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.

Voss wrote:
... Just there isn't much point in pretending Grey Hunters aren't tactical squads...

But they aren't just tactical squads...

Voss wrote:
... Deathwing Kinghts aren't just terminators with stormshields...

But they aren't just Terminators with Storm Shields...

Voss wrote:
... and Crusader squads aren't some weird blender of scouts, tacticals and assault squads...

They're the most unique of the three you've singled out.

Voss wrote:
There's no benefit from differentiating this level of trivia at this level. Most of its cultural stuff that doesn't matter on the table.

It's not cultural. It's organisational. They do not fight the same. They have units that are unique to them.

Voss wrote:
It'd be like mandating that the Welsh and Scottish Rugby teams have one player dressed differently, because somehow that 'shows their nationality.'

More like if the Welsh team had two men on horseback and you said that they couldn't because they're just the same as the really fast guys on the Scottish team.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Voss wrote:
... Just there isn't much point in pretending Grey Hunters aren't tactical squads...

But they aren't just tactical squads...

Voss wrote:
... Deathwing Kinghts aren't just terminators with stormshields...

But they aren't just Terminators with Storm Shields...

Voss wrote:
... and Crusader squads aren't some weird blender of scouts, tacticals and assault squads...

They're the most unique of the three you've singled out.

Voss wrote:
There's no benefit from differentiating this level of trivia at this level. Most of its cultural stuff that doesn't matter on the table.

It's not cultural. It's organisational. They do not fight the same. They have units that are unique to them.

Voss wrote:
It'd be like mandating that the Welsh and Scottish Rugby teams have one player dressed differently, because somehow that 'shows their nationality.'

More like if the Welsh team had two men on horseback and you said that they couldn't because they're just the same as the really fast guys on the Scottish team.

LOL and those units really aren't unique. To honestly pretend Deathwing Knights aren't just Assault Terminators is ridiculous. The Mace LITERALLY has the same stats as the Thunderhammer. LITERALLY. Uou have an attachment to a paint scheme.

Regular termintors don't have a flail of absolution or a weapon that works the same they have no super human physilogy always on, they can't deny the witch, they don't auto pass morale. Even one of those rules would be more then just paint.

Same way TWC or DA raven knights aren't just bikers etc.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Eldarsif wrote:

 waefre_1 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Because Space Wolves should play differently to Blood Angels. Iron Warriors should play differently to Night Lords.

That's true, but it's also true of damn near every faction in the game. Saim-Hann should play differently to Iyanden. Speed Freeks should play differently to Snakebites, Tallarn should play differently to Mordian should play differently to Steel Legion, every Hive Fleet should play differently to every other Hive Fleet and to earlier versions of itself due to the hyperevolution...if everyone else can get by with a single codex (plus or minus a supplement or two), why do Space Marines "need" full codices for each Chapter/Legion?

The problem here is that the old school subfactions(which DA, BA, and Space Wolves, and even Ultramarines if we go old school) have all legion specific units. If all get access to all then we have a codex with 120+ datasheets which is an unfathomable amount of datasheets. Just to make sense of it there would need to be a huge culling of the lines with old datasheets being sunsetted before combining the books.

Most of the subfactions you mention have not had a lot of special case units made for them which makes it easy for them to remain in their respective books. Even if GW did try to branch out in previous editions with Iyanden.

To be fair a lot of the older lines could do with a proper culling.

I hate to be the one to tell you this, but not everything needs a separate unit entry. That's how we ended up with 3 Land Raiders instead of just one entry with "Pick your guns".

Even if datasheets were merged into just weapon options it would still mean that there are too many options for a single army to make all those options meaningful, especially with those N number of bolter variants*. Many of the older armies, especially space marines, need to start sunsetting units and GW needs to stop adding new units and perhaps instead focusing on newer and cooler sculpts for existing things they want to keep.

* Seriously, there are more bolter variants than some armies have models.

Karol wrote:
Regular termintors don't have a flail of absolution or a weapon that works the same they have no super human physilogy always on, they can't deny the witch, they don't auto pass morale. Even one of those rules would be more then just paint.

Same way TWC or DA raven knights aren't just bikers etc.

