Horus Heresy New Edition, or Just Horus Hearsay?

[Marshal Rohr]

Really feels like some just ran this through Copilot with the prompts “make this less ambiguous” twice. It’s the only thing that explains how unnatural the wording is. It’s the uncanny valley but for writing. 

[MasterBlaster]

2 hours ago, Captain Idaho said:

Honestly, speaking as a working class boxer who is intelligent but not "educmacated" I can honestly say it's just badly written. Lots of words to explain it in an unconcise manner is just clumsy for any target audience that isn't in a court room.

 

I could do an FAQ over a weekend so if they understand their source material it's not taking a lot of work.

 

I'd be interested to know their sales and be a fly on the wall in their office. I imagine they think they're victims of toxicity and did done nothin' wrong.

 

 

Sure they might sell a bunch of Saturnine boxes at launch as the brand new thing, but player longevity means sales will dip for this game surely. I'm not willing to wait 18 months+ before I get a workable Ultramarines ruleset as the current rules may as well not exist they're so anemic.

 

I tell ye what this smacks of... not understanding the customer base. Which GW has been in form of for years.

You should link us some videos of your fights would love to support a B&C fighter 

[roryokane]

8 minutes ago, MasterBlaster said:

You should link us some videos of your fights would love to support a B&C fighter 

"are those... are those metal ports in his skin?"

[Deus_Ex_Machina]

3 hours ago, jaxom said:

The only people who I think benefit are those who will feel superior than 40k and AoS players because they play a game with “writing aimed at adults.”

"Writing aimed at adults."

 

Hmm. So we got "30K Shades of Grey" instead of HH 3.0. Well, at least now the female player count will vastly outnumber the male one for the new edition.

[MasterBlaster]

2 hours ago, roryokane said:

"are those... are those metal ports in his skin?"

Yes and a servo skull as the cutman

[jaxom]

29 minutes ago, Deus_Ex_Machina said:

"Writing aimed at adults."

 

Hmm. So we got "30K Shades of Grey" instead of HH 3.0. Well, at least now the female player count will vastly outnumber the male one for the new edition.

Custodes don’t start chasing Tau until 40k.

[Nephaston]

Someone in the usual cesspit has gone through the effort of to sort most if not all the rules for the marine legions into a compressed file. Remember to generally distrust links on shady websites.

 

though as far as I can tell it's clean, not even any profanity stamped across it.

 

Edit: it has also been compiled into a pdf

Edited yesterday at 04:42 PM by Nephaston

[Mandragola]

I’ve written an article on building armies in 3.0. It focuses on Astartes because Mech and Auxilia both significantly alter the selection rules. https://www.goonhammer.com/horus-heresy-tactica-creating-a-third-edition-astartes-army/

[Agramar_The_Luna_Wolf]

Army organisation looks now less intuitive and a bit more complicated that in the previous edition, isn't it?

[Mandragola]

1 hour ago, Agramar_The_Luna_Wolf said:

Army organisation looks now less intuitive and a bit more complicated that in the previous edition, isn't it?

It’s certainly not straightforward. Hopefully I’ve made things clearer. 
 

Objectively I don’t know if I’d say one system is more or less complicated. Rites of war and the various legion and character exceptions to the rules in 2.0 were also somewhat complicated, but we were used to that and understood it. 
 

A big difference with these rules is that there are very few restrictions. You can have pretty much whatever you want if you’ll pay a character tax. There’s no equivalent of, for example, limiting the allies you can have if you take pride of the legion. But those limits of rites of war arguably added character as much as their benefits, so that’s not entirely positive of course you’re still able to self-restrict if you want to fit to a particular theme. 

[Jings]

1 hour ago, Agramar_The_Luna_Wolf said:

Army organisation looks now less intuitive and a bit more complicated that in the previous edition, isn't it?

 

See in principle I really like it, but in practice it seems half-baked and clunky. There should have been more Prime or whatever the new Primary detachments are to reflect the various old Rites of War options (Recon, Armoured etc.) that confer Line to certain units. The lack of mandatory requirements is standout to me. 

 

The thing is there are a lot of things I really like. The use of Centurions to bring more Detachments is a stroke of genius. Yeah, it's a tax, but it's a fluffy one that offsets the imbalance in allowing more E/FA/HS options. 

