I need to vent. If you like to avoid negativity, it would be best to avoid this thread. Ultimately though, this is a cry for help. I am reaching into the online world to express something that has been on my mind since I got the new Ork Codex, and have not yet seen expressed elsewhere online. I feel compelled to put this out there and see what other Warbosses think and hopefully bring closure, or at least a new perspective to my mind.
The new Ork codex is the worst Ork codex I have ever read. I go back to 2nd edition and I'm not using hyperbole. It is completely discouraging, and it takes the wind out of my sails.
Let me explain. I'm not talking about the play-ability of the army, it's tactical viability, or it's position in the metagame. Frankly, I've never been a great enough tactician for that to matter to me so much. There are other posters who can chew this fat and make that call. For myself, I just want to play a fun game, win or lose. So long as I don't feel like I'm playing non-stop rock paper scissors, I'll have a good time.
What bothers me about this new book is complete neglect for the notion that many (most?) Ork Warbosses are also Mekaniaks at heart. What made Orks unique is that their army books have always been about potential. You could open the book, look at a datasheet, statline, or piece of wargear, and wonder "Wouldn't it be awesome IF _______...?"
Ork miniatures, as far back as 2nd edition, have always been about utility. Any kit bought by an Ork player, is to a certain degree, just a starting point. Even if you aren't scratch building or kitbashing, non-essential bits from nearly any kit can find a home on a miniature from another kit. Not only does it look cool, but those changes could be reflected in the rules. Battlewagons don't come with Rokkits? No problem, we'll figure it out. Deffcoptas don't come with any CCW? No problem, I got a fing for dat somewhere...
At first I thought this problem existed only with the new vehicles. Those are some sexy minis, I'm sure we all agree. They are the mini's we've spent 20 years waiting for. But my heart broke when I read the rules for them: They are no longer Ork vehicles. No options.
This is really disappointing given the emphasis GW has put on the narrative aspect of the game in the past few years. What exactly is the narrative behind the Boomdakka Snazzwagon specifically having burna bottles? Or the only specifically the Boosta Blasta having a burna exhaust? I know these questions might seem silly, but these items, as just one of many examples littered throughout the codex expose a fundamental shift in the creative process at GW. I suspected this notion upon the release the Gorka and Morkanaughts, and I remember having this thought as well when I first saw IG's Taurox, and the revelation that it's weapons are the "Taurox Battle Cannon/gattling gun/missile launcher" rather than, well, ya know, perfectly fine weapons that already exist in the wh40k canon.
I would like to clarify that I'm not just an old git on a porch complaining about new things. I've been at this for 20 years. It's been nothing but new things. Size creep has made dreadnaughts look like kans and Nobs look like boyz. Flyers showed up. Psychic phases have come and gone and come and gone. Hell, between 2nd and 3rd, my whole army became aesthetically obsolete. These are at best, exciting developments for the game, at worst, a minor annoyance. This thread is about a much bigger problem.
What is the fundamental shift in the creative process? Miniatures come first, rules second.
There's no other explanation I can think of. Maybe GW is trying to bolster sales. I have no idea. But this frustrates me immensely. Frustrates me to the degree that I'm having a hard time getting the words out, so here's the less nimble part of my rant;
It looks like somebody made some beautiful minis, and then somebody else, who has zero understanding of the mindset of many established ork players, went "Oh wow! Those are great! It'll be SO COOL to make hyper specific rules for all those cool little touches you put on the model! It'll be SO FLUFFY" and zero thought or consideration was put into leaving at least some space for the creative potential of the gamers at home.
This is what I am calling the Toyification of Orks.
If you think I'm being unreasonable, let me ask you this: Why does virtually every nob have weapon options except the Kommando Nob, which is armed with a PK? If you don't know the answer, here it is: The Kommando Nob model is a pose-specific miniature with a PK. Every other Nob mini has joints/options. It is completely unmotivated as far as story or gameplay are concerned. Why would this default wargear be written into the rules?
This approach to wh40k is anti-conversion and anti-creativity.
A miniature with no assembly options can be a beautiful thing. There is nothing inherently better or worse about it than your standard core kits. To see it reflected in the rules for a non-named character? How can I not be insulted by this? I'm not asking this rhetorically, if you can tell me how you wrap your brain around it, please tell me so I can shake this headache.
This new book effectively spits in the face of the most inspiring part of the hobby for me: Imagining something, creating it, and then putting to test on the battlefield. Our minis are an extension of ourselves. This hobby is a very personal and even vulnerable experience. Who doesn't love the rush of fielding a freshly-dried squad on the tabletop for the first time? Maybe it'll smash the enemy HQ? Maybe it'll be flattened by artillery on turn 1. That feeling of excitement is the feeling of being emotionally engaged. The new Ork Codex doesn't not seem to get this.
The burna-exhaust, nosedrill, spikes, etc etc, should exist and upgrades available to many vehicles. The BoostaBlasta/Snazzwagon should just be able to take whatever weapon on top. I could go on, but you get the idea. As players and hobbyists, we need to craft the story, models, and tactics that are unique to us.
For what it's worth, I don't blame GW for this. For all I know this is a reverse Batman situation: the Orks I need, not the orks I deserve. If Orks were going the way of the Squats, and and this is the result of GW trying to save them, fine so be it. Maybe Ork players don't care as much as I do about walking the line between what they can build vs what they can field? For all I know this has been going on for other factions over the past few years and I just never noticed because I don't analyze the kits vs the codex vs canon to the degree that I do for Orks. What I do know is that I've been hurt, for lack of better phrasing. Like when that one friend drops a revealing comment and you know no amount of re-phrasing can take it back. The trust has been broken, the damage has been done.
