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.

Honestly? I'm fine with White Scars bikers being better than Ultramarines bikers so long as a White Scars bike army isn't better than an Ultramarines bike army. Yes that takes more effort to do well through adequate points costs etc.

 PenitentJake wrote:

Sure, but like 10th: the thing is, "defining" your army using these methods falls apart when a different army makes the EXACT same choices, proving to you that YOUR dudes are not YOUR dudes.

"Look, I'm playing White Scars, and I know this because I brought the maximum number of bikes and all my infantry are in transports and we focus on hit and run tactics."

"I'm playing Ultramarines; I brought the maximum number of bikes and all my infantry are in transports and we focus on hit and run tactics."

"I'm playing Blood Angels; I brought the maximum number of bikes and all my infantry are in transports and we focus on hit and run tactics."

"I'm playing Space Wolves; I brought the maximum number of bikes (even though Space Wolves live in a frozen wasteland of ice and snow where bikes are as practical as bikinis) and all my infantry are in transports and we focus on hit and run tactics."

So yeah, how did you actually think your expression of your chapters uniqueness was unique when ANY Chapter could do it?

...vs...

"Look, I'm playing White Scars, and I know this because I'm using the White Scars codex."

"I'm playing Ultramarines; I'm using the White Scars codex, because I wanted a biker army, but I painted them blue."

"I'm playing Blood Angels; I'm using the White Scars codex, because I wanted a biker army, but I painted them red."

"I'm playing Space Wolves; I'm using the White Scars codex, because I wanted a biker army, but I painted them whatever the hell colour 'Fang' is."

...

 insaniak wrote:

 PenitentJake wrote:

Sure, but like 10th: the thing is, "defining" your army using these methods falls apart when a different army makes the EXACT same choices, proving to you that YOUR dudes are not YOUR dudes.

"Look, I'm playing White Scars, and I know this because I brought the maximum number of bikes and all my infantry are in transports and we focus on hit and run tactics."

"I'm playing Ultramarines; I brought the maximum number of bikes and all my infantry are in transports and we focus on hit and run tactics."

"I'm playing Blood Angels; I brought the maximum number of bikes and all my infantry are in transports and we focus on hit and run tactics."

"I'm playing Space Wolves; I brought the maximum number of bikes (even though Space Wolves live in a frozen wasteland of ice and snow where bikes are as practical as bikinis) and all my infantry are in transports and we focus on hit and run tactics."

So yeah, how did you actually think your expression of your chapters uniqueness was unique when ANY Chapter could do it?

...vs...

"Look, I'm playing White Scars, and I know this because I'm using the White Scars codex."

"I'm playing Ultramarines; I'm using the White Scars codex, because I wanted a biker army, but I painted them blue."

"I'm playing Blood Angels; I'm using the White Scars codex, because I wanted a biker army, but I painted them red."

"I'm playing Space Wolves; I'm using the White Scars codex, because I wanted a biker army, but I painted them whatever the hell colour 'Fang' is."

...

My response:
No, you're just playing blue/red/"fang" colored White Scars. I know this because you're using the White Scars codex/rules.
What you tell yourself is your own business.
What color you choose to paint your stuff, or even if you paint it? Doesn't matter to me.

The end result is the same, though. In both cases, you're using the same rules and the same army list... the only difference is what you choose to call them.

 insaniak wrote:
The end result is the same, though. In both cases, you're using the same rules and the same army list... the only difference is what you choose to call them.

The requirement of a white scars specific rule in the example is what breaks things. If it was "space marine bikers" rules then sure, but the fact people were encouraged to proxy as the "wrong" army to have their stuff work because the rules were intrinsically tied to a specific fluff relevant name is the issue.

Once you divorce flamers and meltas from Salamanders and instead pair them to "marine force that specialises in flamers and meltas", people gain creativity without breaking narrative stride.

Never the less, this wasn't too much of a problem in 3rd where irrc largely it was still based off what you chose to include to carry the theme, apart from those lucky few with additional rules supplements and the 3.5 chaos book.

Dudeface wrote:
Never the less, this wasn't too much of a problem in 3rd where irrc largely it was still based off what you chose to include to carry the theme, apart from those lucky few with additional rules supplements and the 3.5 chaos book.

Ironically the 3.5 book kind of killed one of the things that made chaos unique.

Loyalists were traditionally uniformly painted generalist battle brothers. Oldschool chaos was a disparate warband made up of more specialised sub-factions, and while the daemons stayed that way the marines gradually moved to being loyalists with spikes.

Definitely a problem Chaos has faced. At different points, they’ve been presented as disparate, temporarily aligned warbands, Spiky Marines, hyper competent, super incompetent, still capable of fielding massive, near Legion sized forces and Mere Handfuls.

So depending on when you got started, your take on Chaos can be pretty different from the next person, because GW Can’t Decide.

Whilst I’d say the current range, whilst not faultless, is the most coherent and interesting in a long while? Where are the mutations and gribbly body horror? Like tentacle arms, unusual legs and that. Where is the literal mark of chaos upon their benighted flesh?

Doesn’t even need in-game rules, just go with the visual. Because gorgeous as the current models are, they’re entirely missing the wackiness and manky corruption of the earliest models.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Definitely a problem Chaos has faced. At different points, they’ve been presented as disparate, temporarily aligned warbands, Spiky Marines, hyper competent, super incompetent, still capable of fielding massive, near Legion sized forces and Mere Handfuls.

