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.

That would clear up quite a few things, for some reason they went back to the 3.0E where the distinction was exactly as it is now.

I think marines have chapter tactics and we don't have anything like it is because marines constitute more than half the purchased armies. It allows the generic army enough flavors that despite numerical dominance it doesn't create as bland a gaming landscape. Subdivide 60% of armies by the chapter tactics and stand alone books and you've got percentages that are still larger than any particular non-SM codex army.

From a market perspective they only think of CSM as some of a fraction of SM. They've also seen these sorts of rules as narrowing purchasing potential. SM in GWs eyes can support it bacause of their larger player base. Is there a truly representative scheme that doesn't result in a particular chaos army just being spam a particular unit as the main troop and flavorfully exclude something?-I don't know. To me count as is plenty enough as long as there are enough possibilities. Allowing us the big 4 Elites as troops is probably the most GWs willing to do.

I think we should have rules to distinguish different subfactions I just don't see GW giving us that.

 aka_mythos wrote:
I think marines have chapter tactics and we don't have anything like it is because marines constitute more than half the purchased armies. It allows the generic army enough flavors that despite numerical dominance it doesn't create as bland a gaming landscape. Subdivide 60% of armies by the chapter tactics and stand alone books and you've got percentages that are still larger than any particular non-SM codex army.

From a market perspective they only think of CSM as some of a fraction of SM. They've also seen these sorts of rules as narrowing purchasing potential. SM in GWs eyes can support it bacause of their larger player base. Is there a truly representative scheme that doesn't result in a particular chaos army just being spam a particular unit as the main troop and flavorfully exclude something?-I don't know. To me count as is plenty enough as long as there are enough possibilities. Allowing us the big 4 Elites as troops is probably the most GWs willing to do.

I think we should have rules to distinguish different subfactions I just don't see GW giving us that.

Problem is considering GW has been focusing so hard on SM, they may have ended up with the higher playerbase due to it as a result, they get most of the new sets, most of the new models, and generally they have been since 2nd/3rd.

That's definitely true, but it doesn't change the reality that absent a larger player base they won't be willing to effectively subdivide the CSM.

Actually CSM used to be a pretty big playerbase back in 3.5 but the 4th and 6th edition codices really haven't helped the playerbase do anything but dwindle.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

The regular CSM codex has more than enough stuff in it to make any legion you want to make. But I'm sorry that you can't take a World Eaters Terminator Captain that would be like Kharn on primarch level combat drugs simply because you think thats the way the captain of the World eaters would be so its fluffy, or that every single model in your Emperors Children have blastmasters

But you CAN make any legion you want to. Just not necessarily the exact way you personally think they should be. But hey, Eldar can't either..nor can anyone else.

Just painting an army the colors doesn't make it that army, SM gets all their flavors and can eat it too.

As a BT player, not even close. Chapter Tactics isn't a panacea. The grass isn't always greener on the other side.

EDIT: That came across harsher than I meant it to, what I'm saying is that having Chapter Tactics isn't the same as being able to build a fluffy army that isn't rubbish on the tabletop, that actually requires the Chapter Tactics in question to be good.

As an example, if Legion Tactics: World Eaters gave you Crusader and Adamantine Will (funny how BT and WE are so alike ), would that be enough to capture the "feel" of a World Eater army? Probably not, because there'd still be the issue of melee being poop in comparison to shooting unless you're a Jetseer council or Screamerstar or somesuch.

Don't get me wrong, you got dealt a pretty bad hand with your Chapter Tactics and SM tactics could use with some rebalances. That said, this was a problem with 3.5 as well. Thousand Sons were extremely gimped at the time as well. Whilst they admittedly weren't good, I confess to having liked them simply because they felt like KSons albeit gimped. I really wish that supplements were something better and not as expensive though. I felt that if anybody deserved a supplement, it was BT.

 StarTrotter wrote:
Actually CSM used to be a pretty big playerbase back in 3.5 but the 4th and 6th edition codices really haven't helped the playerbase do anything...

