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.
Narrative games should be balanced too, imo. Though more through asymmetric objectives rather than through actual victory.
Consider Thermopylae. A "lost" battle (from a purely military perspective, one side was wiped out and delayed the other side only slightly). But a memorable battle that any narrative player would be happy to say they were on the losing side of. Because the victory conditions for the Spartans weren't "have a regular field battle" and they knew it in advance.
This happens to me all the time, as I tend to prioritize the Agendas over the objectives.
In fluff terms, it emphasizes the small, but specialized and seasoned nature of the armies in the campaign; each of these units may be redeployed across the territories controlled by their factions, and many of the forces in detachments can also be called upon to act as Kill Teams.
In game terms, it means I get XP for multiple units, but that my RP acquisition slows down. Agendas can also really drive a story- completion of particular Agendas or Sec Op will might cause an enemy to select a particular agenda for a subsequent battle. If you've got a GM, they can link advancement of the narrative to win/loss on some missions, or to the completion of specific Agendas or Spec Ops on others.
Siegfriedfr wrote: That's a good thing, subfaction soup should basically only be allowed in narrative games.
Soo, what interesting thing should Matched Play have to encourage people to play it, then?
Balance.
Sorry, that only works when people actually are interested in true balance. Rather than the facade of balance that Matched Play/tournaments present.
It was a tongue in cheek answer. Why do you need an "interesting thing" to play Matched Play when it's already the most common way people play?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/01/22 23:44:07
You know you're really doing something when you can make strangers hate you over the Internet. - Mauleed
Just remember folks. Panic. Panic all the time. It's the only way to survive, other than just being mindful, of course-but geez, that's so friggin' boring. - Aegis Grimm
Hallowed is the All Pie The Before Times: A Place That Celebrates The World That Was
Your point makes sense for Space Wolves pretending to be Ultramarines, because of the physical different models. But not Iron Hands being played as Ultramarines. The color scheme there makes no difference.
deviantduck wrote: Your point makes sense for Space Wolves pretending to be Ultramarines, because of the physical different models. But not Iron Hands being played as Ultramarines. The color scheme there makes no difference.
And, hell, a Marine on a bike is still a Marine on a bike, whether they've got omegas, wolf pelts, or cybernetics.
It's not like you'd mistake it for a different unit-and if your opponent tells you, right off the bat, "I'm using this army as White Scars right now," that's not a hard thing to remember.
You're within your rights to deny someone a game for being not WYSIWYG, even in paint schemes-but don't say that EVERYONE has to feel the same.
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne!
JohnHwangDD wrote: In competitive Tournament play, with an entry fee and prizes that have monetary value?
Force WYSIWYG or else refund-and-refuse.
They do, but they use the competitive value of WYSIWYG, which for 40k is 'Units is on the right size base and holding the right gun'
Matt Root won the LVO with an Ork Admech army.
(Which is its own kettle of fish. Multiple people accused him of using it to obfuscate and that his printed guide to the army was done as a 'see guys, I'm NOT modeling for advantage, wink:wink:nudge:nudge)
JohnHwangDD wrote: In competitive Tournament play, with an entry fee and prizes that have monetary value?
Force WYSIWYG or else refund-and-refuse.
Before you try enforcing paint schemes, let's get "bringing the actual rules for your army, via first-party sources" enforced by TOs, shall we?
ERJAK wrote: Matt Root won the LVO with an Ork Admech army.
(Which is its own kettle of fish. Multiple people accused him of using it to obfuscate and that his printed guide to the army was done as a 'see guys, I'm NOT modeling for advantage, wink:wink:nudge:nudge)
Got a link to any pictures of this army, ERJAK? Sounds an interesting counts-as piece, but I'm curious how far he went with making it feel suitable.
Gamgee on Tau Players wrote:we all kill cats and sell our own families to the devil and eat live puppies.
Kanluwen wrote: This is, emphatically, why I will continue suggesting nuking Guard and starting over again. It's a legacy army that needs to be rebooted with a new focal point.
Confirmation of why no-one should listen to Kanluwen when it comes to the IG - he doesn't want the IG, he want's Kan's New Model Army...
tneva82 wrote: You aren't even trying ty pretend for honest arqument. Open bad faith trolling.
- No reason to keep this here, unless people want to use it for something...
JohnHwangDD wrote: In competitive Tournament play, with an entry fee and prizes that have monetary value?
