I know this will probably strike a few funny bones, but it needs to be said.

GW probably didn't have a choice. And it isn't terrible that they would allow players to use their old models, but it has to go. It creates confusion and disrupts any ongoing attempts at lasting changes to codexes.

GW's hands are tied so it's up to the "governing bodies" of 40K to act on this one.

I was thinking about this with a burgeoning Slaanesh Daemons army.

I could either take a herald, which is all the Codex has, or a Herald on a Chariot, which is in the Index. For their points, the Herald on the Chariot is ridiculously better, in most ways. I can't ever think of a reason not to take it.

But I want to keep to the Codex. It feels weird handicapping myself over one HQ choice in one book that shouldn't even be valid anymore, but I don't want to buy Index: Chaos just for one unit, even if it is the "meta" choice.

So in other words: something should be done, yes.

No they shouldn't
Speaking as a csm player i lost alot of HQ options going from index to codex
Why should spezz muhteens get to keep their captain on bike yet gw on its stupid mentality decided to get rid of lords and sorcerors on bikes and demonic mounts?

Champion of Slaanesh wrote:
No they shouldn't
Speaking as a csm player i lost alot of HQ options going from index to codex
Why should spezz muhteens get to keep their captain on bike yet gw on its stupid mentality decided to get rid of lords and sorcerors on bikes and demonic mounts?

No model, no rules. Does it really change how your army works though? GW might find the time to fill out slots with new stuff in the future, but I don't think it's fundamental to making the codex good.

Personally I see it going away once all the codices are released, and GW is "caught up" in terms of releases. Once that is done, I could very easily see GW going back through and releasing new models for some of those options and put them back in the codex, while the ones they don't wanna make official models for just go away.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Champion of Slaanesh wrote:
No they shouldn't
Speaking as a csm player i lost alot of HQ options going from index to codex
Why should spezz muhteens get to keep their captain on bike yet gw on its stupid mentality decided to get rid of lords and sorcerors on bikes and demonic mounts?

No model, no rules. Does it really change how your army works though? GW might find the time to fill out slots with new stuff in the future, but I don't think it's fundamental to making the codex good.

I mean yeah its not like people got to keep vortex grenade assasins in terminator armor on a bike from way back when.

at some point id hope they make new kits (especially all the bike kits as they are fairly dated)

 GI_Redshirt wrote:
Personally I see it going away once all the codices are released, and GW is "caught up" in terms of releases. Once that is done, I could very easily see GW going back through and releasing new models for some of those options and put them back in the codex, while the ones they don't wanna make official models for just go away.

I would like to see this: Imagine for a moment, a kit with the options to build an number of character options on bike? captain, librarian, apothecary, chaplain, or even a lieutenant? Heck, Just make it a single "Build a Character" Kit and include jumppacks as well. I'm sure people would buy it for bits alone.

Ralis wrote:

 GI_Redshirt wrote:
Personally I see it going away once all the codices are released, and GW is "caught up" in terms of releases. Once that is done, I could very easily see GW going back through and releasing new models for some of those options and put them back in the codex, while the ones they don't wanna make official models for just go away.

I would like to see this: Imagine for a moment, a kit with the options to build an number of character options on bike? captain, librarian, apothecary, chaplain, or even a lieutenant? Heck, Just make it a single "Build a Character" Kit and include jumppacks as well. I'm sure people would buy it for bits alone.

That kid would cost like $40 so i doubt it...

And there is not really any evidence they'll sunset the datasheets... i mean they released codexes with no models already.

 Marmatag wrote:

And there is not really any evidence they'll sunset the datasheets... i mean they released codexes with no models already.

Oh?

i guess normal lieutenants. any other? edit: wait nvm there are lieutenants though they dont sell it

So... why?

Like, I get not liking the way things are now, but is this an improvement even by your own standards?

Is it less confusing to have one set of rules vs different tournaments only partially applying GW's FAQs?

Does what tournaments, attended by a tiny minority of players, do even have an impact on GW's ability to make "lasting changes to codexes"?

Dionysodorus wrote:
So... why?

Like, I get not liking the way things are now, but is this an improvement even by your own standards?

Is it less confusing to have one set of rules vs different tournaments only partially applying GW's FAQs?

Does what tournaments, attended by a tiny minority of players, do even have an impact on GW's ability to make "lasting changes to codexes"?

Less a subset of tournaments doing it and more changing the culture of the community to not think in terms of that FAQ.

As to why - it's a constant gotcha and crutch when trying to discuss codexes and the direction they should head in.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Champion of Slaanesh wrote:
No they shouldn't
Speaking as a csm player i lost alot of HQ options going from index to codex
Why should spezz muhteens get to keep their captain on bike yet gw on its stupid mentality decided to get rid of lords and sorcerors on bikes and demonic mounts?

No model, no rules. Does it really change how your army works though? GW might find the time to fill out slots with new stuff in the future, but I don't think it's fundamental to making the codex good.

Except that now it's "maybe model, maybe rules".

I bought a defiler recently ready to build it with twin hb magnetized to twin lascannon, options it has in the codex I'd just bought, and the model came with neither.

My daemon prince, by contrast, has a warp Bolter modeled on him - like all dps from the plastic kit do. No rules.

My Terminator sorceror, again I had to convert to his new equipment options, cutting off the weapons that DO come in the friggin box to do so because he doesn't have those any more.

And my exalted sorcerors, despite coming in a full size kits with a million billion bits, have exactly one build by the rules...but they can have a plasma pistol, which is in NO thousand sons kit.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Less a subset of tournaments doing it and more changing the culture of the community to not think in terms of that FAQ.

As to why - it's a constant gotcha and crutch when trying to discuss codexes and the direction they should head in.

Well, if instead of wanting tournaments to just do this you're wanting the community as a whole to reject the idea of using datasheets that aren't in a codex, I think you're just screwed. There's no constituency for that. Disallowing them has a huge impact on players who are using them. Allowing them has almost no impact on players who aren't using them, except insofar as they object to playing against people using them. But most players are going to object to playing against things for reasons that have nothing to do with this -- people primarily don't like when they feel that something is too strong or is unfluffy -- and they'll often have no idea that stimulant injectors no longer appear in the support systems list, for example, so even if they object to the particular thing being used they won't connect this to the FAQ.

The community is going to think in terms of that FAQ because almost everyone you play with is going to be willing to abide by it, and not being willing to abide by it if someone else really wants to use it is going to get you branded TFG. And, circling back, I don't see what a few big tournaments have to do with that.

sorry, but I need some context; what datasheet faq are you talking about, and what is wrong with it?

I personally wouldn't mind. I survived the great HQ Drukhari purge and could easily settle with codex only models.

 carldooley wrote:
sorry, but I need some context; what datasheet faq are you talking about, and what is wrong with it?

Last sheet of this.

https://whc-cdn.games-workshop.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/warhammer_40000_designers_commentary_en-1.pdf

It circumvents the codexes. e.g. GW removed Stimulant Injector as an available system in the new Tau Codex, but people can say they'll just use the index rules with codex prices or vice versa for other things.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

the_scotsman wrote:


Except that now it's "maybe model, maybe rules".

I bought a defiler recently ready to build it with twin hb magnetized to twin lascannon, options it has in the codex I'd just bought, and the model came with neither.

My daemon prince, by contrast, has a warp Bolter modeled on him - like all dps from the plastic kit do. No rules.

My Terminator sorceror, again I had to convert to his new equipment options, cutting off the weapons that DO come in the friggin box to do so because he doesn't have those any more.

And my exalted sorcerors, despite coming in a full size kits with a million billion bits, have exactly one build by the rules...but they can have a plasma pistol, which is in NO thousand sons kit.

Yes, very true, but i'm less concerned about the ephemeral "no model, no rules" thing than I am about a consistent set of rules to discuss.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

GW probably didn't have a choice. And it isn't terrible that they would allow players to use their old models, but it has to go. It creates confusion and disrupts any ongoing attempts at lasting changes to codexes.

Meh. If you're "confused" that a Riptide can still take a stimulant injector, I don't know how you'll survive playing 40k...especially at a tournament level. Sure, it's a complicated ruleset and this adds to it, but it's nowhere near a level where the complexity is so high that it needs parsed.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 carldooley wrote:
sorry, but I need some context; what datasheet faq are you talking about, and what is wrong with it?

Last sheet of this.

https://whc-cdn.games-workshop.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/warhammer_40000_designers_commentary_en-1.pdf

It circumvents the codexes. e.g. GW removed Stimulant Injector as an available system in the new Tau Codex, but people can say they'll just use the index rules with codex prices or vice versa for other things.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

the_scotsman wrote:


Except that now it's "maybe model, maybe rules".

I bought a defiler recently ready to build it with twin hb magnetized to twin lascannon, options it has in the codex I'd just bought, and the model came with neither.

My daemon prince, by contrast, has a warp Bolter modeled on him - like all dps from the plastic kit do. No rules.

My Terminator sorceror, again I had to convert to his new equipment options, cutting off the weapons that DO come in the friggin box to do so because he doesn't have those any more.

And my exalted sorcerors, despite coming in a full size kits with a million billion bits, have exactly one build by the rules...but they can have a plasma pistol, which is in NO thousand sons kit.

Yes, very true, but i'm less concerned about the ephemeral "no model, no rules" thing than I am about a consistent set of rules to discuss.

then what is the point of any more rulebooks? if we can stick to older interpretations of rules, anyone going to bring their squats back?

HuskyWarhammer wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

GW probably didn't have a choice. And it isn't terrible that they would allow players to use their old models, but it has to go. It creates confusion and disrupts any ongoing attempts at lasting changes to codexes.

Meh. If you're "confused" that a Riptide can still take a stimulant injector, I don't know how you'll survive playing 40k...especially at a tournament level. Sure, it's a complicated ruleset and this adds to it, but it's nowhere near a level where the complexity is so high that it needs parsed.

That's not what I said, but carry on.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 carldooley wrote:


then what is the point of any more rulebooks? if we can stick to older interpretations of rules, anyone going to bring their squats back?

I'm not really sure where you're trying to go with this?

If tournaments do it, that's the right of the TO to decide what they want to do with thier event. BUT and this is where I take issue with it. "changing the culture of the community to not think in terms of that FAQ. "

I have a considerable number of legacy eldar sculpts that only see play because that DC page exists. They are not from some age of the mists of time, and one of them was even bought during 8th itself ( the made to order autarch)

Tournaments is one thing, but I think you underestimate just how important that sheet is for everyone else.

I want to bring the squats back!!!

Painting mine for that day.

And the more options the better.

I see these min and max tournament players in all sorts of games. They want to know all the rules, all the possible opponents, the likely power combos etc.

Then they want to min/max the info so they can prepare to take down all likely comers.

Frag that.

They should make all the 1st or qualifying rounds come with prepackaged armies. Like chess. [of course GW would have to have lots of pre painted units so that it could be a thing) This is what you drew...this is what you play. Now let the dice and the best general decide who moves on.

Not who can build the best list for whatever edition. Those players blow....and I mean blow the fun out of the game.

If they are good players then they will play with a pre packaged army provided by the TOs. IF they suck that bad...they will not make it to the next lvl where they can showcase their armies.

If they did this....more people would focus on learning to play tactics even if they don't know the armies. Thus better players...not better copy/paste list designers.

rant over...and I don't play tournaments...just my feel listening to the net over the past year.

 WindstormSCR wrote:
If tournaments do it, that's the right of the TO to decide what they want to do with thier event. BUT and this is where I take issue with it. "changing the culture of the community to not think in terms of that FAQ. "

I have a considerable number of legacy eldar sculpts that only see play because that DC page exists. They are not from some age of the mists of time, and one of them was even bought during 8th itself ( the made to order autarch)

Tournaments is one thing, but I think you underestimate just how important that sheet is for everyone else.

And I totally have sympathy for that. I don't want to screw you over, but at the same time I don't think those things necessarily belong. You could make some cases for a few though, I'm sure.

Perhaps Chapter Approved 2018 will have the rules for those missing units in the codex (with updated stuff) and then say "Indexes aren't valid anymore"? A lot of people will have at least a copy of CA2018 anyway

I bought my las-cannon and auto cannon dread venerable dread after the index dropped. Totally legal in the index, all Gw parts (forge world autocannons). This isn't some 3rd edition legacy model (which I have plenty of) but a new purchase done so under the understanding that this model is legit in 8th edition.

GW is dumb as rocks for invalidating that purchase less than 2 months after I made it because they can't keep straight what they released in the index vs codex.

If the changes are made for balance reasons then up the points, change the rules, you know balance. The "no model, no rules" approach is one of the biggest issues I have with 8th ed. I love converting and making my guys my guys and have always felt limited by being forced to use the options given to me in a box.

But I do agree that at this point it is getting ridiculous. GW has shown they are not proficient enough with technical writing to get the RAW to agree with the RAI so I can understand your side of the coin. But since I'm 100$+ invested in keeping the rules as they are I have a pretty substantial bias towards allowing something that was legal at the beginning of 8th to remain legal.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Champion of Slaanesh wrote:
No they shouldn't
Speaking as a csm player i lost alot of HQ options going from index to codex
Why should spezz muhteens get to keep their captain on bike yet gw on its stupid mentality decided to get rid of lords and sorcerors on bikes and demonic mounts?