Moving forward:
- Keep making the models I want to make.
- Magnetize zoggin everything from here out.
- Laugh and shrug when my opponent is as baffled as I am why the Battelwagon with two clearly big guns on it only has one big gun, and the Painboy holding a choppa is hitting with a Powerklaw.
- Hope that GW figures out why Ork players choose Orks OR come to terms with the notion that a sandbox approach to miniatures' relationships with rules is not sustainable for GW in the long run.
Blame the Chapter House Lawsuits. It's why No Model, No Rules exists. Everything needs to be expressly unique and copywritable, preferably with Adjective VerbNoun names.
GW have also shifted their focus from adults with disposable income to kids with their parents income.
BaconCatBug wrote: Blame the Chapter House Lawsuits. It's why No Model, No Rules exists. Everything needs to be expressly unique and copywritable, preferably with Adjective VerbNoun names.
GW have also shifted their focus from adults with disposable income to kids with their parents income.
Basically this.
The Chapter House lawsuit had a BIG impact on the way GW has approached army and miniature design.
DaRealJDB wrote: *snip*
Ork Warbosses are also Mekaniaks at heart.
*snip*
Unfortunately, you're look at a shift in demography. Many of the new players who got in from recent editions are used to the lack of options. That and less options means easier to balance (presumably).
Honestly, unless you're playing hyper-competitive tournaments, forge your own narrative. The latest WD (or the one prior, I think?) had Narrative rules to loot vehicles, and I'm sure your average casual player has no problem with you kit-bashing and combining vehicle data sheets (at an appropriate power/points cost).
BaconCatBug wrote: GW have also shifted their focus from adults with disposable income to kids with their parents income.
So I'm not crazy!
At what point does the market fork? Does everybody collectively just choose a past edition and start an underground codex rebalance of sorts?
Honestly, this hit me so hard, that I don't think I could take it again. I know everybody has been saying this on dakkadakka for ten years, but I know myself. I felt it when blizzard shifted starcraft from competitive to accessible and I stopped playing. When Apple shifted Final Cut's focus from professional to consumer, I didn't buy it. Suffice to say, I've been through this before, and right now I'm on the edge.
The game is in something of a weird place regarding customization. I think on one hand, the game would benefit from having less rule granularity; not every customization needs to have rules to support it. The flip side of that is appreciating that every cool customization doesn't need to function with unique rules. We don't need unique rules for power swords, spears, axes, etc; we just need "power weapons" and let people model that however they like.
This approach has infected many, many armies and models. It is indeed, extremely discouraging, though I think the process began pre-Chapter House, since the shift from 'Wargear Lists'.
First we had, 'Take up to 50 points of ANYTHING FROM THIS LIST', which lead to fun things, like Veteran Guardsmen with Master Crafted lasguns.
Then we moved to, 'Take up to two of these six things'
Now we're on, 'Has X. May have Y.'
In some cases, [Like a lot of the new SuperScale Space Marines] we're on, 'Has X.'
I don't doubt that in the next wave of Codex's, when GW decides the Index is "Not a Thing" anymore, we'll see an awful lot of options go the way of the dinosaurs.
FW has made a kommando upgrade kit where the nob is armed with a big choppa.
Spoiler:
Orks are a easy faction to make count as weaponry, it doesn't have to make sense. You're also not obligated to toss out unusable model in this edition, simply store them away till next codex or supplement. Every army goes through this, cause you know GW is a model company first, they need the sales to keep the company alive.
Big Mac wrote: FW has made a kommando upgrade kit where the nob is armed with a big choppa.
Orks are a easy faction to make count as weaponry, it doesn't have to make sense. You're also not obligated to toss out unusable model in this edition, simply store them away till next codex or supplement. Every army goes through this, cause you know GW is a model company first, they need the sales to keep the company alive.
My kommando nob also has a big choppa. In game both of these nobs have a powerklaw.
It's like... okay... it's not wysiwyg, not a big deal to me as far as gameplay is concerned, but it's hard for me to care as much as I would if it was wysiwyg. I like to be rewarded for my creativity, not shunned.
40k has been on this road for many years. Everything comes complete and prepackaged from GW, it only gets rules if they sell it, and they have gone *deep* into that distinction. This has even gotten into stuff like terrain in some respects.
Since GW hasn't been in the Bitz business for a decade now, they have no incentive to drive that aspect unfortunately.
It's sadly something that GW has been trending towards for a long time. I was flipping through the old witch hunter book yesterday and it really hit me how much flavor the game has either lost or is on the chopping block once GW conducts the purge 2.0 and purges the index options.
For me it's just how little to none the various primaris space marines have compared to the original marine line. So much flavor and need for kitbashing/converting is gone.
I have noticed this too, and it's disappointed me many times.
Back in the day, my Baneblades could take awesome upgrades like "Crew Escape Hatches", which allowed 2d6 Imperial Guardsmen armed with laspistols to appear when the tank was wrecked, and I think 1d6 if it exploded... I barely remember.
Point is, a lot of the cool flavorful stuff has died, and my Imperial Tank Crew models have long since been reconverted into something else. :(
All issues about no model no rules, monopose, limited option kits and hyper-specificity go back to Chapterhouse. As far as the creative process it's always been similar; the lead designers come up with some sketches and concepts, the modelers turn that into something that can be produced in plastic, and the rules guys turn the design notes directly into rules. Rules have always come last and GW has always been transparent about the fact that they're more about producing cool models than games themselves.
