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.

 Overread wrote:
to whole models and units that just didn't appear as models ever.

2nd Ed had no Chaos Lord models, 3rd and onward had no Possessed until the jazz hands kit that was nearly a decade after their introduction into the game(bar a single army box locked Champion). Just examples of whole entries with no models. Most named Characters had no models until they started cutting down the amount in the Codexes. As I said, this was fairly standard until Chapterhouse.

 Overread wrote:
Yeah I just get a feeling it got a lot worse.
I think also it shifted a bit from being weapons options on models that did exist not being enough t ocover all the options in the codex; to whole models and units that just didn't appear as models ever.

I genuinely can't think of any units in 4th or 5th that showed up in Codices and didn't have a unit. Maybe some of the special characters?

2nd had tons of missing stuff. Exodites, cyborks, Master of the Ravenwing, Sapphon, Veteran Sgt Cleuten, Huron Blackheart, the Daemon World army, the cultist army... There was a lot they planned that never materialized.

 Overread wrote:

 Platuan4th wrote:

 Overread wrote:


Wasn't it 4th or 5th that also started a trend of adding models in the rules that never got models?

That was always a thing until Chapterhouse. There were plenty of units without official models in 2nd and 3rd.

Yeah I just get a feeling it got a lot worse.
I think also it shifted a bit from being weapons options on models that did exist not being enough t ocover all the options in the codex; to whole models and units that just didn't appear as models ever.

But yeah one of the good things we got from Chapterhouse from GW was the end of them putting stuff in the codex and then never making the model. Granted "no models no rules" has been taken a little extreme in the last edition or two I'd say (eg cutting out options from Tyranid models that you easily got as parts on other existing kits - RIP oh Dakka-Tyrant with wings); but in general I'm behind the idea of at least making sure we can build things the codex lets us take

I really enjoy kitbashing at an individual model level. The problem has always been the need to source 10 or more weapons to equip a unit. It's one of those things that's really fun in theory, but that gets rather miserable when practicality gets applied to it via points and rules.

 Scottywan82 wrote:

 Overread wrote:
Yeah I just get a feeling it got a lot worse.
I think also it shifted a bit from being weapons options on models that did exist not being enough t ocover all the options in the codex; to whole models and units that just didn't appear as models ever.

I genuinely can't think of any units in 4th or 5th that showed up in Codices and didn't have a unit. Maybe some of the special characters?

2nd had tons of missing stuff. Exodites, cyborks, Master of the Ravenwing, Sapphon, Veteran Sgt Cleuten, Huron Blackheart, the Daemon World army, the cultist army... There was a lot they planned that never materialized.

I mean, to be fair, the Daemon World army was always meant as "play your Fantasy army in 40K".

 Platuan4th wrote:
I mean, to be fair, the Daemon World army was always meant as "play your Fantasy army in 40K".

Touche. I was thinking more of the Daemon Princes they included.

 Overread wrote:

But yeah one of the good things we got from Chapterhouse from GW was the end of them putting stuff in the codex and then never making the model. Granted "no models no rules" has been taken a little extreme in the last edition or two I'd say (eg cutting out options from Tyranid models that you easily got as parts on other existing kits - RIP oh Dakka-Tyrant with wings); but in general I'm behind the idea of at least making sure we can build things the codex lets us take

I'm having a hard time understanding how having extremely limited weapon options in both rules AND models is superior to having a lot of rules options and some missing model parts.

 Overread wrote:
RIP oh Dakka-Tyrant with wings

As someone who owns 3 sets of the FW Devourers, this statement hits too close.

 Scottywan82 wrote:

 Overread wrote:
Yeah I just get a feeling it got a lot worse.
I think also it shifted a bit from being weapons options on models that did exist not being enough t ocover all the options in the codex; to whole models and units that just didn't appear as models ever.

I genuinely can't think of any units in 4th or 5th that showed up in Codices and didn't have a unit.

Just off the top of my head, with Tyranids alone (and sorry for spelling and terminology) there was the Parasite of Mortrax , bio drop pod things that didn't come until years later, and that monster that made baby termigaunts.

 cuda1179 wrote:

 Scottywan82 wrote:

 Overread wrote:
Yeah I just get a feeling it got a lot worse.
I think also it shifted a bit from being weapons options on models that did exist not being enough t ocover all the options in the codex; to whole models and units that just didn't appear as models ever.

I genuinely can't think of any units in 4th or 5th that showed up in Codices and didn't have a unit.

Just off the top of my head, with Tyranids alone (and sorry for spelling and terminology) there was the Parasite of Mortrax , bio drop pod things that didn't come until years later, and that monster that made baby termigaunts.

