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.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

 alextroy wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 alextroy wrote:

Spoiler:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Nevelon wrote:

I don’t disagree on that point. I just disagree that separate codex is the answer, and the “them sharing datasheets and costs with the base book has always been a problem”. Personally I’ve felt that having duplicate identical unit entries in multiple books is more of an issue. Especially in older editions, like 4th and 5th. You did add the “ever since I’ve played the game” which might be a shorter span them mine. But my experience/thoughts on the subject differs from yours.

they could make them not indentical tho (and trim some options but that will never pass).

Even something as basic as intercessors don't NEED to have the same special rule for every chapter.

The last thing this game needs is for Blood Angels, Dark Angels, and Ultramarines Intercessors to have different rules. They are the same unit.

Theyre already not.... Each of them get different bonuses depending on which faction they belong to.

ZergSmasher said it first, but this is simply not true. An Intercessor in Detachment X always has the exact same rules regardless if the Chapter the detachment uses (i.e. what chapter specific units are in the detachment as well). The only thing the special chapters have is a few detachments that give detachment rules not available to other chapters.

Forgive the objection, but I don't understand the quibble on this point. Surely it could be argued that a Blood Angels Assault intercessor, is superior to say, one of the Imperial Fists? Are you arguing that the model irrespective of allegiance is no different? Because I think that is also wrongly argued. What is the point of taking one chapter over another chapter if all the models are exactly the same? You cannot pretend that a Intercessor squad of one faction is the same as another, when they have built in differences depending on color. Salamander Flame Aggressors are just BETTER than IF Flame Aggressors.

The issue here is to remember whether you're talking about fluff or rules.

If you're talking about rules, be specific about the edition.

Now that those details are out of the way:

Yes- it is my belief that the fluff says chapters have specialties, and that the units that align with that faction's specialism are better than their equivalents in armies who don't specialize in that particular field. So, Salamanders explicitly specialize in flame and melta, and that means that a Salamander using a Flamer is going to be better than a Space Wolf using that flamer, because Space Wolves don't specialize in using flamers. Now some people are going to dispute this interpretation of the fluff: they'll say "Salamanders aren't better at using flamers, they just use them more often." Now I don't like to speculate about people's motives, because unless they explicitly tell me what their motives are, it can only ever be speculation. But it FEELS like people who cleave to this point of view are just people who think, "Well, I like flamers, but I like grey better than green... So I want Space Wolves... But even though their lore says nothing about them specializing in flamers, I want them to be just as good with flamers as factions whose lore says they do specialize in flamers." We can debate that back and forth forever, because it's just fluff anyway.

Now lets talk about rules:

In 9th, yes, armies recieved bonuses based on their SUBFACTION. So if you were a Salamander, you might have had +1 to wound with flame and melta or whatever to reflect the subfaction's fluff.

In 10th, however, they STOPPED doing that. Now, the ARMY gets a bonus (which is Oath of Moment for ALL flavours of Marine). You get no rules for picking your subfaction. You DO get to pick a detachment. ANY flavour of Marine can pick a detachment from the SM Codex without penalty. If you subfaction is one of the special ones that gets its own dex (BA, DA, SW, etc) there will be additional detachments in that dex, which only that flavour of marine can pick.

Whichever detachment you pick, it gives you a rule, 4 enhancements and six strats.

GW did their best to try and make these factions MIMIC the former subfaction identities and specializations- you can look at the detachments in the SM book and think "AHA! That sounds like Blood Angels."

But it's not. Because any Space Wolf player who would rather have his grey army behave like Blood Angels can pick the detachment that is better suited to Blood Angels if he wants to- as long as it's in the SM dex, and not the BA dex.

My issue is that this system gives some Space Marine Chapters more options than everyone else. My Sisters will have roughly the same number of detachment options as the SM dex, but there's no Order of Our Martyred Lady dex on the way that gives OoOML more detachment options... Only Marines matter enough to have that option.

See, when 9th came along, it made me feel like all factions and subfactions were treated the same way. That's gone now, and we're back to a game made for Marines that other factions can play in if they're so inclined, just like editions 2-7 (and I think even 8th, buut I'm not 100% sure- because memory is short where canabis is legal).

As I hinted above though, some folks do like the new detachment based system because they feel like the specialization by subfaction lead to stereotypes... And there is some legitimacy to that argument. It gets sticky, and it's off topic, but there's half a dozen threads on here where we fought about whether rules by subfaction or rules for detachment were "better" (whatever "better" means).

But Aggressors from the Salamanders styled detachment are different from the ones from the IF styled detachment.

 PenitentJake wrote:
If you're talking about rules, be specific about the edition.

