Gadzilla666 wrote: So, the same insanity that was applied to the CSM codex has also been applied to the Guard Codex. Lovely. /s
Except where with CSM their was seemingly some love, their is none here. Maybe units have been improved or fixed up, but the soul is withered and dead.
I'm sorry, you seem to have forgotten to add a "/s" after your first sentence to show that you were being sarcastic.
Wait.......were you, being........serious?
Why would there be a /s? The new codex may be good at winning games but it's been senselessly gutted of options and character.
Gadzilla666 wrote: So, the same insanity that was applied to the CSM codex has also been applied to the Guard Codex. Lovely. /s
Except where with CSM their was seemingly some love, their is none here. Maybe units have been improved or fixed up, but the soul is withered and dead.
I'm sorry, you seem to have forgotten to add a "/s" after your first sentence to show that you were being sarcastic.
Wait.......were you, being........serious?
Why would there be a /s? The new codex may be good at winning games but it's been senselessly gutted of options and character.
That's Gad's point? BlackoCatto is suggesting they gutted the CSM book "with love", an idea that most people would consider a sarcastic suggestion at best.
GiToRaZor wrote: Did anyone have a chance to read the background section yet? I increasingly doubt I'm interested in the rules to play 40K before 10th even with a new dex. But I might grab a copy to read the current fluff section. That is, if it has any worth to it. If it's just one giant Cadian fan article I'll pass. There's only 10million left of them (according to the not very well written Cadia Stands book, or was that retconned), anything but a reservation is propaganda.
It's definitely that. Many of the other regiments are spoke of in passing but barely spoke of. It's the Cadian show, and they don't even do a good job of even that.
Makes one wonder why GW didn't simply release a codex: Cadian Armies instead and saved Astra Militarum as a whole for the 10th edition.
Dawnbringer wrote: Back on page 74 there a couple photos which show the new Kasrkin are pretty much in sync with the old metal ones. So them being bigger than standard Cadians has been a thing for a while now.
That's only true of the sergeant, which is a whole head taller than every other Karskin.
All the other kasrkin minis were as tall as the rest of the contemporary IG minis, and exactly as tall as the older stormtroopers:
So, no, it's not been a thing for a while, unless you only use sergeants for your kasrkin.
And the sergeant is taller and not bigger in every dimension. I.e his gun looks pretty proportional next to another guardsmen's he is not carrying a whole 10% of bulk on his entire body.
In other words they made him a bigger human being, they didn't and could not just get a kasrkin model in blender and make it 10% bigger than a regular trooper.
Which is why the new ones are so visually jarring next to their regular counterparts.
To fix it all you'd need to do is scale that model down 10%. But the molds are made and the initial run of models produced now so its too frickin late.
I mean i want to like the new models, the cadians look great, the kasrkins look great but their size is a step backwards. The fact that the kasrkin are now incompatible not just with the exisiting kits but with the cadians they are meant to be intergrated with is just trademark stupidity.
The new sentinel is cool, but the armoured one is very much a battle walker and not a recon vehicle in layout and design, not necessarily a bad thing, just interesting. Its essentially a sidegrade from the old armoured sentinel model. I the new sentinel kit is a win especially as beside the old ones it will look cool, more armoued, more sophisticated legs/feet.
The new tank is a cool idea, but it fill a niche occupied by 2 very nice but completely garbage rules wise resin models from forgeworld. It is seemingly a victim of power creep and brings a decadently large arsenal to a game where power levels are sorta soaring out of control.
The field weapons look good. I like the concept, towed heavy weapons for the guard have always made sense but the models are not even out and there is much nicer resin models now on the market that pin down that slammin forgeworld asthetic. Which to me, being an Australian will probably end up being cheaper, or like $10 dearer.
It's likely intentional.
They don't want us to supplement our existing forces with new kits.
They want us to replace them entirely.
I think a lot of people also compound the DKoK Grenadier lore in with Karskins for them to be bigger, and also certain books, like the one Eisenhorn or Ravenor book where they show up being units.
Anyway, DKoK Grenadiers were specifically chosen for their height and being broad shouldered compared to standard troops.
Anyway, Karskin, Grenadiers etc... They are bigger in the lore.
More and more, it feels like "the GW hobby" as a whole is this big chalice, right? And the good miniatures and interesting imagery, that's the Coca-Cola, right. And the community, at least the good parts of it, y'all're the ice cubes. And then you've got the rules, and the pixelbitching nonsense of modern Games Workshop armylists, and the offensive absurdities of the lore, and neckbeardity of the worst of us, each of those things is another quart of poison poured in on top.
And I've been sipping from that cup a long time, content with knowing that most of the dregs will sink to the bottom so the worst I'm liable to get is a bit of a weird aftertaste. But the poison's still there, man. And sure, we can add more ice or whatever, but the poison's still there. We can add paper umbrellas or slices of pineapple or little curls of lime peel on the chalice, but it doesn't change the fact that it's still poisoned, and probably always will be.
This has been the "Games Workshop cocktail theory." Thank you. Just keep being the ice cubes, 'yall. Stay frosty.
endlesswaltz123 wrote: I think a lot of people also compound the DKoK Grenadier lore in with Karskins for them to be bigger, and also certain books, like the one Eisenhorn or Ravenor book where they show up being units.
Anyway, DKoK Grenadiers were specifically chosen for their height and being broad shouldered compared to standard troops.
Anyway, Karskin, Grenadiers etc... They are bigger in the lore.
They get about three blips of characterization in Eisenhorn. Brave, skilled, and, yes, big/jacked.
BlackoCatto wrote: Except where with CSM their was seemingly some love, their is none here. Maybe units have been improved or fixed up, but the soul is withered and dead.
I am sure you meant this kindly, but I just cackled so loud I think I woke my children. I assure you, there was no love for anything in the CSM Codex. Just disdain.
What is giving Kasrkin the edge over regular guardsmen?
Extra BS, more weapon saturation, and they get a bonus regiment rule just because.
Are Kasrkin BS 3 in 40K and just 4 in Kill Team?
So Kasrkin are the Grey Hunters of IG....no heavy weapon but 2-3 special weapons? And on top of that the bonus rule....So yeah, if I were running Mech Guard or took 2 Valks I'd take Kasrkin over regular Guard.
They are BS3+ in 40k. They are BS4+ in KT because they have a special rule to get BS3+.
General Hobbs wrote: So Kasrkin are the Grey Hunters of IG....no heavy weapon but 2-3 special weapons?
2x2 + 1 special weapons, actually. And they are Elites with no option to make them Troops. They are kinda like the classic pre-Kasrkin Storm Troopers but without Deep Strike.
Quite interesting to me that this army set has not sold out yet, most 40k ones tend to. That said the AOS Chaos set from last week is still available , admittedly that has a paltry 14 miniatures in it.
So why do we think this one has stuck around?
Near to Christmas/cost of living crisis?
GW printed more copies?
Existing Guard players do not need 25 more infantry that do not match the 100+ Guard infantry they already have?
If starting the army 400 odd points with maxed out options is pretty poor?
ListenToMeWarriors wrote: Quite interesting to me that this army set has not sold out yet, most 40k ones tend to. That said the AOS Chaos set from last week is still available , admittedly that has a paltry 14 miniatures in it.
So why do we think this one has stuck around?
Near to Christmas/cost of living crisis?
GW printed more copies?
Existing Guard players do not need 25 more infantry that do not match the 100+ Guard infantry they already have?
If starting the army 400 odd points with maxed out options is pretty poor?
ListenToMeWarriors wrote: Quite interesting to me that this army set has not sold out yet, most 40k ones tend to. That said the AOS Chaos set from last week is still available , admittedly that has a paltry 14 miniatures in it.
So why do we think this one has stuck around?
Near to Christmas/cost of living crisis?
GW printed more copies?
Existing Guard players do not need 25 more infantry that do not match the 100+ Guard infantry they already have?
If starting the army 400 odd points with maxed out options is pretty poor?
Also 2 week preorder/ Black Friday upcoming
Also a lot of U.K. uncertainty over energy bills coming up. I got mine, then gave meter readings. So right now budgetting is tricky, on account I’m yet to learn what my bills are going to be like going forward. That’s an impact entirely out of our or GW’s control.
Certainly a lot of my usual spending is being restrained at the moment, so if a shocker comes in I can handle it. And if it’s not as bad as feared, that money is still there for regular spending.
ListenToMeWarriors wrote: Quite interesting to me that this army set has not sold out yet, most 40k ones tend to. That said the AOS Chaos set from last week is still available , admittedly that has a paltry 14 miniatures in it.
So why do we think this one has stuck around?
Near to Christmas/cost of living crisis?
GW printed more copies?
Existing Guard players do not need 25 more infantry that do not match the 100+ Guard infantry they already have?
If starting the army 400 odd points with maxed out options is pretty poor?
If Dark Sphere's website is accurate they have 680 copies of the set on order with GW, which is a fair bit higher than any other army set. Perhaps GW made a lot more this time with the box being available for Christmas?
Also a lot of U.K. uncertainty over energy bills coming up. I got mine, then gave meter readings. So right now budgetting is tricky, on account I’m yet to learn what my bills are going to be like going forward. That’s an impact entirely out of our or GW’s control.
Certainly a lot of my usual spending is being restrained at the moment, so if a shocker comes in I can handle it. And if it’s not as bad as feared, that money is still there for regular spending.
Also, anyone with a variable mortgage in the UK will be seeing their payments skyrocket due to interest rate hikes. So discretionary spending has taken a huge hit.
ListenToMeWarriors wrote: Quite interesting to me that this army set has not sold out yet, most 40k ones tend to. That said the AOS Chaos set from last week is still available , admittedly that has a paltry 14 miniatures in it.
So why do we think this one has stuck around?
Near to Christmas/cost of living crisis?
GW printed more copies?
Existing Guard players do not need 25 more infantry that do not match the 100+ Guard infantry they already have?
If starting the army 400 odd points with maxed out options is pretty poor?
If Dark Sphere's website is accurate they have 680 copies of the set on order with GW, which is a fair bit higher than any other army set. Perhaps GW made a lot more this time with the box being available for Christmas?
It's the book + combat patrol pretty much, it makes sense there's more stock than usual.
I was tempted to throw in with Dark Sphere - but decided that since it was seemingly going to be the codex+combat patrol, with not a lot of obvious discount on that, I could wait and see if Guard were grabbing me when everything is revealed.
The reason I didn't pre-order it was, after looking at the Kasrkin models, I was put off by the crazy scale creep and didn't want models that would look wildly out of place with my existing Cadians.
However, having seen pics online, it seems the new Cadians are actually only marginally taller than the current plastics and it's only the Kasrkin that are stupidly big....
I think GW should have made this a bit clearer, it might have encouraged people like me to order...
Given the previews, there seems to be the possibility to upgrade your Baneblade to a Tank Commander via the Tank Ace option: Vaunted Praetorian. Are you then able to give that Tank Commander the Warlord trait: Lead By Example? I.e. give your Baneblade the ability to order itself?
Or would you even be able to give an ordinary officer the Warlord Trait: Superior Tactical training and give that model Vehicle Orders. I can't see anything that says that you can't order a Superheavy.
Dirk Reinecke wrote: So various Youtubers are doing reviews, and the rules for the Death Korps is just weird. By default you have 8 Guardmens, 1 Plasma Gunner and 1 Sargeant. It lists that you can take two special weapons, (but it lists no Plasma Guns). Then it says that you can replace the Plasma gun with a vox?
So you can have 2 special weapons + plasma but no vox, or 2 specials but no plasma + vox.
Why would they do that? It isn't no model no rules, as the kit doesn't come with 2 special weapons of one type. It also says that you can't take more than 2 of the same special weapon (they also have this on the Cadian Shock Troops).
Very strange wording.
Vox bro/plasma gunner is built off the same model - officially you cannot build both out of the same box. There is no limit to how nitpicky NMNR based datasheets can go.
This is absolutely demented; the vast majority of the arms in the DKoK kit are interchangeable and the even the instructions (at least those that came with my Octarius box), while not making this clear, show the plasma / melta guns as interchangeable options on two separate models.
While I'm not keen on the NMNR restrictions generally, I can sort of understand the reasoning as to why a lot of them exist. This, on the other hand, is just completely <removed - language please...>.
While I'm not keen on the NMNR restrictions generally, I can sort of understand the reasoning as to why a lot of them exist. This, on the other hand, is just completely <removed - language please...>.
First they came for the Death Guard, and I said nothing...
Dirk Reinecke wrote: So various Youtubers are doing reviews, and the rules for the Death Korps is just weird. By default you have 8 Guardmens, 1 Plasma Gunner and 1 Sargeant. It lists that you can take two special weapons, (but it lists no Plasma Guns). Then it says that you can replace the Plasma gun with a vox?
So you can have 2 special weapons + plasma but no vox, or 2 specials but no plasma + vox.
Why would they do that? It isn't no model no rules, as the kit doesn't come with 2 special weapons of one type. It also says that you can't take more than 2 of the same special weapon (they also have this on the Cadian Shock Troops).
Very strange wording.
Vox bro/plasma gunner is built off the same model - officially you cannot build both out of the same box. There is no limit to how nitpicky NMNR based datasheets can go.
This is absolutely demented; the vast majority of the arms in the DKoK kit are interchangeable and the even the instructions (at least those that came with my Octarius box), while not making this clear, show the plasma / melta guns as interchangeable options on two separate models.
While I'm not keen on the NMNR restrictions generally, I can sort of understand the reasoning as to why a lot of them exist. This, on the other hand, is just completely <removed - language please...>.
I mean for dkok the NMNR restriction is a bit more silly considering the killteam set contains an extra sprue allowing you to turn the meltagunner into a plasmagunner and a few extra loadouts… and there is still a huge dkok section in forgeworld which allows you to customize your squad with weapon loadouts.
Well, on my end the primary answer is Votann. I've spent the bulk of November & December's "hobby budget" already.. Other than that? I have 10s of thousands of pts worth of Guard already. All I really need from this release is a Codex, 3 Dorn, 2 Lord Solar, 1 squad of Rough Riders, & a bunch of those new arty pieces. This list will get spread out over 2023.
EviscerationPlague wrote: Remember, if you're not running one of each weapon in your squads, GW thinks you're having fun the wrong way.
It's one of those weird quasi-real-world-isms that's never worked well in any edition of 40k rules. You could see how it'd work in-universe, with single specialists in each squad responsible for attacking hard targets with meltas or plasmas, and others armed with a grenade launcher or flamers to suppress infantry or entrenched positions, but that's never as good in-game as doubling up on either so your squad actually has an appreciable chance to be good at its role (for most of its history the game didn't even have command point rerolls to tweak the odds of that lone BS 4+ meltagunner actually hitting an enemy Rhino...)
EviscerationPlague wrote: Remember, if you're not running one of each weapon in your squads, GW thinks you're having fun the wrong way.
It's one of those weird quasi-real-world-isms that's never worked well in any edition of 40k rules. You could see how it'd work in-universe, with single specialists in each squad responsible for attacking hard targets with meltas or plasmas, and others armed with a grenade launcher or flamers to suppress infantry or entrenched positions, but that's never as good in-game as doubling up on either so your squad actually has an appreciable chance to be good at its role (for most of its history the game didn't even have command point rerolls to tweak the odds of that lone BS 4+ meltagunner actually hitting an enemy Rhino...)
I can't tell you the number of times I would deepstrike command and SWS with 4 meltas next to a land raider and not hit.....
