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.

Racerguy180 wrote:
Salamanders arent compliant.

Never have never will. They are organized and prosecute war as directed by Vulkan as all are adherents to the Promethium code, not damn Robute(oops I messed up) Guiliman!

Sounds pretty compliant to me.

 aphyon wrote:

Except you cannot field the exact same army, as 10 man bike squads as troops (or not as troops) are not allowed in any other marine force. it is something only WS do along with a few other FOC changes.

And their chapter command rules that they can only use 5 man Tacticals without a transport OR 10 man bike squads and special equipment and training. Never both at the same time. Thus is the will of the Khan.
It is a forced limitation by the rules author that does not make sense in the fluff. The only thing it does, is, that a White Scars army that wants to make use of White Scars rules (in 3rd) has to look a certain way.

For some reason being the only Chapter which could take a whole squad on bikes was such an essentially White Scars restriction that it was subsequently dropped, and then everyone could do it in the next Codex...

But... but... Horse Tail Talisman..!

Space Marines squads in numbers fewer than ten always makes my eye twitch. Squads of three make me tear up.

Dai wrote:
Space Marines squads in numbers fewer than ten always makes my eye twitch. Squads of three make me tear up.

For bikes it isn't too bad (5 man bike squad, 2 man attack bike/landspeeder, 3 guys left over). For Primaris squads, who knows what's happening though.

 Lord Damocles wrote:
For some reason being the only Chapter which could take a whole squad on bikes was such an essentially White Scars restriction that it was subsequently dropped, and then everyone could do it in the next Codex...

But... but... Horse Tail Talisman..!

Except you are wrong

4th ed SM codex-fast attack-1 sarg and 2-4 bikes=5 bikes and up to 1 attack bike attachment
5th ed SM codex-fast attack-1 sarg and up to 7 more bikes=-8 bikes and up to 1 attached attack bike
VS 3rd ed whites scars- troops-1 sarg and 9 bikes= 10 bikes/attack bike squads were heavy support.

This arguing about 'scars illustrates something I've been saying for a while now: chapter tactics and their equivalents shouldn't actually be tied to specific chapters; they should reflect the chosen tactics of whatever force you happen to be representing on the table that day.

So if I want to play a Salamanders or Ultramarines bike company, I should be able to get some benefits or submechanics that support fielding a force of bikes and transports. I shouldn't be punished for wanting to paint my bike army green or blue instead of white. Similarly, if I happen to be fielding a bunch of guardians with warlock support, they should probably get rules that support that playstyle even if they don't happen to be wearing Ulthwe colors. My understanding is that this is more or less how the new guard book works. If that's the case, I think it's probably a good move.

 Wyldhunt wrote:
This arguing about 'scars illustrates something I've been saying for a while now: chapter tactics and their equivalents shouldn't actually be tied to specific chapters; they should reflect the chosen tactics of whatever force you happen to be representing on the table that day.

So if I want to play a Salamanders or Ultramarines bike company, I should be able to get some benefits or submechanics that support fielding a force of bikes and transports. I shouldn't be punished for wanting to paint my bike army green or blue instead of white. Similarly, if I happen to be fielding a bunch of guardians with warlock support, they should probably get rules that support that playstyle even if they don't happen to be wearing Ulthwe colors. My understanding is that this is more or less how the new guard book works. If that's the case, I think it's probably a good move.

That has existed for a very long time with support from GW- it is called creating your own homebrew/DIY craftworld, chapter guard regiment etc.... and you can use whichever rule set fits your preferred style of play or fits the lore of some part of the universe including the special characters. you just make them a different color, even make up a back story etc... my chapter are salamanders, but i play them with a black/grey paint scheme and focus just as much on flamer and meltas but with an added hard focus on airborne forces.

At one time GW said every chapter could have a master scout like Telion, or a captain like Lysander. just make them your own with those rules.

The entire point of the thematic lists was an attempt to bring the lore to life in the TT game. it also gave players variety and different ways to play with the FOC.