There are so many ways this could be dealt with, without needing separate supplements for every SM chapter. You can have DA Terminators pay more points to get the permanent Transhuman, and have it as a condition of the Chapter tactic. You can do a similar thing to turn regular bikes into Ravenwing. You can decide that losing the flail weapon they get is a small price to pay for the benefits of consolidation. It didn't even exist until 8th edition anyway, and DA players didn't seem to be complaining about it.

Or you can include all the special chapters in one supplement, instead of 9 (or is it 11?). The vast majority of them are a single special character and yet more WLT, strats and psychic powers that we don't need. Even the unique units and characters probably take up less than 5 or 6 pages per chapter. The Deathwatch supplement is tiny in terms of rules content, for example. You have 2 characters, 5 units and a few pages detailing crating Kill Teams and Specialisms. You could copy all of that to a single, slightly larger supplement with all the special SM stuff in it and lose very little.

That's assuming you want to keep that level of uniqueness for each Chapter. There's no reason you need to do that. Every other Codex in the game manages to include sub-factions that have differences in playstyle but still use the same Codex. The same can easily be true of SM.

Invalidating people's collections would be quite a risky move though.(related to idea of sunsetting units)

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Voss wrote:
... Just there isn't much point in pretending Grey Hunters aren't tactical squads...

But they aren't just tactical squads...

They are, though. You're mistaking current weapon options for meaningful difference.
Are chaos marines hauling around a completely different unit now that their special and heavy weapons have to be different? Its the same design philosophy...

Voss wrote:
... and Crusader squads aren't some weird blender of scouts, tacticals and assault squads...

They're the most unique of the three you've singled out.

Yes, they are. And a mashup of other datasheets isn't that unique!

Voss wrote:
There's no benefit from differentiating this level of trivia at this level. Most of its cultural stuff that doesn't matter on the table.

It's not cultural. It's organisational. They do not fight the same. They have units that are unique to them.

Sometimes. And sometimes those 'unique' units get shuffled off to everybody in the next cycle. But when they remain they're mostly just weapon swaps.


The biggest problem with your position is that this:

but there are a bunch of extreme consolidationists here who would see 40k turned to a permanent state of grey, with any and all colour exorcised in the pursuit of streamlining.

is better served by the _current_ state of affairs. Paint your armies grey or off color and just switch them around according to what you field. Lots of tanks: iron hands! Lots of bolters; they're imperial fists now! Lots of Bikes: obviously Ravenwing. Color = rules bonuses (ie, 'chapter flavor') actively encourages not having a faction identity far more than consolidation. The one time I knew people who were really attached to _their_ chapter? Rogue Trader, when the color didn't make any difference. The flavor was all in the background and the mind, not in how they benefit from the rules. (and how they'll abandon it for something that supports them better in the next go-around).

Voss wrote:
The flavor was all in the background and the mind, not in how they benefit from the rules. (and how they'll abandon it for something that supports them better in the next go-around).

My issue with all of this is that I'm not reading a book, I'm playing a game, and flavour that exists only in my mind actually isn't flavour at all- it's just imagination that has no impact upon the game.

If I want an imagination day, I'll read. But when I'm playing a game, rules are a part of the art form that I am exploring, and I expect them to reflect the fighting style of the force I've invested in, and distinguish it from the forces that others have chose to invest in.

I think we should have additional bonuses individual units or models can buy, or better gear, such as veteran traits, where you could give your Terminator squad permanent Transhuman, and have subfactions listed as usually taking specific traits and combinations. Just add extra gear to this list, and bravo, subfactions and custom subfactions.

Voss wrote:

Voss wrote:
... and Crusader squads aren't some weird blender of scouts, tacticals and assault squads...

They're the most unique of the three you've singled out.

Yes, they are. And a mashup of other datasheets isn't that unique!

True, therefore we need to axe every Space Marine power armour model ever since they're just a mashup of every other power armour marine ever.
Same with the Terminators
While we're at it, all ork boy variants are just mashups of each other, so we can mash them all together.
Celestians and Dominions are literally made from the same box as Battle Sisters, so they can get culled for being just Battle-Sisters-but-not-troops.
Imperial Guard can have all their flak infantry consolidated for the same reason.
Ad Infinitum.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:

Voss wrote:

Voss wrote:
... and Crusader squads aren't some weird blender of scouts, tacticals and assault squads...

