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.

 Tyran wrote:
I'm surprised that sub-faction rules are o positively popular, expected them to be neutral as sub-faction rules are one of those layered rules that greatly expanded complexity and messed with balance.

But I guess people like "bloat" if it gives them greater identity.

It's all in the execution. An army wide trait or two is a fine thing to get behind. An entire supplement of new units, upgrades, bespoke wargear, WL traits, Stratagems, extra rules, ehhh maybe less exciting.

 Insectum7 wrote:
It's all in the execution. An army wide trait or two is a fine thing to get behind. An entire supplement of new units, upgrades, bespoke wargear, WL traits, Stratagems, extra rules, ehhh maybe less exciting.

There is also the issue of Space Marine subfaction vs everyone else's subfactions.

I mean, many Space Marine players want actual codexes for each and every Space Marine subfaction.

When a Xenos gets a subfaction supplement it is bloat, but when Marines get subfaction supplements it is the bare minimum.

I like subfactions, and getting one or two bonuses is nice. Not a huge fan of "+1 to hit" or "Always in cover", though.

Mezmorki wrote:I know my group, over the years, basically used a hybrid solution to LOS rules that felt intuitive to us and kept the positional aspect of the game interesting. It's basically what we formalized into ProHammer, but the short version is:

The system mostly uses TLOS, but clearly defines that LOS is based on the "body" of figurine models and the "hull" of vehicle models. When it comes to the origin point, LOS is measured from head of a figurine model and the axis/pivot point of a weapon mounted on a vehicle. This addresses all of the weirdness about shooting an antenna from the vantage point of an exhaust pipe.

Next, in terms of terrain determinizing which models are in LOS, True LOS is needed, with the one big exception that more than 6" of area terrain (up to the height of the terrain piece) blocks line of sight automatically.

What this means is that things are largely what you see is what you get. If you have a piece of area terrain with a big opaque wall/object that you have a model hidden behind, even if its within 6" of the edge they are still out of "true" LOS (as logically they would be). But then the 6" rule kicks in for models that might be visible but are assumed to be crawling around dense terrain. It works well.

We solve that problem by using both area terrain that provides hard cover saves but does not block LOS as well as huge blocking LOS SOLID terrain pieces.

kodos wrote:this was also not a legal target in 5th

 aphyon wrote:
I am looking at the English language rulebook, i am not sure how it got translated where you are at, but it is very clear in my rulebook as i quoted above.

checked my book: infantry only blocks LOS in close combat unless the shooting unit is larger (size 3), vehicles always block LOS (you cannot see thru them) unless anti-grav and in any case you only have free LOS if the shooting unit or the target unit is larger than anything between them

That was not the rule i was referencing, it was the fact you could see PAST vehicles like a landraider via TLOS regardless of their size category. as per the page 20 rules first bullet point i quoted previously. the size class for a landraider only meant it could only fully hide behind a size 3 section of area terrain.

 Tyran wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
It's all in the execution. An army wide trait or two is a fine thing to get behind. An entire supplement of new units, upgrades, bespoke wargear, WL traits, Stratagems, extra rules, ehhh maybe less exciting.

There is also the issue of Space Marine subfaction vs everyone else's subfactions.

I mean, many Space Marine players want actual codexes for each and every Space Marine subfaction.

When a Xenos gets a subfaction supplement it is bloat, but when Marines get subfaction supplements it is the bare minimum.

They had actual codex for the big chapters, the move to supplements is a step forwards that many celebrated. The issue is the historic precedent combined with the fact the bigger chapters have more unique units than the entirety of some xenos races. It's hard not to argue the room for a supplement there.

 aphyon wrote:
We solve that problem by using both area terrain that provides hard cover saves but does not block LOS as well as huge blocking LOS SOLID terrain pieces.

Same - we just have the flexibility to recognize that a big piece of terrain can be both. The "SOLID" parts of the terrain are solid and can thus block LOS regardless of whether that terrain piece is also considered area terrain or not. If it IS also Area Terrain (or more accurately dense terrain), then models on it are ALSO subject to those rules and can't be seen further than 6" from the edge regardless. If that makes sense (we think it does).

 Mezmorki wrote:

 aphyon wrote:
We solve that problem by using both area terrain that provides hard cover saves but does not block LOS as well as huge blocking LOS SOLID terrain pieces.

