.

Mea culpa on the different factions, though. That’s fair on your end, and I apologize for insinuating you wanted it for Marines only.