Force WYSIWYG or else refund-and-refuse.
Before you try enforcing paint schemes, let's get "bringing the actual rules for your army, via first-party sources" enforced by TOs, shall we?
ERJAK wrote: Matt Root won the LVO with an Ork Admech army.
(Which is its own kettle of fish. Multiple people accused him of using it to obfuscate and that his printed guide to the army was done as a 'see guys, I'm NOT modeling for advantage, wink:wink:nudge:nudge)
Got a link to any pictures of this army, ERJAK? Sounds an interesting counts-as piece, but I'm curious how far he went with making it feel suitable.
I was at that LVO and played a game 2 tables down. There's no way I would have known what was what.
At the same LVO, my first opponent proxied these as Magnus and Lord o' Change.
Crimson wrote: Subfaction traits were a mistake. They simply make balancing impossible.
So you're against Space Marine Chapters having their own rules? Chaos Legions? Craftworlds? Ork Clans? Hive Fleets?
Voss wrote: Ok, since yes is no... so if someone is exclusively shooting at you from close range and the Alpha Legion rules no longer have any game effect, does that mean they're also no longer Alpha Legion? If the enemy is never in cover, are your Iron Warriors never Iron Warriors?
The thing is, if I bring both, only one of them has their rules, the other one gets the other one's rules.
So the answer to my question was: "No".
You can't obfuscate or bloviate a different answer by moving the goalposts around like you have in the quote above.
ERJAK wrote: Yunno what would alleviate the subfaction balancing issue? If there was some way that you could pay some sort of cost (CP maybe?) in order to take multiple subfaction traits. That way, units always benefit from their best subfaction trait and the whole army can be balanced around that.
So you mean, like, expending an abstracted strategic resource to bring in forces from two different armies, something that might reduce the army's overall cohesion - something that said abstracted strategic resource could represent quite well - rather than spending it on things like Smoke Launchers and Meltabombs?
Getouttatown!
Dysartes wrote: Before you try enforcing paint schemes, let's get "bringing the actual rules for your army, via first-party sources" enforced by TOs, shall we?
People using printouts and Battlescribe really annoys you for some reason.
It's a weird pet-peeve.
This message was edited 7 times. Last update was at 2022/01/23 01:32:09
@deviantduck- That's kind of disappointing. I would have thought that Front Line Gaming would disallow proxies of that nature. I mean it's one thing to say that Eldrad is just a generic Farseer but it's another thing to say that this coke can is a drop pod and the sprite can is a predator tank. I just strikes me as being unprofessional to allow that sort of behavior in an event of that caliber.
H.B.M.C. wrote: So you're against Space Marine Chapters having their own rules? Chaos Legions? Craftworlds? Ork Clans? Hive Fleets?
Yes. It is just unneeded layer of rules bloat. Some things can just be fluff and paint.
EDIT: There could be some bespoke units, and characters, relics and stratagems, but that's different. There doesn't need to be subfaction trait to be applied to every unit.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/01/23 01:40:16
I'm fine with rules for subfactions, but I'd prefer they be mostly stuff like altering what slots certain units take, or how many they can take, rather than just making certain things stronger. This may not be the best example, but I recently got into WHFB 6th, and if I run a Clan Skryre army, Warp Lightning Cannons, Warplock Jezzails, and Poisoned Wind Bombadiers become more common, while I lose most of my access to Plague Monks and such, so I have to rely more on my weapons, and less on pure melee prowess. It's a similar thing for Vampire Counts, where Von Carstein vampires can take human militia into battle if you run their subfaction, while a Necromancer army gets all their undead units slighly cheaper, because they lose access to everything else.
Plus, Infinity, my favorite skirmish game, does this exact thing with their subfactions, where it's defined entirely by which units you can take, and almost nothing else.
But I do understand the appeal of having rules for different subfactions be represented via changing certain rules, or adding some to units. I personally just don't like how 40k does it.
‘What Lorgar’s fanatics have not seen is that these gods are nothing compared to the power and the majesty of the Machine-God. Already, members of our growing cult are using the grace of the Omnissiah – the true Omnissiah, not Terra’s false prophet – to harness the might of the warp. Geller fields, warp missiles, void shields, all these things you are familiar with. But their underlying principles can be turned to so much more. Through novel exploitations of these technologies we will gain mastery first over the energies of the empyrean, then over the lesser entities, until finally the very gods themselves will bend the knee and recognise the supremacy of the Machine-God"
- Heretek Ardim Protos in Titandeath by Guy Haley
Crimson wrote: Yes. It is just unneeded layer of rules bloat. Some things can just fluff and paint.