Same - we just have the flexibility to recognize that a big piece of terrain can be both. The "SOLID" parts of the terrain are solid and can thus block LOS regardless of whether that terrain piece is also considered area terrain or not. If it IS also Area Terrain (or more accurately dense terrain), then models on it are ALSO subject to those rules and can't be seen further than 6" from the edge regardless. If that makes sense (we think it does).

I get what you mean. i am sure you have seen my table setups. terrain is a particular passion of mine since i really do not do any model building/painting anymore (i have more than enough)

an example table is the imperial city i just recently finished. it has several very large solid buildings that block LOS as well as smaller terrain items that provide cover but not blocking like the craters as well as some that are a mix



The GF9 ruined corner is such a piece you described. solid and large enough to block LOS for small vehicles or infantry or provide area terrain cover for infantry standing in it.

Man that GF9 stuff works so well with that mat.

 aphyon wrote:

That was not the rule i was referencing, it was the fact you could see PAST vehicles like a landraider via TLOS regardless of their size category. as per the page 20 rules first bullet point i quoted previously. the size class for a landraider only meant it could only fully hide behind a size 3 section of area terrain.

I don't have the englisch book and there are 2 sections for LOS, one on page 7 that mentions which units are which size and that clear LOS is only given if the target or the shooting unit is larger than the anything between
and the page 20, that says Infantry only blocks LOS in CC and vehicles always block LOS and you cannot see thru them except Anti-Grav
nothing mentions area terrain (in fact there is no such thing as area terrain with the LOS rules)

may it be lost in translation, there is a reason why everyone here saw the LOS and terrain rules as a big upgrade from 4th to 5th

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Man that GF9 stuff works so well with that mat.

Indeed it does, and it is really affordable (here at least).

may it be lost in translation, there is a reason why everyone here saw the LOS and terrain rules as a big upgrade from 4th to 5th

I assumed that was the case. even people here made the mistake when it was spelled out clearly in the English version. i think the big change was the removal of the size categories reduced the level of disagreement caused, similar to what turned you off about it in your gaming group.

 Tyran wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
It's all in the execution. An army wide trait or two is a fine thing to get behind. An entire supplement of new units, upgrades, bespoke wargear, WL traits, Stratagems, extra rules, ehhh maybe less exciting.

There is also the issue of Space Marine subfaction vs everyone else's subfactions.

I mean, many Space Marine players want actual codexes for each and every Space Marine subfaction.

When a Xenos gets a subfaction supplement it is bloat, but when Marines get subfaction supplements it is the bare minimum.

My dream for this was always something like the 3ed Craftworld Eldar supplement, one book that coalated all of the subfactions for a given faction. Each one given some force-org mixups, special rules, maybe a special unit or two (depending on the other things it gets), and then Characters. I do acknowledge some factions like Grey knights or Black Templar might need their own book, but those are the exception rather than the rule.

Especially in the current state of 40k where a vast majority of the special units that the sub factions (like all but 3 the UM special characters and Tyrannic vets, as an example) have either been discontinued or nebulously in "the rotation"

the 4th ed eldar codex has the rules to make all the craft world specific lists. it is our groups go to eldar codex. the FW imperial armor book "the doom of mymeara"

Has the Eldar corsairs army list (compatible with 3rd-7th editions).

Dudeface wrote:

 Tyran wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
It's all in the execution. An army wide trait or two is a fine thing to get behind. An entire supplement of new units, upgrades, bespoke wargear, WL traits, Stratagems, extra rules, ehhh maybe less exciting.

There is also the issue of Space Marine subfaction vs everyone else's subfactions.

I mean, many Space Marine players want actual codexes for each and every Space Marine subfaction.

When a Xenos gets a subfaction supplement it is bloat, but when Marines get subfaction supplements it is the bare minimum.

They had actual codex for the big chapters, the move to supplements is a step forwards that many celebrated. The issue is the historic precedent combined with the fact the bigger chapters have more unique units than the entirety of some xenos races. It's hard not to argue the room for a supplement there.

"Forwards" is a really weird way of spelling "backwards".

