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.

Fun is otiose. Just a fad like pokemon.

 vipoid wrote:

 Nevelon wrote:
I liked it back in 5th when they encouraged you to file the names off the special characters and use them in whatever home-grown chapter you wanted.

You wanted to use Lysander’s rules for cpt. Agemmon of the Ultramarine 1st company? Go for it. Sgt. Cronos counts-as leading an Iron Hands armored column? Roll out.

Especially for armies that don’t have a huge number of special characters, sub-faction locking them seems rough.

I liked it when you were encouraged to build your own characters. Back when codices had wargear sections.

Thank goodness NMNR arrived to save us from all that customisation and fun.

Feels pretty sterile now, don't it?

Feels about the same, to be honest. Chunks of the armouries and wargear were never used.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Feels about the same, to be honest. Chunks of the armouries and wargear were never used.

I'm on both sides, but lean more to this perspective. I liked pondering on the cute little builds - especially with TS I could go bananas with effectively two relics and two traits. Did they do much? Not really.

I could never escape the crystal. It's just too useful. Yes, sure they could charge points, but that just means either it's worth the points or it is not. Picking something like a staff that gives me a heavy flamer was never going to change the outcome of a game. They were always just a curio.

So while I like these things in that context I am ok with not having them, because my choices are filled with more interesting things and in ways that still fit the feeling of the universe.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 Nevelon wrote:
I liked it back in 5th when they encouraged you to file the names off the special characters and use them in whatever home-grown chapter you wanted.

You wanted to use Lysander’s rules for cpt. Agemmon of the Ultramarine 1st company? Go for it. Sgt. Cronos counts-as leading an Iron Hands armored column? Roll out.

Especially for armies that don’t have a huge number of special characters, sub-faction locking them seems rough.

I liked it when you were encouraged to build your own characters. Back when codices had wargear sections.

Thank goodness NMNR arrived to save us from all that customisation and fun.

Feels pretty sterile now, don't it?

I like how romanticized a scam meant to get you to buy multiple boxes so you'd have bits for everything has become over the years. Oh no, it's not an incomplete kit, it's customizable just spend more money!

ERJAK wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 Nevelon wrote:
I liked it back in 5th when they encouraged you to file the names off the special characters and use them in whatever home-grown chapter you wanted.

You wanted to use Lysander’s rules for cpt. Agemmon of the Ultramarine 1st company? Go for it. Sgt. Cronos counts-as leading an Iron Hands armored column? Roll out.

Especially for armies that don’t have a huge number of special characters, sub-faction locking them seems rough.

I liked it when you were encouraged to build your own characters. Back when codices had wargear sections.

Thank goodness NMNR arrived to save us from all that customisation and fun.

Feels pretty sterile now, don't it?

I like how romanticized a scam meant to get you to buy multiple boxes so you'd have bits for everything has become over the years. Oh no, it's not an incomplete kit, it's customizable just spend more money!

Or you just traded bitz with someone you know or buy from a Bitz shop or 3rd party modeler. But yeah, continue to defend the brand new Combi-Weapons.

ERJAK wrote:
I like how romanticized a scam meant to get you to buy multiple boxes so you'd have bits for everything has become over the years. Oh no, it's not an incomplete kit, it's customizable just spend more money!

You seriously think that, say, Company Commanders having a bunch of wargear options (most of which didn't require WYSIWYG representation) was a scam to get you to buy multiple boxes for... some reason? Or are you trying to set a new personal record for worst take?

ERJAK wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 Nevelon wrote:
I liked it back in 5th when they encouraged you to file the names off the special characters and use them in whatever home-grown chapter you wanted.

You wanted to use Lysander’s rules for cpt. Agemmon of the Ultramarine 1st company? Go for it. Sgt. Cronos counts-as leading an Iron Hands armored column? Roll out.

Especially for armies that don’t have a huge number of special characters, sub-faction locking them seems rough.

I liked it when you were encouraged to build your own characters. Back when codices had wargear sections.

Thank goodness NMNR arrived to save us from all that customisation and fun.

Feels pretty sterile now, don't it?