So all Space Marines should be the same? No Blood Angels? No Space Wolves? No Black Templars?
Like I said in the edit there could be stuff like some bespoke units characters, relics and stratagems, but there doesn't need to be subfaction trait to be applied to every unit.
And for several editions most armies didn't have subfaction rules. People still played different hive fleets, craftworlds etc, they just chose the units they felt were appropriate for the army's theme, and painted them in correct colours. And it was perfectly fine. More than fine; it was preferable to the current layered rules bloat and balancing nightmare.
Despite the obvious good intentions in an area that needs improving, these changes are pretty weird - I wonder how long before a sweeping array of FAQs are going to land?
No more Imperial soup - but also no more Imperial Agents (funny given there is a new Inquisitor model about to be released, that no one can use without a mono-ordo 1k+ Inquisition army).
No more Aeldari soup - but apparently also no Ynnari at all (no common allowable keywords between the mandatory named characters and other codex eldar I think).
No more Tyranids soup - AM Brood Brothers are a bit weird now as they specifically have rules saying you can ignore the lack of common faction keyword.
No more sub-factions in a detachment - Ork specialist mobs are dead, not sure if any other factions also have a keyword-swap mechanic like that (maybe Disciples of Belakor with chaos marines?).
JohnHwangDD wrote: Non-WYSIWYG Proxies. Remove from table and do forfeit the points. ZERO Sports, ZERO Paint.
You must be an absolute treat to play against. I once showed up with a full WYSIWYG army to what I thought was a WYSIWYG tourney (it was in the PUBLISHED RULES for the event) to have someone come off the street and borrow a bunch of random models off the store's shelves to run an army in the event. The TO shrugged.
But it was how I got games at the time, so I shrugged too.
'No plan survives contact with the enemy. Who are we?'
'THE ENEMY!!!'
No more Imperial soup - but also no more Imperial Agents (funny given there is a new Inquisitor model about to be released, that no one can use without a mono-ordo 1k+ Inquisition army).
Have you seen a leak that I haven't?
These rules don't seem to interfere with Imperial Agents, as their selectable keyword (Ordo) will not match the selectable Keyword of the host army (Chapter, Order, Regiment etc.)- in the same way the rules prevent DE armies from taking two different Kabal Patrols, but not from taking one Kabal Patrol and one Cult Patrol.
Unless you've seen the rules and he doesn't have the Imperial Agent Keyword, or he has specific datacard restrictions.
No more Imperial soup - but also no more Imperial Agents (funny given there is a new Inquisitor model about to be released, that no one can use without a mono-ordo 1k+ Inquisition army).
Have you seen a leak that I haven't?
These rules don't seem to interfere with Imperial Agents, as their selectable keyword (Ordo) will not match the selectable Keyword of the host army (Chapter, Order, Regiment etc.)- in the same way the rules prevent DE armies from taking two different Kabal Patrols, but not from taking one Kabal Patrol and one Cult Patrol.
Unless you've seen the rules and he doesn't have the Imperial Agent Keyword, or he has specific datacard restrictions.
See the statement they made right before that:
I wonder how long before a sweeping array of FAQs are going to land?
You know you're really doing something when you can make strangers hate you over the Internet. - Mauleed
Just remember folks. Panic. Panic all the time. It's the only way to survive, other than just being mindful, of course-but geez, that's so friggin' boring. - Aegis Grimm
Hallowed is the All Pie The Before Times: A Place That Celebrates The World That Was
JohnHwangDD wrote: In competitive Tournament play, with an entry fee and prizes that have monetary value?
Force WYSIWYG or else refund-and-refuse.
Before you try enforcing paint schemes, let's get "bringing the actual rules for your army, via first-party sources" enforced by TOs, shall we?
ERJAK wrote: Matt Root won the LVO with an Ork Admech army.
(Which is its own kettle of fish. Multiple people accused him of using it to obfuscate and that his printed guide to the army was done as a 'see guys, I'm NOT modeling for advantage, wink:wink:nudge:nudge)
Got a link to any pictures of this army, ERJAK? Sounds an interesting counts-as piece, but I'm curious how far he went with making it feel suitable.