EviscerationPlague wrote: Remember, if you're not running one of each weapon in your squads, GW thinks you're having fun the wrong way.
It's one of those weird quasi-real-world-isms that's never worked well in any edition of 40k rules. You could see how it'd work in-universe, with single specialists in each squad responsible for attacking hard targets with meltas or plasmas, and others armed with a grenade launcher or flamers to suppress infantry or entrenched positions, but that's never as good in-game as doubling up on either so your squad actually has an appreciable chance to be good at its role (for most of its history the game didn't even have command point rerolls to tweak the odds of that lone BS 4+ meltagunner actually hitting an enemy Rhino...)
I can't tell you the number of times I would deepstrike command and SWS with 4 meltas next to a land raider and not hit.....
The old rule of 3 for guard. If you want something done, take 3 in your list. The first is going to die before it does anything. The second is going to miss. But the third unit. That one will get the job done.
Nevelon wrote: The old rule of 3 for guard. If you want something done, take 3 in your list. The first is going to die before it does anything. The second is going to miss. But the third unit. That one will get the job done.
Kind of explains why I have three companies of Leman Russes.
Nevelon wrote: The old rule of 3 for guard. If you want something done, take 3 in your list. The first is going to die before it does anything. The second is going to miss. But the third unit. That one will get the job done.
Kind of explains why I have three companies of Leman Russes.
The first regiment dies before it does anything...
H.B.M.C. wrote: I noticed in WarCom's army list article that you can take 2 Tank Commanders in a list.
Does the new Guard 'Dex not have the "one commander" rule that every other Codex has been getting?
Those limits have only applied to the highest-tier commander. You can take one chapter master but you can take every single primaris lieutenant variant GW has ever made. Guard can take unlimited tank commanders as second-tier HQs but only one castellan (and named character equivalents).
So the Castellan is their "one per". Isn't the Castellan specifically Cadian?
Also, I can't believe that the new heavy arty platforms are locked at 2 per unit.
Russes? Squadrons of 3! Sentinels? Squadrons of 3! Basilisks? Batteries of 3! Heavy Weapon Squads? 3 Heavy Weapon Teams? But heavier weapon teams? Nope. Locked at 2, because you get 2 on the sprue. And all the special weapons and equipment in squads is free.
He doesn't have to, the setting of the game is still officially some point in M41 thanks to convoluted retcons and warp-<removed>.
Not only is that NOT true, there's literally a new dating system for events relative to the Rift opening that place them in M42. The retcon was only in relation to how long after the end of M41 everything takes places(~25 years vs the near 100-150 first suggested).
Aaron Dembski-Bowden and other GW officials have literally outright said that its still M41 in the fiction and that is Black Library's own official position on the matter. You can try to argue with "the voice of God", but you'll lose. You seem to have missed one of the key elements of the retcon, as theres a lot more to it htan just the compression of the 100-150 year indomitus crusade into a 25 year span - chiefly the Chronostrife and the discovery that the Imperial Dating System was prone to a margin of error of +/- 1000 years or so, while some people latch onto the idea that this means its actually deep into M42, the actual reason for it is to buy back a few hundred years of time in M41 for the writers so that they aren't all writing events that happen at M42.999. In essence its the 40k version of the Phantom Time Hypothesis. On that note, the reason for the Imperial Dating System being replaced is officially, in-universe, because time throughout the galaxy is no longer flowing in a linear or consistent fashion and the passage of time has gone fully relative from sector to sector, system to system, planet to planet, and even in some cases continent to continent and city to city. Unofficially its because, again, Black Library wanted to buy themselves time to continue writing fiction in M41 without running up against another hard-stop on the calendar.
The fact that people adhere so dogmatically to the idea that its actually M42, especially when actual insiders have very directly stated otherwise, just speaks to the obstinance of peoples beliefs.
chaos0xomega wrote: The fact that people adhere so dogmatically to the idea that its actually M42, especially when actual insiders have very directly stated otherwise, just speaks to the obstinance of peoples beliefs.
The fact that people still think it's M41, when the fall of Cadia was 999.M41 and it's been at least 100 years since then in the fluff (if not more), says that certain other people are the ones clinging to things dogmatically.
H.B.M.C. wrote: I noticed in WarCom's army list article that you can take 2 Tank Commanders in a list.
Does the new Guard 'Dex not have the "one commander" rule that every other Codex has been getting?
Daemons have no max 1 of something either. Speculation was gd's would get one but nope. Even upgraded gd's you can take as many as slots are.
Iirc guard are limited to one castellian/commandant per detachment, command s1uads and tank commanders are not limited. Tank commanders don't get a 3+ BS any more though
tneva82 wrote: Daemons have no max 1 of something either. Speculation was gd's would get one but nope. Even upgraded gd's you can take as many as slots are.
I'm surprised about the Exalted part of that, but they were never going to limit you to 1 GD per army.
Why couldn't Scions get a little end section with their own regiments (much like Harlis did with the Eldar book) rather than being mushed into the main list?
The Eldar book might be the best Codex in 9th, from a structural standpoint. It should be the blue-print, not the exception.
Just to squeeze a bit more whine out of this conversation:
The Castellan is another example at how fethed up the Codex is, or as others have pointed out, devoid of any love.
Technically speaking, if you were to create a "your dudes" regiment, the standard Organisation would mean that you create a Colonel in your head canon that is leading the whole thing, as well as some Majors and Lieutnants to hold it all together. You know, just like any BL novel about the topic. But now you are forced with accepting that RAW, either your Colonel is a replacable shmuck that is no better than a Lieutanant or your regiment is lead by a Cadian. Because they did so well while their Planet broke up, that they absolutely need to boss around other Regiments. There is no generic Senior Officer. Or to put it differently, if this was the SM Codex, then there is no entry for a Chapter Master / Captain any more. Your Chapter/Company can only be lead by an Ultramarine Captain or a "Your dudes Chapter" Lieutanant.
That alone is giving me the shivers, especially since I can remember very well what an armory is and that it used to be a character driven story.
Whilst it silly that the castellan is identified as Cadian, does it actually matter? I don't quite understand whether the regiment designations actually do anything or are they just fluff...
From a count as perspective is doesn't matter. Same as that your dudes might all be classified as Cadian Shock troops, because you want to run them without HW. This is more on a principle level of how messed up NMNR is. Give for example that they stop producing the old Cadian Infantry kit, the general Infantry Squad will cease to exist. Then your entire Regiment can only be Cadian, Krieg or Catachan (if they too don't get just discontinued at one time). Tbh, there isn't a general Command Squad article on the GW page, so the future looks like that there will only be Cadian Command Squads at one point at this rate.
GiToRaZor wrote: From a count as perspective is doesn't matter. Same as that your dudes might all be classified as Cadian Shock troops, because you want to run them without HW. This is more on a principle level of how messed up NMNR is. Give for example that they stop producing the old Cadian Infantry kit, the general Infantry Squad will cease to exist. Then your entire Regiment can only be Cadian, Krieg or Catachan (if they too don't get just discontinued at one time). Tbh, there isn't a general Command Squad article on the GW page, so the future looks like that there will only be Cadian Command Squads at one point at this rate.
I really don't understand this. It's a name, you can model it how you like, it can have any appearance as long as it's clear what it looks like, the GW shelf model is a "Cadian Castellan" if you took a permanent marker and crossed out Cadian and wrote "my dudes" on the packet/in your book, what are you losing exactly? You act like the defacto infantry squad haven't been cadian shock troops for the last however many years.
Dudeface wrote: I really don't understand this. It's a name, you can model it how you like, it can have any appearance as long as it's clear what it looks like, the GW shelf model is a "Cadian Castellan" if you took a permanent marker and crossed out Cadian and wrote "my dudes" on the packet/in your book, what are you losing exactly? You act like the defacto infantry squad haven't been cadian shock troops for the last however many years.
I'll eloborate. Firstly, from my point of view there is nothing wrong using "count as" to play your army the way you want it, based on rules that are currently available. I can still remember the Bols articles, where Goatboay would play SW or BA on paper but had actual CSM models, because from his point of view, their rules matched the feel of the CSM better than their actual codex. (And if that is already not a glaring issue about a Codex, but I'll leave that point for now) If that doesn't ring a bell, ask the people about what they think of everything conting as Accursed Weapons.
Hence, if you play your "own dudes" regiment, I am 100% on board with using whatever rules you find applicable. Heck, I'll wholeheartedly support house rules (Our ork boys have 2W e.g.). The issue is just, where is this heading to? Here a crass overexageration:
Imagine said BA army of modelled WE models entering a tournament, but it is a GW one, will they even accept the entry? How far will they push the rule that your model needs to be the one that is supplied with the rules? What if Codex CSM and WE gets discontinued? Should we simply tell people to use Codex SM? (Remember I said, crass examples to illustrate the point)
In this case, technically, assuming they discontinue the rules for the Infantry Squad and Command Squad they could bar anyone from fielding their army, even it is 100% GW produced ("Sorry, but that Vostroyan Colonel is not a Cadian Castelan model, bye bye")
What is actually stopping them from simply discontinuing Codex IG altogether? They might just call it Codex: Cadia and be done with it. Of course, no real consequences over a friendly game over beer and pretzels, but if they do that, why even bother with the background for the other regiments anymore? They could just write down, that "there are 15 trillion Cadians in the Imperium of man, but sometimes someone from a different planet shows up, they are considered one step away from abhumans".
To wrap this up, of course I don't have a current insolvable issue. But I do see this as a very glaring issue when it comes to the direction that this is going. And yes, I am a fluff bunny and I don't tink that is anything to be ashamed of. After all, without the background, WH40K would simply vanish as the overcomplicated expensive mess that it actually is.
Dudeface wrote: I really don't understand this. It's a name, you can model it how you like, it can have any appearance as long as it's clear what it looks like, the GW shelf model is a "Cadian Castellan" if you took a permanent marker and crossed out Cadian and wrote "my dudes" on the packet/in your book, what are you losing exactly? You act like the defacto infantry squad haven't been cadian shock troops for the last however many years.
I'll eloborate. Firstly, from my point of view there is nothing wrong using "count as" to play your army the way you want it, based on rules that are currently available. I can still remember the Bols articles, where Goatboay would play SW or BA on paper but had actual CSM models, because from his point of view, their rules matched the feel of the CSM better than their actual codex. (And if that is already not a glaring issue about a Codex, but I'll leave that point for now) If that doesn't ring a bell, ask the people about what they think of everything conting as Accursed Weapons.
Hence, if you play your "own dudes" regiment, I am 100% on board with using whatever rules you find applicable. Heck, I'll wholeheartedly support house rules (Our ork boys have 2W e.g.). The issue is just, where is this heading to? Here a crass overexageration:
Imagine said BA army of modelled WE models entering a tournament, but it is a GW one, will they even accept the entry? How far will they push the rule that your model needs to be the one that is supplied with the rules? What if Codex CSM and WE gets discontinued? Should we simply tell people to use Codex SM? (Remember I said, crass examples to illustrate the point)
In this case, technically, assuming they discontinue the rules for the Infantry Squad and Command Squad they could bar anyone from fielding their army, even it is 100% GW produced ("Sorry, but that Vostroyan Colonel is not a Cadian Castelan model, bye bye")
What is actually stopping them from simply discontinuing Codex IG altogether? They might just call it Codex: Cadia and be done with it. Of course, no real consequences over a friendly game over beer and pretzels, but if they do that, why even bother with the background for the other regiments anymore? They could just write down, that "there are 15 trillion Cadians in the Imperium of man, but sometimes someone from a different planet shows up, they are considered one step away from abhumans".
To wrap this up, of course I don't have a current insolvable issue. But I do see this as a very glaring issue when it comes to the direction that this is going. And yes, I am a fluff bunny and I don't tink that is anything to be ashamed of. After all, without the background, WH40K would simply vanish as the overcomplicated expensive mess that it actually is.
So to clarify, they can slap the word Cadian on every unit entry and the only thing that changes in any meaningful way is you need extra permission for conversions at events, which is arguably something you should be doing now with custom guard sculpts? I don't see the issue, your guys are your guys, irrespective of the name of the datasheet. You want your Cadian Castellan to actually be a Vostroyan Colonel or whatever, what's stopping you in reality? Why does "Cadian infantry squad" stop them being from another planet? You're a fluff bunny, write your own narrative.
Nothing has changed in any meaningful way and I don't see it as a trend, Cadian has been the "default" for a loooong time, it hasn't stopped anyone yet.
By "loooong time", do you mean at most a couple of years?
Currently, you can buy a Cadian, Tanith, or Catachan command squad.
As recently as the 8th edition codex, you could also purchase a Vostroyan command squad, and Steel Legion, Valhallan, Mordian, and Tallarn officers to build your own command squad.
Cadia has not been a default at any point, only the most common army. It still isn't a default.
What I dislike more about the Castellan is that they come without a command squad while platoons come with one. I want my senior officers to also have a staff. It looks silly without them and it's also silly that the more junior leaders are the ones with access to esoteric equipment like radios.
Haighus wrote: By "loooong time", do you mean at most a couple of years?
Currently, you can buy a Cadian, Tanith, or Catachan command squad.
As recently as the 8th edition codex, you could also purchase a Vostroyan command squad, and Steel Legion, Valhallan, Mordian, and Tallarn officers to build your own command squad.
Cadia has not been a default at any point, only the most common army. It still isn't a default.
What crew comes with the tanks? Which boxes weren't mail order only? Which kits went into the start collecting etc? Which models are used as the defaults in all their video games?
Haighus wrote: By "loooong time", do you mean at most a couple of years?
Currently, you can buy a Cadian, Tanith, or Catachan command squad.
As recently as the 8th edition codex, you could also purchase a Vostroyan command squad, and Steel Legion, Valhallan, Mordian, and Tallarn officers to build your own command squad.
Cadia has not been a default at any point, only the most common army. It still isn't a default.
What crew comes with the tanks? Which boxes weren't mail order only? Which kits went into the start collecting etc? Which models are used as the defaults in all their video games?
The tanks have generic crews, with the option to build as Cadians. They come with a transfer sheet for all manner of regiments, unlike the Cadian boxes.
Catachans have now moved to online only, so Cadians are the only one in store. I don't think that makes them default though, at least until the new Codex where everything appears to be moving that way. Prior to the 9th box, all core options could be built in plastic without using Cadian models.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Why couldn't Scions get a little end section with their own regiments (much like Harlis did with the Eldar book) rather than being mushed into the main list?
That one's easy....so they can sell you a Scions book/supplement later down the line.
H.B.M.C. wrote: I noticed in WarCom's army list article that you can take 2 Tank Commanders in a list.
Does the new Guard 'Dex not have the "one commander" rule that every other Codex has been getting?
Who knows? They also said you can take 5x Heavy Weapon Squads in a list, so have they got that wrong or do they have a special rule (or does WarCom not use that rule of 3)
Dolnikan wrote: What I dislike more about the Castellan is that they come without a command squad while platoons come with one. I want my senior officers to also have a staff. It looks silly without them and it's also silly that the more junior leaders are the ones with access to esoteric equipment like radios.
Dolnikan wrote: What I dislike more about the Castellan is that they come without a command squad while platoons come with one. I want my senior officers to also have a staff. It looks silly without them and it's also silly that the more junior leaders are the ones with access to esoteric equipment like radios.
Yep, that's weird and backwards.
