PDA

View Full Version : How many Factions is enough?



Born Again
25-03-2015, 12:04
So with Khorne Daemonkin going up for pre-order over the weekend, I noticed that the GW website actually lists them as another, new standalone army, as opposed to being a supplement book as I was expecting when rumours first started circulating. Under the Warhammer 40,000 Armies tab on the site, this now puts it at 21 factions in the game, with another soon to come in the form of AdMech, plus more rumoured to be on the horizon (Genestealer Cults) as well as others as reasonable or likely assumptions (other Chaos power books, etc). Bear in mind many of those also have supplement books that add even more variety in to the mix. This is rather a lot of factions in comparison to other games (Warmachine, Deadzone, Infinity etc) which all seem to have more in the range of 6-8 factions. The growth has been spurred on by things like Militarum Tempestus and Harlequins getting their own faction, while thinking back to when I started playing in 2nd edition there were officially 10 factions, but effectively 9 as the Squats had disappeared from all but the boxed game and people's hopes the codex might happen soon.

Now, I'm not saying I think that 40k has too many factions, or that some should be culled. In fact, I'm rather against that opinion in some cases as I like the idea of Harlequin, AdMech etc armies. If I were to scrap anything, it would rolling some of the smaller Imperial factions in together - Tempestus was clearly done just for the sake of releasing a book with the models, while I've never been a fan of splitting Inquisition off from the Grey Knight book (moreso because it makes them just another marine army than something a bit different). Imperial Knights are, game-wise I think, better suited as a LoW choice available to Imperial factions, but from a background standpoint I understand why they were put on their own.

So I'm not saying the game should have more, or less, but just interested to see what you all think - does the game have too many factions? Could it have more? How would you change it if you could?

CrownAxe
25-03-2015, 12:08
I don't understand why people care that there are more factions. It just means more flavor in the game and more potentially for interesting armies.

If there are any problems it's because of specific incidents (such as Imperial Knights because kind of overpowered, or that SoB are still due for an update). Adding a new faction alone has no down sides.

Memnos
25-03-2015, 12:11
All the supplements with the exception of Space Marine chapter/Craft Worlds that I know showed as their own faction: Militarum Tempestus started the trend.

It'll disappear in a few weeks.

AndrewGPaul
25-03-2015, 13:16
Khorne Daemonkin isn't a supplement, though. I suspect it'll stay.

I'm surprised that the Inquisition (or Legion of the Damned) aren't listed as a separate Faction; they have their own Codex, after all.

As it happens, Firestorm Armada has 24 Factions, I think. So, room for at least three more. :)

By the end, 1st edition had the following 22 distinct army lists:
Space Marines (Compendium)
Space Wolves (WD 157)
Imperial Guard (Compendium)
Squats (Compendium)
Ordo Malleus / Grey Knights (RoC: Slaves to Darkness)

Craftworld Eldar (Compilation)
Eldar Harlequins (Compendium)

Blood Axes Orks ('Ere We Go)
Snakebite Orks ('Ere We Go)
Goff Orks ('Ere We Go)
Bad Moon Orks (Freebooters)
Deathskulls Orks (Freebooters)
Evil Sun Orks (Freebooters)

Chaos Squats (Compendium)
Black Legion (RoC: Slaves to Darkn
World Eaters (RoC: Slaves to Darkness)
Emperor's Children (RoC: Slaves to Darkness)
Nurgle Renegades (RoC: The Lost and the Damned)
Tzeentch Renegades (RoC: The Lost and the Damned)

Tyranids (WD 145)

Genestealer Cult (Compilation)
Genestealer Invasion Force (Compilation)

(As well as the army lists from Chapter Approved, which I suppose were still as valid as any of the later ones :) )

SuperHappyTime
25-03-2015, 13:23
I think new factions appearing as supplements are going to be par for the course for 40K. It's easy to write a "new faction" when you put out a shiny book (Moneygrab!), combine two factions that ally each other (CSM and the Khorne part of Daemons) OR expand on a piece of fluff you already wrote a little about (Harlequins, Skitarii), maybe throw in some new models (bonus if they also already came out for Fantasy), and make up some new rules (be they boring, the same, or broken, who cares? We sell models)

SuperHappyTime
25-03-2015, 13:26
I don't understand why people care that there are more factions. It just means more flavor in the game and more potentially for interesting armies.

If there are any problems it's because of specific incidents (such as Imperial Knights because kind of overpowered, or that SoB are still due for an update). Adding a new faction alone has no down sides.

From a competitive angle, it makes for a sloppy meta. If they're carbon copies of other armies, the tactics won't change. If they're different, I have to remember 40-50 different tactics, but I'm only ever going to see three or four again and again. It doesn't feel like they're making a balanced game, it's like they're shooting blind and hoping they kill the bad guy before the hostage.