 Dysartes wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 Tyran wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
It's all in the execution. An army wide trait or two is a fine thing to get behind. An entire supplement of new units, upgrades, bespoke wargear, WL traits, Stratagems, extra rules, ehhh maybe less exciting.

There is also the issue of Space Marine subfaction vs everyone else's subfactions.

I mean, many Space Marine players want actual codexes for each and every Space Marine subfaction.

When a Xenos gets a subfaction supplement it is bloat, but when Marines get subfaction supplements it is the bare minimum.

They had actual codex for the big chapters, the move to supplements is a step forwards that many celebrated. The issue is the historic precedent combined with the fact the bigger chapters have more unique units than the entirety of some xenos races. It's hard not to argue the room for a supplement there.

"Forwards" is a really weird way of spelling "backwards".

Chronologically in terms of precedence sure, they were supplements for a while before being a codex previously as well. Rules wise I'm sorry it is a step forwards in terms of management and quality of life in a lot of respects, no longer will you have a tank with inexplicably better guns for blood angels and no other marines etc.

 Insectum7 wrote:
It'sall in the execution. An army wide trait or two is a fine thing to get behind. An entire supplement of new units, upgrades, bespoke wargear, WL traits, Stratagems, extra rules, ehhh maybe less exciting.

That's always been GW's failing: good ideas with bad execution. The idea of formations wasn't bad, it was giving piles of really good free bonuses for them that was the problem. The idea of stratagems wasn't bad, but having 30+ stratagems for every army was the problem.

Dudeface wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 Tyran wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
It's all in the execution. An army wide trait or two is a fine thing to get behind. An entire supplement of new units, upgrades, bespoke wargear, WL traits, Stratagems, extra rules, ehhh maybe less exciting.

There is also the issue of Space Marine subfaction vs everyone else's subfactions.

I mean, many Space Marine players want actual codexes for each and every Space Marine subfaction.

When a Xenos gets a subfaction supplement it is bloat, but when Marines get subfaction supplements it is the bare minimum.

They had actual codex for the big chapters, the move to supplements is a step forwards that many celebrated. The issue is the historic precedent combined with the fact the bigger chapters have more unique units than the entirety of some xenos races. It's hard not to argue the room for a supplement there.

"Forwards" is a really weird way of spelling "backwards".

Chronologically in terms of precedence sure, they were supplements for a while before being a codex previously as well. Rules wise I'm sorry it is a step forwards in terms of management and quality of life in a lot of respects, no longer will you have a tank with inexplicably better guns for blood angels and no other marines etc.

And now you're going to be factually incorrect, as well? At least for three of the most well-known Chapters - or have you forgotten that the first Codex was Space Wolves?

At best, you can say that some went Codex, Supplement, Codex, and now Supplement again, but they were a Codex for far more time than they were Supplements.

I have to admit, I'm a little confused about the supplement / sub-faction consternations.

Is the issue with what counts as a "sub-faction" and whether or not that sub-faction gets its own codex (and is hence a "supplement")? And following from this, are people upset that some factions (aka marines) get a number of sub-factions in their own supplement books whereas other factions may have either no sub-factions or just sub-factions presented within the main codex? What's the consternation about?

 Dysartes wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 Tyran wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
It's all in the execution. An army wide trait or two is a fine thing to get behind. An entire supplement of new units, upgrades, bespoke wargear, WL traits, Stratagems, extra rules, ehhh maybe less exciting.

There is also the issue of Space Marine subfaction vs everyone else's subfactions.

I mean, many Space Marine players want actual codexes for each and every Space Marine subfaction.

When a Xenos gets a subfaction supplement it is bloat, but when Marines get subfaction supplements it is the bare minimum.

They had actual codex for the big chapters, the move to supplements is a step forwards that many celebrated. The issue is the historic precedent combined with the fact the bigger chapters have more unique units than the entirety of some xenos races. It's hard not to argue the room for a supplement there.

"Forwards" is a really weird way of spelling "backwards".

Chronologically in terms of precedence sure, they were supplements for a while before being a codex previously as well. Rules wise I'm sorry it is a step forwards in terms of management and quality of life in a lot of respects, no longer will you have a tank with inexplicably better guns for blood angels and no other marines etc.

And now you're going to be factually incorrect, as well? At least for three of the most well-known Chapters - or have you forgotten that the first Codex was Space Wolves?