I remember, but no matter how big it was it's never been close to SM level. At one point GW said "over half of everything sold were space marines" meaning loyalists... That means there are more SM buyers than all of the WH Fantasy players. Maybe it's hyperbole or maybe it's strangely skewed statistics given by their head designer... but even if it's only half correct that's still more than tripple the number of chaos players. Right or wrong GW is going by its numbers and that drives their product making decisions.

 aka_mythos wrote:

 StarTrotter wrote:
Actually CSM used to be a pretty big playerbase back in 3.5 but the 4th and 6th edition codices really haven't helped the playerbase do anything...

I remember, but no matter how big it was it's never been close to SM level. At one point GW said "over half of everything sold were space marines" meaning loyalists... That means there are more SM buyers than all of the WH Fantasy players. Maybe it's hyperbole or maybe it's strangely skewed statistics given by their head designer... but even if it's only half correct that's still more than tripple the number of chaos players. Right or wrong GW is going by its numbers and that drives their product making decisions.

Which of course leads to a logic loophole. Their games advertise Space Marines above all, every single one of their starter boxes has SM, it's a beginner friendly army, "super heroes", they recommend it, the most sales, free models, give you a SM to paint to start with, are usually the front cover, and have a codex with multiple special rules and 3 codices for minor variations on armies and then the rather dramatic GK SM. They sell well so advertised more and other things sell less. The fact CSM numbers have dwindled so radically is of particular note.

I don't see the logic loophole. They've just created a self fulfilling profit prophecy, a relative sure thing. Business tends to favor that consistency over a risk that at best will only yield small gains. They play things remarkably safe. Even if they wanted to take a bigger risk taking a bigger risk with SM has smaller odds of failing.

GWs designers have said they're incredibly happy about the digital publishing a because it's lowered the threshold for success that a book has to meet. They do want to do more, they just number crunchers stopping them.

 aka_mythos wrote:
I don't see the logic loophole. They've just created a self fulfilling profit prophecy, a relative sure thing. Business tends to favor that consistency over a risk that at best will only yield small gains. They play things remarkably safe. Even if they wanted to take a bigger risk taking a bigger risk with SM has smaller odds of failing.

GWs designers have said they're incredibly happy about the digital publishing a because it's lowered the threshold for success that a book has to meet. They do want to do more, they just number crunchers stopping them.

Nothing is stopping them beyond greed, the sad thing is SM is the only safe bet for a codex update, for a model update, it's one of the reasons I can't really get people into the hobby because they see things are skewed so horribly

Ah well, they have created that prophecy alright.

I think they're shortsighted but they're backed up by solid proof. SM sell very well and most everything turns relatively thin profits. While we believe they'd be more successful doing what we say they have numbers on their side and they have a due diligence to pursue that profitability for their investors. GW is pursuing profit growth and not market growth and as long as that's the case there is little reason to give us what chaos players want.

 aka_mythos wrote:
I like all the big 4 cult stuff, but I'm probably in the minority for thinking the codex should be focused on undivided as it is, and that the pure big 4 cults should each be relegated to supplements. I've played pure Khorne, pure Nurgle, and pure Slaanesh... now I play undivided because it's allowed me to create my own backstory in a way mono-god tend to constrain. Once you start demanding mono-god armies get more attention there is a lot of redundancy that is insisted on. When that is compartmentalized into a supplement it allieviates the redundancy and allows room for diversity. I'd like to see more attention given to the generally undivided cults, like raptors and Obliterators. You think an EC dread would be cool how about an Obliterator dread?

You're wrong about being in the minority. The reason I made this thread is because undivided players are in the vast majority. On top of that, your point about being constrained to play a cult army is exactly my point. There need to be actual options for people who want to go down that route. If you count Forgeworld then you actually do have options when it comes to World Eaters, and just enough options if you want to play Death Guard. But they have nothing for Thousand Sons or Emperor's Children that they haven't given to every legion (including black for some reason) already.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 StarTrotter wrote:
Simply put, the only way to play Thousand Sons is if you grab Ahriman and some Thousand Sons. That's the only way to play a true Thousand Son force. And oh the options. Thousand Sons have almost no weapon diversity at all. Simply put, there is no way to build them any other way and really, the most agonizing flaw is that neither of these options is any good with KSons being one of the worst units in the game and the Tzeentch discipline that all of your members roll on being an insult to tzeentch and Ksons at once.