This is the April Balance Update - Thoughts? thread. There is no confusion that we are talking about Warhammer 40K 10th Edition with the most current Balance Dataslate and MFM. Don't be obtuse.

For sure. That's why the edition is still tolerable.They are different. They just aren't different because they're Salamanders. And if the IW did choose to use the same detachment, they wouldn't be different.

Put another way, determining play-style mechanics by detachment rather than subfaction makes subfaction irrelevant on the table for everyone but those (SM only) subfactions lucky enough to get a dex/ supplement.

But to bring it somewhat back to topic, there was a balance dataslate recently that gave DE a second detachment- one that leaned into transports rather than the 3-part army realspace raid. So first point: I very much approve of extra detachments being given to armies that aren't going to get dexes for a while.

But the second, more important point is that with this dataslate, Pain Tokens now confer +1 AP in hand to hand. I like this because it'll help wyches a bit, and they could use the help. It also makes the old detachment more effective because it grants Pain Tokens.

And, as much as I liked the special rules coming from subfaction rather than detachment, I've got to admit that it's really, really cool to be able to switch between those two detachments without changing the army at all.

Like I said, the other side of the argument is legit.

 PenitentJake wrote:

Put another way, determining play-style mechanics by detachment rather than subfaction makes subfaction irrelevant on the table for everyone but those (SM only) subfactions lucky enough to get a dex/ supplement.

every army is going to get a codex at some point. it's not a matter of being "lucky", other than the other that they release in. the quality of the codexes will certainly vary, but GW being inconsistent in their balancing is nothing new (and if the complaint is coming down to quality, then i don't know why you think GW would handle balancing individual units for different subfactions over subfaction rules)

Yeah, I caught that in an edit and fixed it. I wish I had caught it earlier though- sloppy posting today.

So nowadays, there is literally zero flavor between all the variant forms of Assault intercessor? That's kinda silly. That reduces each sub faction to it's specific uniques, like TWC, Wulfen, Sanguinary Guard, Sanguinor, or Baal Predator. Almost all of which are pointless in comparison to the already present options.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So nowadays, there is literally zero flavor between all the variant forms of Assault intercessor? That's kinda silly. That reduces each sub faction to it's specific uniques, like TWC, Wulfen, Sanguinary Guard, Sanguinor, or Baal Predator. Almost all of which are pointless in comparison to the already present options.

Right. Rather than representing the particulars of each chapter, the detachment system instead reflects how a given group of marines is operating at that particular moment, based on the dictates and flow of battle.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So nowadays, there is literally zero flavor between all the variant forms of Assault intercessor? That's kinda silly. That reduces each sub faction to it's specific uniques, like TWC, Wulfen, Sanguinary Guard, Sanguinor, or Baal Predator. Almost all of which are pointless in comparison to the already present options.

Not necessarily on the unit datasheet, but depending on the boni of the chosen detachment, different synergies may present themselves. But that's not really different from 9th edition, it's just that the detachments aren't as closely linked to a chapter as before.

When your scale is a d6, how much better is one chapter at any aspect then another?

Blood Angels might be better in a fight then an Ultramarine, on average. But the Ultra is still causing plenty of havoc with a chainsword.

I like how 10th is dealing with it. You want to represent your chapter? Skew your list with the units that fit their style. Take the detachment that goes with it.

Less penalizing people for picking the wrong paintjob.

I would like to see splitting up some units, similar to how Tau Crisis Suits were handled.

Aside from Fuegan, I thought the points increases for Aeldari were unnecessary. DCannons have been the only real weapon option selected and continued points increases further exacerbates the issue. 135 is even too much for a DCannon when I look at all the previous adjustments.

I'm hoping I can get the option to take a Shadow Weaver for less points than a DCannon in the future.

Additiony, I personally am not a fan of how GW is pointing Aeldari as it shapes the army to be MSU spam. My last few lists at 2000 points has been 21-23 units. It feels very unwieldy to maneuver this many units on the 44x60 board size that is the defacto size wherever I play.

 Nevelon wrote:

I like how 10th is dealing with it. You want to represent your chapter? Skew your list with the units that fit their style. Take the detachment that goes with it.

Less penalizing people for picking the wrong paintjob.

This method only works if each Chapter gets units or ways to actually skew things in a lore based fashion.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Nevelon wrote:

I like how 10th is dealing with it. You want to represent your chapter? Skew your list with the units that fit their style. Take the detachment that goes with it.

Less penalizing people for picking the wrong paintjob.

This method only works if each Chapter gets units or ways to actually skew things in a lore based fashion.

There is always paintjobs and kitbashing to help distinguish them.