 

The problem is the aforementioned lack of mandatory units or at least bonuses for the detachments beyond the Prime unit bonuses. Whole things like War Engines are fine as they are and operate as inhibitors, if the aim of these Auxiliary detachments is to build a fluffy force, the lack of benefits for filling out at least a token percentage of slots seems daft to me. 

 

There are also issues with certain slots being a premium considering the units involved, such as Tactical Support, but that's a bit by the by and lesser to the overall issues. 

 

Cool in theory. Standard CAD in practice. 

[Indy Techwisp]

How long's that other HH thread, 163 pages?

We're probably gonna exceed that within the week.

[apologist]

10 minutes ago, Jings said:

The problem is the aforementioned lack of mandatory units or at least bonuses for the detachments beyond the Prime unit bonuses. Whole things like War Engines are fine as they are and operate as inhibitors, if the aim of these Auxiliary detachments is to build a fluffy force, the lack of benefits for filling out at least a token percentage of slots seems daft to me. 

 

I'd like to get a few games in to make a judgement on that. I've always loved hordes of basic Tactical Marines and low-level officers (I felt weird having a Praetor for a Company-level engagement), and have had multiple editions in which that sort of force has been largely a punching bag (fine with me – at least I get to push models around and go pew-pew!).

 

From what I can see, the addition of Line and Vanguard, and the general toning-down of the more extreme combos, will make my sort of army much more effective, if not flashy. 

 

What am I saying here? At root, I'm looking forward to an edition where you want to take basic Troops because they're genuinely good, rather than because you're forced to. I'll likely still get my head stoved in gaming-wise, but I'll have a lot more fun doing it if I'm facing more hordes of troops than just watching my phalanx getting taken apart by tiny over-equipped Death Stars.

 

Of course, hope springs eternal, so ask me again after some test games!

[Captain Idaho]

Picking missions after army selection is more pragmatic, since 2 players can just make an army to an agreed points value and turn up to gaming night not knowing who they will be up against and play against anyone who is available.

 

Now we have to pre-book every game? That's another mental load that turns off players.

 

Army building isn't just different, it's atrocious. You don't HAVE to fill out all the slots or any of them, so in practice there is no tax at all on another detachment bar a couple command models in the Primary Crusade detachment. Just take whatever you want right, long as you pay 50pts for an Optae you're done.

 

What GW has done is create an army building model of "take whatever you want, oh but pay 50pts a couple times."

 

Awful. Not quite as bad as AoS when it came out but it's in the same ball park.

[LameBeard]

13 minutes ago, Captain Idaho said:

Picking missions after army selection is more pragmatic, since 2 players can just make an army to an agreed points value and turn up to gaming night not knowing who they will be up against and play against anyone who is available.

 

Now we have to pre-book every game? That's another mental load that turns off players.

 

Army building isn't just different, it's atrocious. You don't HAVE to fill out all the slots or any of them, so in practice there is no tax at all on another detachment bar a couple command models in the Primary Crusade detachment. Just take whatever you want right, long as you pay 50pts for an Optae you're done.

 

What GW has done is create an army building model of "take whatever you want, oh but pay 50pts a couple times."

 

Awful. Not quite as bad as AoS when it came out but it's in the same ball park.

I am wrong to be vaguely reminded of Legiones Imperialis army building? It felt like something was missing there …

[Captain Idaho]

It has echoes for sure. 

 

I'd say worse though, as there's even less mandatory requirements.

[Astartes Consul]

1 hour ago, Jings said:

 

See in principle I really like it, but in practice it seems half-baked and clunky. There should have been more Prime or whatever the new Primary detachments are to reflect the various old Rites of War options (Recon, Armoured etc.) that confer Line to certain units. The lack of mandatory requirements is standout to me. 

Hard agree. A system where you pick single a Prime Detatchment as the core of your army, but there are at least a couple of choice for them, also seems really ripe for expansion.

 

Although I guess you could argue it would further complicate army selection? 
 

For the Auxiliary / Apex Detachments, I’d like to see more of the Consul specific ones. The few I saw in the leaks seems a bit meh. And combined with the huge restrictions on Consul wargear, they seem like a swing and a miss. 

[Marshal Rohr]

47 minutes ago, LameBeard said:

I am wrong to be vaguely reminded of Legiones Imperialis army building? It felt like something was missing there …

You can’t actually make a Legiones Demi-Company or Solar Auxilia Sub-Cohort from this list by the way. You are always a several detachments short. 