Actually GW has always been marketed and aimed at kids. The early teens is a critical market for GW that often nets them long term gamers; whilst adults are important, they are far less likely to pick the game up blind without a history of being in the geek world/hobby world. So that "kid" market is essential for GW - in fact I'd wager most of us here started when we were young.
The difference is that perhaps you "notice" this now whilst when you were a kid Warhammer was always that game "played by adults" or appeared far more mature than everything else for kids at that age. So its not so much that anything GW end has changed; but that you've changed and your perceptions of things have changed and its hard to view the past without it going through your own internal mind filter.
Excommunicatus wrote: Yeah, it's pretty much entirely down to the fact that GWstill refuses to retain a competent IP lawyer.
Or competent rule writers for that matter.
Nor did they have proper in house communication where the lore writers mention few new things in the book, rule writers make rules for select few, and the sculpting department has no knowledge of what to sculpt out next.
GW created the niche for 3rd party markets themselves and then went onto sue them for doing what they themselves fell short of doing.
Luciferian wrote: ...As far as the creative process it's always been similar; the lead designers come up with some sketches and concepts, the modelers turn that into something that can be produced in plastic, and the rules guys turn the design notes directly into rules. Rules have always come last...
This would be the proper process in which these types of business would run. Clearly, GW has not.
Luciferian wrote: ... and GW has always been transparent about the fact that they're more about producing cool models than games themselves.
Maybe that explains why their rules are so poorly written.
The design of these miniatures is down to sprue vs opportunity costs.
I have no doubt that at some point along the design process, there was one - maybe two - chassis planned for the new ork buggies, and the designers had all these incredible ideas: a drag racer, a mud buggy, the fuselage of a jet customized into a halftrack. But there was just no way to feasibly make vehicles that distinct into one or two multipart swappable kits.
So, the ultimatum came down, because this is plastic sprue design and the upfront cost comes per sprue: Make a vehicle as amazing as you can make it, and put it on a single sprue.
So the options went out the window in favor of an "every part of the buffalo" sprue where you use 100% everything on it to maximize usage. Similarly sized kits to the buggies are at the 66$ price mark rather than 45$ because they contain 2 distinct sprues.
And ultimately, if we had gotten the options that you wanted - if you could swap your Mek Speshul out for a Rokkit Kannon or a Zzap Blasta, then you'd just have one datasheet, not six. The buggies contain the same number of options spread out over more datasheets and more kits because the designers wanted to have the chassis be distinct. That's not a bad thing, or a good thing, IMO, just a thing.
Honestly, I think the 'No Model No Rules' policy is a completely separate issue to what happened with Orks.
The no-option buggies aren't a casualty of the Chapterhouse case. They're a result of GW's current drive to remove points-driven list building from the game.
Power Levels only really work if units either have minimal options that are all equal to each other, or no options at all. So the trend that we've been seeing from (at least) the release of the Primaris Marines is for kits with fewer or no options.
The end goal will be what we have with the buggies - Instead of one 'buggy' unit with a range of different options to choose from, we have 6 different units that are all essentially the same thing, with fixed options differentiating them
Expect to see this carried across to other new kits for other races.
Luciferian wrote: ...As far as the creative process it's always been similar; the lead designers come up with some sketches and concepts, the modelers turn that into something that can be produced in plastic, and the rules guys turn the design notes directly into rules. Rules have always come last...
This would be the proper process in which these types of business would run. Clearly, GW has not.
Well you might want to tell them, because that's how they describe the workflow for their design team. I don't see how this is contradictory to ending up with poorly written rules or what type of process you think they must have followed alternatively.
insaniak wrote: Honestly, I think the 'No Model No Rules' policy is a completely separate issue to what happened with Orks.
The no-option buggies aren't a casualty of the Chapterhouse case. They're a result of GW's current drive to remove points-driven list building from the game.
Power Levels only really work if units either have minimal options that are all equal to each other, or no options at all. So the trend that we've been seeing from (at least) the release of the Primaris Marines is for kits with fewer or no options.
The end goal will be what we have with the buggies - Instead of one 'buggy' unit with a range of different options to choose from, we have 6 different units that are all essentially the same thing, with fixed options differentiating them
Expect to see this carried across to other new kits for other races.
Except that they just made upgrades for Primaris. There's a balance between options and cost and options will lost most of the time.
Could they make an IK kit that has two of every weapon so we could arm them however we wanted? Sure, but you'd pay through the nose for it.
Why exactly do you need special snowflake rules to build a cool model? Simplifying rules bloat is a good thing, and you can still do all the aesthetic conversions you want.
Luciferian wrote: ...As far as the creative process it's always been similar; the lead designers come up with some sketches and concepts, the modelers turn that into something that can be produced in plastic, and the rules guys turn the design notes directly into rules. Rules have always come last...
This would be the proper process in which these types of business would run. Clearly, GW has not.
Well you might want to tell them, because that's how they describe the workflow for their design team. I don't see how this is contradictory to ending up with poorly written rules or what type of process you think they must have followed alternatively.
Off the top of my head, mycetic spore, doom of malantai, and a few other nid named characters were mentioned in a book, which got translated to a rule in a codex, and no model was made for them. Nid players were psyched to have a drop pod for their armies, but were bummed out that there were no official models for them - enter chapter house.
So, here we have:
1. Conception of ideas for new units
2. Rules for new units
3. No model
This clearly contradicts your statement regarding the supposedly credible source describing their workflow because according to your source it follows:
1. Conception of ideas for new units
2. Idea is modelled out
3. Rules are released for new models
Peregrine wrote: Why exactly do you need special snowflake rules to build a cool model? Simplifying rules bloat is a good thing, and you can still do all the aesthetic conversions you want.