They're the most unique of the three you've singled out.

Yes, they are. And a mashup of other datasheets isn't that unique!

True, therefore we need to axe every Space Marine power armour model ever since they're just a mashup of every other power armour marine ever.
Same with the Terminators
While we're at it, all ork boy variants are just mashups of each other, so we can mash them all together.
Celestians and Dominions are literally made from the same box as Battle Sisters, so they can get culled for being just Battle-Sisters-but-not-troops.
Imperial Guard can have all their flak infantry consolidated for the same reason.
Ad Infinitum.

Yes we need to axe two of the three Terminator Datasheets. Finally someone gets it.

Voss wrote:
The biggest problem with your position is that is better served by the _current_ state of affairs. Paint your armies grey or off color and just switch them around according to what you field. Lots of tanks: iron hands! Lots of bolters; they're imperial fists now! Lots of Bikes: obviously Ravenwing. Color = rules bonuses (ie, 'chapter flavor') actively encourages not having a faction identity far more than consolidation. The one time I knew people who were really attached to _their_ chapter? Rogue Trader, when the color didn't make any difference. The flavor was all in the background and the mind, not in how they benefit from the rules. (and how they'll abandon it for something that supports them better in the next go-around).

Only if you're a meta-chasing loony.

Some of us pick an army and stick with it, regardless of colour-schemes or the rules other factions have.

The problem with your position is that you're just looking at rules, and not the armies those rules belong to.

I don't see why you can't just have an entry for your special snowflake unit in the codex that has the appropriate Chapter Keyword.

Then the Dark Angels can have their snowflake Terminators without having a whole book dedicated to them.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:
I think we should have additional bonuses individual units or models can buy, or better gear, such as veteran traits, where you could give your Terminator squad permanent Transhuman, and have subfactions listed as usually taking specific traits and combinations. Just add extra gear to this list, and bravo, subfactions and custom subfactions.

I think the 3.5 ed Imperial Guard codex did something like that. There was a list of regiments and what they preferred to field.

Darn it people we are enjoying adding new armies to the game not trying to remove the marines

Focus people focus!!

 Overread wrote:
Darn it people we are enjoying adding new armies to the game not trying to remove the marines

Focus people focus!!

Knowing GW, the new faction will be marines
Unless I'm mistaken, Iron Hands don't have their own book complete with Terminator variant #8 and bolter variant #69.

PenitentJake wrote:

Voss wrote:
The flavor was all in the background and the mind, not in how they benefit from the rules. (and how they'll abandon it for something that supports them better in the next go-around).

My issue with all of this is that I'm not reading a book, I'm playing a game, and flavour that exists only in my mind actually isn't flavour at all- it's just imagination that has no impact upon the game.

If I want an imagination day, I'll read. But when I'm playing a game, rules are a part of the art form that I am exploring, and I expect them to reflect the fighting style of the force I've invested in, and distinguish it from the forces that others have chose to invest in.

A well-designed Codex would allow armies to be constructed that are balanced and represent the major sub-factions and their way of fighting. You don't need a special rule to tell you your army is Bloody Rose if the design of the Codex allows you to field units representative of that sub-faction. Then it's just down to player choice to represent their sub-faction appropriately.

Slipspace wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:

Voss wrote:
The flavor was all in the background and the mind, not in how they benefit from the rules. (and how they'll abandon it for something that supports them better in the next go-around).

My issue with all of this is that I'm not reading a book, I'm playing a game, and flavour that exists only in my mind actually isn't flavour at all- it's just imagination that has no impact upon the game.

If I want an imagination day, I'll read. But when I'm playing a game, rules are a part of the art form that I am exploring, and I expect them to reflect the fighting style of the force I've invested in, and distinguish it from the forces that others have chose to invest in.

A well-designed Codex would allow armies to be constructed that are balanced and represent the major sub-factions and their way of fighting. You don't need a special rule to tell you your army is Bloody Rose if the design of the Codex allows you to field units representative of that sub-faction. Then it's just down to player choice to represent their sub-faction appropriately.

