Wh40k 10th Edition Faction Focus: Space Marines

[CL_Mission]

9 hours ago, Rain said:

Divergent chapters actually have unique units, and have for years, unlike some armies’ subfactions which were always just short blurbs. The Kabal of the Obsidian Rose really like splinter weapons, but they don’t have unique weapons or units, and all Dark Eldar like splinter weapons. They don’t need to be a subfaction, but Space Wolves, Blood Angels, etc. have more than enough to be supported as their own armies.

As someone who wanted to get back into Dark Eldar in 9th I actually found the subfactions annoying. It felt like box ticking, Subfactions for subfaction's sake. I'd much rather have one meaningful subfaction with strong lore and, imptantly, model support than a bunch of arbitrary rules tacked on here and there to meet some kind of quota. The idea of the simpler index has got me more excited for Dark Eldar than last codex did.

[Karhedron]

I agree, I have played Eldar since 1st edition so craftworld-specific rules feel like a recent innovation to me. Craftworlds are different from Space Marines that each of the big 5 Craftworlds is traditionally associated with a particular style of army.

 

Biel Tan - Swordwind

Saim Hann - Windrider

Iyanden - Wraith host

Ulthwé - Guardians and Seers

Alaitoc - Outcasts

 

I have an Iyanden army and plenty of Wraith units but I don't want to be restricted to just playing a Wraith host. I have plenty of Aspect Warriors too and like to run Swordwind-style lists quite often too. Crucially, the different Craftworlds don't have any unique units apart from a couple of special characters. If Eldar come with 5 or 6 Detachments representing the classic styles of army, I will be more than happy. It is in the lore that all Craftworlds are primarily guided by their Farseers (apart from Biel Tan perhaps) so Strand of Fate make perfect sense as an overarching faction rule.

 

Marines are different. BAs, SWs and DAs all have several unique units. Also there are factors such as Space Wolves famously refusing to follow the Codex so them taking Doctrines does not feel entirely fluffy. Are Blood Angels more archetypically a melee Chapter or is that Space Wolves? Are BAs a speed based chapter or is that White Scars? Do White Scars or Ravenwing better represent a biker army?

 

Do Ravenwing need a special rule beyond perhaps making Bikes battleline? If you make an Outrider detachment that has Bikes as Battleline and some other bonus to replace Doctrines, would that satisfy Ravenwing, White Scars and anyone else who wants to run a bike-focussed list? Do Dark Angels need a special subset of rules to represent the Ravenwing or is the combination of their unique units and a Biker detachment sufficient? How special to special chapters need to be?

[Khornestar]

2 hours ago, ZeroWolf said:

By the by, is everyone planning to get all the index rules at launch just to see what's what like I'm planning on doing? I mean might as well grab them all while they're free!

Might as well, IMO, to know mine enemy if nothing else.

 

edit: somehow missed you saying the same re: free downloads in my post-awaking state. ;)

Edited May 29, 2023 by Khornestar

[Khornestar]

Double post…

Edited May 29, 2023 by Khornestar

[Arkhanist]

2 hours ago, CL_Mission said:

As someone who wanted to get back into Dark Eldar in 9th I actually found the subfactions annoying. It felt like box ticking, Subfactions for subfaction's sake. I'd much rather have one meaningful subfaction with strong lore and, imptantly, model support than a bunch of arbitrary rules tacked on here and there to meet some kind of quota. The idea of the simpler index has got me more excited for Dark Eldar than last codex did.

 

I mean, Dark Eldar specifically have 3 distinct subfactions already - kabals, wyches and haemonculi. It'll be interesting to see how that is handled with detachments this time round. Maybe a generic one for the index that works for a mixed group, then 3 additional detachments that provide benefits that are more associated with one of the three so it'd make sense to go wych heavy with that detachment but not exclusively.

 

Subfactions without specific additional minis though does feel somewhat bloaty though, I agree - different kabal subfactions is great for flavour and painting inspiration, but people just tend to pick the best one(s) from a minor rules addition perspective, and it mostly just adds bloat. For marines, having a detachment that that represents e.g. imperial fists but is not locked to fists does make a lot of sense as they are fundamentally codex-compliant marines and should fight that way.

 

I really, really hope the codex improvements aren't that huge compared to the indexes though - i.e. they add variety and options without being nakedly better than the launch detachments. We saw this in 8th; armies with only their index were at a major disadvantage to those with a codex, and we're going to spend at least 1/3 of the new edition if not longer slowly churning out the dead tree books.

