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.

I don't know about starting by choosing a subfaction - but Eldar and Orks struck me as the original subfaction factions. Even back in 2nd they had broad varied rosters and if you leaned into a particular selection of units, could make what seemed quite a different list to someone leaning the other way.

Certainly felt like more variety than "guys in power armour. Guys in power armour with a jetpack. Guys in power armour on bikes. Wait for it - guys with even thicker power armour."

The old guard regiments were great for flavour - but you were still looking at half a dozen different types of "guy with lasgun" jogging alongside tanks.

Tyranids have never really struck me as having subfaction archetypes. I.E. Carpets of gaunts and Nidzilla obviously existed but this always felt more like a player preference rather than being subfaction related. Like whether you favour Boyz or Toyz in Orks isn't really a subfaction decision in itself.

And then you move into other factions where all the subfactions feel kind of artificial outside of colour scheme. Clearly you can make different lists, but I never felt DE/Tau/Necrons were readily explained by subfactions. Or the subfaction fluff identify was never explicitly tied to models in the same way so it all had to be reverse engineered.

The height of this silliness in 8th was the Harlequins codex with 6 subfactions and just 4 non-character unit types.

Dudeface wrote:
Thanks Daed, I was more referencing back to late 8th/parts of 9th, when some units were almost certainly rebalanced because of specific interactions locked behind chapter rules/relics/traits. They do seem to by army now, but as we've seen if a unit is overly good in one detachment they seem to target the unit, not the detachment, which then impacts the others even more so.

Ah, gotcha. Sometimes it's hard to follow lines of thought with these walls of text, lol.

I feel as though they were pretty cautious so far, but they obviously can't point each detachment properly. Looking at marines -- Inceptors and Aggressors were good regardless. I didn't see many cent devs, but I just recently figured out how to scrape lists from BCP.

I haven't parsed them so this is pretty rudimentary analysis, but here's the frequency of "Centurion Dev" ( once per list ) by Detachment:

( these are Dec and Jan lists only atm )


The use in Gladius is enough to tell me that Cent Devs were good enough to warrant a smack even though the detachment doesn't support them. The detachments where they weren't used don't really care since their use was already 0. So while an increase might make them even less relevant to say Stormlance...does it matter?

For gaks and giggles here are Inceptors:

So, in a perfect world, I can see advantages to the chapters being locked to specific rules, but GW is so far from perfect its just not something I support. The reality is, sometimes you find out your army is garbage for the next 2-5 years and there's nothing you can do about it short of buying a new one. That's bad enough, but to say that because you painted your dudes red is really unnecessary and unhealthy.

Ultimately, I think the Space Marine chapters have enough gameplay tinged flavor that people are attracted to playing them as presented. Ultimately if you're attracted to White Scars you're probably wanting to play with the bikes and if it just happens that Gladius or something best supports your ability to play bikes, all the better. You're not going to find Space Wolves that want to play a static gunline very often, but they might not be all that into completing mini games for character buffs. It would be nice if their own detachment was better, but you can hardly complain that their misuse of White Scars hasn't created an undeniably Space Wolves army.

Its just a system that better supports people getting to play with their toys. I also think we're going to see some awesome expression from players as a result. I'm sure some day an assault focused marine list will be meta and while that seems kind of dumb for Iron Hands, its also a fantastic opportunity for someone to make a CC unit with skull masks and chain axes or something to fit their style. And even if its not for meta reasons, if someone wants to try a new playstyle, they shouldn't have to rebuild their army from scratch to get it.

Ultimately, unlocking detachments lets players play and personally, I think that's well worth the change.

Tyel wrote:

A Space Marine chapter should have all the equipment in the codex. At least as far as I'm aware, Dorn didn't declare "and they shall know no bikes." If you love the colour Yellow and love bikes, why not have both? I don't buy the whole "well maybe they can have bikes that are different to WS bikes". We know how this goes - some rule is always better. And then you get the bizarre situation where WS are actually worse with bikes than IF, IH or RG etc, or you are left with a suboptimal combination which is just annoying. (8th edition Word Bearers say hi.)

I mean I'm not sure why you'd get into say Iyanden if you didn't like Wraithguard. But maybe you like the colour scheme. Or maybe you do like Wraithguard - but not playing with them *every game*. I don't see the issue if you go "today I'm going to run all aspect warriors, and I'll talk the Swordwind detachment to indicate the rules this force should have". Crying "no no no that should be Biel-Tan only, if you aren't green it can't apply" feels pointless.