Because options are awesome and make it so my army doesn't look and play just like everyone else. They also enspire conversions and kitbashing. The main reason I've stuck with space marines over the years is because they have so many options.
All my tactical and scout squads are equipped different;y and I frequently use different loadouts for my HQ, my vehicles, etc. Instead GW lately has been treanding towards this unit has x and does y. That's boring game design and the game isn't any more balanced, so it literally has no upsides.
skchsan wrote: Off the top of my head, mycetic spore, doom of malantai, and a few other nid named characters were mentioned in a book, which got translated to a rule in a codex, and no model was made for them. Nid players were psyched to have a drop pod for their armies, but were bummed out that there were no official models for them - enter chapter house.
So, here we have:
1. Conception of ideas for new units
2. Rules for new units
3. No model
This clearly contradicts your statement regarding the supposedly credible source describing their workflow because according to your source it follows:
1. Conception of ideas for new units
2. Idea is modelled out
3. Rules are released for new models
All of that was shaken out and changed after the Chapterhouse legal battle, which we all know about, and which resulted in the No Model No Rules policy, which we all know about and which I explicitly mentioned. I don't really know what you're getting at here - that a very small number of exceptions from one codex that was published years ago proves that I am wrong? I'm just relaying information explicitly stated by people like Jes Goodwin. It kind of seems like your only point here is to "win" or argue for the sake of it. Again, if you want to argue for argument's sake, take it up with Jes Goodwin, not me.
All my tactical and scout squads are equipped different;y and I frequently use different loadouts for my HQ, my vehicles, etc. Instead GW lately has been treanding towards this unit has x and does y. That's boring game design and the game isn't any more balanced, so it literally has no upsides.
The thing is, you're not necessarily going to actually wind up losing a great many options in the long run, other than for characters. Again, the Orks wound up with 6 different buggies to choose from. If they had gone with one buggy with 6 different loadouts, the end result would have been the same. The only difference is that the 6 different buggies have 6 different names.
The fixed loadouts are admittedly not as customisable as just having a list of stuff and choosing what you want... but it's not quite as bad as it appears at a first glance.
The Chapter House suit completely changed the way GW designs and builds models from the ground up. For non-americans the case went all the way to the Supreme Court. Digress for a second and realize the most powerful justices in our court system debated the IP law around space Marines shoulder pads. Really, it happened. The decision is publicly available for a nice boring read if anyone is interested.
Anyways, on topic, one of the results of CH suit was that the justices ruled it was not an IP violation to build a model that resembled something in the fiction. Everyone knows this part. But the other, an I think more important, part of their ruling was that compatible parts were NOT IP infringement.
What this means is that all those third party sellers of SM shoulder pads could proceed at will. This fundamentally changed the way GW models needed to be built on the sprues so they could prevent third party compatible bits. Look at sprues now a days and you'll notice they are molded so there are no easy modifications to parts. Take the new primaris or DG spures and they are intentionally cut so you can't just replace a head, a weapon, or a shoulder pads without ruining the model.
The consequences which OP is referencing is a "toyification" as, inherantly, they have to design their sprues to only have a specific, or a few specific, builds.
Peregrine wrote: Why exactly do you need special snowflake rules to build a cool model? Simplifying rules bloat is a good thing, and you can still do all the aesthetic conversions you want.
Because options are awesome and make it so my army doesn't look and play just like everyone else. They also enspire conversions and kitbashing. The main reason I've stuck with space marines over the years is because they have so many options.
All my tactical and scout squads are equipped different;y and I frequently use different loadouts for my HQ, my vehicles, etc. Instead GW lately has been treanding towards this unit has x and does y. That's boring game design and the game isn't any more balanced, so it literally has no upsides.
I think you're putting way too much emphasis on putting plasma on a couple guys over the whole squad. Hellblasters get different gun variants. So do Inceptors. So do Primaris. You can make an army as varied as you want with the dozens of data sheets, stratagems, relics, and traits available.
From my perspective the third party accessories is a beef I never got from GW. If I buy shoulder pads from chapter house and put them on a marine that GW made, GW literally lost nothing. I still bought a marine kit from them and then bought another bit that they do not and will not produce. I get them having a beef about whole models, but the level of petty over small bitz is silly
HoundsofDemos wrote: From my perspective the third party accessories is a beef I never got from GW. If I buy shoulder pads from chapter house and put them on a marine that GW made, GW literally lost nothing. I still bought a marine kit from them and then bought another bit that they do not and will not produce. I get them having a beef about whole models, but the level of petty over small bitz is silly
Gw used to make bits like shoulder pads, same with forgeworld.
it doesn't matter for non Lore shoulder pads but GW does lose from some conversion kits and bits. (such as various power weapons and special weapons. i recall CH did a whole line of magnetizable combi weapons which were popular also the whole storm eagle conversion kit).
ultimately while it may have been pennies, from a lawyer perspective they have to defend their IP and stuff (as from what i remember about that whole thing you have to actively be using and defending it or otherwise lose it) and because of how horribly they failed and learned their IPs defense is hot garbage they have to make sure it is secure.
Yeah. GW made a choice. They chose wrong. No different than a Monsanto or a Microsoft. Don't be evil used to be Google's motto. This motto has since been dropped by Google... Guess GW followed suit.