I look at this historically for guard. In their first army list, the one I still style my guard army after. In that list the senior officers, “commanders”, were the only officers that didn’t HAVE to be attached to a command squad. Captains and lieutenants both had to. I see “Castellans” as the modern version of that old commander so for me I really like it, it’s how I want to run my commander anyway.
chaos0xomega wrote: The fact that people adhere so dogmatically to the idea that its actually M42, especially when actual insiders have very directly stated otherwise, just speaks to the obstinance of peoples beliefs.
The fact that people still think it's M41, when the fall of Cadia was 999.M41 and it's been at least 100 years since then in the fluff (if not more), says that certain other people are the ones clinging to things dogmatically.
'cept that the whole point of the retcon is basically that it wasn't actually 999.M41 when Cadia fell
H.B.M.C. wrote: And we thought the Chaos book was inconsistent.
Why couldn't Scions get a little end section with their own regiments (much like Harlis did with the Eldar book) rather than being mushed into the main list?
The Eldar book might be the best Codex in 9th, from a structural standpoint. It should be the blue-print, not the exception.
I would wager that some Harlequins fans might disagree and that they would have preferred to still be a standalone codex and to have received some new models/units to go along with it. That being said, as a Tempestus player I would really have liked the Tempestus to have proper levels of support and to feel like an actual army instead of just a deformed Kuato-like conjoined parasitic twin growing off the body of the Imperial Guard.
Dolnikan wrote: What I dislike more about the Castellan is that they come without a command squad while platoons come with one. I want my senior officers to also have a staff. It looks silly without them and it's also silly that the more junior leaders are the ones with access to esoteric equipment like radios.
Yep, that's weird and backwards.
I look at this historically for guard. In their first army list, the one I still style my guard army after. In that list the senior officers, “commanders”, were the only officers that didn’t HAVE to be attached to a command squad. Captains and lieutenants both had to. I see “Castellans” as the modern version of that old commander so for me I really like it, it’s how I want to run my commander anyway.
Now I want a jump pack option for the Castellan...
Dolnikan wrote: What I dislike more about the Castellan is that they come without a command squad while platoons come with one. I want my senior officers to also have a staff. It looks silly without them and it's also silly that the more junior leaders are the ones with access to esoteric equipment like radios.
Am I missing something here? Doesn't having a Command Squad effectively remove the normal protection character models have?
So, rather than a command staff, what you're really asking for is a target range.
Dolnikan wrote: What I dislike more about the Castellan is that they come without a command squad while platoons come with one. I want my senior officers to also have a staff. It looks silly without them and it's also silly that the more junior leaders are the ones with access to esoteric equipment like radios.
Am I missing something here? Doesn't having a Command Squad effectively remove the normal protection character models have?
So, rather than a command staff, what you're really asking for is a target range.
If a unit has a model with the character keyword it gets the benefits of "look out sir" which makes the command squad much more survivable. If you give the squad a medic then they have a +5 FNP, and an ogryn bodyguard raises the squad toughness to 5, and there is a relic which gives the squad a +4 invulnrable save. The command squad can becone quite durable.
The banners are also fairly nice with their re-roll 1's to wound.
Dolnikan wrote: What I dislike more about the Castellan is that they come without a command squad while platoons come with one. I want my senior officers to also have a staff. It looks silly without them and it's also silly that the more junior leaders are the ones with access to esoteric equipment like radios.
Am I missing something here? Doesn't having a Command Squad effectively remove the normal protection character models have?
So, rather than a command staff, what you're really asking for is a target range.
Fortunately command squads now have that kind of protection. If only heavy weapons squads could get something similar so they're not blasted off the board the moment they show themselves.
Dolnikan wrote: What I dislike more about the Castellan is that they come without a command squad while platoons come with one. I want my senior officers to also have a staff. It looks silly without them and it's also silly that the more junior leaders are the ones with access to esoteric equipment like radios.
Am I missing something here? Doesn't having a Command Squad effectively remove the normal protection character models have?
So, rather than a command staff, what you're really asking for is a target range.
If a unit has a model with the character keyword it gets the benefits of "look out sir" which makes the command squad much more survivable. If you give the squad a medic then they have a +5 FNP, and an ogryn bodyguard raises the squad toughness to 5, and there is a relic which gives the squad a +4 invulnrable save. The command squad can becone quite durable.
The banners are also fairly nice with their re-roll 1's to wound.
chaos0xomega wrote: I would wager that some Harlequins fans might disagree and that they would have preferred to still be a standalone codex and to have received some new models/units to go along with it.
Not really what I was getting at. The point of what I said was that if you were going to do a book that includes a section of units that can either be part of the army or an army unto themselves, the Eldar book is the best example GW have of that.
chaos0xomega wrote: 'cept that the whole point of the retcon is basically that it wasn't actually 999.M41 when Cadia fell
Boosykes wrote: Cadians need done away with there planet is gone.... LONG LIVE KREIG
And yet there were survivors of the destruction of Cadia, hundreds of Regiments serving elsewhere in the galaxy, and in the 8th Ed Codex it outlines that not only are entire Regiments born and raised on the way to various warzones but that Cadian Regiments also recruit those non-Cadians they view as worthy of the mantle.
Regardless of background, the Cadian image is generic SciFi soldier and can fairly simply be modified to produce other results. The Krieg are very much one aesthetic and also have the stigma of being associated with the worst parts of the Warhammer fandom.
Sticking with Cadians is the only real choice.
I originally thought the Goff Rocker video was a teaser that he was still alive (says "Bale Eye got away" at 46 seconds). But then a few minutes later I started seeing posts talking about how the latest codex killed him.
The "Bale Eye Got Away" bit is a reference to Yarrick's escape from the Orks...and they already had an animation of it, which is what they reused it seems..
And it's a reference to "The Joker got away" or "Robin flew away" (take your pick), which are common lines from the common Batman-centric parody of Jungle Bells.
H.B.M.C. wrote: And it's a reference to "The Joker got away" or "Robin flew away" (take your pick), which are common lines from the common Batman-centric parody of Jungle Bells.
This post felt like reading a Wikipedia entry for some reason.
I originally thought the Goff Rocker video was a teaser that he was still alive (says "Bale Eye got away" at 46 seconds). But then a few minutes later I started seeing posts talking about how the latest codex killed him.
They certainly keep that option open. Which makes sense. Somebody from design team gets idea to do new model and they need to introduce him back to game. Easier if original going away can be waved away as misinformation inside imperium than literally provenly killed
Is that another version of "Jingle in the Jungle"?
To me it sounds like an ethno-insensitive parody cartoon from the 1950's. If you are brave enough, google "Coal Black and the Sebben Dwarfs", it's a parody of Snow White from the 1950's.
I wouldn't wait. I bought a few Sentinels recently for that reason. Hell, I picked up 3 Start Collecting! Khorne Daemons about a week before they vanished. These things tend to go fast.
Undead_Love-Machine wrote: Do we have any idea if GW will be withdrawing the current Cadians from sale once the new versions are released?
Just wondering if I need to buy some right now, ideally I'd prefer to wait because money is tight right now.
I'm going to guess that when they sell out of their current stock they'll probably be gone for good, if not sooner. Pretty much the whole range new has been shown, I can't imagine the old range hanging around terribly long.
I managed to talk myself out of buying a StD start collecting after the StD regiment box was previewed. Wasn't too difficult, though I suppose there's still time for me to break.
Undead_Love-Machine wrote: Do we have any idea if GW will be withdrawing the current Cadians from sale once the new versions are released?
Just wondering if I need to buy some right now, ideally I'd prefer to wait because money is tight right now.
For the moment, Cadian Shock Troops are a different squad entry to the basic guardsmen, so I don't think they will get rid of the latter when the codex drops. Next edition, maybe? The old ork boyz are still around despite the crappy new ones.
Undead_Love-Machine wrote: Do we have any idea if GW will be withdrawing the current Cadians from sale once the new versions are released?
Just wondering if I need to buy some right now, ideally I'd prefer to wait because money is tight right now.
I'm going to guess that when they sell out of their current stock they'll probably be gone for good, if not sooner. Pretty much the whole range new has been shown, I can't imagine the old range hanging around terribly long.
Yeah, I don't expect we will see a repetition of the ork boys debacle. The new Cadians box looks much better, and actually useable, even if I'm not very enthused to them.
Undead_Love-Machine wrote: Do we have any idea if GW will be withdrawing the current Cadians from sale once the new versions are released?
Just wondering if I need to buy some right now, ideally I'd prefer to wait because money is tight right now.
For the moment, Cadian Shock Troops are a different squad entry to the basic guardsmen, so I don't think they will get rid of the latter when the codex drops. Next edition, maybe? The old ork boyz are still around despite the crappy new ones.
There are reasons for that, not the least the amount of backlash the new box got. I don't think that will be the case this time, even if it will certainly be more expensive.
There are reasons for that, not the least the amount of backlash the new box got. I don't think that will be the case this time, even if it will certainly be more expensive.
Feedback had literally nothing to do with the decision to keep the old kit on sale. That box was given redesigned 9E style packaging, which would have been arranged long before the new Boyz kit was even publicly announced. It was always the plan to sell both kits.
Undead_Love-Machine wrote: Do we have any idea if GW will be withdrawing the current Cadians from sale once the new versions are released?
Just wondering if I need to buy some right now, ideally I'd prefer to wait because money is tight right now.
When the Old World blew up I frantically bought all Dark Elf boxes which were still needed for my army. FOMO at it´s finest.
Ask yourself, if you really need the Cadians.
FOMO is definitely driving me. I've got plenty of Cadians still unassembled in various stashes, but what if I need more? I'm still not sure which versions I prefer, which I'm sure sounds crazy to many people as the new versions are clearly more detailed. There's just something about the current Cadians. I won't miss the heads though.
So sure, I don't need to buy more, but I could say the same about any minis really
If your not opposed to buying used, keep in mind that the current kit has been in production for a long long time. There fore the secondary market will have lots of them for a long time, their secondary market price will likely see almost no increase as the supply is just to big and the new kit is nice enough new players are unlikely to be looking for the old ones.
Used cadians are already cheap and plentyful. Guessing there are many with hordes of them that might want to get rid of them and instead go for the better looking new ones.
Who knows anymore, GW is wildly inconsistent with what stays or goes. Plus they can drum up more panic purchases by keeping everyone in the dark all the time.
Illumini wrote: Used cadians are already cheap and plentyful. Guessing there are many with hordes of them that might want to get rid of them and instead go for the better looking new ones.
Better looking but as of now not as customizable.
Which was the point of going to plastic.
GW does not want people to be able to convert their figures anymore. At this point, I wonder what the point is of making them in parts that you have to assemble and not just come out with fully made army men and vehicles.
General Hobbs wrote: At this point, I wonder what the point is of making them in parts that you have to assemble and not just come out with fully made army men and vehicles.
"[T]his model is just so damn intricate. ... in just how fiddly and tight the construction can be. His torso is a smattering of seemingly unrelated fleshy shapes that all fit around a hollow void and if you don’t wait the proper amount of time for glue to dry, the whole body can collapse in on itself as nearly happened with mine. It’s kind of like building an eggshell, fragile and hollow. Each limb is 2-3 parts before the hands and feet (often another 2-3 parts) and even the most seemingly simple part of the model can take a while just to clip, clean, and glue together. His head especially was a challenge, taking something like 6-7 often extremely small pieces just to assemble. Each of his heads has multiple pieces as well, and there’s something like 3 different tongues in the kit."
"[T]he bits are scattered across the sprues in a nonlinear fashion. You may need two adjacently numbered pieces for a hand or foot or something, only to have to hunt them down and find which sprue has which piece in the sequence – so bit 17 might be on sprue A, but 18 might be on sprue C. Searching for the specific bit I needed definitely contributed to the construction time on this miniature, as pieces are typically laid out next to each other on kits not quite so packed as this one."
I don't know why they do this. There have been models that I've given up on because my eyes aren't good enough to figure out what goes where (Spirit Hosts, Dark Apostle) and other minis that have made my blood boil in how nonsensical they are to build (hello Helbrute!).
I put together 3 EZ Build Agressors last weekend. They were great. This whole jigsaw puzzle design ethos of modern kits is really unnecessary, especially given how few options there are with construction.
What I don't get is the nonsensical numbering of parts on the sprues. I don't care if I have to glue part 37 to part 64, so long as I can find them on the sprues. I've been doing some Krieg lately and I swear half my time is spent staring at the sprues looking for the part I want.
General Hobbs wrote: At this point, I wonder what the point is of making them in parts that you have to assemble and not just come out with fully made army men and vehicles.
"[T]his model is just so damn intricate. ... in just how fiddly and tight the construction can be. His torso is a smattering of seemingly unrelated fleshy shapes that all fit around a hollow void and if you don’t wait the proper amount of time for glue to dry, the whole body can collapse in on itself as nearly happened with mine. It’s kind of like building an eggshell, fragile and hollow. Each limb is 2-3 parts before the hands and feet (often another 2-3 parts) and even the most seemingly simple part of the model can take a while just to clip, clean, and glue together. His head especially was a challenge, taking something like 6-7 often extremely small pieces just to assemble. Each of his heads has multiple pieces as well, and there’s something like 3 different tongues in the kit."
"[T]he bits are scattered across the sprues in a nonlinear fashion. You may need two adjacently numbered pieces for a hand or foot or something, only to have to hunt them down and find which sprue has which piece in the sequence – so bit 17 might be on sprue A, but 18 might be on sprue C. Searching for the specific bit I needed definitely contributed to the construction time on this miniature, as pieces are typically laid out next to each other on kits not quite so packed as this one."
That's pretty accurate summary. I had to put the daemon prince aside because it was such a mess (and the pictures don't give much of a clue as to how to align the torso bits so they match)- mine _did_ collapse like an eggshell. The left leg on the tactical rock is also a bit fiddly- there isn't much of a join, just a soft shallow notch. The hands have nice big connectors though- almost as if they're from a different kit completely.
The horseshoe piece of armor that goes behind the skull kneepad was the worst (so far). So thin it split in half despite using clippers to remove it from the sprue.
Voss wrote: That's pretty accurate summary. I had to put the daemon prince aside because it was such a mess (and the pictures don't give much of a clue as to how to align the torso bits so they match)- mine _did_ collapse like an eggshell. The left leg on the tactical rock is also a bit fiddly- there isn't much of a join, just a soft shallow notch. The hands have nice big connectors though- almost as if they're from a different kit completely.
The horseshoe piece of armor that goes behind the skull kneepad was the worst (so far). So thin it split in half despite using clippers to remove it from the sprue.
Cool...
So what you're saying is that I shouldn't buy a third one?
Voss wrote: That's pretty accurate summary. I had to put the daemon prince aside because it was such a mess (and the pictures don't give much of a clue as to how to align the torso bits so they match)- mine _did_ collapse like an eggshell. The left leg on the tactical rock is also a bit fiddly- there isn't much of a join, just a soft shallow notch. The hands have nice big connectors though- almost as if they're from a different kit completely.
The horseshoe piece of armor that goes behind the skull kneepad was the worst (so far). So thin it split in half despite using clippers to remove it from the sprue.
Cool...
So what you're saying is that I shouldn't buy a third one?