If you just want a war game, then none of that matters, however if you want to re-enact epic 40K battles then the lore based rules become a very important part of the game. and the reason why when the design team was run by gamers, they spent large amounts of time in 3rd and 4th edition trying to translate that lore into game rules.

 Wyldhunt wrote:
This arguing about 'scars illustrates something I've been saying for a while now: chapter tactics and their equivalents shouldn't actually be tied to specific chapters; they should reflect the chosen tactics of whatever force you happen to be representing on the table that day.

So if I want to play a Salamanders or Ultramarines bike company, I should be able to get some benefits or submechanics that support fielding a force of bikes and transports. I shouldn't be punished for wanting to paint my bike army green or blue instead of white. Similarly, if I happen to be fielding a bunch of guardians with warlock support, they should probably get rules that support that playstyle even if they don't happen to be wearing Ulthwe colors. My understanding is that this is more or less how the new guard book works. If that's the case, I think it's probably a good move.

No you should be rewarded by being able to field melta & flamer bikes as troops(but not other loadouts) w TH and hand flamers. I don't want to run my Salamanders like Scars, I want them to have the specific flavour sprinkled on top of the foundational aspects of how Astartes propagate warfare. The Covonent of Fire ROW allows for flamer squads to be taken as troops(both tac support & full Dragons Breath Predators). Similar could be done for 40 for all the first founding(loyal & Traitor) legions.

 aphyon wrote:

 Wyldhunt wrote:
This arguing about 'scars illustrates something I've been saying for a while now: chapter tactics and their equivalents shouldn't actually be tied to specific chapters; they should reflect the chosen tactics of whatever force you happen to be representing on the table that day.

So if I want to play a Salamanders or Ultramarines bike company, I should be able to get some benefits or submechanics that support fielding a force of bikes and transports. I shouldn't be punished for wanting to paint my bike army green or blue instead of white. Similarly, if I happen to be fielding a bunch of guardians with warlock support, they should probably get rules that support that playstyle even if they don't happen to be wearing Ulthwe colors. My understanding is that this is more or less how the new guard book works. If that's the case, I think it's probably a good move.

That has existed for a very long time with support from GW- it is called creating your own homebrew/DIY craftworld, chapter guard regiment etc.... and you can use whichever rule set fits your preferred style of play or fits the lore of some part of the universe including the special characters. you just make them a different color, even make up a back story etc... my chapter are salamanders, but i play them with a black/grey paint scheme and focus just as much on flamer and meltas but with an added hard focus on airborne forces.

At one time GW said every chapter could have a master scout like Telion, or a captain like Lysander. just make them your own with those rules.

The entire point of the thematic lists was an attempt to bring the lore to life in the TT game. it also gave players variety and different ways to play with the FOC.

If you just want a war game, then none of that matters, however if you want to re-enact epic 40K battles then the lore based rules become a very important part of the game. and the reason why when the design team was run by gamers, they spent large amounts of time in 3rd and 4th edition trying to translate that lore into game rules.

Respectfully, I think you might be missing my point somewhat. What I'm saying is that tying certain rules/bonuses to specific chapters makes people feel like they have to lean into those rules or else functionally play at a disadvantage. Technically, you could play the hypothetical Salamanders bike company list using Salamander rules instead of White Scars or Raven Wing rules, but then you're missing out on all the bike-related content those rules provide. And sure, you could paint your Salamanders a different color and use WS rules (or even just paint them as Salamanders and say they're fluffed as Salamanders but using WS rules), but it still sort of feels like you're "cheating" by choosing the rules that happen to support the theme of your army.

So again, I think it just works better to divorce your army's rules from their fluff/paint scheme. If you want to run bike marines, use the bike marine rules regardless of their fluff or paint job. Basically, I'm just advocating for reframing chapter tactics (and their equivalents) not as subfaction bonuses but as representations of the modus operandi of the force you happen to be fielding right this moment. Want to represent the lore of a thematic fight where your chapter deployed all of its terminators at once? Field lots of terminators and take the "First Company" army theme rather than sheepishly taking the Death Wing rules (or whatever) and feeling weird for painting them like Imperial Fists.

