Of course they're less randomly generated than the old ones; I wasn't suggesting they go back to old style of mission. But the point remains that the next big step in mission design is to find a way to add more variability. Done right, doing so would increase competitiveness, not decrease it.
yukishiro1 wrote: Of course they're less randomly generated than the old ones; I wasn't suggesting they go back to old style of mission. But the point remains that the next big step in mission design is to find a way to add more variability. Done right, doing so would increase competitiveness, not decrease it.
Assuming Zion is right and gw is working with the ITC folks on the mission designs, is that kind of variability something the old ITC missions had? Is that something ITC does? Just wondering as I generally avoid tournaments.
Apple fox wrote: Really, terrain should be creating enough variance in the basic missions.
You say that, but so many reports I see nower days are playing on that God-awful symmetrical ITC terrain set up.
yukishiro1 wrote: If that were true, we'd have only one mission, because that is the easiest to balance.
I mean... we kinda do though. The variation between mission types in 9th is pretty slim. If I could I'd do an overlay of all the mission maps showing how it's mostly just where the objective markers are. There's no real variety there, and the main objective is always the same - 5 for holding one, more for holding 2 or more than your opponent, max 15 from that every turn.
It's so oppressively dull. And they introduced secondaries to add 'variety', but people just take the ones that are easiest to score, and that results in entire types of units vanishing from the table as to not give away points.
yukishiro1 wrote: Of course they're less randomly generated than the old ones; I wasn't suggesting they go back to old style of mission. But the point remains that the next big step in mission design is to find a way to add more variability. Done right, doing so would increase competitiveness, not decrease it.
Assuming Zion is right and gw is working with the ITC folks on the mission designs, is that kind of variability something the old ITC missions had? Is that something ITC does? Just wondering as I generally avoid tournaments.
No, but ITC was basically three guys and a girl (now two guys and a girl, I guess) in a FLGS, not a multi-billion dollar company. It should be able to invest more resources into mission development and come up with a way to take the ITC mission structure and add variety while retaining competitiveness.
Also, even ITC with its limited resources came out with a new mission pack every year that changed things up. So GW has managed to underdeliver quite spectacularly here.
the_scotsman wrote: Right, not like the creative mission design from fourth thru seventh where the mission design was:
1) 4 objectives around the board, whoever holds more at the end of the game wins
2) 1 objective in each DZ, whoever holds more at the end of the game wins
3) whoever kills more units at the end of the game wins
Going back a bit
you missed a few
victory conditions used prior to 8th
1.default wipe out the enemy
2.table quarters (the one opposite of your starting quarter is worth the most)
3.d3+2 objectives
4.center objective (king of the hill)
5.center objective that can be moved up to 6" per player turn
6.kill points/victory points (3rd & 4th)
7.one objective in each players deployment zone
8.tie breakers-slay the warlord/linebreaker/first blood
Additional about the only good things that 6th ed brought to the game-mysterious terrain/mysterious objectives.
I am trying to update the GT missions, but the question is how far can you stretch diversity without breaking balance? Removing invulnerable saves around objectives? That's total BS if you play Slaanesh Daemons vs Grey Knights.
You can do some interesting things by combining mission rules, mission secondary and terrain. Maybe the mission rules, deployment type and the mission secondary sucks for long-ranged units and are amazing for melee units, maybe the terrain should be planet bowling ball to compensate.
Open War sounds like a bad way to play to me, whether you get a good game will be totally up to the luck of the draw before the game has even started. I don't mind the game being decided by dice on round 5+ when playing casually but before deployment? That's not for me.
Look at the achievements of Lionel Messi from soccer vs Firebat from Hearthstone, the best players at their respective game, it's impossible for Firebat to keep up because he will lose more often to bad luck because Hearthstone is so luck driven. Yes, a skilled Hearthstone player plays around luck to maximize their opportunity, but you can't yolo your way to victory by slamming face in soccer.
Hearthstone tournaments have to use a series of matches to give the better players any reliability in beating lesser opponents. If Hearthstone was single elimination in tournaments you'd see nobodies winning very often because pretty often you will throw a game purely due to bad luck and a bad matchup.
Apple fox wrote: Really, terrain should be creating enough variance in the basic missions.
You say that, but so many reports I see nower days are playing on that God-awful symmetrical ITC terrain set up.
GW terrain is bad, often only looking good enough to save it. So I sorta expect that to happen until they get someone on the design side to make terrain that can facilitate good rules.
Sadly yup, that God-awful terrain setup sucks >.< so much of this game would improve with good terrain rules.
H.B.M.C. wrote: When you say GW terrain is bad, you mean the rules, right?
Most of there terrain looks good, but is rather bad for good terrain rules and contributes to the bad terrain rules. And the terrain that is good is prohibitive expensive for the avg players to do enough with for good rules.
Good terrain design is important to the game, GW knows if it looks good not enough people care if it sucks or leads to bad gameplay.
It’s one reason I think also leads to the weird terrain setups, the terrain GW sells doesn’t really improve the game unless you specifically want the visuals. Bit of a outline opinion but I think it holds with how Avg at best GW rules tend to be around terrain.
As well as having to support stupid designs in other places on top of that.
yukishiro1 wrote: Of course they're less randomly generated than the old ones; I wasn't suggesting they go back to old style of mission. But the point remains that the next big step in mission design is to find a way to add more variability. Done right, doing so would increase competitiveness, not decrease it.
Assuming Zion is right and gw is working with the ITC folks on the mission designs, is that kind of variability something the old ITC missions had? Is that something ITC does? Just wondering as I generally avoid tournaments.
No, ITC was basically what the 9th edition missions are now except all the secondaries were about killing units/models and half the primary points were also about killing units.
But I imagine the people complaining about the lack of variety in 9th edition missions are not people that enjoyed playing ITC in the past.
I've gained a lot of enjoyment from 40K for three decades now. Each edition had its positives and negatives. The only exception was 7th ed. I stopped during what turned out to be its final year as I truly disliked the allies and formations.
Currently, I am enjoying 9th edition very much and played my Craftworld nearly exclusively.
I've got a varied player base and the game is still bringing in new players. I play against a wide variety of opponents and armies. I see more painted armies at the local game shops than I ever have which is something I am very happy with, yet trying to figure out why this is occurring.
We have tourneys, leagues, pick up games and a Crusade beginning.
This edition prompted me to build a new army, Necrons. This is not something I do often, but enjoy the depth of 9th edition codexes
All in all, I am very happy with the state of 40K.
I see more painted armies at the local game shops than I ever have which is something I am very happy with, yet trying to figure out why this is occurring.
10VP difference for having an unpainted army is a huge point difference, it is like having a fourth secondary proc against you. So unless someone is okey with losing all or most, of their games, the armies in 9th have to be painted, like painting or not.
But I imagine the people complaining about the lack of variety in 9th edition missions are not people that enjoyed playing ITC in the past.
Well it was more fair. As everyone had to suffer the same style of mission. It is not very fun to be one of the few armies that always hit with kill secondaries, even more so if the opponent can double dip on them, and do two secondaries at the same time.
So I'm still a bit confused about some complaints.
When people talk about mission sameness, no one is talking about how secondaries, though not listed in the mission description, modify the mission, and are asymmetrical in that each player chooses their own. Nobody mentions that these are categorized, and that only one can be selected from each category in games that are large enough that players can pick more than one. Similarly, no one is mentioning that these can be chosen from a generic list, or from bespoke codex content.
To be fair, it was mentioned previously that it's a pretty common practice to list build with the hope of achieving the particular secondary(s) which best suit your army and stick with them. And in the competitive circuit, victory is obviously prioritized. But I feel like if you're bored with a mission, and you're just playing a game with a friend, you kind of owe it to yourself to try a secondary or two that you'd never play in a tourney and shake up your own game.
And of course, there's the notion of game size to begin with; I realize that tournaments are typically set at Strike Force level, though the GT mission pack also includes incursion level. But game size makes a difference, and again, if you're bored, don't you owe it to yourself to get out of the box?
The last factor is theatres of war- again, not likely used on the competitive tournament circuit. But for the past 9 months, every White Dwarf has contained at least three, and anyone who invested in PA has a bunch more. These things shake up a battle like crazy. Does anyone ever use them?
Could the basic missions straight out of the GT mission pack be more interesting? Maybe; I concede there would be no harm in trying to improve them. I also agree that it is a lost opportunity to not modify them much from year to year. Certainly fair comments and suggestions.
But again, it does seem that people put themselves in a box, for whatever reason, and then blame the game itself for the box they're in. If you've played the same Strike force mission twice, using 3 different secondaries for each game, and a different theatre of war for each game and you still think the two games feel the same, I'd like to hear back from you; I don't have as much actual playing experience as many who post here. I'm genuinely curious how these two hypothetical games can actually feel the same.
Galas wrote: TBH competitive games that work with Maps always heavely limit It in tournaments.
SC2 competitive Maps are a smal list of nearly simetrical scenarios . Lets not Talk about LoL single map.
For me, maelstrom of war with all the changes of 8th was the BEST .
If a game has actual variability in the maps (Smash Bros and Heroes of the Storm come to mind) then picking the map is usually part of the tournament ruleset, ie best of 5 and the loser of the last game picks the map in the next one, often times even with the ability to ban maps from being picked.
PenitentJake wrote: But for the past 9 months, every White Dwarf has contained at least three, and anyone who invested in PA has a bunch more. These things shake up a battle like crazy. Does anyone ever use them?
They don't know what they want to be. People can't pine for asymmetry and then complain about balance. Nor should they want balance and then complain about lack of variety.
In Starcraft there are set tournament maps with specified start positions. Chess is the same every single time. The enjoyment is derived by outperforming the opponent in all cases. Not by what orbital bombardment hits where or by who gets the gakky deployment zone when the terrain doesn't fit the map.
Daedalus81 wrote: ...Nor should they want balance and then complain about lack of variety...
Balance increases variety. In a perfectly unbalanced game there's one list that wins every game, so everyone's just playing that. The more balanced the game is the more of the stuff in the game you can use.
PenitentJake wrote: But for the past 9 months, every White Dwarf has contained at least three, and anyone who invested in PA has a bunch more. These things shake up a battle like crazy. Does anyone ever use them?
They don't know what they want to be. People can't pine for asymmetry and then complain about balance. Nor should they want balance and then complain about lack of variety.
In Starcraft there are set tournament maps with specified start positions. Chess is the same every single time. The enjoyment is derived by outperforming the opponent in all cases. Not by what orbital bombardment hits where or by who gets the gakky deployment zone when the terrain doesn't fit the map.
I think people very much know what they want. They want to build multiple powerful armies out of one book, and not have their collection invalidated, they also don't want the army to be ultra bad, if for some reason the design team decides that the theme the players picked is going to be unplayable within the given rule set. Same with scenarios and all additional rules. The closest people are willing to go with limitations to their own armies, is if the limits are big, but the end result is a top tier rank1 army. It is much easier to deal with lack of options for your army, when you are in the situation of harlequins, then if you are in the place of a knight or Tau player.
PenitentJake wrote: But for the past 9 months, every White Dwarf has contained at least three, and anyone who invested in PA has a bunch more. These things shake up a battle like crazy. Does anyone ever use them?
They don't know what they want to be. People can't pine for asymmetry and then complain about balance. Nor should they want balance and then complain about lack of variety.
I see more painted armies at the local game shops than I ever have which is something I am very happy with, yet trying to figure out why this is occurring.
10VP difference for having an unpainted army is a huge point difference, it is like having a fourth secondary proc against you. So unless someone is okey with losing all or most, of their games, the armies in 9th have to be painted, like painting or not.
But I imagine the people complaining about the lack of variety in 9th edition missions are not people that enjoyed playing ITC in the past.
Well it was more fair. As everyone had to suffer the same style of mission. It is not very fun to be one of the few armies that always hit with kill secondaries, even more so if the opponent can double dip on them, and do two secondaries at the same time.
The 10 point painting requirement is simply not the case in my experience at all. For two day events, the 10 point penalty has opened up for unpainted models to even be allowed. Prior to this, 2 day events I've ever attended had a must be painted rule. Now, they don't mandate it, but if your stuff is not fully painted, you don't get the 10 points, which the organizers indicate. People still show up with painted models, so no real change. In our league games, it encouraged building a new army and nobody was penalized 10 points for painting. In pick up games, I am yet to experience anyone trying to deny anyone 10 points for painting.
Well good for you, that people don't follow the rules. Because they clearly say, unpainted means 10VP for the painted army. There is no clause about, but only if your opponent isn't a new player.
Karol wrote: Well good for you, that people don't follow the rules. Because they clearly say, unpainted means 10VP for the painted army. There is no clause about, but only if your opponent isn't a new player.
And yet, I'm still trying to figure out why I'm seeing more and more painted armies in my local area. Personally, I only use painted models and it is a very rare day I deviate from that, but that was how I was taught to play 40K; if it's not painted it doesn't go on the table. But that was back in the 80s learning 40K from a bunch of historical gamers who were branching out into this new game called Warhammer 40,000.
You tend to post a lot of negativity and project it on others, as evidenced by your previous reply to my original statement. Now, your claim is even sillier. We don't follow the rules and it equates to having more painted armies showing up on the table?
I'll blow your mind even more about the state of 9th. I just finished an eight game league which culminated in a 3 round tourney. I went 6-2 in the league, earning 3rd place. I went 3-0 in the tourney, earning 1st place. With Craftowrlds....and never penalized any opponent if there was an unpainted model in their army.
People might also just have had more time to paint. I absolutely hate painting and am a slow painter on top of that, but over the course of last year I have completed roughly 80% of my DG collection (up from ~20%) plus some ork units.
Jidmah wrote: People might also just have had more time to paint. I absolutely hate painting and am a slow painter on top of that, but over the course of last year I have completed roughly 80% of my DG collection (up from ~20%) plus some ork units.
That is entirely possible. For the most part, we continued work as normal over the past year, but I'm sure there were some who had a more flexible work schedules, work from home, etc...
For tourneys, it was business as usual. One day events had mostly, if not all, painted and took a penalty or not depending on the organizer's rules put out in advance. For two day events, people brought painted armies. Ironically, organizers no longer dictated armies had to be painted like they did in the past. Now, they just used the GT Mission pack. This rule actually made 2 day events more accessible to players than in the past. If they wanted to play with unpainted stuff, they could and take a penalty as opposed to simply not be allowed to use unpainted models.
That is entirely possible. For the most part, we continued work as normal over the past year, but I'm sure there were some who had a more flexible work schedules, work from home, etc...
A lot of activities have been shut down for a year or more. Restaurants, pubs, clubs, gyms, stadiums, theatres, stores etc have been closed or strictly limited for a long time... there's also the curfew to consider. Lots of extra time for painting, even if work schedules didn't change.
That is entirely possible. For the most part, we continued work as normal over the past year, but I'm sure there were some who had a more flexible work schedules, work from home, etc...
A lot of activities have been shut down for a year or more. Restaurants, pubs, clubs, gyms, stadiums, theatres, stores etc have been closed or strictly limited for a long time... there's also the curfew to consider. Lots of extra time for painting, even if work schedules didn't change.
It's certainly a possibility. I'm relating my experience locally as it may not have been as restrictive as others...can't really know for sure. It is something I'll ask as this has been an observation locally or within a few states I've travelled to for tourneys.
Daedalus81 wrote: ...Nor should they want balance and then complain about lack of variety...
Balance increases variety. In a perfectly unbalanced game there's one list that wins every game, so everyone's just playing that. The more balanced the game is the more of the stuff in the game you can use.
Yes, in general. I am not persuaded for this particular part of the game. I am open to suggestions that people think would make a substantive difference to missions without upsetting the apple cart.
PenitentJake wrote: But for the past 9 months, every White Dwarf has contained at least three, and anyone who invested in PA has a bunch more. These things shake up a battle like crazy. Does anyone ever use them?
They don't know what they want to be. People can't pine for asymmetry and then complain about balance. Nor should they want balance and then complain about lack of variety.
In Starcraft there are set tournament maps with specified start positions. Chess is the same every single time. The enjoyment is derived by outperforming the opponent in all cases. Not by what orbital bombardment hits where or by who gets the gakky deployment zone when the terrain doesn't fit the map.
I think people very much know what they want. They want to build multiple powerful armies out of one book, and not have their collection invalidated, they also don't want the army to be ultra bad, if for some reason the design team decides that the theme the players picked is going to be unplayable within the given rule set. Same with scenarios and all additional rules. The closest people are willing to go with limitations to their own armies, is if the limits are big, but the end result is a top tier rank1 army. It is much easier to deal with lack of options for your army, when you are in the situation of harlequins, then if you are in the place of a knight or Tau player.
We're talking about different things, I think. I'm focused on just the missions.
It is not really possible to separate army functionality from the missions. The problems knights have or the fact that tyranids were turned in to codex 3xDima, is the result of missions that exist in the game.
No one wants a good army, which is good in open or if you you happen to play it with some strange comp or with rules left out.
Strikes for GK went from always better then termintors, to not always better then termintors stricktly because abhore the witch exists, and killing 5 t4 +3sv 1W models in 9th is laughably easy.
Daedalus81 wrote: ...Nor should they want balance and then complain about lack of variety...
Balance increases variety. In a perfectly unbalanced game there's one list that wins every game, so everyone's just playing that. The more balanced the game is the more of the stuff in the game you can use.
Yes, in general. I am not persuaded for this particular part of the game. I am open to suggestions that people think would make a substantive difference to missions without upsetting the apple cart...
The problem is that there are almost no consistent core mechanics, those that do exist are unevenly distributed, and army composition is hugely varied. Slight changes to missions can translate to wild swings in balance and huge buffs/nerfs to specific armies; the 8e no-Invul-bubble mission was a prime example (play Guard and you don't care, play Harlequins and you almost just can't play that mission), as are the 9e tournament missions (putting all the objectives in the middle screws Tau really badly, since if you get to melee with them you usually win). If you go look at games with more consistent core mechanics and less spammy army composition you'll usually find much more varied missions.
I think that is looking at it from the wrong side. I think a goal of missions should be to promote adaptability, to force players to compromise their one-trick-pony in order to add utility. There should be missions where all the objectives are centrally located and Tau will need to take some points off their gun line to add mobile elements. There should be missions with lots of little objectives that make it hard on armies running only a small number of powerful units. There should be missions that screw with reinforcements, screw with fliers, screw with LoS. Not in such a significant way as to neuter them like the aforementioned no-invul bubble but something with enough oomph that a well built army can't go all-in on its gimmick.
And before it gets said; that is a balance problem which exists now and will exist regardless of what form the missions take.
Yep. More diversity in missions promotes more balanced list building and makes it harder to "solve" a particular army.
To the guy talking about secondaries, secondaries don't really actually increase variability because you're always going to take the same secondaries in a given situation (i.e. your army is the same, their army is the same, and the mission is the same). If you don't, it's because you made a mistake last time. There is a best secondary pick for any given set of variables, so the only way the secondary choice will increase variability is if someone makes an error in secondary selection.
If secondaries were genuinely a lot more dynamic than they are and a lot less tied to your and your opponent's list, they could increase variability. But they aren't. Your secondary picks are essentially locked by the combination of your list, your opponent's list, and the mission, unless you deliberately make a non-optimal choice.
yukishiro1 wrote: ...secondaries don't really actually increase variability because you're always going to take the same secondaries in a given situation (i.e. your army is the same, their army is the same, and the mission is the same)....
The problem right now is that because most mission secondaries are unviable two different missions which should be unique situations, turn out to be pretty much the same situation, so the goal of balancing mission secondaries would be to make each mission feel like a novel situation even if the lists are the same.
NinthMusketeer wrote: ... I think a goal of missions should be to promote adaptability, to force players to compromise their one-trick-pony in order to add utility...
Yes, but how much efficiency to sacrifice on the altar of adaptability is a math problem of optimizing your chance of winning a game or tournament. At some point if you push this far enough you're going to run into "Astra Militarum cannot win mission #3 against Orks and mission #6 against Harlequins and cannot lose mission #2 against Orks and mission #3 against Harlequins". Because if the Astra Militarum list was changed to be able to win these matchups then the win rate would go from 44% to 38% and that isn't worth it, so you just have to eat those occasional automatic losses.
NinthMusketeer wrote: There should be missions where all the objectives are centrally located and Tau will need to take some points off their gun line to add mobile elements.
Exists:
Spoiler:
There should be missions with lots of little objectives that make it hard on armies running only a small number of powerful units.
Exists:
Spoiler:
There should be missions that screw with reinforcements
I think that would just make them not get used.
screw with fliers
Which would be really punishing to armies that need them.
screw with LoS
Feels unnecessary, but I can't envision how this would work.
but something with enough oomph that a well built army can't go all-in on its gimmick
What you guys are looking for are reasons for people to take different things in their list. That exists now. The internal balance of new books has been pretty good couple with a mission structure that allows people to use different approaches. There's room for refinement, but I haven't seen something that adds variability and also doesn't just punish something for little reason. Back in 7th those dynamics were ok, because the way you won was way more hamfisted and allowed for any list from all bikes to all tanks. That stuff doesn't fly now.
Thanks for the feedback on secondaries, as I don't tend to use them (Agendas are a very different think as they are decoupled from vicoty conditions).
I think someone pointed out earlier in the thread that if you've got a big enough army, you can build different variations to achieve different secondaries.
If I was a competitive player, I think I'd have my finely tooled Strike Force army built for my preferred secondaries, and I'd use it that way when prepping with tournies or the first time I was facing a new enemy.
And then, when I started to get bored, I'd drop down to Incursion and pick different secondaries knowing that I'd be able to create a different kind of list without buying more models.
I'd want to play every secondary at my disposal at least once, but I can see how it require a lot of models to do that at Strikeforce or Onslaught.
Theatres of war can still mix it up for you- you can keep the secondaries your army is built for and still get a different feel out of a game, even against the same opponent.
Still going to argue that the tools are there, but I admit my ignorance of the GT mission Pack and Secondaries in general do leave the argument somewhat toothless.
NinthMusketeer wrote: ...I think that is looking at it from the wrong side. I think a goal of missions should be to promote adaptability, to force players to compromise their one-trick-pony in order to add utility...
In theory, sure. In practice the problem is that there are whole army books that are so one-trick-pony that you can break the whole book by doing this. Want to add elements to your Harlequins army that don't get screwed by no-Invuls? Too bad, you can't, better buy some allies from a different Codex. Want to add infantry to your Knights? Yup, different Codex time. Want your Tau to not fold immediately when touched in melee? Bet you wish you were an army with access to Allies!
40K as a game is MUCH better than in 7th edition since the rules are easier to learn.
However, it's getting ridiculously complicated. You need a ton of books/supplements. Keeping up with all developments is MANDATORY otherwise you won't know what the hell is going on (Legends, Forge World, Psychic War etc). It's too fragmented and too scary to buy into if you know nothing about the game or the setting.
Also, and this is the big one, 40K is depressing as hell these days. Covid has hit the world very hard, but if you turn to 40K, all it has to offer is a litany of human world being destroyed, Imperial crusades being defeated, Guard regiments being mercilessly exterminated (usually by their own side) etc.