No model, no rules. Does it really change how your army works though? GW might find the time to fill out slots with new stuff in the future, but I don't think it's fundamental to making the codex good.

I'd have a lot more sympathy for this statement if I didn't already own these models, many of which were official gw models. So these aren't options without models, gw just doesn't make them anymore

My demo charge guardsmen, my power axe armed commissar, my shotgun company commanders, etc. Etc. All official models that would essentially be paperweights if that took effect.

Because tournaments tend to influence casual metas. You screw over older players

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Champion of Slaanesh wrote:
No they shouldn't
Speaking as a csm player i lost alot of HQ options going from index to codex
Why should spezz muhteens get to keep their captain on bike yet gw on its stupid mentality decided to get rid of lords and sorcerors on bikes and demonic mounts?

No model, no rules. Does it really change how your army works though? GW might find the time to fill out slots with new stuff in the future, but I don't think it's fundamental to making the codex good.

Which would be fine if GW actually took a stance and remained consistent. Grandmaster Dreadknight and Exalted Champion are two datasheets that come to mind that don't have an official model - I know there are others but can't think of them.

The whole IP saga is detrimental to the hobby and as others have said, screws over long time collectors who have elaborate conversions etc that can't be used anymore because "it's not on the shelf"

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 WindstormSCR wrote:
If tournaments do it, that's the right of the TO to decide what they want to do with thier event. BUT and this is where I take issue with it. "changing the culture of the community to not think in terms of that FAQ. "

I have a considerable number of legacy eldar sculpts that only see play because that DC page exists. They are not from some age of the mists of time, and one of them was even bought during 8th itself ( the made to order autarch)

Tournaments is one thing, but I think you underestimate just how important that sheet is for everyone else.

And I totally have sympathy for that. I don't want to screw you over, but at the same time I don't think those things necessarily belong. You could make some cases for a few though, I'm sure.

There isn't a polite response to this, because you are exactly wanting to over long time collectors that play in casual metas that are still influenced by tournament decisions. You stated exactly that.

Try this: pick one of the most characterful units in your army. Now pretend it just disappeared because a new box was released with far less options and no legacy support. Fun, isn't it?

stop trying to ruin the little bit of hobby spirit left in this lawyer-driven IP rights debacle

If GW were to update their model line sufficiently, or show some common sense, I wouldn't have a problem with it. Losing some esoteric character/wargear combo isn't the worst thing in the world. However, we have situations like Blood Angels not being able to take a Sanguinary Priest with a Jump Pack because there's no model for it, so I don't see this idea gaining any traction at all. Seriously, that's about the easiest conversion you could ever do but it's now not in the Codex because...reasons?

There are too many sensible options and upgrades that would be affected by this change to make it a realistic prospect. If tournaments are going to start banning certain things then a blanket ban is pretty much never the answer.

No. What needs to be done is GW to put the damn rules back into codex. But nope. They don't care about making a good game so they don't.

tneva82 wrote:
No. What needs to be done is GW to put the damn rules back into codex. But nope. They don't care about making a good game so they don't.

Agreed. GW need to stop hiding behind their piss-poor excuse of "it confuses new players". They don't want to have any competition, so they can't have options they don't make the models for. I think GW could have just said, officially and in the rulebook, "Sorry, no more legacy support, use your old models as 'counts as' " and be done with it.

However, this half and half approach is the worst solution they could have done. The big "competitive" tournaments need to ban index entries and wargear for codex armies IMHO and leave the index entries/combos for casual play.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
They don't want to have any competition, so they can't have options they don't make the models for.

*looks around the industry*

Anyone know how to de-ostrich the biggest company in the market?

Honestly I feel the opposite; I think they needed to take a hardline stance against allowing old things, and deal with the blowback. People would get pissed they couldn't use their old 2nd edition models, but oh well IMHO for the good of the game it should never have been "Codex trumps Index but you can still use Index options", at least not in Matched Play. For Narrative sure, ask your opponent if it's okay/do what you want, but not for Matched.

Wayniac wrote:
Honestly I feel the opposite; I think they needed to take a hardline stance against allowing old things, and deal with the blowback. People would get pissed they couldn't use their old 2nd edition models, but oh well IMHO for the good of the game it should never have been "Codex trumps Index but you can still use Index options", at least not in Matched Play. For Narrative sure, ask your opponent if it's okay/do what you want, but not for Matched.

Why disallow options when there\s better solution than that or current. Just have the damn options in the codex in the first play where they belong.

tneva82 wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
Honestly I feel the opposite; I think they needed to take a hardline stance against allowing old things, and deal with the blowback. People would get pissed they couldn't use their old 2nd edition models, but oh well IMHO for the good of the game it should never have been "Codex trumps Index but you can still use Index options", at least not in Matched Play. For Narrative sure, ask your opponent if it's okay/do what you want, but not for Matched.

Why disallow options when there\s better solution than that or current. Just have the damn options in the codex in the first play where they belong.

That's the other, better option, yes. I think what Wayniac's saying is more along the lines of "pick one approach and stick to it", which I agree with. The current approach is "we don't provide rules for models we don't make" with an extra caveat added that actually makes it annoying for new players because that's not a 100% accurate reflection of the state of the rules. GW seem to want to have their cake and eat it when a more consistent approach one way or the other would have been much better.

Slipspace wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
Honestly I feel the opposite; I think they needed to take a hardline stance against allowing old things, and deal with the blowback. People would get pissed they couldn't use their old 2nd edition models, but oh well IMHO for the good of the game it should never have been "Codex trumps Index but you can still use Index options", at least not in Matched Play. For Narrative sure, ask your opponent if it's okay/do what you want, but not for Matched.

Why disallow options when there\s better solution than that or current. Just have the damn options in the codex in the first play where they belong.

That's the other, better option, yes. I think what Wayniac's saying is more along the lines of "pick one approach and stick to it", which I agree with. The current approach is "we don't provide rules for models we don't make" with an extra caveat added that actually makes it annoying for new players because that's not a 100% accurate reflection of the state of the rules. GW seem to want to have their cake and eat it when a more consistent approach one way or the other would have been much better.

They were taking that stance until the community backlash, they never intended for the index to carry on past the codex, but the community made such a big fuss of it they changed to this middle ground, when the last codex drops you can bet they will abandon the index again.

I will justify GW the day they come out and justify their decision to drop a whole freaking army like the Tomb Kings. This was the single biggest middle finger towards their fans. Not one legacy unit, not one old metal model, a whole army selection vanished. Especially when it had lots of new sculpts and some of the most beautiful models they ever made. And in an instant, gone. Screw the guy who spent 400-500 on a huge TK army, he can shove it right up his brutt. When they explain this decision to me, then I will give them slack for their sloppy writing and terrible lack of playtesting or any kind of balancing whatsoever.

 WindstormSCR wrote:


There isn't a polite response to this, because you are exactly wanting to over long time collectors that play in casual metas that are still influenced by tournament decisions. You stated exactly that.

Try this: pick one of the most characterful units in your army. Now pretend it just disappeared because a new box was released with far less options and no legacy support. Fun, isn't it?

stop trying to ruin the little bit of hobby spirit left in this lawyer-driven IP rights debacle

You're entitled to feel that way. I have tons of models I don't use any more. There's plenty of hobby left (not my work).

 Desubot wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

And there is not really any evidence they'll sunset the datasheets... i mean they released codexes with no models already.

Oh?

i guess normal lieutenants. any other? edit: wait nvm there are lieutenants though they dont sell it

Grey Knight chaplain
Grand master nemesis dreadknight

to name a couple

I KIND of think they should keep the old datasheets for units that have not been updated to the codex. Their points don't get updated. They miss out on a lot of the new toys. Etc etc...

But the wargear needs to fething go. The GreyKnight dread vs the SM dread is the best example of this. Each codex has different wargear options. But it's a meaningless gesture because the index just gives them all back.

 Lance845 wrote:
I KIND of think they should keep the old datasheets for units that have not been updated to the codex. Their points don't get updated. They miss out on a lot of the new toys. Etc etc...

But the wargear needs to fething go. The GreyKnight dread vs the SM dread is the best example of this. Each codex has different wargear options. But it's a meaningless gesture because the index just gives them all back.

The wargear is the point. GW wasn't originally going to support legacy models, but the massive outcry from casual players and collectors (probably the first time such a reaction has ever happened from them) made GW realize they up.

Hopefully they follow this realization by putting the options back on the next printing.

 Marmatag wrote:

 Desubot wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

And there is not really any evidence they'll sunset the datasheets... i mean they released codexes with no models already.

Oh?

i guess normal lieutenants. any other? edit: wait nvm there are lieutenants though they dont sell it

Grey Knight chaplain

Just used the standard Chaplain model, same as the Techmarine.

Grand master nemesis dreadknight

Again, basically used the standard Dreadknight model.

to name a couple

And yet we didn't see anything like that for other books since, at least not that I can think of. Tau players would have been freaking ecstatic for sub-Commander/Commander options in Ghostkeels or Broadsides alongside the other suits(Coldstar, Enforcer, and the XV8[Still not sure why we needed this one...]).

Guard saw Ogryn Bodyguard, but that basically just encourages someone buying an Ogryn box and building Nork Deddog and being able to field something.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wayniac wrote:
Honestly I feel the opposite; I think they needed to take a hardline stance against allowing old things, and deal with the blowback. People would get pissed they couldn't use their old 2nd edition models, but oh well IMHO for the good of the game it should never have been "Codex trumps Index but you can still use Index options", at least not in Matched Play. For Narrative sure, ask your opponent if it's okay/do what you want, but not for Matched.

This is where I'm at. Narrative/Open Play--whatever. Power costs basically stayed the same.

If it doesn't have updated points, it can't be played. We've seen this in AoS where some Legacy units(Glade Riders for example) just plain ol' don't get points.

The Talonmaster comes to mind. I do not think you can make it from any kit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sammael in the speeder doesn't have a model either, does it?

Autarch with Starglaive is another, since the Starglaive didn't even exist before 8th.

It was a very good move of GW to put the old option back into the game. For years Plague champions where allowed to use all kinds of power- and Kombiweapons and just because GW was too lazy to sculp something else than a power fist for the new sets all long-time players should throw out their minis? No thanks.
It's a shame the daemonic steeds didn't make it into the codizes, but at least we can use them through the index (aside from Nurgle herold for whatever reason...)
It would have been better to include all options in the codizes as well, but keeping them playable at least is okay for me.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

 Desubot wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

And there is not really any evidence they'll sunset the datasheets... i mean they released codexes with no models already.

Oh?

i guess normal lieutenants. any other? edit: wait nvm there are lieutenants though they dont sell it

Grey Knight chaplain

Just used the standard Chaplain model, same as the Techmarine.

Grand master nemesis dreadknight

Again, basically used the standard Dreadknight model.

The point is these models do not exist despite having datasheets. Just because you can do a reasonable counts-as doesn't make the statement untrue.

 WindstormSCR wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
I KIND of think they should keep the old datasheets for units that have not been updated to the codex. Their points don't get updated. They miss out on a lot of the new toys. Etc etc...

But the wargear needs to fething go. The GreyKnight dread vs the SM dread is the best example of this. Each codex has different wargear options. But it's a meaningless gesture because the index just gives them all back.

The wargear is the point. GW wasn't originally going to support legacy models, but the massive outcry from casual players and collectors (probably the first time such a reaction has ever happened from them) made GW realize they up.

Hopefully they follow this realization by putting the options back on the next printing.

The "Casual Players" and "Collectors" are full of gak.

The rules for the game need to support making the best game possible. And that means trimming the fat and making the the choices more meaningful. We currently have a worse game because of the legacy model rules all so some people can look at their old toy soldiers and go "But I can still play with you".

 Marmatag wrote:

The point is these models do not exist despite having datasheets. Just because you can do a reasonable counts-as doesn't make the statement untrue.

So because there's no model labeled Dark Angels Librarian, them being able to take the generic one is a "reasonable counts-as"?

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
It was a very good move of GW to put the old option back into the game. For years Plague champions where allowed to use all kinds of power- and Kombiweapons and just because GW was too lazy to sculp something else than a power fist for the new sets all long-time players should throw out their minis? No thanks.
It's a shame the daemonic steeds didn't make it into the codizes, but at least we can use them through the index (aside from Nurgle herold for whatever reason...)
It would have been better to include all options in the codizes as well, but keeping them playable at least is okay for me.

It's your assumption that you need to throw it away because it doesn't have the right weapon any more.

There is no rule in the rule book that says that.

Thats your choice. It's literally all on you.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

The point is these models do not exist despite having datasheets. Just because you can do a reasonable counts-as doesn't make the statement untrue.

So because there's no model labeled Dark Angels Librarian, them being able to take the generic one is a "reasonable counts-as"?