I like how romanticized a scam meant to get you to buy multiple boxes so you'd have bits for everything has become over the years. Oh no, it's not an incomplete kit, it's customizable just spend more money!

For me it was far more about exploring interesting and characterful build opportunities. But also, if it's meant to be a big galaxy with lots of variety, why don't they actually express that? It adds to the game in terms of options, and it adds to the setting in terms of possibilities.

 Insectum7 wrote:

For me it was far more about exploring interesting and characterful build opportunities. But also, if it's meant to be a big galaxy with lots of variety, why don't they actually express that? It adds to the game in terms of options, and it adds to the setting in terms of possibilities.

I think what bothers me is that, even if you don't want to go back to the old wargear lists, there are still other ways to give some variety.

For example, I really loved both the Pivotal Role abilities for Harlequins, and the Blessings of the Faithful abilities for SoB. It was only 3 options per character for Harlequins or 6 options overall for SoB, but it was a really nice way to differentiate characters. They also generally made a marked difference to how the character played, so you didn't have the same issue as with a lot of old wargear items having very minor/niche effects.

I'd accept wargear tables being replaced with more focussed stuff like that.

My issue is that, instead, wargear tables are just deleted with nothing added to replace them. Except that the usual GW favouritism shows through - some armies get to keep most of their wargear and/or get abilities like the above to compensate for its loss, whilst others haemorrhage wargear but get no alternative customisation to compensate them.

Yeah...Guard and the Skitarii do have it rough.

 vipoid wrote:
My issue is that, instead, wargear tables are just deleted with nothing added to replace them. Except that the usual GW favouritism shows through - some armies get to keep most of their wargear and/or get abilities like the above to compensate for its loss, whilst others haemorrhage wargear but get no alternative customisation to compensate them.

Which armies are experiencing this favoritism? Is this a 'GW favors Craftworlds' perspective?

 Nevelon wrote:
I liked it back in 5th when they encouraged you to file the names off the special characters and use them in whatever home-grown chapter you wanted.

You wanted to use Lysander’s rules for cpt. Agemmon of the Ultramarine 1st company? Go for it. Sgt. Cronos counts-as leading an Iron Hands armored column? Roll out.

Especially for armies that don’t have a huge number of special characters, sub-faction locking them seems rough.

If you're going to do this I think it'd be better to go the AoS route and give them generic names. Make them unspammable and give them unique rules, sure, but Iron Hands should not field Lysander, just like Iron Hands shouldn't have the paintjob and markings of the Imperial Fists (IF) just because the IF Chapter Tactics are awful.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
My issue is that, instead, wargear tables are just deleted with nothing added to replace them. Except that the usual GW favouritism shows through - some armies get to keep most of their wargear and/or get abilities like the above to compensate for its loss, whilst others haemorrhage wargear but get no alternative customisation to compensate them.

Which armies are experiencing this favoritism? Is this a 'GW favors Craftworlds' perspective?

Marines, for one, being a faction that always seems to either retain or gain wargear even as other factions lose theirs. Granted, said wargear now tends to be spread out over about 50 different dataslates (rather than having just a few with numerous options), but the point still stands.

I already mentioned Harlequins and SoB, which each got far more effort and creativity put into their character upgrades than several other factions combined.

In terms of Craftworld Eldar, I'd say that's more debatable. You can definitely point to the Autarch as being an outlier in terms of the wargear combinations it was able to retain. However, beyond that, CWE don't seem to get a whole lot of wargear for their HQs. I'm pretty sure a lot of the stuff they used to be able to take on Farseers is either gone, baked into the standard profile, or else has been moved to relics. You could maybe make an argument about Exarch powers, but honestly I wouldn't point to Eldar as a faction that has clearly been shown substantial favouritism in the wargear department.

Also, I don't think we've seen the Autarch yet, but their characters certainly aren't looking like bastions of customisation in 10th.

 vict0988 wrote:

 Nevelon wrote:
I liked it back in 5th when they encouraged you to file the names off the special characters and use them in whatever home-grown chapter you wanted.

You wanted to use Lysander’s rules for cpt. Agemmon of the Ultramarine 1st company? Go for it. Sgt. Cronos counts-as leading an Iron Hands armored column? Roll out.