Usually by the third kit you have figured out all the assembly nonsense. I offer to build new kits for a friend. He doesn't like building models, and I can work out the kinks before building my own.
and I usually don't need any instructions at all because 99% of model kits can be figured out by looking at the sprues in advance, especially those without any options
yet some people struggle to glue wheels on a truck because it is not clear enough that those need to get there
so just because I can do it and have no problems does not mean everyone else can do it as well
H.B.M.C. wrote: This whole jigsaw puzzle design ethos of modern kits is really unnecessary, especially given how few options there are with construction.
and I thought this is the big advantage GW has over all other manufacturers out there and the main reason why people are happy to pay the higher price
because they get superior shapes that are easier to build with clear instructions (at least this is what people tell you on the internet)
by this time I think most people who complain about how some 3rd party models were too complicated to assembly because Arm "A" fit only on Weapon "A" which is next to it on the sprue and therefore recommend GW models because they are better in every aspect and much easier to work with have never ever worked with a modern GW sprue but just seen the promo pics and thought "look better than what I have done so must be a superior product"
I have met people who struggled with easy to build kits without any optional parts because they could not figure out that the left hand gets on the left arm, I just cannot imagine that those would ever get a kit like the new Prince done
General Hobbs wrote: GW does not want people to be able to convert their figures anymore. At this point, I wonder what the point is of making them in parts that you have to assemble and not just come out with fully made army men and vehicles.
Technicals. You can't put any detailed model in full in plastic mouds. Undercuts. There are some workarounds but those are even more expensive to produce.
It's not very on topic, but I strongly dislike the complexity of many newer kits. Especially ones where you need all the part numbers and the instructions to have any hope of figuring out where what goes. As I found out after removing a ton of pieces from their sprues and keeping them sorted in bags to save space.
General Hobbs wrote: GW does not want people to be able to convert their figures anymore. At this point, I wonder what the point is of making them in parts that you have to assemble and not just come out with fully made army men and vehicles.
Technicals. You can't put any detailed model in full in plastic mouds. Undercuts. There are some workarounds but those are even more expensive to produce.
Toy soldier makers have been doing it for years. In plastic. And they cost pennies back when I was a kid.
General Hobbs wrote: At this point, I wonder what the point is of making them in parts that you have to assemble and not just come out with fully made army men and vehicles.
Thanks for the link and yeah, definitely an issue now. Converting now is actually harder than the days of metal. First you have assemble the 12 part figure then saw it up to change weapons, heads, etc.
The other night I kit bashed a dozen Frost Grave Cultists with extra Star Grave guns, it was fun. Like actual fun. Not a chore at all.
General Hobbs wrote: GW does not want people to be able to convert their figures anymore. At this point, I wonder what the point is of making them in parts that you have to assemble and not just come out with fully made army men and vehicles.
Technicals. You can't put any detailed model in full in plastic mouds. Undercuts. There are some workarounds but those are even more expensive to produce.
Toy soldier makers have been doing it for years. In plastic. And they cost pennies back when I was a kid.
I said thus detailed models.
Sure you CAN make. You just need to make models without undercuts. And if there are some you can't avoid pay hell of a lot more per mould you make.
The moment you can twist steel and have it return to original shape on it's own is when you can make models with undercuts at will with same plastic GW uses.
Good luck twisting STEEL with your hands. Show us how it's done.
Alternatively of course you can figure out how to get steel pass through plastic when you remove the steel part. So basically make plastic incorporeal for a brief period of time. That works too. Any ideas how you might be able to do that?
Succeed in either of those two and you will be filthy rich in no time. So you certainly have motivation to come up with solution Particularly turning something to incorporeal military alone would pay basically any sum you might want to nominate for that one...
Of course seeing you didn't even bother to read my full post I doubt you can do that.
Id rather have resin or metal one piece models than these lame plastic ones where I have to assemble borderline monopose models (with an absurd complexity all things considered). Its the most boring part of making an army at this point.
but the reason that bits end up scattered across the sprues is that they (now) try to maximise the amount of stuff you can fit on them so you end up with a complex jigsaw of bits and sprue gates and plastic flow predictions which are not a friend of keeping right arm A with hand A etc
About as many for torturous model designs that contain many unnecessarily intricate pieces despite the kit always putting the same model out, with little to no variation, over and over again.
OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote: but the reason that bits end up scattered across the sprues is that they (now) try to maximise the amount of stuff you can fit on them so you end up with a complex jigsaw of bits and sprue gates and plastic flow predictions which are not a friend of keeping right arm A with hand A etc
You're right about the sprue thing - that's probably even AI driven by now, getting the program to maximise the space - but they can still chose to label them correctly, even if tab A and slot B are on completely different sprues.
That's pretty accurate summary. I had to put the daemon prince aside because it was such a mess (and the pictures don't give much of a clue as to how to align the torso bits so they match)- mine _did_ collapse like an eggshell. The left leg on the tactical rock is also a bit fiddly- there isn't much of a join, just a soft shallow notch. The hands have nice big connectors though- almost as if they're from a different kit completely.
The horseshoe piece of armor that goes behind the skull kneepad was the worst (so far). So thin it split in half despite using clippers to remove it from the sprue.
As a little tip, I recommend sawing delicate bits off rather than cutting or clipping them out. That seems to put the least amount of stress on thin pieces. I start well away from the part and saw through the sprue gates where they're a bit thicker to avoid any bending or warping of the delicate piece itself. Once the part is fully removed from the sprue, I can clip or cut the remaining sprue nubs at my leisure, they no longer pose a problem once they're unconstrained by the frame.
Tool-wise, I use a hobby knife handle equipped with a small micro-saw blade about the standard no. 11 knife, they can usually reach even awkward nooks in heavily-packed GW sprues.
General Hobbs wrote: GW does not want people to be able to convert their figures anymore. At this point, I wonder what the point is of making them in parts that you have to assemble and not just come out with fully made army men and vehicles.
Technicals. You can't put any detailed model in full in plastic mouds. Undercuts. There are some workarounds but those are even more expensive to produce.
Toy soldier makers have been doing it for years. In plastic. And they cost pennies back when I was a kid.
Dude, I own ones made USING GW parts and I can guarantee you that they can't match the detail of the actual GW parts they used to make the mold.
I don't know why they do this. There have been models that I've given up on because my eyes aren't good enough to figure out what goes where (Spirit Hosts, Dark Apostle) and other minis that have made my blood boil in how nonsensical they are to build (hello Helbrute!).
I put together 3 EZ Build Agressors last weekend. They were great. This whole jigsaw puzzle design ethos of modern kits is really unnecessary, especially given how few options there are with construction.
Did you have the original Spirit Host instructions or the Warhammer Mortal Realms magazine instructions, because the latter seems to acknowledge how horrible they are to build and gives instructions as to when to pause to let the glue dry before moving on to the next part. So, they know they are messing up with some of these models.
General Hobbs wrote: At this point, I wonder what the point is of making them in parts that you have to assemble and not just come out with fully made army men and vehicles.
Thanks for the link and yeah, definitely an issue now. Converting now is actually harder than the days of metal. First you have assemble the 12 part figure then saw it up to change weapons, heads, etc.
The other night I kit bashed a dozen Frost Grave Cultists with extra Star Grave guns, it was fun. Like actual fun. Not a chore at all.
Swastakowey wrote:Id rather have resin or metal one piece models than these lame plastic ones where I have to assemble borderline monopose models (with an absurd complexity all things considered). Its the most boring part of making an army at this point.
Yeah, GW models are the worst of both worlds. Lots of pieces yet monopose.
Likewise I actually have fun building Northstar kits
General Hobbs wrote: At this point, I wonder what the point is of making them in parts that you have to assemble and not just come out with fully made army men and vehicles.
Thanks for the link and yeah, definitely an issue now. Converting now is actually harder than the days of metal. First you have assemble the 12 part figure then saw it up to change weapons, heads, etc.
The other night I kit bashed a dozen Frost Grave Cultists with extra Star Grave guns, it was fun. Like actual fun. Not a chore at all.
Swastakowey wrote:Id rather have resin or metal one piece models than these lame plastic ones where I have to assemble borderline monopose models (with an absurd complexity all things considered). Its the most boring part of making an army at this point.
Yeah, GW models are the worst of both worlds. Lots of pieces yet monopose.
General Hobbs wrote: At this point, I wonder what the point is of making them in parts that you have to assemble and not just come out with fully made army men and vehicles.
"[T]his model is just so damn intricate. ... in just how fiddly and tight the construction can be. His torso is a smattering of seemingly unrelated fleshy shapes that all fit around a hollow void and if you don’t wait the proper amount of time for glue to dry, the whole body can collapse in on itself as nearly happened with mine. It’s kind of like building an eggshell, fragile and hollow. Each limb is 2-3 parts before the hands and feet (often another 2-3 parts) and even the most seemingly simple part of the model can take a while just to clip, clean, and glue together. His head especially was a challenge, taking something like 6-7 often extremely small pieces just to assemble. Each of his heads has multiple pieces as well, and there’s something like 3 different tongues in the kit."
"[T]he bits are scattered across the sprues in a nonlinear fashion. You may need two adjacently numbered pieces for a hand or foot or something, only to have to hunt them down and find which sprue has which piece in the sequence – so bit 17 might be on sprue A, but 18 might be on sprue C. Searching for the specific bit I needed definitely contributed to the construction time on this miniature, as pieces are typically laid out next to each other on kits not quite so packed as this one."
I don't know why they do this. There have been models that I've given up on because my eyes aren't good enough to figure out what goes where (Spirit Hosts, Dark Apostle) and other minis that have made my blood boil in how nonsensical they are to build (hello Helbrute!).
Ugh, I made the mistake of buying the Yncarne a while back and assembling the swirling crap around it was a nightmare. Half the time it didn't seem to look right even when I was certain I'd used the correct piece.
I generally don't have problems assembling models, but it took me minutes dry fitting and trying to make up my mind which way each of a few parts of the swirly crap on the Yncarne were supposed to fit. That gives the model the distinction of being part of a small group of models whose assembly I really hated. Fiends of Slannesh are in there for at least one super fiddly bit of the shoulder, as is the Vortex Beast for the collapsing eggshell body. Good to know I have that to look forward to if I buy the new Daemon Prince.
When it comes to model jigsaws a quote from Jurassic Park comes to mind, but if GW really insists on making models like that, they should at least give the assembly instructions proper thought.
At least that's not a problem for Guard. Tanks aren't terrible jigsaws and more logically constructed than fleshy things, and Lord Horseyman as the big centerpiece isn't all that big and the pose and parts look so dull that he shouldn't suffer the same assembly issues monsters have nowadays.
Geifer wrote: I generally don't have problems assembling models, but it took me minutes dry fitting and trying to make up my mind which way each of a few parts of the swirly crap on the Yncarne were supposed to fit. That gives the model the distinction of being part of a small group of models whose assembly I really hated. Fiends of Slannesh are in there for at least one super fiddly bit of the shoulder, as is the Vortex Beast for the collapsing eggshell body. Good to know I have that to look forward to if I buy the new Daemon Prince.
When it comes to model jigsaws a quote from Jurassic Park comes to mind, but if GW really insists on making models like that, they should at least give the assembly instructions proper thought.
At least that's not a problem for Guard. Tanks aren't terrible jigsaws and more logically constructed than fleshy things, and Lord Horseyman as the big centerpiece isn't all that big and the pose and parts look so dull that he shouldn't suffer the same assembly issues monsters have nowadays.
Don't count on that. Ever put together the Star Collecting Vanguard set? Outside of the transport and the Suppressors, those have to be some of the most miserable-to-assemble models I've ever had to assemble. Especially the Reivers. By god those reivers. If they can do it to marines, they can and probably will to any guard unit viable.
Have you built a new space marine recently? The body and legs go together to make a very natural pose, which is the monoposing. You can't change anything between legs and torso, and if there's a bolter the arms are paired there too. That's what people mean when they say monopose, I just built 10 sisters of silence and there are 5 pairs of poses, each one has an identical twin with the only variation being the head looking a different way.
Have you built a new space marine recently? The body and legs go together to make a very natural pose, which is the monoposing. You can't change anything between legs and torso, and if there's a bolter the arms are paired there too. That's what people mean when they say monopose, I just built 10 sisters of silence and there are 5 pairs of poses, each one has an identical twin with the only variation being the head looking a different way.
Built loads, luckily the arms and head add quite a bit to the “pose”. It’s what people call models that can be built and posed in numerous ways nowadays, what the really mean is that they fixed torsos and legs, which also means they are more natural looking and portray the way a body moves much better.
Some kits really are monopose, most the new ORK boyz have no posing options at all, individually they look great but they are “monopose”. Marines guard not. But this is a very tired old argument and neither side will convince the other, but the topic is a long way away anyway now we are discussing the new demon prince model in the guard rumours thread.
Have you built a new space marine recently? The body and legs go together to make a very natural pose, which is the monoposing. You can't change anything between legs and torso, and if there's a bolter the arms are paired there too. That's what people mean when they say monopose, I just built 10 sisters of silence and there are 5 pairs of poses, each one has an identical twin with the only variation being the head looking a different way.
Built loads, luckily the arms and head add quite a bit to the “pose”. It’s what people call models that can be built and posed in numerous ways nowadays, what the really mean is that they fixed torsos and legs, which also means they are more natural looking and portray the way a body moves much better.
Some kits really are monopose, most the new ORK boyz have no posing options at all, individually they look great but they are “monopose”. Marines guard not. But this is a very tired old argument and neither side will convince the other, but the topic is a long way away anyway now we are discussing the new demon prince model in the guard rumours thread.
Initially you say its not true while now you're saying it is indeed true its just a spectrum of terrible posability to "serviceable" posability? Id also argue only the running poses look much more natural than the others, but even then id rather actual monopose because then I wouldnt have to assemble the stupid things. Its why I dont buy GW as much, because assembling it feels stupid. If im going to assemble I may as well do it my way.
but the reason that bits end up scattered across the sprues is that they (now) try to maximise the amount of stuff you can fit on them so you end up with a complex jigsaw of bits and sprue gates and plastic flow predictions which are not a friend of keeping right arm A with hand A etc
Yep. It's not malice as in "let's make players suffer just for fun of it". It's a) wanting to have maximum details(thus needing lots of undercuts) and b) wanting to maximize sprue layout efficiency in terms of parts per square cm.
If they make parts in more logical order for customer it invariably leads to less efficient packing which means bigger/more sprues needed which means GW paying more which means them getting less profits.
It's just prioritizing profit over convenience of customer. They are counting on customers not abandoning buying models due to sprue placement or consider it worthy tradeoff for extra pieces(like god specific bits on daemon prince).
Have you built a new space marine recently? The body and legs go together to make a very natural pose, which is the monoposing. You can't change anything between legs and torso, and if there's a bolter the arms are paired there too. That's what people mean when they say monopose, I just built 10 sisters of silence and there are 5 pairs of poses, each one has an identical twin with the only variation being the head looking a different way.
Built loads, luckily the arms and head add quite a bit to the “pose”. It’s what people call models that can be built and posed in numerous ways nowadays, what the really mean is that they fixed torsos and legs, which also means they are more natural looking and portray the way a body moves much better.
Some kits really are monopose, most the new ORK boyz have no posing options at all, individually they look great but they are “monopose”. Marines guard not. But this is a very tired old argument and neither side will convince the other, but the topic is a long way away anyway now we are discussing the new demon prince model in the guard rumours thread.
Initially you say its not true while now you're saying it is indeed true its just a spectrum of terrible posability to "serviceable" posability? Id also argue only the running poses look much more natural than the others, but even then id rather actual monopose because then I wouldnt have to assemble the stupid things. Its why I dont buy GW as much, because assembling it feels stupid. If im going to assemble I may as well do it my way.