There was at one point in time:

Agree with OP - tourney circuits should plan to (at a specified date in the future) ban Index rules for models which have a codex entry.

It's the shenanigans of "oh in the index this model could take this equipment so I am using the index datasheet" that's the issue.

In non-ITC/ETC tournament play, the current flow chart stuff is fine.

Picking a datasheet that has been replaced because you prefer the old one is pretty low, IMO.

 daedalus wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

The point is these models do not exist despite having datasheets. Just because you can do a reasonable counts-as doesn't make the statement untrue.

So because there's no model labeled Dark Angels Librarian, them being able to take the generic one is a "reasonable counts-as"?

There was at one point in time:

Spoiler:

I'm aware; but he was never branded or sold individually as a "Dark Angels Librarian"--he was just a Librarian model that came with Dark Vengeance, a Dark Angels themed starter set.

It goes towards the point that "generic items exist and you should recognize they are generic for a reason".

 Lance845 wrote:

And that means trimming the fat and making the the choices more meaningful.

Like they have in 8th edition where:

Guard might as well only have one special weapon, two heavy weapons, and one melee weapon, because they're painfully and immediately superior to every other weapon in their class?
Marines have one special weapon, one heavy weapon, and one melee weapon for the same reason?
Grey Knights have one special weapon and one melee weapon for the same reason?

Ooh, lets go Primaris. Who's used that auto bolt rifle? *crickets* What about any of the hellblaster weapons other than the 30" one, because I've never once seen a person on the forums talking about them?

Yeah, I wish you were right, I want you to be right, but I'm not seeing it. This game is candyland. It always has been, but removing options makes it more true, not less.

 Lance845 wrote:

 WindstormSCR wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
I KIND of think they should keep the old datasheets for units that have not been updated to the codex. Their points don't get updated. They miss out on a lot of the new toys. Etc etc...

But the wargear needs to fething go. The GreyKnight dread vs the SM dread is the best example of this. Each codex has different wargear options. But it's a meaningless gesture because the index just gives them all back.

The wargear is the point. GW wasn't originally going to support legacy models, but the massive outcry from casual players and collectors (probably the first time such a reaction has ever happened from them) made GW realize they up.

Hopefully they follow this realization by putting the options back on the next printing.

The "Casual Players" and "Collectors" are full of gak.

The rules for the game need to support making the best game possible. And that means trimming the fat and making the the choices more meaningful. We currently have a worse game because of the legacy model rules all so some people can look at their old toy soldiers and go "But I can still play with you".

The «competitive players» are full of gak.

The models need support and to be made the best of the world, with plenty of characterful and varied options and bitz. And that means a fat ruleset and making more choices. We currently have a worse 40k because some people want to play chess with the minis and go «But I know better I am COMPETITVE

Cool so we get to be magic now where sets of models rotate out and essentially become paperweights. Excellent, what a great idea. I love painting a model up that was an OFFICIAL GW MODEL, sold to me by GW, and then being told by some random person I can't use it even though even GW says it's ok.

If it was just for tournaments, sure, whatever. But it won't be. We all know pickup games use whatever the tour is run in most areas. So if tournies start banning these models most areas will. It's bad enough GW axes units in codexes as is, the last thing I want to see is GW finally throw us a bone just for the players to screw it up.

I'm pretty cool with most stuff but I won't budge on this. Tournies have been dealing with busted gak since day 1, they can live with this one. And I'm guard, I'm pretty well off with this even if it went through. What about other codexes that would lose significant options and models with this change? You're essentially telling them to get bent.

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
Cool so we get to be magic now where sets of models rotate out and essentially become paperweights. Excellent, what a great idea. I love painting a model up that was an OFFICIAL GW MODEL, sold to me by GW, and then being told by some random person I can't use it even though even GW says it's ok.

If it was just for tournaments, sure, whatever. But it won't be. We all know pickup games use whatever the tour is run in most areas. So if tournies start banning these models most areas will. It's bad enough GW axes units in codexes as is, the last thing I want to see is GW finally throw us a bone just for the players to screw it up.

I'm pretty cool with most stuff but I won't budge on this. Tournies have been dealing with busted gak since day 1, they can live with this one. And I'm guard, I'm pretty well off with this even if it went through. What about other codexes that would lose significant options and models with this change? You're essentially telling them to get bent.

It literally only matters if you are only playing in tournaments

there are a LOT of people running around playing commander, legacy, vintage and the likes.

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
Cool so we get to be magic now where sets of models rotate out and essentially become paperweights. Excellent, what a great idea. I love painting a model up that was an OFFICIAL GW MODEL, sold to me by GW, and then being told by some random person I can't use it even though even GW says it's ok.

If it was just for tournaments, sure, whatever. But it won't be. We all know pickup games use whatever the tour is run in most areas. So if tournies start banning these models most areas will. It's bad enough GW axes units in codexes as is, the last thing I want to see is GW finally throw us a bone just for the players to screw it up.

I'm pretty cool with most stuff but I won't budge on this. Tournies have been dealing with busted gak since day 1, they can live with this one. And I'm guard, I'm pretty well off with this even if it went through. What about other codexes that would lose significant options and models with this change? You're essentially telling them to get bent.

I've been told to "get over it" for years with regards to Sergeants and Officers losing access to Hellguns/Lasguns.

Everyone else can take a turn at "getting bent" in my book.

 godardc wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

 WindstormSCR wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
I KIND of think they should keep the old datasheets for units that have not been updated to the codex. Their points don't get updated. They miss out on a lot of the new toys. Etc etc...

But the wargear needs to fething go. The GreyKnight dread vs the SM dread is the best example of this. Each codex has different wargear options. But it's a meaningless gesture because the index just gives them all back.

The wargear is the point. GW wasn't originally going to support legacy models, but the massive outcry from casual players and collectors (probably the first time such a reaction has ever happened from them) made GW realize they up.

Hopefully they follow this realization by putting the options back on the next printing.

The "Casual Players" and "Collectors" are full of gak.

The rules for the game need to support making the best game possible. And that means trimming the fat and making the the choices more meaningful. We currently have a worse game because of the legacy model rules all so some people can look at their old toy soldiers and go "But I can still play with you".

The «competitive players» are full of gak.

The models need support and to be made the best of the world, with plenty of characterful and varied options and bitz. And that means a fat ruleset and making more choices. We currently have a worse 40k because some people want to play chess with the minis and go «But I know better I am COMPETITVE

Tournaments and all this kind of things should stay away from 40k and not interfere with the hobby of thousand of people because they don't like how they play their game.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 daedalus wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

The point is these models do not exist despite having datasheets. Just because you can do a reasonable counts-as doesn't make the statement untrue.

So because there's no model labeled Dark Angels Librarian, them being able to take the generic one is a "reasonable counts-as"?

There was at one point in time:

Spoiler:

I'm aware; but he was never branded or sold individually as a "Dark Angels Librarian"--he was just a Librarian model that came with Dark Vengeance, a Dark Angels themed starter set.

It goes towards the point that "generic items exist and you should recognize they are generic for a reason".

Sure - but it doesn't change the fact that some models do not exist. I used that one as an example. There is no twin-devourer model for a Hive Tyrant. This is another example, and it's in the codex. There is no twin-assault cannon model.

The point is there is no precedent of GW sunsetting things simply because there is no model package for the datasheet. Do you disagree?

 Lance845 wrote:

 WindstormSCR wrote:
[quote=Lance845 753236 9888425 46a64f5c13f01f49371cac4a72af393f.jpg

The "Casual Players" and "Collectors" are full of gak.

The rules for the game need to support making the best game possible. And that means trimming the fat and making the the choices more meaningful. We currently have a worse game because of the legacy model rules all so some people can look at their old toy soldiers and go "But I can still play with you".

The rules need to be a framework to use the models I have in a fun game, nothing more, nothing less. If some players want to play with their die hard lists, they can do so, but rules are abused in torunaments anyway, an autocannon on a dreadnought doesn't make it worse. I don't see how the game suffers from "legacy rules", if you ask me we need more of those, give the Archon some wings or a jetbike!

 Marmatag wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 daedalus wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

The point is these models do not exist despite having datasheets. Just because you can do a reasonable counts-as doesn't make the statement untrue.

So because there's no model labeled Dark Angels Librarian, them being able to take the generic one is a "reasonable counts-as"?

There was at one point in time:

Spoiler:

I'm aware; but he was never branded or sold individually as a "Dark Angels Librarian"--he was just a Librarian model that came with Dark Vengeance, a Dark Angels themed starter set.

It goes towards the point that "generic items exist and you should recognize they are generic for a reason".

Sure - but it doesn't change the fact that some models do not exist. I used that one as an example. There is no twin-devourer model for a Hive Tyrant. This is another example, and it's in the codex. There is no twin-assault cannon model.

Twin-Assault Cannon for what? Razorbacks?


They also used to suggest you buy the Land Raider Crusader upgrade. A model totally existed for that, same as the Vendetta did.

The point is there is no precedent of GW sunsetting things simply because there is no model package for the datasheet. Do you disagree?

I do. Huge swathes of the fantasy line have effectively been "sunsetted" because there's no model package for them anymore.

Obviously we're talking within the context of 40k. Fantasy is an entirely different discussion.

What if I get my brand new codex and then decided, Wow I prefer the Index over the codex.
I'll agree with getting rid of the index army lists/data sheets as soon as GW gets rid of points costs and goes strictly to power Levels.

 Marmatag wrote:
Obviously we're talking within the context of 40k. Fantasy is an entirely different discussion.

Maybe, but at the same time even just talking about armies that haven't been removed(Bretonnians and Tomb Kings)--there are still armies that lost stuff that was even released barely an edition before.

Still doesn't change my point though. Index is just open for people to abuse. They need to go.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 warhead01 wrote:
What if I get my brand new codex and then decided, Wow I prefer the Index over the codex.
I'll agree with getting rid of the index army lists/data sheets as soon as GW gets rid of points costs and goes strictly to power Levels.

Then find someone who thinks like you.

If we're going to talk about Fantasy, I'm going to talk about my Dogs of War.

As far as the Datasheet FAQ goes, it's literally the only way for my foot guard to take a brigade, since my only non legacy options for fast attacks are tanks or walkers. Now I totally get GW wants me to get out there and buy me some tanks, and it's totally in their interest to make my existing rough riders illegal to force me to do so. But it's really not that great from my perspective as a player, and will put me off participating further in the hobby. Let's say they released a new replacement for the Leman Russ. [We'll call it, 'The Leman Russ Primaris!'] and stopped stocking the old models, before re-releasing the guard codex as a new guard codex with no leman russ anymore. How thrilled would you be? Much less the people with whole armoured companies.

It was bad enough when they introduced doctines,- WARRIOR WEAPONS. Now all your guardsmen can have laspistols and close combat weapons. Enjoy converting that!
Next edition - Oh yeah, those three hundred guardsmen you converted? Yeah. Sorry. Thanks for playing GW Roulette, though!


And yes, there are plenty of datasheets and weapons options with no model, and plenty of currently produced models that come with bits that don't feature on a datasheet, plenty of datasheets that allow options not included in the kit.

If we're going to go down this route, feel sorry for the Sisters players? 'A Seraphim squad consists of ten seraphim, 2 armed with flamer pistols, and a Seraphim Superior with Plasma Pistol and Power Sword - No Options.' That's where this things end up. Remember, there are no SOB models with Inferno Pistols at all.

Also this ridicious nonsense in the space marine codex where Honour Guard come in squads of two, because they once sold those two ultramarine honour guard as a pair. Not even squads of 2-10 mind you. Just two.
Or the [Censored] options for the Company Champion vs Chapter Champion, where the company champion is objectively far better, but they both have zero options because they're based on that one kit that one time.

Don't even get me started on dudes on bikes, or dudes with jetpacks.

But you sell model X.
Yep!
You sell Jetpacks.
Yep!
And you had rules for X with Jetpack.
Yep!
And you still sell X and Jetpacks.
Yep!
And they're in the fluff.
Yep!
But now we can't stick a Jetpack on X anymore.
Nope! Thanks for playing!

So there are 2 camps.

One that wants to have everything....all their toys and bells and whistles, old skool, conversion korner, all of it.

The other side wants as fair as you can, know what is what, keep it clean and simple.

Both want to have a game that is fulfilling.

The former may end up with some abuse, but it is the easiest to implement.

the later says to keep it limited...but in a game with something like 1000+ different unit combinations already....there will NEVER be a game designer that can balance all that...LIKE EVER! So you will always have some unit that is out of control.

The only way to get the later results that they are clamouring for is to limit the tournament scene to really just a handful of units for each faction, each unit type, each army, etc.

IF you think you can get it down to fair and square.....which I doubt....
It is not fair that one faction may have 20+ elites but another one had 2. Or one has 5 troop choices but another has 1.
So I think the goal the later wants is really something they will never realize...even if GW gives them their wish.