The Chapter House suit completely changed the way GW designs and builds models from the ground up. For non-americans the case went all the way to the Supreme Court. Digress for a second and realize the most powerful justices in our court system debated the IP law around space Marines shoulder pads. Really, it happened. The decision is publicly available for a nice boring read if anyone is interested.
Anyways, on topic, one of the results of CH suit was that the justices ruled it was not an IP violation to build a model that resembled something in the fiction. Everyone knows this part. But the other, an I think more important, part of their ruling was that compatible parts were NOT IP infringement.
What this means is that all those third party sellers of SM shoulder pads could proceed at will. This fundamentally changed the way GW models needed to be built on the sprues so they could prevent third party compatible bits. Look at sprues now a days and you'll notice they are molded so there are no easy modifications to parts. Take the new primaris or DG spures and they are intentionally cut so you can't just replace a head, a weapon, or a shoulder pads without ruining the model.
The consequences which OP is referencing is a "toyification" as, inherantly, they have to design their sprues to only have a specific, or a few specific, builds.
Their shoulderpads, arms, heads and legs are laid out exactly like space marine parts always have been. everything on a primaris marine except for torso and legs is fully compatible with older space marine models in both scale and attachment points.
The Chapter House suit completely changed the way GW designs and builds models from the ground up. For non-americans the case went all the way to the Supreme Court. Digress for a second and realize the most powerful justices in our court system debated the IP law around space Marines shoulder pads. Really, it happened. The decision is publicly available for a nice boring read if anyone is interested.
Anyways, on topic, one of the results of CH suit was that the justices ruled it was not an IP violation to build a model that resembled something in the fiction. Everyone knows this part. But the other, an I think more important, part of their ruling was that compatible parts were NOT IP infringement.
What this means is that all those third party sellers of SM shoulder pads could proceed at will. This fundamentally changed the way GW models needed to be built on the sprues so they could prevent third party compatible bits. Look at sprues now a days and you'll notice they are molded so there are no easy modifications to parts. Take the new primaris or DG spures and they are intentionally cut so you can't just replace a head, a weapon, or a shoulder pads without ruining the model.
The consequences which OP is referencing is a "toyification" as, inherantly, they have to design their sprues to only have a specific, or a few specific, builds.
Their shoulderpads, arms, heads and legs are laid out exactly like space marine parts always have been. everything on a primaris marine except for torso and legs is fully compatible with older space marine models in both scale and attachment points.
GW even have their own conversion kits for the parts that most 3rd party people make anyway too.
you could make an argument for some of the boxed games and smaller kits like necromunda and snap fit stuff though.
Primaris might have been a bad example, but the wider point stands.
I was very gung-ho on adding a Nurgle force to my roster, until I saw that the DG models (almost to a man) would require a level of talent far in excess of any I actually possess to be passable as an army. My Escher gang didn't reach the planned number of models because even at only ten-strong it was getting hard to make unique looking minis.
And while I am particularly bad at converting, granted, I feel like most people are closer to where I am than closer to, say, KrautScientist.
I feel your pain OP, Admech lost a ton of options that we had bits and models for in the transfer to 8th, alongside a ton of our cooler and more interesting rules. Tech priest Dominus, you know, the guys known for being the most technologically advanced hoarders in the Galaxy, have FOUR OPTIONS. On what planet does that make an iota of sense? They should have different invuln options, weapons, buff upgrades, abilities, etc, but instead we get one cookie cutter profile and that's it.
Onagers used to get self repair arms that come in the kit, can't use them anymore. Skitarii used to have their doctrinas army wide every turn, now it's just a strategem. Hell I'm amazed our alphas can still take rifles, although GW seemed to "fix" that with kill team.
Guard codex got off a bit better but it still hurt to lose so many options on our vets and command squads, where most of the character of our armies tended to come from.
I also hate how people say the chapterhouse lawsuit like it's chapterhouse's fault that we're in this situation. GW did it to themselves through dumb practices and assuming they could bully anyone who disagreed. They could've just licensed products as legal, or even set up where they got a percentage, or even just made the models in the codexes and updated kits before building new stuff we didn't need, but no, they decided that if they couldn't have their cake and eat it too we'd be the ones punished. GW had all these options, units, and characters that gave the game depth but didn't bother to make them. Other companies stepped in and made suitable alternatives that in many cases still required players to buy the base models. The few direct sales they lost to these companies was more than made up for by helping the hobby grow and encourage people to keep buying and playing. If a player buys custom shoulder pads, guess what, he still has to buy the base marines. And even if it's a character or model where the player doesn't need any GW parts, odds are the rest of their army is GW, and it will encourage them to stay invested in their army longer, growing the player base, retaining the ones you have, and increasing enjoyment.
These asinine policies are written by lawyers, not hobbyists, and have no business being in the game. Yes it sucks that certain options weren't directly sold by GW but that could be solved by actually updating kits we have like guardsmen instead of giving us new things we didn't need like tauroxes.
HoundsofDemos wrote: From my perspective the third party accessories is a beef I never got from GW. If I buy shoulder pads from chapter house and put them on a marine that GW made, GW literally lost nothing. I still bought a marine kit from them and then bought another bit that they do not and will not produce. I get them having a beef about whole models, but the level of petty over small bitz is silly
Gw used to make bits like shoulder pads, same with forgeworld.
To be fair, used to is the big keyword there. Chapterhouse didn't really become a thing until after GW shut down its Bitz division in IIRC 2007, and most (barring stuff like Red Scorpions and the like) of the FW stuff didn't start to appear until several years after the Bitz closure, while those old shoulderpad Bitz from GW were made available only haphazardly.
I don't think anyone here has alleged that CH were at fault.