Especially for armies that don’t have a huge number of special characters, sub-faction locking them seems rough.

If you're going to do this I think it'd be better to go the AoS route and give them generic names. Make them unspammable and give them unique rules, sure, but Iron Hands should not field Lysander, just like Iron Hands shouldn't have the paintjob and markings of the Imperial Fists (IF) just because the IF Chapter Tactics are awful.

At the time there were no chapter specific rules. If you wanted to shift your army wide rules, you needed a special character. Since they actively encouraged you to kitbash and rename the characters, the names and stories (and official mini) were just examples. So if you wanted a captain in TDA armor with a TH/SS that made your army stubborn, you took Lysander. The name/chapter was just flavor text, and could be moved to be yourdude without fuss.

 vipoid wrote:
Marines, for one, being a faction that always seems to either retain or gain wargear even as other factions lose theirs. Granted, said wargear now tends to be spread out over about 50 different dataslates (rather than having just a few with numerous options), but the point still stands.

I already mentioned Harlequins and SoB, which each got far more effort and creativity put into their character upgrades than several other factions combined.

In terms of Craftworld Eldar, I'd say that's more debatable. You can definitely point to the Autarch as being an outlier in terms of the wargear combinations it was able to retain. However, beyond that, CWE don't seem to get a whole lot of wargear for their HQs. I'm pretty sure a lot of the stuff they used to be able to take on Farseers is either gone, baked into the standard profile, or else has been moved to relics. You could maybe make an argument about Exarch powers, but honestly I wouldn't point to Eldar as a faction that has clearly been shown substantial favouritism in the wargear department.

Also, I don't think we've seen the Autarch yet, but their characters certainly aren't looking like bastions of customisation in 10th.

Marines took a pretty big hit with combis, didn't they? You can apparently build a captain that has absolutely no melee attacks whatsoever.

I can't determine any preference from my perspective. It seems like everyone is getting hit in a similar fashion, which is why combis feel like such a weird outlier.

 Nevelon wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

 Nevelon wrote:
I liked it back in 5th when they encouraged you to file the names off the special characters and use them in whatever home-grown chapter you wanted.

You wanted to use Lysander’s rules for cpt. Agemmon of the Ultramarine 1st company? Go for it. Sgt. Cronos counts-as leading an Iron Hands armored column? Roll out.

Especially for armies that don’t have a huge number of special characters, sub-faction locking them seems rough.

If you're going to do this I think it'd be better to go the AoS route and give them generic names. Make them unspammable and give them unique rules, sure, but Iron Hands should not field Lysander, just like Iron Hands shouldn't have the paintjob and markings of the Imperial Fists (IF) just because the IF Chapter Tactics are awful.

At the time there were no chapter specific rules. If you wanted to shift your army wide rules, you needed a special character. Since they actively encouraged you to kitbash and rename the characters, the names and stories (and official mini) were just examples. So if you wanted a captain in TDA armor with a TH/SS that made your army stubborn, you took Lysander. The name/chapter was just flavor text, and could be moved to be yourdude without fuss.

That you had to explain this makes me wonder how many players actually played the 5th Edition Marine codex and didn't actively avoid it because of 4chan hyperbole of "muh Ward"

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Nevelon wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

 Nevelon wrote:
I liked it back in 5th when they encouraged you to file the names off the special characters and use them in whatever home-grown chapter you wanted.

You wanted to use Lysander’s rules for cpt. Agemmon of the Ultramarine 1st company? Go for it. Sgt. Cronos counts-as leading an Iron Hands armored column? Roll out.

Especially for armies that don’t have a huge number of special characters, sub-faction locking them seems rough.

If you're going to do this I think it'd be better to go the AoS route and give them generic names. Make them unspammable and give them unique rules, sure, but Iron Hands should not field Lysander, just like Iron Hands shouldn't have the paintjob and markings of the Imperial Fists (IF) just because the IF Chapter Tactics are awful.

At the time there were no chapter specific rules. If you wanted to shift your army wide rules, you needed a special character. Since they actively encouraged you to kitbash and rename the characters, the names and stories (and official mini) were just examples. So if you wanted a captain in TDA armor with a TH/SS that made your army stubborn, you took Lysander. The name/chapter was just flavor text, and could be moved to be yourdude without fuss.