I was at that LVO and played a game 2 tables down. There's no way I would have known what was what.
At the same LVO, my first opponent proxied these as Magnus and Lord o' Change.
[spoiler]
Crimson wrote: Like I said in the edit there could be stuff like some bespoke units characters, relics and stratagems, but there doesn't need to be subfaction trait to be applied to every unit.
And for several editions most armies didn't have subfaction rules. People still played different hive fleets, craftworlds etc, they just chose the units they felt were appropriate for the army's theme, and painted them in correct colours. And it was perfectly fine. More than fine; it was preferable to the current layered rules bloat and balancing nightmare.
Well there are consolidationists, and then there's you I guess.
Voss wrote: Ok, since yes is no... so if someone is exclusively shooting at you from close range and the Alpha Legion rules no longer have any game effect, does that mean they're also no longer Alpha Legion? If the enemy is never in cover, are your Iron Warriors never Iron Warriors?
The thing is, if I bring both, only one of them has their rules, the other one gets the other one's rules.
So the answer to my question was: "No".
You can't obfuscate or bloviate a different answer by moving the goalposts around like you have in the quote above.
Nope. I was just trying to figure out if you think (sub)faction identity is 100% about having special rules, and nothing else. Apparently it is.
For me, it ranges from a neat perk to pure bloat (leaning very much toward pure bloat at the moment), most of which are nonsensical. Nothing about the alpha legion is about being harder to hit at half the max range of the average firearm. Nothing about Iron Warriors dictates their ability to shoot around trees real good.
I was perfectly happy playing most editions without this crap, so, its kind of whatever. I certainly prefer nothing to 'play argent shroud if you want shooty sisters and play bloody rose if you play melee sisters, final destination, no drawbacks or thought required.'
Playing army for theme and feel rather than 'what special rules makes this specific build better for free' seems far better in terms of choice AND fun.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/01/23 04:11:34
Crimson wrote: Like I said in the edit there could be stuff like some bespoke units characters, relics and stratagems, but there doesn't need to be subfaction trait to be applied to every unit.
And for several editions most armies didn't have subfaction rules. People still played different hive fleets, craftworlds etc, they just chose the units they felt were appropriate for the army's theme, and painted them in correct colours. And it was perfectly fine. More than fine; it was preferable to the current layered rules bloat and balancing nightmare.
Well there are consolidationists, and then there's you I guess.
Your ideas are anti-choice and anti-fun.
I'm with Crimson on this. Having played since 4th ed, subfaction RULES are still relatively new and unnecessary.
Back in the day, if you wanted a Salamanders army, just take plenty of Flamers and meltas.
You want a Saim-hann Eldar list? Jetbikes, jetbikes everywhere!
In 4th-7th ed there were plenty of choices that could give your army a fun theme beyond just a paint scheme.
And since there were completely different books for Blood/Dark Angels, Wolves, etc there was plenty of "flavor" for Marine Chapters without having to give extra rules for all the "vanilla" Chapters.
Another problem with sub-faction rules is that they will never be balanced internally. There will always be 1-2 that are clearly better. Like Alaitoc in 8th. As someone who played Saim-hann for theme since 4th, that gave me 2 really hard choices:
A) purposefully handicap myself by NOT being Alaitoc or
B) betray years of theme building/painting and jump the band wagon to play Alaitoc and have to repaint my army to reduce the funny looks I'd get for playing "red" Alaitoc.
Subfaction rules are fun, but I'd prefer to see them be a Narrative only thing. Matched play needs to have less intricacies that can be exploited.
-
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/01/23 05:35:00
JohnHwangDD wrote: Non-WYSIWYG Proxies. Remove from table and do forfeit the points. ZERO Sports, ZERO Paint.
You must be an absolute treat to play against.
I once showed up with a full WYSIWYG army to what I thought was a WYSIWYG tourney (it was in the PUBLISHED RULES for the event) to have someone come off the street and borrow a bunch of random models off the store's shelves to run an army in the event. The TO shrugged.
I am.
In your anecdote, it's not my fault that the TO can't run their tournament properly.
You're basically arguing that one idiot failing to do their job is somehow significant.
____
Galef wrote: Having played since 4th ed, subfaction RULES are still relatively new and unnecessary.