Read Ahriman: Exile. You'll notice the thousand sons use mutant serfs. Significantly different from cultists in their appearance and apparently more organized and potentially better equipped. Also, even though they haven't been mentioned, it seems obvious that there would be those thousand sons who were wearing terminator armor when the rubric was cast. There have to be Rubric Terminators somewhere. So there. 3 different infantry types. I'll grant you that the Rubric Marines themselves have no weapon diversity. I'm fine with that. The Terminators might, though!

What I meant by that is... that's really all that the book gives Thousand Sons. Yes, there are Terminators. Yes, there are sorcerers that aren't Ahriman, yes there are likely Havocs and more that got sealed in the armour and then there's mutant serfs. That said, They aren't in the codex and the only way to really play a pure KSon force is with 2 models. And the nail in the coffin is no real options. You can't even kit out your force in any real significant way.

Well yeah, that's what I'm saying.

But havocs? I'm not sure. I feel like since the rubricae are just used as bodyguards now they don't use those kinds of weapons anymore. Of course it's just as likely Games Workshop will change that what with their "anything can be anything!" approach, but that's just how it is and I'd say that the Thousand Sons are naturally a low-infantry army anyways. Even if they had mutant serfs and rubric terminators, those would be rare to see fielded on the battlefield anyways and it's more in-character from a fluff standpoint for them to just come into battle with a few squads of Rubricae and no other infantry (of their own anyway)

Honestly, they're pretty naturally predisposed to having little to no options in that regard. But I don't consider that to be such a bad thing because it's just one more thing that makes them unique. (Even though units unique to them would make them just as unique hopefully you see my point)

My beef: any expansion or additional fluff models either look nurgly, DG or khorny.
I run EC and have to mod the heck out of stuff to keep it EC...

However, expect to see a EC Imperial Knight with claws

karandras15 wrote:
However, expect to see a EC Imperial Knight with claws

Yes, please.

Models are some of the greatest weakness of CSM... We've talked about poor sculpts and such but this is a different problem. A key aspect of Chaos has been the taking of marks and devotion to one of the big 4 chaos gods... Beside the big 4 cult units there is absolute no model supported way of representing it. A critical defining trait as significant as a weapon choice isn't easily represented. Add it to the list of problematic codex features.

I enjoy converting and it's a great impetus for it, but not everyone does. While it leaves things to the imagination the cooperative element of the game has always stressed physical representation of the rules.

GW is a victim of its success with CSM because they have established a number of characterful aesthetics with our army which unfortunately makes it difficult for the player to stress one for the sake of visual consistency.

That doesn't get them off the hook though. They should be trying to make CSM a better force. All they can do though is give us unimaginative Cultists and Dinobots.

I've read over this entire thread and at this point I see what everyone wants. I've played CSM in the past as well SM currently. The problem that I see with both of these codices is that Codex CSM is really Codex Black Legion (Black Legion is just Chaos Undivided like how you have to play CSM to be competitive (Furthermore on that, Supplement Black Legion just makes it so you don't always have to have Abbadon for Chosen troops.)) While Codex SM is really just Codex Ultramarines (Thankfully the chapter tactics made it so that you could play and feel somewhat like you're playing a specific chapter. (Supplement Iron Hands actually makes it feel like I'm playing an Iron hands army rather than Ultramarines in black.)).

These things being said, Codex SM really is pretty much just Codex Ultramarines. Roughly half of the named HQs are all Ultramarines, furthermore, any character upgrade (Sergeant Tellion and Tank ace what's his face (glorified techmarine that gets screwed if his tank dies.)) are also Ultramarines.

I agree with an earlier post that Codex CSM should be split up into several different codices for more playability and fluff purposes. But in that regard, IG are in the same boat, they should have a codex for each regiment. However when that happens the game is then overpopulated with different flavors of the same armies.

Perhaps if Forgeworld was more accessible and less expensive then perhaps that would solve many of our problems. Especially if many of their rules were updated for use in 40k.