Delayed response, but I wanted to chime in and say that this pretty well sums up my thoughts on the topic. Like fist lore but also want to field a bike army? You shouldn't have to play with a handicap because your GW-assigned subfaction rules don't support bikes while another chapter's do. Doubly true given that we've seen examples of GW assigning rules to one subfaction that make more sense on another. (I'm thinking 8th edition craftworld traits here.)

You're not going to find Space Wolves that want to play a static gunline very often, but they might not be all that into completing mini games for character buffs. It would be nice if their own detachment was better, but you can hardly complain that their misuse of White Scars hasn't created an undeniably Space Wolves army.

SW are a great example of where the 10th edition approach works! There's canonically a great company lead by a guy named Egil Ironwolf. They're known for fielding lots of vehicles. Basically the tech-heavy sub-subfaction for the SW. You can easily see how they might prefer to use the not-Iron Hands detachment over the saga thing. There's also a company called the Fire Howlers who are big on flamer use and understandably might want to use the not-Salamanders detachment as a nod to their fluff.

To me, the whole point of detachments is to give players a variety of ways to use/play with their models. The collection of models that one detachment turns into a gunline might be a bunch of mobile skirmishers with a different detachment. Trying to tie rules to paint schemes is contrary to that. We don't need special rules that make non-White Scars bikers feel like irrelevant second-stringers; we need rules that make bike armies feel like a valid choice that plays differently from a gunline army or an armored assault army, etc.

As a Blood Angels player I have always been interested in Dreadnoughts and Jump packs but usually the rules and support for the dreads in Blood Angels have been bad and in 9th they were so bad it crossed over into insulting. The BA melee dreads were slower than the generic shooting dreads, with no way to even get run and charge on them, ffs!

The few times I even played in 9th (only as the ringer in a few local events) I used my Blood Angel models as Ultramarines or Iron Hands. Ultramarines for when I wanted to field my Invictor Warsuits (converted to look like dreads cause the original look is really bad) or Iron Hands for the other dreads. The person who tries to force me into using the BA rules/detachment for when I run my dreads rather than some other chapter/detachment that have more suitable rules have to gamble on if I might see black and unleash my rage on them.

 Wyldhunt wrote:

You're not going to find Space Wolves that want to play a static gunline very often, but they might not be all that into completing mini games for character buffs. It would be nice if their own detachment was better, but you can hardly complain that their misuse of White Scars hasn't created an undeniably Space Wolves army.

SW are a great example of where the 10th edition approach works! There's canonically a great company lead by a guy named Egil Ironwolf. They're known for fielding lots of vehicles. Basically the tech-heavy sub-subfaction for the SW. You can easily see how they might prefer to use the not-Iron Hands detachment over the saga thing. There's also a company called the Fire Howlers who are big on flamer use and understandably might want to use the not-Salamanders detachment as a nod to their fluff.

To me, the whole point of detachments is to give players a variety of ways to use/play with their models. The collection of models that one detachment turns into a gunline might be a bunch of mobile skirmishers with a different detachment. Trying to tie rules to paint schemes is contrary to that. We don't need special rules that make non-White Scars bikers feel like irrelevant second-stringers; we need rules that make bike armies feel like a valid choice that plays differently from a gunline army or an armored assault army, etc.

Space Wolves players have always been Orks at heart. Play the whole range, just slap some viking nonsense on there. Some see hover tanks, but others see longboats. Honestly, I don't need the Fire Howlers to exist to justify a flamer themed wolves. I need someone to put the army on the table and tell me excitedly about their Hellhound Battalion. That's the kind of stuff the 40k setting has always excelled in.

I know I'm in on page 6 here, but reading the OPs first post, I'm left with another question. Is there more than just bland rules? What do they seem to mean by sanitized? Plot? Lore? Art? All of those have been pretty sizably epic I thought. I think this is the edition after a massive success like 9th, and 10th by any comparison is going to feel weaker, and boring, and derivative. I'm not sure what he wanted, but three primarchs have returned, two Demon, 1 Loyalist, and we have talk of another loyalist one soon. We also are barely half way through. We haven't even gotten to the weird part where GW starts scraping the bottom of the idea barrel for new models. (This is the new ATV JETBIKE LT with TH/MELTA PISTOL, *Online order only*)

We actually have 2 loyalists and 3 daemon primarchs at this point: Roboute, the Lion, Magnus, Angron, and Mortarion.