Subfaction rules are fun, but I'd prefer to see them be a Narrative only thing. Matched play needs to have less intricacies that can be exploited.
Totally agreed! There's no need for complexity, and if we get to the heart of Narrative play, it's even easier to say "take whatever you feel you can justify for the scenario." IOW, Narrative play has basically no rules at all, because it's totally OK for things to be unbalanced as part of the story.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/01/23 05:49:32
Voss wrote: Ok, since yes is no... so if someone is exclusively shooting at you from close range and the Alpha Legion rules no longer have any game effect, does that mean they're also no longer Alpha Legion? If the enemy is never in cover, are your Iron Warriors never Iron Warriors?
The thing is, if I bring both, only one of them has their rules, the other one gets the other one's rules.
So the answer to my question was: "No".
You can't obfuscate or bloviate a different answer by moving the goalposts around like you have in the quote above.
Nope. I was just trying to figure out if you think (sub)faction identity is 100% about having special rules, and nothing else. Apparently it is.
For me, it ranges from a neat perk to pure bloat (leaning very much toward pure bloat at the moment), most of which are nonsensical. Nothing about the alpha legion is about being harder to hit at half the max range of the average firearm. Nothing about Iron Warriors dictates their ability to shoot around trees real good.
I was perfectly happy playing most editions without this crap, so, its kind of whatever. I certainly prefer nothing to 'play argent shroud if you want shooty sisters and play bloody rose if you play melee sisters, final destination, no drawbacks or thought required.'
Playing army for theme and feel rather than 'what special rules makes this specific build better for free' seems far better in terms of choice AND fun.
Unless you don't care about theme?
Your enjoyment of play in 40k is absolutely NOT any more valid or righteous because you focus on narrative, presentation, and/or lore more than you focus on gameplay.
People in the 40k community get this insane idea that enjoying the game FOR the game is this inherently inferior level of participation than narratively focused play. As if you bringing poorly constructed armies and giving your Characters names makes you a more enlightened being.
It doesn't, it's just another (perfectly valid) way to play.
The only time this becomes a problem is when the two groups are forced to intermix. Narrative players forced to play competitively minded players and vice versa frequently ends in frustration for both parties. Good, interesting, friendly games can be had but it can go badly, fast.
When narrative players walk away with a sour taste its because they believe that their opponent was behaving in an exploitative way. Which is true in some cases but the majority of the time it comes down to their own deliberate choice to favor theme over efficiency, which is NOT the competitive player's fault.
When competitive players walk away from negative games like this, the feeling is often that their time was wasted. That the narrative player didn't "try". Or in more extreme cases it can be a sense that the opponent brought it on themselves. A sort of 'well what did you expect?' They went into the game with different goals.
Crimson wrote: Like I said in the edit there could be stuff like some bespoke units characters, relics and stratagems, but there doesn't need to be subfaction trait to be applied to every unit.
And for several editions most armies didn't have subfaction rules. People still played different hive fleets, craftworlds etc, they just chose the units they felt were appropriate for the army's theme, and painted them in correct colours. And it was perfectly fine. More than fine; it was preferable to the current layered rules bloat and balancing nightmare.
Well there are consolidationists, and then there's you I guess.
Your ideas are anti-choice and anti-fun.
I'm with Crimson on this. Having played since 4th ed, subfaction RULES are still relatively new and unnecessary.
Back in the day, if you wanted a Salamanders army, just take plenty of Flamers and meltas.
You want a Saim-hann Eldar list? Jetbikes, jetbikes everywhere!
In 4th-7th ed there were plenty of choices that could give your army a fun theme beyond just a paint scheme.
And since there were completely different books for Blood/Dark Angels, Wolves, etc there was plenty of "flavor" for Marine Chapters without having to give extra rules for all the "vanilla" Chapters.
Another problem with sub-faction rules is that they will never be balanced internally. There will always be 1-2 that are clearly better. Like Alaitoc in 8th. As someone who played Saim-hann for theme since 4th, that gave me 2 really hard choices:
A) purposefully handicap myself by NOT being Alaitoc or
B) betray years of theme building/painting and jump the band wagon to play Alaitoc and have to repaint my army to reduce the funny looks I'd get for playing "red" Alaitoc.
Subfaction rules are fun, but I'd prefer to see them be a Narrative only thing. Matched play needs to have less intricacies that can be exploited.