Sounds pretty Chaotic. Chaos should encompass all of those things. Just as it can reward your devotion with daemon princedom or spawnhood.

 insaniak wrote:

 PenitentJake wrote:

Sure, but like 10th: the thing is, "defining" your army using these methods falls apart when a different army makes the EXACT same choices, proving to you that YOUR dudes are not YOUR dudes.

"Look, I'm playing White Scars, and I know this because I brought the maximum number of bikes and all my infantry are in transports and we focus on hit and run tactics."

"I'm playing Ultramarines; I brought the maximum number of bikes and all my infantry are in transports and we focus on hit and run tactics."

"I'm playing Blood Angels; I brought the maximum number of bikes and all my infantry are in transports and we focus on hit and run tactics."

"I'm playing Space Wolves; I brought the maximum number of bikes (even though Space Wolves live in a frozen wasteland of ice and snow where bikes are as practical as bikinis) and all my infantry are in transports and we focus on hit and run tactics."

So yeah, how did you actually think your expression of your chapters uniqueness was unique when ANY Chapter could do it?

...vs...

"Look, I'm playing White Scars, and I know this because I'm using the White Scars codex."

"I'm playing Ultramarines; I'm using the White Scars codex, because I wanted a biker army, but I painted them blue."

"I'm playing Blood Angels; I'm using the White Scars codex, because I wanted a biker army, but I painted them red."

"I'm playing Space Wolves; I'm using the White Scars codex, because I wanted a biker army, but I painted them whatever the hell colour 'Fang' is."

...

This never bothered me though- the dude who wanted the Ultramarine bikers so he used blue Marines with the White Scars dex? That was fine, because in that arrangement, it's clear that the player is using a work around, rather than- "No, nobody actually specializes in anything, and nobody is better than anybody at anything else. I mean, the lore says they specialize, but that's not how the game works. Anyone who wants to can use the game to reflect the lore if they choose to, but that's the work around, not the default."

Dudeface wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
The end result is the same, though. In both cases, you're using the same rules and the same army list... the only difference is what you choose to call them.

The requirement of a white scars specific rule in the example is what breaks things. If it was "space marine bikers" rules then sure, but the fact people were encouraged to proxy as the "wrong" army to have their stuff work because the rules were intrinsically tied to a specific fluff relevant name is the issue.

Once you divorce flamers and meltas from Salamanders and instead pair them to "marine force that specialises in flamers and meltas", people gain creativity without breaking narrative stride.

Never the less, this wasn't too much of a problem in 3rd where irrc largely it was still based off what you chose to include to carry the theme, apart from those lucky few with additional rules supplements and the 3.5 chaos book.

This is a spectrum though. Few people argue that there shouldn't be ordinary Marines and veteran Marines, yet veterans are just better versions (more subtly so before 5th edition). So if you think that is acceptable for both to be choices, the existence of a variant list with veteran bikers vs the default with ordinary bikers is also acceptable. The devil is in the details, in which the veteran unit is more capable but has drawbacks that prevent it being the better choice (like a higher points cost).

This works for everything- the list specialising in flamers and meltas shouldn't be better than the list that isn't, even if the individual capabilities are higher.

If you take the corollary to the extreme, why bother having different units and codices at all? So where should the line be drawn in variations? I do accept that balancing becomes harder with more lists, but I reiterate my position that mission variety discourages skew lists.

ccs wrote:
My response:
No, you're just playing blue/red/"fang" colored White Scars. I know this because you're using the White Scars codex/rules.
What you tell yourself is your own business.
What color you choose to paint your stuff, or even if you paint it? Doesn't matter to me.

It's useful to go back and look at 2nd for a moment. All marine armies had the same composition rules using the three types of units: characters, squads and support. Squads - which were required - included Terminators, tactical, scouts, bikes, assault and devastators. So one could create whatever flavor of force one desired.

All the specialist chapters got was a limited choice of special squads with special rules - and they paid extra points for them. If you wanted veteran assault marines, you played a Blood Angels chapter (or took them as allies). Same with Ravenwing, veteran tactical squads, etc.

What set your army apart was simply the composition and doctrine you used, which had the virtue of limiting the size of the rule book.

With 3rd, the org chart came into being and units could count towards different slots on different lists. The simplification of core rules (and shortening of the stat line) also required more special rules to create differences, and this was exacerbated by the all-or-nothing AP system and the cookie-cutter vehicle profile. The designers also varied the point values for the same weapons depending on what unit they were in, and players exploited this as well.

What that meant was armies necessarily had to be specialized, which created further design complexity, further worsened balance issues, and created a have/have not hierarchy and pushed the focus of the game more towards list creation and less towards tactical operations.

In 2nd, there were many really good, flexible options. You didn't have to be required to take "line units" because they were good on their own. As mentioned long ago, heavy bolters were really useful against everyone, so having a few was just common sense. In 3rd, balancing AP was a crucial and failing to do it could result in a blowout loss, which was annoying.

Yes, you could engineer a lop-sided game in 2nd, but amassing 100 hormaguants or a fleet of discs of Tzeentch was pretty unique (and expensive) way to do it. Starcannon spam was far more economical.

Composition in 2nd edition is all over the place, and includes examples that are fundamentally the same as FOC swapping. For example, Ork warbikes were support, unless you took Evil Sunz mobz as battleline and upgraded them with warbikes.

Imperial Guard had this bizarre, complex system that vaguely approximated the company and platoon structure in the lore of the book and tied units to a specific regiment. Except the only regiment that had different rules was rough riders- a Cadian and Catachan squad were identical. In addition, it meant that whilst Ratlings, Ogryns, and Storm troopers were battleline, in practice they were restricted by the system above as much as being elites in later editions.