I’m not the best person to argue this point, as I primarily play Ultras, the baseline faction. One of the things that drew me to them was the lack of special rules and units. I won games not due to having better rules then other chapters, but better play. With few exceptions scattered thought the editions, playing the boys in blue was a distinct disadvantage, as all the other chapters did what we did, and then more better on top of that.

I was a big fan of 5th’s philosophy of CT, where they actually encouraged you to take the named characters, file the names off them, and make them your own chapter. If you wanted to represent a subborn 1st company force, you could take one of the ‘Fists to lead them, with a name a livery to match your chapter. While the Ultras got a lot of characters, when you could have not-Talion leading RG scouts, or not-Cassius going with anyone who wanted a grizzled old stubborn combi-flamer zealot. Which is like everyone. One of the big arguments at the time, which we see echos of today, is “How do I play <chapter> if I don’t want to use the named character”? 10th answer that question with the rules being on the detachment, not the character.

This is obviously a marine perspective. We’ve had CT and subfaction rules longer then the rest.

With my Eldar I always ignored the paint restrictions when we got rules for craftworlds. My army is painted in a variant Saim-Hann scheme, but the rules for them (mostly CC based) never fit my army lists/collection. My army still kept the look and feel of a windrider host, but didn’t need their bespoke rules to do it. Or any special characters. Just a philosophy of “getting mud on your boots is for lesser races” and having the bulk of my list on bikes, in transports, or on the wing.

Now I don’t know every subfaction for every army. Do Steel Legion guard need anything but ensuring everyone is in a transport? What units/composition do you need to see on the table to make something a fluffy Catachan or Modian army? Obviously right now guard are still on their index rules, and GW faction-locked Some units due to NMNR-Build the box. Not the best situation. But would you need more the one page of detachment rules on the level that other armies with full coxdes?

Obviously, being stuck on an index is not good, but that’s more an issue with how GW rolls out the system then the actual product.

I don’t get the philosophy of being defined by your special rules. It’s a huge galaxy. Sure, your subfaction might be great at X, but do you think you are unique to that? No other chapter specialized in melta/flamers, no other regiment has iron discipline, no other craftworld needs to resort to necromancy and wraiths to protect the living? 40k is a giant sandbox universe. Letting everyone play in it does not diminish your faction. Some subfactions might be the best known for certain aspects, but certainly they are not alone out there for being good at them.

 Nevelon wrote:

There is always paintjobs and kitbashing to help distinguish them.

I’m not the best person to argue this point, as I primarily play Ultras, the baseline faction. One of the things that drew me to them was the lack of special rules and units. I won games not due to having better rules then other chapters, but better play. With few exceptions scattered thought the editions, playing the boys in blue was a distinct disadvantage, as all the other chapters did what we did, and then more better on top of that.

You're conflating "Codex: Space Marines" with "Ultramarines". Ultras aren't the only Chapter in that book. This is where the problem is and what I was referring to.

I was a big fan of 5th’s philosophy of CT, where they actually encouraged you to take the named characters, file the names off them, and make them your own chapter. If you wanted to represent a subborn 1st company force, you could take one of the ‘Fists to lead them, with a name a livery to match your chapter. While the Ultras got a lot of characters, when you could have not-Talion leading RG scouts, or not-Cassius going with anyone who wanted a grizzled old stubborn combi-flamer zealot. Which is like everyone. One of the big arguments at the time, which we see echos of today, is “How do I play <chapter> if I don’t want to use the named character”? 10th answer that question with the rules being on the detachment, not the character.

This is obviously a marine perspective. We’ve had CT and subfaction rules longer then the rest.

No, you've just had more characters flavored to the poster child subfaction.

The problem now is that some of the Chapters in C: Space Marines and their Successors(Raven Guard and White Scars most notably) don't get the ability to feature their 'trademark' items as Battleline, and with the Rule of 3 it becomes messy as hell to try to do anything...while at the same time, the other "Founding Legions"(and Black Templars+Deathwatch) get to have their own supplemental materials with units, unique detachments, etc that double-dip into the main book too.

Now I don’t know every subfaction for every army. Do Steel Legion guard need anything but ensuring everyone is in a transport?

Militias/Conscripts were a big "hallmark" of the list that they had, from what I remember. Steel Legion were the iconic regiment for Armageddon, but not the only thing that were there.

What units/composition do you need to see on the table to make something a fluffy Catachan or Modian army?