Sub faction rules aren't the problem, special snowflake unit rules are.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Voss wrote:
The biggest problem with your position is that is better served by the _current_ state of affairs. Paint your armies grey or off color and just switch them around according to what you field. Lots of tanks: iron hands! Lots of bolters; they're imperial fists now! Lots of Bikes: obviously Ravenwing. Color = rules bonuses (ie, 'chapter flavor') actively encourages not having a faction identity far more than consolidation. The one time I knew people who were really attached to _their_ chapter? Rogue Trader, when the color didn't make any difference. The flavor was all in the background and the mind, not in how they benefit from the rules. (and how they'll abandon it for something that supports them better in the next go-around).

Only if you're a meta-chasing loony.

Some of us pick an army and stick with it, regardless of colour-schemes or the rules other factions have.

The problem with your position is that you're just looking at rules, and not the armies those rules belong to.

So you should agree having three separate unit entries for Terminators is silly.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Voss wrote:
The biggest problem with your position is that is better served by the _current_ state of affairs. Paint your armies grey or off color and just switch them around according to what you field. Lots of tanks: iron hands! Lots of bolters; they're imperial fists now! Lots of Bikes: obviously Ravenwing. Color = rules bonuses (ie, 'chapter flavor') actively encourages not having a faction identity far more than consolidation. The one time I knew people who were really attached to _their_ chapter? Rogue Trader, when the color didn't make any difference. The flavor was all in the background and the mind, not in how they benefit from the rules. (and how they'll abandon it for something that supports them better in the next go-around).

Only if you're a meta-chasing loony.

Some of us pick an army and stick with it, regardless of colour-schemes or the rules other factions have.

The problem with your position is that you're just looking at rules, and not the armies those rules belong to.

Right. That is the problem. The armies don't exist. Only the subfaction rules that have supplanted them.

Its weird to insist that other people are meta-chasing but that subfactions have to have rules benefits to be worthwhile.

PenitentJake wrote:My issue with all of this is that I'm not reading a book, I'm playing a game, and flavour that exists only in my mind actually isn't flavour at all- it's just imagination that has no impact upon the game.

If I want an imagination day, I'll read. But when I'm playing a game, rules are a part of the art form that I am exploring, and I expect them to reflect the fighting style of the force I've invested in, and distinguish it from the forces that others have chose to invest in.

Well the first part sounds like a you problem that nothing can help with, sorry. If your red jump pack guys wound more often than your grey jump pack guys that hit more often, and that's somehow meaningful to you, I don't know what to say.

As to the second... ok, I'll bite. What part of the iron hands replacement of the flesh means their tanks are more durable? What about the Imperial Fist siege specialty makes them able to double shot infantry on exploding sixes? What part of White Scars predisposition to cavalry makes their infantry run into combat faster and shoot meltaguns better? These rules absolutely don't reflect a fighting style. They're just bloated bonuses for chosing unit types to min/max army composition at the list building stage.

And from a completely different direction (art form!), its weird that subfactions have to have rules benefits to be worthwhile.

Voss wrote:
What part of the iron hands replacement of the flesh means their tanks are more durable?

The Iron Hands actually align quite closely with the Adeptus Mechanicus with regards to the veneration of machines and machine spirits. They are more well-versed as a Chapter in the cants and rituals of the Machine God and their vehicles are often given unique upgrades by their Mechanicus allies to make them more effective in combat.

What about the Imperial Fist siege specialty makes them able to double shot infantry on exploding sixes?

The Imperial Fists place special emphasis on the use of Bolt weapons as the bread and butter of the Astartes arsenal. While all Astartes are effective with their use, the Imperial Fists go above and beyond with their drills to ensure maximum combat efficiency with the most common weapon in a Space Marine's arsenal.

What part of White Scars predisposition to cavalry makes their infantry run into combat faster and shoot meltaguns better?

The White Scars emulate the great Chogorian legend, Lightning McQueen. Ahem. The tribes of Chogoris place emphasis on closing with the enemy as quickly as possible to engage them in combat, the White Scars take this creed and apply it to their method of warfare. They place emphasis on weapons that are more useful when the charge hits home, such as Meltaguns.

Fun fact: Literally all of this is explained in each Chapter Tactic blurb in the Marine Codex

These rules absolutely don't reflect a fighting style. They're just bloated bonuses for chosing unit types to min/max army composition at the list building stage.