So moving the examples away from marines, maybe I want to play an army of Biel-Tan's wraith constructs deployed to a planet whose atmosphere is toxic to the living. So instead of feeling weird for taking the "Iyanden" trait instead of the "Biel-Tan" trait because it supports my army theme better, I just take the "Wraith Host" trait. Faction neutral. Framed around the modus operandi of the force I'm deploying rather than making me feel weird for using a different faction's mechanics or making me feel like I'm nerfing myself by taking a faction mechanic that doesn't fit my army as well.

 Wyldhunt wrote:
This arguing about 'scars illustrates something I've been saying for a while now: chapter tactics and their equivalents shouldn't actually be tied to specific chapters; they should reflect the chosen tactics of whatever force you happen to be representing on the table that day.

So if I want to play a Salamanders or Ultramarines bike company, I should be able to get some benefits or submechanics that support fielding a force of bikes and transports. I shouldn't be punished for wanting to paint my bike army green or blue instead of white. Similarly, if I happen to be fielding a bunch of guardians with warlock support, they should probably get rules that support that playstyle even if they don't happen to be wearing Ulthwe colors. My understanding is that this is more or less how the new guard book works. If that's the case, I think it's probably a good move.

The thing is Salamanders don't even have a bike company and the support one that Ultramarines have is inferior to what WS have. It is just like that. WS specialist in mounted combat and hit and run warfare. They don't do siege craft, trench warfare etc. Are there moments where they had to do it? yes, through out 10k years of history one can find singular examples of them doing that. But exeptions do not make rules.

Homogenisation is stupid, especialy as GW never really does it for everyone, they will always leave some faction or rule set which is special and those faction either end up really bad , because the design team thought something is "cool", while others explode in their win rates or are every other similar faction +1, making playing of those other faction something stupid.

So again, I think it just works better to divorce your army's rules from their fluff/paint scheme.

Then play a different game, because what you call for isn't 40K it is just "generic wargame X"

The paint scheme/fluff is what keeps many people playing the game. the casual players who are not chasing the meta play because they want to play to the lore. they are dedicated to it. no matter which game it is. when we play classic BattleTech there is lots of friendly sniping back and forth between rival houses like Kurita and Davion of trash talking Cappellans, a desire to take the proper units/weapons etc... when it comes to 40K, i have been playing since 3rd ed and i still play old hammer regularly because it is fun. when i break out my dark angels i make a big deal about playing to the lore-hunting the fallen, using plasma etc.... because it is what they would do in universe.

The OPs point is a key issue for salamanders. GW used to give them rules that played to the lore in previous editions, still do in 30K, but they have removed most lore based rules or greatly reduced them to a binary for the sake of 9th ed "balance" for tournament play. If one cares about the lore translating to the table then it is an issue, if one just wants a certain paint scheme or a meta rules combination it will be far less important. It really depends on what kind of player you are and what parts of the hobby you are most interested in.

 aphyon wrote:

So again, I think it just works better to divorce your army's rules from their fluff/paint scheme.

Then play a different game, because what you call for isn't 40K it is just "generic wargame X"

The paint scheme/fluff is what keeps many people playing the game. the casual players who are not chasing the meta play because they want to play to the lore. they are dedicated to it. no matter which game it is. when we play classic BattleTech there is lots of friendly sniping back and forth between rival houses like Kurita and Davion of trash talking Cappellans, a desire to take the proper units/weapons etc... when it comes to 40K, i have been playing since 3rd ed and i still play old hammer regularly because it is fun. when i break out my dark angels i make a big deal about playing to the lore-hunting the fallen, using plasma etc.... because it is what they would do in universe.