 Harukae wrote:
I've read over this entire thread and at this point I see what everyone wants. I've played CSM in the past as well SM currently. The problem that I see with both of these codices is that Codex CSM is really Codex Black Legion (Black Legion is just Chaos Undivided like how you have to play CSM to be competitive (Furthermore on that, Supplement Black Legion just makes it so you don't always have to have Abbadon for Chosen troops.)) While Codex SM is really just Codex Ultramarines (Thankfully the chapter tactics made it so that you could play and feel somewhat like you're playing a specific chapter. (Supplement Iron Hands actually makes it feel like I'm playing an Iron hands army rather than Ultramarines in black.)).

These things being said, Codex SM really is pretty much just Codex Ultramarines. Roughly half of the named HQs are all Ultramarines, furthermore, any character upgrade (Sergeant Tellion and Tank ace what's his face (glorified techmarine that gets screwed if his tank dies.)) are also Ultramarines.

I agree with an earlier post that Codex CSM should be split up into several different codices for more playability and fluff purposes. But in that regard, IG are in the same boat, they should have a codex for each regiment. However when that happens the game is then overpopulated with different flavors of the same armies.

Perhaps if Forgeworld was more accessible and less expensive then perhaps that would solve many of our problems. Especially if many of their rules were updated for use in 40k.

for us aussies FW is the same price as GW, in some cases cheaper... sounds crazy but thats how it is.
also as to its lack of accessibility thats no excuse any more, you have the internet you buy it like most other things.

and i think i said it earlier in the thread, each of the sub-factions within armies need their own books. or just do them like the HH series, they work really well, sure the SM book or the CSM one would be a tome rather than 90 pages, but guess what. you could then put all the SM in one book CSM + Daemons in another etc etc and you are limiting the number of actual books, whilst increasing the varieties within them.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
That doesn't get them off the hook though. They should be trying to make CSM a better force. All they can do though is give us unimaginative Cultists and Dinobots.

I agree. Those were just the least we should have got to supplement what we had. Much of what FW has done, though limited, is far more interesting. I think most chaos players could have come up with something more original than we got.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
That doesn't get them off the hook though. They should be trying to make CSM a better force. All they can do though is give us unimaginative Cultists and Dinobots.

Don't forget only in single pose snapfit models either in the box or starter kits with only 2 special/heavy weapon selections total, an option between CCW and guns (which you don't get to pick when building), and the shotgun and sorts which, although not really good, can only be gained if you buy the starter force

It actually saddens me. If not for that, I could have kit bashed with them rather well for some chaotic guard that fit the aesthetics already

 Harukae wrote:
I've read over this entire thread and at this point I see what everyone wants. I've played CSM in the past as well SM currently. The problem that I see with both of these codices is that Codex CSM is really Codex Black Legion (Black Legion is just Chaos Undivided like how you have to play CSM to be competitive (Furthermore on that, Supplement Black Legion just makes it so you don't always have to have Abbadon for Chosen troops.)) While Codex SM is really just Codex Ultramarines (Thankfully the chapter tactics made it so that you could play and feel somewhat like you're playing a specific chapter. (Supplement Iron Hands actually makes it feel like I'm playing an Iron hands army rather than Ultramarines in black.)).

These things being said, Codex SM really is pretty much just Codex Ultramarines. Roughly half of the named HQs are all Ultramarines, furthermore, any character upgrade (Sergeant Tellion and Tank ace what's his face (glorified techmarine that gets screwed if his tank dies.)) are also Ultramarines.

I agree with an earlier post that Codex CSM should be split up into several different codices for more playability and fluff purposes. But in that regard, IG are in the same boat, they should have a codex for each regiment. However when that happens the game is then overpopulated with different flavors of the same armies.

Perhaps if Forgeworld was more accessible and less expensive then perhaps that would solve many of our problems. Especially if many of their rules were updated for use in 40k.

I'd be happy if each of the four Gods had an equivalent to Chapter Tactics that were based on the god you've chosen. If you have marks from more than one god, you have to choose the Undivided tactics, otherwise you choose the one your god gives you. Undivided should be markedly weaker, and let's be fair, the Nurgle one shouldn't be too fantastic either.

But hey, I thought I heard rumours this was coming? That we were gonna get mono-god supplements?

If each of the four gods had that, wouldn't that force your army to be mono-god?-How else could an army wide rule like that be applied?

Mono-god is something GW would rather not see, since if they did it fluffy it would prohibit certain units being taken and their mind set is to prohibit nothing since it effects sales.