Seriously - the Imperium is not just in the worst trouble of any faction I've ever encountered in any genre, it is constantly, constantly losing worlds. It's losing entire sectors easily every day. Even the Indomitus Crusade, the biggest assembling of might in 10,000 years, had a near hopeless task and had to be disbanded for some reason ("well, we're still surrounded on all sides, better call it a day").
I don't care how big the Imperium is and how Captain Marvel-level the Space Marines have become. The Imperium would have collapsed, there's no question about it whatsoever.
Honestly that's a complaint I've heard for years, and I think it's what happens when you focus on making the setting darker and darker without throwing any light to contrast the darkness so it all becomes so routine for the setting any shock factor is just like getting a bowl of plain vanilla ice cream: still good but not as interesting as it could be.
Guilliman offers the setting hope and even if we know he can't change it (and he's fighting a losing battle) his inclusion at least gives some balance to the mess that is the Imperium.
However, it's getting ridiculously complicated. You need a ton of books/supplements. Keeping up with all developments is MANDATORY otherwise you won't know what the hell is going on (Legends, Forge World, Psychic War etc). It's too fragmented and too scary to buy into if you know nothing about the game or the setting.
If your intent is to dominate at a tourney, there is some truth to this.
But GW specifically designed this game so that you know YOUR faction. That's how the silent majority play; it's how the game was designed.
Are you a marine? 3 books. Three.
Anyone else? 2 books.
Throw in the mission pack your using for one extra.
FAQ's for those. Done. That's it.
Everything else? Figure it out at the table like we did before tournaments and the internet existed.
Now admittedly, GW themselves are actively encouraging the sportification of 40k, and the more they do that, the more legitimacy your argument has. But this is why GW gives you three ways to play- if sport hammer is too much, and there's no shame in that- it is for me, you don't have to play that game.
I'm a dedicated Crusader, and I advocate for it all the time, but honestly? The dude who plays only the models he likes against someone else who plays only the models he likes using the open war deck is probably the happiest dude on Dakka, and he's just waiting for the malcontents to join him.
It's amazing that they seem to be following right along the path privateer just went down. Maybe that's just the cyclical life of a wargame and this saga of 40k is getting close to the end.
Irkjoe wrote: It's amazing that they seem to be following right along the path privateer just went down. Maybe that's just the cyclical life of a wargame and this saga of 40k is getting close to the end.
People have been saying it's the end of 40k for more than twenty years. Not likely when the game is making more money than ever.
Irkjoe wrote: It's amazing that they seem to be following right along the path privateer just went down. Maybe that's just the cyclical life of a wargame and this saga of 40k is getting close to the end.
PP died because they botched a launch right when GW was doing a new edition, promising change, and trying to market themselves to the customers they'd lost to PP in the first place. GW doesn't have a lurking rival ready and waiting to snap up their playerbase in that same way.
My point is what came after mk3; the constant updates, faqs, CID, and releases tired people out within the year. I get the same feeling with gw but I'm not sure how big the tournament player market is for them vs the casual.
Irkjoe wrote: My point is what came after mk3; the constant updates, faqs, CID, and releases tired people out within the year. I get the same feeling with gw but I'm not sure how big the tournament player market is for them vs the casual.
Thing is that this is correlation, not causation, but go on making your tinfoil hat.
Irkjoe wrote: My point is what came after mk3; the constant updates, faqs, CID, and releases tired people out within the year. I get the same feeling with gw but I'm not sure how big the tournament player market is for them vs the casual.
The CIDs were a retraction/apology after a lot of the playerbase had already gone.
MKIII has One glaring problem that is abused by it's second major problem-1 official theme lists were poorly designed which led to 2 the toxic steamroller.comp players abusing the game system.
The core rules of MKIII are the best the game has ever been. it is quite fun to play as long as you have a group of casual like minded players.
You can still play models you like because they look cool or fit a personal theme/list design and the list is still viable to play.
The thing that is hurting PP the most is internally the marketing and supply side and the other thing they cannot control the hard core player groups that chase new players away from the game.
In the past few months our casual group have added a cygnar trencher player, a crucible guard player and a legion of everblight player who all now have full armies and then some to play with.
Regarding PP, I can't imagine it helped that they decided to close all the faction-specific sections on their forum, and make it so that there is no equivalent of 'general discussion'.
Previously, I'd found their forums to be very helpful to new players. But after that change I never visited them again.
vipoid wrote: Regarding PP, I can't imagine it helped that they decided to close all the faction-specific sections on their forum, and make it so that there is no equivalent of 'general discussion'.
Previously, I'd found their forums to be very helpful to new players. But after that change I never visited them again.
Forums are so weird for company, it’s almost random if it’s positive or not to keep them up. I think it’s a good resource for a game to keep butt..
For many company I think they think Facebook is enough back then, and now I spend most of my hobby chat on reddit as a one stop info on all my hobby’s and dakka so I not sure it’s hindered me specifically and I don’t think many of our players even know the forums existed for PP.
Even if I am huge into infinity I spend little time on there official forums compared to other places I discuss the game.
And I wonder if the lack of central forums has helped GW over the years, as they can segment and control community even if they unintentionally did it.
the_scotsman wrote: Right, not like the creative mission design from fourth thru seventh where the mission design was:
And you left out 8th, which had tons of missions, with the CA books adding lots more with some very cool victory conditions.
Then there's 9th, with its variation on 4-8 objectives, and totally symmetrical combat.
I'll let you in on a little secret.
>.>
<.<
....All the missions from 8th are completely compatible with 9th.
For that matter, so are most of AoS missions (except the ones that directly reference Battleline, Behemoth, etc), and like... 7th edition, 5th edition, 4th edition, etc 40k.
the_scotsman wrote: Right, not like the creative mission design from fourth thru seventh where the mission design was:
And you left out 8th, which had tons of missions, with the CA books adding lots more with some very cool victory conditions.
Then there's 9th, with its variation on 4-8 objectives, and totally symmetrical combat.
I'll let you in on a little secret.
>.>
<.<
....All the missions from 8th are completely compatible with 9th.
9th's missions are a large part of why the game works better than before, just dropping 8th edition's missions onto the core rule doesn't solve the problem. For example, the main reason why gunline aren't a thing in 9th are the missions. If you play a mission from an older book which has half the objectives in their deployment zone, some armies go right back to zero movement while shooting the opponent off the table.
What H.B.M.C. (and me as well!) want is missions as diverse as CA2018's supplies from above and four pillars with the same improved objective placement and battlemaps as 9th edition's missions.
Essentially the current GT2021 has the same problem that the last iteration of maelstrom had. If you play enough games, eventually every mission feels the same. The little differences between which shadow operations, battlefield supremacy or no mercy, no respite secondary my opponent picked has next to no impact on the game - most of those are auto-decided by the match-up anyways. Most variation comes from the two armies that are playing.
the_scotsman wrote: Right, not like the creative mission design from fourth thru seventh where the mission design was:
And you left out 8th, which had tons of missions, with the CA books adding lots more with some very cool victory conditions.
Then there's 9th, with its variation on 4-8 objectives, and totally symmetrical combat.
I'll let you in on a little secret.
>.>
<.<
....All the missions from 8th are completely compatible with 9th.
9th's missions are a large part of why the game works better than before, just dropping 8th edition's missions onto the core rule doesn't solve the problem. For example, the main reason why gunline aren't a thing in 9th are the missions. If you play a mission from an older book which has half the objectives in their deployment zone, some armies go right back to zero movement while shooting the opponent off the table.
What H.B.M.C. (and me as well!) want is missions as diverse as CA2018's supplies from above and four pillars with the same improved objective placement and battlemaps as 9th edition's missions.
Essentially the current GT2021 has the same problem that the last iteration of maelstrom had. If you play enough games, eventually every mission feels the same.
The little differences between which shadow operations, battlefield supremacy or no mercy, no respite secondary my opponent picked has next to no impact on the game - most of those are auto-decided by the match-up anyways. Most variation comes from the two armies that are playing.
Improved battlemaps? You just mean the board size, and having objectives be towards the middle? or what? If you (this is my interpretation obviously) dislike the secondary system, but you also dont like where the objectives are in the pre-9th missions, where the objectives are is...generally what the pre-9th missions are.
You could add in something like 'you only score at the beginning of your turn' and the 9th ed miniboard, but I think you'd find missions like the one you referenced where the objectives move are preeeetty miserable.
the_scotsman wrote: Improved battlemaps? You just mean the board size, and having objectives be towards the middle? or what? If you (this is my interpretation obviously) dislike the secondary system, but you also dont like where the objectives are in the pre-9th missions, where the objectives are is...generally what the pre-9th missions are.
Basically what the GT2020/2021 missions do better compared to 8th is the objective placement connected to the deployment map. No more mini-game, no player dropping three objectives in his deployment zone while the other drops his in midfield. In addition, there are always more objectives outside of your deployment zone than inside of it. This by far the most important part, as it forces all armes to move out and protect their backfield at the same time.
The table size is definitely an improvement, but not a large one. It helps shifting power away from deep strikers and super-mobile units - according to these forums some people are deadly afraid of boyz appearing in their line with da jump in 8th, while my experience in 9th is more that you can't find a good spot to place 30 boyz in most games, and that you just use da jump to grap unattended objectives.
I also don't dislike the secondary system, it does its job of balancing armies against each other quite well, but it doesn't add anything for variety.
You could add in something like 'you only score at the beginning of your turn' and the 9th ed miniboard, but I think you'd find missions like the one you referenced where the objectives move are preeeetty miserable.
It's not that simple. You don't have proper board for these missions and no primary rules mean you can't use secondary objectives.
Sure, I could just create my own missions, but those face the same issues as all other house-rules.
I saw the new Ork Boys kit. They look amazing but as a Guard player I'm incredibly pissed off. It's just another spit in the face, we're stuck with an upgrade sprue to a 20 year old kit. Which apparently justifies a $45 USD or $77 AUD cost for 10 Guardsmen.
Jarms48 wrote: I saw the new Ork Boys kit. They look amazing but as a Guard player I'm incredibly pissed off. It's just another spit in the face, we're stuck with an upgrade sprue to a 20 year old kit. Which apparently justifies a $45 USD or $77 AUD cost for 10 Guardsmen.
"A Xeno army is getting updated but how can I make this about MEEEEEEE?"
Jarms48 wrote: I saw the new Ork Boys kit. They look amazing but as a Guard player I'm incredibly pissed off. It's just another spit in the face, we're stuck with an upgrade sprue to a 20 year old kit. Which apparently justifies a $45 USD or $77 AUD cost for 10 Guardsmen.
"A Xeno army is getting updated but how can I make this about MEEEEEEE?"
Don't be that guy.
What's happened with the Cadian box is stupid - the price especially. Used to be AUD$50 for 20 of the fething things. It's over 300% more now.
We ain't seen what the new Ork kit looks like. Given GW's modern standards we're infinitely more likely to get a set of very limited Orks that are completely incompatible with the rest of the Ork range.
Jarms48 wrote: I saw the new Ork Boys kit. They look amazing but as a Guard player I'm incredibly pissed off. It's just another spit in the face, we're stuck with an upgrade sprue to a 20 year old kit. Which apparently justifies a $45 USD or $77 AUD cost for 10 Guardsmen.
"A Xeno army is getting updated but how can I make this about MEEEEEEE?"
Don't be that guy.
What's happened with the Cadian box is stupid - the price especially. Used to be AUD$50 for 20 of the fething things. It's over 300% more now.
Oh I agree the price is stupid, but don't crap on the Ork player's parade over it. They didn't do anything wrong.
ClockworkZion wrote: ...Oh I agree the price is stupid, but don't crap on the Ork player's parade over it. They didn't do anything wrong.
But what would keep the community together if we couldn't all unite to crap on the SM players' parade about why GW is putting out an endless stream of new stuff for them and neglecting everyone else?
Yep, nothing else to say about it. With so many cool new guard sculpts being released, I have no clue how they came to the conclusion that slapping an upgrade sprue on that old kit was what people wanted.
The simple fact that it is cheaper to buy broodbrothers by 3CHF / box and you get a HWT on 3 squads on top of it for free should show the nonsense going on in regards to the cadian pricing.
I do hope for the sake of the ork boyz though that they are still compatible with the old ones and the same modular style...
New boyz kit is going to be great, BUT definitely incompatible with old in terms of bit swapping. Possible scale creep too. And the price will be higher per model than the old boyz box.
RE: Guard
Some would say guard are getting the shaft with the upgrade sprue. BUT GW might have actually listened here: many guard players have HUNDREDS of Cadians. Resculpting Cadians would have caused all the problems listed for Orks above. Does the sprue justify the price hike? Not really.
But here's the key: I really don't think this is all the Guard is going to get. I think that most likely, Catachans will get a complete overhaul. We might even see an additional regiment on top of that. I think we should wait until we see the entire suite of offerings for the Guard before we judge whether or not GW has done right by them.
Oh really? Listening? They would have released the new sprue separately for a £5 if that was the case, and repackaged the box to include a heavy weapon team (and could have cut the heavy weapon squad from the store).
Or gone really crazy, made the new sprue have 4 legs and 5 torsos plus bits on it, added it and the heavy weapons sprue to the command sprue and had a box set that makes all the infantry options...
The_Real_Chris wrote: Oh really? Listening? They would have realised the new sprue separately for a £5 if that was the case, and repackaged the box to include a heavy weapon team (and could have cut the heavy weapon squad from the store).
Or gone really crazy, made the new sprue have 6 bodies on it, added it and the heavy weapons sprue to a box set for a generic Cadian box that makes all the infantry options...
I think you're misunderstanding something. The studio listened regarding the Cadian sprue, but they don't set the price. GW may be one company, but they're not always all on the same page on what is best for the community considering a portion of them only care about what makes the shareholders happy.
If they had been, it would have been done like the Fire Warriors: a refresh of the existing kit, with some new options added in to encourage older players to replace them and upped quality to bring in new interest.
I don't have the time to go looking for the quotes in other threads, but many, many guard players did not want "refreshed" Cadians because they've already spent hundreds of dollars on the existing models, just like many Ork players didn't want new boyz- that was the point of my post.
The point about how the sprue was rolled out is valid though- quite a few people would have liked the sprue to be released on its own.
PenitentJake wrote: I don't have the time to go looking for the quotes in other threads, but many, many guard players did not want "refreshed" Cadians because they've already spent hundreds of dollars on the existing models, just like many Ork players didn't want new boyz- that was the point of my post.
I think you've missed the context of my post.
Look at the "refreshed" Fire Warriors in comparison to the previous kit. They are fairly identical. That's what the ideal situation for Cadians would have been: rejigging the contents while keeping a similar sculpt quality.
Additionally, speaking as someone with a hundred plus Cadians all outfitted with the FW respirator+backpack kits? If they gave the army a ground up rework that actually interested me in playing Guard again and models that I felt were an improvement...I wouldn't really care about rebuying stuff.
No matter how they do things for some of these armies? The grognards are going to be upset one way or the other. I'm pissed they didn't just release the sprue by itself but a reworked box and book would have gotten me selling my Cadians off to redo them.
The point about how the sprue was rolled out is valid though- quite a few people would have liked the sprue to be released on its own.
Sure, and quite a few people would probably have liked a better looking army in line with GSC or Skitarii.
well all the Ork players I know want new Boyz, they just fear that GW will mess it up and rather prefer that the old ones stay before they get the easy to build Monopose stuff
similar for the Imperial Guard players here
yet GW cannot stay forever with the old models because this is one reason why people don't start those armies, so don't buy the new units either, sales are low and GW thinks people don't like them so they stop supporting them
so this was the worst possible choice for a Guard Box
if there would be the heavy weapon sprue as well (for the same price) it would look different but guess GW don't want to give 2 models for "free" or that people can build 2 more than they need to actually have options without using magnets
We ain't seen what the new Ork kit looks like. Given GW's modern standards we're infinitely more likely to get a set of very limited Orks that are completely incompatible with the rest of the Ork range.
You can see from the previewed Ork boy that they are 100% incompatible with existing kits. The right arm is almost certainly moulded to the body, probably attaching at the wrist to the right hand, instead of the whole arm being separate. I hazard a guess the left one is shoota, pauldron and all (plus the right hand) slots into the shoulder.
We ain't seen what the new Ork kit looks like. Given GW's modern standards we're infinitely more likely to get a set of very limited Orks that are completely incompatible with the rest of the Ork range.
You can see from the previewed Ork boy that they are 100% incompatible with existing kits. The right arm is almost certainly moulded to the body, probably attaching at the wrist to the right hand, instead of the whole arm being separate. I hazard a guess the left one is shoota, pauldron and all (plus the right hand) slots into the shoulder.
IOW, monopose Orks for a horde army.
I'll take monopose Orks for more dynamic poses that don't look like they're trying to balance a tea tray across their ass.
Rihgu wrote: I had seen that and laughed out loud at how accurate it is
Yeah, it really nailed it in one.
Did it? Will the average Ork player only end up with one Boy kit? I'd agree with you and the joke for lots of other things, but it really doesn't seem true for Boyz.
Rihgu wrote: I had seen that and laughed out loud at how accurate it is
Yeah, it really nailed it in one.
Did it? Will the average Ork player only end up with one Boy kit? I'd agree with you and the joke for lots of other things, but it really doesn't seem true for Boyz.
Are you really going to notice 1 duplicate in every 5 or 10 models when you can make small visual changes with just a little paint? Seriously, people make this a bigger deal than it really is. And if you're really motivated to convert you'll make it work even if the kit isn't the easiest to work with. I speak with experience as conversions used to be done with all pewter models. Seriously, people need to put this hyperbole horse to bed and just chill.
Yeah, monopose works fine if you have as many or more poses as the size of units people take. The problem occurs when you're taking a unit of say 30 and there's only 10 or even worse only 5 different poses.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ClockworkZion wrote: Are you really going to notice 1 duplicate in every 5 or 10 models
Yes. Absolutely yes. I realize this varies a lot from person to person but if you are a "my dudes" kind of hobbyist this thing is genuinely a big issue.
I basically just don't buy monopose kits for unit sizes bigger than the amount of unique poses, but if I absolutely have to, I feel compelled to do a bunch of work customizing them so that you'd have to look very carefully to see which ones are repeats. And yes, you can still do that with a monopose kit, but it's a much bigger pain, and honestly more importantly it's about the feeling of having to fight against the kit to get something that is "your dude" that rankles.
I totally get there's a lot of other people who don't give a crap and every one of their ork boyz is just completely interchangeable with any other one. And that's fine. Different things are important to different people.
yukishiro1 wrote: Yeah, monopose works fine if you have as many or more poses as the size of units people take. The problem occurs when you're taking a unit of say 30 and there's only 10 or even worse only 5 different poses.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ClockworkZion wrote: Are you really going to notice 1 duplicate in every 5 or 10 models
Yes. Absolutely yes. I realize this varies a lot from person to person but if you are a "my dudes" kind of hobbyist this thing is genuinely a big issue.
I basically just don't buy monopose kits for unit sizes bigger than the amount of unique poses, but if I absolutely have to, I feel compelled to do a bunch of work customizing them so that you'd have to look very carefully to see which ones are repeats. And yes, you can still do that with a monopose kit, but it's a much bigger pain, and honestly more importantly it's about the feeling of having to fight against the kit to get something that is "your dude" that rankles.
I totally get there's a lot of other people who don't give a crap and every one of their ork boyz is just completely interchangeable with any other one. And that's fine. Different things are important to different people.
Yeah, like that satire would be funny if it was about complaints around... I dunno, Suppressors or something. But this example is just bad. And Zion, it would be incredibly easy to give examples of where a model sticks out in a unit of 5 or 10. So easy that I'm not going to dig anything up for you, literally just pick a recent monopose kit and there's probably an offender there.
Also, "at least it's better than when models were pewter!" is not an argument.
yukishiro1 wrote: Yeah, monopose works fine if you have as many or more poses as the size of units people take. The problem occurs when you're taking a unit of say 30 and there's only 10 or even worse only 5 different poses...
Personally I'm more irritated by mono-pose characters, given that GW has demonstrated quite clearly that they're perfectly capable of doing non-monopose characters cheaper than monopose characters with the Exalted Sorcerers kit ($60/3 instead of $35/1, and the kit is way better than giving us one mono-pose TS Sorcerer would have been).
Gene St. Ealer wrote: Also, "at least it's better than when models were pewter!" is not an argument.
When it comes to the complaints about conversions being "too hard" it definitely is. People are trying to hard to find problems with every release.
Conversions have never been "easy". That's why most people don't do them. Kitbashes are easier and GW has been making some efforts to make kitbashing still possible. Like making GSC and Admech stuff compatible.
One of my favorite Land Speeders that I'd ever assembled features the pilot with one hand on the stick and the other on a bolt pistol that he's firing into the air while looking skyward, like he's having the time of his fecking life piloting his floating jet engine, while the Meltagunner is looking at him as if to say "Brother Johnson, what the hell are you doing?"
I smile a little every time I look at that Speeder in particular, and monopose models would have made that impossible. It's a small joy in the grand scheme of things, sure - but frankly I think it's an iffy prospect for GW kits to provide any less value per unit currency than they already do.
Yeah, I have a custodes guy who's holding his sword reverse grip behind his back like some sort of ridiculous anime ninja, and it makes me lol every time I see him. He's both utterly cool and utterly derpy at the same time. It's like pure, distilled "my dude."
Could I in theory have done that with a monopose kit? I mean yeah, I guess, with an absolute ton of work. But it never would have even occurred to me in the first place if the kit had been made in such a way that you couldn't swap arms, because it was just fiddling with different combinations of arms and bodies than the standard ones that made me realize I could do it.
Are you really going to notice 1 duplicate in every 5 or 10 models when you can make small visual changes with just a little paint?
I think it will probably depend on the exact pose. If the poses are all fairly 'normal' it probably won't be too bad (so long as you don't put any of the clones next to each other ).
The issue will be if you have 6 Orks all dramatically holding up rokket launchers or something.
AnomanderRake wrote: Personally I'm more irritated by mono-pose characters, given that GW has demonstrated quite clearly that they're perfectly capable of doing non-monopose characters cheaper than monopose characters with the Exalted Sorcerers kit ($60/3 instead of $35/1, and the kit is way better than giving us one mono-pose TS Sorcerer would have been).
Oh man, I love the Exalted Sorcerer kit. I wish other factions had kits like that for their HQs.
That said, it's kinda sad that the box has such a massive wealth of different options and then you look at the actual unit and you've got maybe three options when it comes to wargear.
vipoid wrote: Oh man, I love the Exalted Sorcerer kit. I wish other factions had kits like that for their HQs.
The Exalted Sorcerer kit (and the entire 1KSons line at the time) represented the end-point for multi-pose kits filled with options. The very next major release of similar style was Death Guard. The equivalent kit to the Exalted Sorcerer kit was the Deathshroud kit... 3 mono-pose optionless Terminators on tiny character sprues.
AnomanderRake wrote: Personally I'm more irritated by mono-pose characters, given that GW has demonstrated quite clearly that they're perfectly capable of doing non-monopose characters cheaper than monopose characters with the Exalted Sorcerers kit ($60/3 instead of $35/1, and the kit is way better than giving us one mono-pose TS Sorcerer would have been).
Oh man, I love the Exalted Sorcerer kit. I wish other factions had kits like that for their HQs.