AndrewGPaul
25-03-2015, 13:33
They're only shooting blind if you assume they're trying to hit something. It's not that they're trying to make a competitive game and doing a bad job, it's that it's not even on the list of design criteria. It's like complaining that a double-decker bus makes a poor rally car. :)

Spiney Norman
25-03-2015, 13:34
I think new factions appearing as supplements are going to be par for the course for 40K. It's easy to write a "new faction" when you put out a shiny book (Moneygrab!), combine two factions that ally each other (CSM and the Khorne part of Daemons) OR expand on a piece of fluff you already wrote a little about (Harlequins, Skitarii), maybe throw in some new models (bonus if they also already came out for Fantasy), and make up some new rules (be they boring, the same, or broken, who cares? We sell models)

I agree, books are obviously a massive source of income for GW at the moment otherwise they wouldn't be flinging out so many unnecessary publications that have had so little thought put into them, Daemonkin is a painfully obvious example of this when it doesn't allow you to do anything that an allied force of CSM and daemons couldn't also do in terms of theme.

The frustrating thing is that with every new, overpriced book the game becomes progressively harder to play, I have little enough awareness of the special rules and capabilities of some of the game's main armies (esp thpse that are not well represented in my local meta) as it is without these random mini-factions or combi-codexes springing up out of nowhere.

The other problem is the amount of time wasted trudging through yours and your opponents codexes in-game, I find I spend almost as much time looking through rules books as I do rolling dice and moving models these days.


They're only shooting blind if you assume they're trying to hit something. It's not that they're trying to make a competitive game and doing a bad job, it's that it's not even on the list of design criteria. It's like complaining that a double-decker bus makes a poor rally car. :)

I think the problem is GW aren't trying to hit anything other than financial targets, making a decent game fell off their agenda some years back.

AndrewGPaul
25-03-2015, 13:38
Doesn't the Daemonkin army summon daemons through bloodshed? That sounds sufficiently different to the usual Malefic Daemonology route that it should be interesting. It might not necessarily need a new book, but new books mean new background and new artwork, so that's good.

I try to know my army, and I trust my opponent to do the same. That should cut down on the rulebook-flipping (and generally, if I can't recall a given rule or find it within a couple of seconds, I prefer to just house-rule it and get on with the game. Even the wrong rule is more fun than an extended index search. :) ).

Spiney Norman
25-03-2015, 13:47
I try to know my army, and I trust my opponent to do the same. That should cut down on the rulebook-flipping (and generally, if I can't recall a given rule or find it within a couple of seconds, I prefer to just house-rule it and get on with the game. Even the wrong rule is more fun than an extended index search. :) ).

I still have to look up rules for my own army from time to time, since it's more likely than ever that I might find myself playing against an army I have never seen seen deployed before I'm obviously not going to know the rules and capabilities of all my opponent's units so taking time to borrow his book before the game begins and find out what his stuff can do and adapt my game plan accordingly is pretty essential.

HelloKitty
25-03-2015, 14:03
The more factions the better IMO. The khorne release and the new mechanicum stuff has our area buzzing positively.

mightymconeshot
25-03-2015, 14:55
Have you looked at the rules for the new ad-mech army? I easily see two-three new USRs simply from that book based on the released weapon list and not even getting into what some of those other things that we don't know yet. Or the rules for Harlequins. They have some outrageous rules that if you were to play in a pick up game it would be a, "let me see that moment."

That being said, I love the fact all these sub-factions are being shown and used. I just hope when the genestealer cult gets one it does it justice to the real fluff. None of this rending, but true AP2 claws.

Spiney Norman
25-03-2015, 15:28
The more factions the better IMO. The khorne release and the new mechanicum stuff has our area buzzing positively.

Hey if you have the resources to keep up with it all I'm glad for you, my bank balance and free time allowance has meant I've been clinging on by my finger tips for the last 3 years or so, I can count the number of armies I really have a proper grasp of on the fingers of one hand which means 75% of the time I am completely ill-equipped for a game, and on the backfoot from the word go.

More options might seem fun but the flip side is a terribly broad meta which is progressively ruining the playability of the game and turns list-building into a game of Russian roulette.

One of the reasons why 30k is so much better than 40k at the moment is the much more limited and predictable meta and the fixed Age of Darkness FOC, instances of turning up for a game only to realise that half of your army cannot accomplish anything during the course of the game are much rarer (actually that has never happened to me in 30k). 40k would benefit massively from some competent rules designers taking a good hard look at the mechanics and sorting the whole thing out, unfortunately I imagine it will stay in the hands of the fanboyish buffoons that currently work in the design studio. The rules bloat in 40k has expanded exponentially since 7th hit, I can't see it continuing indefinitely, eventually the game will collapse under the weight of all e complicated rules and layers of detachments, trying to keep all the rules from one army in your head is challenging enough, trying to wrap your head around all 20something factions in the game is just never going to happen.