That you had to explain this makes me wonder how many players actually played the 5th Edition Marine codex and didn't actively avoid it because of 4chan hyperbole of "muh Ward"

To be fair, it’s a while back at this point. Lots of new blood in the hobby since then, who are going to filter comments with assumptions based on modern rules.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Is this a 'GW favors Craftworlds' perspective?

Wait 'til we see the Autarch sheet, or sheets. I fully expect them to reverse the current Autarch entry and give us two different types: Autarch, and Autarch with Swooping Hawk Wings. The former will have a Wargear option for a Warp Jump Pack, giving it Flicker Jump, and wargear options that match the newer kit. The Wings Autarch will just have the weapons that specific kit comes with.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Is this a 'GW favors Craftworlds' perspective?

Wait 'til we see the Autarch sheet, or sheets. I fully expect them to reverse the current Autarch entry and give us two different types: Autarch, and Autarch with Swooping Hawk Wings. The former will have a Wargear option for a Warp Jump Pack, giving it Flicker Jump, and wargear options that match the newer kit. The Wings Autarch will just have the weapons that specific kit comes with.

Interesting point about the movement options/datasheets raises some questions

What squads do we think the Autarch will be able to join? Will they be restricted? Will each have it’s own datasheet because of it?

Basic guy on foot: joins guardian squads, maybe support platforms, anything else?
Will the one with the jump pack only be able to join spiders? Wings with hawks? Or leave those jobs for the Phoenix lords and just be a lone operative?
Related, with the bike autarch (assuming we get to keep him with his ancient model) be able to join shining spears? Or windriders? shroudrunners? Or just fly solo.

I think the Bike Autarch will stick around, but as a Legends sheet.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I think the Bike Autarch will stick around, but as a Legends sheet.

That would not surprise me in the slightest.

Of course, it’s casually easy to kitbash one from the shining spears kit, even full WYSWYG. Plenty of options, and you just needs to paint him in something in a non-aspect scheme and there would be no confusion about what he was.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
Marines, for one, being a faction that always seems to either retain or gain wargear even as other factions lose theirs. Granted, said wargear now tends to be spread out over about 50 different dataslates (rather than having just a few with numerous options), but the point still stands.

I already mentioned Harlequins and SoB, which each got far more effort and creativity put into their character upgrades than several other factions combined.

In terms of Craftworld Eldar, I'd say that's more debatable. You can definitely point to the Autarch as being an outlier in terms of the wargear combinations it was able to retain. However, beyond that, CWE don't seem to get a whole lot of wargear for their HQs. I'm pretty sure a lot of the stuff they used to be able to take on Farseers is either gone, baked into the standard profile, or else has been moved to relics. You could maybe make an argument about Exarch powers, but honestly I wouldn't point to Eldar as a faction that has clearly been shown substantial favouritism in the wargear department.

Also, I don't think we've seen the Autarch yet, but their characters certainly aren't looking like bastions of customisation in 10th.

Marines took a pretty big hit with combis, didn't they? You can apparently build a captain that has absolutely no melee attacks whatsoever.

I can't determine any preference from my perspective. It seems like everyone is getting hit in a similar fashion, which is why combis feel like such a weird outlier.

Well we can count up the HQ datasheets once the indexes are out, Marines vs. Eldar, and I wouldn't be surprised if Marines had 4x the datasheets, many of which will be differences in wargear.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Marines took a pretty big hit with combis, didn't they?

Not really, no.

To be clear, I don't think it's a good change, but it's a drop in the ocean compared to what other factions have lost over the years.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
You can apparently build a captain that has absolutely no melee attacks whatsoever.

That's quite odd but I don't believe they're the only HQ choice to be in that situation (some I'm aware of, at least in 9th, have no melee attack as standard).

 Daedalus81 wrote:

I can't determine any preference from my perspective. It seems like everyone is getting hit in a similar fashion, which is why combis feel like such a weird outlier.

I'm going to be honest - when you say stuff like this I have to wonder whether you're arguing in good faith.