[Khornestar]

4 minutes ago, Arkhanist said:

I really, really hope the codex improvements aren't that huge compared to the indexes though - i.e. they add variety and options without being nakedly better than the launch detachments. We saw this in 8th; armies with only their index were at a major disadvantage to those with a codex, and we're going to spend at least 1/3 of the new edition if not longer slowly churning out the dead tree books.

As positive as I am about this edition and its changes, I feel like because it’s GW that situation is essentially a foregone conclusion. I’d be very surprised if the armies relying on a launch index can hang with the others as the (probably) inevitable creep ramps up.

The rules that break rules and the rules to break THOSE rules, etc. etc.

 

It is a cynical assumption that could be wrong, but with history as our guide…

 

They’d really have to stick to a design philosophy for an entire edition and even if the rules team wanted to do that, I’m not sure they could help themselves in light of however much rules “creeping” design is intended to generate sales, if the phenomenon exists intentionally.

Edited May 29, 2023 by Khornestar

[ThePenitentOne]

@CL_Mission I always felt that rules were more indicative of what an army actually is than lore. Lore is just words on a page. Lore says one marine can defeat a thousand guardsmen, which we all know he can, so lore is just BS. Rules, on the otherhand, actually influence tabletop behviour and thus actually affect the game in a way that lore never has. I also find that these behavioural cues provide modelling suggestions that allow me to customize the appearance of my units; I like to model relics, and in some cases, special rules or strats can influence modelling choices as well. 

 

@Karhedron  My question is this: Given that the Craftworlds are associated with these modes of warfare in the lore, SHOULD an Iyanden Windrider Host be as good as Saim Hann one? Because personally, I don't think it should be. I think you should be able to field one, for sure... And you can. But if you come up against Saim Hann, they should be better than yours, just as your Wraith Host should be better than theirs. It doesn't mean they can't field a Wraith Host- of course they can. It's just not their specialty.

 

The 9th ed rules facilitated this. 10th rules don't. When any subfaction can use any specialization, it means that no subfactions actually have specializations- every subfaction is equally good at doing everything. Oh sure, the lore will continue to tell you that Iyanden Wraith Hosts are the bomb, but it will just be an empty lie that has exactly zero impact on the actual game, kinda like the marine soloing a thousand guardsmen.

 

Now don't get me wrong- I do see the other side of the coin, and both of you have legitimate points of view. It's the fact that I see the other side of the coin that prevents the demise of subfaction identities* from being a deal breaker for me.

 

* Except for BA/DA/SW/DW/BT Marines and CSM god legions who get to keep their sub-faction identities, because they are so much more important than the rest of us.

 

[Rain]

5 hours ago, CL_Mission said:

As someone who wanted to get back into Dark Eldar in 9th I actually found the subfactions annoying. It felt like box ticking, Subfactions for subfaction's sake. I'd much rather have one meaningful subfaction with strong lore and, imptantly, model support than a bunch of arbitrary rules tacked on here and there to meet some kind of quota. The idea of the simpler index has got me more excited for Dark Eldar than last codex did.

Yes, it was precisely box ticking. The same is true for Necrons, Tyranids, Sisters, Mechanicum, and, most egregiously, the plague companies and cults that were subfactions which existed within Death Guard and Thousand Sons, which were already spinoffs from Chaos Space Marines.

 

That said, some factions have had defined subfactions for a while, and some representation of that would be nice. Most notably, Marines, Chaos Marines, Eldar, Orks, and Imperial Guard.  The problem is that GW wants to take an all or nothing approach where either everyone gets subfactions, or no on does, which is stupid and counterproductive.

 

Also, as someone else had mentioned, making subfaction rules for Wych Cults or Haemonculi Covens would be justified. I would be very tempted to start a Haemonculi army if there was proper support for it. But the Kabals do not each need their own rules.

[jaxom]

I am 90% certain the only reason they're getting their own Indexes is because they have unique units. Each Index has been said to the cards necessary for an army and these would the specials ones that can't be mixed-and-matched with other "Chapter" units. They'll probably be released with an additional Adeptus Astartes Detachment. The Adeptus Astartes are the only Faction where GW have given us an inkling of additional Detachments: First Company Veterans. Guess which one will be part of the Dark Angels Index?