At least the guys designing the models for 40k know what they're doing I guess.

Voss
25-03-2015, 17:02
I don't understand why people care that there are more factions. It just means more flavor in the game and more potentially for interesting armies.

If there are any problems it's because of specific incidents (such as Imperial Knights because kind of overpowered, or that SoB are still due for an update). Adding a new faction alone has no down sides.

If they are really new factions, yes they can add a lot. Unfortunately, Khorne daemon kin is just another sloppy retread of existing stuff, just like space marine red or space marine blue. It doesn't add anything, just makes things more of a mess. And adds the prospect of daemonkin blue, purple, and brownish-green. Nothing new, just slightly different mashup rules for things that can already be mashed up. That provides a lot of downsides, and no particular use at all, except for gw selling a third $50 book.

AndrewGPaul
25-03-2015, 17:08
I still have to look up rules for my own army from time to time, since it's more likely than ever that I might find myself playing against an army I have never seen seen deployed before I'm obviously not going to know the rules and capabilities of all my opponent's units so taking time to borrow his book before the game begins and find out what his stuff can do and adapt my game plan accordingly is pretty essential.

Different strokes, I suppose. All my games are pre-arranged (because who wants to drive across the city with an army hoping for a game on spec?). If someone's gone out and got a new army, I'll know about it. Plus, finding out the army's special abilities the hard way is part of the fun; I'll get him next time (next time, Gadget!).

HelloKitty
25-03-2015, 17:18
Hey if you have the resources to keep up with it all I'm glad for you, my bank balance and free time allowance has meant I've been clinging on by my finger tips for the last 3 years or so, I can count the number of armies I really have a proper grasp of on the fingers of one hand which means 75% of the time I am completely ill-equipped for a game, and on the backfoot from the word go.

It doesn't affect my bank balance because I only buy the codices that I own armies for. If I'm up against something I don't know, I spend 5-10 minutes reading the list and asking questions, and that usually resolves most of any issues that I have.

ewar
25-03-2015, 17:29
@SpineyNorman, come on mate, don't you get tired of saying the same rant in every single 40k thread? You must have the text saved somewhere so you can just paste it in so your keyboard doesn't get worn out.

Personally, I'm really enjoying the new smaller factions and I think they're a great addition to the overall experience. My gaming group is quite small for 40k, so we don't have any issues with people bringing silly lists. However, I would imagine that as more and more is being added to the 7th edition mash up that actually this will have a perverse balancing effect. There must now be so many combinations of armies that actually, it ultimately levels the playing field.

In my experience 40k is a really good laugh when played as a narrative game with likeminded folks. On that basis, I think it's the more the merrier. I mean, I've waited probably 20 years to see Ad Mech. Plus, if the Genestealer Cults come close to what GW is pushing out lately for models then I will literally soil myself with excitement.

skorczeny
25-03-2015, 18:03
How many factions are enough? Whatever it is, take that number and subtract necrons and tau. That's the right number. :)

Kidding aside, as long as they release new models it's not too terrible. I play almost exclusively 2nd edition, so I'm always keeping an eye out for new models that cover old rules. As such, I'm really looking forward to the rumored genestealer cult release.

6th/7th was/is a mess well before they started releasing harlequins and tempestus militarum and now the demonkin. So they're hardly making things any worse by releasing more.

Getifa Ubazza
25-03-2015, 18:23
I guess I'm in a weird place with this subject. While I love all the new armies, I do feel that we don't need all the army books.

If it were up to me, I would combine all the armies into race books. As an example;

Codex Space Marines, all none unique unit types in the main army list. With special lists in the book for all non-codex Chapters. So if for example, you wanted to represent Space Wolves, you would use the unique unit types for that sub-list when selecting your army, along with anything your sub-list allows from the main army list. You would only be able to select from one sub-list when choosing your army.

Codex Imperium would have Imperial Guard as the main army list, with sub-lists for all other non-Space Marine type Imperial armies.

Codex Chaos would be all Chaos Marines and Daemons in a single list. When selecting your army, you would choose which God you wanted to worship and this would determine what units you may select. Undivided armies would have the largest selection to choose from, but would not be able to take certain units that will only be allowed in mono-god armies or as allies with normal allies restrictions.

All Eldar would be in one book, with sub-lists for Dark Eldar, Harlequins and any other sub-lists people want.

All other Races would work the same. Seriously, what self respecting Ork fan wouldn't want to represent a Goff Klan warband with a couple unique special rules, as a reward for selecting only Goff type units? Same for Tau, Squats, Tyranids or whatever your particular favourite Race happens to be.