You also can't ignore that GW is ultimately in the business of returning shareholder value. All incorporated entities are.
It would be super if they could produce a fun, tight game with awesome minis and practically give them away. At least, it would be for the three or four weeks it would take for them to go bust and disappear.
As an avid Ork fan, but not necessarily a player, I mean I collect Orks, by the thousand, but don't play them, and have not played them in a long time, I have an opinion, probably not right and probably already covered by someone else, but I like orks so zog reading everyone rant about how their Imperial faction has also felt the pinch, but here goes......
GW don't want you to be creative, they want you to buy their kits, and their kits only. The Orks where created in a time of wonder when the developers liked creativity, indeed regularly encouraged scratch building, but now they are a liability. I honestly believe they would drop them if they could. Indeed I have felt a leaning toward the good space soldier earthling fighting the bad space soldier earthling thing coming on for a few years now. 30k is a prime example as is Titanicus, No xenos here!!
But you see Orks are made for creative people to express themselves exactly as you have said in the OP. And they can't be bothered to try and cater to that sort of mayhem. For me the biggest deathnell of doom was the ork trukk model way back when. It is a brilliant kit, I love it, but according to them every single ork trukk looks the same, which is obviously a ludicrous idea. No two should look the same let alone a horde of the exact same bloody 6 wheeler running about the galaxy.
However I would point out, as I have elsewhere, the rules are only guidelines and only apply in GW stores or tourney situations. What you do in your own man cave or round your mates on a Friday night is completely up to you, so build any model you like, and if your mate wont allow it then maybe you need to bang him over the head, preferably with a nice lead shokk attack gun! The rules for most things are out there, or can be adjusted to suit.
And I absolutely love GWbtw, I genuinely thank them from the bottom of my heart for the decades of joy I have had from them. Remember I don't play the game!
Me I am going to keep making contraptions, and silly conversions and fluffy nonsense, and one day I will find some mad bugger who will give me game just to see if that pulsa rokkit willl land on my own troops or his.
I love converting and kit bashing. It's my favorite part if the hobby, creating a one of a kind model or character and getting it painted up. But I dont mind the new approach. Personally, I'm in a mindset that I only want to take Codex options, but for now any legacy model is still legal with the Index.
I have to say, out of my 3 existing armies, I have the most in Orks. But I havent been interested in playing the new Orks for some reason. I actually spammed lootaz for the last 2 editions when they were garbage! They've taken a shelf yet again.
I also hate how people say the chapterhouse lawsuit like it's chapterhouse's fault that we're in this situation. GW did it to themselves through dumb practices and assuming they could bully anyone who disagreed. They could've just licensed products as legal, or even set up where they got a percentage, or even just made the models in the codexes and updated kits before building new stuff we didn't need, but no, they decided that if they couldn't have their cake and eat it too we'd be the ones punished. GW had all these options, units, and characters that gave the game depth but didn't bother to make them. Other companies stepped in and made suitable alternatives that in many cases still required players to buy the base models. The few direct sales they lost to these companies was more than made up for by helping the hobby grow and encourage people to keep buying and playing. If a player buys custom shoulder pads, guess what, he still has to buy the base marines. And even if it's a character or model where the player doesn't need any GW parts, odds are the rest of their army is GW, and it will encourage them to stay invested in their army longer, growing the player base, retaining the ones you have, and increasing enjoyment.
These asinine policies are written by lawyers, not hobbyists, and have no business being in the game. Yes it sucks that certain options weren't directly sold by GW but that could be solved by actually updating kits we have like guardsmen instead of giving us new things we didn't need like tauroxes.
Excommunicatus wrote: Primaris might have been a bad example, but the wider point stands.
I was very gung-ho on adding a Nurgle force to my roster, until I saw that the DG models (almost to a man) would require a level of talent far in excess of any I actually possess to be passable as an army. My Escher gang didn't reach the planned number of models because even at only ten-strong it was getting hard to make unique looking minis.
And while I am particularly bad at converting, granted, I feel like most people are closer to where I am than closer to, say, KrautScientist.
Just how unique-looking do you expect a horde of people wearing the same armor and using the same guns to be?
Did you ever look at an actual soldier? you can't really tell two people apart, and its intentional.
123ply wrote: This is a major problem that has been happening all over the board. Its stupid. GW has completley made the game "non-friendly" to creativity
Didn’t you get the memo? “Todays gamers are mentally challenged and get frustrated with too many options” -GW
Excommunicatus wrote: Primaris might have been a bad example, but the wider point stands.
I was very gung-ho on adding a Nurgle force to my roster, until I saw that the DG models (almost to a man) would require a level of talent far in excess of any I actually possess to be passable as an army. My Escher gang didn't reach the planned number of models because even at only ten-strong it was getting hard to make unique looking minis.
And while I am particularly bad at converting, granted, I feel like most people are closer to where I am than closer to, say, KrautScientist.
Just how unique-looking do you expect a horde of people wearing the same armor and using the same guns to be?
Did you ever look at an actual soldier? you can't really tell two people apart, and its intentional.
One I'm not trying to replicate real life armies, if I was I'd play a historical like bolt action. Compare the level of bitz and variety between regular marines and the new kits they produced now. Hell back to Orks, look at the sheer range of cross compatibility between the different kits and the ability to pull bitz from fantasy orks.
Or perhaps my favorite, compare the space marine commander kit in options and potential customization to the under borderdom and mono pose nature of the current plastic clam packs. When medal models were easier to put your own spin on things, something is trending in the wrong direction.