[Marshal Reinhard]

1 hour ago, jaxom said:

I am 90% certain the only reason they're getting their own Indexes is because they have unique units. 

Unique units as well unique options for some renamed units and their interactions with unique units. The way 10th is made, its pretty much neccessitates our own indices.

Take Black Templar Castellans and Marshals for instance. Just renamed Lieutenants and Captains right? Well they have armament options that currently are not in the generic captain/lieutenant kit doesn't. And they are will presumably be able to join our unique infantry units, Crusader Squads and Sword brethren. I'd Imagine the situation will be very similiar for the big three once their range refreshes hit too.

 

Regardless you could not force all of this info onto a single card. "If Chapter is blood angels can join Sanguinary guard" "If dark angels can join deathwing". Would I love it if there was some unique units for my sacred rose sisters too? Sure, but we don't have that, nor have sisters been as important to the lore or setting or the game that neccessitate it. 

 

To be frank about the reality of the situation: Yes BA, DA etc and are more important than my Sacred rose sisters are.

[CL_Mission]

4 hours ago, ThePenitentOne said:

@CL_Mission I always felt that rules were more indicative of what an army actually is than lore. Lore is just words on a page. Lore says one marine can defeat a thousand guardsmen, which we all know he can, so lore is just BS. Rules, on the otherhand, actually influence tabletop behviour and thus actually affect the game in a way that lore never has. I also find that these behavioural cues provide modelling suggestions that allow me to customize the appearance of my units; I like to model relics, and in some cases, special rules or strats can influence modelling choices as well. 

I just think the best way to make interesting subfactions is to look first at the lore and what stand out characters or forces present themselves best for expanding on rather than meeting on some made up target of having x number of subfactions. A good example of this would be someone like commander Farsight, everyone knows who he is has what he's about, he's got some history to him and his enclave could diverge quite a bit from the standard Tau armies. His is a subfactions that feels meaningful and worth exploring.

 

I also feel like having a bunch of relics locked into different subfactions is more restrictive. The older Dark Eldar codexes had tons of crazy relics and not a subfaction in sight. Is it really so much better to have one special relic for The cult of Strife, one for The cult of Red Grief and one for the Cult of Sorry-who-are-you-again? Wouldn't it be better all those relics available to any Wyche cult, that way you could model your Succubus with any of them and not have to worry about whether or not you painted the model's trouser the right colour for them to be holding it.

 

My problem is that when I look at the codex I don't see a bunch of interesting and exciting subfactions to play, I see a memo from head office telling the design to include X number of this and X number of that. It feels very cynical.
 

2 hours ago, Rain said:

Also, as someone else had mentioned, making subfaction rules for Wych Cults or Haemonculi Covens would be justified. I would be very tempted to start a Haemonculi army if there was proper support for it. But the Kabals do not each need their own rules.

Subfactions for Cults, Kabals and Covens is a fine idea but I don't feel like there is the range of units to properly support it right now. I'd love to build a Kabal only army myself but what's holding me back is not what bonuses I might or might not have but the fact that I'd have so few units to choose from. Especially so now that Trueborn are just slightly buffed Warriors. In future if we get a bunch of new models and units it could be very doable but I wouldn't like to see players punished for taking a combined force anyway.
 

[Rain]

23 minutes ago, CL_Mission said:

Subfactions for Cults, Kabals and Covens is a fine idea but I don't feel like there is the range of units to properly support it right now. I'd love to build a Kabal only army myself but what's holding me back is not what bonuses I might or might not have but the fact that I'd have so few units to choose from. Especially so now that Trueborn are just slightly buffed Warriors. In future if we get a bunch of new models and units it could be very doable but I wouldn't like to see players punished for taking a combined force anyway.
 

 

Right. This is the issue with the "if you want to play Haemonculi Covens, just take only Haemonculi HQs, wracks, and pain engines" argument. Because the army is balanced around all of the choices being available, so if you self-limit yourself for fluff and flavor reasons like this, the army can end up being very weak, which feels bad. As such, it is nice for players that enjoy the flavor to have at least some compensation for self-limiting unit choices in this way. Bespoke units are obviously the best option, but at the very least the more limited pool of units need to be buffed somehow to offset the lack of options.