That said, it's kinda sad that the box has such a massive wealth of different options and then you look at the actual unit and you've got maybe three options when it comes to wargear.
I did start writing 40k Necromunda because I was fed up with everything having almost no options, yeah.
vipoid wrote: Oh man, I love the Exalted Sorcerer kit. I wish other factions had kits like that for their HQs.
The Exalted Sorcerer kit (and the entire 1KSons line at the time) represented the end-point for multi-pose kits filled with options. The very next major release of similar style was Death Guard. The equivalent kit to the Exalted Sorcerer kit was the Deathshroud kit... 3 mono-pose optionless Terminators on tiny character sprues.
over years the main complain for Warmachine/Hordes models was the Monopose of lack of variation in units
the individual model looked more natural/better/etc. but havin duplicates in a unit of 10 was a big no-go for that price because Monopose need be cheaper than Multipose not the other way around
same with historical models, main complain from GW costumers was always the monopose and duplicates although they are cheaper and meant to be used in R&F units
(like how a WW2 Box is worse than Cadians because of the number of duplicates if you make more than 10 models)
and now
people celebrate the more expensive monopose kits because how the unit looks does not matter as long as the individual looks good
this is the same as with the rules
if any other company is doing it, it is bad because GW makes it the other way
and as soon as GW uses it, it is the best thing that ever happend
kodos wrote: and now
people celebrate the more expensive monopose kits because how the unit looks does not matter as long as the individual looks good
It's just the cycle of fawning sycophantic fanboyism that GW receives.
When I first pointed it out the usual suspects said I was wrong, I was crazy, and that nothing had changed. Then when it became too obvious to ignore "You're wrong!" became "So what?" with all the usual excuses (ie. "They're not that posable now, so it's not that big a difference!"). Then it moved onto "We like it because they're dynamic!" or "The old ones were bad anyway!". At the moment it's "No options and nonposable is actually better for everyone/the game/etc.!".
Pretty soon the next step is "You should be thankful there are even options at all!".
I've unfortunately seen the same discussion play out if you bring up scale creep. First people deny that it's happening, then they say that it is happening but not much, then they say the new models look better anyway. It's a bit tiring.
I think monopose becomes worse the more dynamic a model is and the more "special" a unit is.
The fact that even 40% of all Guardsmen are holding their lasgun in exactly the same way is not noticable to me.
You don't pay much attention to basic grunts, and there's only so many ways to hold a rifle so it doesn't look out of place.
But when every 5th Banshee is doing the same backflip? Yeah that gets grating.
Banshees are beautiful units that hold a significant place on the tabletop so they draw attention. Similarly, a backflip is a very dynamic pose that looks weird if everyone is doing in perfect sync.
I have to agree with the GW fanboyism.
A while ago I floated the idea with my group of "reactions" in 40k, that got shot down hard.
Now GW has announced reactions in AoS, I pointed to that and now people were much more amicable to the idea. Although until GW does it for 40k, neutral is the best I'm gonna get.
kodos wrote: and now
people celebrate the more expensive monopose kits because how the unit looks does not matter as long as the individual looks good
It's just the cycle of fawning sycophantic fanboyism that GW receives.
When I first pointed it out the usual suspects said I was wrong, I was crazy, and that nothing had changed. Then when it became too obvious to ignore "You're wrong!" became "So what?" with all the usual excuses (ie. "They're not that posable now, so it's not that big a difference!"). Then it moved onto "We like it because they're dynamic!" or "The old ones were bad anyway!". At the moment it's "No options and nonposable is actually better for everyone/the game/etc.!".
Pretty soon the next step is "You should be thankful there are even options at all!".
Ain't that the truth
Personally, I don't have much of an issue with feet and torso not being posable, nobz and flash gits have always been that way. My biggest issue is that most modern kits only have one set of arms fitting one body, with little chance of switching stuff around without cutting and modeling. Nobz being mono-pose didn't matter much because you could attach myriads of different wargear from various kits to each one and you had different heads, different variants of the same gun. In comparison, every unit of blightlord terminators has the same guy with the same pose, same shoulder pads and the same helmet holding the flail and the same other guy is holding the autocannon or blight launcher. Plague marines are the same, and the only redeeming thing being that there were 21 mono-posed sculpts of them, though some cost an arm and a leg. Especially plague marine champions each have a very unique look, I'm glad I managed to have four different ones as even a single dublicate sticks out like a sore thumb.
ClockworkZion wrote: I'll take monopose Orks for more dynamic poses that don't look like they're trying to balance a tea tray across their ass.
Now I want to an the army of Ork-butlers.
What? No french maid Orks?
Also I had to shout out Tabletop Inquirer for summing things up nicely:
The only thing I'm going to mourn is having to painstakingly carve the hand off the shoota if I ever want to have an ork holding a shoota one-handed. After the first box of shoota boyz I ever built, I got sick of them all having the same underslung poses, and most of my shoota boyz are holding them one handed.
I really hope there's a couple one-handed shootas in the box.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Pretty soon the next step is "You should be thankful there are even options at all!".
My guess is that the next step will be "it is good that there are no option in the kit so people don't get confused which wargear to use or wich weapon setup is the best"
over years the main complain for Warmachine/Hordes models was the Monopose of lack of variation in units
the individual model looked more natural/better/etc. but havin duplicates in a unit of 10 was a big no-go for that price because Monopose need be cheaper than Multipose not the other way around
same with historical models, main complain from GW costumers was always the monopose and duplicates although they are cheaper and meant to be used in R&F units
(like how a WW2 Box is worse than Cadians because of the number of duplicates if you make more than 10 models)
and now
people celebrate the more expensive monopose kits because how the unit looks does not matter as long as the individual looks good
this is the same as with the rules
if any other company is doing it, it is bad because GW makes it the other way
and as soon as GW uses it, it is the best thing that ever happend
I've never minded duplicates among my models. Especially among anything that's supposed to be wearing a "uniform" since they're supposed to look, you know, "uniform". Even with Orks there are only so many combinations of poses and wargear that look good and honestly I like the design of the new ones over the old ones. As I've complained in the past: the weird butt jutting for the old models was weird and looked dumb. Seriously, looks like the whole army is twerking.
there is a difference between uniform and duplicates
monopose bodies that just have 1 pair of arms and 5 different heads, but those being free to pose create a uniform look without ever having duplicates
this creates a more natural look within a unit because no model is exactly the same
while with monopose models, although more dynamic you get duplicates within a unit and if every model with a plasma gun is exactly the same, it looks odd
there is a reason why people searched for ways to convert their special weapons in a Guard Army instead of using the 1 metal model 10 times, even if the bits needed were more expensive
and now people say that using the same model 10 times is an advantage we should be happy to have
kodos wrote: and now
people celebrate the more expensive monopose kits because how the unit looks does not matter as long as the individual looks good
It's just the cycle of fawning sycophantic fanboyism that GW receives.
When I first pointed it out the usual suspects said I was wrong, I was crazy, and that nothing had changed. Then when it became too obvious to ignore "You're wrong!" became "So what?" with all the usual excuses (ie. "They're not that posable now, so it's not that big a difference!"). Then it moved onto "We like it because they're dynamic!" or "The old ones were bad anyway!". At the moment it's "No options and nonposable is actually better for everyone/the game/etc.!".
Pretty soon the next step is "You should be thankful there are even options at all!".
I've always liked them because they're more dynamic in general but I've been playing an all pewter army since 5th where I had three troop models and one of each of the special weapon and heavy weapon models to work with across the entire army. I stopped worrying about two people having the same pose and wargear a long time ago. You can do a lot with just a little paint to add some diversity into the models just by varying some skin tones, or the colors of the clothes they're wearing. And yes, twerking Orks were always bad.
Orks really struggle with this I feel, particularly the vehicles. Although I don't necessarily fault GW for that.
It's hard to suggest an extremely ramshackle look, when you can only produce 1 vehicle kit.
kirotheavenger wrote: Orks really struggle with this I feel, particularly the vehicles. Although I don't necessarily fault GW for that.
It's hard to suggest an extremely ramshackle look, when you can only produce 1 vehicle kit.
If only there were some way for ork players to introduce variety into their vehicle models through some kind of dark alchemical ritual involving bits of plasticard cut into scrappy triangular shapes, spare ork bitz, and any other vehicle model kit in existence.
kirotheavenger wrote: Orks really struggle with this I feel, particularly the vehicles. Although I don't necessarily fault GW for that.
It's hard to suggest an extremely ramshackle look, when you can only produce 1 vehicle kit.
They released five completely different vehicles recently, but the army structure tells me that I can only play three of them.
kodos wrote: and now
people celebrate the more expensive monopose kits because how the unit looks does not matter as long as the individual looks good
It's just the cycle of fawning sycophantic fanboyism that GW receives.
When I first pointed it out the usual suspects said I was wrong, I was crazy, and that nothing had changed. Then when it became too obvious to ignore "You're wrong!" became "So what?" with all the usual excuses (ie. "They're not that posable now, so it's not that big a difference!"). Then it moved onto "We like it because they're dynamic!" or "The old ones were bad anyway!". At the moment it's "No options and nonposable is actually better for everyone/the game/etc.!".
Pretty soon the next step is "You should be thankful there are even options at all!".
Or maybe people just like new models and have a hard time reconciling your concerns with theirs. Calling it sycophantic fanboyism really doesn't bridge that gap.
kirotheavenger wrote: Orks really struggle with this I feel, particularly the vehicles. Although I don't necessarily fault GW for that.
It's hard to suggest an extremely ramshackle look, when you can only produce 1 vehicle kit.
As much as I enjoy the ork aesthetic, having multiples of 'unique' looking vehicles has always been off-putting for me. So I've always greatly modified WW II vehicles for my ork army. Now if GW made vehicles more modular, that would be fantastic: pairs of wheels, track sets, frames, possibilities to extend them, plates and bits mostly separate, etc.
Regarding monopose models, this is the sort of thing I hate seeing:
I don't know if these actually count as monopose or not but it's the same issue either way. Four of them are fine but look at the plasmagunner - instead of holding his gun normally (like he's about to fire it) he's holding it up in the air and pointing with his off-hand.
This is fine if you've one got one unit but when you start fielding multiples the fact that every plasmagunner is holding his gun in one hand will start to get very noticeable very quickly.
And this, I will remind you, is a unit that can potentially have 4 plasmagunners. There are no variant models with plasmaguns so if you make four then your Command Squad is going to start looking less like elite warriors and more like children on a school trip.
"Sir! Sir! Look over here, sir!"
"No, sir! Please, sir! There's a far more exciting thing over here, sir!"
It's kind of funny, but the plasma gun is the only special weapon in that kit being held like that. Everyone else has their weapon up and at the ready.
I had another problem relating to these poses when I built my Blood Angels Tactical squads.
You can assemble a guy as it he's reloading.
I thought that's awesome! A cool variant pose to break up the squads.
But when got to playing the game, I noticed a problem. He looks like a sergeant. Since he's doing something special, he looks like he's meant to be special. More than once I've removed the actual sergeant by mistake, believing that guy to be the sergeant.
Generic models looking generic actually has a very useful in game benefit.
I've actually started using that reloading guy as the squad no.2, so when I run 2 five man units he's the second sergeant. This is instead of the guy I deliberately built as the second sergeant, who has a fancier helmet and backpack but a more neutral pose.
ClockworkZion wrote: It's kind of funny, but the plasma gun is the only special weapon in that kit being held like that. Everyone else has their weapon up and at the ready.
Yeah, it works reasonably well for the Scions because they at least have some posability with their legs and heads, and you can adjust the angle of the arms.
Actual true monopose models on the other hand can get pretty frustrating. I had to put a lot of work into making these four plasma gunners look distinct. It'd be considerably easier if they were plastic, but still a hassle for your average hobbyist.
Daedalus81 wrote: Or maybe people just like new models and have a hard time reconciling your concerns with theirs. Calling it sycophantic fanboyism really doesn't bridge that gap.
Why should one want to bridge the gap with someone one thinks is a sycophant? That makes no sense, only normal reaction would be either character assasination or ostracization. Possibly both.
vipoid wrote: Regarding monopose models, this is the sort of thing I hate seeing:
I don't know if these actually count as monopose or not but it's the same issue either way. Four of them are fine but look at the plasmagunner - instead of holding his gun normally (like he's about to fire it) he's holding it up in the air and pointing with his off-hand.
This is fine if you've one got one unit but when you start fielding multiples the fact that every plasmagunner is holding his gun in one hand will start to get very noticeable very quickly.
And this, I will remind you, is a unit that can potentially have 4 plasmagunners. There are no variant models with plasmaguns so if you make four then your Command Squad is going to start looking less like elite warriors and more like children on a school trip.
"Sir! Sir! Look over here, sir!"
"No, sir! Please, sir! There's a far more exciting thing over here, sir!"
That is a good example that helps me understand the concern more. Though isn't this kit fairly flexible ( aside from the gun )? This seems more like a design mistake by GW.
Daedalus81 wrote: Or maybe people just like new models and have a hard time reconciling your concerns with theirs. Calling it sycophantic fanboyism really doesn't bridge that gap.
Why should one want to bridge the gap with someone one thinks is a sycophant? That makes no sense, only normal reaction would be either character assasination or ostracization. Possibly both.
ClockworkZion wrote: It's kind of funny, but the plasma gun is the only special weapon in that kit being held like that. Everyone else has their weapon up and at the ready.
Yeah, it works reasonably well for the Scions because they at least have some posability with their legs and heads, and you can adjust the angle of the arms.
Actual true monopose models on the other hand can get pretty frustrating. I had to put a lot of work into making these four plasma gunners look distinct. It'd be considerably easier if they were plastic, but still a hassle for your average hobbyist.
For me I paint the model to where I can enjoy it up close, but I typically worry very little about duplicates. When I'm playing and the models are 3' away there is just no way for me to worry about them being overly distinct so it becomes hard for me to develop a personal concern.
On some of the larger models I'll do a bit more - like with contemptors, but that's about it.
I think it's great that people put so much care and attention into their models. I do get why you feel the way you do. I just have a hard time having the same reaction to the newer monopose kits.
I can definitely agree there is an issue when you have weird combos like that where you have someone doing something like holding a gun in a pose like that, but when talking about stuff like the new Orks who are just posed like they're firing their guns? It doesn't carry over as much in my head I guess because it feels like something that fits the Orks.
Then again I've always seen Orks as generally ramshackle in their approach to equipment, but not in the camp that everything they own has to be perfectly unique.
Price creep, greed, fast treadmill, ghosting armies...in essence, we got off the treadmill. We are done.
If people want to complain about GW, but continue to buy the product, well, they will not care. Personally, I suspect the bubble will burst for a panoply of reasons.
As to the rules, they are adding more and more bloat, again. AoS 3.0 is where WFB was likely in the fifth to the sixth edition. We are off that treadmill as well.
There are other games, and an alternate ruleset that we find is faster and far more enjoyable to play. And I do not even need to address the fluff, which fits the marketing department. There is no way the DA would have happily accepted Primaris just because...secretive, first and second companies, canon, or what used to be.
So...sooner or later that will change. The bubble will burst...and as far as I am concerned they are a toy company, that makes some neat toys, that are overpriced, with sucky rules.
Daedalus81 wrote: That is a good example that helps me understand the concern more. Though isn't this kit fairly flexible ( aside from the gun )? This seems more like a design mistake by GW.
kind of, or they thought it looks cool and no one will ever use more than 1 Plasma Gun in their list
and this is the main problem, the models are designed with only 1 of each is only ever used per army list, and with this in mind the new design works very well and you get much better looking collection than before
yet as soon as you want to include more of the same unit it starts looking odd
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ClockworkZion wrote: I can definitely agree there is an issue when you have weird combos like that where you have someone doing something like holding a gun in a pose like that, but when talking about stuff like the new Orks who are just posed like they're firing their guns?
we have to see how the kit looks like, but because of the other recent boxes (and rules changes coming with it), I have the feeling that there will be either all Orcs holding their gun the very same way or we got some very unique poses with each boy that start looking strange as soon as there are more than 10 models around
ClockworkZion wrote: I can definitely agree there is an issue when you have weird combos like that where you have someone doing something like holding a gun in a pose like that, but when talking about stuff like the new Orks who are just posed like they're firing their guns?
we have to see how the kit looks like, but because of the other recent boxes (and rules changes coming with it), I have the feeling that there will be either all Orcs holding their gun the very same way or we got some very unique poses with each boy that start looking strange as soon as there are more than 10 models around
There are only so many ways to shoot a gun, and as goofy as the Orks are they still know how to use a gun properly (even if they enjoy the noise and random carnage said guns cause over careful targeting).
kirotheavenger wrote: Orks really struggle with this I feel, particularly the vehicles. Although I don't necessarily fault GW for that.
It's hard to suggest an extremely ramshackle look, when you can only produce 1 vehicle kit.
As much as I enjoy the ork aesthetic, having multiples of 'unique' looking vehicles has always been off-putting for me. So I've always greatly modified WW II vehicles for my ork army. Now if GW made vehicles more modular, that would be fantastic: pairs of wheels, track sets, frames, possibilities to extend them, plates and bits mostly separate, etc.
I'd be all on board with that!
The already do.
Buy 3-4 vehicle kits (any faction). Throw all the bits in a box. Shake well. Pull bits out & start gluing them together.
When you're happy with your creation? Draw more bits & repeat process. If you run out of bits? Buy more kits & repeat....
So...has anyone taken a peek at the current ork kit?
because spoiler alert, all shoota boyz are in EXACTLY that pose from the preview image.
The only thing that's better about old boyz shootas in terms of customizability is the lack of the sculpted hand on the barrel of the gun (boyz are old enough that they have the old U-hand)
GW has, since fifth edition, gone for the sculpted hand on the gun because it looks noticeably better when you build the model as intended, and people who want to convert are generally willing to slice the sculpted hand off.
Its not like the U-hand arms are ever useful for anything else anyway so the arm that's just cut off at the wrist is better.
The only way to get orks holding shootas in more dynamic poses than that, is to cut the shoota hands at the wrists, or go for a 'holding the gun down by the waist, doing something with the other hand like throwing a grenade" pose.
vipoid wrote: Regarding monopose models, this is the sort of thing I hate seeing:
I don't know if these actually count as monopose or not but it's the same issue either way. Four of them are fine but look at the plasmagunner - instead of holding his gun normally (like he's about to fire it) he's holding it up in the air and pointing with his off-hand.
This is fine if you've one got one unit but when you start fielding multiples the fact that every plasmagunner is holding his gun in one hand will start to get very noticeable very quickly.
And this, I will remind you, is a unit that can potentially have 4 plasmagunners. There are no variant models with plasmaguns so if you make four then your Command Squad is going to start looking less like elite warriors and more like children on a school trip.
"Sir! Sir! Look over here, sir!"
"No, sir! Please, sir! There's a far more exciting thing over here, sir!"
That is a good example that helps me understand the concern more. Though isn't this kit fairly flexible ( aside from the gun )? This seems more like a design mistake by GW.
Yeah, the rest of the kit is basically fine. It's just that specific gun that's really awkward (and it's something that different legs can't really help with).
Daedalus81 wrote: Or maybe people just like new models and have a hard time reconciling your concerns with theirs. Calling it sycophantic fanboyism really doesn't bridge that gap.
And I can't reconcile why anyone would want fewer options with their miniatures.
Look at it from my perspective Dae:
I grew up in a world where most of the stuff GW put out was metal, and when they released a plastic kit it tended to be pretty basic. I have a Guard army with well over 100 metal Guardsmen, where they were exceptionally limited poses. I tried to get enough of each to at least make the squads have some dynamism in them, but in many cases that was't possible (I have very few of some of the rarer Tallarn and Mordian sculpts, and far too many of a couple of OG Cadian poses). My fav GW game of all time is Necromunda, where there were metal models, and some exceptionally basic plastic starter minis for two gangs. I converted the ever-loving hell out of those plastics, which is great for my Goliath and Orlocks, but not so great for the gangs that just had what they had.
And then GW advances their plastic sculpting technology to the point where there aren't any other games/miniature companies that can reach their level. And they release massive, multi-part, option-rich kits that you can do all sorts of things. The amount of stuff I've done with Marines alone - specially in the way you can (or rather could) kitbash everything in that line - is just amazing. Orks are similar. Even Guard has a lot going on with its plastics and what you can mix'n'match. The Eye of Terror campaign saw them release actual kitbash kits to make mutants - a sprue of Orks, Catachans and Zombies, plus the old Chaos Mutation sprue. I have nearly 100 of the damned things.
Then we get to witness GWregressing. Their kits still look good, but they're now jigsaw puzzles, have limited options (changes in a few gun bits, assuming they have any options at all). We're getting static dynamic poses (that sounds contradictory, I know) that look fine individually, but will begin to look odd in large quantities. And they're charging more and more for things that have few modelling opportunities than their old stuff. They're even doing it with terrain, FFS (where have thesekits gone? They're not that old!).
And then I come here, and get told that it wasn't happening (at first), then that it was no big deal, then that it's better this way. And you wonder why I call it sycophantic fanboyism?
I disagree with the claim that GW is regressing. The Primaris lost a waist swivel (without a minor amount of work to cut the legs off if you really want something different) and the arms, shoulder pads and heads are still all interchangeable. Losing the mediocre waist joint (seriously that ball joint didn't give you that much freedom and just served to ensure all the legs had to be as neutral as possible so you can slightly twist the torso about three degrees in any direction before it looked bad).
And as I pointed out earlier, there is a fair amount of kitbash potential between Cadians, GSC and Ad Mech.
I get a lot of this is feeling based (much like anytime I've seen /tg/ cry about "soul"), but anyone who wants to convert models can still convert models. People who want to kitbash can still kitbash, and honestly the models have better detail than before to boot. As for the complexity of the models, the plastic origami is to allow those more dynamic poses as plastic requires a lot of work to deal with undercuts.
I get that no matter what happens there will be a portion of the community who always hates something GW does, but some of these complaints seem to ignore that conversions, like the true-scale conversions people where doing for years (like cutting the thighs in half, adding plastic spacers and then sculpting over it to smooth out the gaps), have never been easy, and kitbashing often takes a bit of work to make new parts fit and maybe some minor sculpting to cover the gaps. This is nothing new. And I feel like some of the complaints go out of their way to ignore the positives while only looking at a small handful of negatives.
Now, is the plasma gun thing for Scions kind of dumb? Sure. But it's also easy to fix. Take the grenade launcher arms no one is using, chop the grenade launcher off the firing arm, pin a plasma gun from the guard kit onto the hand that is now just holding the pistol grip, drill a small hole for the side handle for the support handle to plug into and glue it all together. Simple fix that gives you a unique looking plasma gun design and only takes some guard plasma guns (which are not that hard to source in general).
I won't claim every model is that easy to "fix" if you don't want duplicates, but most are pretty easy, and if your ideas are complicated then you're going to have to live with doing extra work to make them happen.
"It's no big deal because you can just cut up the models and fix them" isn't a good argument for why people shouldn't be annoyed at having to, well, cut up the models and fix them.
The complaint isn't that it's impossible to repose monopose kits, it's that you have to, well, cut them up to do it, whereas before the kits were built to facilitate creating your own poses, precisely so you wouldn't have to do that. Saying "but you can still do it! just cut up your models!" is quite literally missing the point.