What annoys me is when you're listening to GW live streams or podcasts and they refer to converting all the time - clearly they didn't get the company memo either
I don't think the lack of options is because of Chapterhouse, or modeling. I think that GW has realized that they really, really suck at balancing points, and they are sick of all the criticism they get when they get it wrong.
If a tankbusta is 5 points, with a 12 point rocket, but somehow much better than an ork boy with the same rocket, yet far cheaper, you really start to get the sense that GW just can't does not have the mental cajones make points happen.
It's not hard, of course. Make regular boyz 7, kommandos and burna boyz 8, stormboyz 9, and tankbustas 10, with weapons at 7 for rokkits and 4 for burnas, and allow many combinations of the above. Provide similar options for all the vehicles.
Easy peasy lemon squeezy for you and me, but GW simply cannot do this. It is too hard for them and they know it.
Because Ork Boyz are troops and have better melee potential (via the Green Tide special rule). Granted Tankbustas have their re-roll rule, so I guess that balances out. GW being GW.
I have a theory that this IS, sort of, because of the "No Models, No Rules" policy, but it's NOT because the buggies specifically all need to be perfectly aligned with their models.
Rather, the problem came from the fact that Games Workshop cut a *ton* of units from the codex and didn't want the options to obviously shrink, so they had to stretch everything as far as possible.
We lost a full *Eight* dataslates from Index to Codex, not including all the weapon choices that got dropped. If all we got back was one HQ choice and one Fast Attack, the Codex would seem pretty barren. Add in five Fast Attack choices instead, though? Suddenly, it doesn't seem nearly as empty.
I'm not saying this is the only reason, but it certainly didn't help when GW was deciding how to split up the dataslates.
DaRealJDB wrote: A miniature with no assembly options can be a beautiful thing.
Moving forward:
- Keep making the models I want to make.
Kingdom Death : Monster, utilizing the sculpting potential of a monopose model to capture the weight, motion and proper anatomy of a specific pose is what brought me back into the model-building hobby. I find that I prefer mono-pose models when they are sculpted well, because they can show things that are all but impossible with multi-pose mix-and-match kits. From a pure aesthetics standpoint, I really love my Kingdom Death models.
As a converter of Imperial Armour, I get that. Make the models you want, and play them "count as". If your opponent doesn't like it, then find another opponent.
Excommunicatus wrote: Primaris might have been a bad example, but the wider point stands.
I was very gung-ho on adding a Nurgle force to my roster, until I saw that the DG models (almost to a man) would require a level of talent far in excess of any I actually possess to be passable as an army. My Escher gang didn't reach the planned number of models because even at only ten-strong it was getting hard to make unique looking minis.
And while I am particularly bad at converting, granted, I feel like most people are closer to where I am than closer to, say, KrautScientist.
Just how unique-looking do you expect a horde of people wearing the same armor and using the same guns to be?
Did you ever look at an actual soldier? you can't really tell two people apart, and its intentional.
The ability to pose models a little bit differently even when they have the same gun, gear, etc helps a lot as it makes it less identical. Put 30 shoota boyz into a group and you will see that each boy is roughly unique as they have various combos of guns, arms, heads, pants, chest, and other bits all glued together slightly differently. Makes it so those 30 shoota boyz look different at a casual glance unlike the now more mono pose models which makes it feel like you have 6 clones of the same 5 models. Its not about making each model a special snowflake but to have that subtle variety which makes them feel more "alive" and less like carbon copies of each other.
BaconCatBug wrote: Blame the Chapter House Lawsuits. It's why No Model, No Rules exists. Everything needs to be expressly unique and copywritable, preferably with Adjective VerbNoun names.
GW have also shifted their focus from adults with disposable income to kids with their parents income.
This is true but while other factions lost just a few units and a few loadout combinations, the transition between the orks index to the codex was extremely rough. Orks lost tons of options.
With my drukhari I just want to take a blaster for the archon as index options, with SW it's just the WG on bikes that appeal me and are index only. But with orks?
Warboss on bike
Big mek on bike with KFF Big mek on foot with KFF (There was an original model with that loadout)
Painboy with killsaw (There was an original model with that loadout)
Mek with KMB or rokkit launcha
Killa Kans with KMB
Deffkoptas with KMB or saw
Kommandos with special weapons (there were original kommandos with big shootas and burnas) and their nobz forced to be equipped with just slugga and choppa or pk Trukks and BWs with rokkits
Plus other options that were popular in older editions like big gunz, buggies/wartrakks (at least those ones were replaced with something new) the warboss in megarmor or the painboy on bike but these entries I listed above are all that I still use.
It's hard to describe how I feel about the whole debacle. On one hand I'm very happy that I don't have to go to my bitz box or a 3rd party vendor every time I "need" a model (or 10 models) of whatever is the new hotness in the meta and sometimes spend ridiculous amounts of time to build something that doesn't come with the stock model. I've been in the hobby for over 20 years and I found that somewhat of a drag. Think about someone just starting out and they start collecting and the first thing they hear is "yeah you should really run Nobz with triple Killsawz but the box only comes with one so you'll have to sculpt them from green stuff, but it's really easy!" It is a daunting prospect, and I understand this reasoning. I kinda understand the convenience of getting what it says on the tin, no need for elaborate conversions.
Also I feel that despite the lack of options (or poses) GW produces just absolutely sublime models these days. Some if not most of the poses could be difficult to achieve with interchangeable weapons. It sucks from a gaming POV and also I feel the pain of running clones, but when you look at a single model in a vacuum they look really really good.