At best, you can say that some went Codex, Supplement, Codex, and now Supplement again, but they were a Codex for far more time than they were Supplements.

I'm glad the history of what book came out when is the highest order of priority rather than considering which application is right or better.

Dudeface wrote:
I'm glad the history of what book came out when is the highest order of priority rather than considering which application is right or better.

We should expect nothing less

 Mezmorki wrote:
I have to admit, I'm a little confused about the supplement / sub-faction consternations.

Is the issue with what counts as a "sub-faction" and whether or not that sub-faction gets its own codex (and is hence a "supplement")? And following from this, are people upset that some factions (aka marines) get a number of sub-factions in their own supplement books whereas other factions may have either no sub-factions or just sub-factions presented within the main codex? What's the consternation about?

I think at the end of the day, ALL armies should be customizeable, and subfactions are partially a way to go about that. But ideally, most of that customization should be in the codex.

Supplements in theory are fine, but locking some power combo to an army in a few pages as part of a $40 campaign supplement kinda sucks. And the conspicuousness of SMs getting their own full subfaction books is also pretty lame, not only because of the special treatment, but because the amount of crap required to excuse selling a whole book definitely feels like a "bloat for the bloat god" and "cash grab for the cash god" type of situation.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Mezmorki wrote:
I have to admit, I'm a little confused about the supplement / sub-faction consternations.

Is the issue with what counts as a "sub-faction" and whether or not that sub-faction gets its own codex (and is hence a "supplement")? And following from this, are people upset that some factions (aka marines) get a number of sub-factions in their own supplement books whereas other factions may have either no sub-factions or just sub-factions presented within the main codex? What's the consternation about?

I think at the end of the day, ALL armies should be customizeable, and subfactions are partially a way to go about that. But ideally, most of that customization should be in the codex.

Supplements in theory are fine, but locking some power combo to an army in a few pages as part of a $40 campaign supplement kinda sucks. And the conspicuousness of SMs getting their own full subfaction books is also pretty lame, not only because of the special treatment, but because the amount of crap required to excuse selling a whole book definitely feels like a "bloat for the bloat god" and "cash grab for the cash god" type of situation.

Bingo. At the end of the day, we need a huge consolidation of relics and Warlord Traits from the Loyalists.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Mezmorki wrote:
I have to admit, I'm a little confused about the supplement / sub-faction consternations.

Is the issue with what counts as a "sub-faction" and whether or not that sub-faction gets its own codex (and is hence a "supplement")? And following from this, are people upset that some factions (aka marines) get a number of sub-factions in their own supplement books whereas other factions may have either no sub-factions or just sub-factions presented within the main codex? What's the consternation about?

I think at the end of the day, ALL armies should be customizeable, and subfactions are partially a way to go about that. But ideally, most of that customization should be in the codex.

Supplements in theory are fine, but locking some power combo to an army in a few pages as part of a $40 campaign supplement kinda sucks. And the conspicuousness of SMs getting their own full subfaction books is also pretty lame, not only because of the special treatment, but because the amount of crap required to excuse selling a whole book definitely feels like a "bloat for the bloat god" and "cash grab for the cash god" type of situation.

Bingo. At the end of the day, we need a huge consolidation of relics and Warlord Traits from all factions.

fify

Racerguy180 wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Mezmorki wrote:
I have to admit, I'm a little confused about the supplement / sub-faction consternations.

Is the issue with what counts as a "sub-faction" and whether or not that sub-faction gets its own codex (and is hence a "supplement")? And following from this, are people upset that some factions (aka marines) get a number of sub-factions in their own supplement books whereas other factions may have either no sub-factions or just sub-factions presented within the main codex? What's the consternation about?

I think at the end of the day, ALL armies should be customizeable, and subfactions are partially a way to go about that. But ideally, most of that customization should be in the codex.

Supplements in theory are fine, but locking some power combo to an army in a few pages as part of a $40 campaign supplement kinda sucks. And the conspicuousness of SMs getting their own full subfaction books is also pretty lame, not only because of the special treatment, but because the amount of crap required to excuse selling a whole book definitely feels like a "bloat for the bloat god" and "cash grab for the cash god" type of situation.