 Wyldhunt wrote:
We actually have 2 loyalists and 3 daemon primarchs at this point: Roboute, the Lion, Magnus, Angron, and Mortarion.

Not only that, the next is probably Fulgrim with the EC release at the end of the ed (you know, to transition to 11).

GW likes the loyalists outnumbered in the Primarch race- that way their posterboys can be both the underdogs AND bolter porn.

 Wyldhunt wrote:

Spoiler:

Tyel wrote:

A Space Marine chapter should have all the equipment in the codex. At least as far as I'm aware, Dorn didn't declare "and they shall know no bikes." If you love the colour Yellow and love bikes, why not have both? I don't buy the whole "well maybe they can have bikes that are different to WS bikes". We know how this goes - some rule is always better. And then you get the bizarre situation where WS are actually worse with bikes than IF, IH or RG etc, or you are left with a suboptimal combination which is just annoying. (8th edition Word Bearers say hi.)

I mean I'm not sure why you'd get into say Iyanden if you didn't like Wraithguard. But maybe you like the colour scheme. Or maybe you do like Wraithguard - but not playing with them *every game*. I don't see the issue if you go "today I'm going to run all aspect warriors, and I'll talk the Swordwind detachment to indicate the rules this force should have". Crying "no no no that should be Biel-Tan only, if you aren't green it can't apply" feels pointless.

Delayed response, but I wanted to chime in and say that this pretty well sums up my thoughts on the topic. Like fist lore but also want to field a bike army? You shouldn't have to play with a handicap because your GW-assigned subfaction rules don't support bikes while another chapter's do.

Having a thing isn't the same as being effective with it. Fists and their Successors back in the days of the 3.5/4E doctrines book literally had a flaw that was about "Pride in their colors", do you think they should be able to take a Vanguard Spearhead full of stealthy troops?

Doubly true given that we've seen examples of GW assigning rules to one subfaction that make more sense on another. (I'm thinking 8th edition craftworld traits here.)

People having different interpretations of what should be vs what is given is not what's at issue here.


Anyways, maybe it's time to just lock named characters to specific detachments.
Want to play IF? Cool, don't take the named characters if you want to run them all!
Want to run the named characters? So sorry, no biker or vanguard detachments.

I seriously thought Fulgrim was already out. Did they release a Slanesshi DP I mistook for Fulgrim? I swear I thought he was out....

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I seriously thought Fulgrim was already out. Did they release a Slanesshi DP I mistook for Fulgrim? I swear I thought he was out....

It's Fulgrim for 30k.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Having a thing isn't the same as being effective with it. Fists and their Successors back in the days of the 3.5/4E doctrines book literally had a flaw that was about "Pride in their colors", do you think they should be able to take a Vanguard Spearhead full of stealthy troops?

In practical terms? Yes. They should. Or rather, it should be up to the individual IF player whether or not they should. Because:
A.) As a rule of thumb, there are probably more detachments that could reasonably run by most subfactions than not. And
B.) To do otherwise is to be a fluff snob telling people they're enjoying their hobby wrong.

Doubly true given that we've seen examples of GW assigning rules to one subfaction that make more sense on another. (I'm thinking 8th edition craftworld traits here.)

People having different interpretations of what should be vs what is given is not what's at issue here.

I think it's worth mentioning as a brief aside. You seem to be against Imperial Fists being stealthy. Now imagine if their 8th edition rule was, inexplicably, to make them the especially stealthy subfaction. You might, understandably, prefer to run them with rules that you felt fit your understanding of their lore, yes? The 10th edition approach to detachment rules allows for that. And realistically, so did 8th and 9ths'. People use the rules that they prefer for whatever reason be it fluff, mechanical advantage, or something else entirely. If someone had yellow marines in 9th but really wanted to play with White Scars rules, they were going to use the White Scars rules. 10th's approach just removes the awkward feeling that you're "borrowing another faction's rules." You're playing an army full of marine bikers? They're using the rules that support that playstyle. Whether yellow-armored biker spam is lore accurate is between you, your opponent, and the Emperor.