The OPs point is a key issue for salamanders. GW used to give them rules that played to the lore in previous editions, still do in 30K, but they have removed most lore based rules or greatly reduced them to a binary for the sake of 9th ed "balance" for tournament play. If one cares about the lore translating to the table then it is an issue, if one just wants a certain paint scheme or a meta rules combination it will be far less important. It really depends on what kind of player you are and what parts of the hobby you are most interested in.

This seems to miss the point of the complaints, to the point of being backwards. If you're so dedicated to the fluff why do you want GW dictating how that should be represented to the degree that they do? The problem is, if we follow your line of thinking, we can only play armies in the way GW has decided should represent their fluff. No Imperial Fists assault company for us, no rapid response UM force (unless we want to accept useless special rules). Just the Flanderised versions GW end up creating.

It wasn't always like this. Previously we could actually engage with the fluff as players rather than waiting to be dictated to by GW. We could use the basic tools they'd given us to create our own armies in line with the fluff GW has written. That's how the very first White Scars army was created - one enthusiastic hobbyist taking units based on their background but without the need for ultra special rules that force you down a given path. Want to play Salamanders? Go heavy on melta and flamer weapons and take more TH than you might otherwise have done. That seems like a better approach than being forced to play exactly the way GW have decided, even if it makes no sense. Word Bearers from the 8th ed CSM Codex spring to mind here. They didn't really represent their fluff with their rules, and they sucked on the table too.

Slipspace wrote:

<snip>

I heavily agree with this stance.
What if I want to build a White Scar siege company inspired by the way the Mongolian war machine starved out Persian cities?

I could think of different examples,
Dark Angels could have different approaches to warfare based on medieval knightly orders or some secrecy involving the hunt for the fallen.
I would prefer not to have to trust GW that they write sensible rules. Best case would be that taking fluffy units and load outs just works, not requiring special rules ...

aphyon wrote:

a_typical_hero wrote:
White Scars make more frequent use of fast units, not exclusively.

Apart from names and amount of specific equipment, they are organised as any other Codex compliant chapter.

Forcing a player to only play "my definition of fast units" or those in transports is a limitation that is not covered by the actual lore.

They are not forcing anything. it is fluff based rules based on the setting

But that isn't true. White Scars, in the example given, were FORCED not to use Dreadnoughts, Vindicators, Devastators, etc. That isn't fluffy. The White Scars have Dreadnoughts. They have Devastators. It was an arbitrary restriction that FORCED a White Scars player into a certain type, implying that White Scars only ever fought like that - which isn't fluffy.

I also echo the idea that if factions are to exist in 40k armies (IF, being the operative word), then they should be more linked to the type of army being fielded, not whatever planet or origin that army has. A Raven Guard siege army will have more in common with an Imperial Fist siege army than a bike force of Imperial Fists will have with a siege force of Imperial Fists.

There was always the option to play vanilla marines and make your own chapter that likes to fight your own way (4th ed marine codex trait system was great for that same for the guard 3rd/4th ed doctrine system)

the Scars excelled at a CC oriented bike army, by comparison the ravenwing could also run a bike army but it behaved different, had different restriction and was more shooting focused.

The options and restrictions in the old codexes/editions allowed for much more flavor that appealed to a players love of their preferred faction.

But what if I have a love of White Scars and also a love for siege forces? Those rules described prevent me from taking that, although it is a perfectly fluffy army. The White Scars may EXCEL at CC bikes, but it's not the only thing they can do, and the aforementioned rules don't reflect that. And sure, you can say "well, just take a generic army if you want it to fight your way" - but that could apply to your CC oriented bike army too. All that advocates for is a series of generic traits, without attaching names to them. At which point, you're describing what I just mentioned - traits that apply to your army type, not Chapter.

aphyon wrote:

a_typical_hero wrote:The rules are arbitrarily forcing a limit on your army composition in order to gain bonuses which seem fit for White Scars.

Field the exact same army but leave the Rhino at home for your Tactical squad and your army is no longer White Scars, going by the crunch.