GW could still sell supplement books, that could eventually be rolled into the main Race Codex, when it is redone.

This would make it easier to balance each race type as a whole and because there would be less Codex books to deal with, it should make it easier to balance all the races against each other. You would still have people choosing what they see as the best sub-list for whatever reason they feel most important to them, but that's kinda why I would do it.

It doesn't matter if they are WAAC or Fluffy players or if they like a particular play style or they just like painting the colour yellow. There should be a main or sub list that suits their needs.

That's just the way I would do it. Not saying it would solve everything, just that it would give people more choice, without having to wait forever for your particular faction to get an update.

Inquisitor Kallus
25-03-2015, 18:30
I think Luther's got this one.... (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uv7y6PKEYms)

Sephillion
25-03-2015, 18:42
I don’t mind the number of factions, but I feel some aren’t supported enough. Imperial Knights have only a few profiles in them, and the “faction” consists of variations of a single model. It doesn’t feel like a true faction, fluff notwithstanding.

Militari Tempestus – why do they get their own book? No reason. They could have been wrapped up in Imperial Guard. Seriously, this is a blatant cashgrab.

Harlequins have more support, but still have a few kits, no characters, no HQ, and ultimately few profiles. I personally like them, but feel they could be more fleshed up.

Khorne Daemonkin getting their own entry on the store is a bit ridiculous, it’s essentially an alternative way of building a CSM-CD ally army, not a faction on its own.

So it seems they’re churning books after books of incomplete armies with only a few profiles, only a few kits; AdMech might be the most fleshed out of the lot, and actually the only one who can be truly though of its own faction among all the aforementioned releases. IK: imperial ally; MT: should have been in IG; Harlequins – incomplete, could be almost considered E/DE allies; Daemonkin – mostly a glorified Allies book.

ewar
25-03-2015, 18:50
Personally, I don't see the issue - for someone into that faction it is worth buying a stand alone book. It only really hurts the avid collectors who buy every book. If someone is really into Khorne, I'd imagine the Daemonkin book is a pretty nice addition.

Hell, I've never given a second thought to a chaos army in 40k, but when I saw that army with a Lord of Skulls as a LoW supported by the awesome new Thirster, I thought for a moment that it would actually be a pretty cool collection of models.

Fortunately (unfortunately?) living in a capitalist society where I can't just buy everything I could possible want restrained me, but I can totally understand someone who did make that jump.

I think it's always easy to think there are too many books etc when they're not ones you personally are interested in, but people tend not to mind when it's for a faction they really like and it adds cool background and additional ways of playing your favourite army.

HelloKitty
25-03-2015, 19:10
Yeah - I also don't mind the books they are releasing. I only acquire the books I use. I have bought a couple supplements / expansions because I liked the army and was fine with spending the money to get the books even if they weren't full blown codices.

ewar
25-03-2015, 19:14
I'm the same. I don't play Iyanden, but I bought the book as it had some nice background and interesting new ways to play the army with my own Craftworld. I have waaaaay too many hobby projects at the moment, but when they're winding down/I lose interest I'll definitely jump for some As Mech.

I never got around to buying a Knight, so a pair of them and the new Ad Mech units would make a great little 1k ally for my Marines. Couldn't have done this 5 years ago.

HelloKitty
25-03-2015, 19:23
Yeah - i have wanted to do mechanicum forever but I have too many projects going as well. I'll stick wtih getting the codex on my ipad though for one day when I get into it and have the free time :D

Replicant253
25-03-2015, 19:29
The real negative effect could be a couple of editions down the road. If they change strategy back to their previous release schedule you are going to see a lot of mini factions still using their books from circa 2014/2015 for a number of years.

Sent from my Nexus 10 using Tapatalk

Okuto
25-03-2015, 19:53
I think the better question is how many imperial/human factions is enough........:shifty:

I like the mechanicum but again....its basically another imperial/human faction we have to figure out why is fighting with their fellow imperials......

Daemonkin Khorne could of just been a dataslate.....it didn't need to be a codex in itself.......I'm pretty sure slaanesh isn't getting one of those.....

DomZeqalStigaf
25-03-2015, 19:57
I think it's similar to how in the 90's there were still just "Reese's" and not 10 varieties of it. Companies have to show growth to be successful. GW's direction at the moment has been more positive because rather than **** on players by offering new things to the same old armies and breaking the game every codex with new units and nerfing everything into the ground; they're actually adding new armies. New armies attract the same OR new players to buy a lot of stuff. It's actual good business sense since it doesn't make people mad or feel cheated. It puts them back on the map as a model company rather than a company that jerks you around.

The revision of the Necrons was actually good too. New units to an army that had few, remakes of models, etc. The fact is, GW was riding 10 year old model designs for too long (and still is to some degree.) Even though Banshees, Scorpions, Noise Marines, etc look pretty good; they really need a rehash rather than a rules change.