 Lance845 wrote:

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
It was a very good move of GW to put the old option back into the game. For years Plague champions where allowed to use all kinds of power- and Kombiweapons and just because GW was too lazy to sculp something else than a power fist for the new sets all long-time players should throw out their minis? No thanks.
It's a shame the daemonic steeds didn't make it into the codizes, but at least we can use them through the index (aside from Nurgle herold for whatever reason...)
It would have been better to include all options in the codizes as well, but keeping them playable at least is okay for me.

It's your assumption that you need to throw it away because it doesn't have the right weapon any more.

There is no rule in the rule book that says that.

Thats your choice. It's literally all on you.

If there's no rules it's kinda hard to use the model.

Competive players needs to stop infesting game by declaring Their Way Is The Only Way.

You can play competive while having rules for options.

You can't play models if there aren't rules for them.

One way allows both sides to play. One way excludes others. Game needs to support both. And if designers are competent they can. If it's too hard for current designers replace the game designers for somebody who has bothered to at least read game design ABC.

I am not a competitive player. I play very casual. I mostly try to avoid even playing actual 40k without a host of house rules because it's just not as engaging and fun as it should be.

But I AM a game designer by hobby and have a BA in game design. When I say they need to trim the fat it's not because I am looking for a cut throat competitive game. It's because I am looking for a clean fun game.

There is a thing in game design called options bloat. Consider a shooter video game with 3 dozen guns in it. Now certain guns are going to rise to the top in different situations. The rocket launcher has few shots but devastating damage. The carbine is super accurate at a decent range. etc etc.. But in most situations most of the guns are just going to be not as good and thus kind of crap. How much does it cost to design, code, build the graphical assets, etc etc... for about 20 guns that will be shot once and never used again.

40k is bloated with options. Already you can pick out units and look at their wargear and say "no reason to ever take these because you have these" both in unit options and wargear. This excess of options doesn't make for interesting choices or interesting game play.

feth the old models. Build a good game. That means trim out the fat, make the options that you do have really good and interesting choices. Again, both units and wargear.

I don't agree with GWs "we don't have a model so we didn't make rules". It gutted a lot of the interesting options from a lot of armies with no army being hit worse then the necrons. And yet even though interesting options left there is STILL bloat with redundant or simply inferior options that just don't have a place in any competent (not competitive, competent) list. But even worse then cutting all those options is allowing all the bloat to stay. The game is stuck not being able to move forward because it has this base line of fat that is allowed by this FAQ that can now never go away. A codex can be released with amazing internal and external balance all on it's own. It could be perfectly designed with no flaws within itself. Except here comes the index to add all it's bull gak.

As long as the index bloat is allowed the game can never really move forward and be balanced. And just saying "Just make everything good" is nonsense because some armies (looking at you most of the imperium) have so many damn options that a good chunk of them just have no actual place and it makes the armies with access to all this crap unfocused. It needs to be cut back.

So since you want to remove my ability to take biker lords and sorcerors as well as those on daemonic steeds what are you gonna replace them with? Since you seem to want to remove flavourful options

Champion of Slaanesh wrote:
So since you want to remove my ability to take biker lords and sorcerors as well as those on daemonic steeds what are you gonna replace them with? Since you seem to want to remove flavourful options

Nothing.

You should get what you get for the current edition of the game. GW should be balancing the army in it's codex. You get your codex. If the codex isn't balanced then you should be writing to GW to fix the codex. Fluff has nothing to do with crunch and it's not a 1 for 1 trade of loose an option gain an option. Before last year when the index came out you would have just gotten a new codex and if the units wern't in there then you didn't have the unit any more. Suck it up.

 Lance845 wrote:

Champion of Slaanesh wrote:
So since you want to remove my ability to take biker lords and sorcerors as well as those on daemonic steeds what are you gonna replace them with? Since you seem to want to remove flavourful options

Nothing.

You should get what you get for the current edition of the game. GW should be balancing the army in it's codex. You get your codex. If the codex isn't balanced then you should be writing to GW to fix the codex. Fluff has nothing to do with crunch and it's not a 1 for 1 trade of loose an option gain an option. Before last year when the index came out you would have just gotten a new codex and if the units wern't in there then you didn't have the unit any more. Suck it up.

Suck it up? Consider he has removed every single flavourful option to chaos. Made marks useless and the icons next to useless for the most part

Champion of Slaanesh wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

Champion of Slaanesh wrote:
So since you want to remove my ability to take biker lords and sorcerors as well as those on daemonic steeds what are you gonna replace them with? Since you seem to want to remove flavourful options

Nothing.

You should get what you get for the current edition of the game. GW should be balancing the army in it's codex. You get your codex. If the codex isn't balanced then you should be writing to GW to fix the codex. Fluff has nothing to do with crunch and it's not a 1 for 1 trade of loose an option gain an option. Before last year when the index came out you would have just gotten a new codex and if the units wern't in there then you didn't have the unit any more. Suck it up.

Suck it up? Consider he has removed every single flavourful option to chaos. Made marks useless and the icons next to useless for the most part

"Flavorful" is a dumb argument for game balance. Slaanesh needs help. yes. You know who needs it more? Grey Knights. You know who lost more? Necrons. You know whos book still has a lot of viable options? Codex: Chaos Deamons. The game isn't balanced. Bloating the game and making it impossible to balance by keeping the indexes relevant hurts more then your one subfaction of a single codex.

So yes. Suck it up.

I have a feeling warhammer legends is where these options are going to be at. And they won't be in matched play.

Tough right now it's only AoS really think that's how they are going to move forward.

Lance, go play chess and leave 40K alone. 40K has always been fluff and flavour first sort of game and so should it remain. I am all for balance as long as it doesn't mean homogenisarion and removal of options, but recently some people have just been advocating gutting the game for the sake of balance. feth that gak!

 Crimson wrote:
40K has always been fluff and flavour first sort of game and so should it remain.

And that is why 40k is a bad game, and will continue to be a bad game: GW allows "fluff", as defined by particular (and often extremely obsessive and narrow in their definitions of "fluff") players, to take priority over good design. Apparently it's "fluffy" that some old model from 1980 has to continue to have rules forever, leaving an absurdly bloated mess of rules and extremely limited ability to deal with things that shouldn't be in the game. We're seeing that with soup, it's stupid design that's bad for balance and bad for theme, but now that it exists people are going to whine and cry if GW ever takes it away and we're probably stuck with it for the rest of 40k's existence.

Not that "fluff" is really an excuse here. Not every detail of the fluff has to be represented by the rules. For example, you don't need different rules for power axes/swords/etc to have fluff about your character using an axe vs. a sword. You just use the same generic power weapon rules and build your model with whichever thing you think looks coolest.

I am all for balance as long as it doesn't mean homogenisarion and removal of options

Removal of options often avoids homogenization, because it allows you to focus on making a limited set of options that are distinct and interesting instead of being burdened with a bloated mess of rules where 90% of the content is pointless.

 Peregrine wrote:
Removal of options often avoids homogenization, because it allows you to focus on making a limited set of options that are distinct and interesting instead of being burdened with a bloated mess of rules where 90% of the content is pointless.

In my opinion, this is essentially accepting poor quality material.

"Yeah, we could've put in 90 more options, but we only put in 10 because it's easier."

"But I wanted my 100 options!"

"No, it's easier to balance only 10 options. And as we all know, taking the easy way out is how things should always be done."

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
"But I wanted my 100 options!"

But why do you need 100 options? Past a certain point you get into diminishing returns where few of those options make any meaningful difference, and you're just adding options for the sake of bragging about how many options you have.

Maybe the indexes were a bad idea. They were poorly written but considering I didn't get a missile launcher arm with my venerable dread box but that remains a codex legal option there isn't even a no model no rules argument to be made. Hell there's no multi melta included in the kit either but that is a codex option as well.

Maybe if GW knew the actual options of their kits/units the codexes would have been written better but I think the index flow-chart is more in response to sloppy writing in the codex/index than support for legacy models.

Hypothetically I agree that there needs to be fewer more meaningful options. I also agree that some equipment + codex options are unbalanced and need to be streamlined. I don't think that the unbalanced justification applies to all index options though (jump pack sang priest, characters on bikes)

I have no idea why these options were removed from the codexes (can't be no model no rules, see venerable dread example above) and it doesn't seem like balance issues. I really think it was just bad QC. Other options, autarchs with non-los weapons that can target characters seem like they present balance issues.

If GW were honest about why the options were removed from the codex I think it would take the sting out of losing options (that is blatantly unbalanced, we don't want librarians on bikes? auto-cannons are too good for dreads? we forgot they could do that...) but to just remove options mid-edition for no reason at all seems to be a slap in the face to customers who purchased product in good faith that the rug wouldn't be pulled out from under them in less than a couple months...

 Peregrine wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
"But I wanted my 100 options!"

But why do you need 100 options? Past a certain point you get into diminishing returns where few of those options make any meaningful difference, and you're just adding options for the sake of bragging about how many options you have.

Because some players (read: people who develop fluff for their armies) prefer to run Vanquisher tanks instead of Annihilator tanks for "Reasons".

The annihilator is the better Leman Russ for tank hunting and could easily replace the Vanquisher entry in the codex without competitive players even noticing. But why? If there are 4 people in the world that use Vanquishers over Annihilators, then you should keep the Vanquisher. Heck, you could even add something else (The Leman Russ Defoliator ), as long as it's balanced.

Hey Peregrine, you convinced me! We should avoid unnecessary rules and option bloat. So I have changed my mind and I will now totally support banning Forge World!

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Because some players (read: people who develop fluff for their armies) prefer to run Vanquisher tanks instead of Annihilator tanks for "Reasons".

And you can still have them. You just represent your LR Annihilator with a single long-barreled cannon instead of the lascannons. Fluff does not require that every aspect of your fluff be given its own special snowflake rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:
Hey Peregrine, you convinced me! We should avoid unnecessary rules and option bloat. So I have changed my mind and I will now totally support banning Forge World!

And by that same reasoning we should ban everything that isn't IG, removing all those unnecessary options. Or you could not make silly arguments like yours.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Because some players (read: people who develop fluff for their armies) prefer to run Vanquisher tanks instead of Annihilator tanks for "Reasons".

And you can still have them. You just represent your LR Annihilator with a single long-barreled cannon instead of the lascannons. Fluff does not require that every aspect of your fluff be given its own special snowflake rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:
Hey Peregrine, you convinced me! We should avoid unnecessary rules and option bloat. So I have changed my mind and I will now totally support banning Forge World!

And by that same reasoning we should ban everything that isn't IG, removing all those unnecessary options. Or you could not make silly arguments like yours.

Jesus Christ, how can a person so completely lack awareness! You can just apply your own answer to Unit1126PLL to your own desire to use FW units. They can be just counts-as main studio units without snowflake rules. You're utterly blind to the blatant hypocrisy of your position.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Because some players (read: people who develop fluff for their armies) prefer to run Vanquisher tanks instead of Annihilator tanks for "Reasons".

And you can still have them. You just represent your LR Annihilator with a single long-barreled cannon instead of the lascannons. Fluff does not require that every aspect of your fluff be given its own special snowflake rules.

You want to use Imperial Guardsmen? Just represent your Space Marines with a lasgun and flak armour instead of the boltgun and power armour. Fluff does not require that every aspect of your fluff be given its own special snowflake rules.

Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Removal of options often avoids homogenization, because it allows you to focus on making a limited set of options that are distinct and interesting instead of being burdened with a bloated mess of rules where 90% of the content is pointless.

In my opinion, this is essentially accepting poor quality material.

"Yeah, we could've put in 90 more options, but we only put in 10 because it's easier."

"But I wanted my 100 options!"

"No, it's easier to balance only 10 options. And as we all know, taking the easy way out is how things should always be done."

This is an answer born of ignorance.

The games mechanics only support so much variation by it's very nature. There are only 12 meaningful strength levels (1-11 and 20), 6 AP, etc etc...

Eventually either each option is just starting to be a copy of itself or every armies options are so similar that they loose all flavor. It's not a matter of it being EASIER (though it also is) it's a matter of it being better and more interesting.

Crimson wrote:Lance, go play chess and leave 40K alone. 40K has always been fluff and flavour first sort of game and so should it remain. I am all for balance as long as it doesn't mean homogenisarion and removal of options, but recently some people have just been advocating gutting the game for the sake of balance. feth that gak!

I didn't say gut the game. I am saying refine it. Dig into it's core and bring out the best version of itself.

Fluff and flavor are the only things keeping this game afloat at the moment - it's not the quality of rules or gameplay, its nostalgia. Pure and simple.

That said, fluff shouldn't take priority to designing rules/gameplay for an army - however, it should be integrated as much as possible.

As far as old units being rendered "useless"; well, counts-as, and conversions go a long way, as long as the model and the unit it's representing play similarly (Biker Lord <-> Lord on Beast).

I'd rather have more balance than more unit choices - that said, GW couldn't balance this game even if... well, even if anything; they're notoriously terrible at balancing in general - see the misc 8th edition codecii/chapter approveds - that said, they're trying; so I'll give them credit.

Maybe one day we'll have a more balanced game - in the meantime, just try to have fun.