The Tervigon was released in the same edition as the codex. It didn't have a model for maybe 2 years max.

 cuda1179 wrote:

 Overread wrote:

But yeah one of the good things we got from Chapterhouse from GW was the end of them putting stuff in the codex and then never making the model. Granted "no models no rules" has been taken a little extreme in the last edition or two I'd say (eg cutting out options from Tyranid models that you easily got as parts on other existing kits - RIP oh Dakka-Tyrant with wings); but in general I'm behind the idea of at least making sure we can build things the codex lets us take

I'm having a hard time understanding how having extremely limited weapon options in both rules AND models is superior to having a lot of rules options and some missing model parts.

I prefer having models and rules that line up with each other, thus meaning that players can design their army and field their army with zero converting and/or zero "counts as".
I think conversion should always be an optional part of the hobby, not a requirement to take part.


As I said I think there are some cases where parts are within the army where GW have been a bit too heavy handed. I also HATE the current direction of weapons having zero point costs and of gross simplification of close combat weaponary (Tyranid Warriors have no variety at all now; meanwhile in AoS we've seen a similar move to make weapon types meaningless in close combat - many having almost identical stats now). It's not all good and GW are making, what I feel, are mistakes in trying to not just line their models and rules up, but also make things a LOT simpler.

Part of me wonders if the AoS move is part of a long term campaign to move toward more pre-posed single pose models with zero weapon options; which gives GW more reason to create different models with different weapon types and stats on them. Ergo instead of 1 model infantry with 3 weapon types to choose from; have 3 different model types in the first place.

Reductions in options seems like half to match the produced kits and cut out third party conversions, and half to simplify things to balance for the tournament esports crowd.

 Platuan4th wrote:

 Overread wrote:
RIP oh Dakka-Tyrant with wings

As someone who owns 3 sets of the FW Devourers, this statement hits too close.

I got a set of Hydracasts devourers and would have bought more but never got to building more models with wings.

 Overread wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:

 Overread wrote:

But yeah one of the good things we got from Chapterhouse from GW was the end of them putting stuff in the codex and then never making the model. Granted "no models no rules" has been taken a little extreme in the last edition or two I'd say (eg cutting out options from Tyranid models that you easily got as parts on other existing kits - RIP oh Dakka-Tyrant with wings); but in general I'm behind the idea of at least making sure we can build things the codex lets us take

I'm having a hard time understanding how having extremely limited weapon options in both rules AND models is superior to having a lot of rules options and some missing model parts.

I prefer having models and rules that line up with each other, thus meaning that players can design their army and field their army with zero converting and/or zero "counts as".
I think conversion should always be an optional part of the hobby, not a requirement to take part.


As I said I think there are some cases where parts are within the army where GW have been a bit too heavy handed. I also HATE the current direction of weapons having zero point costs and of gross simplification of close combat weaponary (Tyranid Warriors have no variety at all now; meanwhile in AoS we've seen a similar move to make weapon types meaningless in close combat - many having almost identical stats.

I too prefer if every weapon option were to be included in every box. In GW designers' eyes though this is often hard and sometimes downright impossible. If they know they can only sell Model X for a certain amount of money they know what size box/sprue to limit it to. Cramming all the options onto a character sprue is challenging, or not even possible.

It's a reason I think the best option is to design all models in an army to have similar construction, and if there is a lack of space on a sprue, leave off the most common weapon (army wide) but leave the rules intact. For example, I severely doubt there is a Space Marine player out there that doesn't have at least a spare bolt pistol or bolter in their bits box. Therefore having a hypothetical Chaplain model that has no bolt pistol in the box, but has rules for it is barely considered a barrier to entry. Heck, I barely consider it a conversion.

I believe this was their intent with the Dark Eldar Archon. Then they changed philosophy midstream and we ended up with a leader with virtually no options.In that specific case "no model, no rules" was the worst decision possible and virtually unforgivable.

And even then, having rules for a,b,c,d,e while only having options for a,b, and c is still better than limiting the rules to a,b, and c. Don't want to convert d or e? There are still the other 3. You're not stopped from playing, you're just self limiting to what is in the box.

 Scottywan82 wrote:
the Daemon World army, the cultist army... There was a lot they planned that never materialized.

There was never a plan for those two armies. Andy C. praised himself and Jervis for those two additional army lists in Codex Chaos 2nd edition to please older gamers, but both were only optional and you had to ask if you wanted to use them. They even told you the cult was pretty weak and the Daemon World army too strong. They could have at least make the Chaos Cult offical, like the Genestealer Cult in the Tyranid codex.

 Overread wrote:

Part of me wonders if the AoS move is part of a long term campaign to move toward more pre-posed single pose models with zero weapon options; which gives GW more reason to create different models with different weapon types and stats on them. Ergo instead of 1 model infantry with 3 weapon types to choose from; have 3 different model types in the first place.