I think we're far more likely to see something more generic like Renegade tactics before we see any sort of mono-god tactics.

 aka_mythos wrote:
If each of the four gods had that, wouldn't that force your army to be mono-god?-How else could an army wide rule like that be applied?

Mono-god is something GW would rather not see, since if they did it fluffy it would prohibit certain units being taken and their mind set is to prohibit nothing since it effects sales.

I think we're far more likely to see something more generic like Renegade tactics before we see any sort of mono-god tactics.

Yes, it would. There are a lot of us that already do mono-god, because we like the aesthetic and the purity. Would be nice if we got a little boost for gimping ourselves.
I've recently started a mono-Tzeentch army, with everything in 1k sons theme, because I always loved it and decided it was time.
My friend has a mono-Nurgle army, but that's actually really viable.

I don't quite understand your post. My whole post was "I'd like to be rewarded for going mono-God since it's clearly uncompetitive." and you're like "but wouldn't that make you have to be mono-God to get the bonus?"
Yes it would.

I also mentioned that there should be a "tactic" for Chaos Undivided, which is the one you'd get since you cannot fathom why anyone would do mono-God.

Mono-God in CSM hardly restricts any models from being used (ie sales) at all. The only things you can't take are the elite God-specific units like 1k Sons. Everything else is the same model with a different mark.

 StarTrotter wrote:
Don't forget only in single pose snapfit models either in the box or starter kits with only 2 special/heavy weapon selections total, an option between CCW and guns (which you don't get to pick when building), and the shotgun and sorts which, although not really good, can only be gained if you buy the starter force

It actually saddens me. If not for that, I could have kit bashed with them rather well for some chaotic guard that fit the aesthetics already

Which means one of two things:

1. The Cultists are a "one-and-done" kit. They're in the starter kit, their rules match the 4 model options exactly (as you said, flamer or stubber, HTH weapons or Shotgun), and once that starter kit goes to the great Dreadfleet landfill in the sky so to will the Cultist option vanish from the next Codex.
2. The Cultists will get a revamp in the next Chaos Codex, with a full 10-man 5-man (for the cost of 10) box, and a new Codex entry in the new Codex giving them more options.

I foresee the path of lease resistance, but it'd be nice to be wrong.

 aka_mythos wrote:
Mono-god is something GW would rather not see...

Since when, exactly?

Since when, exactly?

Since they aren't even sure if Undivided exists anymore.

GW has allowed for mono-god armies but they aren't endorsing them. They prefer a blended god army because you end up buying more of their new shiny toys. Maybe it's a way outdated perception but I think GW feels that type of army is generally exclusionary to certain units and they'd rather players not exclude anything. The fact that nearly everything can be god dedicated is proof they want to steer away from the older flavorful notions that included trade-offs. I think a different approach than "cram it in the codex" allows more to be done with the big 4 god armies. Leave it out of the codex because we know there is enough material and substance there for each to stand on its own, expanding upon what that god-dedicated army is and justifying itself. While GW might never stomach that many chaos codices, supplements are easier for them to.

 Purifier wrote:

 aka_mythos wrote:
If each of the four gods had that, wouldn't that force your army to be mono-god?-How else could an army wide rule like that be applied?

Mono-god is something GW would rather not see, since if they did it fluffy it would prohibit certain units being taken and their mind set is to prohibit nothing since it effects sales.

I think we're far more likely to see something more generic like Renegade tactics before we see any sort of mono-god tactics.

Yes, it would. There are a lot of us that already do mono-god, because we like the aesthetic and the purity. Would be nice if we got a little boost for gimping ourselves.
I've recently started a mono-Tzeentch army, with everything in 1k sons theme, because I always loved it and decided it was time.
My friend has a mono-Nurgle army, but that's actually really viable.

I don't quite understand your post. My whole post was "I'd like to be rewarded for going mono-God since it's clearly uncompetitive." and you're like "but wouldn't that make you have to be mono-God to get the bonus?"
Yes it would.

I also mentioned that there should be a "tactic" for Chaos Undivided, which is the one you'd get since you cannot fathom why anyone would do mono-God.

Mono-God in CSM hardly restricts any models from being used (ie sales) at all. The only things you can't take are the elite God-specific units like 1k Sons. Everything else is the same model with a different mark.