Anyways, maybe it's time to just lock named characters to specific detachments.
Want to play IF? Cool, don't take the named characters if you want to run them all!

I could go either way with this and wouldn't mind if it were the case. On one hand, I don't love when not-Guilliman is present at every battle, and it probably feels neat to have your own "special thing" if you happen to be playing one of the subfactions lucky enough to get extra support from GW. On the other hand, you can justify most named characters having a crossover episode easily enough, and there isn't really any mechanical harm in it. So disallowing named characters from mixing and matching kind of comes back to being a fluff snob who tells people they're having fun wrong. Which is gross.

Want to run the named characters? So sorry, no biker or vanguard detachments.

This feels more okay than just banning people from using detachments or characters based on their paint scheme, but probably still falls into fluff snob territory. Unless there's something about a detachment that makes a character more powerful than intended when taken in that detachment.

I'll repeat a point I've made before-the majority of named characters should just be certain builds that you make from generic characters.

Calgar might be a unique individual, but Chapter Master with Twin Power Fists shouldn't be locked to Ultras exclusively.

 JNAProductions wrote:
I'll repeat a point I've made before-the majority of named characters should just be certain builds that you make from generic characters.

Calgar might be a unique individual, but Chapter Master with Twin Power Fists shouldn't be locked to Ultras exclusively.

Yes and no? I mean, yes, everyone should get that basic trope, but should everyone get the "Gauntlets of Ultramar"? Shouldn't those specific relic weapons be BETTER, and locked to the Ultras?

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
I'll repeat a point I've made before-the majority of named characters should just be certain builds that you make from generic characters.

Calgar might be a unique individual, but Chapter Master with Twin Power Fists shouldn't be locked to Ultras exclusively.

Yes and no? I mean, yes, everyone should get that basic trope, but should everyone get the "Gauntlets of Ultramar"? Shouldn't those specific relic weapons be BETTER, and locked to the Ultras?

Imo Gauntlets of Ultramar should just be something you could assemble, which would be Master Crafted Powerfist and Master Crafted Storm Bolter. On Calgar they take a certain form, (double Fist with underslung bolter) but that would be the end of it. And Calgar as a named character would have a certain Warlord Trait or similar, but that would also be something generic you could choose for your own custom hero.

For Chapters, 4th ed did it best with the Chapter Traits. Pick your own traits from a list, possibly some trade-offs. Named Chapters get some fixed set of traits from the same list.

Basically just open up the options for people to make their own. Named characters and chapters should be mostly create-able with the options available.

 Tyran wrote:
Regarding subfactions, not everyone is Marines. Marines in particular have been developed with heavy emphasis on their subfactions.

But everyone else? maybe Guard and Sisters also have a somewhat strong subfaction theme, but I doubt Orks, Eldars and Necrons players started their armies by choosing a subfaction.

I know for a fact I didn't start my Tyranids as Leviathan, Behemoth or Kraken, and it was a standard and very accepted practice among Tyranid players to disregard paint and play as whatever hive fleet supported their preferred playstyle and/or was meta.

I definitely did it and would do so again if I'm forced to pick a subfaction, because I like playing Tyranids as a whole and experimenting with the different playstyles the faction as a whole supports, not only one.

Space Marines themselves had their subfactions (DA/BA/SW) split out earlier than others yes, and had some (BT/RG/etc) continue to be split off.

Some, like Orks, had their subfactions mixed from the beginning in such a way that trying to force them through the Chapter Tactics Template doesn't work. They likely need a different template.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

PenitentJake wrote:

 Wyldhunt wrote:
We actually have 2 loyalists and 3 daemon primarchs at this point: Roboute, the Lion, Magnus, Angron, and Mortarion.

Not only that, the next is probably Fulgrim with the EC release at the end of the ed (you know, to transition to 11).

GW likes the loyalists outnumbered in the Primarch race- that way their posterboys can be both the underdogs AND bolter porn.

I would expect to see two Primarchs, 1 each. So Fulgrim and Russ most likely.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Wyldhunt wrote:

Spoiler:

Tyel wrote:

A Space Marine chapter should have all the equipment in the codex. At least as far as I'm aware, Dorn didn't declare "and they shall know no bikes." If you love the colour Yellow and love bikes, why not have both? I don't buy the whole "well maybe they can have bikes that are different to WS bikes". We know how this goes - some rule is always better. And then you get the bizarre situation where WS are actually worse with bikes than IF, IH or RG etc, or you are left with a suboptimal combination which is just annoying. (8th edition Word Bearers say hi.)