I think its far more of a technical decision than anything. As much as GW is the big fish, they're not without competition and a big part of both AoS and Primaris have been about keeping their models top of the line as resin casting allowed the competition to cast larger, more detailed models without a lot of the plane restrictions you see with HIPs. GW has managed to design bigger models with more dynamic poses with some really impressive layering techniques, but its clearly come at the cost of the universal connection points that made a lot of swapping possible. I think it has far less to do with any sort of game design concerns and everything with keeping their products competitive in the age of digital sculpting.

and to be fair, the models that GW has been putting out in recent years have been damn good. for what is lost in terms of customizability is made up for, at least as far as i'm concerned, in the quality of the models themselves

 StudentOfEtherium wrote:
and to be fair, the models that GW has been putting out in recent years have been damn good. for what is lost in terms of customizability is made up for, at least as far as i'm concerned, in the quality of the models themselves

The problem is when you need more models than just one box provide. And if its a model that is supposed to be mutated and twisted by the warp, its kind of funny to have an identical twin running beside it.

I was also frustrated by a unit like havocs that look great and have lots of options, but you cant use all the lascannons and missiles in one unit, because they use the same 2 bodies (forcing you to mix anti infantry and anti tank even if you have the options in the box).

As someone who had to scratch build a defiler in I think it was 4th edition where it was in the codex with no model, I actually do like that all the units have models. The problem with No Model No Rules is not really that they eliminated a bunch of fringe units that had to be converted, but where it gets crappy is when they are eliminating units that they were selling like, 6 months prior. (Yea all of the eliminated models are in Legends, but that presents its own issues). Example; Eliminating the ranged options for cultists just because the current box does not contain the ranged options. I mean cultists are not some fringe epic hero, but a battleline unit that they have sold probably tens of thousands of kits for, or more. I get that they want new players to be able to just buy a box and play, and that is something that is good, but eliminating something like the cultist ranged option is a real slap in the face to existing players. How hard would it have been to rebox the ranged cultist box to get it to ten guys and just sell it as an alternative.

As for options for units, I am glad they are making more options generic like "acrused weapons". I mean the difference between power sword, maul etc. were minor an only added unnecessary rolling many times. Also the generic option is better for conversions. For example, I had converted a Chaos Lord years ago to be armed with a daemon looking whip. What weapon was it? What ever, but it was not WYSIWYG and an opponent might not understand or remember which one it was. Now, any weapon modeled, whip, mace, giant claw, scorpion tail, etc. is just acrused weapon with all the same stats.

Absolutely prefer "power weapon" as a generic option for things over unique stats of each type.

I think differentiating between weapons at that level is better for a skirmish level game with under two dozen models a side.

For anything larger than that, broad categories are better.

 xeen wrote:
As someone who had to scratch build a defiler in I think it was 4th edition where it was in the codex with no model, I actually do like that all the units have models.

It was in 3rd ed and the Defiler was released in 3rd as well shortly after the Black 13th Crusade book.

When it comes to lumping broad categories of weapons together, like the affore mentioned power weapons and accursed weapons, I usually support it. USUALLY.

This can be taken too far. Just look at Deathwatch. Literally all special weapons were lumped in as "Long Vigle Ranged Weapon" and all CCWs are "Long Vigle CCW". That's just insulting. Can you imagine any other marine faction if melta, plasma, flamer, and storm bolter all had the same stats?

 cuda1179 wrote:
Can you imagine any other marine faction if melta, plasma, flamer, and storm bolter all had the same stats?

You mean like exactly what happened with combi-anything?

 Platuan4th wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
Can you imagine any other marine faction if melta, plasma, flamer, and storm bolter all had the same stats?

You mean like exactly what happened with combi-anything?

Ha, was just about to say that. Though I'm sure Chaos players will be along shortly to point out it hits them more than the rest. (I've never been one for combis, but back in my day they only got to fire the special but once, though they cost just as much).

Honestly, I quite like what they did with LVRW. The only issue I take with it is that they apparently lumped Deathwatch Shotguns into that group, which is mostly weird because that's one of the main options that come in the kit.

 LunarSol wrote:
Honestly, I quite like what they did with LVRW. The only issue I take with it is that they apparently lumped Deathwatch Shotguns into that group, which is mostly weird because that's one of the main options that come in the kit.

Agreed on that point, along with Tryanid warriors of both flavors and to a lesser extent Warp Talon Champions. The bits are in the box, but they can't come up with rules for them? WTF?

As for the "marines got combis generifide", sure, you got me there. But I'd still say that's not quite as bad as generic special weapons.

 cuda1179 wrote:

As for the "marines got combis generifide", sure, you got me there. But I'd still say that's not quite as bad as generic special weapons.

The worst part is that the instructions for the 10th Ed Launch box show that they had non-generic rules for Combis and changed it.