No I’m saying it’s not true, most GW models aren’t “monopose”. They do a few but not most. They newer models tend to have fixed torsos and legs but that is categorically not monopose. There is lots of ways to pose these models.
And you don’t like building the models, that’s fine, I would say it one of my favourite parts of the hobby. Horses for courses.
I'm not sure how he could have confused "terrible to serviceable poseability" (his own interpretation of your words) with monopose. I suppose it's just hyperbole in an attempt to fit the definition of monopose to kits which, as most people can grasp, are categorically not monopose.
Sprue placement doesn't really bother me providing they are labelled.
What concerns me is the increasing tendency for models to be essentially monopose (which doesn't bother me) - but then split into a vast number of pieces. I assume its to avoid flash etc - or allow greater... 3d effects.
But for example, a few days ago I assembled an Ork Beastboss. This is a largeish monopose infantry character. Without some cutting and changing, the pieces only really fit together in the standard configuration. There aren't even alternate weapon choices etc. But it comes with 22 "bits". 5 of which are there to make his head. Why on earth is the lower jaw separate? (I don't mean the quasi-jaw armour, which is split in 2 for no obvious reason either - I mean literally the bottom of his mouth.)
The net result is you are trying to manipulate bits of plastic a few millimeters long, while trying to avoid getting glue on the wrong bits.
Does GW think I got an hour or so of lego-style joy from this rather fiddly process?
JWBS wrote: I'm not sure how he could have confused "terrible to serviceable poseability" (his own interpretation of your words) with monopose. I suppose it's just hyperbole in an attempt to fit the definition of monopose to kits which, as most people can grasp, are categorically not monopose.
Guess dual pose is better...But having assembled chaos chosen yesterday it was "do this model this way or this way". So 2 pose per model. No more. Doing anything else would require sawing and sculpting beyond my green stuff skills.
Having alternative weapon doesn't btw change from mono pose to multi pose.
Sister of battle repentia can be called dual pose but again that's it. 2 poses you can do and beyond that no more poses available for model.
JWBS wrote: I'm not sure how he could have confused "terrible to serviceable poseability" (his own interpretation of your words) with monopose. I suppose it's just hyperbole in an attempt to fit the definition of monopose to kits which, as most people can grasp, are categorically not monopose.
I never called them monopose just near monopose. Which they are. Unless you modify the kits by removing shaped joints etc. Not once did I use incorrect terminology.
Guess dual pose is better...But having assembled chaos chosen yesterday it was "do this model this way or this way". So 2 pose per model. No more. Doing anything else would require sawing and sculpting beyond my green stuff skills.
What's stopping you from gluing any arms on any body? At least with the primaris it is possible, and seems like these new guard models are like that too.
Have you built a new space marine recently? The body and legs go together to make a very natural pose, which is the monoposing. You can't change anything between legs and torso, and if there's a bolter the arms are paired there too. That's what people mean when they say monopose, I just built 10 sisters of silence and there are 5 pairs of poses, each one has an identical twin with the only variation being the head looking a different way.
Built loads, luckily the arms and head add quite a bit to the “pose”. It’s what people call models that can be built and posed in numerous ways nowadays, what the really mean is that they fixed torsos and legs, which also means they are more natural looking and portray the way a body moves much better.
Some kits really are monopose, most the new ORK boyz have no posing options at all, individually they look great but they are “monopose”. Marines guard not. But this is a very tired old argument and neither side will convince the other, but the topic is a long way away anyway now we are discussing the new demon prince model in the guard rumours thread.
Initially you say its not true while now you're saying it is indeed true its just a spectrum of terrible posability to "serviceable" posability? Id also argue only the running poses look much more natural than the others, but even then id rather actual monopose because then I wouldnt have to assemble the stupid things. Its why I dont buy GW as much, because assembling it feels stupid. If im going to assemble I may as well do it my way.
No I’m saying it’s not true, most GW models aren’t “monopose”. They do a few but not most. They newer models tend to have fixed torsos and legs but that is categorically not monopose. There is lots of ways to pose these models.
And you don’t like building the models, that’s fine, I would say it one of my favourite parts of the hobby. Horses for courses.
Only plenty if you modify the kit you mean... I made the mistake of buying a sisters of battle army and those models had pretty much one pose with maybe an arm variation here or there. I only made them slightly more varied using a saw and clips. Now they're painted my next army will just be monopose models because that'll save me many hours of wasted assembly time on essentially near monopose models. That or they'll be normal to at least make the process fun and customizable at the cost of a minority of running models not look as good.
JWBS wrote: I'm not sure how he could have confused "terrible to serviceable poseability" (his own interpretation of your words) with monopose. I suppose it's just hyperbole in an attempt to fit the definition of monopose to kits which, as most people can grasp, are categorically not monopose.
I never called them monopose just near monopose. Which they are. Unless you modify the kits by removing shaped joints etc. Not once did I use incorrect terminology.
Why are you quibbling with Andykp's post then? They aren't monopose, he said they aren't, then you respond by asking him to justify that statement, from what I can gather. /Edit - maybe some crossed wires, since I see you are referring to the SoB above, which are indeed near monopose (aka easybuild, in GW terminology), which is a world away from the usual hyperbole laden 'Monobuuiiild!' complaints we see here, and not what's being discussed (though I admit I speed read the last couple of pages on this thread).
Andykp wrote: No I’m saying it’s not true, most GW models aren’t “monopose”.
You know full well what people mean when they say "monopose", especially compared to what we had a few years back. Stop trying to weasel your way out of the argument on technicalities.
Andykp wrote: No I’m saying it’s not true, most GW models aren’t “monopose”.
You know full well what people mean when they say "monopose", especially compared to what we had a few years back. Stop trying to weasel your way out of the argument on technicalities.
No I don't! Some people mean by monopose "any model GW releases, whether it can be assembled one way or multiple ways." People like you have rendered the word meaningless, which is unfortunate as GW actually releases models of different amount of assembly freedom. For example start collecting SoB are monopose whilst individual kits are multipose. But as some people insist calling anything without a waist joint monopose, we no longer have language to easily differentiate these types of models.
Andykp wrote: No I’m saying it’s not true, most GW models aren’t “monopose”.
You know full well what people mean when they say "monopose", especially compared to what we had a few years back. Stop trying to weasel your way out of the argument on technicalities.
No I don't! Some people mean by monopose "any model GW releases, whether it can be assembled one way or multiple ways." People like you have rendered the word meaningless, which is unfortunate as GW actually releases models of different amount of assembly freedom. For example start collecting SoB are monopose whilst individual kits are multipose. But as some people insist calling anything without a waist joint monopose, we no longer have language to easily differentiate these types of models.
Yeah when some people say "monopose" they actually mean "multiple poses but not as many as I would like".
And for some reason that I don't understand, it's very important that every Dakka Dakka thread eventually gets derailed into this topic because of their inability to communicate.
I only come across those defending monopose by adding something that has nothing to do with the pose but with optional parts
models being only able to be assembled in 1 pose is referred as monopose by those who don't like it
and the others are "this is not what you mean by monopose because you can have a different head and weapon"
so yes, modern GW models are the worst of both worlds
you get scale model puzzle kits with lots of pieces and some optional parts, but as with scale models you get only one pose and most of the details are lost on the table anyway
In terms of posability, the newer Ork Boyz box is probably the worst offender, in that if gives you a selection of very well realized orks that can only be put together in a mixed loadout of shoota and slugga boyz, which has almost never been anyone's preferred way of taking the unit (I'm not sure it's even been universally legal across the game's history)
And for some reason that I don't understand, it's very important that every Dakka Dakka thread eventually gets derailed into this topic because of their inability to communicate.
The real wargame is the enemies we make along the way.
Agamemnon2 wrote: In terms of posability, the newer Ork Boyz box is probably the worst offender, in that if gives you a selection of very well realized orks that can only be put together in a mixed loadout of shoota and slugga boyz, which has almost never been anyone's preferred way of taking the unit (I'm not sure it's even been universally legal across the game's history)
And for some reason that I don't understand, it's very important that every Dakka Dakka thread eventually gets derailed into this topic because of their inability to communicate.
The real wargame is the enemies we make along the way.
I did say the new ORK boyz are actually monopose, as in 1 possible pose, but the are easy to build and not the only ORK boyz available.
Primaris marines, which were used as the example of “monopose”, are anything but, they are only slightly less possible than the old marines.
As said above, GW does monopose, multi pose, dual pose, all sorts of pose. The only difference from current design style to the older type tends to be a fixed waist.
Pros of this is more natural looking poses, people don’t just twist at the waist, the whole abdomen twists and and the shoulders move, none of this can happen if you have standard torso and pelvis pieces that you can glue together, it never looks “right”.
The cons are you get 5 repeated body poses, or ten for smaller models like the new squats.
Adding different arms and the heads at different angles means they aren’t monopose. (Literally, single pose - it’s the only possible definition of the word).
Even with the old marines/guard the pose-able waist didn’t create that much variance. Anything but a few degrees movement and the model looked stupidly unnatural. So all this mining about “monopose is killing the hobby” is based on an array of falsehoods. A rational look at it and nothing has really changed that much, new models have more natural posing and proportions. When true mono/dual pose models exist, like ETB ORK boyz or ETB sisters, other versions are still available (heck even the old marines are still available). So nothing lost at all. After this many years and the repeated debates with every release, it’s time to move on.
a) "Why should *I* have to change? He's the one who sucks!"
b) "No, I don't think I will."
c) "You are a sad, strange little man. You have my pity."
We might never know!
It wasn't a bad post by any means, but hilarious mistargeted, as if I was a part of the problem, when even a casual observation of the facts at hand would have shown the error in your attribution.
Andykp wrote: So all this mining about “monopose is killing the hobby” is based on an array of falsehoods.
Look what it's doing to the rules.
Now tell me it's a "falsehood" with a straight face.
Also i prefer to be a desalination plant and not a miner, thank you very much
Jokes aside, the jigsawing is horrendous, the new boyz are a crime against any orc player and despite loving the "legionaires" to an unhealthy ammount i recognise that the kit could have been far better handled, EG Main Body separate from legs and arms aswell as enough boltguns and special weapons... Alas it isn't hence why it is imo the best worst kit there is...
That Sword'n'steele review was great and it may have finally sold me on new Cadians. I am in not any rush though and I think I will wait for Combat Patrol.
I do dig that the Sentinel seems to be easily convertible from one statline to the other, and that all the weapons seem like they'll stay on just by a friction fit on that big peg.
Crimson wrote: Yes, that totally is due the lack of waist joints on the models...
Disingenuousness is an awful colour on you.
Back in the day, I could take a sprue of Marines, take any set of legs, mix it with any torso, any set of arms, any shoulder pads, any backpack, any head, any accessories/rando bits, and any weapon from that sprue (or even other sprues in the same range) and build a model from it, usually quite quickly. You could conveyor belt them as every relative piece fit with everything else. It didn't matter what it was.
Now, each Marine goes together one way, and somehow has many more pieces per model without the option to change then in any significant fashion, and are so jigsaw-y puzzle like that they take longer to achieve a lesser result. And its so bad that it actually impacts the rules (Kreigers having to choose between a Meltagun or Vox being a chief example, something that never happened with the previous generation Guard as Meltagun and Vox bits would fit any model, not just the one specific one that only has one pose).
That's what we mean by monopose. That's what we've always meant. You know this - you've always known this - but choose to bs about "waist joints" and other such nonsense because you have no actual counter-argument.
I don't know how much more clearly I can explain this.
You need to find a new descriptor then because whilst 'monopose' probably isn't a real word, the concept itself can be accurately (unequivocally) summarised in a single sentence.
Back in the day, I could take a sprue of Marines, take any set of legs, mix it with any torso, any set of arms, any shoulder pads, any backpack, any head, any accessories/rando bits, and any weapon from that sprue (or even other sprues in the same range) and build a model from it, usually quite quickly. You could conveyor belt them as every relative piece fit with everything else. It didn't matter what it was.
Now, each Marine goes together one way, and somehow has many more pieces per model without the option to change then in any significant fashion, and are so jigsaw-y puzzle like that they take longer to achieve a lesser result.
This is literally not true. Primaris have the same customisability besides the waist joint than the minimarines. You can freely mix arms and weapons. I know, I've kitbashed a ton of them.
And its so bad that it actually impacts the rules (Kreigers having to choose between a Meltagun or Vox being a chief example, something that never happened with the previous generation Guard as Meltagun and Vox bits would fit any model, not just the one specific one that only has one pose).
I literally have a Krieg kit right in front of me. The arm attachment points are flat, you can put that meltagun on any model. Yes, the way the GW writes the rules is annoying and idiotic, but it is not due the models.
That's what we mean by monopose. That's what we've always meant. You know this - you've always known this - but choose to bs about "waist joints" and other such nonsense because you have no actual counter-argument.
I don't know how much more clearly I can explain this.
The issue is that you're just literally wrong. You can kitbash the Primaris, you can kitbash the Sob you can kitbash the guard. Yes, how GW writes unit entries is changed to worse, but it is not due the models. So please stop repeating the same untruths.
Back in the day, I could take a sprue of Marines, take any set of legs, mix it with any torso, any set of arms, any shoulder pads, any backpack, any head, any accessories/rando bits, and any weapon from that sprue (or even other sprues in the same range) and build a model from it, usually quite quickly. You could conveyor belt them as every relative piece fit with everything else. It didn't matter what it was.
Now, each Marine goes together one way, and somehow has many more pieces per model without the option to change then in any significant fashion, and are so jigsaw-y puzzle like that they take longer to achieve a lesser result.
Pretty perfect display of your priorities here ^
The models are not "a lesser result" (has been explained to you innumerable times). The models have details and resolution that would have been impossible to achieve by kits of yore.
But you don't care about those details (it seems likely that you aren't even capable of recognizing them). You just want to play $40,000 adult Lego until your time has spooled out.
Back in the day, I could take a sprue of Marines, take any set of legs, mix it with any torso, any set of arms, any shoulder pads, any backpack, any head, any accessories/rando bits, and any weapon from that sprue (or even other sprues in the same range) and build a model from it, usually quite quickly. You could conveyor belt them as every relative piece fit with everything else. It didn't matter what it was.
Now, each Marine goes together one way, and somehow has many more pieces per model without the option to change then in any significant fashion, and are so jigsaw-y puzzle like that they take longer to achieve a lesser result.
Pretty perfect display of your priorities here ^
The models are not "a lesser result" (has been explained to you innumerable times). The models have details and resolution that would have been impossible to achieve by kits of yore.
But you don't care about those details (it seems likely that you aren't even capable of recognizing them). You just want to play $40,000 adult Lego until your time has spooled out.
In an already toxic thread, searching through someone's history to make fun of them liking warhammer might be the weirdest possible choice to take the direction of the toxicity on this forum...
cole1114 wrote: In an already toxic thread, searching through someone's history to make fun of them liking warhammer might be the weirdest possible choice to take the direction of the toxicity on this forum...
Don't worry about it cole. I don't read Alty's posts anyway.
how is having a vox OR a melter not a lesser result than having a vox AND a melter?
or having only a kneeling medic is not a lesser result than having a kneeling medic in 1 unit and a standing medic in another?
yeah, more details and sharper edges. which is important if you buy 1 unit, paint them on a high level and put them on display in the shelf in your living room
but as gaming pieces, you put down 3 identical units were the details are never really seen and you achieve the same thing as with the first 2-piece plastic models 20 years ago just for 300% the cost (with 50% inflation)
those who wanted the high detail display model models always had the possibility to buy them, this was a reason ForgeWorld existed, and now everyone needs to buy them no matter if they want them or not
there is no option to choose between cheaper gaming models and expensive display models any more
or having only a kneeling medic is not a lesser result than having a kneeling medic in 1 unit and a standing medic in another?