This is a list of the armour/mobility options available to Marine Captains in 9th:
- Bike
- Jump Pack
- Terminator Armour
- Storm Shield
(This is without even counting Primaris/Phobos stuff.)

This is a list of the armour/mobility options available to Archons in 9th:
-

They have lost the following:
- Skyboards
- Jetbikes
- Ghostplate Armour
- Clone Fields

Not a great start. Marine Captains have retained their entire range of defensive and mobility items, whilst Archons have retained precisely none.


How about weapons?

Marine Captains have access to:
- Chainsword
- Power Sword
- Power Axe
- Power Maul
- Power Fist
- Chainfist
- Thunder Hammer
- Relic Blade
- Xenophase Blade
- Bolt Pistol
- Master Crafted Boltgun
- Storm Bolter
- Combi Bolter
- Wrist-Mounted Grenade Launcher
- Frag Grenades
- Krak Grenades

The ones highlighted in bold are the ones Marines have gained over what they had before.

Meanwhile, Archons get a choice of:
- Power Sword
- Venom Blade
- Agoniser
- Huskblade
- Splinter Pistol
- Blast Pistol

They've lost:
- Electrocorrosive Whip
- Punisher/Klaive
- Blaster
- Haywire Grenades

So Archons, who had less to begin with, have lost their only worthwhile ranged weapon and their only grenades, along with two of their melee weapons. Marines, meanwhile, have gained even more weapons for their Captain.

Can you maybe understand why I think there's a wee bit of favouritism at play?

Marines didn't take a big hit with the Jervisification of combi-weapons because Marines weren't the only army using combi-weapons. Combi-weapons exist across multiple armies, and all of them have taken an utterly unnecessary hit.

 Nevelon wrote:
Of course, it’s casually easy to kitbash one from the shining spears kit, even full WYSWYG. Plenty of options, and you just needs to paint him in something in a non-aspect scheme and there would be no confusion about what he was.

That's exactly what I plan to do with one my Shining Spears. I have 3 boxes, and 8 of them will be Shining Spears (2 Exarchs), and the 9th will become a bike Autarch. I managed to pick up a couple extra of the new plastic Autarchs very cheap when they came out, so I have tons of bits to use to make him look unique.

 vipoid wrote:
This is a list of the armour/mobility options available to Marine Captains in 9th:
- Bike
- Jump Pack
- Terminator Armour
- Storm Shield

If I'm being honest, outside of Legends, I don't think Bike or even Jump Pack Captains will survive into 10th.

Ok, I see what you're driving at though most of that is pre-10th, right? I guess my purview is more focused on what's happening now. Certainly marines get more stuff in general, but not because - as I interpret the statement - that the studio favors the m, but because they're the bread and butter.

This system sort of forces GW to start filling in HQ roles, which seems to be the case with the every codex getting at least one model thing ( for the first year anyway ).

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:
Why shouldn't poison that kills marines do the same when that same body is on a bike? The marine hasn't changed in any way.

The odds that the shot impacts the bike. Surely the additional toughness of the model isn't because the rider drank their ovaltine.

Bikes and other mounts really shouldn't give extra toughness in the first place. They should give movement, possibly carry their own guns, and models should have the ability to dismount like other transports.

 vipoid wrote:

How about weapons?

Marine Captains have access to:
- Chainsword
- Power Sword
- Power Axe
- Power Maul
- Power Fist
- Chainfist
- Thunder Hammer
- Relic Blade
- Xenophase Blade
- Bolt Pistol
- Master Crafted Boltgun
- Storm Bolter
- Combi Bolter
- Wrist-Mounted Grenade Launcher
- Frag Grenades
- Krak Grenades

I do want to say this is disingenuous to a degree, as the armor variant you are affects what you're allowed to equip.
Also you forgot Boltstorm Gauntlet LOL

Ah yes-Marines only have certain different generic captains that have lots of options. Just like the Kabal HQs, like the Archon. Or the Archon.

 vipoid wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
You can apparently build a captain that has absolutely no melee attacks whatsoever.

That's quite odd but I don't believe they're the only HQ choice to be in that situation (some I'm aware of, at least in 9th, have no melee attack as standard).