[infyrana]

2 hours ago, Mandragola said:

It’s certainly not straightforward. Hopefully I’ve made things clearer. 
 

Objectively I don’t know if I’d say one system is more or less complicated. Rites of war and the various legion and character exceptions to the rules in 2.0 were also somewhat complicated, but we were used to that and understood it. 
 

A big difference with these rules is that there are very few restrictions. You can have pretty much whatever you want if you’ll pay a character tax. There’s no equivalent of, for example, limiting the allies you can have if you take pride of the legion. But those limits of rites of war arguably added character as much as their benefits, so that’s not entirely positive of course you’re still able to self-restrict if you want to fit to a particular theme. 

 

Having read snippets all over the place from the warhammer articles to army list suggestions, I'm more confused than ever.  In the original FOC, you just had to pick an option in the force (plus mandatory 1x HQ, 2x Troops), apply a unit with that type, not exceed the limitations and you're done.  Now I have to find out how many annd which type of detachments a particular type of HQ will allow, does whatever I choose give me more options, if I want to add two dreads, do I had a second consul, what type, how many, do these mean I get access to the main detachment again, how many slots of aux detachments can I include ....

As I haven't read the rules in full, it's obvious I won't know the answers, but I just can't see how it's simpler.  I might buy the box at some point for the MkII, but right now with the removal of certain units and fluff oriented themeing, it's now bottom of my list of purchases.

 

Edited 8 hours ago by infyrana

[firestorm40k]

4 hours ago, Mandragola said:

I’ve written an article on building armies in 3.0. It focuses on Astartes because Mech and Auxilia both significantly alter the selection rules. https://www.goonhammer.com/horus-heresy-tactica-creating-a-third-edition-astartes-army/

I'm confused about where vehicles that could previously be taken as transport options for certain units fit now - for example, I get that to give Cataphractii a Spartan (as they could previously take as a dedicated transport), I think I have to take a heavy transport slot, or a Primarch slot, is that right? 

 

Where would Land Raider Proteus fit then, as transport for the likes of Breachers, Phalanx Warders etc? Are they a tank slot, or a heavy transport? Or are they unlocked when you take the unit that can use them? 

[apologist]

As a vague exercise,  using @Mandragola's – excellent, thank you! – article as a guide, I thought I'd look at what my army might look like, and what (if anything) I need to change. 

 

+ Mustering the Praetors of Calth and 190th Company +

 

In 2nd edition, I wanted to differentiate my older models from newer ones (like the examples above) by making them veterans, but as they were equipped with old-style Tactical equipment (the army pre-dated Age of Darkness first edition, being built for the Tempus Fugitives campaign weekends), this was a bit awkward.

 

I ended up building some new bolter-armed individuals to replace the special/heavy weapons in those squads, but there wasn't a neat way of making them functionally different beyond using them as Seekers, which I did a couple of times, but always felt a bit 'icky' doing. In the end, I tended to leave them out of the army entirely, and rely on the new models I built almost completely – but then 2nd edition AoD never really took off in my group, so I only played a handful of times.

 

Secondly, I also wanted to field all my low-level characters – Lieutenant Holion, Master of Signals Pullo, Chaplain Highheart and my Herald – as I was proud of them, and wanted to show them off. The force org meant that 1 had to be left out. A very minor problem, really, but an annoyance. 

 

 

 

The new approach seems flexible to the point of fault – as @LameBeard says above, the system looks a lot like Legions Imperialis' super-complicated and functionally irrelevant army building, where it takes a very long time to find out that there aren't really any limits on what you can take.

 

On the face of things, I think it looks slightly more polished than LI, with the Prime slots mechanic a clever reward for basic theming (and allowing me to do fuffy things like allowing Sergeant Mox to have some slightly improved stats to represent his background story of being the senior sergeant in the Company); and not having the awkward Formation break point to track.

 

+++

+ Good in parts +

So, I can fill out the new Detachment quite nicely:

 

No High Command – since it's optional, I'm not encouraged to use Praetor-level stats for my Lieutenant-level character; and can just take Holion as a Centurion (command) – and happily he can now take both his Axe of Ultramar and special shield (I forget the name).

 

Pullo and Highheart fill the other two Command slots, but Holion remains a little bit special as he can occupy the 'Prime' slot, so he feels more in charge (albeit with a brevet rank of Captain, following his commander's death during the initial attack on Calth).