You mean exactly like the Krieg set? It comes with two differnt sets of medic arms (one carrying medipack and lasrifle, another with a syringe and a saw) and you can put each set of arms on any body, just like you can do with the arms of the new Cadians.(It also seems that you could put Krieger arms on Cadians and vice versa without an issue.)
yeah, more details and sharper edges. which is important if you buy 1 unit, paint them on a high level and put them on display in the shelf in your living room
but as gaming pieces, you put down 3 identical units were the details are never really seen and you achieve the same thing as with the first 2-piece plastic models 20 years ago just for 300% the cost (with 50% inflation)
those who wanted the high detail display model models always had the possibility to buy them, this was a reason ForgeWorld existed, and now everyone needs to buy them no matter if they want them or not
there is no option to choose between cheaper gaming models and expensive display models any more
From the comments here I can only conclude that the two groups of people are the ones who actually build these models and know that the customisation exists and the ones who merely complain about the models on internet based on their misconceptions.
Back in the day, I could take a sprue of Marines, take any set of legs, mix it with any torso, any set of arms, any shoulder pads, any backpack, any head, any accessories/rando bits, and any weapon from that sprue (or even other sprues in the same range) and build a model from it, usually quite quickly. You could conveyor belt them as every relative piece fit with everything else. It didn't matter what it was.
Now, each Marine goes together one way, and somehow has many more pieces per model without the option to change then in any significant fashion, and are so jigsaw-y puzzle like that they take longer to achieve a lesser result.
Pretty perfect display of your priorities here ^
The models are not "a lesser result" (has been explained to you innumerable times). The models have details and resolution that would have been impossible to achieve by kits of yore.
But you don't care about those details (it seems likely that you aren't even capable of recognizing them). You just want to play $40,000 adult Lego until your time has spooled out.
Of course GW could have done both. But they opted to drop posability and options.
From the comments here I can only conclude that the two groups of people are the ones who actually build these models and know that the customisation exists and the ones who merely complain about the models on internet based on their misconceptions.
you are actually the first to confirm that the Krieg and new Cadia models are compatible with each others
and no, I am not paying a 100€ just to check if this works or not and neither the sprues nor the reviews indicate that this is possible
I also have never seen anyone building the standing medic with the parts if the kneeling one,
From the comments here I can only conclude that the two groups of people are the ones who actually build these models and know that the customisation exists and the ones who merely complain about the models on internet based on their misconceptions.
you are actually the first to confirm that the Krieg and new Cadia models are compatible with each others
and no, I am not paying a 100€ just to check if this works or not and neither the sprues nor the reviews indicate that this is possible
I also have never seen anyone building the standing medic with the parts if the kneeling one,
Doesn’t mean it isn’t possible.
The instructions may tell you you can build body A with arms B or C, but that doesn’t they are the only arms that fit. I did it with the leagues of votan troops, the instructions say specialist arms with certain bodies but they fit on any body.
The marines are as customisable as the old ones except waist, same with the kreig guard, despite you saying that you can’t, you can. So the things you all dislike boil down to waist joints. Nothing looks different with cadians, just waist joints. The arms are flat attachments.
So to blame the new design philosophy (waist joints) for the no model no rule rules philosophy is ridiculous. The is no connection at all.
The only “monopose” kit worth being salty about is the ORK boyz, but guess what, the old ones are still available. So no one lost anything.
a) "Why should *I* have to change? He's the one who sucks!"
b) "No, I don't think I will."
c) "You are a sad, strange little man. You have my pity."
We might never know!
It wasn't a bad post by any means, but hilarious mistargeted, as if I was a part of the problem, when even a casual observation of the facts at hand would have shown the error in your attribution.
Andykp wrote: So the things you all dislike boil down to waist joints.
so the reason why you can have vox or melta by the rules is simply for balance reason by the rules and has nothing to do with the model kits?
well, GW rules design for the new codex is even worse than initially thought
The unit entries are just pure madness. Even the Krieg instructions show meltagun on two different models, and in reality you can put it or the vox on any model.
Crimson wrote: Yes, that totally is due the lack of waist joints on the models...
Disingenuousness is an awful colour on you.
Back in the day, I could take a sprue of Marines, take any set of legs, mix it with any torso, any set of arms, any shoulder pads, any backpack, any head, any accessories/rando bits, and any weapon from that sprue (or even other sprues in the same range) and build a model from it, usually quite quickly. You could conveyor belt them as every relative piece fit with everything else. It didn't matter what it was.
You still can, minus the leg/torso arrangement. You can still choose from any arms, any legs, any shoulder pads, any backpack, any head, and any accessories. Hell, that wasn't even always true for OldMarines (tried putting a Mark VI head on a Mark VIII torso? Not very easily! And you still needed generally the right arm combination for holding two-handed ranged weapons, else they looked VERY naff).
The only thing you're missing now is the waist poseability, but it's not like you could really do all that much anyways without it looking horribly unnatural/stilted. Lacking waist-poseability doesn't make something monopose!
Now, before you start screeching on about other kits - I am not talking about other kits. I am ONLY talking about Primaris modular kits. I am ONLY talking about them, because you have mentioned repeatedly that they come under your term of "monopose".
They are not monopose.
That's what we mean by monopose. That's what we've always meant. You know this - you've always known this - but choose to bs about "waist joints" and other such nonsense because you have no actual counter-argument.
Well, sucks to be you, because you're using the wrong definition! You can say all you like about what "you" mean by it, but that's useless, because it's a simply incorrect definition! If I turn around and say "monopose means any kit that is sculpted in any way, because I can't reposition it down to the finger joints", is that valid? No, because I've just taken "monopose" and taken it horrendously out of all meaning! That would make ALL GW sculpts monopose by my skewed definition.
The problem here isn't other people mistaking your definition. The problem is that your definition is absolutely skewed.
Use the CORRECT definition when you are referring to the right things (ie, the new Ork Boyz, the snap-fit ETB models, etc), and you won't find any complaints. But if you keep applying the wrong definition to the wrong things, don't be surprised when people call you out on it, and don't cry about what you MEAN - if you want to talk about what you mean, use the right language.
If I'm trying to describe Ultramarines and I call them the Space Marines in red, you can bet that I'm in the wrong, because I'm using the wrong things to describe them, irrespective if I really mean blue.
I don't know how much more clearly I can explain this.
Using the correct definitions would be a start.
If you want to have a serious discussion about "monopose", then talk about ACTUALLY monopose models (Ork Boyz) instead of using it as a blanket term for "models with less customisability than I want", which is incorrect.
The instructions may tell you you can build body A with arms B or C, but that doesn’t they are the only arms that fit. I did it with the leagues of votan troops, the instructions say specialist arms with certain bodies but they fit on any body.
Exactly - for saying that so many of y'all want "customisable minis", do you need to be told they're customisable in order to do it? Or have you actually tried customising them?
I've just finished assembling some Mark III marines, the kind that I'm sure folks here would call "multipose" - they have less customisability than Primaris Intercessors - you know, the ones the same people call "monopose".
So to blame the new design philosophy (waist joints) for the no model no rule rules philosophy is ridiculous. The is no connection at all.
The Imperial Guard changes highlight this brilliantly too, with how Scions are being handled. They have waist joints.
Gert wrote: Depending on how the updated C&M or Solar Auxilia play in HH 2, those Cadians might be an expansion of my already dangerously overstaffed Cult.
Moving from a horde of bedraggled maniacs and expanding my more heavily armoured troops is an option.
The biggest issue is just finding time to play nowadays.
So, the Big Leak (c) from last year (or was it a couple years ago now?) also mentioned that there were "two other regiments in the works" beyond the Cadians.
I assume one of those must be the Krieg, but we haven't seen anything from any other regiment, have we? That might indicate that there's a second wave on the way in the not-too-distant future, maybe alongside an updated codex for 10th.
Normally I'd write this off, but that leak has been 100% accurate so far, if I remember correctly.
crumby_cataphract wrote: So, the Big Leak (c) from last year (or was it a couple years ago now?) also mentioned that there were "two other regiments in the works" beyond the Cadians.
I assume one of those must be the Krieg, but we haven't seen anything from any other regiment, have we? That might indicate that there's a second wave on the way in the not-too-distant future, maybe alongside an updated codex for 10th.
Normally I'd write this off, but that leak has been 100% accurate so far, if I remember correctly.
crumby_cataphract wrote: So, the Big Leak (c) from last year (or was it a couple years ago now?) also mentioned that there were "two other regiments in the works" beyond the Cadians.
I assume one of those must be the Krieg, but we haven't seen anything from any other regiment, have we? That might indicate that there's a second wave on the way in the not-too-distant future, maybe alongside an updated codex for 10th.
Normally I'd write this off, but that leak has been 100% accurate so far, if I remember correctly.
Attilan?
Oh. You're right.
...damn it! Here I was excited for Catachans or something completely new :<
Those leaks are clearly from an early early codex preview… the confusion of multiple regiments doesn’t mean they saw models. It seems more likely they saw catachan, Cadian and kreig units in the codex.. and to be fair we did get kreig vets.
But I’m not saying we won’t get something else in the near future but I don’t see a new wave other then the aegis defense line.
Kid_Kyoto wrote: Funny I was just thinking that the presence of Krieg and Catachan (and other regiments) in the rules indicates possible sub faction codexes in 10th.
I can see GW going with Codex IG, Kreig, Catachan and Cadian with new models for them.
This would violate the "No power armour, no subfaction codex" policy.
There were model and rules release for psychic awakening, who really thinks GW aren't going to pull the same trick with arks of Omen?
Catachan box set could be intwined with one such release... Still hoping for a more fleshed out Krieg force in plastic but I'm not convinced those rumours were all too correct as they seem to have been looking at rules and assuming - what I think happened with death riders, when they were only going to be atillians - (however there was one for engineers so who knows?), I've personally sacked off the idea of plastic death riders now.
Well we have seen contents for 1. No matched play rules. No unit rules.
Doesn't mean there can't be updated kits for units that don't require new rules though.
But GW isn't genererally lying that much so if they say there won't be matched play rules like psychic awakening each faction then needs to buy don't expect them. They aren't lying that blatantly.
tneva82 wrote: Well we have seen contents for 1. No matched play rules. No unit rules.
Doesn't mean there can't be updated kits for units that don't require new rules though.
But GW isn't genererally lying that much so if they say there won't be matched play rules like psychic awakening each faction then needs to buy don't expect them. They aren't lying that blatantly.
I think we have only seen one of the contents pages, and there may be more than one.
You are right about them making that statement though. Unsure how they are getting 4 books out without any units etc.
First book is boarding actions, what is the next set of rules going to be though? As well as some 'distinctly' xenos based rules.
It's also unclear how GW reconciles their stated Ark of Omen contents with the Arkinfane's release. Dude is completely new and needs his rules released somehow. So either GW isn't that strict about what they said will be in the books, or they'll release a rules PDF. Either way, we can't really rule out model releases for the campaign that require a rules update as well.
That said, I tend to think Guard gets its update now and that'll be all the new models we can expect for the army until at least 2024, with the noted exception of another Kill Team like Catachans maybe.
Altruizine wrote: But you don't care about those details (it seems likely that you aren't even capable of recognizing them). You just want to play $40,000 adult Lego until your time has spooled out.
Wow. Even for this forum, that is a low blow. You must be a great disappointment to your parents.
Andykp wrote: No need to be such a bitch, only the first paragraph was a direct reply to you the rest was a general comment on the stupid “monopose” argument again.
You antagonised me undeservedly, and when called up on your bs, doubled down on it. That you believe that's a winning move is a sad indictment of whatever educational establishment spat you out into the world, blissfully unaware of your own deficiencies.
Altruizine wrote: But you don't care about those details (it seems likely that you aren't even capable of recognizing them). You just want to play $40,000 adult Lego until your time has spooled out.
Wow. Even for this forum, that is a low blow. You must be a great disappointment to your parents.
Andykp wrote: No need to be such a bitch, only the first paragraph was a direct reply to you the rest was a general comment on the stupid “monopose” argument again.
You antagonised me undeservedly, and when called up on your bs, doubled down on it. That you believe that's a winning move is a sad indictment of whatever educational establishment spat you out into the world, blissfully unaware of your own deficiencies.
Chill out mate, you misinterpreted my post, no need for all the nastiness.
Looking at the recent scale creep mess of GW I have decided to buy an Iron Empire army for HH 2.0 from Raging Heroes in December. This will be the "Christmas box" for me. Sorry Gee-Dubs, ye have to miss out.
gungo wrote: Those leaks are clearly from an early early codex preview… the confusion of multiple regiments doesn’t mean they saw models. It seems more likely they saw catachan, Cadian and kreig units in the codex.. and to be fair we did get kreig vets.
But I’m not saying we won’t get something else in the near future but I don’t see a new wave other then the aegis defense line.
So that we're clear?
The individual who posted those leaks on B&C had posted about Krieg months in advance. They accurately called out KT: Octarius almost 4-5 months prior, with specific notations of Kommandos and Death Korps.
I can't imagine that the later posting would have been including something that was already out, and even slated for sale separately as they also confirmed the contents of the Chalnath box.
This is the Guard Rumors bit:
Spoiler:
Only one thing was wrong from that whole rumor dump: Black Templar Ancient.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Garrac wrote: I think rn the best hope for catachan fans reside on Kill Team, but there have been a lot of guard kill teams. I dont expect them soon
Strg Alt wrote: Looking at the recent scale creep mess of GW I have decided to buy an Iron Empire army for HH 2.0 from Raging Heroes in December. This will be the "Christmas box" for me. Sorry Gee-Dubs, ye have to miss out.
Huh? Aren't the new IG models one of the few examples of GW not scale creeping? Except the Kasrkin, but that seems a deliberate choice to make them larger than everything else for some reason.
Strg Alt wrote: Looking at the recent scale creep mess of GW I have decided to buy an Iron Empire army for HH 2.0 from Raging Heroes in December. This will be the "Christmas box" for me. Sorry Gee-Dubs, ye have to miss out.
Huh? Aren't the new IG models one of the few examples of GW not scale creeping? Except the Kasrkin, but that seems a deliberate choice to make them larger than everything else for some reason.
Well, I maintain that the new Kasrkin were designed earlier and independent from the rest of re-imagined Cadian range. They exhibit a closer aesthetic likeness to the old cadians, for example the Kasrkin retain the aquila on the left side of their breastplate, while none of other cadian models do.
The new style of plastic kit, like any other material or old style kit, has good and bad things about them.
There is no such thing as the perfect kit for everyone.
Technology is moving and, like in any other time in the past, we adapt to it, by changing, converting, kit bashing, sculpting, casting, 3d sculpting, mix with 3rd party bits and so on an on.
Sorry to say but the only thing I totally reject from any company is poor materials not fit for purpose and casting, there is NO excuse for that IMO. I dont care if a X company will only survive if they can cast gummy bears quality, I will not support that. (I dont do finecasts and avoid FW roulette, or Mantics or Siocasts or boardgames bendy crap...).
Todays GW dynamic kits offer things the past ones did not, but at a cost.
I can live with that since in the past I always changed minis to my taste.