Nor is "you're going to have to just live with it." These are both non-arguments in that they don't address the actual complaint, they just hand-waive it away as petty and unimportant. Which is exactly what annoys people.
H.B.M.C. wrote: ...And then I come here, and get told that it wasn't happening (at first), then that it was no big deal, then that it's better this way. And you wonder why I call it sycophantic fanboyism?...
If you scroll back up the thread you'll notice there was a bit where he was telling me I don't have to buy minis I don't like to play 9th and all my armies are still probably completely playable, and then he went all quiet when I told him what they were.
yukishiro1 wrote: "It's no big deal because you can just cut up the models and fix them" isn't a good argument for why people shouldn't be annoyed at having to, well, cut up the models and fix them.
The complaint isn't that it's impossible to repose monopose kits, it's that you have to, well, cut them up to do it, whereas before the kits were built to facilitate creating your own poses, precisely so you wouldn't have to do that. Saying "but you can still do it! just cut up your models!" is quite literally missing the point.
Nor is "you're going to have to just live with it." These are both non-arguments in that they don't address the actual complaint, they just hand-waive it away as petty and unimportant. Which is exactly what annoys people.
Conversions are all about cutting models and "fixing" them to fit whatever idea you have in mind. And "build" your own poses? Like what? Standing around, or standing around looking slightly to one side, or standing around looking slightly up, or standing around looking slightly down? I feel like there are some serious rose colored glasses on for how much you could do with the old kits without cutting models. Like if you want to change the direction of the arm instead of having it just rotated up or down a bit.
Seriously, none of what you brought up changes my points about the work conversions require, nor the weakness of the old kits, nor does it actually address anything I actually said about people ignoring the strengths of the newer kits. But go on, tell me what I said some more.
ClockworkZion wrote: ...Seriously, none of what you brought up changes my points about the work conversions require, nor the weakness of the old kits, nor does it actually address anything I actually said about people ignoring the strengths of the newer kits...
No, you couldn't produce whatever you wanted with no effort with the old kits. That doesn't mean the locked torsos, overcomplicated joints, move to more patterns of armour (reducing the number of kits you can get parts from), and single-pose arms/wrists don't make it much harder to do anything interesting with Primaris kits than it was with older kits. The newer kits produce some cool mono-pose models, yeah. I'd rather have the old ones.
What strengths do these newer kits actually have? Looking more fancy? I expect as much from newer techniques. Everything else is wasted on monopose kits for more money than the old kits.
ClockworkZion wrote: The Primaris lost a waist swivel (without a minor amount of work to cut the legs off if you really want something different) and the arms, shoulder pads and heads are still all interchangeable. Losing the mediocre waist joint (seriously that ball joint didn't give you that much freedom and just served to ensure all the legs had to be as neutral as possible so you can slightly twist the torso about three degrees in any direction before it looked bad).
*ahem*
H.B.M.C. wrote: Then when it became too obvious to ignore "You're wrong!" became "So what?" with all the usual excuses (ie. "They're not that posable now, so it's not that big a difference!").
So in other words, CZ, you're going to tell me with a straight face that the new Primaris kits just "lost a waist swivel" are you? You're going to, with a completely straight face and with total earnestness, declare that the differences between thesetypesofkits and thesetypesofkits is a waist swivel?
ClockworkZion wrote: And as I pointed out earlier, there is a fair amount of kitbash potential between Cadians, GSC and Ad Mech.
Which came out before the change started/took hold.
ClockworkZion wrote: I get a lot of this is feeling based (much like anytime I've seen /tg/ cry about "soul"), but anyone who wants to convert models can still convert models. People who want to kitbash can still kitbash...
Not as easily they can't. The differences between the minis GW makes now compared to what they made at the tail end of 7th is just stark.
ClockworkZion wrote: ... and honestly the models have better detail than before to boot. As for the complexity of the models, the plastic origami is to allow those more dynamic poses as plastic requires a lot of work to deal with undercuts.
Like clockwork:
H.B.M.C. wrote: Then it moved onto "We like it because they're dynamic!" or "The old ones were bad anyway!".
ClockworkZion wrote: I get that no matter what happens there will be a portion of the community who always hates something GW does, but some of these complaints seem to ignore that conversions, like the true-scale conversions people where doing for years (like cutting the thighs in half, adding plastic spacers and then sculpting over it to smooth out the gaps), have never been easy, and kitbashing often takes a bit of work to make new parts fit and maybe some minor sculpting to cover the gaps. This is nothing new. And I feel like some of the complaints go out of their way to ignore the positives while only looking at a small handful of negatives.
I don't see what any of the above paragraph has to do with what I was talking about. You have always been able to take a razorsaw and greenstuff to your minis.
I'm talking about GW's regression in their miniature design ethos, their wasting of potential as they revert back to the old days of plastics where they basically build one thing, in a limited fashion. It's a far cry from their multiple option-filled kits that they were releasing regularly not even 5 years ago.
ClockworkZion wrote: Now, is the plasma gun thing for Scions kind of dumb? Sure. But it's also easy to fix. Take the grenade launcher arms no one is using, chop the grenade launcher off the firing arm, pin a plasma gun from the guard kit onto the hand that is now just holding the pistol grip, drill a small hole for the side handle for the support handle to plug into and glue it all together. Simple fix that gives you a unique looking plasma gun design and only takes some guard plasma guns (which are not that hard to source in general).
As yukishiro said, "just cut up the model" isn't a great argument. And it doesn't address the core point either: You didn't need to cut things up with the way GW designed their kits. Kitbashing was super easy. Now, with the nightmare of overlapping complex parts, there are no options aside from the extremities (heads, the odd bit of a gun).
ClockworkZion wrote: ...Seriously, none of what you brought up changes my points about the work conversions require, nor the weakness of the old kits, nor does it actually address anything I actually said about people ignoring the strengths of the newer kits...
No, you couldn't produce whatever you wanted with no effort with the old kits. That doesn't mean the locked torsos, overcomplicated joints, move to more patterns of armour (reducing the number of kits you can get parts from), and single-pose arms/wrists don't make it much harder to do anything interesting with Primaris kits than it was with older kits. The newer kits produce some cool mono-pose models, yeah. I'd rather have the old ones.
I'm sorry, but to get a good dynamic pose with the old kit you were going to need to chop some legs apart and resculpt things since legs have existed in one pose for nearly every single model: "I just crapped my pants but I need to stand here".
Daedalus81 wrote: Or maybe people just like new models and have a hard time reconciling your concerns with theirs. Calling it sycophantic fanboyism really doesn't bridge that gap.
And I can't reconcile why anyone would want fewer options with their miniatures.
Look at it from my perspective Dae:
I grew up in a world where most of the stuff GW put out was metal, and when they released a plastic kit it tended to be pretty basic. I have a Guard army with well over 100 metal Guardsmen, where they were exceptionally limited poses. I tried to get enough of each to at least make the squads have some dynamism in them, but in many cases that was't possible (I have very few of some of the rarer Tallarn and Mordian sculpts, and far too many of a couple of OG Cadian poses). My fav GW game of all time is Necromunda, where there were metal models, and some exceptionally basic plastic starter minis for two gangs. I converted the ever-loving hell out of those plastics, which is great for my Goliath and Orlocks, but not so great for the gangs that just had what they had.
And then GW advances their plastic sculpting technology to the point where there aren't any other games/miniature companies that can reach their level. And they release massive, multi-part, option-rich kits that you can do all sorts of things. The amount of stuff I've done with Marines alone - specially in the way you can (or rather could) kitbash everything in that line - is just amazing. Orks are similar. Even Guard has a lot going on with its plastics and what you can mix'n'match. The Eye of Terror campaign saw them release actual kitbash kits to make mutants - a sprue of Orks, Catachans and Zombies, plus the old Chaos Mutation sprue. I have nearly 100 of the damned things.
Then we get to witness GWregressing. Their kits still look good, but they're now jigsaw puzzles, have limited options (changes in a few gun bits, assuming they have any options at all). We're getting static dynamic poses (that sounds contradictory, I know) that look fine individually, but will begin to look odd in large quantities. And they're charging more and more for things that have few modelling opportunities than their old stuff. They're even doing it with terrain, FFS (where have thesekits gone? They're not that old!).
And then I come here, and get told that it wasn't happening (at first), then that it was no big deal, then that it's better this way. And you wonder why I call it sycophantic fanboyism?
Yea I was born into metal as well. Nothing quite like knowing you could give someone a concussion with a dreadnought.
I feel like the intermediary phase of multi-part kits was to allow some variety in what was pretty static sprues. Now that they have to tech to make pretty awesome models it comes at a cost of not being easily cut into those same kind of sprues while still letting the model make sense.
It's a sacrifice that benefits me and not so much the detail minded modelers. I don't know why terrain couldn't still maintain the modular dynamic so color me extra ignorant there.
Overall I feel like most people get more out of the new stuff than the old ( barring price increases ), but I get why it would be aggravating even if I don't really get it.
kodos wrote: and now
people celebrate the more expensive monopose kits because how the unit looks does not matter as long as the individual looks good
It's just the cycle of fawning sycophantic fanboyism that GW receives.
When I first pointed it out the usual suspects said I was wrong, I was crazy, and that nothing had changed. Then when it became too obvious to ignore "You're wrong!" became "So what?" with all the usual excuses (ie. "They're not that posable now, so it's not that big a difference!"). Then it moved onto "We like it because they're dynamic!" or "The old ones were bad anyway!". At the moment it's "No options and nonposable is actually better for everyone/the game/etc.!".
Pretty soon the next step is "You should be thankful there are even options at all!".
Or maybe people just like new models and have a hard time reconciling your concerns with theirs. Calling it sycophantic fanboyism really doesn't bridge that gap.
agreed. yeah it's hard to mix and match kits to produce soimething uniqe no arguerments there the first born marines where the kings of that I'll happily admit, but thats not due to any specific kit design but rather due to GW essentially producing the original space marine kit (RT-01 IIRC) and essentially making all marines from then on out more or less modular with each other. chest plates got slughtly better details, heads more crisp etc but over all the design of the first born marines hadn't changed at all.
I don't see what any of the above paragraph has to do with what I was talking about. You have always been able to take a razorsaw and greenstuff to your minis.
From some of the posts in this thread people sure don't seem to remember this, which has been a large part of my complaint.
You can argue if you like the old models more or less, or if you feel that the dynamic portion is a step back or not, but claiming conversions didn't require actual work with the older kits is just nonsense which has been my biggest point to keep hitting (and only now is actually being acknowledged as being a real thing).
Like I said, much of this is feeling based. We don't have to agree with what we feel about the strengths or weaknesses of the old and new kits, I just feel that there is some serious rose tinting to how "easy" it was to convert old models.
And yes, those Marines are among the best of the old ones, but compared to Primaris I prefer the poses of the Primaris bodies more, as well as the better proportions. We don't have to agree on which is the better kit, especially when most of the "conversions" people are talking about with those old kits are just some arm swaps for different wargear, something Primaris do just as well.
Like what you like, but let's not pretend the old kits were really that much easier to make every model look like a one of a kind, especially in a horde.
I dunno CZ... are you trying to hit every stage of my post from before? Are you counting off each one of the excuses people gave about the change to mono-pose and running through them like there's, gak, I dunno, some sort of prize at the end? 'Cause there isn't one.
Though you have come up with a new one that I had left out:
"I just feel that there is some serious rose tinting to how "easy" it was to convert old models."
I guess "It's just nostalgia!" comes somewhere between "The old ones were bad anyway!" and "No options and nonposable is actually better for everyone/the game/etc.!". Thanks for that. I'll try to remember it the next time someone tries to pretend that the modularity of GW kits hasn't regressed to the point of absurdity.
Daedalus81 wrote: I feel like the intermediary phase of multi-part kits ...
*record scratch*
Intermediary phase? Phase???
GW's years of making detailed, multi-part plastics filled to the gills with options was just a phase in between periods of monopose madness?
ClockworkZion wrote: ...Seriously, none of what you brought up changes my points about the work conversions require, nor the weakness of the old kits, nor does it actually address anything I actually said about people ignoring the strengths of the newer kits...
No, you couldn't produce whatever you wanted with no effort with the old kits. That doesn't mean the locked torsos, overcomplicated joints, move to more patterns of armour (reducing the number of kits you can get parts from), and single-pose arms/wrists don't make it much harder to do anything interesting with Primaris kits than it was with older kits. The newer kits produce some cool mono-pose models, yeah. I'd rather have the old ones.
I'm sorry, but to get a good dynamic pose with the old kit you were going to need to chop some legs apart and resculpt things since legs have existed in one pose for nearly every single model: "I just crapped my paints but I need to stand here".
If I want to chop up and resculpt a Tactical Marine's legs that's about three cuts per leg (ankle, knee, hip), depending on which variant of the knee I'm working with. If I want to cut up an Intercessor I'm looking at more like five cuts per leg (ankle, shin plate ankle, two ankle balls, knee), plus whatever I need to do to the hip joint, and the front of the knee takes more rebuilding, plus if I want to re-angle the torso even minutely I have to rebuild the lower abdomen completely. And don't get me started on trying to cut up Aggressors versus Terminators.
The unmodded poses are marginally more dynamic, yes, but I don't like being stuck with them. And I want Cawl to take his faulds and shove them up his rusty metal ass.
Castozor wrote: What strengths do these newer kits actually have? Looking more fancy? I expect as much from newer techniques. Everything else is wasted on monopose kits for more money than the old kits.
Better poses, better proportions, less crapped trousers.
yukishiro1 wrote: "It's no big deal because you can just cut up the models and fix them" isn't a good argument for why people shouldn't be annoyed at having to, well, cut up the models and fix them.
The complaint isn't that it's impossible to repose monopose kits, it's that you have to, well, cut them up to do it, whereas before the kits were built to facilitate creating your own poses, precisely so you wouldn't have to do that. Saying "but you can still do it! just cut up your models!" is quite literally missing the point.
Nor is "you're going to have to just live with it." These are both non-arguments in that they don't address the actual complaint, they just hand-waive it away as petty and unimportant. Which is exactly what annoys people.
Conversions are all about cutting models and "fixing" them to fit whatever idea you have in mind. And "build" your own poses? Like what? Standing around, or standing around looking slightly to one side, or standing around looking slightly up, or standing around looking slightly down? I feel like there are some serious rose colored glasses on for how much you could do with the old kits without cutting models. Like if you want to change the direction of the arm instead of having it just rotated up or down a bit.
Seriously, none of what you brought up changes my points about the work conversions require, nor the weakness of the old kits, nor does it actually address anything I actually said about people ignoring the strengths of the newer kits. But go on, tell me what I said some more.
You're the one telling other people their opinions on monopose vs multipose aren't grounded in reality because saws exist. If you had just said "personally, I like the dynamic poses more than the loss of not being able to create your own pose without cutting up your miniatures" that'd be fine, what is rubbing people the wrong way is the bizarre insistence that everyone else is somehow misremembering the past because they value things differently than you do. No, people are not misremembering, they just care about things you evidently don't. You can't tell other people what they do or don't care about, that's a basic logical mistake, and when you try to, it annoys them for good reason. Just don't do that and people won't be annoyed by what you say. I don't try to tell you what you do or don't care about and I don't insist you must be suffering from amnesia if you don't appreciate the multipose kits, so why do you do insist on doing so when others say they preferred those kits?
Like what you like, but let's not pretend the old kits were really that much easier to make every model look like a one of a kind, especially in a horde.
Except that they absolutely were. That's what the difference between a multipose and monopose kit literally is. What you seem to be really saying here is that you personally don't care whether a model looks similar but not exactly the same, vs exactly the same. But that's a personal preference. Those two ork boyz aren't exactly the same, even if they are quite similar, and that's important to some of us, even if it isn't important to you.
yukishiro1 wrote: "It's no big deal because you can just cut up the models and fix them" isn't a good argument for why people shouldn't be annoyed at having to, well, cut up the models and fix them.
The complaint isn't that it's impossible to repose monopose kits, it's that you have to, well, cut them up to do it, whereas before the kits were built to facilitate creating your own poses, precisely so you wouldn't have to do that. Saying "but you can still do it! just cut up your models!" is quite literally missing the point.
Nor is "you're going to have to just live with it." These are both non-arguments in that they don't address the actual complaint, they just hand-waive it away as petty and unimportant. Which is exactly what annoys people.
Conversions are all about cutting models and "fixing" them to fit whatever idea you have in mind. And "build" your own poses? Like what? Standing around, or standing around looking slightly to one side, or standing around looking slightly up, or standing around looking slightly down? I feel like there are some serious rose colored glasses on for how much you could do with the old kits without cutting models. Like if you want to change the direction of the arm instead of having it just rotated up or down a bit.
Seriously, none of what you brought up changes my points about the work conversions require, nor the weakness of the old kits, nor does it actually address anything I actually said about people ignoring the strengths of the newer kits. But go on, tell me what I said some more.
You're the one telling other people their opinions on monopose vs multipose aren't grounded in reality because saws exist. If you had just said "personally, I like the dynamic poses more than the loss of not being able to create your own pose without cutting up your miniatures" that'd be fine, what is rubbing people the wrong way is the bizarre insistence that everyone else is somehow misremembering the past because they value things differently than you do. No, people are not misremembering, they just care about things you evidently don't. You can't tell other people what they do or don't care about, that's a basic logical mistake, and when you try to, it annoys them for good reason. Just don't do that and people won't be annoyed by what you say. I don't try to tell you what you do or don't care about and I don't insist you must be suffering from amnesia if you don't appreciate the multipose kits, so why do you do insist on doing so when others say they preferred those kits?
No, I was saying the loss of the poseability wasn't a real loss because the amount of "freedom" it gave is far weaker than what people claim. Oh you can put the arm up or down, oh, he can look slightly down like he found a penny, or you can wiggle his bolter 2mm. Those kits didn't have a lot of good looking poses (especially since almost every set of legs was the same "crapped my pants" look) and if you wanted more you needed saws. Now we have better poses that you can do just as much with the arms and head as before and only lose out on the waist, which is less of an issue since you can often find a body already posed how you want it to work from.
And I never said that people had to believe the same things I do, or feel the same way I do. I said that the claims of how versatile those kits were without some serious work is largely full of crap. But go on, tell me what I really meant some more while I check out of this thread and go read my recently delivered Sisters codex.
vipoid wrote: Regarding monopose models, this is the sort of thing I hate seeing:
I don't know if these actually count as monopose or not but it's the same issue either way. Four of them are fine but look at the plasmagunner - instead of holding his gun normally (like he's about to fire it) he's holding it up in the air and pointing with his off-hand.
This is fine if you've one got one unit but when you start fielding multiples the fact that every plasmagunner is holding his gun in one hand will start to get very noticeable very quickly.
And this, I will remind you, is a unit that can potentially have 4 plasmagunners. There are no variant models with plasmaguns so if you make four then your Command Squad is going to start looking less like elite warriors and more like children on a school trip.
"Sir! Sir! Look over here, sir!"
"No, sir! Please, sir! There's a far more exciting thing over here, sir!"
That is a good example that helps me understand the concern more. Though isn't this kit fairly flexible ( aside from the gun )? This seems more like a design mistake by GW.
Yeah, the rest of the kit is basically fine. It's just that specific gun that's really awkward (and it's something that different legs can't really help with).
Slight rumormongery scuttlebutt...
Heard a few times now that the Scions kit was supposed to have Special Weapons as an option for a Sergeant/Tempestor Prime, and that Plasma Guns were going to be a 1 per either flavor of Command, Veteran/Infantry, or Scion squad. Whether or not it's true? I don't know. The posing on that specific model does lend some credence to it though.
ClockworkZion wrote: I said that the claims of how versatile those kits were without some serious work is largely full of crap.
Exactly: you said our opinions are not grounded in fact and are based on claims that are - quote unquote - "full of crap." And you're surprised people would react negatively to that?
If you want to tell people they're - again, I quote - "full of crap," that's your choice I suppose, but it's not a good way to make friends and influence people, or to have a constructive discussion.
Castozor wrote: What strengths do these newer kits actually have? Looking more fancy? I expect as much from newer techniques. Everything else is wasted on monopose kits for more money than the old kits.
Better poses, better proportions, less crapped trousers.
Yeah better poses for the first 12, after that it's all repeating. Which I personally wouldn't mind but not at an increased price point like GW likes to do. Monopose kits should be less money not more.
Kanluwen wrote: Heard a few times now that the Scions kit was supposed to have Special Weapons as an option for a Sergeant/Tempestor Prime, and that Plasma Guns were going to be a 1 per either flavor of Command, Veteran/Infantry, or Scion squad. Whether or not it's true? I don't know. The posing on that specific model does lend some credence to it though.
Weirdly enough, that kind of weapon limitation will happen as soon as the new Guard book comes out.
Kanluwen wrote: Heard a few times now that the Scions kit was supposed to have Special Weapons as an option for a Sergeant/Tempestor Prime, and that Plasma Guns were going to be a 1 per either flavor of Command, Veteran/Infantry, or Scion squad. Whether or not it's true? I don't know. The posing on that specific model does lend some credence to it though.
Weirdly enough, that kind of weapon limitation will happen as soon as the new Guard book comes out.
I'd like to say it'd be unlikely that they'd change the plasma gun from a special weapon option to a sergeant option, but they changed the plasma from a special weapon to sergeant-only and the volkite from anyone in the squad to sergeant-only when they did the 40k Tartaros datasheet, so who knows?
I don't like monopose as a trend. But I do feel that GW has done a pretty decent job of providing varied poses of intercessors/hellblasters.
So if there are;
10 unique Intercessors from Dark Imperium
5 Hellblasters from Dark Imperium
5 from regular Intercessor box
10 unique (assault) intercessors
5 unique box assault intercessors
5 from regular hellblasters kit
So that's 40 unique sculpts for tacticus armour alone.
Not spin. Just practical applications of technology and design.
The progression from more poseable to less poseable isn't forward progress to better technology and design, it's a decision that GW could have chosen not to make.
Not spin. Just practical applications of technology and design.
The progression from more poseable to less poseable isn't forward progress to better technology and design, it's a decision that GW could have chosen not to make.
I think there is a level of impracticality to how easily they could make cuts and a posable kit and keep other elements of the model like layered pauldrons, capes that aren't simply just straight down the back, etc. They COULD do it, but with more sprue space and that would ultimately mean more cost.
AnomanderRake wrote: I'd like to say it'd be unlikely that they'd change the plasma gun from a special weapon option to a sergeant option, but they changed the plasma from a special weapon to sergeant-only and the volkite from anyone in the squad to sergeant-only when they did the 40k Tartaros datasheet, so who knows?
Sorry, I wasn't clear.
I more meant the limitation of the weapon itself, rather than who in the squad could have it. Scions will undoubtedly get the "Death Guard" treatment, as Wyches, Skitarii, Sisters and everyone else (except Marines) is getting.