I mean I'm not sure why you'd get into say Iyanden if you didn't like Wraithguard. But maybe you like the colour scheme. Or maybe you do like Wraithguard - but not playing with them *every game*. I don't see the issue if you go "today I'm going to run all aspect warriors, and I'll talk the Swordwind detachment to indicate the rules this force should have". Crying "no no no that should be Biel-Tan only, if you aren't green it can't apply" feels pointless.

Delayed response, but I wanted to chime in and say that this pretty well sums up my thoughts on the topic. Like fist lore but also want to field a bike army? You shouldn't have to play with a handicap because your GW-assigned subfaction rules don't support bikes while another chapter's do.

Having a thing isn't the same as being effective with it. Fists and their Successors back in the days of the 3.5/4E doctrines book literally had a flaw that was about "Pride in their colors", do you think they should be able to take a Vanguard Spearhead full of stealthy troops?

Imperial Fists had "Death before dishonour", not "Have pride in your colours" in the 4th ed book. They have never had restrictions on using scouts or infiltrate, being mostly a good codex Chapter. Plus, infiltration is an important siege strategy.

In practical terms? Yes. They should. Or rather, it should be up to the individual IF player whether or not they should. Because:
A.) As a rule of thumb, there are probably more detachments that could reasonably run by most subfactions than not. And
B.) To do otherwise is to be a fluff snob telling people they're enjoying their hobby wrong.

I strongly disagree with this entire sentiment. the reason players in general...that are not power gaming faction hoppers looking for the new comp hotness. are drawn to the sub factions because of the lore, the way they fight and the way they do not fight. GW already skillfully addressed making the armies your own in previous editions when lore mattered more than tournaments. through the trait system for marines, the craftworlds for eldar etc...
If anything locking iconic factions into a specific play style prevents abuse, while supporting the setting. were back to that feeling of sanitized blandness or lost soul that started this discussion.

Nobody is telling them they are enjoying it wrong, if anything it helps them enjoy the hobby more by finding the faction or creating their own that fits what they are after. my view of 40K overall is what led me back to playing oldhammer. it is for epic fun battles in the setting. where my love of flame weapons matches the compassionate and noble Salamanders who love flame and melta weapons for lore reasons. or my love of wraith constructs draw me to playing the Iyanden craftworld that was forced into reforming itself around them because of the setting.

With the fists specifically, sitting here looking at my index astartes book. they do not directly eschew stealth but they prefer direct in your face aggression that precludes it along with special bonuses for destroying or fighting from fortifications.

The great thing about playing old hammer is i will never have to worry about balances passes invalidating armies or models or GW screwing things over ever again by rediculous rules changes that are directly the result of tournament win rates.

When i see a scars army or a templar army or a fists army on the table i know what i am up against just as much as if i were fighting alaitoc or bad moons.

Or it could be an entire custom chapter or an army of purple orks.....that you will never see coming..sneaky gitz.

detachments, like stratagem bloat and formation bloat before them were more of a detriment to the game from the marketing department at GW to push new sales than anything that should be in the game. but then NU-40K isn't 40k at all in my book. it just pretends to be.

Marines should just largely import the 30k lists, Rites of War and overall design sensibilities. A massive general list, a few special rules that offer benefits and weaknesses and a smattering of a couple of unique units. White Scars, Night Lords and Blood Angels can all use general Terminators but how those units are used in a given legion list will vary immensely and be equipped accordingly.

The other factions should also follow this general outline in 40k proper

 Haighus wrote:

Imperial Fists had "Death before dishonour", not "Have pride in your colours" in the 4th ed book. They have never had restrictions on using scouts or infiltrate, being mostly a good codex Chapter. Plus, infiltration is an important siege strategy.

Who am I thinking of? I don't have the book anymore, that trait just always stuck out to me.

I should note that I didn't say they should not have Scouts. Just that they shouldn't be sneaky.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Breton wrote:

Space Marines themselves had their subfactions (DA/BA/SW) split out earlier than others yes, and had some (BT/RG/etc) continue to be split off.

RG, etc haven't ever been split out. That's the problem which exists. We have more RG themed stuff smattered in Space Wolves and Deathwatch than we do in the main codex.