Either way, they're doing things that people want now, instead of *********** around. Codices, Dataslates, and whatever else to cover things like Harlies, Inquisition, etc. They're freshening the line, adding armies that never existed; you know.. acting like a model company. Forge World has been proving this line works for a long time rather than just aimlessly jacking up prices and screwing up good rules for bad. You can tell a new CEO was put in and I'm mostly glad for it.

AndrewGPaul
25-03-2015, 20:46
I don’t mind the number of factions, but I feel some aren’t supported enough. Imperial Knights have only a few profiles in them, and the “faction” consists of variations of a single model. It doesn’t feel like a true faction, fluff notwithstanding.

The thing is, the fluff is just as important - more so for some, in fact - which is why I think we're getting all these books.

SuperHappyTime
25-03-2015, 21:24
The thing is, the fluff is just as important - more so for some, in fact - which is why I think we're getting all these books.

Could be a cost thing too. Easier to write a bunch of fluff or revised crunch and print books than do that AND craft a model that costs more to produce than will be made back.


I think the better question is how many imperial/human factions is enough........:shifty:

I like the mechanicum but again....its basically another imperial/human faction we have to figure out why is fighting with their fellow imperials......

Daemonkin Khorne could of just been a dataslate.....it didn't need to be a codex in itself.......I'm pretty sure slaanesh isn't getting one of those.....

How many different factions of humans are there? Through this current schedule, they'd all get a release someday. On the one hand, that one guy who wanted a Squats book may someday get one. On the other we might end up with SM:Larry.

And if I were a gambling man (and I am a degenerate one at that) I'd put my money on seeing a DK:Tzeentch, DK:Nurgle, and DK:Slaanesh before a true CSM update (so there's going to be one just around the corner). There have been a few rumors about where Fantasy's factions are ending up.

But where the Daemons actually have some level of difference between one another, Space Marines (IMO) can be bland and repetitive.

Sephillion
25-03-2015, 21:25
The thing is, the fluff is just as important - more so for some, in fact - which is why I think we're getting all these books.

Fluff shouldn’t trump game concerns; adding a “faction” consisting of three variations of the same model/profile AND asking 60$ for the book isn’t good design. They’re imperial; make them work with other factions, instead of creating a whole faction centered around them. Seems more logical, it isn’t entirely unfluffy either, it avoids bloat, it avoids issues with number of factions and eventual updates, etc.

I’m glad for the Khorne Demonkin book for one thing – new players wishing to create a mono-god army have a way of doing so without buying two books. But I’m not sure how it is good in the long term – it will create all sorts of problems when CSM or CD will need an update.

Spiney Norman
25-03-2015, 22:27
@SpineyNorman, come on mate, don't you get tired of saying the same rant in every single 40k thread? You must have the text saved somewhere so you can just paste it in so your keyboard doesn't get worn out.
You mean my point of view is consistent across all my replies, well whatdayaknow...


Personally, I'm really enjoying the new smaller factions and I think they're a great addition to the overall experience. My gaming group is quite small for 40k, so we don't have any issues with people bringing silly lists. However, I would imagine that as more and more is being added to the 7th edition mash up that actually this will have a perverse balancing effect. There must now be so many combinations of armies that actually, it ultimately levels the playing field.

I don't think that's true at all, what it does is widen the gulf between fluffy armies and those built for competitive play, which amplifies the imbalance and makes it worse.


In my experience 40k is a really good laugh when played as a narrative game with likeminded folks. On that basis, I think it's the more the merrier. I mean, I've waited probably 20 years to see Ad Mech. Plus, if the Genestealer Cults come close to what GW is pushing out lately for models then I will literally soil myself with excitement.

I think you're absolutely right, however in my experience 40k is a rather unpleasant experience when played with immature teenagers who don't give a toss about the narrative of the game and just throw down the combos they read about on the internet. Most veteran gamers have abandoned GW in my area now so to get games with 'like-minded people' I pretty much have to play warmachine, Malifaux or 30k, there is some wfb lingering on, but if GW screws up 9th edition as the rumours indicate they may, I think that will die off pretty swiftly too.

Part of the problem is that GWs unique blend of absurdly expensive models and ultra-poor rules design is a really hard sell to people who know anything about wargames, so recruiting the kind of players I'd like to play 40k with just doesn't happen.



6th/7th was/is a mess well before they started releasing harlequins and tempestus militarum and now the demonkin. So they're hardly making things any worse by releasing more.

That's true, if your kitchen is ankle-deep in dung already, chucking more on top doesn't make an appreciable difference, but it's not incredibly helpful when it comes to the point where you decide to clean your kitchen. If GW ever comes back to the point where they want to make 40k a good game again they're going to have a million screwy codexes to try and sort out.