 

I remember playing Death Guard back in 4th and 5th edition, which was just a self-limit to Nurgle-only units without any bonuses or incentives, making an already mediocre codex even more limited and weak by excluding powerful options like Slaanesh demon princes and Khorne Berzerkers. 

[Dr. Clock]

20 hours ago, Rain said:

it is nice for players that enjoy the flavor to have at least some compensation for self-limiting unit choices in this way.

Why, though? The flavour should be there as soon as you have taken a themed selection, to my mind, not locked to only players who choose to ignore 3/4 units in a book.

 

If one wants to theme for Kabal, Cult or Coven (or local equivalent) then they may consider it because it's their choice of narrative/playstyle, not because they want a badge for choosing to be more specialist than generalist in build strategy... Making some 'arena wracks' or 'gunwyches' sounds like an awesome project to add diversity into a themed force. I'm frankly done with feeling hamstrung by sub-faction management across Eldar generally (Corsairs fancier, me), and getting less efficiency in taking a unit that lacks some sub-faction keyword, and therefore doesn't get access, or worse, deprives the rest of an army from the 'one Doctrine to rule them all'.

 

If anything, this change in sub-factions is going to explode rather than diminish player theming choice by making it effectively okay to 'convert your own special characters or units' across chapters in the main Astartes book, or in any other faction. Astartes have enough bro-fest history that it's frankly insulting to think that they would all fight worse on the one day they go in to bail out a squad of Ultramarines.

 

For me, it's refreshing to think about the detachments as a 'pre-game move/order' that any commander could issue right before battle to emphasize one or the other facets of their broad operational MO. It's like Orders for the Guard, but for the whole army, all game. I like that it doesn't feel decided for me as soon as I hit a battle-ready standard in an official scheme. This is why I hope the barrier to entry is actually really low for detachments, like maybe 'must contain 2 of this specific unit or at least three from among this list of three'. It's important I think that the benefits are broadly applicable almost irrespective of what else one puts in a list and not used to just give niche benefits to 'only a quarter of available units'.

 

To me, 'Sub-faction' rules that interact only with a fraction of the units available are bad design: they lead to nothing but spam and cheese, because they reward nothing other than spam and cheese. It's worth noting that the sub-faction rules currently don't tend to do this on their own, it's a problem more of 'Armies of Renown', but was also a problem with 7th ed. Decurion-style ridiculousness that added free units to the mix lol.  Maybe this is an overly dim view, but the primary incentive structure at play in 'take this sub-faction to buff this/these unit(s) in particular' seems ever to lead to stagnation, not innovation in the game.

 

Cheers,

 

The Good Doctor.

 

[Rain]

@Dr. Clock Because otherwise people will just take “the good units” and maybe convert them to be “arena wracks” or “rifle wracks” to represent a Covens army, but functionally it would be the same as the regular “good” DEldar list, whatever that shakes out to be. Also, I always considered “counts as” of this kind to be cheesy, as it tends to be done to be able to take the current broken hotness but “stay on theme” but then, that’s the thing with terms like “cheese” they are largely in the eye of the beholder.

 

Subfactions with strong bonuses help counterbalance the basic strong list with options for lists that are perhaps more limited in one aspect, but offset by greater strength in another. So, in the greater scheme of things they add variety, by introducing multiple strong list options, each encouraging different unit choices, and even paint schemes. Finally, they don’t just represent an order given before the battle. They represent a force that is different in training, beliefs, goals, history, etc. that is a big part of their narrative appeal, and it’s not something that can switch from battle to battle. It is who they are.

 

As to the unit spam argument, how many different units do most people take in a 2000 point list anyway? Coven units are Haemies, Wracks, Grots, Pain Engines, and all Vehicles. That can lead to plenty of variety, with PE heavy lists, Grot heavy lists, Venoms with Hexrifle wracks, etc. Every type of list “spams” the unit core to the strat because redundancy helps ensure some of those models live long enough to do their job. This is not unique to subfaction themed lists.

 

Anyway, this is a subjective argument. I get where you are coming from, and why you are happy with what is coming, and, as for me, my subfaction will have its own index and codex, so I’m fine too. I just feel for people that want more unique flesh on the bone of their Coven army, or White Scars army, or Alaitoc army, or what have you.