I thought 9th still had the generic close combat weapon rule i.e. even if a model doesn't have something listed on their profile, they can still make close combat attacks with the generic close combat weapon (S=model, AP0, D1) representing a combat knife, or a rifle butt, etc - and it worked because A was on the model not the weapon. Now that A is on the weapon, if they don't have a Generic Close Combat Weapon on their profile, you can't make attacks.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jidmah wrote:

 Hellebore wrote:
It seems weird to me that eldrad has no key word limitation like space marine characters do, so he can be taken by any colour of Eldar.

Surely they should follow the same restrictions?

The restrictions were added to non-marine armies with 8th, they are merely going back to they way it was before.

Chapter/Legions have always been a marine thing, so having unique, powerful units and characters for different subfactions is simply part of their faction identity, where it is not for eldar or orks.

Lastly, Eldrad is (was?) kind of a supreme commander type character for the eldar anyways, and he was recently banished from Uthwe anyways.

I'd also theorize that the square peg of Chapter Tactics didn't work very well when pounded into the Square Hole that is Ork Clans. And potentially they want to get away from the double "K" of "Klan Kulture" before reintroducing something more uniquely Orky/Aeldarish/etc.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Spoiler:

 vipoid wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Marines took a pretty big hit with combis, didn't they?

Not really, no.

To be clear, I don't think it's a good change, but it's a drop in the ocean compared to what other factions have lost over the years.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
You can apparently build a captain that has absolutely no melee attacks whatsoever.

That's quite odd but I don't believe they're the only HQ choice to be in that situation (some I'm aware of, at least in 9th, have no melee attack as standard).

 Daedalus81 wrote:

I can't determine any preference from my perspective. It seems like everyone is getting hit in a similar fashion, which is why combis feel like such a weird outlier.

I'm going to be honest - when you say stuff like this I have to wonder whether you're arguing in good faith.

This is a list of the armour/mobility options available to Marine Captains in 9th:
- Bike
- Jump Pack
- Terminator Armour
- Storm Shield
(This is without even counting Primaris/Phobos stuff.)

This is a list of the armour/mobility options available to Archons in 9th:
-

They have lost the following:
- Skyboards
- Jetbikes
- Ghostplate Armour
- Clone Fields

Not a great start. Marine Captains have retained their entire range of defensive and mobility items, whilst Archons have retained precisely none.


How about weapons?

Marine Captains have access to:
- Chainsword
- Power Sword
- Power Axe
- Power Maul
- Power Fist
- Chainfist
- Thunder Hammer
- Relic Blade
- Xenophase Blade
- Bolt Pistol
- Master Crafted Boltgun
- Storm Bolter
- Combi Bolter
- Wrist-Mounted Grenade Launcher
- Frag Grenades
- Krak Grenades

The ones highlighted in bold are the ones Marines have gained over what they had before.

Meanwhile, Archons get a choice of:
- Power Sword
- Venom Blade
- Agoniser
- Huskblade
- Splinter Pistol
- Blast Pistol

They've lost:
- Electrocorrosive Whip
- Punisher/Klaive
- Blaster
- Haywire Grenades

So Archons, who had less to begin with, have lost their only worthwhile ranged weapon and their only grenades, along with two of their melee weapons. Marines, meanwhile, have gained even more weapons for their Captain.

Can you maybe understand why I think there's a wee bit of favouritism at play?

Ok, I see what you're driving at though most of that is pre-10th, right? I guess my purview is more focused on what's happening now. Certainly marines get more stuff in general, but not because - as I interpret the statement - that the studio favors them, but because they're the bread and butter.

This system sort of forces GW to start filling in HQ roles, which seems to be the case with the every codex getting at least one model thing ( for the first year anyway ).

Which GW admitted themselves has too many datasheets? So many infact that they decided to legends some of them AND of course CSM (plus flanderised legions) and Ad-Mech. Afterall the formers did have a far too encompassing shooting Daemonengine availability. It isn't like that was basically their whole shooting for some of the legions right?

FFS: Other factions have better representation in HH of all places where you'd expect a bloody marine fest to take place.