 

I can then field three squads of ten Tactical Marines (Troops), each with their own Rhino; plus have one of my old squads fielded as Troops with a Prime slot... or I can take two squads of twenty Tactical Marines and my Breachers.

 

+++

+ Some limits +

Oh, wait... my Breachers have power swords, because that was an option for Ultramarines. So I can't take those... except that they're now a special Ultramarines-only unit (Praetorians). Those are presumably Elites, which aren't an option on the Crusade Primary Detachment, so by virtue of taking three officers I'll have to take those from an Auxiliary Detachment, right?

 

... Ah. Looks like there's no option for Elites here, so I have to go back to the Crusade Primary Detachment and rethink. Oh – looks like Holion's as-yet unused Prime benefit can be used to take a Logistical Benefit, which will unlock the right slot, so that's that.

 

 

For bigger games, I might want to bring in some more specialist stuff – and at that point I start running into choices. I can take Captain Aethon at this point as a High Command choice; but to me, High Command implies Tetrarch rank (i.e. there's only a handful of them, rather than being 'ordinary' Chapter Master level), so I'd rather not do that.

 

At this point, however, I run into a problem. As far as I can see, there's no way to get more Command slots without using the High Command slot. And I haven't yet been able to squeeze in my Herald.

 

Perhaps I need to get over the idea that High Command represents genuinely exceptional individuals (like Abaddon and Sigismund), and accept that Chapter Masters (in Ultramarine terms, Captain Aethon is an equivalent) are okay to take as High Command. If I do that, then things get a little more fun as I can take an Apex Detachment.

 

 

I can now take the three squads of my old Praetors of Calth as Veteran Tactical Squads in the Army Vanguard, which are allowed exactly the equipment the models have (hooray!), and still get Mox as slightly better than Epipatros and Santiagon.

 

Pullo (my Master of Signals) allows me to unlock the Armoured Fist detachment and take my Land Raider; and Highheart allows me to take a Heavy Support detachment so I can field my Dreadnought Lazaron.

 

 

I think that still leaves me with the Centurion (Holion's) two Detachment choices to play with, so I can also bring to the field Techmarine Arius and my apothecary.

 

+++

+ Stop rambling – what's your point? +

... anyway, this is all a long detour towards a general thumbs-up on the army building. As long as I can get over the idea that Captains can be High Command, this version of Age of Darkness better fits my idea of what an army should look like, is flexible enough to fit my idea of background theme – and I get to field the force as I originally wanted it, all those years ago. 

 

Is it perfect? No, not at all – I feel very sad for anyone whose army doesn't fit in, or whose hard-built favourite units don't have a place. There's no getting away from the fact that it's a [SCRAPSHUNTERRORABORT] if your old army doesn't translate across or requires cludgy 'counts-as'. As noted above, I know that feeling well from 2nd edition.

 

Nevertheless, I found the exercise of army building in AoD 3rd edition a lot more approachable and fun than the Legions Imperialis army building experience, which (despite my keen desire to like it and a lot of patience) is about as fun as hammering nails into splintery two-by-fours.

 

+++

 

+ Further ideas +

In writing this, it struck me that the bolt-it-on approach of the new way of army building has got my brain fired up for expansion. In theory, I can build more Tactical Marines; or field my Salamanders or Iron Hands as Allied Detachments quick as a wink, rather than having to slog through making 1,500pts+ of them. Being able to game with those smaller forces alongside my Ultramarines is great, I think I'd struggle to have the motivation to build them otherwise.

 

I think the new system also lends itself to expansion better. If a model comes out that I like the look of, I'm not talking myself out of it by thinking about what I'll have to lose from a set force – and if I decide that I want to field something really weird like an Apothecary-heavy army for a scenario like defending the genebanks, I'll be able to do so without being forced to drag an important officer from the frontlines.

[Marshal Rohr]

49 minutes ago, apologist said:

As a vague exercise,  using @Mandragola's – excellent, thank you! – article as a guide, I thought I'd look at what my army might look like, and what (if anything) I need to change. 

 

+ Mustering the Praetors of Calth and 190th Company +

 

In 2nd edition, I wanted to differentiate my older models from newer ones (like the examples above) by making them veterans, but as they were equipped with old-style Tactical equipment (the army pre-dated Age of Darkness first edition, being built for the Tempus Fugitives campaign weekends), this was a bit awkward.