Yeah all those people taking Bolter armed units to min/max the Imperial Fists Chapter Tactic. How dare they use any unit with a Bolt weapon. /s

Voss wrote:

Well the first part sounds like a you problem that nothing can help with, sorry. If your red jump pack guys wound more often than your grey jump pack guys that hit more often, and that's somehow meaningful to you, I don't know what to say.

Well the fact that one hits more often suggests that they focus on high volume fire and quick shots, while the other focusses on taking the time to aim for the squishy bits...

And the point is that because there are rules for those things, it is a more effective way to represent this in the game rather than just saying "These guys focus on high volume and quick shots, while those guys take the time aim for vulnerable targets"... And then representing both armies with exactly the same rules so that the "Aiming for vulnerable areas" is just something you say that has Zero impact on the game... And if you can't see that then I don't know what to say to you.

Voss wrote:

As to the second... ok, I'll bite. What part of the iron hands replacement of the flesh means their tanks are more durable? What about the Imperial Fist siege specialty makes them able to double shot infantry on exploding sixes? What part of White Scars predisposition to cavalry makes their infantry run into combat faster and shoot meltaguns better? These rules absolutely don't reflect a fighting style. They're just bloated bonuses for chosing unit types to min/max army composition at the list building stage.

And from a completely different direction (art form!), its weird that subfactions have to have rules benefits to be worthwhile.

The only Marines I've ever been interested in are the Chambers Militant, so I'm not really qualified to answer, but I'll assume Gert covered it.

I will, however, say that whether or not GW has scored a hit with every subfaction rule is not the issue- the misses can be debated on their own individually. As I understand it, this conversation is about whether or not rules to distinguish subfactions from each other should exist at all.

Clan Skryre in WHFB 6th feels a lot more like a proper subfaction to me than anything I've ever done in 40k. The difference is that Skryre doesn't get special bonuses to hit. They get more access to certain units and less access to others.

Dark Ravens! The Blood ravens and Dark Angels have a successor baby together, and it's got no BACK FLIPPING TERMINATORS. Just good old fashioned battle brothers.

Dark Mech. Is probably the only faction GW could make that would prompt me to buy a whole new army. That said, I would rather they just make them a sub faction of CSM.

Karol wrote:
Regular termintors don't have a flail of absolution or a weapon that works the same they have no super human physilogy always on, they can't deny the witch, they don't auto pass morale. Even one of those rules would be more then just paint.

Same way TWC or DA raven knights aren't just bikers etc.

Why would Dark Angels be the only Marines who's physiology... works... all the... time..? That makes no sense on the face of it.
Why can Dark Angels deny psychic powers better than anybody else? How come that didn't used to be in the Knights' rules?
Why would Terminators in bone armour be braver than Terminators in red armour or black armour?
Were Deathwing not Deathwing before they had all of these extra rules bodged on?

Remember originally these background and rules were made up to make difference. Previously in 2nd edition days, Blood Angels were just red Marines. Then they gradually introduced more rules such as for Death Company and so on.

If GW wanted they could just as easily do something similar for Craftworld Saim-hann like what they did in 3rd edition and have a Wild Rider Chieftain and his Wild Rider unit. Then in a few years time people would be saying how Codex Saim-hann should totally exist separately because how else could they reflect the differences and how their Wild Riders are so different from the Windriders of other Craftworlds.

These differences were all introduced at some point by GW, and then rules followed. GW can always fold them back.

It's a bit of a double standard to argue that this small group of 1000 red Marines is so very different from those 1000 green Marines as to warrant separate Codices for each, while a Craftworld of puritanical adherents to the Path (Alaitoc) is similar enough to a Craftworld that is wild and loose with the Path (Saim-hann) to both be represented with just one Codex.

Back in 3rd edition days, I posted this hypothetical: Their favored colors are red, black, and white. They have fast vehicles. They have blood rituals involving drinking of blood. Who am I talking about? Blood Angels or Saim-hann? If the former deserves a Codex, surely the latter does as well?

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:
Clan Skryre in WHFB 6th feels a lot more like a proper subfaction to me than anything I've ever done in 40k. The difference is that Skryre doesn't get special bonuses to hit. They get more access to certain units and less access to others.