 Crimson wrote:
Jesus Christ, how can a person so completely lack awareness! You can just apply your own answer to Unit1126PLL to your own desire to use FW units. They can be just counts-as main studio units without snowflake rules. You're utterly blind to the blatant hypocrisy of your position.

The situation is not the same in any way. Banning FW units is about which word is on the cover of the book, not whether those options add anything to the game. Removing the LR Vanquisher and using the model to represent a LR Annihilator is about removing an utterly terrible option that nobody is ever going to take over a unit that is far superior in the same role, cutting out the redundant rules that add nothing to the game. The reasons for removal are entirely different, and applying one to the other is nonsense.

 Lance845 wrote:
Dig into it's core and bring out the best version of itself.

We obviously disagree on what 'best' means in this context...

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
You want to use Imperial Guardsmen? Just represent your Space Marines with a lasgun and flak armour instead of the boltgun and power armour. Fluff does not require that every aspect of your fluff be given its own special snowflake rules.

That is not the same and you know it. Guardsmen and space marines are very different units conceptually, occupy different design space, and are genuinely different options in a typical metagame. The LR Vanquisher and Annihilator are not different units in any of those ways. They're two units with 100% overlap, except one of them is just plain better in every way. If you set aside the need to have every aspect of your fluff get its own separate rules then there is no situation where you would ever take the Vanquisher. If you re-named the units "Leman Russ Anti-tank" and gave them a single set of rules nothing of value would be lost.

 Crimson wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
Dig into it's core and bring out the best version of itself.

We obviously disagree on what 'best' means in this context...

Agreed. I want a game with interesting choices. You want to paint plastic soldiers and put them on a table because it looks like the stories you read and the game be damned.

Everyone basically agrees that 40k is at the very least not a great game and is only kind of carried on by nostalgia, the quality of the models, and fluff.

The difference is YOU think thats a reason to go all in on the fluff and abandon the game to what it currently is and I think that it's a reason to start building a foundation stronger than a pillar of sand by making a better game.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
You want to use Imperial Guardsmen? Just represent your Space Marines with a lasgun and flak armour instead of the boltgun and power armour. Fluff does not require that every aspect of your fluff be given its own special snowflake rules.

That is not the same and you know it. Guardsmen and space marines are very different units conceptually, occupy different design space, and are genuinely different options in a typical metagame. The LR Vanquisher and Annihilator are not different units in any of those ways. They're two units with 100% overlap, except one of them is just plain better in every way. If you set aside the need to have every aspect of your fluff get its own separate rules then there is no situation where you would ever take the Vanquisher. If you re-named the units "Leman Russ Anti-tank" and gave them a single set of rules nothing of value would be lost.

Vanquishers and Annihilators are as different as Guardsmen and Marines depending on your point of view.

Guardsmen are "just basic dudes" in the same way Marines are. Conceptually, they're both the same, basic doods. Any other difference between them is purely relegated to the fluff (e.g. Marines wear power armour and Guardsmen don't is a fluff point, and has no bearing on the basic conceptualization of "this is a basic dude").

If the Leman Russ Annihilator and the Leman Russ Vanquisher literally overlap 100%, then the problem is that the Vanquisher is ill-designed, not that it exists at all.

Make the vanquisher a gambler, e.g. you have to hit, wound, and pass the save, but it does something monstrous like 3d6 damage or something, and make the Annihilator a more reliable tank, and boom, two similar vehicles with different roles: one that responds very well to buffs (Vanquisher) and one that is more reliable if left alone (Annihilator).

 Peregrine wrote:

The situation is not the same in any way. Banning FW units is about which word is on the cover of the book, not whether those options add anything to the game. Removing the LR Vanquisher and using the model to represent a LR Annihilator is about removing an utterly terrible option that nobody is ever going to take over a unit that is far superior in the same role, cutting out the redundant rules that add nothing to the game. The reasons for removal are entirely different, and applying one to the other is nonsense.

But some of those Index options are not terrible, so why should those be removed? Oh, I guess it was the name on the cover of the book! (Not to mention that there are loads of terrible FW units.)

Furthermore, an answer to an option being terrible in not to remove, it is to improve it!

Your argument was that options should not exist merely for fluff reasons, they should serve a function in the game. You seem to utterly fail to understand the modus operandi of the Forge World. Do you really think they sit down and think what the game needs in gameplay sense and then proceed to design a model for that fulfils that role? Of course they don'! The whole fething subdivision exist exactly for the purpose to you oppose: to design cool looking gak, often based on some vague and almost forgotten fluff reference, and then splat some half-assed rules on them, completely irrespective of whether such unit was 'needed' in the gameplay sense.

 Crimson wrote:
But some of those Index options are not terrible, so why should those be removed?

I never said that all index options should be removed. Please don't build straw men.

Furthermore, an answer to an option being terrible in not to remove, it is to improve it!

Not necessarily. If it's terrible because it's redundant and another option already fills its intended role then the solution is to remove the rules bloat. Buffing it would just mean making the other option obsolete instead, for zero net progress. A buff is only appropriate if the option is one that is conceptually good and necessary but struggling because of poor balancing.

Your argument was that options should not exist merely for fluff reasons, they should serve a function in the game. You seem to utterly fail to understand the modus operandi of the Forge World. Do you really think they sit down and think what the game needs in gameplay sense and then proceed to design a model for that fulfils that role? Of course they don'! The whole fething subdivision exist exactly for the purpose to you oppose: to design cool looking gak, often based on some vague and almost forgotten fluff reference, and then splat some half-assed rules on them, completely irrespective of whether such unit was 'needed' in the gameplay sense.

What's your point? I don't care about what the designers are thinking, I care about the end result. Some FW units have a reason to exist, some don't. Whether the designer got it right because their process was good or because they got lucky with a broken process is irrelevant to me, only the final outcome matters.

 Lance845 wrote:


Agreed. I want a game with interesting choices. You want to paint plastic soldiers and put them on a table because it looks like the stories you read and the game be damned.

Everyone basically agrees that 40k is at the very least not a great game and is only kind of carried on by nostalgia, the quality of the models, and fluff.

The difference is YOU think thats a reason to go all in on the fluff and abandon the game to what it currently is and I think that it's a reason to start building a foundation stronger than a pillar of sand by making a better game.

I agree on your goals and I want to improve the game, as long as it is not on expense of removing options! Ultimately it really doesn't matter if some options are mostly redundant, or exist mainly for legacy or fluff reasons. They might make the game a tad more confusing and harder to master (as it takes longer to optimise stuff) but I really don't think that it makes the game ultimately worse. Now, if some option is just plain too good, then make it more expensive or nerf it, don't remove it altogether. The stuff that was removed in the codices and now only exist in the index should have never been removed.

 Crimson wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

The situation is not the same in any way. Banning FW units is about which word is on the cover of the book, not whether those options add anything to the game. Removing the LR Vanquisher and using the model to represent a LR Annihilator is about removing an utterly terrible option that nobody is ever going to take over a unit that is far superior in the same role, cutting out the redundant rules that add nothing to the game. The reasons for removal are entirely different, and applying one to the other is nonsense.

But some of those Index options are not terrible, so why should those be removed? Oh, I guess it was the name on the cover of the book! (Not to mention that there are loads of terrible FW units.)

Furthermore, an answer to an option being terrible in not to remove, it is to improve it!

Your argument was that options should not exist merely for fluff reasons, they should serve a function in the game. You seem to utterly fail to understand the modus operandi of the Forge World. Do you really think they sit down and think what the game needs in gameplay sense and then proceed to design a model for that fulfils that role? Of course they don'! The whole fething subdivision exist exactly for the purpose to you oppose: to design cool looking gak, often based on some vague and almost forgotten fluff reference, and then splat some half-assed rules on them, completely irrespective of whether such unit was 'needed' in the gameplay sense.

"They are bad at design so they game should continue to be poorly designed because they are bad! I like things the way they are!"

Is that really the argument you want to be making?

We are talking about what SHOULD be. In a perfect world what gets cut isn't about whats in a Index, FW, or Codex, it's about what build the most refined and interesting army choices and options within those armies. But things NEED to get cut and right now the thing causing the most bloat is the allowance of legacy. FW shouldn't be run like it is it's own company. It need to get a dedicated team of rules writers working on HH and their modelers need to be told what models to make by the game designers. The modelers making models for 40k need to get placed under the same direction as the modelers for GW 40k.

Again, there is a limited amount of viable interesting design space by the very nature of the games rules structure. We don't need 30 guns in our shooter. We need 12 really great ones that all have a place.

 Lance845 wrote:
We are talking about what SHOULD be. In a perfect world what gets cut isn't about whats in a Index, FW, or Codex, it's about what build the most refined and interesting army choices and options within those armies. But things NEED to get cut and right now the thing causing the most bloat is the allowance of legacy. FW shouldn't be run like it is it's own company. It need to get a dedicated team of rules writers working on HH and their modelers need to be told what models to make by the game designers. The modelers making models for 40k need to get placed under the same direction as the modelers for GW 40k.

Again, there is a limited amount of viable interesting design space by the very nature of the games rules structure. We don't need 30 guns in our shooter. We need 12 really great ones that all have a place.

The cat's out of the bag. If there are 30 different guns that exist, then there's someone out there that wants to use them. I'm not using a Leman Russ Defoliator because it does not exist, and I don't use Leman Russ Eradicators because they're just bad Russes (and they came out after I finished building my tank company anyways).

But I know several people that use Leman Russ Eradicators for fluff reasons, and I don't begrudge them the choice. Nor would I advocate for it to be slashed out of sheer misguided "simplification."

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Vanquishers and Annihilators are as different as Guardsmen and Marines depending on your point of view.

They really aren't. They're both anti-tank Leman Russes, with rules that are 95% identical in gameplay function except for the fact that the poor Vanquisher has trash stats for its gun. If you buff the Vanquisher to a point where it is useful then all you accomplish is making the Annihilator redundant. Guardsmen and marines, on the other hand, occupy completely different strategic roles. Guardsmen are a cheap horde unit, space marines are heavy infantry with a generalist role.

Make the vanquisher a gambler, e.g. you have to hit, wound, and pass the save, but it does something monstrous like 3d6 damage or something, and make the Annihilator a more reliable tank, and boom, two similar vehicles with different roles: one that responds very well to buffs (Vanquisher) and one that is more reliable if left alone (Annihilator).

That just makes a trash unit, and a failure of game design. A unit that swings wildly between "useless paperweight" and "blatantly overpowered" is an incredibly frustrating experience for both players, and is almost guaranteed to be a balance problem. If you can remove the randomness with buffs then you have an overpowered game-wrecker, if you're stuck with hoping for blind luck to do anything you have a unit hardly anyone is going to take. And then you still have to deal with the fact that the basic LRBT also makes the Annihilator obsolete now that having D6 shots instead of a blast template allows it to make up for its weaker per-shot damage by having a lot more shots.

And let's say you by some miracle succeed at making this work and not be a balance nightmare. You haven't even done anything worth doing. The two units are still mostly identical in how you use them on the table, and the differences are primarily interesting to the obsessive list builders who calculate out every possible option to optimize the last 5% efficiency from their choices. That's well into bloat territory, piling up lots of rules that have very little impact on the game experience.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
But I know several people that use Leman Russ Eradicators for fluff reasons, and I don't begrudge them the choice.

But why does that fluff have to be represented with different rules? Why does that particular tank need a different stat line, instead of calling it the Fluff-pattern LRBT with its Fluff-pattern battle cannon instead of the more common Cadian pattern (a difference which has no on-table relevance)? You still have the fluff of using that alternate model, it just doesn't diverge far enough from the LRBT to get different rules, just like IG veterans probably don't shoot quite as well as sternguard, but both are BS 3+ due to the limits on granularity in the D6 system.

Well to be fair

Some say 'feth the old models"

Old models 'may' not be an issue.

To be a fair game designer....you could just as easily say:

"feth the new models"

Yup some of the new stuff may just be crap in the game.
So If you are going by game play....throw out a lot of the current stuff.

Now how will that go over?
About as good as throwing old stuff out I'm guessing.

Once you get over that obstacle to your line of thought then you can see what you are actually suggesting.

Anything you say to keep all the current NEW models in the game....can be applied to the old models as well.

 Crimson wrote:
I agree on your goals and I want to improve the game, as long as it is not on expense of removing options!

That's like saying you agree with the goal of eating enough to avoid starving to death, but not if it requires eating. If the game has pushed into rules bloat territory then removing options is required to accomplish those goals.

 Peregrine wrote:

Not necessarily. If it's terrible because it's redundant and another option already fills its intended role then the solution is to remove the rules bloat. Buffing it would just mean making the other option obsolete instead, for zero net progress. A buff is only appropriate if the option is one that is conceptually good and necessary but struggling because of poor balancing.

The answer to your particular Leman Russ dilemma was already provided. They can be differentiated, at least somewhat.

What's your point? I don't care about what the designers are thinking, I care about the end result. Some FW units have a reason to exist, some don't. Whether the designer got it right because their process was good or because they got lucky with a broken process is irrelevant to me, only the final outcome matters.