 

I ended up building some new bolter-armed individuals to replace the special/heavy weapons in those squads, but there wasn't a neat way of making them functionally different beyond using them as Seekers, which I did a couple of times, but always felt a bit 'icky' doing. In the end, I tended to leave them out of the army entirely, and rely on the new models I built almost completely – but then 2nd edition AoD never really took off in my group, so I only played a handful of times.

 

Secondly, I also wanted to field all my low-level characters – Lieutenant Holion, Master of Signals Pullo, Chaplain Highheart and my Herald – as I was proud of them, and wanted to show them off. The force org meant that 1 had to be left out. A very minor problem, really, but an annoyance. 

 

 

 

The new approach seems flexible to the point of fault – as @LameBeard says above, the system looks a lot like Legions Imperialis' super-complicated and functionally irrelevant army building, where it takes a very long time to find out that there aren't really any limits on what you can take.

 

On the face of things, I think it looks slightly more polished than LI, with the Prime slots mechanic a clever reward for basic theming (and allowing me to do fuffy things like allowing Sergeant Mox to have some slightly improved stats to represent his background story of being the senior sergeant in the Company); and not having the awkward Formation break point to track.

 

+++

+ Good in parts +

So, I can fill out the new Detachment quite nicely:

 

No High Command – since it's optional, I'm not encouraged to use Praetor-level stats for my Lieutenant-level character; and can just take Holion as a Centurion (command) – and happily he can now take both his Axe of Ultramar and special shield (I forget the name).

 

Pullo and Highheart fill the other two Command slots, but Holion remains a little bit special as he can occupy the 'Prime' slot, so he feels more in charge (albeit with a brevet rank of Captain, following his commander's death during the initial attack on Calth).

 

I can then field three squads of ten Tactical Marines (Troops), each with their own Rhino; plus have one of my old squads fielded as Troops with a Prime slot... or I can take two squads of twenty Tactical Marines and my Breachers.

 

+++

+ Some limits +

Oh, wait... my Breachers have power swords, because that was an option for Ultramarines. So I can't take those... except that they're now a special Ultramarines-only unit (Praetorians). Those are presumably Elites, which aren't an option on the Crusade Primary Detachment, so by virtue of taking three officers I'll have to take those from an Auxiliary Detachment, right?

 

... Ah. Looks like there's no option for Elites here, so I have to go back to the Crusade Primary Detachment and rethink. Oh – looks like Holion's as-yet unused Prime benefit can be used to take a Logistical Benefit, which will unlock the right slot, so that's that.

 

 

For bigger games, I might want to bring in some more specialist stuff – and at that point I start running into choices. I can take Captain Aethon at this point as a High Command choice; but to me, High Command implies Tetrarch rank (i.e. there's only a handful of them, rather than being 'ordinary' Chapter Master level), so I'd rather not do that.

 

At this point, however, I run into a problem. As far as I can see, there's no way to get more Command slots without using the High Command slot. And I haven't yet been able to squeeze in my Herald.

 

Perhaps I need to get over the idea that High Command represents genuinely exceptional individuals (like Abaddon and Sigismund), and accept that Chapter Masters (in Ultramarine terms, Captain Aethon is an equivalent) are okay to take as High Command. If I do that, then things get a little more fun as I can take an Apex Detachment.

 

 

I can now take the three squads of my old Praetors of Calth as Veteran Tactical Squads in the Army Vanguard, which are allowed exactly the equipment the models have (hooray!), and still get Mox as slightly better than Epipatros and Santiagon.

 

Pullo (my Master of Signals) allows me to unlock the Armoured Fist detachment and take my Land Raider; and Highheart allows me to take a Heavy Support detachment so I can field my Dreadnought Lazaron.

 

 

I think that still leaves me with the Centurion (Holion's) two Detachment choices to play with, so I can also bring to the field Techmarine Arius and my apothecary.

 

+++

+ Stop rambling – what's your point? +

... anyway, this is all a long detour towards a general thumbs-up on the army building. As long as I can get over the idea that Captains can be High Command, this version of Age of Darkness better fits my idea of what an army should look like, is flexible enough to fit my idea of background theme – and I get to field the force as I originally wanted it, all those years ago. 