[Dr. Clock]

1 hour ago, Rain said:

Subfactions with strong bonuses help counterbalance the basic strong list with options for lists that are perhaps more limited in one aspect, but offset by greater strength in another. So, in the greater scheme of things they add variety, by introducing multiple strong list options, each encouraging different unit choices, and even paint schemes. Finally, they don’t just represent an order given before the battle. They represent a force that is different in training, beliefs, goals, history, etc. that is a big part of their narrative appeal, and it’s not something that can switch from battle to battle. It is who they are.

Sure, absolutely - my point is mostly against the potential for letting only a small 'sub-set of units in a list' access detachment rules. I'd prefer that the 'sub-faction/detachment rules' are more like 'emphasis on a certain style of play' whether that's broadly speed, melee, shooting or defense, and then leave it up to players to figure out how to represent that emphasis through unit choice, painting, modeling, narrative or indeed all four. 

 

Once we separate the 'sub-faction preferred units' from the access to detachment rules, it gives more creative opportunities. To go back to @ThePenitentOne above, I see no reason to suggest that an Iyanden player couldn't take a detachment that adds speed rather than tankiness if they want to, and imagine their force as one whose wraith constructs are so sophisticated that they have a higher degree of awareness and responsiveness, or just that the force in general has an incredible urgency to avenge their fallen. This might let the player build in alot more wraithblades and aggro WLords than they otherwise would, and somewhat counter the speed deficit that a heavy wraith list could suffer.

 

But putting the 'speed focus' detachment behind a specific required colour scheme makes that player feel bad, to no positive end. Same For Saim Hann; maybe my wildrider host takes particular pride in their mastercrafted steeds and weapons so they focus a bit more on shooting than sheer speed; or maybe they are so war-mad that they are tankier than you might expect rather than 'just faster all the time'.

 

So I think the main difference between our viewpoints is that I think 'playstyle' of the whole list should be the focus of different detachment abilities, not 'unit choice'. It's fine to use a few compulsory units as an 'unlock' for the detachments, but the benefits should impact everything I take, not be limited to 'only xyz keyword', at least in my opinion.

 

1 hour ago, Rain said:

As to the unit spam argument, how many different units do most people take in a 2000 point list anyway? Coven units are Haemies, Wracks, Grots, Pain Engines, and all Vehicles. That can lead to plenty of variety, with PE heavy lists, Grot heavy lists, Venoms with Hexrifle wracks, etc. Every type of list “spams” the unit core to the strat because redundancy helps ensure some of those models live long enough to do their job. This is not unique to subfaction themed lists.

Totally! That's kind of my point: you can and should theme a list just by taking the units that exist. Units should be fit to purpose without needing a 'sub-faction' to make them worthwhile as the core of an army, or just to be included in one. 'Additional bonuses' shouldn't benefit 'these units alone' to the extent that taking other things is clearly a disadvantage once you've chosen a colour scheme. The problem with the Coven/Kabal/Cult rules isn't that they exist, it's that there are too many hurdles in place to use them. Couldn't a Realspace Raid led by a Haemonculi have some kabalites hanging around testing out the new dark tech? Why couldn't wracks 'purchased' by a Succubus Warlord be geared to go faster to keep up?

 

It is good that spam has been strongly curtailed by the rule of 3/6. This is way less of an issue than it has been in past, and I do appreciate the benefits of redundancy. But if we agree that redundancy has its own value, then why attach special benefits only to the things that are redundant in a list? (I don't think you're saying that, exactly; rhetorical question).

 

Anyway - enjoying this tremendously - all in good fun. I too feel for people who want the rules to have their sub-faction name in there, but hope they can appreciate that if anything this makes their choices on theme more impactful because they'll be choosing their scheme and associated units for sheer enjoyment and narrative rather than meta-game concerns.

 

Cheers,

 

The Good Doctor.

[Captain Idaho]

It was a failure of games design to make certain units favoured by subdactions so heavily in the first place. I take essentially Iron Hands themed lists with my Ultramarines, but I wouldn't dream of using Iron Hands rules.

 

Having a thematic subfaction set of rules is a different issue to the design team making it so only certain builds were capable with certain subfactions.

 

People are conflating the 2 things incorrectly, essentially saying subfactions can only exist with the creation of single types of builds (mono build to use meta speech).

Games Workshop could have made minor subfaction rules that were optionally able to replace a Detachment set of rules instead. Wouldn't need much, just a single extra rule for the subfaction, maybe a set of these Enhancements and that would have done plenty to allow Marines to feel different when taking the same composition of units in a Detachment.