I started off with static Monopose plastics in Fantasy that got additional dynamic Monopose models in metal
than there was the golden age of multi part kits
and now we are back and have dynamic monopose models in plastic for the price of the old metal stuff
the one problem to make multi-part multipose model kits is simply that you need to have clear cuts to do it
and this something GW designers are now avoiding as best as they can
like the good old gab between shoulder and arm you get if the arm is free to pose
GW does not make gaming models for their wargames but display models for collectors
hence why they don't assume that anyone will ever buy enough of the same to care about duplicates
the big problem now is that those designs take over into rules
I think the most obvious tell is GW themselves back in the 2nd-5th ed era they encouraged kit bashing to the point they even had a bits service. when they killed that as well as giving C&Ds to shops there were piecing out kits to do it themselves the direction became kind of obviouse. but then GW has moved far away from it's roots as a game company by gamers for gamers to a big corporate model maker first (their words) that happens to have a game attached to their models. as for poses one doesn't have to look far at how they moved away from the mono pose 2nd early 3rd
pro-
dynamic models
excellent terrain, though you must grab them relatively soon or they go OOP getting into main stream
influx of new players/interest after getting into main stream
con-
harder to convert models, change pose unless you're a pro
over zealous about their IP, they're a hypocrite
higher cost
unorganized rules(how many books do I need to play a game?, where is Guilliman when we need him most!)
lost of old WD flavor where there are battle reports, conversions, gold daemon competition; for a time it was just printed images for a few years, don't know about current
Extra con: Their efforts to make absolutely sure you can't use minis from other companies in their game also mean I can't buy GW minis to use in other games as easily as I used to be able to (this is more a problem with fantasy than 40k).
I have to say intercesors are a bad example of this. Is exxtremely easy to just give them arms from old marines that completely change the pose.
The only loss from tácticals to intercesors was the separation of torso and legs. And one just has to look at tácticals legs poses to see thats no lose at all.
TBH this is worse in aos. At least most 40k kits have variety of heads etc...
Galas wrote: I have to say intercesors are a bad example of this. Is exxtremely easy to just give them arms from old marines that completely change the pose.
The only loss from tácticals to intercesors was the separation of torso and legs. And one just has to look at tácticals legs poses to see thats no lose at all.
TBH this is worse in aos. At least most 40k kits have variety of heads etc...
See that pointing intercessor in the middle?
Spoiler:
He is from the ETB set that also has been part of the conquest magazine multiple times and appears in all sorts of paint sets.
I swear, playing against intercessors here essentially feels like this:
I do think going from multipose kits to monopose kits was a serious step backwards.
However, I'd be willing to tolerate it if GW would at least give us some nice mutlipose kits for characters, backed up by a decent number of wargear options (not just Relics).
The aforementioned Exalted Sorcerers of Tzeentch kit is a great example of what I'd like to see and probably sets the bar.
Instead, however, we seem to be increasingly seeing character kits that are just as monopose as the special character kits (sometimes even more so), which then get most or all of their wargear options removed as a result. And IMO the latter is just as important as the former, if not more. I can, after all, convert a character model if the existing one(s) don't suit. But it's a great deal harder to create rules for wargear that no longer exists.
Stick me in the "monopose is bad" boat. I love kitbashing and reposing stuff. Honestly if I could still do it easily I'd probably still be playing the game. That said the issue of prices raises its ugly head again and I just can't afford to buy multiple kits to turn 30 monopose models into 10 dynamic ones.
For me, it depends on the kit. I've built 'golden age of reposing' armies like dark eldar and harlequins, as well as 'monopose' armies like idoneth deepkin.
If a kit is monopose but provides me with more meat as a converter - i.e., different body types, drastically different torso positions, drastically different arm positions, then I prefer that to a multipose kit where you're hard-limited by the fact that all the legs and torsos are in the exact same position and there's only so many ways to hold a weapon. The kabalite warrior kit, for example, all the miniatures are standing, and theyre all holding guns in two hands. theres only so many subtle variations of that you can do.
The Namarti Thralls kit, by contrast, is one of those 'each model has 1-2 preset arm setups, with a couple of points of true freedom, usually head and some accessory.
But the Namarti Thralls kit comes with two drastically different body types (male and female models) and a wide variety of different walking and standing poses. Additionally one of the two points of true freedom in the kit is kind of a tassel thing hanging off their collars, which allows you to indicate the motion of the model you're posing. Also, the weapons the models are equipped with range from halberds, battleaxes, spears, swords, big glaives, etc rather than just one single type of weapon you swing one single way. Even some of the totally monopose models, like one taking a big, sideways swing with a two-handed weapon, are just so evocative and awesome that you can easily replace the weapon with one that looks totally different, swap the head and swap the tassel around to create a completely different looking figure. With one tassel and the default axe, you've got a figure just finishing the backswing of a motion trying to chop somebody in half. With a different tassel, a head looking the other way, and the wapon reversed, the model is now winding up for a swing. With another different tassel and the head of the weaon changed out again, you've got a model that's getting ready to thrust a spear.
It does take more effort to repose them - you have to do more than just take arm A and attach to torso B to make a different looking model - but you're able to get much, much more fundamentally distinct looking poses, and I happily kitbashed an extra set of every single generic idoneth character using spare bits from the other kits as well as 40 completely distinct, noticeably different namarti.
When GW locks a special weapon - like the aforementioned Scion plasma gun - to a single pose, that does suck absolute ass. And when a model you need to have a ton of just has a highly limited, distinctive pose, I do hate that. And I definitely do not get quite as many easily reuseable bits from my more recent model kits than from older ones. But I don't think it's fair to say GW is actually regressing, just because back in the 'golden age' most armies still had a significant portion of their units in really truly monopose kits.
I can be annoyed as much as I like by the limited poseability of, say, the Wrack kit (which I hate) but I can't say it's not better than the previous wrack kit...which was finecast and totally completely monopose. Similarly would I rather try to get distinct poses out of two boxes of the new Incubi than two boxes of the old Incubi? Yeah, every day of the week, I actually CAN get new poses from the new incubi.
I will say that converting is harder for me, but not because of the poses. It is because of how the kits come.
If you buy a Guard Squad, everything just kinda is obvious what it does.
If you buy a Blissbarb Archer squad, they essentially come powdered. There are bits that are literally incomprehensible until you find where in the directions it says to use them.
Both of these are horde boxes for their respective armies.
Blissbarb Archers undeniably look cooler "stock" then guardsmen, but converting a mini where any given bit might be structural or not and even what that bit IS is a mystery is much more difficult.
Yes we seem to be stuck in a weird transition from too many wargear options (in practice only a handful were worth it), to too few. With different kits getting nonsensical limitations. My favourite is my deathwatch - I can't use my chainsword guys in kill team because there it isn't on the kit so can't be a wargear option, but because in 40k its thought you might use the regular kit, it is...
Unit1126PLL wrote: I will say that converting is harder for me, but not because of the poses. It is because of how the kits come.
If you buy a Guard Squad, everything just kinda is obvious what it does.
If you buy a Blissbarb Archer squad, they essentially come powdered. There are bits that are literally incomprehensible until you find where in the directions it says to use them.
Both of these are horde boxes for their respective armies.
Blissbarb Archers undeniably look cooler "stock" then guardsmen, but converting a mini where any given bit might be structural or not and even what that bit IS is a mystery is much more difficult.
My method is typically to take my first box, build them completely stock to find out where my points of true freedom are and then you know where you need to cut to easily modify.
See, I would so much rather convert new poses from this kit than guardsmen. I could get so many interesting alternate poses so much more easily, simply because I have fully separated limbs and open stances, while guardsmen...basically never look good, or distinct.
The biggest problem that exists in this discussion is how interchangeably people seem to use the term "multipose" for kits that are really just "multipart".
Unit1126PLL wrote: I will say that converting is harder for me, but not because of the poses. It is because of how the kits come.
If you buy a Guard Squad, everything just kinda is obvious what it does.
If you buy a Blissbarb Archer squad, they essentially come powdered. There are bits that are literally incomprehensible until you find where in the directions it says to use them.
Both of these are horde boxes for their respective armies.
Blissbarb Archers undeniably look cooler "stock" then guardsmen, but converting a mini where any given bit might be structural or not and even what that bit IS is a mystery is much more difficult.
My method is typically to take my first box, build them completely stock to find out where my points of true freedom are and then you know where you need to cut to easily modify.
See, I would so much rather convert new poses from this kit than guardsmen. I could get so many interesting alternate poses so much more easily, simply because I have fully separated limbs and open stances, while guardsmen...basically never look good, or distinct.
See, I want to give them all guns to use them as 30k cultists. I can figure it out, but it is much more difficult than, say, adding guns to High Elf Spearmen.
*That said*, you are right, if you are after multiple boxes and are okay having an AoS unit built before you can move on to your 40k unit.
Kanluwen wrote: The biggest problem that exists in this discussion is how interchangeably people seem to use the term "multipose" for kits that are really just "multipart".
I think only problem the new models have is that for some armies the units look wierd. 20 "identical" intercessors, where you have to be told which has a fist or hammer, is not a problem. But having one model in five do a hand stand, when you are running 3-4 of such unit, just looks bad. Plus the what is in the box equals unit load out, that thing is a horrible idea.
Kanluwen wrote: The biggest problem that exists in this discussion is how interchangeably people seem to use the term "multipose" for kits that are really just "multipart".
People also mix in "interchangeable with other kits" and a bit of "no model, no rules" for extra spice.
Kanluwen wrote: The biggest problem that exists in this discussion is how interchangeably people seem to use the term "multipose" for kits that are really just "multipart".
I cant tell if youre using this as an opportunity to dunk on the old 'golden age' kits that are like "you can make any pose you want, as long as it's a variation on standing with your legs farther apart than your shoulders!" or the new kits that are like "we have artisanally crafted two specific poses that your aberrants can be in, they are completely different looking but totally fixed unless you're willing to get chopping."
Kanluwen wrote: The biggest problem that exists in this discussion is how interchangeably people seem to use the term "multipose" for kits that are really just "multipart".
I cant tell if youre using this as an opportunity to dunk on the old 'golden age' kits that are like "you can make any pose you want, as long as it's a variation on standing with your legs farther apart than your shoulders!" or the new kits that are like "we have artisanally crafted two specific poses that your aberrants can be in, they are completely different looking but totally fixed unless you're willing to get chopping."
More dunking on the people that insist that the former are somehow superior, because "omg the heads can look whatever way you want them to!" or whatever and use "multipose" to talk about those kinds of kits while insisting newer kits are "monopose" because they're easier builds
Your method of "first box is built generic, rest are open play" is about where I've been at of late. I sold them off ages ago, but it was unbelievable how simply trimming a bit of the Cairn Wraith's arms down could make dramatically different poses for the scythes in their hands.
Honestly it isn't even the posing that bothers me, it's that the kits basically come powdered. Building minis used to be fun for me, but after building some of the new AoS kits, I actively don't want to suffer that much anymore.
Building Slickblade Seekers was suffering...
...Though they are Slaanesh so I suppose appropriate.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Honestly it isn't even the posing that bothers me, it's that the kits basically come powdered. Building minis used to be fun for me, but after building some of the new AoS kits, I actively don't want to suffer that much anymore.
Building Slickblade Seekers was suffering...
...Though they are Slaanesh so I suppose appropriate.
I'll be honest I don't really know what you mean by 'powdered.' Personally I'll take 'it isnt exactly clear to me how to assemble each model' over trying to figure out which melon-fething god damn shoulder-to-wrist arm segment even comes close to lining up properly with which arm-with-a-gun-with-a-sculpted-on-hand and whether I've got the wrong one or if I'm just not supposed to be rotating it as far as I am, and it's intended to be posed as "holding the gun down at the waist" rather than "holding the gun in a firing position."
Current assembly can be confused and a bit unintuitive - what exactly am I looking at here, is this "part of a shoulder to half of a limb"? how should I rotate this? but once you've got it figured out, the actual gluing part generally goes off without a hitch because gw these days tends to favor having models that almost, but not quite, assemble completely dry, so add a little glue and they essentially go together instantly.
Since superglue is apparently some kind of non-newtonian seven dimensional superfluid that cures at some point between "instantly" and "hold the model in its intended position for a half hour, then let it go and the fething arm falls off" I can appreciate the gains from slightly illogical assembly after many a string of curses from trying to assemble wrists.
vipoid wrote: Instead, however, we seem to be increasingly seeing character kits that are just as monopose as the special character kits (sometimes even more so), which then get most or all of their wargear options removed as a result. And IMO the latter is just as important as the former, if not more. I can, after all, convert a character model if the existing one(s) don't suit. But it's a great deal harder to create rules for wargear that no longer exists.
The absolute nadir of this trend has to be the unit that is literally called "Captain with Master-Crafted Heavy Bolt Rifle". It's not enough that you can have a Captain with Gravis Armour, who has the option to take a MC Heavy Bolt Rifle and a Power Sword. No that mono-pose model has its own entry in the Codex.
Now don't get me wrong, I really like that model, but we've fallen a long way since WFB's double-HQ multi-part packs and the Space Marine Captain kit (imagine that with modern day plastics - a sprue filled with bits and options).
vipoid wrote: Instead, however, we seem to be increasingly seeing character kits that are just as monopose as the special character kits (sometimes even more so), which then get most or all of their wargear options removed as a result. And IMO the latter is just as important as the former, if not more. I can, after all, convert a character model if the existing one(s) don't suit. But it's a great deal harder to create rules for wargear that no longer exists.
The absolute nadir of this trend has to be the unit that is literally called "Captain with Master-Crafted Heavy Bolt Rifle". It's not enough that you can have a Captain with Gravis Armour, who has the option to take a MC Heavy Bolt Rifle and a Power Sword. No that mono-pose model has its own entry in the Codex.
Now don't get me wrong, I really like that model, but we've fallen a long way since WFB's double-HQ multi-part packs and the Space Marine Captain kit (imagine that with modern day plastics - a sprue filled with bits and options).
I still think the full list of all bolt weapons or the Options section of the plague marine datasheet are better for inducing instantaneous linda blair projectile vomit from any human being with eyes.
but then GW has moved far away from it's roots as a game company by gamers for gamers to a big corporate model maker first (their words) that happens to have a game attached to their models.
I love how one quote from one failed CEO from years ago is now representative of all GW thinking always. lol
That quote is a relic of the Kirby era. Due to how massive a disaster that era was, they completely revamped the game to make it more fun and accessible, and have put a ton of tools in place to make better improvements faster to the game. All things they wouldn't do if they didn't care about the game.
Their financial filings still say they're a miniature company, which is obviously the truth from looking at their priorities and where their money comes from.
They just realized they need to pay a little more attention to the rules side of things, because it's the excuse that gets lots of people buying said models.
yukishiro1 wrote: Their financial filings still say they're a miniature company, which is obviously the truth from looking at their priorities and where their money comes from.
They just realized they need to pay a little more attention to the rules side of things, because it's the excuse that gets lots of people buying said models.
The implication from the quite I referenced is that they don't care about the game at all. This is essentially what Kirby meant when he said that. It's just not true. Yeah, most of the revenue comes from the models so that's how they report - "We're a model company", but they are at least actively working to improve the game now, so backhanded comments like that just don't apply anymore. I don't always agree with what they do rules-wise, and they have a LONG way to go, but it's so much better than it ever has been in that department that I just don't get the sentiment.
Roundtree was an executive at GW during that era (CFO I think?) and Kirby isn't gone. He is just his own special executive guy now. I think he is even still on the board, though not sure.
Roundtree was an executive at GW during that era (CFO I think?) and Kirby isn't gone. He is just his own special executive guy now. I think he is even still on the board, though not sure.
The Kirby era very definitively ended when he stepped down as CEO. I believe you are correct that he may still be on the board, but he no longer has a controlling hand in decision making. To say "We're still in the Kirby era" in the face of the complete 180 GW has pulled since the man stepped down is a bit ... daft? IDK what word I'm looking for but let's look at it like this:
Kirby era defined as:
- No community engagement at all (no social media no blog, nothing)
- They stopped doing previews ahead of time due to fear of leaks
- Weekly white dwarf with severely truncated quality but with much needed rules added to require you to buy it
- Several units reboxed in a remarkably anti-consumer method
- Massive rules bloat and point drops forcing players to buy more and more
- No play testing, no real avenue for discussion
- No tournament support
- No community support
- The finecast decision (many people THINK they understand this - most don't. I can elaborate if anyone needs)
- Some of the most blatant anti-consumer behavior we've seen
- Oh it's broken? That sucks for you.
- Here's your Admech! And also a totally separate Skitarii book. Because MONEY!
- New codexes? No! Release 8 million smaller supplements. MOAR BLOAT FOR THE BLOAT GOD!
Let's look at what we have since then:
- Multiple avenues of community contact - they even do podcasts now
- Record levels of community engagement
- Encouragement to play the game at smaller sizes
- Back to a normal WD that sometimes has optional rules in it (no more REQUIRED purchases of WD)
- Play testing for the first time ever (arguable whether or not they're doing it right - it is NOT arguable that it's a huge step forward)
- Tournament support and actively engaging the tournament scene
- Still some anti-consumer issues, but no where near what it was
- Significant effort to streamline rules for a more compact game.
- Bloat could be further removed, they aren't doing the best hob with it, but the rules have never been more organized, and they are at least making an effort here
- Oh it's broken? Ok. We will make sure to address it at the next FAQ release!
Yeah - those two eras seem pretty identical to me .....
GW put on a different face for the customer, but didn't fundamentally change.
It's got a new suit, a fancy different mask, and possibly even remodeled it's house.
Most of the things you mentioned there were "face" changes. Not fundamental organizational redesigns or anything. They still bloat the rules, they still have supplements (arguably even worse now that they are Day 1 DLC).
I will grant you that they did add:
1) playtests
2) increased release speed for dexes and FAQs.
Arguable whether the first really is different than how it used to be (people say they didn't playtest, other people say they do). But it is definitely more "public facing" now than it was. A mask, or a real change, who knows.
The second is slowing back down (yes, Covid is probably impacting it). We will have to see if everyone gets to a 9th dex before we go on to 10th before I pass judgement but for now I agree this has improved.
Unit1126PLL wrote: GW put on a different face for the customer, but didn't fundamentally change.
It's got a new suit, a fancy different mask, and possibly even remodeled it's house.
Most of the things you mentioned there were "face" changes. Not fundamental organizational redesigns or anything. They still bloat the rules, they still have supplements (arguably even worse now that they are Day 1 DLC).
I will grant you that they did add:
1) playtests
2) increased release speed for dexes and FAQs.
Arguable whether the first really is different than how it used to be (people say they didn't playtest, other people say they do). But it is definitely more "public facing" now than it was. A mask, or a real change, who knows.
The second is slowing back down (yes, Covid is probably impacting it). We will have to see if everyone gets to a 9th dex before we go on to 10th before I pass judgement but for now I agree this has improved.
They added entire new departments of entirely new people in order to accomplish this and that's not a fundamental organizational redesign? Ok.
They redid every marketing stream, reconstructed their entire brand strategy and fundamentally changed a very large part of how they actually do business. Did ALL of it change? No. Did some of the crappier parts stay? Yeah. Sadly. But you put it like there's literally no difference between where we are now and where we were during Kirby's reign and that's just a pretty gross over-exaggeration imo.
And yes, Covid is absolutely the reason for most of the slow downs. I'm not one to stick up too hard for GW, but seeing how it's impacted other, more critical industries, I think it's safe to say we can't blame the current slow downs on them.
A mask or a real change to how they handle play testing? Remember when, in 5th edition, the play testers all said Grey Knights were way too OP and to not release them? No. You don't because there weren't any. But of course you DO remember when, upon release they were CLEARLY OP and GW confirmed this via community outreach and FAQ'd it so that they wouldn't be abusive through most of the edition. Oh wait no. That didn't happen either.
But hey, remember the recent adjustments they made to their tournament pack based on feedback and play testing? Yes. You do. Because that actually happened. I agree they don't have it quite right yet (GW themselves essentially admitted that the play testers flagged IH as too powerful and that corporate ignored them and released anyway), but I feel like you have to have some blinders on to not see this as an honest and real shift.
Unit1126PLL wrote: GW put on a different face for the customer, but didn't fundamentally change.
It's got a new suit, a fancy different mask, and possibly even remodeled it's house.
Most of the things you mentioned there were "face" changes. Not fundamental organizational redesigns or anything. They still bloat the rules, they still have supplements (arguably even worse now that they are Day 1 DLC).
I will grant you that they did add:
1) playtests
2) increased release speed for dexes and FAQs.
Arguable whether the first really is different than how it used to be (people say they didn't playtest, other people say they do). But it is definitely more "public facing" now than it was. A mask, or a real change, who knows.
The second is slowing back down (yes, Covid is probably impacting it). We will have to see if everyone gets to a 9th dex before we go on to 10th before I pass judgement but for now I agree this has improved.
They added entire new departments of entirely new people in order to accomplish this and that's not a fundamental organizational redesign? Ok.
And yes, Covid is absolutely the reason for most of the slow downs. I'm not one to stick up too hard for GW, but seeing how it's impacted other, more critical industries, I think it's safe to say we can't blame the current slow downs on them.
A mask or a real change to how they handle play testing? Remember when, in 5th edition, the play testers all said Grey Knights were way too OP and to not release them? No. You don't because there weren't any. But of course you DO remember when, upon release they were CLEARLY OP and GW confirmed this via community outreach and FAQ'd it so that they wouldn't be abusive through most of the edition. Oh wait no. That didn't happen either.
But hey, remember the recent adjustments they made to their tournament pack based on feedback and play testing? Yes. You do. Because that actually happened. I agree they don't have it quite right yet (GW themselves essentially admitted that the play testers flagged IH as too powerful and that corporate ignored them and released anyway), but I feel like you have to have some blinders on to see this as an honest and real shift.
Source on GW adding *entire new departments of entirely new people*? I haven't heard that one, and I haven't really seen evidence of it. They've probably added 2 or 3 people because they have been releasing codices faster, that's true, but that's not the same as what you said.
Unit1126PLL wrote: GW put on a different face for the customer, but didn't fundamentally change.
It's got a new suit, a fancy different mask, and possibly even remodeled it's house.
Most of the things you mentioned there were "face" changes. Not fundamental organizational redesigns or anything. They still bloat the rules, they still have supplements (arguably even worse now that they are Day 1 DLC).
I will grant you that they did add:
1) playtests
2) increased release speed for dexes and FAQs.
Arguable whether the first really is different than how it used to be (people say they didn't playtest, other people say they do). But it is definitely more "public facing" now than it was. A mask, or a real change, who knows.
The second is slowing back down (yes, Covid is probably impacting it). We will have to see if everyone gets to a 9th dex before we go on to 10th before I pass judgement but for now I agree this has improved.
They added entire new departments of entirely new people in order to accomplish this and that's not a fundamental organizational redesign? Ok.
And yes, Covid is absolutely the reason for most of the slow downs. I'm not one to stick up too hard for GW, but seeing how it's impacted other, more critical industries, I think it's safe to say we can't blame the current slow downs on them.
A mask or a real change to how they handle play testing? Remember when, in 5th edition, the play testers all said Grey Knights were way too OP and to not release them? No. You don't because there weren't any. But of course you DO remember when, upon release they were CLEARLY OP and GW confirmed this via community outreach and FAQ'd it so that they wouldn't be abusive through most of the edition. Oh wait no. That didn't happen either.
But hey, remember the recent adjustments they made to their tournament pack based on feedback and play testing? Yes. You do. Because that actually happened. I agree they don't have it quite right yet (GW themselves essentially admitted that the play testers flagged IH as too powerful and that corporate ignored them and released anyway), but I feel like you have to have some blinders on to see this as an honest and real shift.