 

Is it perfect? No, not at all – I feel very sad for anyone whose army doesn't fit in, or whose hard-built favourite units don't have a place. There's no getting away from the fact that it's a [SCRAPSHUNTERRORABORT] if your old army doesn't translate across or requires cludgy 'counts-as'. As noted above, I know that feeling well from 2nd edition.

 

Nevertheless, I found the exercise of army building in AoD 3rd edition a lot more approachable and fun than the Legions Imperialis army building experience, which (despite my keen desire to like it and a lot of patience) is about as fun as hammering nails into splintery two-by-fours.

 

+++

 

+ Further ideas +

In writing this, it struck me that the bolt-it-on approach of the new way of army building has got my brain fired up for expansion. In theory, I can build more Tactical Marines; or field my Salamanders or Iron Hands as Allied Detachments quick as a wink, rather than having to slog through making 1,500pts+ of them. Being able to game with those smaller forces alongside my Ultramarines is great, I think I'd struggle to have the motivation to build them otherwise.

 

I think the new system also lends itself to expansion better. If a model comes out that I like the look of, I'm not talking myself out of it by thinking about what I'll have to lose from a set force – and if I decide that I want to field something really weird like an Apothecary-heavy army for a scenario like defending the genebanks, I'll be able to do so without being forced to drag an important officer from the frontlines.

It is not as permissive as all this. You need three Centurions specifically to unlock six detachments. You need to maximize your Prime Slots as much as possible to work Dreadnaughts in or you waste a whole detachment on them. If you use the Ultramarine Legion special detachment (Primus Demi-Company) for all six auxiliary choices you have a total of 9 Prime Slotes, 8 of which can be used to take Logistical Benefit (2 Prime Slots from the Primary Detachment, 6 from the Demi-Company, and 1 from Apex). Army building has been polluted in such a way you will need a massive number of tactical squads or characters to build anything remotely resembling an old FOC in spite of luring you in with a more permissive attitude. There is also no direct connection to the commander taken and the detachment they unlock which is, narratively, total horse poop. 

[Irate Khornate]

1 hour ago, firestorm40k said:

I'm confused about where vehicles that could previously be taken as transport options for certain units fit now - for example, I get that to give Cataphractii a Spartan (as they could previously take as a dedicated transport), I think I have to take a heavy transport slot, or a Primarch slot, is that right? 

 

Where would Land Raider Proteus fit then, as transport for the likes of Breachers, Phalanx Warders etc? Are they a tank slot, or a heavy transport? Or are they unlocked when you take the unit that can use them? 

It would go in the heavy transport slot. And unfortunately no, they don't unlock automatically. You have to get it detachment of them. 

[apologist]

10 minutes ago, Marshal Rohr said:

It is not as permissive as all this. You need three Centurions specifically to unlock six detachments. You need to maximize your Prime Slots as much as possible to work Dreadnaughts in or you waste a whole detachment on them. If you use the Ultramarine Legion special detachment (Primus Demi-Company) for all six auxiliary choices you have a total of 9 Prime Slotes, 8 of which can be used to take Logistical Benefit (2 Prime Slots from the Primary Detachment, 6 from the Demi-Company, and 1 from Apex). Army building has been polluted in such a way you will need a massive number of tactical squads or characters to build anything remotely resembling an old FOC in spite of luring you in with a more permissive attitude. There is also no direct connection to the commander taken and the detachment they unlock which is, narratively, total horse poop. 

 

Ah; have I got things wrong?

 

I thought it worked like:

• Crusade Primary Detachment
  • Centurion – opens up two potential Auxiliary Detachments 
    • Unlocks my Praetorians (Elite) through Logistical Benefit
    • Auxiliary Detachment 1 – e.g. Dreadnought
  • Chaplain – opens up one potential Auxiliary Detachment
    • Auxiliary Detachment 2 – e.g. Land Raider
  • Master of Signals – opens up one potential Auxiliary Detachment
    • Auxiliary Detachment 3 – e.g. Heavy Support Squad

 

Is that not right? If it is, then that covers everything I'd typically have in a game.

Edited 7 hours ago by apologist

[Evil Eye]

First off, @apologist those are some gorgeous Ultramarines! That Contemptor especially is delightful, homina homina! Always liked the resin heavy bolters too, I don't hate the plastic ones at all but I like the vertically stacked ones better.