I didn't say I was opposed to mono-god builds, I just think they're best served in supplement form. I think the codex has largely slanted toward undivided armies blending god choices. There is a predisposition to Slaanesh and Nurgle armies because they're core isn't broken but that isn't really proof they work. At its core is the fact that if you build the codex around representing mono-god even if represent undivided the focus is narrowing to the interpretation of chaos. I think a codex should emphasize the undivided legions and supplements should allow better for the unique flavors of mono-god armies. The subcompatmentalizing of a supplement more easily allows for choices and rules that might otherwise be too much. For example, in a supplement the old rule allowing free aspiring champions for units with sacred number sized units fits more easily... This might work if it were the only rule for mono-god builds, but I'd like to see more, like vehicles with sonic weapons, other rubric units, or units of brezerkers on juggernauts... When you include everything their should be it pulls the book in too many directions with options the majority of players can't use. It's why the present notion of mono-god is paper thin and thematically limited without substantive contribution to the notion of chaos.

I played mono god slaanesh and I would love to see more to promote mono-god builds. Maybe my hangup is because I feel it's kinda repugnant to consider this codex's builds as dedicated to a chaos god when I think that dedication should mean more than what a codex that needs to provide 10 or 11 different flavors can support. Part of it was that I feel the thematic representation of a mono-god build is presently diluted, when nothing is excluded and little is special. I think once you open up CSM to god dedicated supplements it expands on chaos in a way one or two pages of a crowded codex can't and allows the dedication of non-cult units to more fundamentally alter their composition, options, and play style.

 aka_mythos wrote:
red herring

Wasn't asking for that long harangue of things. Was asking for an equivalent to Chapter tactics, which the SM codex has proven is a concept that works.
The tactics would force you to choose specific marks. That's all. Short and easy.

 Purifier wrote:

 aka_mythos wrote:
red herring

Wasn't asking for that long harangue of things. Was asking for an equivalent to Chapter tactics, which the SM codex has proven is a concept that works.
The tactics would force you to choose specific marks. That's all. Short and easy.

I don't understand your need for passive aggressive condescension.

I understand you want god focused chapter tactics. I get it. I paraphrase you, that you want a system that rewards tactically inefficient builds for their thematics. Maybe they're inefficient because GW doesn't really want you to make them. Maybe it's a problem with GW but I don't think they want chaos defined by mono-god builds and system that gives you 5 choices where 4/5ths are mono-god builds is certainly pushing that opposite agenda.

I want mono-god builds, I really do; I just see them as needing more than a very thin characterization and limited rule set to do them justice.

Chaos undivided has many flavors and they need to be more than just the weak representation they get. Ina single codex an emphasis on mono-god builds only further weakens their presence. The majority of legions and renegades are not mono-god.

I'm all for having a chapter tactics type rule set, but it shouldn't involve the gods. Those thematic armies deserve more, not the minimum.

As unhappy as some would be, between Black Legion, Night Lords, Iron Warriors, Alpha Legion, and the various renegades there is enough for a book already. Is it so wrong to say that mono-god armies following the template of the mono-god legions should be supported in their own expanded supplement where they can get the attention they deserve?

I'm just going to pause to say I doubt that GW is specifically planning things to be inefficient so you won't buy them. IT seems rather counterintuitive for sales. Why would they release Warp Talons but then make them bad? Does that show some evil scheme? Why is Tzeentch and Khorne so bad in CSM but Tzeentch (at least used to be) very prone to cheese in CD? I think it's them just derping around a bit too much.

That and GW has really contradictory motives. I found it hilarious really. Scanning through the book, they went on about legions existing no longer yet they would mention things such as the Blood Tide that was Word Bearers.

Really nothing is perfect to be represented. The closest you can get to a real proper representation is a recently fallen SM force using the SM codex. Past that, I believe the codex is guilty of simply trying to represent too much at once. Even the renegades and legions are too much of a mix, clashing together. Then you get oddities such as talking about warbands but then all but one hq are the veterans from times long ago.

I really wish supplements were so much more. Even if they were restricted to online to minimize losses, think of the possible rules they could have made to create truly distinct forces. It'd solve the woes of so many armies that are underrepresented yet are less likely to make sales.