Bingo. At the end of the day, we need a huge consolidation of relics and Warlord Traits from all factions.

fify

No you didn't. The only other factions that needs that is CSM.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Mezmorki wrote:
I have to admit, I'm a little confused about the supplement / sub-faction consternations.

Is the issue with what counts as a "sub-faction" and whether or not that sub-faction gets its own codex (and is hence a "supplement")? And following from this, are people upset that some factions (aka marines) get a number of sub-factions in their own supplement books whereas other factions may have either no sub-factions or just sub-factions presented within the main codex? What's the consternation about?

I think at the end of the day, ALL armies should be customizeable, and subfactions are partially a way to go about that. But ideally, most of that customization should be in the codex.

Supplements in theory are fine, but locking some power combo to an army in a few pages as part of a $40 campaign supplement kinda sucks. And the conspicuousness of SMs getting their own full subfaction books is also pretty lame, not only because of the special treatment, but because the amount of crap required to excuse selling a whole book definitely feels like a "bloat for the bloat god" and "cash grab for the cash god" type of situation.

Bingo. At the end of the day, we need a huge consolidation of relics and Warlord Traits from the Loyalists.

I vehemently disagree, having 4000 relics would not be as big a problem as 400 Stratagems. WL Traits and Relics are pretty quick to explain before a game because you can only have so many, there is no floodgate for Strats and objectives. If GW decided to give Ultramarines an extra Strat in the next White Dwarf that gave them +1 to hit while inside a water feature because they're blue like water then we'd all just have to learn to remember that extra ability, if it was a WL trait we could all just ignore it until someone actually took it, finding out about a Stratagem when it is being used is too late.

It is no secret that GW writes bad rules and Relics and WL traits are no exception, bad rules writing + lots of rules writing = unnecessary bloat. For example there is a relic that improves a weapon's Damage by 1 and adds 1 to wound rolls against Chaos units, can you tell me whose faction that belongs to and why it should belong to them? WL traits could probably work like in 7th where they are generic, there are only so many ways to lead an army and I don't see a reason why my custom Necron Dynasty shouldn't have access to a WL trait that buffs either the shooting of my WL or one that buffs the shooting of my Troops. If I hadn't been bitten so bad by the reading bug I might already be done with the alpha version of my take on how Relics could look to be more interesting and thematic and less +1 Sword-y.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Racerguy180 wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Mezmorki wrote:
I have to admit, I'm a little confused about the supplement / sub-faction consternations.

Is the issue with what counts as a "sub-faction" and whether or not that sub-faction gets its own codex (and is hence a "supplement")? And following from this, are people upset that some factions (aka marines) get a number of sub-factions in their own supplement books whereas other factions may have either no sub-factions or just sub-factions presented within the main codex? What's the consternation about?

I think at the end of the day, ALL armies should be customizeable, and subfactions are partially a way to go about that. But ideally, most of that customization should be in the codex.

Supplements in theory are fine, but locking some power combo to an army in a few pages as part of a $40 campaign supplement kinda sucks. And the conspicuousness of SMs getting their own full subfaction books is also pretty lame, not only because of the special treatment, but because the amount of crap required to excuse selling a whole book definitely feels like a "bloat for the bloat god" and "cash grab for the cash god" type of situation.

Bingo. At the end of the day, we need a huge consolidation of relics and Warlord Traits from all factions.

fify

No you didn't. The only other factions that needs that is CSM.

There should be like 3-5wl traits an maybe 8 strats TOTAL for all codex & units need to stop requiring strats to work.

 vict0988 wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Mezmorki wrote:
I have to admit, I'm a little confused about the supplement / sub-faction consternations.

Is the issue with what counts as a "sub-faction" and whether or not that sub-faction gets its own codex (and is hence a "supplement")? And following from this, are people upset that some factions (aka marines) get a number of sub-factions in their own supplement books whereas other factions may have either no sub-factions or just sub-factions presented within the main codex? What's the consternation about?

I think at the end of the day, ALL armies should be customizeable, and subfactions are partially a way to go about that. But ideally, most of that customization should be in the codex.

Supplements in theory are fine, but locking some power combo to an army in a few pages as part of a $40 campaign supplement kinda sucks. And the conspicuousness of SMs getting their own full subfaction books is also pretty lame, not only because of the special treatment, but because the amount of crap required to excuse selling a whole book definitely feels like a "bloat for the bloat god" and "cash grab for the cash god" type of situation.