The limitations are arbitrarily, because nowhere in the fluff does it ever state that White Scars never leave their base without a transport, jump pack or bike. On the opposite, they are a codex compliant chapter and would make full use of any unit and tactic in there, if it means victory.

Going fast is a preference, not an obligation.

Except you cannot field the exact same army, as 10 man bike squads as troops (or not as troops) are not allowed in any other marine force. it is something only WS do along with a few other FOC changes.

much like many other "codex compliant" chapters that differ in combat tactics/favored units.

FAVOURED units, not "only" units. The White Scars might have FAVOURED bikes, but they still had Dreadnoughts, Vindicators, Devastators, etc - the above rules don't reflect that.

If you want a White Scars army that leans into their preference for Bikes, take a bunch of Bikes. Now, that isn't to say that I disagree with the Salamanders' players concerns that flamer weapons are given out to Chapters like the Black Templars and Blood Angels and not the Salamanders, but my solution would be to remove all "faction exclusive" rules, and just let all Chapters pick from the same lists. Let the players choose what units will be fluffy and "lore accurate" for their lists, not what GW dictates.

And that's why the current Chapter Tactic setup, while not perfect, is a lot better than what was done previously.

The current Chapter Tactics rules are as generic as they can be and none of them actively benefit unit types specifically. There will be Chapter specific Strategems or Warlord traits that do in the Supplements but the basic rules for each Chapter in the SM Codex are fine as is (balance notwithstanding because I can't comment on that).
Certain playstyles are ideal when picking a Chapter but I really don't see how that's unfair seeing as real-world armies function the same way.

Yup, my 40k Salamanders play like fething ultramarines.

Racerguy180 wrote:
Yup, my 40k Salamanders play like fething ultramarines.

Gotta be more specific on how

I can only run infantry with flamers/melta(the thing their chapter is renowned for)if there veterans. Which seems like an awfully weird thing to do and an arbitrary restriction.

They sure don't feel like artificers, which funnily enuff, they did in 8th. The more I play 30k, it just really feels like my 40k list could be replaced with any other chapter and not change how it would play.

It gets worse if we include primaris in the 40k list. Make a thematic troop list that includes anything other than gravis(oooh hand flamers and fist flamer on redemptor & nary a melta but on mariokart).

 aphyon wrote:

So again, I think it just works better to divorce your army's rules from their fluff/paint scheme.

Then play a different game, because what you call for isn't 40K it is just "generic wargame X"

The paint scheme/fluff is what keeps many people playing the game. the casual players who are not chasing the meta play because they want to play to the lore. they are dedicated to it. no matter which game it is....
when it comes to 40K, i have been playing since 3rd ed and i still play old hammer regularly because it is fun. when i break out my dark angels i make a big deal about playing to the lore-hunting the fallen, using plasma etc.... because it is what they would do in universe.

Easy there, aphyon. I think you might be so eager to fight with someone on the internet that you're making me out to be some kind of fluff-hating meta chaser. Personally, I'd say that I put a lot of value in being able to tell an army's story on the tabletop. I just happen to think that it might be easier to tell those stories if you can choose which thematic rules you want to apply to your army.

Smudge made the same point I was trying to here:

I also echo the idea that if factions are to exist in 40k armies (IF, being the operative word), then they should be more linked to the type of army being fielded, not whatever planet or origin that army has. A Raven Guard siege army will have more in common with an Imperial Fist siege army than a bike force of Imperial Fists will have with a siege force of Imperial Fists.
...
But what if I have a love of White Scars and also a love for siege forces? Those rules described prevent me from taking that, although it is a perfectly fluffy army. The White Scars may EXCEL at CC bikes, but it's not the only thing they can do, and the aforementioned rules don't reflect that. And sure, you can say "well, just take a generic army if you want it to fight your way" - but that could apply to your CC oriented bike army too. All that advocates for is a series of generic traits, without attaching names to them. At which point, you're describing what I just mentioned - traits that apply to your army type, not Chapter.
...
If you want a White Scars army that leans into their preference for Bikes, take a bunch of Bikes. Now, that isn't to say that I disagree with the Salamanders' players concerns that flamer weapons are given out to Chapters like the Black Templars and Blood Angels and not the Salamanders, but my solution would be to remove all "faction exclusive" rules, and just let all Chapters pick from the same lists. Let the players choose what units will be fluffy and "lore accurate" for their lists, not what GW dictates.