Catachan Jungle Fighters literally have their own unit right now. If you want to go back to the whole 4/5E paradigm?
Their hallmark traits were: Veterans(removing the 0-1 limit), Ogryns(unlocked Ogryns for the army), Special Weapon Squads(unlocked for Command Platoons), Jungle Fighters doctrine(removed the ability to take Lascannons in squads, gave you the ability to have a Heavy Flamer if you didn't take a HWTs, dropped armor save by 1 point, gave a benefit for being in forest or jungle terrain) which couldn't be combined with Cameloline, Hardened Fighters(+1WS, added the chainsaw attachment as an option for the Sentinels). Hallmark weapon choices were Flamers and Heavy Bolters.

Mordians had more units unlocked(Sanctioned Psykers, Ratling Squads, and Heavy Weapon Platoons) than they did equipment changes. Their other 3 things were Die-Hards(no negative mods for being outnumbered in close combat; couldn't be combined with Chem-Inhalers), Sharpshooters(units with a BS of 3+ could reroll hit rolls of 1; couldn't be used for Plasma or Sniper Rifles), and Close Order Drill(+1LD and +1Initiative while the whole of the unit was in base to base contact with each other).

And yes, Mordian Iron Guard didn't have "Iron Discipline". That was a Cadian and Death Korps thing.

Obviously right now guard are still on their index rules, and GW faction-locked Some units due to NMNR-Build the box. Not the best situation.

But still better than just "play pretend", which was the thing for quite some time. Also, they've purposely left in "vanilla" options as well.

The problem isn't that there are "faction-locked units" for Guard. It's that people have continually misconstrued the way the Guard is supposed to be constructed, to the point that there's a kind of continually reinforced Mandela Effect surrounding everything. It's that things have been memed so hard that the newer crop of designers even lean into it.

Well, also that when talking about Guard we have to talk about the fact that they don't seem to be willing to actually let you use these "hallmark units"(Death Korps, Kasrkin, Cadian Shock, Catachan Jungle Fighters) with different statlines.

But would you need more the one page of detachment rules on the level that other armies with full coxdes?

Obviously, being stuck on an index is not good, but that’s more an issue with how GW rolls out the system then the actual product.

Wasn't talking about Guard initially, but it's a similar situation for the woefully supported Founding Legions:
Two factors go into these things. No dedicated "army" setup(There's no Raven Guard units outside of Shrike, to use as an example) and a watering down of the hallmark concept("Vanguard Spearhead Detachment") to accommodate every single subfaction's characters being able to use it.

I don’t get the philosophy of being defined by your special rules. It’s a huge galaxy. Sure, your subfaction might be great at X, but do you think you are unique to that? No other chapter specialized in melta/flamers, no other regiment has iron discipline, no other craftworld needs to resort to necromancy and wraiths to protect the living? 40k is a giant sandbox universe. Letting everyone play in it does not diminish your faction. Some subfactions might be the best known for certain aspects, but certainly they are not alone out there for being good at them.

The argument has never been that these things should be the exclusive purview of these subfactions. It's that they should be able to get a benefit for leaning into them while ignoring or being unable to take the things outside of their scope.

No idea why the GK Librarian had to go up in points, again, for the third time. I understand that GW wants people to run something else then Draigo and Librarians. Great and awesome. How about change the rules, so GK players want to actualy run something different. But GW way of "fixing" stuff , not just for GK, seems to be "make it cheaper".

In some cases this becomes a caricature of fixing stuff, when Ad Mecha stuff becomes cheaper yet again, when the problem with the book is not points (although those are a problem too, an army should not cost double or triple what other armies cost), but the bad rules.

Then there is also the eternal marine problem. Stuff gets nerfed, because specific army X is good at the time, often the nerf is not enough to reign the army in. Meanwhile other armies with different aka worse, rules are being punished because Black Templar exist. Looks to me, as if trying to build multiple armies around the same book, does not work well.
A terminator in a 100% terminator DA DW army should not have the same rules as a bog down regular terminator in any other marine army. Any changes will make the DA DW list very bad, or the undercosted (as GW ways of fixing problems is points) terminators suddenly replace centurions or some other unit in some odd ball, but powerful build.

TLDR: Good armies stayed good, bad armis stayed bad. Updates are slow, and rules problems are being fixed with points. In the incoming 3-6 months GW is going to have to learn that custodes with nerfs bigger then before and with worse rules, will be bad and that droping points on already powerul armies can have odd results.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:

This method only works if each Chapter gets units or ways to actually skew things in a lore based fashion.

And the units have to actualy be good. IH tank army works good. Biker WS or RW army, DW terminators etc do not work. Crusader unit spaming BT work and can even be good, Good luck playing an actual Venguard based RG army without teleporting centurions etc. SW are best, but not especialy good, as WS detachment army, all because TWC and TWC mounted characters exist.