Kakapo42
25-03-2015, 23:32
I don't think the number of factions is the problem, I think it's what those factions are. The problem I see with the new Daemonkin release is that I don't see how it really adds anything to the setting or the game. From a thematic point of view, it doesn't do anything that can't already be achieved by making a Khorne-themed Chaos Space Marine army and allying in some Khorne Daemons. If they're going to make a gamebook for Khorne-focused armies, then why not just make a World Eaters expansion book for the Chaos Space Marine codex?

I actually think GW really missed a trick with producing expansion books for the codexes, it could have been a great way to consolidate all the 'variant' armies - ones that are largely another iteration of a 'core' army. I would have made, for example, just one Space Marine codex (which itself would be basically the current one sans Chapter Tactics and Centurions) and then produce expansion books for ALL the famous chapters - Space Wolves, Dark Angels, Blood Angels, Black Templars, White Scars etc. Then do the same with Chaos Space Marines, one main Chaos Space Marine codex with plug-in expansion books for all the famous legions, and maybe one for Renegade chapters that had some rules for incorporating some loyalist gear. Assimilate the Militarum Tempestus codex into Imperial Guard (I really don't know why it should be it's own thing), and put expansion books out for some of the famous regiments like Catachans, Mordians etc.

I think it's OK to add in new factions, just make sure that they're actually unique and bring something new to the setting and/or game. Adeptus Mechaincus? Sure, why not, they get enough background reference already. A book all about combined Chaos Space Marine and Daemon forces, when that can already be done? Not so much.

ewar
25-03-2015, 23:40
I can appreciate it must suck if you have to play in that environment or if you're restricted to pick up games etc. However, for me, the introduction of niche lists is more reminiscent of 2nd/3rd ed than the later 4/5th editions, so I'm just happy to see Harlequins get fleshed out a bit and hopefully some of the other less common factions get some attention.

I much prefer this to the relentless bloat of some of the existing factions - if the next marine dex adds even more new units it will be getting frankly ridiculous. Personally I don't consider the rule making to be 'ultra-poor' as it does what it sets out to do pretty well, if you acknowledge that the book gives players almost unlimited freedom (including the freedom to make the game incredibly unfun) and makes it pretty clear that within that framework people should police themselves.

I would honestly think this style of gaming appeals much more to older neckbeards than young teenagers personally, especially combined with the premium pricing of the models. But as I don't play outside my game group I can't attest this either way.

p.s. you have an extremely obscure ST:TNG reference in your sig, it took me a while to place it! That was one of the... less popular (crappier!?) episodes from memory, seems like a pretty niche choice, what's the reasoning out of interest?

Spiney Norman
26-03-2015, 00:05
I much prefer this to the relentless bloat of some of the existing factions - if the next marine dex adds even more new units it will be getting frankly ridiculous. Personally I don't consider the rule making to be 'ultra-poor' as it does what it sets out to do pretty well, if you acknowledge that the book gives players almost unlimited freedom (including the freedom to make the game incredibly unfun) and makes it pretty clear that within that framework people should police themselves.


Do you realise how ridiculous it is to ask a bunch of insecure hormonal thirteen year olds to "police themselves"? Sometimes I really think GW doesn't have a clue who plays their games. Sure when players get into their late teens, early twenties, if they're more into the narrative side of gaming rather than the competitive side you might see people voluntarily exercising restraint in their army list building, but the rules in almost every codex are so wonky that the freedoms of the army selection system are, at best, an illusion because GW is so bad at writing rules for their game.

Wyches, banshees, hellions, repentias and Nephilim (to name some examples from armies I play with and against regularly) almost never see the table because their rules are poor, not only are they 'weak' choices as far as the game goes, the rules also do a very poor job of capturing how these units should operate in the 40k setting, if I imagine a wych-cult army and what they should be like I don't immeditely think of models being removed by the handful because they've been fried in their transports, mown down by Overwatch fire or completely failed to slip any wounds through their opponent's power armour in combat, but that is what happens to them, almost without fail, in the context of a game. Around half the units in the game have this problem, I want my army to do more than just look the part, I want it to play like it should, and far too many of them do because of GWs lack of interest in producing balanced rules.

AndrewGPaul
26-03-2015, 09:14
Stop playing against "hormonal 13-year olds", then. I stopped doing that when I was about fourteen. :)

Born Again
26-03-2015, 10:49
I don't understand why people care that there are more factions. It just means more flavor in the game and more potentially for interesting armies.

If there are any problems it's because of specific incidents (such as Imperial Knights because kind of overpowered, or that SoB are still due for an update). Adding a new faction alone has no down sides.

I never said people did have a problem with it. I just wondered what other people thought.