The way I see it, being able to choose the mechanics that fit your army make you *more* able to tell your army's story, not less. White Scars love their bikes, but sometimes they have to dig in and do a siege. Heck, maybe you want to represent a group of 'scars that have become surprisingly good at sieges due to the demands of a particular war zone. When telling the story of my white scars doing a siege, I don't want to take one-size-fits-all white scars rules that don't represent what this particular force is doing; I want siege rules that show my marines doing siege things.

When I'm fielding my non-Iyanden's wriath constructs en masse for story reasons (or just because I felt like mixing up my list that day), I don't want to be stuck with rules that help aspect warriors and shuriken weapons; I want to have access to rules that interact with wraith units. And not because I'm chasing the meta or trying to be more powerful or whatever, but because
A.) Having access to those rules is part of how we tell the story these days and
B.) Regardless of how balanced my army and that of my opponent actually are, it still kind of feels bad to know that I'm giving up a bunch of tools just because I didn't happen to pick the right paint scheme for today's game.

Or a more close-to-home example: My actual main craftworld is Iybraesil. Most of my non-aspect units are painted up in Iybraesil colors. Iybraesil is known for howling banshees, and I'd love to have some rules to reflect that, but Iybraesil isn't just about fielding tons of banshees. They're also about braving the crone worlds in search of relics. So maybe I decide to reflect this with a fast, stealthy force. Think lots of bikes and rangers and not necessarily a ton of banshees. Should I feel obligated to always take a melee-buffing trait because my craftworld is known for a melee unit, or should I be free to take traits related to stealth or speed representing this expeditionary force's desire to sneak in and get out quickly before every daemon on the planet starts coming for them?

And we haven't even touched on how disproportionate GW's support for specific themes for some armies are vs others. Or the fact that GW's official rules for a given subfaction sometimes just don't fit that subfaction. (See: 8th edition where Iyanden and Biel-Tan were apparently known for spamming guardians rather than fielding wraith and aspect units.)

 Wyldhunt wrote:
The way I see it, being able to choose the mechanics that fit your army make you *more* able to tell your army's story, not less. White Scars love their bikes, but sometimes they have to dig in and do a siege. Heck, maybe you want to represent a group of 'scars that have become surprisingly good at sieges due to the demands of a particular war zone. When telling the story of my white scars doing a siege, I don't want to take one-size-fits-all white scars rules that don't represent what this particular force is doing; I want siege rules that show my marines doing siege things.

When I'm fielding my non-Iyanden's wriath constructs en masse for story reasons (or just because I felt like mixing up my list that day), I don't want to be stuck with rules that help aspect warriors and shuriken weapons; I want to have access to rules that interact with wraith units. And not because I'm chasing the meta or trying to be more powerful or whatever, but because
A.) Having access to those rules is part of how we tell the story these days and
B.) Regardless of how balanced my army and that of my opponent actually are, it still kind of feels bad to know that I'm giving up a bunch of tools just because I didn't happen to pick the right paint scheme for today's game.

Or a more close-to-home example: My actual main craftworld is Iybraesil. Most of my non-aspect units are painted up in Iybraesil colors. Iybraesil is known for howling banshees, and I'd love to have some rules to reflect that, but Iybraesil isn't just about fielding tons of banshees. They're also about braving the crone worlds in search of relics. So maybe I decide to reflect this with a fast, stealthy force. Think lots of bikes and rangers and not necessarily a ton of banshees. Should I feel obligated to always take a melee-buffing trait because my craftworld is known for a melee unit, or should I be free to take traits related to stealth or speed representing this expeditionary force's desire to sneak in and get out quickly before every daemon on the planet starts coming for them?