Source on GW adding *entire new departments of entirely new people*? I haven't heard that one, and I haven't really seen evidence of it. They've probably added 2 or 3 people because they have been releasing codices faster, that's true, but that's not the same as what you said.
They have added a good chunk of the web team and have expanded marketing and community outreach. They hired Mike Brandt (apologies I may have that last name misspelled - I ALWAYS misspell it) and several others to similar new positions. They hired a good grouping of people moving into 8th and again into 9th. True, they also moved around a lot of folks who were already in the company, but they got moved in to new departments. Do you honestly think a company can go from no website (other than the store site), no social media, no community outreach or digital presence at all for nearly a decade to having everything they have running now without some fundamental shifts and new people?
Something that changed after Roundtree took over was splitting the dev teams up so that 40k, AoS and specialist games have different teama who focus on their respecitive games. This has left Cruddace as the only known long time dev working on 40k now that Kelly is writing AoS lore, Vetock is doing LotR, and Jervis is.more of a general manager for the teams rather than being a dev.
Now we know that the teams do talk a bit while inventing new rules, but generally they work seperately from each other.
They have added a good chunk of the web team and have expanded marketing and community outreach. They hired Mike Brandt (apologies I may have that last name misspelled - I ALWAYS misspell it) and several others to similar new positions. They hired a good grouping of people moving into 8th and again into 9th. True, they also moved around a lot of folks who were already in the company, but they got moved in to new departments. Do you honestly think a company can go from no website (other than the store site), no social media, no community outreach or digital presence at all for nearly a decade to having everything they have running now without some fundamental shifts and new people?
Okay, I'll give you the fact that they hired people since they had literally no web presence. But why should I care that GW hired a bunch of marketers who are (frankly) terrible at *good* marketing, relying on cheap clickbait and hype tricks? None of that makes the game better and it's 100% to Unit's point.
They have added a good chunk of the web team and have expanded marketing and community outreach. They hired Mike Brandt (apologies I may have that last name misspelled - I ALWAYS misspell it) and several others to similar new positions. They hired a good grouping of people moving into 8th and again into 9th. True, they also moved around a lot of folks who were already in the company, but they got moved in to new departments. Do you honestly think a company can go from no website (other than the store site), no social media, no community outreach or digital presence at all for nearly a decade to having everything they have running now without some fundamental shifts and new people?
Okay, I'll give you the fact that they hired people since they had literally no web presence. But why should I care that GW hired a bunch of marketers who are (frankly) terrible at *good* marketing, relying on cheap clickbait and hype tricks? None of that makes the game better and it's 100% to Unit's point.
So I don't think you really read the entire post. Or maybe you misunderstood it?
My point was that they have made large changes that were generally just blown off by UNIT. Does the fact that they have an Instagram account make the game better? You could argue for yes and no and be right and wrong in both cases.
Does the fact that they actually talk to and engage with the community again make for a better over-all experience? Yeah, I think it does.
And while you're right that maybe having a better web presence doesn't change the game quality, you know what does? All the other changes I listed that were done hand in hand with this one in order to create an over all better, more engaging experience. Don't get me wrong! I'm not trying to white knight here. I think I did a good job of showing where they are still failing too. It's not all roses and rainbows here.
My main point was just that you have the Kirby era and you have whatever we're going to call the modern era, and it's two dramatically different companies. I think most people (myself included) like "this GW" far better.
vipoid wrote: Regarding monopose models, this is the sort of thing I hate seeing:
I don't know if these actually count as monopose or not but it's the same issue either way. Four of them are fine but look at the plasmagunner - instead of holding his gun normally (like he's about to fire it) he's holding it up in the air and pointing with his off-hand.
This is fine if you've one got one unit but when you start fielding multiples the fact that every plasmagunner is holding his gun in one hand will start to get very noticeable very quickly.
And this, I will remind you, is a unit that can potentially have 4 plasmagunners. There are no variant models with plasmaguns so if you make four then your Command Squad is going to start looking less like elite warriors and more like children on a school trip.
It's especially funny to me, because I've been playing with 28 of those buggers recently. Lol.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
There aren't 3 ways to play, in the grimdarkness of the 21st Millennium there is only...MATCHED PLAY!!!!
Anything less is just kitchen table level anyway & only a moron would fool themselves into thinking thats how you play REAL 40k at all.
The rules are just as bad as any edition of 40k I've played- maybe more, with the extra verbiage that makes reading them a headache.
There are previews, and faster releases.
With errata on or soon after release.
GW sells points changes.
3 Ways To Play is entirely useless. "Narrative" play needs, what, special scenarios? (It would help if GW broadened their idea of "narrative" The story is whatever happens during the game, and it's much more engaging when that happens naturally. That gives you cool moments- like my RWBK sergeant jinking through a full round of fire from an IK, then zooming onto an objective to tie the game. Open Play is patronizing, really. Do they actually think we feel the need for express permission to do whatever we want with our toys? Geez.
"No model no rules" happened. Instead of, maybe. manufacturing minis for them instead! Or, heavens, including all the bits for all combinations of wargear in the kit?
If you want to chat during a GW twitch stream, you must pay $4.99 a month for the privilege. Yes, people will complain, be toxic, blah blah blah. That is what mods are for. This creates a dynamic of "preaching to the choir."
The greatest change is GW discovered marketing. The Community Team is is not well informed because GW inter-departmental communication sucks. WarCom, twitter, twitch, etc. etc. But all you hear from marketing is trite drivel loaded with hyperbole and forced game/lore references. It's complete "hello, fellow kids!"
Community engagement is one-way. A great example of communication between company and players is Reaper's twitch streams.
It is apparent that GW remains terribly out of touch with what players want (I mean rules, not minis like SOB) and their industry. They haven't a clue. Yet, somehow, LOTR and WHUWs are good games.
On scions and plasmaguns: to combat that issue, I ended up converting the plasma weapons from hellblasters using the grenade launcher arms from the scion kit. They won't be confused with plasma cannons (scions can't equip them) and they look pretty ace. Best part is, I can pawn off the plasmaguns to players who don't mind having pointy plasma dudes. The rest of the hellblasters got bolt pistols and chainswords to make assault intercessors.
Tycho wrote: - Significant effort to streamline rules for a more compact game.
Well this point's not true...
Ok. I was talking about the BRB as it relates to now vs the Kirby era. Have they lost control of the bloat again? Yup. I even listed that as something they were struggling with. But you can't possibly tell me the core rules for 8th/9th are not more streamlined than they were in 6/7th.
And honestly, bloat is still a thing yeah, but it's nowhere near what it was ... Not when the core rules for 8th fit on fewer pages than just the USRs for 7th
That's essentially the definition of a more compact game and streamlined rules.
3 Ways To Play is entirely useless. "Narrative" play needs, what, special scenarios? (It would help if GW broadened their idea of "narrative" The story is whatever happens during the game, and it's much more engaging when that happens naturally. That gives you cool moments- like my RWBK sergeant jinking through a full round of fire from an IK, then zooming onto an objective to tie the game. Open Play is patronizing, really. Do they actually think we feel the need for express permission to do whatever we want with our toys? Geez.
Well, troll is as troll writes.
I do my damned best to cut tourney players slack and talk about how they're an important part of the community and their concerns are often valid, even though I do genuinely feel that the meta-chasing mentality possessed by many competitive players is far more responsible for their dissatisfaction than anything GW has done.
But if you want to dismiss people and the elements of they game they enjoy, I suppose it's your prerogative. My Penitent Vanguard is too busy fighting to redeem the honour of their fallen mission to really miss you while you're away from the table struggling to memorize everyone else's list of strategems and smashing the buttons off your calculator to squeeze just .16 more damage per point or whatever twisted ratio will get you a tourney win.
And I've said it before, the folks who post here about Open play really do seem to be happier than both of us, and my mind isn't yet closed enough to assume there's nothing they might know which we don't. I'm glad GW cares about players like them and players like me. Clearly all that matters to you is you, so enjoy the next meta-watch article, and may you find within it whatever it is you need to be happy... That is, assuming such a thing is even possible.
Tycho wrote: - Significant effort to streamline rules for a more compact game.
Well this point's not true...
They've made a significant effort to streamline the rules, but if you make the rules shorter without considering why they exist you end up having to write a longer game to keep people playing. The most bloated games in the world are the ones that the writers set out to make a simple and easy set of core rules, and then discovered that beyond a certain point the simple, easy core rules become really dull, and they need to stack extra mechanics on top of them to keep the game going.
ryzouken wrote: On scions and plasmaguns: to combat that issue, I ended up converting the plasma weapons from hellblasters using the grenade launcher arms from the scion kit. They won't be confused with plasma cannons (scions can't equip them) and they look pretty ace. Best part is, I can pawn off the plasmaguns to players who don't mind having pointy plasma dudes. The rest of the hellblasters got bolt pistols and chainswords to make assault intercessors.
Half of the plasma guns on my Scions came from Grey Hunter/Blood Claw kits.
On that subject It was a bit annoying the way they had the Scion holding the plasma gun but the kits was definitely not monopose.
I think people are seriously misrepresenting just how bad late Kirby era was. If 40k 8th had hit under Kirby you wouldn't have had points, or even power levels, and may well have been saddled with random initiative (for reference, top of each round the players roll off and the winner decides who goes first that round). And that is just the tip of the iceberg for AoS' deficiencies at launch.
Expensive prices? We are just now hitting a point where the most expensive new releases match what GW was putting out in 2015. No, it doesn't mean there is no problems with now, just that ohhh boy was Kirby era worse.
The company launched a white Dwarf model that was just exclusive packaging on a years-old standard hero figure!
The company launched a white Dwarf model that was just exclusive packaging on a years-old standard hero figure!
That was done after AoS launched I'm pretty sure, which means it was a Rountree era decision.
Also the amount of people praising GW for doing some very basic gak a table top game company in 2021 is astounding to me. NuGW is the best example of The Emperors New Clothes I've ever seen.
That time was bad, very bad from a gamers point of view
Yet GW did not get back to the "from Gamers for Gamers" stuff that was there before Kirby took over
3 ways to play as an argument for new-GW is stupid
this 3 ways to play have been there since the very beginning of 40k, just because it was not heavily advertised and not a lot of people used it does not mean it was not there
Scenarios with asymetric victory conditions for narritive play (attacker/defender), or OpenPlay were normal Friday Night Store Events in 3rd/4th.
GW has now just accepted that the Game is important to sell models and you need to active support the game to get things going
The Scenario based System with no points equal to some historical Wargames that JJ wanted just does not fit with the easy access on/off pick up games people see as the biggest strength of GW (on the other hand there are people out there who will not use any system that has point costs for models for reasons, just check out some reviews for Lasalle 2nd Edi rules were the designer advertised it with points to have matched play like games, and those people consider themselves the "real" wargamers)
What we have now:
using non-GW heads/weapons on GW models is forbidden for official GW events
Unit options are exactly for what is in the Box, not just simply adding a Wargear option to the unit no one is going to use because there is a model with a knife around, but only allow the options that come with 1 box
GW has build up some goodwill with their marketing but is slowly turning around to the bad times of Kirby again
Sim-Life wrote: Also the amount of people praising GW for doing some very basic gak a table top game company in 2021 is astounding to me.
Is "what other companies already do for years" relevant to a person who doesn't play / isn't interested in their game?
you can praise a car manufactorer for finally adding a safty belt for the driver seat (and only the driver seat) in 2021, although it is industry standard for 40 years now but because you don't drive cars from other companies it is not relevant what the industry standard is and you have to be really excited about this new things
Sim-Life wrote: Also the amount of people praising GW for doing some very basic gak a table top game company in 2021 is astounding to me.
Is "what other companies already do for years" relevant to a person who doesn't play / isn't interested in their game?
you can praise a car manufactorer for finally adding a safty belt for the driver seat (and only the driver seat) in 2021, although it is industry standard for 40 years now but because you don't drive cars from other companies it is not relevant what the industry standard is and you have to be really excited about this new things
Your comparison is weak. GW not having a Youtube channel does not endanger me or my fellow players when playing their game.
And yeah, if for whatever reason you HAVE to drive that manufacturer's cars, because otherwise in some places you would not get to use a car at all (=no communities for other games, as many posters reported in the past), then I would be freaking nuts about finally getting seatbelts lol. Not exactly helping your point.
Sim-Life wrote: Also the amount of people praising GW for doing some very basic gak a table top game company in 2021 is astounding to me.
Is "what other companies already do for years" relevant to a person who doesn't play / isn't interested in their game?
Is not acknowledging improvement (combined with a "took you long enough" or "whatever, company XY does this even better") a healthier take?
When the argument is "GW actually hasn't changed much at all" then yes. I don't think they deserve praise. The things that other companies do that MATTER like free rules, community engagement and attempting to make a game good are things GW very half-heartedly attempt to do.
Rules are more expensive than ever, their Warhammer Community page and social media is basically being used as advertising and rarely addresses the communities concerns. Meanwhile they take money they COULD use to improve the game by hiring playtesters or actually good rules writers to buy up fan creator projects, alter their creations to suit their corporate sensibilites and launch crap like proprietary apps for a streaming service no one asked for or wanted. Meanwhile the game ping pongs around in terms of balance as GW slaps things with a sledgehammer every 8 months or so hoping this time it'll work and if it doesn't they'll just dump some more models and a couple extra rules on the problem that they'll charge you $40 for.
Meanwhile you have other companies like Wyrd who have free rules, a free crew building app with all the model rules for free, an official forum for the community to center around and frequent erratas and rules changes, frequently hold community events etc etc
Meanwhile you have other companies like Wyrd who have free rules, a free crew building app with all the model rules for free, an official forum for the community to center around and frequent erratas and rules changes, frequently hold community events etc etc
Many companies do that
PP, DUST, infinity etc...
Just not GW, however with the advances in 3d printing within the next 5 years that may be all they will have left.
PenitentJake wrote: The game size is a super important engagement feature. I'd add the three ways to play to that list of engagement features as well.
There aren't 3 ways to play, in the grimdarkness of the 21st Millennium there is only...MATCHED PLAY!!!!
Anything less is just kitchen table level anyway & only a moron would fool themselves into thinking thats how you play REAL 40k at all.
Bah. The three ways to play in 8th were a joke, it was three versions matched play with your choice points or PL.
However, in 9th there are three actual different ways to play the game: Crusade, Matched Play/Grand Tournament Pack(defined missions and secondaries) and something I don't really want to call open play - essentially just playing some mission without secondaries or agendas. In addition, you have real support for four different game sizes.
NinthMusketeer wrote: We are just now hitting a point where the most expensive new releases match what GW was putting out in 2015.
Come again?
Actually he's correct. 5 man Stormcast boxes for 45€, Varanguard, 3 big horse bois for 80€, the full Fyreslayers line, etc... Release prices for AoS stuff was just insane
2013-2015 was the last time Nids have seen new kits and after looking a bit for their prices at the time, they were already at levels of the 2021 releases like Heavy Intercessors. Or even worse in some cases.
2015 prices
$51 for three Tyranid Warriors
$70 for three Hive Guards
$63 for Zoanthropes/Venomthropes
$80 for Harpy/Crone
$73 for Maleceptor/Toxicrene
$63 for Tyrannocyte/Sporocyst
(I found the prices in USD on a older blog post from 2015)
The price of Tyranid Warriors is a travesty. I wish they were given true terrifying rules and make them xeno custodes troops costing each one something like 40-50 ppm. I love them, and I always wanted to make a heavy tyranid warrior army, but I won't.
Because paying 42,50€ for a box of 3 20ppm miniatures just hurts.
Kitane wrote: 2013-2015 was the last time Nids have seen new kits and after looking a bit for their prices at the time, they were already at levels of the 2021 releases like Heavy Intercessors. Or even worse in some cases.
2015 prices
$51 for three Tyranid Warriors
$70 for three Hive Guards
$63 for Zoanthropes/Venomthropes
$80 for Harpy/Crone
$73 for Maleceptor/Toxicrene
$63 for Tyrannocyte/Sporocyst
(I found the prices in USD on a older blog post from 2015)
Yep, and the Haruspex/Exocrine from the release right before this one has the same issue. And of course, crap like Pyrovores costing almost $40 for 25 points of stuff. I've long been an advocate of Nids getting trumped up rules to equalize their trumped up prices, but mostly GW makes things usable by bargain-basementing them in terms of points (or just making them not useful at all, like most of those expensive monsters.)
Yet GW did not get back to the "from Gamers for Gamers" stuff that was there before Kirby took over
Honestly, "for gamers by gamers" died with second ed. You still had some elements of it in White Dwarf, but even that didn't make it much past fourth. For the game itself? I feel like they're closer to that ideal than they've been since maybe early 5th? It will never go back to what it was in RT days where it truly was "by gamers for gamers", but the sales/corporate offices had been slowly taking over for years, with 7th being the ultimate culmination of that take over (being fully "sales lead" rather than "design lead").
But yeah, "for gamers by gamers" hasn't been a thing since I was a kid. A long time ago. In a galaxy far far away ...
kodos wrote: basically since Kirby bought in an needed to make money fast to pay back his loan
Going to say that's been paid off for years. Being publicly traded means that the company focuses on profit margins over all else. These margins are fixed above cost and when anything bumps costs (say adding a new sprue to a kit, or Brexit) then GW will adjust the price so they maintain the same profit margin. And yes, I think their margin is too high as the amount of product they move could allow them to continue making record profits with a lower margin (in fact one could argue they'd sell even more with a lower margin due to the better price point). And it doesn't help that despite all these price increases it doesn't seem GW is passing the increased profits onto their employees with permenant wage increases, merely a single company wide bonus that was likely a PR move as much as it was a way to adjust how much they'd owe in taxes.
It seems the biggest change that came with Roundtree's take over was in the middle management levels which may be where most of the problems we were seeing come from, but it hasn't changed the fundamental problems that the pricing of the company falls into.
Small company with pro-consumer policies goes to be publicy traded and then starts becoming more and more predatory in their business practices is the go to for all business that grow to be large enough for that.
Galas wrote: Small company with pro-consumer policies goes to be publicy traded and then starts becoming more and more predatory in their business practices is the go to for all business that grow to be large enough for that.
Yep, happens to every significantly large enterprise. Look at Google, they took 'Don't Be Evil' out of their motto and haven't looked back. Nestle started out as a couple of swedes making chocolate and babyfood, now it's the single most ecologically and socioeconomically devastating organization in the western world outside of the U.S. Military.
They have added a good chunk of the web team and have expanded marketing and community outreach. They hired Mike Brandt (apologies I may have that last name misspelled - I ALWAYS misspell it) and several others to similar new positions. They hired a good grouping of people moving into 8th and again into 9th. True, they also moved around a lot of folks who were already in the company, but they got moved in to new departments. Do you honestly think a company can go from no website (other than the store site), no social media, no community outreach or digital presence at all for nearly a decade to having everything they have running now without some fundamental shifts and new people?
Okay, I'll give you the fact that they hired people since they had literally no web presence. But why should I care that GW hired a bunch of marketers who are (frankly) terrible at *good* marketing, relying on cheap clickbait and hype tricks? None of that makes the game better and it's 100% to Unit's point.
The only people who think there's a difference between good marketing and clickbait/hype tricks are marketers.
GW marketing has mostly been to make YouTube players happy and let them do the work for them.
Most of the other big marketing done has been other companies promoting the brand.
I don’t even think they do good click bait or hype tricks.
ERJAK 798472 11153405 wrote:Yep, happens to every significantly large enterprise. Look at Google, they took 'Don't Be Evil' out of their motto and haven't looked back. Nestle started out as a couple of swedes making chocolate and babyfood, now it's the single most ecologically and socioeconomically devastating organization in the western world outside of the U.S. Military.
As someone who lives in a rural area, I say that Du Pont and Bayer are a lot worse.
Personally, I'd like to see more nerfs for some of the stronger factions. If we accept that the lethality of certain factions/units is intended (just like the durability of others) then let's bump up the points costs again as the efficiency of some units/factions is absolutely insane atm. I personally don't think after reviewing some games that the Raider nerf was enough for example, so let's increase the points again. That is just a drop in the ocean really in terms of required point increases for many units in many factions, but an example all the same.
Anyway... Let's all agree that space marines are already lagging from the common symptom of being the first codex, in that it is now been creeped out of viability slowly. To bring them back up-to scratch, would you at this point re-introduce some of the nerfs that occurred post 8th edition marine dex 2.0?
Would you allow all vehicles to have bolter discipline again? Would you expand the doctrines or bring them back to the original, so you can have multiple turns in dev and choosing when to move doctrine? (I personally believe they should be tweaked anyway, and you should be allowed to delay the start of dev doctrine till turn 2 due to how useless it tends to be on mass LOS blocking boards, but that is an alternative option), would you let all deathwatch bolters have SIA? What point increases if any would you suggest for this?
Anyway... Let's all agree that space marines are already lagging from the common symptom of being the first codex, in that it is now been creeped out of viability slowly. To bring them back up-to scratch, would you at this point re-introduce some of the nerfs that occurred post 8th edition marine dex 2.0?
Would you allow all vehicles to have bolter discipline again? Would you expand the doctrines or bring them back to the original, so you can have multiple turns in dev and choosing when to move doctrine? (I personally believe they should be tweaked anyway, and you should be allowed to delay the start of dev doctrine till turn 2 due to how useless it tends to be on mass LOS blocking boards, but that is an alternative option), would you let all deathwatch bolters have SIA? What point increases if any would you suggest for this?
Necrons are definitely suffering from the first codex syndrome and could use some buffs, Marines are in far better shape than the remaining 8th edition codexes, so those should be done first. The next year after everything is out? Absolutely.
The devastator doctrine could be optionally up for another turn. Bolter discipline...meh, I hate that rule, it has such a drastic impact on the board lethality. I'd rather see it changed to advance and still rapid-fire as usual than to simply double their lethality at 30". Then it could be given back to all vehicles.
Still 15 codices left to be updated to 9th, plus 6-7 marine supplements (Ultra, IH, IF, RG, Sallies, WS and maybe Black Templars).
With one per month, we'll be in late 2022 or 2023 before the SM codex can be updated to a 2.0 version.
endlesswaltz123 wrote: Personally, I'd like to see more nerfs for some of the stronger factions. If we accept that the lethality of certain factions/units is intended (just like the durability of others) then let's bump up the points costs again as the efficiency of some units/factions is absolutely insane atm. I personally don't think after reviewing some games that the Raider nerf was enough for example, so let's increase the points again. That is just a drop in the ocean really in terms of required point increases for many units in many factions, but an example all the same.
Anyway... Let's all agree that space marines are already lagging from the common symptom of being the first codex, in that it is now been creeped out of viability slowly. To bring them back up-to scratch, would you at this point re-introduce some of the nerfs that occurred post 8th edition marine dex 2.0?
Would you allow all vehicles to have bolter discipline again? Would you expand the doctrines or bring them back to the original, so you can have multiple turns in dev and choosing when to move doctrine? (I personally believe they should be tweaked anyway, and you should be allowed to delay the start of dev doctrine till turn 2 due to how useless it tends to be on mass LOS blocking boards, but that is an alternative option), would you let all deathwatch bolters have SIA? What point increases if any would you suggest for this?