Some, like Orks, had their subfactions mixed from the beginning in such a way that trying to force them through the Chapter Tactics Template doesn't work. They likely need a different template.

It's actually why I'm leaning towards special characters having detachment locks as a viable solution. For Marines? It's the easiest and most effective way to manage things.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Haighus wrote:

Imperial Fists had "Death before dishonour", not "Have pride in your colours" in the 4th ed book. They have never had restrictions on using scouts or infiltrate, being mostly a good codex Chapter. Plus, infiltration is an important siege strategy.

Who am I thinking of? I don't have the book anymore, that trait just always stuck out to me.

I should note that I didn't say they should not have Scouts. Just that they shouldn't be sneaky.

I'm not sure, none of the Chapters of Legend have the no-sneaky trait listed:


The fatal flaw of the Imperial Fists has always been over-zealous stubborness, which sometimes prevents them from retreating when it would be tactically prudent. This is shared with the Index Astartes lore and rules:


The only time Imperial Fists didn't do sneaky was during the Scouring, when they were especially bitter and vengeful and largely abandoned their usual careful reconnaissance prior to set pieces. Infiltration isn't a specialty, but they are as capable in it as any Chapter not from the Raven Guard lineage.

Edit: the Red Scorpions don't like sneaking, or at least Carab Culln doesn't.

Edit2: the 4th ed Marines codex had some major flaws too- White Scars being limited in vehicles incl. transport vehicles being the most obvious. They should have added a different major flaw for them that represented a distaste in slow troops on foot. "All infantry except scouts requires a dedicated transport or to be upgraded with bikes or jump packs", for example.

That 4th edition book was the correct way. Benefits AND drawbacks, where you could pick but named subfactions had theirs set (like how in later editions Warlords had set warlord traits and couldn't get relics/enhancements)

Wayniac wrote:
That 4th edition book was the correct way. Benefits AND drawbacks, where you could pick but named subfactions had theirs set (like how in later editions Warlords had set warlord traits and couldn't get relics/enhancements)

It's funny though: I've seen people claim to like drawbacks in old editions, but not like 9th's subfaction rules, where the drawback was that you'd be specialized in one particular style of warfare, and not others. In 9th, people would call that Falanderization, when there's not even actually a drawback, people just say there is because they feel like everything in which they are not specialized is "something that they are penalized for doing" when no actual penalty exists.

And I'll remind people that not only was 9th the first edition to offer subfaction specializations to every unit in the game, it was also they only edition to have "Build your own options" for every faction in the game.

Now Wayne, I'm not sure if you are one of the people who posted that not having a special rule that affects a particular fighting style is a penalty that makes that play style "useless" - but there cetainly are a few who argue against subfaction rules that did.

The problem with drawbacks is that they are even more difficult to balance holistically than advantages.

I mean for example above - "We Stand Alone, can't take allies". Oh no, what a terrible shame in my pure Space Marine list. Then you had classic things like "can take an extra Heavy Support choice, but have to run one less Fast Attack". Oh no, how will my mainly heavy tank army cope?

Its very hard to balance this really. "This perk buffs shooting, but this matching flaw nerfs your close combat ability" - well, my list is full of gunline units that that suck in close combat anyway so who cares?

That's why I feel the 30k Rites of War is the best way that I've seen that does a good compromise.

Thing is, there are "characters" which have no clear or absolute non-character model proxy. For instance, off the top of my head, without leaving space Marines, Tor Garadon has no current space marine model that can be fielded which he is a double for. Dante has no clear counterpart. Nor does Sanginius. There are singular character models that prevent "This model is just a captain with a jetpack and an axe/melta pistol". Because those don't exist currently. At least not Primaris.

To be completely honest I'd be totally fine with special characters being narrative or opponent's permission only. We went from them being special to being all over the place, often being "auto includes" because of their special abilities.

Well, I mean, you might as well tell people that UM,BA, and BT are not playable without players permission, as half their strength is tied to their characters being some of the best in the game. I mean, I see your point, but that's a little extreme.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Well, I mean, you might as well tell people that UM,BA, and BT are not playable without players permission, as half their strength is tied to their characters being some of the best in the game. I mean, I see your point, but that's a little extreme.

Well, that being the case is kinda the problem in general, isn't it? You shouldn't be required to take a special character for your faction to function.