It is just bizarre that you'd champion a subdivision that does exactly the sort of thing you here oppose. Whole point of FW is to create unnecessary options and contribute to the rules bloat. Even that whole Annihilator/Vanquisher overlap if FW's doing.

 Crimson wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:


Agreed. I want a game with interesting choices. You want to paint plastic soldiers and put them on a table because it looks like the stories you read and the game be damned.

Everyone basically agrees that 40k is at the very least not a great game and is only kind of carried on by nostalgia, the quality of the models, and fluff.

The difference is YOU think thats a reason to go all in on the fluff and abandon the game to what it currently is and I think that it's a reason to start building a foundation stronger than a pillar of sand by making a better game.

I agree on your goals and I want to improve the game, as long as it is not on expense of removing options! Ultimately it really doesn't matter if some options are mostly redundant, or exist mainly for legacy or fluff reasons. They might make the game a tad more confusing and harder to master (as it takes longer to optimise stuff) but I really don't think that it makes the game ultimately worse. Now, if some option is just plain too good, then make it more expensive or nerf it, don't remove it altogether. The stuff that was removed in the codices and now only exist in the index should have never been removed.

Again, an answer born of ignorance. The bloat is part of whats making it worse. The imperium looks at missile launchers, melta, plasma, and las cannons and they go... which is best for which situation. And now nobody ever takes a Melta. Because it has no real place. It's niche is so niche that it's unreliable or just plain worse then the other options. It's all plasma and las cannons. because too many things are trying to do the same job. Bloat.

I am not talking about the game being confusing or harder to master. I am talking about interesting choices. When one is categorically better than the other than it's not interesting. Even if you decide to take the worse one your just taking a different advantage your just, through ignorance or preference, making yourself worse.

"Just make them all good!" is a dumb statement. There is a limited amount of space where things can actually shine with different advantages and disadvantages. It's why lower point games tend to be more interesting than higher point games. At 1500 points I have to make hard choices about what I bring to the table while at 3000 points I can bring everything so you will fight everything. One makes me really think about my list and choose interesting options to stay alive. The other is just a wall of bs running down the table. Your armys options should be like that 1500 point game with every option being good and having to make some hard choices. Your army selection should be the same with each army having different pros and cons.

The more options you throw in the wider you need to spread what they do to keep any of them relevant. The wider you spread them the more overlap they have with other options in their own army and other army. The more overlap you have the more homogenization you create until the there really isn't much of a difference at all.

Trim the fat.

 Crimson wrote:
The answer to your particular Leman Russ dilemma was already provided. They can be differentiated, at least somewhat.

But why do they need to be differentiated? If you're at the point of having to redesign the rules completely to justify having them be separate rules then the conclusion should be that you don't have two different design concepts, and that you should remove one of them.

It is just bizarre that you'd champion a subdivision that does exactly the sort of thing you here oppose. Whole point of FW is to create unnecessary options and contribute to the rules bloat. Even that whole Annihilator/Vanquisher overlap if FW's doing.

Again, that is nonsense. FW does not necessarily create rules bloat just because they create new units. For example, my Vulture with punisher cannons is a unit that is clearly different from anything in the IG codex.

 Peregrine wrote:

But why does that fluff have to be represented with different rules? Why does that particular tank need a different stat line, instead of calling it the Fluff-pattern LRBT with its Fluff-pattern battle cannon instead of the more common Cadian pattern

You tell me! You tell me why you have for years insisted that you must be allowed to use FW rules instead of using those models as counts as codex stuff!

 Lance845 wrote:
There is a limited amount of space where things can actually shine with different advantages and disadvantages.

This, FFS. Design space is a finite resource.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:
You tell me! You tell me why you have for years insisted that you must be allowed to use FW rules instead of using those models as counts as codex stuff!

Because the design concepts are different, and no counts-as option exists. Why is this so hard for you? No codex equivalent to my Vulture exists. Nothing is even close in how it plays on the table, nothing is even close to WYSIWYG. My DKoK infantry, on the other hand, have very often been used as codex units and I wouldn't care one bit if all of the special snowflake regiments were consolidated back into the codex and a single army list (along with the removal of special snowflake chapter tactics, etc).

 Peregrine wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
I agree on your goals and I want to improve the game, as long as it is not on expense of removing options!

That's like saying you agree with the goal of eating enough to avoid starving to death, but not if it requires eating. If the game has pushed into rules bloat territory then removing options is required to accomplish those goals.

Well that was complete non sequitur. Your starting point is that more options make the game worse (except if they're FW options...) and I do not agree. If I were able to give my Primaris Lieutenant a power fist, it would not make the game worse, to me it would make it better!

 Peregrine wrote:


Again, that is nonsense. FW does not necessarily create rules bloat just because they create new units. For example, my Vulture with punisher cannons is a unit that is clearly different from anything in the IG codex.

Nah, just rename it to "Vulture-pattern anti-infantry Valkyrie" and give it the same stats as the missile pods of the Valkyrie.

 admironheart wrote:
Well to be fair

Some say 'feth the old models"

Old models 'may' not be an issue.

To be a fair game designer....you could just as easily say:

"feth the new models"

Yup some of the new stuff may just be crap in the game.
So If you are going by game play....throw out a lot of the current stuff.

Now how will that go over?
About as good as throwing old stuff out I'm guessing.

Once you get over that obstacle to your line of thought then you can see what you are actually suggesting.

Anything you say to keep all the current NEW models in the game....can be applied to the old models as well.

I agree! it's not just the old models that are bloat. The game in general is a fething mess.

But the legacy rules are an anchor that won't let the game move forward. As long as the FAQ exists that says you can pull any option from any publication that hasn't been updated by just using the old publication the game is going to just get worse and worse. The moment they cut that out they can refine and balance going forward. Dropping the indexes is step 1. It's not the whole process.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:


Again, that is nonsense. FW does not necessarily create rules bloat just because they create new units. For example, my Vulture with punisher cannons is a unit that is clearly different from anything in the IG codex.

Nah, just rename it to "Vulture-pattern anti-infantry Valkyrie" and give it the same stats as the missile pods of the Valkyrie.

This is exactly what Peregrine is advocating, I am glad you understand.

Just run the Vulture as a counts-as "Fluff-pattern Valkyrie" and run the punisher cannons as MRPs. That's the same as using a Vanquisher as an Annihilator or an Eradicator as a basic Russ. Fundamentally, it's the same as using a Guardsman as a Space Marine, because after all, the only difference in wargear is fluff-based and we wouldn't want that to get in the way of a balanced game.

 Lance845 wrote:

Again, an answer born of ignorance. The bloat is part of whats making it worse. The imperium looks at missile launchers, melta, plasma, and las cannons and they go... which is best for which situation. And now nobody ever takes a Melta. Because it has no real place. It's niche is so niche that it's unreliable or just plain worse then the other options. It's all plasma and las cannons. because too many things are trying to do the same job. Bloat.

I am not talking about the game being confusing or harder to master. I am talking about interesting choices. When one is categorically better than the other than it's not interesting. Even if you decide to take the worse one your just taking a different advantage your just, through ignorance or preference, making yourself worse.

That no one takes melta is not because it has no role, it has a role, it just is bad at it. The classic special weapons melta, plasma and flamer all have distinct roles of being anti-tank, anti-heavy-infantry and anti-horde. That the rules fail to represent this adequately is not due the lack of roles.

Furthermore, sometimes it is fine to have stuff for just for legacy reasons. It is just there for variety, or if you are a WYSIWYG fanatic (like me) and what to use that certain old model. It's fine. Not everything needs to be 100% cut-throat competitive all the time.

 Crimson wrote:
Your starting point is that more options make the game worse

No it isn't. Stop making straw man arguments.

If I were able to give my Primaris Lieutenant a power fist, it would not make the game worse, to me it would make it better!

But what about giving your primaris lieutenant a volcano cannon? Would that also be a good idea?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

This is exactly what Peregrine is advocating, I am glad you understand.

Just run the Vulture as a counts-as "Fluff-pattern Valkyrie" and run the punisher cannons as MRPs. That's the same as using a Vanquisher as an Annihilator or an Eradicator as a basic Russ. Fundamentally, it's the same as using a Guardsman as a Space Marine, because after all, the only difference in wargear is fluff-based and we wouldn't want that to get in the way of a balanced game.

Indeed. It is pure hypocrisy. Stuff that Peregrine cares about should remain while the stuff he doesn't care about should be removed.

 Peregrine wrote:
But what about giving your primaris lieutenant a volcano cannon? Would that also be a good idea?

As long as it's in the fluff and appropriately balanced, why not?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Just run the Vulture as a counts-as "Fluff-pattern Valkyrie" and run the punisher cannons as MRPs. That's the same as using a Vanquisher as an Annihilator or an Eradicator as a basic Russ. Fundamentally, it's the same as using a Guardsman as a Space Marine, because after all, the only difference in wargear is fluff-based and we wouldn't want that to get in the way of a balanced game.

No, it really isn't the same at all.

A Vulture is a pure gunship with massive RoF on anti-horde weapons. A Valkyrie is a transport that can also throw some dice while it delivers troops. Not the same unit, at all.

A guardsman is a horde model, with cheap stats but the ability to be taken in huge numbers. A tactical marine is an elite model, with much better stats but a higher point cost. Not the same unit, at all.

A LR Vanquisher is an anti-tank LR. A LR Annihilator is an anti-tank LR. They're essentially the same unit, they play exactly the same way on the table, and the only difference is that the Vanquisher has a bad stat line and is utter trash while the Annihilator does the job well.

 Crimson wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

Again, an answer born of ignorance. The bloat is part of whats making it worse. The imperium looks at missile launchers, melta, plasma, and las cannons and they go... which is best for which situation. And now nobody ever takes a Melta. Because it has no real place. It's niche is so niche that it's unreliable or just plain worse then the other options. It's all plasma and las cannons. because too many things are trying to do the same job. Bloat.

I am not talking about the game being confusing or harder to master. I am talking about interesting choices. When one is categorically better than the other than it's not interesting. Even if you decide to take the worse one your just taking a different advantage your just, through ignorance or preference, making yourself worse.

That no one takes melta is not because it has no role, it has a role, it just is bad at it. The classic special weapons melta, plasma and flamer all have distinct roles of being anti-tank, anti-heavy-infantry and anti-horde. That the rules fail to represent this adequately is not due the lack of roles.

Furthermore, sometimes it is fine to have stuff for just for legacy reasons. It is just there for variety, or if you are a WYSIWYG fanatic (like me) and what to use that certain old model. It's fine. Not everything needs to be 100% cut-throat competitive all the time.

Once again! I am not cut throat competitive. I am a very casual player. Once again! WYSIWYG is on you. There is no rule that requires it and it's your choice to be that way. Your personal preferences for modeling that is not even supported by the rules and has not been for several editions is entirely on you.

Melta is not BAD at it's role. It's only bad by comparison to plasma.

 Peregrine wrote:

No it isn't. Stop making straw man arguments.

It is hard to see what your argument is as it is so incoherent.

But what about giving your primaris lieutenant a volcano cannon? Would that also be a good idea?

I mean, speaking of incoherent...

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
As long as it's in the fluff and appropriately balanced, why not?

Then why even have army lists and upgrade choices at all? Just let the players write their own stat lines, putting whatever upgrades they want on whatever models they want. I mean, 8th edition now has separate point costs for the model and its weapons, so why not put volcano cannons on every model in a squad of guardsmen? Why not put power fists on a tank? Why not put Tau drones on a Tyranid monster?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:
It is hard to see what your argument is as it is so incoherent.

I've made it perfectly clear that my argument is not "more options make the game worse". My objection is to rules bloat and redundant options, not to having options that are genuinely different and interesting and occupy legitimate new design space.

I mean, speaking of incoherent...

What is incoherent about it? You said that having more options is always a good thing, and can't seem to understand that not every model gets to take every weapon in the game.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
As long as it's in the fluff and appropriately balanced, why not?

Then why even have army lists and upgrade choices at all? Just let the players write their own stat lines, putting whatever upgrades they want on whatever models they want. I mean, 8th edition now has separate point costs for the model and its weapons, so why not put volcano cannons on every model in a squad of guardsmen? Why not put power fists on a tank? Why not put Tau drones on a Tyranid monster?

Because those aren't in the fluff?

I mean really, we're saying "allow things to operate like they do in the fluff" and you're strawmanning so hard it's ridiculous.

If there is a regiment of guardsmen in the fluff where every single one has volcano cannons, and also a Chaos warband known for festooning their tanks with powerfists, then why not allow it? So long as its appropriately balanced, that sounds badass.

I mean heck, in 30k, there are literally tanks in the game with powerfists (well, servo-arms)! Just look at the Macrocarid Explorator's servo-array. That's a thing that exists, and it's appropriately balanced and fluffy, so... what's the problem?

 Lance845 wrote:

Once again! I am not cut throat competitive. I am a very casual player. Once again! WYSIWYG is on you. There is no rule that requires it and it's your choice to be that way.