-
7th edition had full subfaction rules for marines. White scars on bikes and in vehicles could scout move. Ultramarines got combat doctrines.
Also, in practice, not having any kind of internal faction rules variation means you're relying entirely on GW's datasheet balancing. Which as we can see from the most recent CA is utter garbage.
That's actually something I've been thinking about a lot lately. GW needs their games to be highly complex with as many moving parts as possible. Why?
So that they can get enough right accidentally to create something usable. GW isn't competent enough to handle a simple game. The last time they tried to make a simple game, they ended with rules about losing if you knelt on the floor and rerolls based on if you had a mustache.
Voss wrote: Playing army for theme and feel rather than 'what special rules makes this specific build better for free' seems far better in terms of choice AND fun.
And I don't think the two are mutually exclusive. I'm predominantly a narrative player. The rules I want the most in the entire world are my damned Tyranid Crusade rules.
But I love having the ability to play different Chapters/Legions/Craftworlds and have them actually represented within the rules of the game. I despite 'counts as'.
If there are balance problems with one faction making Unit X good, and another faction making Unit Y good, so you take small armies of both, then fix that imbalance. The answer is not to simply remove all factions in the game. Talk about a pile-driver to put a brad nail into place...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/01/23 07:25:15
People in the 40k community get this insane idea that enjoying the game FOR the game is this inherently inferior level of participation than narratively focused play.
Enjoying the game for the game would make more sense if it was a good one.
It's not like GW don't know how to write a good game system(cough...Titanicus...cough...Necromunda). They are actively not writing a good one for the express purpose to make you buy the maximum amount of books and models as often as possible. With the smallest amount of capital investment to the company.
I enjoy the game for what it is, a toolbox to build a mutually enjoyable and cinematic experience for those involved. I also pay GW what their (40k) rules are worth...absolutely nothing.
Verthane wrote: This change is fine for armies like Grey Knights where all of the subfactions look the same, but really sucks for Space Marines...I have over 3000 points of Space Marines, but because I chose for artistic reasons to paint up different chapters, I now have an illegal army. I'm not going to say "those models that are clearly Space Wolves are pretending to be Salamanders". I'm sure some folks would though - if that works for you and your opponents then great.
In almost 23 years of playing 40k I've never seen a SM army mixing two chapters.
And unless the units you have are really chapter locked ones like Wulfen or TWC no one would complain if you play a SM list with models painted in different colour but under the same chapter's rules. Playing SM painted in different colours is definitely not illegal.
I occasionally played Marine crusade forces instead of mono-chapter armies back in the day. The idea of a crusade force made up of units from a variety of chapters was encouraged in an article in one of my first White Dwarfs, back in 2nd ed. The idea appealed to me. I never collected a crusade army specifically, but made sure that the basing of my various chapters matched so that I could use them as such in addition to their normal role in their respective armies. I'll attach a (bad) picture of a crusade force I played in a 5th ed tournament.
Rules have always been a bit of an issue in this regard. Basically if you wanted to do that in 3rd ed to 5th, you either played vanilla Marines for simplicity or picked one of the other codices because you wanted to add a specific unit from that and then made the best of the choices you had. 6th ed onward, and before that 2nd ed, made it easier to include some chapter's special units (like say a combined Space Wolves and Dark Angels force with their respective units). It's never been a big deal keeping their rules sorted out until GW went bonkers with all those layered rules.
It's one of the bigger downsides of the recent focus on bespoke rules (with a side order of no model, no rules, but let's not get into that). If a Space Marine can't just be a Space Marine anymore, but has to have half a dozen layers of rules to tell you he's a White Consul in Phobos armor with slightly different bolter A and a spooky mask and not a Black Consul in Phobos armor with slightly different bolter B and a not very spooky helmet. You have to keep track of a lot more in a game that already has tons to keep track of without the help. Cutting down on extra rules is probably good for the game, but unfortunately also impacts some combined forces that have been in the background for ages, and that some players chose to play and now can't to the same extent as before.
For a little while at least you should be able to do the Indomitus Crusaders Specialist Detach, but its pretty much Primaris only, and probably also not going to be around much longer.
-- $k 
-- 9k 
-- 6k 
-- 4k 
-- 
" I'm sorry, but after 7200 's that has to be the most annoying sign-off ever."