 

As an example, when a 1st Company Detachment comes out, the Detachment bonus could stick as normal or your White Scars could have a slightly different rule set for the Detachment. 

 

So easily done and builds so much goodwill. Remember how excited everyone was to have subfaction rules in 8th? 

[Rain]

I guess it depends.  For Marines, for example, there are certain elements that are essentially genetic, or so deeply ingrained in a Chapter's culture as to become innate to its warriors. So, as @Captain Idaho says, he can run an Ultramarines army with lots of dreadnaughts (for example, I'm assuming here), which is an "Iron Hands thing to do" but his Marines are Ultramarines. Genetically, culturally, etc., they are Ultramarines, they just happen to be fielding dreadnaughts for whatever tactical or pragmatic reason for this battle.

 

So, if he just takes the hypothetical dreadnaught detachment, then great, his dreadnaughts might be improved somehow, and he can run this as Ultras even if the detachment was written with Iron Hands in mind, but that leaves nothing to differentiate his Ultras from Iron Hands. There is no representation of the Ultra's famous tactical acumen and adaptability, or of the IH near-universal use of bionics. It's just Space Marines fielding a dreadnaught heavy force.

 

So I guess in the ideal, there would be both. There would be a Chapter trait that represents the particular genetic and cultural predilections of the Chapter, and then a detachment on top of that to represent the particular tactical disposition of this specific force for this specific scenario.

 

Quote

So I think the main difference between our viewpoints is that I think 'playstyle' of the whole list should be the focus of different detachment abilities, not 'unit choice'. It's fine to use a few compulsory units as an 'unlock' for the detachments, but the benefits should impact everything I take, not be limited to 'only xyz keyword', at least in my opinion.

 

I think it depends on the context. For something like a Homunculus Coven, then yes. You represent a Coven army by using Coven units. Haemy HQ, Wracks as the bread and butter in place of Kabalites. Maybe some Scourge or Reaver mercenaries attached, but unit choice matters a lot for that case. But in other cases, such as the example above with a dread heavy Ultra force vs. a dread heavy IH force, this is not so. The unit choice is essentially the same, but I still believe that there should be some, even if minor, rules representation of the unique traits that Ultras have that IH do not, and vice versa. So maybe the UM units can reroll battleshock tests, and the IH have FnP 6+ to represent bionics. Obviously spitballing here, but the point is that there is some layer of faction flavor on top of unit choice.

 

 

[Sea Creature]

It’s great to discussing filthy Xenos in-depth  in a SM thread…

[KnightofSigismund]

It’s tomorrow right? The marines article?

[Odd-ad]

3 minutes ago, KnightofSigismund said:

It’s tomorrow right? The marines article?

Day after I believe, imperial agents is tomorrow

Then I think there was a post that said it would end with titans? 

 

So yeah, probably the more divergent chapters & deathwatch on  Thursday

[jaxom]

Greyfax's combi-weapon has the profile we've been seeing plus the condemnor stake as a separate profile. Makes me think I was right about the profile we've been seeing refers only to the bolt-portion and the other half is selected from an Armoury.

[Captain Idaho]

Please, please be right on this!

 

It makes the thing increasingly potent.

[Khornestar]

2 hours ago, jaxom said:

Greyfax's combi-weapon has the profile we've been seeing plus the condemnor stake as a separate profile. Makes me think I was right about the profile we've been seeing refers only to the bolt-portion and the other half is selected from an Armoury.

I’m skeptical because that profile is listed immediately after the Bolter profile, whereas so far the special weapon profiles are missing altogether. You could well be right though, we’ll see soon enough.

Edited May 31, 2023 by Khornestar

[Commander Dawnstar]

I'm confused. I don't see any mention of a Bolter profile or Combi-Weapon on her datacard.

Edited May 31, 2023 by Commander Dawnstar

[DemonGSides]

Just now, Khornestar said:

I’m skeptical because that profile is listed immediately after the Bolter profile. You could well be right though, we’ll see soon enough.

 

We haven't seen the back of any of these units with the combi stuff, so it could very easily just be a "Check your Munitorum card!" for all of these like it was with the CSM legionaires for all of their different guns they've had access to.

It's my hope, if only so that all the original concern was completely unfounded, and all the people who were pulling their hair out about it will have to glue that hair back into place.