You can now typically build 2 variants from each figure so the problem will only stand out if you go for 3x of the same unit, are you telling me that on your 3rd unit build you dont know the kits well enough to mix and match the instructions in a way to create variant numero3 and 4 etc? It's plastic so theres no easier material to manipulate. I dont think I need GW to do that for me, actually I dont expect them to do so...
I for one welcome the limitations of each material and kits since it pushes me to something about that or even buy from companies that really need some coins.
This is no different from what we did in the past.
Bikers remains to be seen. Arks of Omen aren't really lending themselves to the actual releases we're seeing. Rough Riders, Rogal Dorn, artillery, etc all can't be used there...
I wouldn't be shocked if the final Gallowdark box is tied to the hulk making planetfall.
Kanluwen wrote: Arks of Omen aren't really lending themselves to the actual releases we're seeing. Rough Riders, Rogal Dorn, artillery, etc all can't be used there...
It's.... Almost like these are two separate products. Designed with different goals in mind.
One is your standard issue Codex revamp to the current edition. Designed for regular daily/tourney use. The thing you've all been screaming for since July of 2020.
The other? Is end-of-the-edition filler garbage designed to part the marks from their cash one last time. If you can have some fun with it? More power to you.
Kanluwen wrote: Bikers remains to be seen. Arks of Omen aren't really lending themselves to the actual releases we're seeing. Rough Riders, Rogal Dorn, artillery, etc all can't be used there...
I wouldn't be shocked if the final Gallowdark box is tied to the hulk making planetfall.
Gee. It's as if some were released for codex and other is book series for optional way to play. Look at that.
Next you are wondering how lumineth elves don't fit with chaos space marine book.
Seeing all the open space in space ships in art it's hardly surprise. While space hulk made claustrophobic tunnels famous it's hardly only type of area space ships have in 40k.
tneva82 wrote: Seeing all the open space in space ships in art it's hardly surprise. While space hulk made claustrophobic tunnels famous it's hardly only type of area space ships have in 40k.
The Ark Mechanicus in the Mars trilogy was big enough for a Cadian armoured company to drive around inside.
This would violate the "No power armour, no subfaction codex" policy.
l could see GW doing a Catachan Killteam box. Then updating the codex Catachan Infantry datasheet. Maybe even a Tanith one.
There's two catachan dueling glaives we've seen in the rumour engine too. That's almost certainly Kill team, but whether it's Catachans or an inquisitorial retinue remains to be seen.
tneva82 wrote: Seeing all the open space in space ships in art it's hardly surprise. While space hulk made claustrophobic tunnels famous it's hardly only type of area space ships have in 40k.
The Ark Mechanicus in the Mars trilogy was big enough for a Cadian armoured company to drive around inside.
Yep.
Frankly the scale 40k plays out ANY board could be considered to be inside a space ship Likely even forest field...
But small narrow pathways does make interesting change for regular games so makes sense to market that as boarding action. Different game modes for different dynamics is great. Of course not that it needs to be space ship. Similar board could be used to represent clearing out level in skyscraper of our world as is...
I figure most “boarding actions” are deliberately done away from main thoroughfares and probable defensive points anyway. Not likely that the enemy will oblige you by leaving the main cargo doors open and give you time to transfer across a whole company’s worth of anything without resistance at least…
Mr_Rose wrote: I figure most “boarding actions” are deliberately done away from main thoroughfares and probable defensive points anyway. Not likely that the enemy will oblige you by leaving the main cargo doors open and give you time to transfer across a whole company’s worth of anything without resistance at least…
I think its useful to think about 40k ships of that size more like cities or small countries. A boarding action on something of that size is not necessarily going to be a single thing.
First its raiding parties to recon the ship and find useful entry points. Then, its targeted assaults to gain control of main control nodes and force some potential bridgeheads. Only then can you commit to dropping company sized or bigger formations into the ship, when you're reasonably sure its not likely to jump away, or that the spaces the troops are in will be opened to hard vacuum or otherwise messed up by environmental systems.
All of this will take quite a lot of time, and you'd want to be sure its not likely to wander off while the boarding operations are underway.
For me the best part is that one guy in the turbolift looking at the route map (which is far to small and high up unless you’re wearing a Knight suit) all like “where the hell am I now? Is this even the same ship?”
Dirk Reinecke wrote: So, looking at the codex, the Ogryn Bodyguard and Nork don't have the -1 damage that the regular Ogryn and Bullgryn have. That is a pity.
Do you think that's intentional(ly inconsistent) or something they forgot about?
Looking at the Cadian shock troop data sheet, it does look like you can take double specials. I might be misreading it but that’s an interesting option.
Polonius wrote: Looking at the Cadian shock troop data sheet, it does look like you can take double specials. I might be misreading it but that’s an interesting option.
Word on the street is 2 specials but they can't be the same, yes?
Polonius wrote: Looking at the Cadian shock troop data sheet, it does look like you can take double specials. I might be misreading it but that’s an interesting option.
Word on the street is 2 specials but they can't be the same, yes?
Chances are some of them will be the same and others won't be. Total coin flip.
I tell you the Command Squad entries are a frickin' nightmare. Not quite Plague Marine levels of total bull gak, but getting there.
Who sets out to write rules in such an obtuse manner?
The codex definitely says only one of each special weapon for the Cadians, it's in the asterisk under the sheet. The asterisk of each datasheet has what the limitations of the special gear is.
Swastakowey wrote: The codex definitely says only one of each special weapon for the Cadians, it's in the asterisk under the sheet. The asterisk of each datasheet has what the limitations of the special gear is.
Sometimes as many as three *** for all this.
Again, who sets out to write rules in such a needlessly complicated and restrictive manner? What purpose does it serve? What goal is it attempting to reach?
I dont buy the codex because not only are they near impossible to actually use, they also are invalidated so quickly. I also fee like they're trying desperately to get me to use Power. So why buy it? Waste of resources to produce.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Again, who sets out to write rules in such a needlessly complicated and restrictive manner? What purpose does it serve? What goal is it attempting to reach?
I think it's because they want people to accidentally get it wrong and then they have to buy more models than initially intended to fix that mistake. But I've been accused of having an unreasonably rose-tinted view of corporate ethics before. But they absolutely have the means and capacity to do better - many of their books are edited in a manner that suggests the presence of professional technical writers on staff (I myself, a professional technical writer, feel comfortable in positing this).
by now I am sure this all is a big joke
40k has always been a satirical/sarcastic project and now the designers just write the rules that way to see how long it takes people to get the joke and/or how far they can go until people realise it
if there are designers at all, could as well be an AI written book, saves a lot of money and no one cares about the quality of rules anyway
Swastakowey wrote: The codex definitely says only one of each special weapon for the Cadians, it's in the asterisk under the sheet. The asterisk of each datasheet has what the limitations of the special gear is.
Sometimes as many as three *** for all this.
Again, who sets out to write rules in such a needlessly complicated and restrictive manner? What purpose does it serve? What goal is it attempting to reach?
It has a ton of advantages. One is that you can fill much more page space without having to do more creative work (these unit entries are enormous). But there also is the additional advantage that you can put all the decisions made for the sprue directly into the rules.
And no, I'm not a fan at all. I like things to be simple, not needlessly complex. Complex rules have a place but only if they serve a real purpose and not if they serve to just be there. And I also don't like how these rules look. It just feels very messy.
Swastakowey wrote: The codex definitely says only one of each special weapon for the Cadians, it's in the asterisk under the sheet. The asterisk of each datasheet has what the limitations of the special gear is.
Sometimes as many as three *** for all this.
Again, who sets out to write rules in such a needlessly complicated and restrictive manner? What purpose does it serve? What goal is it attempting to reach?
It's most likely not the writer's choice but imposed corporate policy. Being publicly humiliated by the chapterhouse lawsuit puts the boards position at risk if shareholders deem them not up to the task of running the company, NMNR is a simple way of trying to remove a reason to buy 3rd party stuff without using legal teams - same goal as the chapterhouse lawsuit but different method. They somehow seem oblivious though to deleting rules = deleting reasons to buy GW products too.
It's almost hysterically funny how so many things that I despise about GW these days can be directly traced back to Chapterhouse Studios and their lawsuit. For mere purveyors of aftermarket Rhino doors and Stormraven hull extension kits, they left a mark on the game vastly out of proportion to their talents. One wonders whether, had they yielded when ordered to cease & desist, if we'd be better off today, or would GW corporate still ended up the same way.
GW had to lawyer up and install secrecy, aggressive IP protection, etc.. when they took on the LoTR-franchise. Mostly out of self-preservation. If they'd had leaked early-info / concepts / visuals from the LoTR-movies they had for miniatures before they were out in public marketing, New Line would've sued them into oblivion.
Being a small company (at the time, and probably still in comparison to Hollywood), they just applied it to their game design/miniature-development/rules-team in general, rather then creating separate structures for LoTR and non-LoTR (and why wouldn't you protect your own IP too, if you're already doing the effort?) and thus starting in the early 2000s, this type of IP protection started being introduced and eventually became the norm / company culture.
Agamemnon2 wrote: One wonders whether, had they yielded when ordered to cease & desist, if we'd be better off today, or would GW corporate still ended up the same way.
I'd argue GW Corporate was still the same back then, they just used different means to achieve the same end. They had to switch tactics once the Charterhouse suit brought down their house of cards which was always going to happen as someone was eventually going to call their bluff.
Dirk Reinecke wrote: So, looking at the codex, the Ogryn Bodyguard and Nork don't have the -1 damage that the regular Ogryn and Bullgryn have. That is a pity.
Do you think that's intentional(ly inconsistent) or something they forgot about?
it's at the top of page 89. Under "Abilities" it states that all bodyguard models gain three rules, including Wall of Muscle (damage reduction).
Agamemnon2 wrote: One wonders whether, had they yielded when ordered to cease & desist, if we'd be better off today, or would GW corporate still ended up the same way.
One wonders if we'd be better off today if GW's lawyers had bothered to check the law before filing their lawsuits.
Dirk Reinecke wrote: So, looking at the codex, the Ogryn Bodyguard and Nork don't have the -1 damage that the regular Ogryn and Bullgryn have. That is a pity.
Do you think that's intentional(ly inconsistent) or something they forgot about?
it's at the top of page 89. Under "Abilities" it states that all bodyguard models gain three rules, including Wall of Muscle (damage reduction).
Thanks. I was looking for it on the datasheet, where it is for the other Ogryn.
Agamemnon2 wrote: One wonders whether, had they yielded when ordered to cease & desist, if we'd be better off today, or would GW corporate still ended up the same way.
One wonders if we'd be better off today if GW's lawyers had bothered to check the law before filing their lawsuits.
One wonders if we'd be better off today if people actually had bothered to make their own unique IPs rather than just glomming on to someone else's.
Agamemnon2 wrote: One wonders whether, had they yielded when ordered to cease & desist, if we'd be better off today, or would GW corporate still ended up the same way.
One wonders if we'd be better off today if GW's lawyers had bothered to check the law before filing their lawsuits.
One wonders if we'd be better off today if people actually had bothered to make their own unique IPs rather than just glomming on to someone else's.
I mean considering all GW did was glomming onto others I think it was fair play, really. And the law seems to more or less agree.
Agamemnon2 wrote: One wonders whether, had they yielded when ordered to cease & desist, if we'd be better off today, or would GW corporate still ended up the same way.
One wonders if we'd be better off today if GW's lawyers had bothered to check the law before filing their lawsuits.
One wonders if we'd be better off today if people actually had bothered to make their own unique IPs rather than just glomming on to someone else's.
And then that leads back to whether 40k could ever have been created in that kind of atmosphere.
Monopoly versus customer choice, restriction of creative expression versus being able to meaningfully contribute to a setting that is nominally owned by one entity, but enjoyed and expanded upon by hundreds of thousands (millions?) of individuals.
Imitation being flattery and all that.
And also ensuring that the IP owner can get a reasonable return on their intellectual investment.
Its all pretty hard, and doesn't benefit from simplistic takes.
Agamemnon2 wrote: One wonders whether, had they yielded when ordered to cease & desist, if we'd be better off today, or would GW corporate still ended up the same way.
One wonders if we'd be better off today if GW's lawyers had bothered to check the law before filing their lawsuits.
Didn't they win on multiple points?
There isn't some sort of distinct criteria that outright says what is and isn't infringement either, its determined on a case-by-case basis. GW thought things were too similar, and that was what was evaluated with the dispute.
Agamemnon2 wrote: One wonders whether, had they yielded when ordered to cease & desist, if we'd be better off today, or would GW corporate still ended up the same way.
One wonders if we'd be better off today if GW's lawyers had bothered to check the law before filing their lawsuits.
Didn't they win on multiple points?
They won on points where Chapterhouse used their trademarked terms and copyrightable names, like offering variants on GW models (eg female Farseers), or specifically using names like Tyranids or Space Wolves.
On the points where GW alleged infringement because the models were similar to theirs, or based on codex entries for which no model existed, or used names that GW didn't really own (eg Eldar), or were compatible with GW kits (like shoulder pads), GW lost. Hard.
All in all GW won on about a third and Chapterhouse won on about two-thirds of the specific claims; but Chapterhouse won on the big points of contention.
kodos wrote: the main problem was that GW thought Trademarks are the same as Copyright and that having the Trademark in the UK grants them Copyright somewhere else
this does not change just because CH did violate the Trademark in same cases
I don't think anyone on GW's legal team didn't know the difference between trademarks and copyright.
Unless they hire lawyers the same way they hire designers, for attitude rather than expertise.
Agamemnon2 wrote: One wonders whether, had they yielded when ordered to cease & desist, if we'd be better off today, or would GW corporate still ended up the same way.
One wonders if we'd be better off today if GW's lawyers had bothered to check the law before filing their lawsuits.
Didn't they win on multiple points?
They won on points where Chapterhouse used their trademarked terms and copyrightable names, like offering variants on GW models (eg female Farseers), or specifically using names like Tyranids or Space Wolves.
On the points where GW alleged infringement because the models were similar to theirs, or based on codex entries for which no model existed, or used names that GW didn't really own (eg Eldar), or were compatible with GW kits (like shoulder pads), GW lost. Hard.
All in all GW won on about a third and Chapterhouse won on about two-thirds of the specific claims; but Chapterhouse won on the big points of contention.
kodos wrote: the main problem was that GW thought Trademarks are the same as Copyright and that having the Trademark in the UK grants them Copyright somewhere else
this does not change just because CH did violate the Trademark in same cases
I don't think anyone on GW's legal team didn't know the difference between trademarks and copyright.
Unless they hire lawyers the same way they hire designers, for attitude rather than expertise.
The issue is that the points where chapterhouse won, although I'm not sure it's so much chapterhouse winning so much as GW losing, we're thing GW as has been shown can largely circumvent or were largely hit and hopes anyway (like arguing they were the sole owners of "space marines"). Chapterhouse was not winning regardless how it shook out the second they were found to be partially liable, especially since the legal action was going to be enough to sink them anyway.
Swastakowey wrote: The codex definitely says only one of each special weapon for the Cadians, it's in the asterisk under the sheet. The asterisk of each datasheet has what the limitations of the special gear is.
cadians can take two of the same special.
*You cannot select the same weapon more than twice per unit.
Yeah, Scion command squads are only one of each special. (platoon command squadas are the same).
I'm kind of okay with it, as the idea of command squads being better special weapon squads (and more efficient veteran squads) never sat right with my, OTOH they deleted the SWS and veteran squads, so I dunno.
I had been using metal kasrkin as scions, and looking at the new rules, I think I'll use them as Kasrkin instead and sell off a few squads.