Chaos Squats (Compendium)


Chaos Squats actually had their own list and rules? Off topic, but can you give any details? I've seen the models and always rather liked them but thought they were just alternatives that used the regular Squat rules.


I agree, books are obviously a massive source of income for GW at the moment otherwise they wouldn't be flinging out so many unnecessary publications that have had so little thought put into them, Daemonkin is a painfully obvious example of this when it doesn't allow you to do anything that an allied force of CSM and daemons couldn't also do in terms of theme.

Daemonkin works differently by summoning the daemons in a manner that reminds me of the summoning rules from 2nd edition. I like it. Did it need its own book? That's subjective, and probably depends on if you play Khorne or not. I think it's cool because it adds something a little different to the game, even if it is only a small difference. If I was a Khorne player, I'd be right in to it. I'm not, but I'm looking forward to the prospect of a Nurgle Daemonkin book.


The frustrating thing is that with every new, overpriced book the game becomes progressively harder to play, I have little enough awareness of the special rules and capabilities of some of the game's main armies (esp thpse that are not well represented in my local meta) as it is without these random mini-factions or combi-codexes springing up out of nowhere.

I don't even attempt to remember all the ins-and-outs of rules for everything in the game. I understand the basic capabilities of things in the sense that Unit A is good at assault, but only if they get the charge, Unit B has mid-ranged anti-infantry firepower, etc. Anything beyond that, if I run in to it more than a couple of times then I'll start to remember it anyway (maybe my memory for these things is better than some people's, I don't know), if I never come across the unit or army again then I don't need to remember it anyway.
If you're a really competitive player that goes to a lot of tournaments, wouldn't you be best of just concentrating on what is most popular in the meta?


I think the problem is GW aren't trying to hit anything other than financial targets, making a decent game fell off their agenda some years back.


I know this isn't a satisfactory answer to many, but I think it's just that their definition of "decent game" is different to some of their customers. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure the designers were told to write the book by management as part of the releases with the Bloodthirster so they could cash in (gasp, business strategy!), but when they write the book the way they do I think they're thinking more along the lines of "wouldn't it be superawesomecool if blood being spilled called daemons in to existence?" rather than "what combinations of model stats and special rules does the game need to create an effective balance across the board?"


Hey if you have the resources to keep up with it all I'm glad for you, my bank balance and free time allowance has meant I've been clinging on by my finger tips for the last 3 years or so, I can count the number of armies I really have a proper grasp of on the fingers of one hand which means 75% of the time I am completely ill-equipped for a game, and on the backfoot from the word go.

More options might seem fun but the flip side is a terribly broad meta which is progressively ruining the playability of the game and turns list-building into a game of Russian roulette.

[QUOTE]One of the reasons why 30k is so much better than 40k at the moment is the much more limited and predictable meta and the fixed Age of Darkness FOC

One main gripe I do have with the game at the moment is the variety of army selection methods. FOC, Unbound, Formations, Decurion... just make everyone use the FOC, it keeps it standard while still having plenty of room for variety. I'm ok with the race-specific ones given in codex books, as they're minor variations that reflect the army better, but the other methods I'm not keen on.

AndrewGPaul
26-03-2015, 11:55
To be honest, I'm not entirely sure about the Squat list. It might just have been a variant of the ordinary Squat list.

On your last point, I couldn't disagree more. The Combined Arms Detachment Force Org. Chart only does a good job at representing a Space Marine Battle Company with a couple of attached support assets. Everything else has to be fudged to fit it (for example, Imperial Guard infantry companies crowbarring up to a dozen squads and associated transports into one slot. That Company should be a Detachment all to itself). Each army should have their own specific Detachment - or multiples; a Biel-Tan Aspect Warrior force is going to look very different to a Saim-Hann windrider host - tailored to represent the army properly.

If you did that, you could even have army-specific battlefield roles; not all the Aspect Warriors or Tyranid creatures fit neatly into Troops, Elites, Fast Attack or Heavy Support, for example.

3rd edition did a good job of that, I thought; as well as the "standard" FOC, you had various asymmetrical ones for attacker/defender scenarios, raids, etc, as well as army-specific ones (the Blood Angels had one to themselves, didn't they?). Sadly, the "standard" chart rapidly became the only chart. I don't know whether to blame the writers for wanting to simplify army selection, or the players for not using the options they were given; having a mission-specific FOC makes it harder to play against a stranger "on spec".

Litcheur
26-03-2015, 11:57
So I'm not saying the game should have more, or less, but just interested to see what you all think - does the game have too many factions? Could it have more? How would you change it if you could?
I don't mind. :o

I kinda like the good ol' late 80's palette swap. Makes me feel young, y'a know, fielding Marines makes me feel like I'm playing Golden Axe or Streets of Rage.