Bingo. At the end of the day, we need a huge consolidation of relics and Warlord Traits from the Loyalists.

I vehemently disagree, having 4000 relics would not be as big a problem as 400 Stratagems. WL Traits and Relics are pretty quick to explain before a game because you can only have so many, there is no floodgate for Strats and objectives. If GW decided to give Ultramarines an extra Strat in the next White Dwarf that gave them +1 to hit while inside a water feature because they're blue like water then we'd all just have to learn to remember that extra ability, if it was a WL trait we could all just ignore it until someone actually took it, finding out about a Stratagem when it is being used is too late.

It is no secret that GW writes bad rules and Relics and WL traits are no exception, bad rules writing + lots of rules writing = unnecessary bloat. For example there is a relic that improves a weapon's Damage by 1 and adds 1 to wound rolls against Chaos units, can you tell me whose faction that belongs to and why it should belong to them? WL traits could probably work like in 7th where they are generic, there are only so many ways to lead an army and I don't see a reason why my custom Necron Dynasty shouldn't have access to a WL trait that buffs either the shooting of my WL or one that buffs the shooting of my Troops. If I hadn't been bitten so bad by the reading bug I might already be done with the alpha version of my take on how Relics could look to be more interesting and thematic and less +1 Sword-y.

You know back when i first started playing they did that relic/trait stuff pretty good.

*breaks out the best dark angels codex from 3rd edition*

.one army wide trait for non-deathwing/ravenwing units-intractable
.three banners
.5 relics, 2 of which are only carried by Azrael

^And the supplement was $9.99, paperback and super lightweight. Good times. Good times.

 Insectum7 wrote:
I think at the end of the day, ALL armies should be customizeable, and subfactions are partially a way to go about that. But ideally, most of that customization should be in the codex.

sad thing is that armies now, with a lot of subfactions etc. are less customizable than they were without

simply because if a Codex needs to be able to represent all different kinds of armies for that faction, it needs to be flexible and adjustable, while rules for subfactions just need to represent that faction in their typical way without doing anything else

a Codex Space Marines that needs to be able to make the typical Ravenwing, Deathing, or Iron Hands army is much better for custom armies than a subfaction Codex Ravenwing

and than were are not even talking about the problem that all Codex Marines are basically the same in organisation and that those get different special rules to make them special is a stupid way to piss everyone else off
as if the Imperial Fist and Ultramarines are that different in rules when they are basically the same in Background, the different Eldar or Ork Factions would need a full standalone Codex to be properly represented

Racerguy180 wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Racerguy180 wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Mezmorki wrote:
I have to admit, I'm a little confused about the supplement / sub-faction consternations.

Is the issue with what counts as a "sub-faction" and whether or not that sub-faction gets its own codex (and is hence a "supplement")? And following from this, are people upset that some factions (aka marines) get a number of sub-factions in their own supplement books whereas other factions may have either no sub-factions or just sub-factions presented within the main codex? What's the consternation about?

I think at the end of the day, ALL armies should be customizeable, and subfactions are partially a way to go about that. But ideally, most of that customization should be in the codex.

Supplements in theory are fine, but locking some power combo to an army in a few pages as part of a $40 campaign supplement kinda sucks. And the conspicuousness of SMs getting their own full subfaction books is also pretty lame, not only because of the special treatment, but because the amount of crap required to excuse selling a whole book definitely feels like a "bloat for the bloat god" and "cash grab for the cash god" type of situation.

Bingo. At the end of the day, we need a huge consolidation of relics and Warlord Traits from all factions.

fify

No you didn't. The only other factions that needs that is CSM.

There should be like 3-5wl traits an maybe 8 strats TOTAL for all codex & units need to stop requiring strats to work.

Strats are mostly fine. The problem is straight offensive/defensive buffs that only apply to one unit, and those can mostly go the way of the dodo.

Death to strats and buffs and modifiers! As a “legend” era gamer, I’ve come to respect that games are better when you just play the units.

I don’t mind command units rerolling 1s and cover saves… but the bloat and combos need to go. Horus Heresy rules just feel better sometimes, but that seems contradictory to the above to me.