Swastakowey wrote: The codex definitely says only one of each special weapon for the Cadians, it's in the asterisk under the sheet. The asterisk of each datasheet has what the limitations of the special gear is.
cadians can take two of the same special.
*You cannot select the same weapon more than twice per unit.
Swastakowey wrote: The codex definitely says only one of each special weapon for the Cadians, it's in the asterisk under the sheet. The asterisk of each datasheet has what the limitations of the special gear is.
cadians can take two of the same special.
*You cannot select the same weapon more than twice per unit.
My bad I'm low iq
To be fair, this is almost certainly a typo that will get fixed in the first FAQ. There's no reason for a "no more than twice" note if a unit can only take two total anyway, so the obvious conclusion is that it's a copy/paste error and meant to say no more than once per unit.
Swastakowey wrote: The codex definitely says only one of each special weapon for the Cadians, it's in the asterisk under the sheet. The asterisk of each datasheet has what the limitations of the special gear is.
cadians can take two of the same special.
*You cannot select the same weapon more than twice per unit.
Can they take more than two special weapons per squad?
Swastakowey wrote: The codex definitely says only one of each special weapon for the Cadians, it's in the asterisk under the sheet. The asterisk of each datasheet has what the limitations of the special gear is.
cadians can take two of the same special.
*You cannot select the same weapon more than twice per unit.
Can they take more than two special weapons per squad?
Swastakowey wrote: The codex definitely says only one of each special weapon for the Cadians, it's in the asterisk under the sheet. The asterisk of each datasheet has what the limitations of the special gear is.
cadians can take two of the same special.
*You cannot select the same weapon more than twice per unit.
Can they take more than two special weapons per squad?
No, which makes the wording bizarre.
Being cynical it's because you can only get them in the army set currently, which would give you two of the same special weapons. Only need to FAQ it once they go on general release.
yeah, this is one of those situations where the RAI seems clear, given the trend elsewhere in the book and the awkward/redunant wording, but I would not be at all surprised at the result either way.
it's worth noting that if you build a "cadian" squad out of the "basic" (also cadian) box set, you can, in fact, have double grenade launcher or double flamer.
Well, I guess the RAI as intended is clear, but the GW approach is inconsistent.
I.e. it is rules based on what comes in the box, except at the same time it isn't. The command squad can take chainswords on everyone for example, but there aren't enough chainswords in the box.
The tempestus medic must take a pistol and can no longer take a hotshot lasgun.
They need to move away from the model designers essentially being allow to write the rules. i.e. the new Cadian's sargeant looks cool with rifle (it is a sensible thing to have) but the autogun doesn't interact with the majority of the rules, and cadian sargeants are apparently allergic to power swords, again because the designer did not include them
So going around the net......because there is now an official entry for Kasrkin, you can no longer use your old metal/resin Kasrkin models as stormtroopers and can only use actual scions or older stormtrooper models to represent stormtrooper/scions.
So going around the net......because there is now an official entry for Kasrkin, you can no longer use your old metal/resin Kasrkin models as stormtroopers and can only use actual scions or older stormtrooper models to represent stormtrooper/scions.
So going around the net......because there is now an official entry for Kasrkin, you can no longer use your old metal/resin Kasrkin models as stormtroopers and can only use actual scions or older stormtrooper models to represent stormtrooper/scions.
The “twice” thing would work for Scions under NMNR, because it’s a 5-man sprue doubled up, so a 10-man squad built from the box could have two of each special.
So going around the net......because there is now an official entry for Kasrkin, you can no longer use your old metal/resin Kasrkin models as stormtroopers and can only use actual scions or older stormtrooper models to represent stormtrooper/scions.
What? Of course you can.
As someone who has a metal-Kasrkin scions army (and photos of the relevant new Scion datasheets in front of me), you can but it's a bit more tricky if trying to follow rules exactly. Notable changes:
Vox/master-Vox now must have a hotshot pistol, no option for hotshot lasgun (so my Kasrkin's with modified backpacks are no longer wysiwyg)
Confirmed a ten-man squad can have max double of the same special weapon, which isn't a problem for me, but is for others.
Command squad only one special weapon max
Regimental standard bearer must have a hotshot lasgun, not a pistol. So my converted Kasrkin Sgt to standard bearer is also not wysiwyg.
But strangely the medic can either take a pistol+medkit, or a rifle+pistol+medkit. Not sure why the standard bearer and vox was written one way, and the medic another.
Otherwise it's pretty much business as usual. The strange, unnecessary changes don't make it impossible, but it does really hurt my OCD brain. My list was based around one fluffy medic/standard bearer command squad and one meta x4 plasma command squad, so just need to make some changes there but otherwise I think I'm good.
I do really like the Kasrkin datasheet though, and have a bunch of the old Cadian metal snipers that are getting added in when I run them as those.
Had a quick peek at the codex last night, it looked like the new superheavy weapon units (the big cannon, nebelwerfer, and heavy lascannon) are fixed at units of 2 rather than the 2-4 model units that were being advertised elsewhere. Anyone else get a better look and can clarify?
To take the vox operator as an example, as hotshot lasgun isn't an option, you wouldn't get penalised by any sane opponent for having it modelled however as long as you play the rule son the sheet. It's almost universal that base wargear doesn't factor in, but upgrades or replacements do so people can see what's happening appropriately.
chaos0xomega wrote: Had a quick peek at the codex last night, it looked like the new superheavy weapon units (the big cannon, nebelwerfer, and heavy lascannon) are fixed at units of 2 rather than the 2-4 model units that were being advertised elsewhere. Anyone else get a better look and can clarify?
Can confirm, I'm looking a picture of it right now.
Though seeing that the L7 / Sagitaur missile launcher option wording got changed from the LoV box set codex to the stand-alone codex, I'm not holding anything set in stone until the new year.
Dudeface wrote: To take the vox operator as an example, as hotshot lasgun isn't an option, you wouldn't get penalised by any sane opponent for having it modelled however as long as you play the rule son the sheet. It's almost universal that base wargear doesn't factor in, but upgrades or replacements do so people can see what's happening appropriately.
Besides my OCD brain not liking it one bit, I will 100% get this wrong during games sometimes just out of habit. Just seems like an unnecessary change as well. Although in this perspective, it makes "sense."
There is a strong tendency these days for Unit Rules Options to match up exactly with the model build instructions. This is true even if it is easily possible to disregard the build instructions and kit bash alternative model builds.
alextroy wrote: There is a strong tendency these days for Unit Rules Options to match up exactly with the model build instructions. This is true even if it is easily possible to disregard the build instructions and kit bash alternative model builds.
What's this "these days" crap?
They FAQ'd it a couple times before, because people complained there wasn't an "easy way" to do it. The medic+comms both saw FAQs for that very reason.
So going around the net......because there is now an official entry for Kasrkin, you can no longer use your old metal/resin Kasrkin models as stormtroopers and can only use actual scions or older stormtrooper models to represent stormtrooper/scions.
What? Of course you can.
As someone who has a metal-Kasrkin scions army (and photos of the relevant new Scion datasheets in front of me), you can but it's a bit more tricky if trying to follow rules exactly. Notable changes:
Vox/master-Vox now must have a hotshot pistol, no option for hotshot lasgun (so my Kasrkin's with modified backpacks are no longer wysiwyg)
Confirmed a ten-man squad can have max double of the same special weapon, which isn't a problem for me, but is for others.
Command squad only one special weapon max
Regimental standard bearer must have a hotshot lasgun, not a pistol. So my converted Kasrkin Sgt to standard bearer is also not wysiwyg.
But strangely the medic can either take a pistol+medkit, or a rifle+pistol+medkit. Not sure why the standard bearer and vox was written one way, and the medic another.
Otherwise it's pretty much business as usual. The strange, unnecessary changes don't make it impossible, but it does really hurt my OCD brain. My list was based around one fluffy medic/standard bearer command squad and one meta x4 plasma command squad, so just need to make some changes there but otherwise I think I'm good.
I do really like the Kasrkin datasheet though, and have a bunch of the old Cadian metal snipers that are getting added in when I run them as those.
I questioned GW events and they said no, you have use the appropriate models. I am waiting to hear back on conversions.
ITC does not have a dedicated model approval email yet.
Adepticon rules are clear, you can't use an existing army to represent another army, so Kasrkin can't be played as Stormtroopers.
General Hobbs wrote: I questioned GW events and they said no, you have use the appropriate models. I am waiting to hear back on conversions.
ITC does not have a dedicated model approval email yet.
Adepticon rules are clear, you can't use an existing army to represent another army, so Kasrkin can't be played as Stormtroopers.
Totally fair, and very unfortunate for those that like to play at official GW events. I can empathize with that. Not something I would ever consider doing, however.
alextroy wrote: There is a strong tendency these days for Unit Rules Options to match up exactly with the model build instructions. This is true even if it is easily possible to disregard the build instructions and kit bash alternative model builds.
What's this "these days" crap?
They FAQ'd it a couple times before, because people complained there wasn't an "easy way" to do it. The medic+comms both saw FAQs for that very reason.
It is incredibly easy- the kit comes with sheathed lasguns. You can also build the vox without using the telephone arm and give it lasgun arms, or build the medic with just the medipack and not the chainsaw laspistol.
It is incredibly easy- the kit comes with sheathed lasguns. You can also build the vox without using the telephone arm and give it lasgun arms, or build the medic with just the medipack and not the chainsaw laspistol.
I'm aware of all of this. Just like I'm aware that they had to FAQ the laspistols for Medic+Vox into the datasheet in the first place, a little while after Scions released back in the Before Times.
I'm also aware that the smarter solution would simply have been to add pistols to all of the Scions in the first place, ruleswise, and have offered holstered pistols as part of an additional sprue.
Though seeing that the L7 / Sagitaur missile launcher option wording got changed from the LoV box set codex to the stand-alone codex, I'm not holding anything set in stone until the new year.
KillerAngel wrote: Though seeing that the L7 / Sagitaur missile launcher option wording got changed from the LoV box set codex to the stand-alone codex, I'm not holding anything set in stone until the new year
Okay, I must have missed something. What changed?
The wargear options for the Sagitaur have different wording from the boxset codex to the standalone codex.
It is incredibly easy- the kit comes with sheathed lasguns. You can also build the vox without using the telephone arm and give it lasgun arms, or build the medic with just the medipack and not the chainsaw laspistol.
I'm aware of all of this. Just like I'm aware that they had to FAQ the laspistols for Medic+Vox into the datasheet in the first place, a little while after Scions released back in the Before Times.
I'm also aware that the smarter solution would simply have been to add pistols to all of the Scions in the first place, ruleswise, and have offered holstered pistols as part of an additional sprue.
Agree on the latter option. The 5th ed rules for stormtroopers did just that, and I really liked how playing stormtroopers felt in that edition. Sure, they weren't good in melee, but they felt better and more elite than guardsmen whilst maintaining the ranged firepower.
KillerAngel wrote: Though seeing that the L7 / Sagitaur missile launcher option wording got changed from the LoV box set codex to the stand-alone codex, I'm not holding anything set in stone until the new year
Okay, I must have missed something. What changed?
The wargear options for the Sagitaur have different wording from the boxset codex to the standalone codex.
KillerAngel wrote: Though seeing that the L7 / Sagitaur missile launcher option wording got changed from the LoV box set codex to the stand-alone codex, I'm not holding anything set in stone until the new year
Okay, I must have missed something. What changed?
The wargear options for the Sagitaur have different wording from the boxset codex to the standalone codex.
Spoiler:
vs
Spoiler:
your pic is dead... whats different?
It went from an L7 and sagitaur launcher to an or.
On an unrelated note have we reached the point where people spend 3 editions requesting the return of Kasrkin, only for people to complain about the return of Kasrkin because they have to use them as the unit they represent?
Pic isn't dead, though you might not be able to access imgur.
It went from an L7 and sagitaur launcher to an or.
Other way around. Army box codex has: ...replaced with one of the following: 1 L7 missile launcher; 1 MATR autocannon; 1 Sagitaur missile launcher.
Stand-alone codex has: ...replaced with one of the following: 1 L7 missile launcher and 1 Sagitaur missile launcher; 1 MATR autocannon.
chaos0xomega wrote: Had a quick peek at the codex last night, it looked like the new superheavy weapon units (the big cannon, nebelwerfer, and heavy lascannon) are fixed at units of 2 rather than the 2-4 model units that were being advertised elsewhere. Anyone else get a better look and can clarify?
"Two, there always are. No more, no less." - Yoda, Astra Millawhatnow Castellan
It's fething asinine.
Dudeface wrote: On an unrelated note have we reached the point where people spend 3 editions requesting the return of Kasrkin, only for people to complain about the return of Kasrkin because they have to use them as the unit they represent?
People wanted Kasrkin back because the models were awesome. I assure you that no one wanted the mess of rules they have received.
"Senior Officer" the re-roll hit rolls of 1 aura, is only on Creed, Straken, and the Castellan?
If I want to have a re-roll hit rolls of 1 aura in my army of Steel Legion Bombardiers/Elite Shock Troops, do I just... pick which Cadian or Catachan person to put in my army?
ph34r wrote: "Senior Officer" the re-roll hit rolls of 1 aura, is only on Creed, Straken, and the Castellan?
If I want to have a re-roll hit rolls of 1 aura in my army of Steel Legion Bombardiers/Elite Shock Troops, do I just... pick which Cadian or Catachan person to put in my army?
Correct.
See, what GW did was find a way to detach "planets" from the regimental doctrine rules, giving you more freedom to have "Your Dudes" be whatever you want them to be. Then they went and made planet-specific characters that give out rules that general characters in every other army give out, because that makes total sense.
Got the codex infront of me and I'm trying to figure out how to make my Krieg act as they do in the lore, which is going to require a combination of subpar (which is fine) regimental doctrines, and orders which looks like to make it work in certain amount of point lists I'm going to have to proxy in models/characters that don't share the same regiment keyword (which again is fine, I just don't really like it).
Here's hoping Forgeworld sort something out for Krieg models/officers and/or they get a regiment of renown army at some point which makes them operate a bit more like they should do.
Not to mention, fixing this daft plasma or vox option.... And their pitiful Ld value.
ph34r wrote: And so ultimately it "doesn't matter" because having one of those planet-specific characters doesn't turn off my regimental doctrine bonuses?
Planets are irrelevant for doctrines.
ph34r wrote: Do I just remember that my Castellan and only them has a "6s to hit auto wound" doctrine? Definitely feels weird as heck.
It's a weird clunky Codex from start to finish.
And you can tell it's bad when it makes the Chaos Codex look good.
Here's hoping Forgeworld sort something out for Krieg models/officers and/or they get a regiment of renown army at some point which makes them operate a bit more like they should do.
What FW is going to do is to "legend" Krieg because now that they have an entry on the main codex there cannot be more options!
ph34r wrote: "Senior Officer" the re-roll hit rolls of 1 aura, is only on Creed, Straken, and the Castellan?
If I want to have a re-roll hit rolls of 1 aura in my army of Steel Legion Bombardiers/Elite Shock Troops, do I just... pick which Cadian or Catachan person to put in my army?
Correct.
See, what GW did was find a way to detach "planets" from the regimental doctrine rules, giving you more freedom to have "Your Dudes" be whatever you want them to be. Then they went and made planet-specific characters that give out rules that general characters in every other army give out, because that makes total sense.
So basically how the 5th edition Space Marine codex operated when you think about it.