And we haven't even touched on how disproportionate GW's support for specific themes for some armies are vs others. Or the fact that GW's official rules for a given subfaction sometimes just don't fit that subfaction. (See: 8th edition where Iyanden and Biel-Tan were apparently known for spamming guardians rather than fielding wraith and aspect units.)

I disagree when it comes to notable factions.
For a custom Successor Chapter, Craftworld, or Hive Fleet sure. You've decided what the background is for that faction and you should pick traits that match it. But factions that are established in the background as being good at certain things or preferring certain tactics, you shouldn't just get to pick whatever rules you want for them.
Now, largely speaking the subfaction rules for 40k are painfully simple. If we were to follow the White Scars example, their units get to Charge if they Advanced or Fell Back and do not suffer penalties for firing Assault weapons if they Advanced. There's nothing about bikes in there, nothing about not using Dreadnoughts, and nothing forcing you to play a specific army playstyle.
You could easily use these rules to portray a White Scars army conducting a siege because they get benefits for closing with the enemy, for example during the storming of a breach or bunker, and using Assault weapons like Melta Guns and Flamers, weapons that are often found in a siege.

You seem to be hooked on the idea that faction rules seem to force people into specific playstyles and I just want to know, have you actually looked at any 9th Ed faction rules? I've just checked all the Craftworld traits and not a single one benefits any one unit, unit type, weapon, or weapon type. They all bring benefits to anything that has the <Craftworld> Keyword.

Gert i think he is referring more to the old rules from previous editions that had hard restrictions.

the white scars were one example in the index astartes books from 3rd because they were specifically not allowed to take certain units they considered to slow for their fighting style-dreadnoughts, devastator squads, infantry not in transports or without jump packs or bikes etc... he doesn't like the FOC restrictions and special rules that went along with them that GW pre-made.

I feel just the opposite. i like the uniqueness of army styles of play the special lists and rules layed out for chapters of renown as above, and i hate the 9th edition simple trait systems like the one you mentioned.

 aphyon wrote:
Gert i think he is referring more to the old rules from previous editions that had hard restrictions.

the white scars were one example in the index astartes books from 3rd because they were specifically not allowed to take certain units they considered to slow for their fighting style-dreadnoughts, devastator squads, infantry not in transports or without jump packs or bikes etc... he doesn't like the FOC restrictions and special rules that went along with them that GW pre-made.

I feel just the opposite. i like the uniqueness of army styles of play the special lists and rules layed out for chapters of renown as above, and i hate the 9th edition simple trait systems like the one you mentioned.

Restrictions aren't real if they're not a unit you'll take in the first place. Devastators have always been a middling unit, so why does their absence matter?

 aphyon wrote:
Gert i think he is referring more to the old rules from previous editions that had hard restrictions.

the white scars were one example in the index astartes books from 3rd because they were specifically not allowed to take certain units they considered to slow for their fighting style-dreadnoughts, devastator squads, infantry not in transports or without jump packs or bikes etc... he doesn't like the FOC restrictions and special rules that went along with them that GW pre-made.

I feel just the opposite. i like the uniqueness of army styles of play the special lists and rules layed out for chapters of renown as above, and i hate the 9th edition simple trait systems like the one you mentioned.

But those Chapters of renown, as you put it, don't just fight in one way, and eschew a bunch of staple units. White Scars didn't just fight on bikes, or with fully mechanised units. Sure, they may have PREFERRED to fight like that, but they were more than capable of fighting a siege, or a stealth operation. Dreadnoughts, Devastators, un-mounted infantry, etc, were still used by the White Scars, because their fighting style wasn't just "gotta go fast all the time".

If you want the uniqueness of army lists, then take a unique combination of your own units. You don't need GW saying "you MUST only take fast units to play a fast feeling army" when you could just do that yourself.