No. Loyalists can have their second look after everyone else has been updated to 9th edition codexes. They've already had more than enough attention.
No. Loyalists can have their second look after everyone else has been updated to 9th edition codexes. They've already had more than enough attention.
You are allowed to think that. I would rather have not my loyalist be the last codex updated in 9th ed cycle of updates. I think that DW or various Fist players would want to see an update sooner or later too. Specially BT who didn't get a codex of their own.
No. Loyalists can have their second look after everyone else has been updated to 9th edition codexes. They've already had more than enough attention.
You are allowed to think that. I would rather have not my loyalist be the last codex updated in 9th ed cycle of updates. I think that DW or various Fist players would want to see an update sooner or later too. Specially BT who didn't get a codex of their own.
Obviously I wasn't referring to Grey Knights. You guys are currently tied with CSM for the title of "Oldest Codex in the Game". The Fists and Templars received their update with the 9th edition loyalist codex. A lot of other factions are needing an update WAY more than them.
Anyway... Let's all agree that space marines are already lagging from the common symptom of being the first codex, in that it is now been creeped out of viability slowly. To bring them back up-to scratch, would you at this point re-introduce some of the nerfs that occurred post 8th edition marine dex 2.0?
Would you allow all vehicles to have bolter discipline again? Would you expand the doctrines or bring them back to the original, so you can have multiple turns in dev and choosing when to move doctrine? (I personally believe they should be tweaked anyway, and you should be allowed to delay the start of dev doctrine till turn 2 due to how useless it tends to be on mass LOS blocking boards, but that is an alternative option), would you let all deathwatch bolters have SIA? What point increases if any would you suggest for this?
Necrons are definitely suffering from the first codex syndrome and could use some buffs, Marines are in far better shape than the remaining 8th edition codexes, so those should be done first. The next year after everything is out? Absolutely.
The devastator doctrine could be optionally up for another turn. Bolter discipline...meh, I hate that rule, it has such a drastic impact on the board lethality. I'd rather see it changed to advance and still rapid-fire as usual than to simply double their lethality at 30". Then it could be given back to all vehicles.
This is deeply saddening as an army whose 9th edition codex is worse than their 8th edition codex.
ERJAK wrote: ...This is deeply saddening as an army whose 9th edition codex is worse than their 8th edition codex.
When you get one of the most broken Codexes in the history of the game your next edition book is going to contain some nerfs, yeah. 8e Craftworlders (or 4e Craftworlders for that matter), 7e Grey Knights, 4e CSM...
The only people who think there's a difference between good marketing and clickbait/hype tricks are marketers.
Marketing is a pretty big umbrella. But I guess that's true in the same sense that all lawyers are crooks, all therapists are crazies, etc. etc (i.e. not true). There's a lot of daylight between being a marketer for, I dunno, Pfizer, and a clickbaitmonger for GW.
Think you are missing a big and revolutionary change. Finding out what people want to buy and selling it to them. Specialist games? Rather than a threat to margin they are another diversified revenue stream that undercuts competitors. And so on.
The_Real_Chris wrote: Specialist games? Rather than a threat to margin they are another diversified revenue stream that undercuts competitors. And so on.
not only a threat to margin but the source of nearly going bankrupt
SG were produced for all markets without knowing how much are going to be sold in different and not all of them were equal popular in the different countries.
Having everything translated was a big investment with GW ending up that boxes were sold out in one country but not selling at all in another (and could not be sold in another because the language did not fit)
lot of things that are now "normal" are direct results of this (also the way how they brought them back)
kodos wrote: not only a threat to margin but the source of nearly going bankrupt
SG were produced for all markets without knowing how much are going to be sold in different and not all of them were equal popular in the different countries.
Having everything translated was a big investment with GW ending up that boxes were sold out in one country but not selling at all in another (and could not be sold in another because the language did not fit)
lot of things that are now "normal" are direct results of this (also the way how they brought them back)
If you're referring to the Gorkamorka incident, that was't quite "Specialist". That moniker came later, and involved lots of short magazines that go for decent prices on eBay now.
kodos wrote: not only a threat to margin but the source of nearly going bankrupt
SG were produced for all markets without knowing how much are going to be sold in different and not all of them were equal popular in the different countries.
Having everything translated was a big investment with GW ending up that boxes were sold out in one country but not selling at all in another (and could not be sold in another because the language did not fit)
lot of things that are now "normal" are direct results of this (also the way how they brought them back)
If you're referring to the Gorkamorka incident, that was't quite "Specialist". That moniker came later, and involved lots of short magazines that go for decent prices on eBay now.
He might be referring to Space Hulk 2nd ed as well. When I first got into this hobby there were tons and tons of Italian copies of it in a book/art/odds and ends tat shop called The Works for really cheap (like £10 a box cheap). I got 2 of them myself just for the minis.
Tycho wrote: Yeah - those two eras seem pretty identical to me .....
Yes. I don't think the "New Games Workshop" is perfect - but they are trying.
I'd define the Kirby Era by a seemingly clear hostility towards their main customers and essentially zero interest in any of their games as a game.
The fact GW's product sells out immediately and so they keep raising the prices is just good business. If lots of people will buy Heavy Intercessors for near £40, there isn't much point giving them away at £25.. to then be sold at £40 on ebay etc.
I'm sure its not fair to the respective people - but to my mind the changing of the guard occurred with the utter failure of the 2015 AoS launch (technically after Kirby stepped down, but presumably already in train) - and then the giddy success that was the release of the Deathwatch Overkill box about a year later.
All I was trying to point out is that if someone is rotten at their core, as a character, but they show up to the next party in a velvet suit and porcelain mask (whereas before they showed up in a T-shirt and jeans if they bothered at all), that doesn't mean they're suddenly a new person, worthy of praise and their past actions forgotten.
Yes, they spent money on the velvet suit and porcelain mask. They may even be trying - but it's a token effort compared to other, somewhat more expensive and time-consuming ways of actually becoming a better person.
The analogy is a bit flat, but essentially my argument is that GW is more "customer-facing" now, so they can put positive spins on things and have some control of the narrative, but they aren't actually meaningfully different at a fundamental level. This isn't a "new era"., some glorious revolution that has shaken GW to its very roots and rebuilt it from the ground up.
Tycho wrote: Yeah - those two eras seem pretty identical to me .....
Yes. I don't think the "New Games Workshop" is perfect - but they are trying.
I'd define the Kirby Era by a seemingly clear hostility towards their main customers and essentially zero interest in any of their games as a game.
The fact GW's product sells out immediately and so they keep raising the prices is just good business. If lots of people will buy Heavy Intercessors for near £40, there isn't much point giving them away at £25.. to then be sold at £40 on ebay etc.
I'm sure its not fair to the respective people - but to my mind the changing of the guard occurred with the utter failure of the 2015 AoS launch (technically after Kirby stepped down, but presumably already in train) - and then the giddy success that was the release of the Deathwatch Overkill box about a year later.
They're working on appearing as if they're trying, but the problems with 8th/9th (shoddy balance, poorly-written rules, massive power creep, dead units/dead Codexes, wildly uneven minis releases) are the exact same problems we had in 7th, and they're happening for the exact same reasons (minis-team led design, a release model where they update a whole army's rules all at once and don't touch them for years afterward, faction bloat, lack of editing/playtesting, a design team that doesn't understand how people play their game).
To me GW "trying to be better" in 8th/9th is actively making the game worse, since instead of trying to fix the problems they're trying to give everyone as many rules as the Space Marines (thereby giving themselves more rules to not quite get around to testing and way more opportunities to throw the game wildly out of whack), shove out Codexes as fast as possible (which means they don't get to see what the effects of the last book they threw into the wild untested were before writing the next one, so any attempt to fix any problems is several books behind), and claiming their dartboard of points changes is somehow the result of an honest effort to balance the game instead of a poorly-disguised effort to give 40k's rules a "subscription model" (which isn't true).
Tyel wrote: The fact GW's product sells out immediately and so they keep raising the prices is just good business. If lots of people will buy Heavy Intercessors for near £40, there isn't much point giving them away at £25.. to then be sold at £40 on ebay etc.
If 'new GW' doesn't deserve criticism for continuing the trend of extremely high prices because it's just business, then surely they don't deserve praise for implementing previews, interacting on social media, or other positive changes because those are business-driven as well?
Tyel wrote: The fact GW's product sells out immediately and so they keep raising the prices is just good business. If lots of people will buy Heavy Intercessors for near £40, there isn't much point giving them away at £25.. to then be sold at £40 on ebay etc.
If 'new GW' doesn't deserve criticism for continuing the trend of extremely high prices because it's just business, then surely they don't deserve praise for implementing previews, interacting on social media, or other positive changes because those are business-driven as well?
Also, "the raising prices is just good buisness ", is nonsense, because of economics AND we already have seen where that went...
They're working on appearing as if they're trying, but the problems with 8th/9th (shoddy balance, poorly-written rules, massive power creep, dead units/dead Codexes, wildly uneven minis releases) are the exact same problems we had in 7th, and they're happening for the exact same reasons (minis-team led design, a release model where they update a whole army's rules all at once and don't touch them for years afterward, faction bloat, lack of editing/playtesting, a design team that doesn't understand how people play their game).
To me GW "trying to be better" in 8th/9th is actively making the game worse, since instead of trying to fix the problems they're trying to give everyone as many rules as the Space Marines (thereby giving themselves more rules to not quite get around to testing and way more opportunities to throw the game wildly out of whack), shove out Codexes as fast as possible (which means they don't get to see what the effects of the last book they threw into the wild untested were before writing the next one, so any attempt to fix any problems is several books behind), and claiming their dartboard of points changes is somehow the result of an honest effort to balance the game instead of a poorly-disguised effort to give 40k's rules a "subscription model" (which isn't true).
Respectfully disagree with most points.
Shoddy balance Problematic units / factions do get a balance pass if it is too much. See SM 2.0 nerf for 8th, or Dhrukari just now for 9th. Older editions did have problem factions as well and they remained problematic until a new edition or the follow up codex changed that. We would have Dhrukari unnerfed for the rest of this edition, if it would be old GW.
massive power creep This view is not supported when looking at 9th edition codizes and current tournament results. After Ynnari and before SM 2.0 8th was rather balanced I heard. Can't comment on that, as I haven't played at that time.
dead units/dead Codexes Internal balance is much better than it was before for 9th edition armies. There is the odd outlier like SM Scouts, but for non-tournament play you may use most of your codex without being automatically at a severe disadvantage.
wildly uneven minis releases I mean yes, some armies have gone without proper model support for some time now. It feels to me though like GW is catching up slowly.
We had Custodes, GSC, Death Guard, CSM, Sororitas, Necrons, Mechanicus, Marines, Orks and now Orks again added or overhauled since 8th, with rumours saying GK get "everything new in the VS box" as well. Let's hope for the best for Tyranids and Eldar. Dhrukari and seemingly Guard drew the short stick for now.
wildly uneven minis releases I mean yes, some armies have gone without proper model support for some time now. It feels to me though like GW is catching up slowly.
We had Custodes, GSC, Death Guard, CSM, Sororitas, Necrons, Mechanicus, Marines, Orks and now Orks again added or overhauled since 8th, with rumours saying GK get "everything new in the VS box" as well. Let's hope for the best for Tyranids and Eldar. Dhrukari and seemingly Guard drew the short stick for now.
With that in mind, can DE and guard players be excused from jumping aboard the 'New GW is great!' bandwagon?
(I'd ask the same for Eldar players but I suspect they've given up and are now busy having a drink with their models.)
wildly uneven minis releases I mean yes, some armies have gone without proper model support for some time now. It feels to me though like GW is catching up slowly.
We had Custodes, GSC, Death Guard, CSM, Sororitas, Necrons, Mechanicus, Marines, Orks and now Orks again added or overhauled since 8th, with rumours saying GK get "everything new in the VS box" as well. Let's hope for the best for Tyranids and Eldar. Dhrukari and seemingly Guard drew the short stick for now.
With that in mind, can DE and guard players be excused from jumping aboard the 'New GW is great!' bandwagon?
(I'd ask the same for Eldar players but I suspect they've given up and are now busy having a drink with their models.)
No, you're not allowed, because someone using the same book you use but a different army construction than you own won a tournament, now you're required to both like GW, and feel like a bad person.
vipoid wrote: With that in mind, can DE and guard players be excused from jumping aboard the 'New GW is great!' bandwagon?
(I'd ask the same for Eldar players but I suspect they've given up and are now busy having a drink with their models.)
Guard, Dhrukari, Tyranid and Eldar players can absolutely smack GW for neglecting their ranges for so long. They are still profiting from the other areas where GW is better than in the past, though
I just hope GW will continue to improve so more people are going to enjoy this game again.
Guard, Dhrukari, Tyranid and Eldar players can absolutely smack GW for neglecting their ranges for so long. They are still profiting from the other areas where GW is better than in the past, though
I guess it depends which areas you mean.
DE are certainly stronger than they have been in the past. On the other hand, I can't help but notice that the shrinking of the DE wargear section, which began in 7th edition, has only continued through 8th and 9th.
And when you've only got 3 generic HQs, losing what few options you had feels really bad.
But does it matter? after the first succubus, draz and an archon, how many other characters do you really want to run, that you would want to upgrade?
Lets say DE got a Lt level character, and homonculus got two tiers of characters. No one would be taking them anyway. Or if you had 5 relics, but the succubus would take the best one anyway, and the rest was not worth taking. Marines have a ton of relics like that. A cool rare power sword or first, so rare that there are carbon copies of it ,only named differently, in other chapters. Great, but why would you take it over teeth of terra?
Guard, Dhrukari, Tyranid and Eldar players can absolutely smack GW for neglecting their ranges for so long. They are still profiting from the other areas where GW is better than in the past, though
I guess it depends which areas you mean.
DE are certainly stronger than they have been in the past. On the other hand, I can't help but notice that the shrinking of the DE wargear section, which began in 7th edition, has only continued through 8th and 9th.
And when you've only got 3 generic HQs, losing what few options you had feels really bad.
At least we got trueborn and bloodbrides back and got the elite wracks unit which I looked at and figured I'd probably never use in the current 9th ed form. Also hex rifles and void ravens became more respectable (sadly we lost options on the haemonculus again). That said character killing is usually not easy and oddly multiple void mines seem to manage it better esp. Vs msu and character aura spam.
Also dark lances have solid long ranged anti tank which is something we lacked. Oddly the thing I used to love dissies seem to be kinda garbage now because they got 0 updates and yet are still somehow more expensive than the dark lance ravagers.
----
You know what bugs me? The rules and rules placement. In the old codexes I wouldn't have to have like 4 or more sections to flip between for rules and sometimes in odd sections of the book in the latest dark eldar book (like different faction wargear and warlord traits being completely in separate parts of the book depending on if they're a known faction or a made up generic faction). GW has oddly gotten worse at rules placement with newer books. Even in 8th ed whfb the first pages were rules and followed by advanced rules. In the current 9th ed 40k rulebook rules are somewhere in the middle of the book.
As far as rules go I prefer universal rules to be more common than codex special rules. Don't get me wrong I loved 8th ed whfb but in 9th ed 40k having stratagems, special army rules, a million differently worded rules that basically are deep strike or scout, warlord traits, etc.
Karol wrote: But does it matter? after the first succubus, draz and an archon, how many other characters do you really want to run, that you would want to upgrade?
Lets say DE got a Lt level character, and homonculus got two tiers of characters. No one would be taking them anyway. Or if you had 5 relics, but the succubus would take the best one anyway, and the rest was not worth taking. Marines have a ton of relics like that. A cool rare power sword or first, so rare that there are carbon copies of it ,only named differently, in other chapters. Great, but why would you take it over teeth of terra?
Actually Karol, for me, the Drukhari dex is all about the Master level characters and the Lords Ascendant. I often use multiples, because I like the story of a Master and an Ascendant competing against each other.
You know what bugs me? The rules and rules placement. In the old codexes I wouldn't have to have like 4 or more sections to flip between for rules and sometimes in odd sections of the book in the latest dark eldar book (like different faction wargear and warlord traits being completely in separate parts of the book depending on if they're a known faction or a made up generic faction). GW has oddly gotten worse at rules placement with newer books. Even in 8th ed whfb the first pages were rules and followed by advanced rules. In the current 9th ed 40k rulebook rules are somewhere in the middle of the book.
Actually, I love having all the subfaction stuff in the same place. I found the old way (ALL strats in the strat section, ALL relics in the relic section even if they're subfaction specific) lead to a lot more page flipping. When trying to figure out which subfaction you wanted, you had to find their subfaction WL Trait in the Warlord section, their Relic in the relic section, their strat in the strat section, and their faction wide trait on the faction page. Then you had to do it all over again to compare them to the next faction on the list.
These days, you check the subfaction page, and everything is there. It makes comparing subfactions super fast.
And if you're working with a custom subfaction, you just pick subfaction traits in the list and pick your WL trait and Relic from the generic sections. In the older dexes we didn't have custom subfactions traits- some of us got them in PA and some of us didn't, but to my knowledge, none of the dexes ever contained this type of material.
Karol wrote: But does it matter? after the first succubus, draz and an archon, how many other characters do you really want to run, that you would want to upgrade?
You do realise I'm not talking about artefacts, right?
I'm talking about actual, basic wargear.
In 8th a Haemonculus could have:
- Agoniser
- Venom Blade
- Mindphase Gauntlet
- Electrocorrosive Whip
- Scissorhands
- Flesh Gauntlet
- Liquifier Gun
- Hexrifle
In 9th that same Haenonculus can have:
- Nothing
Man, can't think why I'm not jumping for joy at this vast swathe of options.
Karol wrote: But does it matter? after the first succubus, draz and an archon, how many other characters do you really want to run, that you would want to upgrade?
You do realise I'm not talking about artefacts, right?
I'm talking about actual, basic wargear.
In 8th a Haemonculus could have:
- Agoniser
- Venom Blade
- Mindphase Gauntlet
- Electrocorrosive Whip
- Scissorhands
- Flesh Gauntlet
- Liquifier Gun
- Hexrifle
In 9th that same Haenonculus can have:
- Nothing
Man, can't think why I'm not jumping for joy at this vast swathe of options.
Yeah but all them options would make it really hard to make a tournament balanced system...i mean you might take options that they would actually take in the lore and not what GW wants you to (force you) take.
Yeah but all them options would make it really hard to make a tournament balanced system
no, if there are 20 options and 19 are trash and for fluff reasons only while 1 is OP, tournaments don't care all
and GW is not making a tournament balanced system in the first place but "casual narritive" games
so there is not even an excuse to remove options because they don't try to balance things in the first place
Yeah but all them options would make it really hard to make a tournament balanced system...
And? Who says that GW games must be designed to please competitive players?
Gosh, I really miss "The most important rule" (AKA actual rules don't really matter!!), which was a pillar in older rulebooks, and the attitude that came with it.
By the way problems about balance have never been related to the fact that characters can or cannot be highly customized.
Yeah but all them options would make it really hard to make a tournament balanced system...
And? Who says that GW games must be designed to please competitive players?
Gosh, I really miss "The most important rule" (AKA actual rules don't really matter!!), which was a pillar in older rulebooks, and the attitude that came with it.
By the way problems about balance have never been related to the fact that characters can or cannot be highly customized.
Sorry i should have turned on the "sarcasm" banner i do not play 9th ed for a reason. i started in 3rd back when GW promoted kit bashing and model customizing to personalize your collection, not limiting options to only whats in the original kit box. i want my dudes to be my dudes to act the way they should in the universe and take what gear i think they should have because it is what they would have rather or not it is the best option as per the current comp meta. all that stuff the Haemonculus could have is what they should have access to was my point so that the player can decide to take it or not. instead of GW just yeating it out of options existence.
But hey we have 14 different (fixed) primaris LT kits..
Karol wrote: But does it matter? after the first succubus, draz and an archon, how many other characters do you really want to run, that you would want to upgrade?
You do realise I'm not talking about artefacts, right?
I'm talking about actual, basic wargear.
In 8th a Haemonculus could have:
- Agoniser
- Venom Blade
- Mindphase Gauntlet
- Electrocorrosive Whip
- Scissorhands
- Flesh Gauntlet
- Liquifier Gun
- Hexrifle
In 9th that same Haenonculus can have:
- Nothing
Man, can't think why I'm not jumping for joy at this vast swathe of options.
Hahaha remember when GW was going to make this thing called "Legends" where they put all the out of circulation rules for models with wargear that they used to have, so you can continue to play with them? Pepperidge farm remembers.
Galas wrote: Small company with pro-consumer policies goes to be publicy traded and then starts becoming more and more predatory in their business practices is the go to for all business that grow to be large enough for that.
EA was a great example of that. They are now basically the biggest villain to "gamers" but they didn't start with that goal.
(if it doesn't already do it, skip to 5:13 for an open letter they wrote in a gaming magazine way back about what their intentions were for games)
Sorry i should have turned on the "sarcasm" banner i do not play 9th ed for a reason. i started in 3rd back when GW promoted kit bashing and model customizing to personalize your collection, not limiting options to only whats in the original kit box. i want my dudes to be my dudes to act the way they should in the universe and take what gear i think they should have because it is what they would have rather or not it is the best option as per the current comp meta. all that stuff the Haemonculus could have is what they should have access to was my point so that the player can decide to take it or not. instead of GW just yeating it out of options existence.
But hey we have 14 different (fixed) primaris LT kits..
Yeah, 3rd edition is still the best edition I've ever played. I also miss the codexes with 30ish datasheets. Now we have 100-200 datasheets for the major factions' codexes, but little chance to customize the untis.
The_Real_Chris wrote: Specialist games? Rather than a threat to margin they are another diversified revenue stream that undercuts competitors. And so on.
not only a threat to margin but the source of nearly going bankrupt
SG were produced for all markets without knowing how much are going to be sold in different and not all of them were equal popular in the different countries.
Having everything translated was a big investment with GW ending up that boxes were sold out in one country but not selling at all in another (and could not be sold in another because the language did not fit)
lot of things that are now "normal" are direct results of this (also the way how they brought them back)
I think you are mixing up SG games (Epic, Warmaster, Mordhiem etc) with some of the 3rd game releases GW did (the old strategy of 2 core and one new game on roughly 6 month rotation). Lots did end up as SG stuff (BFG etc.), but all SG stuff made a profit. In some case like Epic they outsold some 40k lines (Warmaster did ok, Epic sold 4 times the amount).
But, it didn't make as much and it was seen as undercutting the main lines.
On the first point, if you can get XX turns for a space marine, but only X for an Epic Space marine, given the input cost is similar it makes more sense if you have limited production to make more 40k stuff. Now GW back then wasn't running at capacity, and you might think some profit was better than no profit buuutttt...
When they did a soft relaunch of BFG in the states sales went up, but sales of 40k dropped somewhat. Now there were more sales overall, but the production costs were more. The company decided the path of profit was to pare down the range and focus on the core stuff.
A few voices pointed out there were many ways to deal with this to essentially realise more profit and hive off the costs, but they were ignored. Also was the point that these were in general great gateway games and had a legion of approving veterans. GW allowed competitors to sell games in those spaces and essentially were creating competition for themselves. There is an entire Blood bowl ecosystem now not involving GW and the world cups had over a thousand people in attendance.