 

Regarding army selection, I know I've said this enough times people are probably internally, or externally, screaming "FOR GOODNESS SAKE WE KNOW WE GET IT SHUT UP STOP REPEATING YOURSELF", and I apologize both for the repetition and also for the use of non-HH rules examples, but I really think WHFB (specifically 6E just 'cuz it's the edition I'm familiar with and have a copy of the rules for) had the right idea re: army construction. Specifically, the FOC is rarity based rather than battlefield role based, which I think works very well for literally any army in any setting, as the system revolves around "how many units of this sort of power/rarity should be takeable" rather than "how many units of this role should be takeable" which is much better for representing different factions with wildly different doctrines and organization. It'd also allow for slight improvements to things like, say, the 4E Space Marine chapter creator; one big problem with that was that certain restrictions were a big fat nothing because what they were restricting wasn't greatly beneficial in the first place (not taking allies, for example, as even back then allies weren't the norm), whereas theoretically with a scarcity-based FOC you could have White Scars represented by having fluff-appropriate units (bikes and other fast units) made less uncommon but other units that they traditionally wouldn't use either heavily restricted or barred altogether*. Also the fact the number of slots available scales depending on game size, so you can't rock up to a small game with minimal core choices and spend all your points on big scary monsters/artillery (or vehicles, in the case of 40K and Horus Heresy).

 

It wouldn't be a perfect solution, because as with everything from systems of government to types of paint, there is no such thing as a perfect/"utopian" solution that has no flaws at all, but I do think it's probably the best and simplest basic formula for army construction. Plus you can go as minimal ("HQ, troops and elites" or as involved as you want; personally I think the basic WHFB system of Lords, Heroes, Core, Special and Rare with an additional category for "Misc" would be good, with "Misc" accounting for support elements that don't really need heavy restriction beyond points limits or unit-specific caps but don't work as mandatory troops because either they're too specialized (a baggage train in the case of WHFB, or something of equivalent gameplay power to troops but too specialized to work as troops- I think Scouts would actually work well for this) or they're literally not supposed to be taken without something else (retinues, transports etc).

 

That's just my thoughts anyway; I'm generally all for simulation/immersion being the priority with wargame design but I rarity-based army building systems are one of the few cases where I think a more abstracted/game-y approach is actually far better for making a satisfying game. The role-based FOC system, whilst undeniably better than nothing, does have troubles with units being more (or less) restricted than they really need to be, either because some slots inevitably get all "the good stuff" or some factions have ways of loopholing purely meta-driven skew lists.

Spoiler

As an IRL version of this, albeit a lot more justified given their neighbors, and the fact real warfare isn't a friendly contest between mutally-respectful parties, Japan's navy uses some very, uh, creative classifications of their warships to build far greater quantities of vessels than their constitution technically allows- not that I can blame them for a second as the laws in question are geopolitically about 70 years out of date and as mentioned they have a very hostile and heavily armed nation a stone's throw from them, but it does make for a good analogy!

 

*I will also say whilst the FOC shift would definitely help make such a system more easily balanced/meaningful, the actual base system/formula itself doesn't need too much reworking so much as the restrictions/chapter flaws need to be more consequential and the specializations should be more, well, specialized. I feel the 3.5E Chaos book actually did this a bit better, as going all-in on a Legion or even just dedicating the army to a god would heavily shift playstyle beyond "I can't use something I was never going to use anyway". Death Guard were tough as old boots but were slow and heavy weapons were rarer, Thousand Sons had some hilarious combos but require some clever thinking to work around Rubrics being weird, and so on. The worst offender for actual "Sweet Emperor that's absurd" poor balance was Iron Warriors, and even then only if said player was pulling a 7E "I have always liked the Iron Hands" and just running them as an excuse for spamming Obliterators, Vindicators and Basilisks- and if they were the type to do that they were probably best avoided regardless of army! The 3.5E Guard book I would argue is possibly even better for custom faction rules, though obviously even at the time Guard operated incredibly differently from MEQs, especially with the platoon system. Granted, the armored company rules from Chapter Approved are definitely a skew list, but IMO at least a bit more easy to deal with than some (the solution being "bring anti-tank weapons" rather than "pray to the dice gods") and IIRC they later added an additional rule that limited unaccompanied tanks from moving too close to infantry, which both made the list far less overwhelming to deal with and actually quite nicely reflects IRL tank tactics, as driving a tank with no infantry support into a position where it could be clobbered by a grenade or man-portable missile is, and has always been, a very bad idea.