It is convention supported by pretty much every GW publication and battle report ever.

Your personal preferences for modeling that is not even supported by the rules and has not been for several editions is entirely on you.

Isn't this whole thread about your personal preferences which are not supported by the rules?

Melta is not BAD at it's role. It's only bad by comparison to plasma.

That's what being bad means. Plasma is too good, melta is too bad. The same thing. Melta should be better against vehicles than plasma while plasma should be better against heavy infantry than melta and flamer should be better against hordes than either. Those are their roles, if rules do not reflect that then the rules should be fixed, not just remove melta and flamer.

 Crimson wrote:
The classic special weapons melta, plasma and flamer all have distinct roles of being anti-tank, anti-heavy-infantry and anti-horde. That the rules fail to represent this adequately is not due the lack of roles.

No, it is due to lack of roles in 8th. It's due to GW combining vehicles and heavy infantry/MCs into a single unit type. The two roles that used to be separate in previous editions have been merged into a single "anti-not-hordes" weapon type, and it is very difficult for both melta and plasma to be effective. The old differentiating factor that plasma could murder elite infantry but couldn't even attempt to fire against AV 14 is no longer in the game. If plasma is good at putting out lots of no-save wounds then it wrecks tanks. If it is worse then melta at wrecking tanks then it's almost certainly not putting out enough wounds to effectively deal with elite infantry, unless you massively over-buff melta to the point that a single melta hit destroys a tank.

The correct response to the situation, assuming a complete overhaul of the 8th edition rules is not acceptable, is to admit that melta and plasma now fill the same role and get rid of one of them.

The wrong response is to stubbornly keep them as separate weapons, just because back in 2nd edition that's how it worked.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Because those aren't in the fluff?

According to who? Maybe they're in my fluff, even if they aren't in yours? After all, it's vitally important that every minute detail of your tank company gets special rules to represent it on the table, so why shouldn't my guardsmen with volcano cannons get the same respect?

 Peregrine wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Because those aren't in the fluff?

According to who? Maybe they're in my fluff, even if they aren't in yours? After all, it's vitally important that every minute detail of your tank company gets special rules to represent it on the table, so why shouldn't my guardsmen with volcano cannons get the same respect?

If your fluff was good enough and the game was balanced enough, I'd be all for it, honestly. It'd be especially cool if you modeled them hooked up to huge generators or something, meaning they were purely a over-equipped defensive army.

It'd be even funnier if they were guarding a Vraks-style munitions world, and that's why they had a bunch of Volcano Cannons. Heck, we could do a game vs. my Mechanicus trying to come get the cannons, since they're trying to learn (again) how to build them.

 Crimson wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

Once again! I am not cut throat competitive. I am a very casual player. Once again! WYSIWYG is on you. There is no rule that requires it and it's your choice to be that way.

It is convention supported by pretty much every GW publication and battle report ever.

Your personal preferences for modeling that is not even supported by the rules and has not been for several editions is entirely on you.

Isn't this whole thread about your personal preferences which are not supported by the rules?

Melta is not BAD at it's role. It's only bad by comparison to plasma.

That's what being bad means. Plasma is too good, melta is too bad. The same thing. Melta should be better against vehicles than plasma while plasma should be better against heavy infantry than melta and flamer should be better against hordes than either. Those are their roles, if rules do not reflect that then the rules should be fixed, not just remove melta and flamer.

Haha. Ok come up with some rules to make all that true.

Lets have Melta be better against vehicles. Plasma better against heavy infantry. And flamers better against hordes without any overlap. In addition, they cannot be TOO niche either. Because otherwise flamers will just never be taken because you won't know for sure if your fighting hordes or elite armies. So best not to take an option thats useless for half your games. ALSO figure out what should be different between missile launchers and las cannons.

When your done doing that move over to Tau and figure out how their weapons should accomplish the same goals while being different from IoM.

And when your done with that head over to the NIds.

Remember, we want to keep everything fluffy and interesting! not just carbon copies of other armies profiles.

Finally, your convention is in your head. It's worth exactly nothing.

 Peregrine wrote:

I've made it perfectly clear that my argument is not "more options make the game worse". My objection is to rules bloat and redundant options, not to having options that are genuinely different and interesting and occupy legitimate new design space.

Redundant as defined by you. Obviously people who want to use those options do not see them as redundant.

And by the way, I agree with your idea of combining some options, I preferred power weapons that you could model how you liked over the current setup. But as long as swords and axes have different rules, then most models which can reasonably have power weapons should be able to have either. Furthermore, I really don't think that Vanquisher cannon and twin-linked lascannon are similar enough weapon systems that they should share rules. I am sure a niche could be created for both, even if the difference ended up being pretty situational.

What is incoherent about it? You said that having more options is always a good thing, and can't seem to understand that not every model gets to take every weapon in the game.

Reasonable options. A titan weapon is not a reasonable option for a lone space marine. Stop straw manning. But yes, I liked the old style armouries with a bunch of weapons and items you could equip your characters and squad leaders with. I like that sort of stuff, it is interesting to me.

To be honest I actually believe FW many times adds rules bloat because they make slighly different variations of things that already exist.

But GW does that some times, I'm not attacking FW here.

But for example, the eartshaker cannon shouldnt exist. Is just a Basilisk that doesn't pay for things that it does not use, so its mathematically better at his role.

Is like doing Primaris Psyker MK2 that is basically a Primaris Psyker without any weapon that cost half the points. Yeah, is a different option, but it shouldn't exist because it makes the previous unit obsolete.

One can argue the same thing about Primaris but as they are very limited in options, etc... they actually fill different roles, for example Intercessors vs Tacticals.

 Galas wrote:
But for example, the eartshaker cannon shouldnt exist. Is just a Basilisk that doesn't pay for things that it does not use, so its mathematically better at his role.

This is a good example. In 5th edition the two units were very different in function, the Basilisk could move and had vehicle stats while the towed guns were fixed units that could never fire outside of a 45* cone from their initial deployment and had weak crew that were much easier to kill. In 8th edition, where vehicles and artillery have the same stat line and firing arcs no longer exist the two units are redundant, and one of them should be removed.

I'm fairly certain the game would be the most balanced if everyone's army was identical.

We should remove all list-building options and just give people manufacturer-designed lists they have to use. We could also just paint the armies black and white, to avoid confusion, and replace movement speeds with squares on a board, to avoid measuring shenanigans ("does bending a tape measure make it longer?!").

"Balance."

 Crimson wrote:
Redundant as defined by you. Obviously people who want to use those options do not see them as redundant.

Only because some people have an obsession with making every piece of plastic on the sprue have its own separate rules. If you accept an Epic-style mentality of units being defined by their role rather than minor details about which plastic pieces you used to build them then those options are redundant.

Furthermore, I really don't think that Vanquisher cannon and twin-linked lascannon are similar enough weapon systems that they should share rules.

But what exactly is the difference? And if you have to make a special effort to create a difference for the sole purpose of justifying them being different are they really different, or are you just stubbornly determined to give every piece on the sprue its own rules?

Reasonable options. A titan weapon is not a reasonable option for a lone space marine.

Ah yes, and I suppose your definition of "reasonable" is the one that matters, where all the weapons you want to take are considered "reasonable".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I'm fairly certain the game would be the most balanced if everyone's army was identical.

We should remove all list-building options and just give people manufacturer-designed lists they have to use. We could also just paint the armies black and white, to avoid confusion, and replace movement speeds with squares on a board, to avoid measuring shenanigans ("does bending a tape measure make it longer?!").

"Balance."

Do you really need to resort to absurd straw man arguments like this? Nobody is arguing for identical armies, nor is that required for a balanced and interesting game.

 Lance845 wrote:

Haha. Ok come up with some rules to make all that true.

If I were a paid full time game designer, I would!

 Peregrine wrote:
Do you really need to resort to absurd straw man arguments like this? Nobody is arguing for identical armies, nor is that required for a balanced and interesting game.

Just as soon as you stop giving Volcano Cannons to Guardsmen and calling it "not a straw man."

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I'm fairly certain the game would be the most balanced if everyone's army was identical.

We should remove all list-building options and just give people manufacturer-designed lists they have to use. We could also just paint the armies black and white, to avoid confusion, and replace movement speeds with squares on a board, to avoid measuring shenanigans ("does bending a tape measure make it longer?!").

"Balance."

No! White is still op! Plz Nerf!

What have I done? Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
What have I done? Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.

There's no difference between Death and Life except in the fluff, so really you're just the Death-pattern Life.

 Peregrine wrote:

But what exactly is the difference? And if you have to make a special effort to create a difference for the sole purpose of justifying them being different are they really different, or are you just stubbornly determined to give every piece on the sprue its own rules?

The whole point of 40K is to create rules representations for things that exist in the fictional setting.

Ah yes, and I suppose your definition of "reasonable" is the one that matters, where all the weapons you want to take are considered "reasonable".

We are not going to pretend that equipping space marines with infantry melee weapons and titan scale weapons is somehow equally reasonable and merely a matter of taste.

 Crimson wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

Haha. Ok come up with some rules to make all that true.

If I were a paid full time game designer, I would!

Why not. you can put pretty much anything on kickstarter and make bukobucks.

 Crimson wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

Haha. Ok come up with some rules to make all that true.

If I were a paid full time game designer, I would!

If YOU were a paid full time game designer you would work for GW and nobody would notice.

 Lance845 wrote:


If YOU were a paid full time game designer you would work for GW and nobody would notice.

Nah. You'd notice the marked increase of character customisation options!


But are you seriously saying that it is impossible to make melta and flamer to work? That if you were in charge of things you'd just delete them?

 Lance845 wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

Haha. Ok come up with some rules to make all that true.

If I were a paid full time game designer, I would!

If YOU were a paid full time game designer you would work for GW and nobody would notice.

Oh no, Dakka would notice and begin howling for Crimson's blood due to incompetence.

 Lance845 wrote:

Champion of Slaanesh wrote:
So since you want to remove my ability to take biker lords and sorcerors as well as those on daemonic steeds what are you gonna replace them with? Since you seem to want to remove flavourful options

Nothing.

You should get what you get for the current edition of the game. GW should be balancing the army in it's codex. You get your codex. If the codex isn't balanced then you should be writing to GW to fix the codex. Fluff has nothing to do with crunch and it's not a 1 for 1 trade of loose an option gain an option. Before last year when the index came out you would have just gotten a new codex and if the units wern't in there then you didn't have the unit any more. Suck it up.

Suck it up?

No one is asking for the legacy options to be "good". We just want them to exist so that we can continue to use models we bought and have enjoyed for years.

in your example: game contains 36 guns. 10 of those are balanced for serious play. the other 26 are underpowered and purposefully non-competitive but there for the people that may want to use them for some particular reason or other.

you can make a tight game with options bloat just fine as long as you and your playerbase realize that some "sentimentality" options will never be the same level of performance as the things that are being seriously balanced for comp.

Edited by Manchu

 Crimson wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:


If YOU were a paid full time game designer you would work for GW and nobody would notice.

Nah. You'd notice the marked increase of character customisation options!


But are you seriously saying that it is impossible to make melta and flamer to work? That if you were in charge of things you'd just delete them?

No i have ideas for how i would do it. Part of which is restricting which weapons can be taken by which units more than now so that different units gain more specialized utility.

But im not the one who wants everything to be able to take everything. You are. So YOU need to figure out how to make all these options viable across all the units in every army. Or do you maybe see how bloat is a problem now?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 WindstormSCR wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

Champion of Slaanesh wrote:
So since you want to remove my ability to take biker lords and sorcerors as well as those on daemonic steeds what are you gonna replace them with? Since you seem to want to remove flavourful options

Nothing.

You should get what you get for the current edition of the game. GW should be balancing the army in it's codex. You get your codex. If the codex isn't balanced then you should be writing to GW to fix the codex. Fluff has nothing to do with crunch and it's not a 1 for 1 trade of loose an option gain an option. Before last year when the index came out you would have just gotten a new codex and if the units wern't in there then you didn't have the unit any more. Suck it up.

you can make a tight game with options bloat just fine as long as you and your playerbase realize that some "sentimentality" options will never be the same level of performance as the things that are being seriously balanced for comp.

No. You cant.

 Lance845 wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:


If YOU were a paid full time game designer you would work for GW and nobody would notice.

Nah. You'd notice the marked increase of character customisation options!


But are you seriously saying that it is impossible to make melta and flamer to work? That if you were in charge of things you'd just delete them?

No i have ideas for how i would do it. Part of which is restricting which weapons can be taken by which units more than now so that different units gain more specialized utility.

But im not the one who wants everything to be able to take everything. You are. So YOU need to figure out how to make all these options viable across all the units in every army. Or do you maybe see how bloat is a problem now?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 WindstormSCR wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

Champion of Slaanesh wrote:
So since you want to remove my ability to take biker lords and sorcerors as well as those on daemonic steeds what are you gonna replace them with? Since you seem to want to remove flavourful options

Nothing.