Specialist Games were for the time being (at least in the German speaking shops) all Games that were not Main (Fantasy & 40k) or Boxed (Warhammer Quest)
and yes those sold well or good enough for the englisch copies, it was just the translated ones were not all sold well
also because lot of people still used the englisch versions over the local one because of bad translations prior or gaming in general was done with original rules
the only one that did well nearly everywhere was Blood Bowl, while BFG did not sell at all here (although I started with the BFG box into the 40k universe) and those games did not manage to get new people in but only existing players away from the main games
It happend long ago and I for sure not recall all details right, but the strategy of getting new games in, in a very short timeframe with full translations that were send back to GW after not selling in one country so they could at least use the models in another country or for the webshop never got the investment back or brought the big boost Kirby hoped for
Aszubaruzah Surn wrote: I think it's too focused on excluding people with overpriced fluff like FW Horus Heresy books.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I think it's too focused on excluding people with overpriced fluff like FW Horus Heresy books.
I'm not sure I understand? You can get the HH books for next to nothing from a number of legal sources, and the new books are not any more expensive than non-GW new releases ...
Edit:
I missed the "FW" in your post. Are you talking about the 30k books for the HH game? Because you absolutely do not need those unless you're trying to play 30K. Has no baring what-so-ever on the state of 40K. And even if you want to know the fluff from those - as I said above, you can just go get the paperback novels on the cheap.
kodos wrote: Specialist Games were for the time being (at least in the German speaking shops) all Games that were not Main (Fantasy & 40k) or Boxed (Warhammer Quest)
and yes those sold well or good enough for the englisch copies, it was just the translated ones were not all sold well
also because lot of people still used the englisch versions over the local one because of bad translations prior or gaming in general was done with original rules
the only one that did well nearly everywhere was Blood Bowl, while BFG did not sell at all here (although I started with the BFG box into the 40k universe) and those games did not manage to get new people in but only existing players away from the main games
It happend long ago and I for sure not recall all details right, but the strategy of getting new games in, in a very short timeframe with full translations that were send back to GW after not selling in one country so they could at least use the models in another country or for the webshop never got the investment back or brought the big boost Kirby hoped for
Here all GW specialist games are dead.
AoS has some minor attention and is played rarely in the game club.
40k has the main focus and most players here are still convinced about it.
So nothing has changed when compared with the previous edition.
Other game systems are either dead like WM/Hordes or get played from time to time such as Infinity and Xwing.
kodos wrote: Specialist Games were for the time being (at least in the German speaking shops) all Games that were not Main (Fantasy & 40k) or Boxed (Warhammer Quest)
and yes those sold well or good enough for the englisch copies, it was just the translated ones were not all sold well
also because lot of people still used the englisch versions over the local one because of bad translations prior or gaming in general was done with original rules
the only one that did well nearly everywhere was Blood Bowl, while BFG did not sell at all here (although I started with the BFG box into the 40k universe) and those games did not manage to get new people in but only existing players away from the main games
It happend long ago and I for sure not recall all details right, but the strategy of getting new games in, in a very short timeframe with full translations that were send back to GW after not selling in one country so they could at least use the models in another country or for the webshop never got the investment back or brought the big boost Kirby hoped for
Here all GW specialist games are dead.
AoS has some minor attention and is played rarely in the game club.
40k has the main focus and most players here are still convinced about it.
So nothing has changed when compared with the previous edition.
Other game systems are either dead like WM/Hordes or get played from time to time such as Infinity and Xwing.
Same here. In the stores around here you usually have one pair of players playing LotR, one or two games of AoS and everything else is 40k. I haven't seen any infinity games, but XWing still seems to be alive and kicking.
Here stuff looks like this. AoS more or less dead, there are two people who , as others say, drive to big tournaments, but the store doesn't even run AoS events. infinity has 6 guys who go play at events in other cities, they have a table build just for them, they playtest at the store. Xwing guys, stopped playing at the store, when the head manager of local KFC turned out to be a big x-wing fan. They play at the KFC, with only thing one has to do is to buy some box set per day of playing.
Everything else is w40k players. More then half is teenagers ranging between 13 and 19, and then there is a bunch of 35+ guys. There are no late 20s guys, in fact I think there is one dude who is in his 20s at the store, but he just buys stuff for comissions, he doesn't play the game.
Other games are not played at the store. Warmahordes was once super popular, but that is ages ago.
But yes, to contribute, my local scene is comparable to yours, Karol. A few folks playing Battletech here too, I guess. And actually occasionally WHFB tournaments too (before Covid). That was always a trip.
Interesting to read what mini games are being played in other locations.
I play at three different shops and they all have some variation.
Shop,1.
40K, Marvel Protocol, Star Wars Legion, some Heroclix, AOS,
Shop 2.
40K, LotR
Shop 3.
40K, AOS, Marvel Protocol, Heroclix, WWII game (don't remember name), occasional Battletech, occasional X Wing
40K is the most popular, but Marvel Protocol is garnering more support. However, this is nothing new for me. 40K is the most popular; second most popular has changed over the many years.
That's exactly the reason why I drastically reduced my purchases and my next 40k army (a small feudal guard the go with my Knight and an Alpha Legion army) uses almost exclusively 3rd party and/or Horus Heresy miniature.
They can sell their monopose wiggly display-only pieces to everyone else who like those.
But yes, to contribute, my local scene is comparable to yours, Karol. A few folks playing Battletech here too, I guess. And actually occasionally WHFB tournaments too (before Covid). That was always a trip.
Ah yes. I forgot about historicals and old table tops. For some un understandable reason to me. There is a legion, and by that I mean as many people as play W40k, that play historicals. Smaller scale then GW with small models, from different periods. Squad based WWII games. I don't hang around them, but there is a lot of them.
9th age was a thing at the old store too. I know that they still play at a club in my town, after the store closed. They got lucky, because the local school director is from the ruling party and he was a WFB player. And some of the players are really old, like grandfather old at 50 or something.
RaptorusRex wrote: I feel like GW, over the years, has adopted policies and practices which deliberately restrict the creativity of players.
You'll get pushback on this from people saying there's a thriving community of converters on facebook or they occasionally feature kitbashing in WD or WarCom articles but I agree.
I don't have a Chaos army anymore but I have a few old codexes and I remember conversions for mutations and converted minis being quite prominently featured. When was the last time a codex said "check this out this guy slapped a Great Unclean One on the front of this tanks and it looks cool as tits maybe you could do that?"?
Spoiler:
This kind of stuff when I was a kid inspired me greatly and almost all of the few Chaos models I had were converted (even if it was bad) and I still love reposing, kitbashing and converting stuff if given then oppertunity.
Whereas now for example when Kill Team team came out I was excited at the prospect of our group all kitbashing stuff like trophies and characterising models based on their triumphs or failures and how cool all our kill teams would tell stories no one seemed interested in that part aside from the other guys in the group who'd been playing since the RT era. When 8th started and a bunch of new players joined, after games I'd give people bits from my bits box to use as triophies (necron skulls, tyranid armor plates etc) and they just stare at me blankly and tell me they didn't want them.
Its not that you CAN'T be creative with models anymore, its that GW doesn't encourage it much.
Galas wrote: They told you to make the stuff yoursel because back then they didn't sold you an alternative.
Now, according to Dakka, it is "Elitism" and "Gatekeeping" (or whatever buzzword they want to throw around this week...) to suggest players have to do some modelling in a hobby that involves modelling of some extent.
This kind of stuff when I was a kid inspired me greatly and almost all of the few Chaos models I had were converted (even if it was bad) and I still love reposing, kitbashing and converting stuff if given then opportunity.
Its not that you CAN'T be creative with models anymore, its that GW doesn't encourage it much.
It's interesting how culture changes over time. I remember when I first started we had a blast making mutated CSM by taking extra arms and gluing them to the shoulders in order to make 4-armed berserkers. It was a lot of fun even if it was goofy and that kind of stuff was encouraged in the gameshops we frequented in high school. You'd also see neat conversion that were extremely well painted in GW publications so it always seemed like that style of construction was greatly encouraged by the manufacturer.
I took a long break after until I could actually afford this hobby so I'm curious on what influenced the culture to change. Certainly a lack of official images praising this kind of work is a big factor.
Unit1126PLL wrote: I think GW realized that people were giving them most, rather than ALL, of their hobby money, because conversion bits could be got elsewhere...
but only after GW stopped selling single sprues and metal bits
there was the time when I spend 3 times the money on Bits from GW than the original units costs, just to make the unique
I started with Thousand Sons only because 90% of the army needed to be done with conversions and I still see it as important for game system that there is at least 1 faction were people can go bonkers with the theme and models because there are none from the company (and this will benefit sales as if there is no such faction people will take on all of them to get stuff elsewhere instead of just the 1)
The Red Hobbit wrote: ...I took a long break after until I could actually afford this hobby so I'm curious on what influenced the culture to change. Certainly a lack of official images praising this kind of work is a big factor.
With the rise of no kit/no rules and no model/no rules in the past five years or so it just feels to me like there's no point. I know there are people who think the models should be a purely artistic exercise that has nothing to do with the game, but I really don't; the models are supposed to represent something in the game, and GW's decision to say "no, the game is only going to allow you to represent kits built exactly according to the instructions" just takes all the fun out of it for me.
Meanwhile, here in reality, thousands of players are still having fun converting and playing games with converted models. Sure, the conversions and customizations now are a bit harder than "rotate waist on poopy squatting space marine", but I and many others are happy with the tradeoff.
Galas wrote: They told you to make the stuff yoursel because back then they didn't sold you an alternative.
Now, according to Dakka, it is "Elitism" and "Gatekeeping" (or whatever buzzword they want to throw around this week...) to suggest players have to do some modelling in a hobby that involves modelling of some extent.
No, it's an affront to their sensibilities to suggest such terrible thing.... and should be met with vitriol and vehemence.
All those promo shots of unpainted army's battling it out on planet bowling ball really make me want to start 40k. Pages and pages of gray plastic, it's a veritable smorgasbord of how you should play.
Galas wrote: They told you to make the stuff yoursel because back then they didn't sold you an alternative.
Now, according to Dakka, it is "Elitism" and "Gatekeeping" (or whatever buzzword they want to throw around this week...) to suggest players have to do some modelling in a hobby that involves modelling of some extent.
No, it's an affront to their sensibilities to suggest such terrible thing.... and should be met with vitriol and vehemence.
All those promo shots of unpainted army's battling it out on planet bowling ball really make me want to start 40k. Pages and pages of gray plastic, it's a veritable smorgasbord of how you should play.
I will say this once, and will not engage in a brouhaha over it, so keep that in mind. My position is that if someone is able to paint, they should. If they are unable to, such as in the case of a disabled person, they should not be expected to. That is all I took issue with in that thread.
RaptorusRex wrote: I feel like GW, over the years, has adopted policies and practices which deliberately restrict the creativity of players.
You'll get pushback on this from people saying there's a thriving community of converters on facebook or they occasionally feature kitbashing in WD or WarCom articles but I agree.
I don't have a Chaos army anymore but I have a few old codexes and I remember conversions for mutations and converted minis being quite prominently featured. When was the last time a codex said "check this out this guy slapped a Great Unclean One on the front of this tanks and it looks cool as tits maybe you could do that?"?
Spoiler:
This kind of stuff when I was a kid inspired me greatly and almost all of the few Chaos models I had were converted (even if it was bad) and I still love reposing, kitbashing and converting stuff if given then oppertunity.
Whereas now for example when Kill Team team came out I was excited at the prospect of our group all kitbashing stuff like trophies and characterising models based on their triumphs or failures and how cool all our kill teams would tell stories no one seemed interested in that part aside from the other guys in the group who'd been playing since the RT era. When 8th started and a bunch of new players joined, after games I'd give people bits from my bits box to use as triophies (necron skulls, tyranid armor plates etc) and they just stare at me blankly and tell me they didn't want them.
Its not that you CAN'T be creative with models anymore, its that GW doesn't encourage it much.
AnomanderRake wrote: With the rise of no kit/no rules and no model/no rules in the past five years or so it just feels to me like there's no point. I know there are people who think the models should be a purely artistic exercise that has nothing to do with the game, but I really don't; the models are supposed to represent something in the game, and GW's decision to say "no, the game is only going to allow you to represent kits built exactly according to the instructions" just takes all the fun out of it for me.
I know what you mean, there's nothing more unsatisfying than learning a common weapon for your army can't be used by a particular generic unit like an HQ or worse it's only allowed under Legends like most of the Eldar Autarch. I also think it's a shame that the Eviscerator has become a legends option for the Cannoness, I won't be surprised when it disappears for the Missionary/Preacher either.
Galas wrote: They told you to make the stuff yoursel because back then they didn't sold you an alternative.
Now, according to Dakka, it is "Elitism" and "Gatekeeping" (or whatever buzzword they want to throw around this week...) to suggest players have to do some modelling in a hobby that involves modelling of some extent.
There is a huge difference between someone doing something because they want to do it, and being forced to do something you don't want to do, by people who like the things you don't want to do or don't like to do.
It would be as if GW started selling all their model kits without heads, and there was a rule that units not fully assembled generate a specific rule proc within the game and on top of it all, you would have to ask your opponent if you they are gracious enough to let you play with unassembled models.
SO far this year, 2 issues of WD have featured extensive conversions. The first was about using AoS Slaanesh bits for 40K- lots of inspiring pics.
The second was the issue with the Fallen.
None of them were tutorials, just inspirational photos. I mention these two specifically because the accompanying articles drew attention specifically to the conversion work.
There have been other examples- I think a few of the players in Tale of Four Warlords have written about conversion work.
It's certainly true that you don't see it in sourcebooks as often as we did, but as someone has already pointed out, in those days, the range was nowhere near as extensive as it is now, and conversion was more necessary due to those limitations.
Regarding conversions, the issue for me is when you're left with nothing to represent.
For example, DE Haemonculi used to inspire great conversions - with some people modifying the existing models (either the current one or the older one) and others basically scratch-building them from other parts. There were a lot of wargear options that didn't come with the model, so there were plenty of options to represent. You could outfit him with swords, whips, claws, gauntlets etc. and have them actually represented in wargear. Likewise, there were at least three different options for ranged weapons (a pistol, a flamer and a rifle).
Now every Haemonculus has the exact same wargear with 0 options. Did you used to like taking a flamer or rifle and convert your own model accordingly? Tough. At best, you get to use those as his pistol. At worst, better get ripping those off if you want your model to by WYSIWYG. Did you convert your Haemonculus with a sword, whip or other such? Tough luck, he now has Haemonculus Tools and Scissorhands. if you wanted something more you should have played Space Marines instead (a proper army).
vipoid wrote: Regarding conversions, the issue for me is when you're left with nothing to represent.
For example, DE Haemonculi used to inspire great conversions - with some people modifying the existing models (either the current one or the older one) and others basically scratch-building them from other parts. There were a lot of wargear options that didn't come with the model, so there were plenty of options to represent. You could outfit him with swords, whips, claws, gauntlets etc. and have them actually represented in wargear. Likewise, there were at least three different options for ranged weapons (a pistol, a flamer and a rifle).
Now every Homunculus has the exact same wargear with 0 options. Did you used to like taking a flamer or rifle and convert your own model accordingly? Tough. At best, you get to use those as his pistol. At worst, better get ripping those off if you want your model to by WYSIWYG. Did you convert your Haemonculus with a sword, whip or other such? Tough luck, he now has Haemonculus Tools and Scissorhands. if you wanted something more you should have played Space Marines instead (a proper army).
Yea, that's not how that works. WYSIWYG is for representing the game affecting gear the model does have. Anything else, especially things that aren't options? Those are called decorations.
So just add a pistol & your Homunculus will be back to WYS.
TBH the fact that now Haemonculi have no options allows far greater freedom to convert one as you wish, because your aesthetic choices won't impact his performance on the table.
I know, I know, the eternal debate between power weapons vs power axes, swords and maces.
Generally I like my characters to be one of two extremes; Have a ton of options, so allow me to configure it ruleswise as I see fit, or have none at all, make it a complete package and let me make him whatever I want.
Nobody has said anything ever about my Ravenwing Champion converted to have two giant wings in a biker-base with a two handed spear leading my ravenwing charge because, you know, he has 0 options as a character.
At the end of the day, people that want to convert will do it. People that don't, wont.
Now you have more people that never convert anything. You have also more people that don't even paint. Then you have also a ton more people that do both of those stuff and post it all in social media. Because you have just more people, period. Now the kind of conversions GW does marketing for in both warhammer community (I remember one post of warhammer community when the new chaos marines were released in how to make them for each legion, both with fallen, noise marines and berzerker conversions) and other plataforms is for pure aesthetic reasons.
(Here it is: Now is not converting is kitbashing: https://www.warhammer-community.com/2019/04/03/kit-bash-chaos-space-marines/ )
They aren't telling you to take this bit and this other bit to make this option in the rules that has no model to represent it, because that stuff doesnt exist anymore in one way or another.
Galas wrote: TBH the fact that now Haemonculi have no options allows far greater freedom to convert one as you wish, because your aesthetic choices won't impact his performance on the table.
This must be whatever counts as 'newspeak' for 40k.
H.B.M.C. wrote: You kind of glossed over what he was getting at...
No really. I mean, other than sympathizing with the poster there's nothing I can do about the poor Homunculus's complete lack of options (there's not even a legends entry).
But I can correct his hyperbole & misunderstanding of WYSIWYG.
One of the things I find interesting, and have discussed in other threads, is that equipment options =/= only options.
To me, it is far more interesting to figure out what conversions a Haemonculus needs to be a Master Haemonculus, or a Coven of the Twelve Haemonculus vs. a Prophet of the Flesh.
This is not white knighting for GW; I too am frustrated about the loss of equipment options. But I don't let my sorrow over the loss of equipment options blind me to the cornucopia of non-equipment options that we've been given.
PenitentJake wrote: One of the things I find interesting, and have discussed in other threads, is that equipment options =/= only options.
To me, it is far more interesting to figure out what conversions a Haemonculus needs to be a Master Haemonculus, or a Coven of the Twelve Haemonculus vs. a Prophet of the Flesh.
Unfortunately, the removal of all the Haemonculus' gear has served to entirely kill my interest in the unit.
So I no longer give a damn which sub-subfaction he's from or whether he'll be a master or not because he won't be in my army in the first place.
Galas wrote: TBH the fact that now Haemonculi have no options allows far greater freedom to convert one as you wish, because your aesthetic choices won't impact his performance on the table.
This must be whatever counts as 'newspeak' for 40k.
"Now that you have no choices, you are free!"
Ha ha! Now you're getting it ! Welcome to the team and get on board for the big win amigo !
That was an example I was gonna make. I know many people dont like Kings of War lack of Game options ir multibasing but thats hasnt stopped people , quite the contrary, I havent seen so many converted armies like there.
Like It or not, each system has his benefits and his problems.
Personally I like when I have a toon of real options. If you are gonna give me 3-5 options and all are trash and only one works, just remove options (because they hace shown they cannot balance them) and give me freedomm to do whatever i want.
For ages GK falchions have been the BEST options. But halberds just look better. I built mine with halberds, but I knew i was shooting myself in the foot
Personally I like when I have a toon of real options. If you are gonna give me 3-5 options and all are trash and only one works, just remove options (because they hace shown they cannot balance them) and give me freedomm to do whatever i want.
Or, you know, they could put the effort into making the other options actually functional?
Let me give you an example - if the designers made Power Fists S4 in one edition, would you accept them being completely removed in the next edition? (Because they're now sharing design space with Power Swords and are therefore not a meaningful choice.) Or would you be rather annoyed that these weapons were being removed because the designers had badly and thoughtlessly screwed up the rules for them in the first place?
What's more, this doesn't even work in the example I gave above. Yes, the Haemonculus had one melee weapon in 8th that was clearly better. But the same can't be said for his ranged weapons. He had a Pistol option which was weak but cheap. He had a long range sniper-rifle that was Heavy. He had a flamer weapon that was Assault. Especially with the current rules for those weapons, there would be no "best" option. And yet they were still purged anyway.
That isn't giving me (or anyone else) more freedom. It's removing freedom by constraining what HQs are allowed to do.
It's also assuming that everyone always takes the best possible build. If I'm using multiple HQs, I'll usually try and vary their wargear (even if it makes one or more suboptimal) just to make things a little more interesting. This option also no longer exists.
Galas wrote: That was an example I was gonna make. I know many people dont like Kings of War lack of Game options ir multibasing but thats hasnt stopped people , quite the contrary, I havent seen so many converted armies like there.
Like It or not, each system has his benefits and his problems.
Personally I like when I have a toon of real options. If you are gonna give me 3-5 options and all are trash and only one works, just remove options (because they hace shown they cannot balance them) and give me freedomm to do whatever i want.
For ages GK falchions have been the BEST options. But halberds just look better. I built mine with halberds, but I knew i was shooting myself in the foot
Personally
...Except that now, the only option I have for modeling a haemonculus is one which wants to kill you in melee.
If my haemonculus wants to attack you from long range, or primarily does his damage via guns rather than via melee, I can't do that now.
It doesn't help that Space Marines and Adeptus Mechanicus Techpriests and Adepta Sororitas Canonesses, the rigid, hidebound traditionalists who summarily execute eachother for heresy when they have different ideas, all have variety in their weapon loadouts while factions like Chaos Marines, GSC, and Drukhari who are supposed to be chaotic radical individualists free from the constraints of order and tradition are all locked into single playstyles.
EVERY ARCHON MUST BE a guy on foot with a pistol and one melee weapon. That's IT, thats the ONLY choice available.
Your space marine captain? Hmmm, shall I make him a fast melee bezerker? An infiltrating sniper, directing his troops via a communicator while he takes shots at enemy commanders? A stalwart Terminator with a Storm Shield? A mounted commander on a bike, decapitating enemies as he drives by with a relic blade? A tank destroyer, armed with a combi-melta and chainfist? a character-killing duelist with plasma pistol and blade?
it's almost like I can MAKE MY DUDE and have what I want him to be like, reflected in the rules! Wild! Crazy! A guy could get interested in the game because of this kind of thing!
Yeah, real freedom is not from removing all options, but by consolidating options which do little but introduce complications. This gives you the freedom to physically model the dude how you want whilst also giving you options to differentiate them from each other rules-wise.
So consolidate power weapons back to just being power weapons. Now somebody can model their dude with an axe, or a hammer, or a sword, or whatever they want without needing to worry that by doing so they are making them worse in the game.
This also solves the problem of no model/no rules and the horrific rules mess that is the plague marines unit entry. The only reason it needs to be that complicated is because GW made the stupid decision to split every type of close combat weapon into its own thing rather than just having general categories which each can fit into.
EVERY ARCHON MUST BE a guy on foot with a pistol and one melee weapon. That's IT, thats the ONLY choice available.
There is one archon model. So there is one set of gear for him. Cpts have various models with multiple set ups, plus strong themed historical models like the WS mounted Khans, so they have to get a rule set for all those options. Has its bad sides though, because instead of having a gravis captin with weapon option as a single choice, there are multiple separate options for various load outs, bloating the codex by a lot.
).
Or, heavens, including all the bits for all combinations of wargear in the 
kit? 