Well, even if it actually looks like Mortal Kombat 3, aka let's pretend the blue, yellow, green, red, grey, black and purple ninjas are totally different characters, whith totally different background stories, and totally different mechanics... But hey, the story was kinda nice, and it's making me feel young, so I guess it ain't that bad.

Same way, I totally don't mind the new factions, like Tempestus, Knights or these Khorne stuff.

See, it's like having Sakura, Akuma, Dan and Gouken in a Street Fighter game: three hado-shoryuken characters weren't enough, you totally need at last ten of them.

WarsmithGarathor94
26-03-2015, 12:22
I personally like these new factions heck I'm liking the fact they are going for a more narrative approach. Right now I'm doing my chaos army as my own chaos "faction" Harkovs TraitorKin with my csm The Crimson Reavers being combined with Traitor Guard and Daemons/mortal followers who have sworn allegiance to Lord Harkov. Due to the fact the Crimson Reavers have taken influence fluff wise from the black legion and the corsairs it means my army isn't dedicated to one god and allows me to use the entire of the csm CD and daemonkin codex's + the R+H list. Back in 5th ed when i started this wouldn't of been possible

skorczeny
26-03-2015, 12:33
That's true, if your kitchen is ankle-deep in dung already, chucking more on top doesn't make an appreciable difference, but it's not incredibly helpful when it comes to the point where you decide to clean your kitchen. If GW ever comes back to the point where they want to make 40k a good game again they're going to have a million screwy codexes to try and sort out.

Nice. But I don't think GW will 'clean the kitchen'. If GW ever wants to make 40k a good game again, I suspect they're going to rebuild the whole damn kitchen - similar to the transition from 2nd to 3rd.

Spiney Norman
26-03-2015, 14:56
Stop playing against "hormonal 13-year olds", then. I stopped doing that when I was about fourteen. :)
Unfortunately that is the sum total of the 40k playing community where I live, it's play them or play something else.


I know this isn't a satisfactory answer to many, but I think it's just that their definition of "decent game" is different to some of their customers. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure the designers were told to write the book by management as part of the releases with the Bloodthirster so they could cash in (gasp, business strategy!), but when they write the book the way they do I think they're thinking more along the lines of "wouldn't it be superawesomecool if blood being spilled called daemons in to existence?" rather than "what combinations of model stats and special rules does the game need to create an effective balance across the board?"

What I'm talking about is not about changing what special rules etc do as much as how many points the special rules cost put the wave serpent next to the Nephilim or centurions next to repentias, the points values in this game are all over the place. Surely it is in the best interests of everyone who plays this game to have the points cost of a unit reflect its effectiveness and usefulness in the game? Supercoolawesome stuff is great as long as it is properly playtested and costed appropriately, but Gw hasn't had any interest in doing that for at least the last ten years, we had 3rd edition Eldar, 5th edition grey knights, 6th edition Tau & Eldar all of which broke their respective edition. Could they not just put some effort into making a good, balanced game for everyone rather than "congratulations your army has been chosen to be completely overpowered for the next 4 yrs".

Born Again
28-03-2015, 00:18
To be honest, I'm not entirely sure about the Squat list. It might just have been a variant of the ordinary Squat list.

On your last point, I couldn't disagree more. The Combined Arms Detachment Force Org. Chart only does a good job at representing a Space Marine Battle Company with a couple of attached support assets. Everything else has to be fudged to fit it (for example, Imperial Guard infantry companies crowbarring up to a dozen squads and associated transports into one slot. That Company should be a Detachment all to itself). Each army should have their own specific Detachment - or multiples; a Biel-Tan Aspect Warrior force is going to look very different to a Saim-Hann windrider host - tailored to represent the army properly.

If you did that, you could even have army-specific battlefield roles; not all the Aspect Warriors or Tyranid creatures fit neatly into Troops, Elites, Fast Attack or Heavy Support, for example.

3rd edition did a good job of that, I thought; as well as the "standard" FOC, you had various asymmetrical ones for attacker/defender scenarios, raids, etc, as well as army-specific ones (the Blood Angels had one to themselves, didn't they?). Sadly, the "standard" chart rapidly became the only chart. I don't know whether to blame the writers for wanting to simplify army selection, or the players for not using the options they were given; having a mission-specific FOC makes it harder to play against a stranger "on spec".

That's what I'm talking about, variant FOC's would be, and are, great. Whether it be attacker/ defender ones for scenarios, or race-specific ones in codexes - I think completely changing the battlefield roles would be a bit much, but the ones they've put in recent books like Orks and DE are great. They should just do away with objective secured from the race specific ones so you have to choose whether you want your race bonus, or be better at taking objectives. They could easily stick multiples in to one book to represent different Clans/ Craftworlds etc.