You should get what you get for the current edition of the game. GW should be balancing the army in it's codex. You get your codex. If the codex isn't balanced then you should be writing to GW to fix the codex. Fluff has nothing to do with crunch and it's not a 1 for 1 trade of loose an option gain an option. Before last year when the index came out you would have just gotten a new codex and if the units wern't in there then you didn't have the unit any more. Suck it up.

you can make a tight game with options bloat just fine as long as you and your playerbase realize that some "sentimentality" options will never be the same level of performance as the things that are being seriously balanced for comp.

No. You cant.

Its been done in the arena of game design several times, notably in competitive arena shooters, because the companies that make them know that trimming down to just a bare minimum option set would make a "perfect game" but would lose them sales to the crowd that isn't interested in everything being as good an option as everything else and perfect design.

is the result a perfect game? No. it can still be a "good" game, and perfect as you advocate is the exact enemy of good.

Trimming options heavily, especially existing options and models, alienates customers that have invested into those options and models. GW found this to its cost with the changes from index to codex, and the designer commentary is a response to that issue.

Trimming options might be more palatable IF GW were vastly more rational about it, if it was consistent, and if it was done for a decent reason beyond " Screw the conversion bits market"

Currently it is none of those things, and until it is, my response to anyone advocating removal of the DC will be summarized as "Get Out"

I agree thats gws method of "it doesnt have bits so it doesnt get rules" is bad. Wysiwyg is not a rule and hasnt been for a long time. Its a bad reason to give something the axe.

But, again, allowing everything always stagnates which is worse. At least if gw makes the decision to leave the index stuff behind they have a core base line to adjust, cut, and build from. But as long as their stance is "you can always use everything willy nilly" then its done. The game will never get out of the bog its in.

 Crimson wrote:
Even that whole Annihilator/Vanquisher overlap if FW's doing.

Especially when you consider that the Vanquisher may have started as a FW vehicle, before jumping to the main line. I'm about 90% confident in saying that, though I don't have my 3rd ed IG and IA books to hand to double-check.

 Lance845 wrote:
The imperium looks at missile launchers, melta, plasma, and las cannons and they go... which is best for which situation. And now nobody ever takes a Melta. Because it has no real place. It's niche is so niche that it's unreliable or just plain worse then the other options. It's all plasma and las cannons. because too many things are trying to do the same job. Bloat.

I'm pretty sure people have acknowledged that plasma is a problem - it seems to be too strong at everything, which is why people are confused as to why it is cheaper than melta weapons in the same category. Switch the points costs, though, and people at least talk about having to think about which one to take.

Not bloat - poor design/pricing.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:


Again, that is nonsense. FW does not necessarily create rules bloat just because they create new units. For example, my Vulture with punisher cannons is a unit that is clearly different from anything in the IG codex.

Nah, just rename it to "Vulture-pattern anti-infantry Valkyrie" and give it the same stats as the missile pods of the Valkyrie.

This is exactly what Peregrine is advocating, I am glad you understand.

Just run the Vulture as a counts-as "Fluff-pattern Valkyrie" and run the punisher cannons as MRPs. That's the same as using a Vanquisher as an Annihilator or an Eradicator as a basic Russ. Fundamentally, it's the same as using a Guardsman as a Space Marine, because after all, the only difference in wargear is fluff-based and we wouldn't want that to get in the way of a balanced game.

Except... your conclusion is the opposite of what Peregrine is saying in the quote at the root of that quote chain?

(As he himself pointed out in a later post...)

 Peregrine wrote:
If you accept an Epic-style mentality of units being defined by their role rather than minor details about which plastic pieces you used to build them then those options are redundant.

If you want a wargame like that... go play Epic, perhaps?

 Lance845 wrote:
Wysiwyg is not a rule and hasnt been for a long time. Its a bad reason to give something the axe.

I skipped a few editions - when did WYSIWYG stop being a thing, at least for weaponry (I appreciate it was never a thing for minor upgrades, like frag/krak grenades, or some Nid bio-morphs)?

There was no rule requiring wysiwyg in 6th 7th or 8th. So when did 6th come out?

That being said its never actually been possible. Gw never once made a bit for any relic.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I'm fairly certain the game would be the most balanced if everyone's army was identical.

We should remove all list-building options and just give people manufacturer-designed lists they have to use. We could also just paint the armies black and white, to avoid confusion, and replace movement speeds with squares on a board, to avoid measuring shenanigans ("does bending a tape measure make it longer?!").

"Balance."

Until you realise White automatically get's the first turn alpha strike every game.

White is OP, nerf please

 Dysartes wrote:
If you want a wargame like that... go play Epic, perhaps?

8th edition 40k is Epic. And that's the problem with options bloat, GW is still treating it like a 5-model skirmish game where every piece of plastic on the sprue needs to have its own special rules when they should be acknowledging that they've made Epic in 28mm and applying appropriately streamlined rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:
The whole point of 40K is to create rules representations for things that exist in the fictional setting.

No it isn't. The point of 40k's rules is to represent the setting as a whole, not to give every tiny fluff detail its own special rule. The fact that the fluff mentioned a guy with a power axe one time instead of the typical power sword doesn't mean that swords and axes need different rules, that part of the setting is adequately represented by the general concept of power weapons and you can just build your model with whatever aesthetic option you prefer. Same thing with the Annihilator vs. Vanquisher issue, from a gameplay point of view they're units that are 95% identical so they don't need distinct rules. Rules-wise they can be represented as "this is a Leman Russ Tanksmasher, an anti-tank specialist armed with some kind of powerful low-RoF gun" and the player can decide whether to use a lascannon array or a massive projectile cannon or some kind of lost-tech plasma weapon or even a tech-heresy with a stolen Tau railgun bolted to the turret. They can all use the same stat line because the tiny differences between them fluff-wise are not significant enough to result in different numbers in the D6 system, just like space marines and IG veterans are both BS 3+.

Well if they want to make a simple game...then lets go whole hog.

you can get super detailed in 2nd ed.

Since 3rd it has been more about units and not models.

I say make a tactical unit for one army behave the same as another.....sure marines are better at it than guard...but they all get the same type of attack.

So all tanks are light tanks, medium tanks, heavy tanks. They all have similar stats no matter the faction.

Those Basilisk and Manticores....they just count as Artillary units. Sure the fluff is different...but in the game they would all have a variation of the Artillary unit stats.

If they approached the game like that, keeping it simple....then it don't matter much what your model is equipped with as it wont matter much....its about the unit and the units role....and how and when you implement it.

With a game design approach like that then the big 2000 point battles would probably go a bit faster and fit into the game they are looking for.

Sure it might be bland for some. They can play a new updated 2nd ed game made for today with a skirmish fight in mind,(facing, knives and bayonettes, rear armor, etc)

The mish mash of the current game and its legacy is trying to make a newly designed shoe with the pieces of an old one.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
If you want a wargame like that... go play Epic, perhaps?

8th edition 40k is Epic. And that's the problem with options bloat, GW is still treating it like a 5-model skirmish game where every piece of plastic on the sprue needs to have its own special rules when they should be acknowledging that they've made Epic in 28mm and applying appropriately streamlined rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:
The whole point of 40K is to create rules representations for things that exist in the fictional setting.

No it isn't. The point of 40k's rules is to represent the setting as a whole, not to give every tiny fluff detail its own special rule. The fact that the fluff mentioned a guy with a power axe one time instead of the typical power sword doesn't mean that swords and axes need different rules, that part of the setting is adequately represented by the general concept of power weapons and you can just build your model with whatever aesthetic option you prefer. Same thing with the Annihilator vs. Vanquisher issue, from a gameplay point of view they're units that are 95% identical so they don't need distinct rules. Rules-wise they can be represented as "this is a Leman Russ Tanksmasher, an anti-tank specialist armed with some kind of powerful low-RoF gun" and the player can decide whether to use a lascannon array or a massive projectile cannon or some kind of lost-tech plasma weapon or even a tech-heresy with a stolen Tau railgun bolted to the turret. They can all use the same stat line because the tiny differences between them fluff-wise are not significant enough to result in different numbers in the D6 system, just like space marines and IG veterans are both BS 3+.

It doesn't seem like 40k's rules represent that at all, it seems like something you want it to represent.

Having seen your idea's in the past, it seems like you entirely believe 40k should be something else that it really is not.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
No. What needs to be done is GW to put the damn rules back into codex. But nope. They don't care about making a good game so they don't.

Agreed. GW need to stop hiding behind their piss-poor excuse of "it confuses new players". They don't want to have any competition, so they can't have options they don't make the models for. I think GW could have just said, officially and in the rulebook, "Sorry, no more legacy support, use your old models as 'counts as' " and be done with it.

However, this half and half approach is the worst solution they could have done. The big "competitive" tournaments need to ban index entries and wargear for codex armies IMHO and leave the index entries/combos for casual play.

I'm sorry but "they don't want to have any compeition" is bullocks. GW has compeition. it's compeition is FFG's X-wing, PPs Warmachine/hordes etc Third party bits manafacturers are NOT compeition. Compeition, economicly speaking, is when two products compete they produce a competing product, and one offers the better one, and the other if it can't match it goes out of busniess. Thing is, thrid party bits manafacturers cannot do that. If GW goes under (because everyone is buying the third party bits) the third party bits sellers likely go out of busniess too. they're not competators so much as, essentially their relationship with GW is parasitic in nature (please note I am not saying the third party bit manafacturers are bad)

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
Having seen your idea's in the past, it seems like you entirely believe 40k should be something else that it really is not.

You are correct. I believe 40k should be a well-designed and well-balanced game. GW believes it should be a minimal-effort dumpster fire where they yell FORGE THE NARRATIVE BEER AND PRETZELS as an excuse for being too lazy and/or incompetent to make a better game.

 Peregrine wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
Having seen your idea's in the past, it seems like you entirely believe 40k should be something else that it really is not.

You are correct. I believe 40k should be a well-designed and well-balanced game. GW believes it should be a minimal-effort dumpster fire where they yell FORGE THE NARRATIVE BEER AND PRETZELS as an excuse for being too lazy and/or incompetent to make a better game.

Thank you for admitting that everything you've said thus far isn't apart of the actual game itself despite your posts previously trying to assert such.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
Thank you for admitting that everything you've said thus far isn't apart of the actual game itself despite your posts previously trying to assert such.

I don't see where I've ever refused to admit that GW is guilty of terrible design. In fact, I think that's a statement I make fairly often.

(Nor do I really see why "this isn't what GW does" should be a compelling argument in a thread about what third-party groups should do in their events.)

 Lance845 wrote:
I am not a competitive player. I play very casual. I mostly try to avoid even playing actual 40k without a host of house rules because it's just not as engaging and fun as it should be.

But I AM a game designer by hobby and have a BA in game design. When I say they need to trim the fat it's not because I am looking for a cut throat competitive game. It's because I am looking for a clean fun game.

There is a thing in game design called options bloat. Consider a shooter video game with 3 dozen guns in it. Now certain guns are going to rise to the top in different situations. The rocket launcher has few shots but devastating damage. The carbine is super accurate at a decent range. etc etc.. But in most situations most of the guns are just going to be not as good and thus kind of crap. How much does it cost to design, code, build the graphical assets, etc etc... for about 20 guns that will be shot once and never used again.

I could build out their classes in a day, and download prebuilt assets in an evening, for next to nothing dollar-wise. They'd mostly be using the same animations, possibly played at different speeds, but perhaps different reload actions, depending on what I'm doing. Sound design would actually be the most time intensive, but there's literally thousands of gunshot sfx libraries. It'd be fine. And some players would appreciate the variety. The "Rifles" section in CS isn't just the M4 (or whatever it's called these days, I don't even look) Do you know how much money has been made off of hats. HATS!!?

How "bloated" is a game like Fallout 4 in your mind? How "bloated" is GTA?

An elegant clean game with limited options fine, in theory. But games are also products, and big products are designed to punch in many ways, to many customers. Some of us actively enjoy "bloat" and call it "well developed with a rich background". Lots of people play 40k for the background, and the wealth of options helps that. Lots of people enjoy listbuilding, and finding unique stratagies, and lots of options helps that. Lots of people enjoy modeling, or converting, and more options helps that.

There's a multitude of reasons why cutting options is potentially harmful to the overall product.

I think PAYDAY 2 is up to about a billion weapons also. Some of them are somewhat better than others, but somehow in spite of that everyone I know has several favorites in their rotation with very little overlap.

Yeah. The idea that you can gut the core of the game (background fluff) in favor of a few choices because "no one takes the other options anyways" is patently false, and is indicative of competitive thinking that does not account for people who would prefer to use units which, while their rules might have less power, their model is attractive or the background resonates with them.

And yes, you could simply reduce the game to stat blocks based on role, but why stop there? How far is it okay to reduce the game? I mean, chess is an accurate simulation of Warhammer 40k if you abstract it enough. It's got screens (pawns), powerful heroes (queens), objectives (kings), deep strikes (or at least infinite movement in a direction), units with fly (knights)...