Dark Elves could field a Witch Cult army without any bonuses or extra special rules and it worked quite well. Fragile as hell but it hit like a ton of bricks. That's what good army design looks like - viable options to allow fluffy builds without the need for special rules to differentiate the exact way in which this close combat focussed Chapter is different to the other close combat focussed chapter.

Werent dark elfs, just like demons, undead and high elfs in fatasy ? Always one of the more powerful books there were. That is like saying that harlequins have a good design, because they work both as part of CWE and as a solo army. The majority of armies in w40k do not have the core or basic unit rules to carry a themed list without special rule. An army of just termintors without inner circle rules is just a very bad space marine army.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lord Damocles wrote:

Why would Dark Angels be the only Marines who's physiology... works... all the... time..? That makes no sense on the face of it.
Why can Dark Angels deny psychic powers better than anybody else? How come that didn't used to be in the Knights' rules?
Why would Terminators in bone armour be braver than Terminators in red armour or black armour?
Were Deathwing not Deathwing before they had all of these extra rules bodged on?

I think you are mixing up lore with rules. GW knows that DW is a thing. That there are DA players who don't want to play other wing armies, and buy DA specificaly to play a DW army. GW also knows that termintors are what they are, specialy at the time the DA codex came out. So in order to make the playstyle viable, they knew they had to give DW special rules.

Same way they know that Sang Guard aren't just gold painted VanVets, that people have whole collections and armies based around them or jump pack geared BA units.

PenitentJake wrote:

Voss wrote:

Well the first part sounds like a you problem that nothing can help with, sorry. If your red jump pack guys wound more often than your grey jump pack guys that hit more often, and that's somehow meaningful to you, I don't know what to say.

Well the fact that one hits more often suggests that they focus on high volume fire and quick shots, while the other focusses on taking the time to aim for the squishy bits...

And the point is that because there are rules for those things, it is a more effective way to represent this in the game rather than just saying "These guys focus on high volume and quick shots, while those guys take the time aim for vulnerable targets"... And then representing both armies with exactly the same rules so that the "Aiming for vulnerable areas" is just something you say that has Zero impact on the game... And if you can't see that then I don't know what to say to you.

Considering its melee only and they're both using the same brand of chainsword, and neither is known for either type of fighting style... OK then. Thanks for proving my point. This 'rules lore' (both the stuff you just made up and the actual lore you seem to know nothing about) is obviously 'super important'

40k needs a faction based around cave men riding dinosaurs. Representation from the Savage Worlds galaxy would be awesome, like Spear and Fang.

Voss wrote:

Considering its melee only and they're both using the same brand of chainsword, and neither is known for either type of fighting style... OK then. Thanks for proving my point. This 'rules lore' (both the stuff you just made up and the actual lore you seem to know nothing about) is obviously 'super important'

So when I respond to posts, I'm not always in the place where books are, and I don't always double check. If the rules we're talking are melee only, then you also failed to mention that in the post I was responding to- I took exactly what you gave me, interpreted a possible meaning to these rules, and put that back out there with the explanation that "merely saying a thing about your army because it's in the fluff doesn't ACTUALLY reflect the fluff when nothing happens on the table" - that point stands, regardless of the specific rules in question.

And again, yes, it is debatable whether or not a specific subfaction's rules actually match the fluff- I certainly agree that GW does a better job with some subfactions than others, and yes, that can be problematic... But that's still not what we've actually been exchanging posts about. This set of posts have been about whether or not subfaction rules should exist at all.

In my opinion, they should. Because SAYING your subfaction are better shooters is not the same as them actually BEING better shooters... or whatever specific rule we happen to be discussing.

As for the folks who have pointed out that older versions of the game expressed subfaction identities via unit selection... Yes, I remember that- I was there too, and at the time, it didn't seem like a bad way to do it. These days though, having seen the alternative, I'm not sure the old way was better- granting Obsec to a unit that doesn't normally have it to reflect a subfaction's background is fine, but it's a slippery slope if we start talking about restricting access to unit types in addition to that. It feels like a greater flanderization to me to say "You can't take X unit because you are subfaction Y" than it does to say "Because you are subfaction Y, all your units can do this thing in addition to the other stuff that all member of the faction are able to do."