Now with that said, with 20 years in the Hobby (only a recent Ork player so no extravagant conversions under my belt) as a SW player I've done my fair share of customizing the loadouts for my units and characters and seeing them go the way of the dodo is a real bummer. What also kinda irks me badly is that GW used to produce some models which were still good looking, but for some reason has discontinued them and with one fell swoop just eliminated the use of said models in the codex. E.g. Big Mek with KFF. Sure some of them still exist in the Index but many events have started to ban Index-only options and it's only a matter of time before they're officially banned from matched play.
TL;DR There's a lot of lost hobby potential and a loss of flavor and unique character in minis without options, however we are getting some great looking models as a trade off.
Weazel wrote: It's hard to describe how I feel about the whole debacle. On one hand I'm very happy that I don't have to go to my bitz box or a 3rd party vendor every time I "need" a model (or 10 models) of whatever is the new hotness in the meta and sometimes spend ridiculous amounts of time to build something that doesn't come with the stock model. I've been in the hobby for over 20 years and I found that somewhat of a drag. Think about someone just starting out and they start collecting and the first thing they hear is "yeah you should really run Nobz with triple Killsawz but the box only comes with one so you'll have to sculpt them from green stuff, but it's really easy!" It is a daunting prospect, and I understand this reasoning. I kinda understand the convenience of getting what it says on the tin, no need for elaborate conversions.
Those converting possibilities are the exact reason why I picked up orks during 3rd edition. IMHO the best part of the hobby is to assemble the models, not painting or even playing. On the other hand I always magnetize models that can have multiple loadout so even if I lack the proper bitz I can add it later. WYSIWYG is also not a rule anymore so it's perfectly fine to play something even without the specific bitz you wanted. Chasing the new hotness is always bad, in fact I think that's what is killing the hobby.
Also I feel that despite the lack of options (or poses) GW produces just absolutely sublime models these days. Some if not most of the poses could be difficult to achieve with interchangeable weapons. It sucks from a gaming POV and also I feel the pain of running clones, but when you look at a single model in a vacuum they look really really good.
I can't stand having two identical ork models, no matter how wonderful they are. I have 150 boyz all different, many are from AOBR or with fantasy bitz.
The new buggies are not that good to me, but they're too monopose. If I want 2-3 scrapjets I must scratch build 1-2 as it's very hard to convert them. They're too detailed. Trukks and BWs are awesome kits because they're very easy to make them different just with minor conversions.
123ply wrote: This is a major problem that has been happening all over the board. Its stupid. GW has completley made the game "non-friendly" to creativity
It's the exact opposite. By removing rules bloat and having fewer options you get more room for creativity in conversions because you can care much less about WYSIWYG. Think it would look cool to have the driver of that ork vehicle firing a machine gun out the window? Great, model it, nobody is going to get confused and think it's a weapon upgrade because no such rules exist. While it's tempting to only consider the "no model, no rules" problem I find that most people fall into the trap of assuming that anything that doesn't have special snowflake rules can't exist as a model.
I think in a game that's over 30 years old having underwent at least 8 iterations by a company that went from being three guys building chess sets to an LSE listed company with a turnover of 150 million pounds, it stands to reason that the product and the philosophies behind its development will have changed dramatically. And it stands to reason that many of the people who adopted earlier versions of the game will eventually meet a set of changes that just push them away from what they loved about it.
I know it can be hard to let go of something that one loved so passionately once upon a time, but at some point, one just has to admit to oneself that this is no longer the game they love, and should either stick with an earlier version, get involved in a homemade version or just quit altogether.
If you really don't like something and it genuinely brings you know joy, then for the love of God, please don't keep spending money on it.
I can see the OP has a point. From multi-pose to mono-pose is a big turn off for people who want variety or like to personalise their models.
Regarding rules, my Orks are RT era +, and I have had to get creative with ‘counts as’ to play. For instance, my Snikrot is a Genestealer in my GS Hybrid mob. (Yes, even in competitions)
As for the new buggy incarnations, they fit none of my buggy models - so ‘hello’ Gun Trukks. I will be addding an old Squig Catapult to a Trukk in portee fashion, and am building a Franken-trukk from buggy/trukk/spare parts to mount a variety of heavy weapons.
Experience has shown the rules change over time, you just have to hammer them into the shape you want.
123ply wrote: This is a major problem that has been happening all over the board. Its stupid. GW has completley made the game "non-friendly" to creativity
It's the exact opposite. By removing rules bloat and having fewer options you get more room for creativity in conversions because you can care much less about WYSIWYG. Think it would look cool to have the driver of that ork vehicle firing a machine gun out the window? Great, model it, nobody is going to get confused and think it's a weapon upgrade because no such rules exist. While it's tempting to only consider the "no model, no rules" problem I find that most people fall into the trap of assuming that anything that doesn't have special snowflake rules can't exist as a model.
No.
The mini may look superficially different but it is. Still. The. Same. as every one out there rulewise. I don't give a gak if lightning claws are a bad option for my HQ. Give me the option and I'll model it as at least it can be different to someone else's otherwise identical HQ.
I think you are right in your observations but are not necessarily assigning the right underlying cause to this change. I believe it's all driven by the technology available to miniature designers.
I have been wanting to post about this for a while and this is probably the wrong place but it's as good as any.
I believe we are now in "The Third Age" of GW Miniature products.
The First Age was metal minis which were almost uniformly monopose. Many were a single lump of metal with that traditional "wide but flat" look, which is a deivative of the shape of a metal mold.
Here's a classic example but we all know what these look like... Abaddon the Despoiler - a fabulous model for the time but now not so much - guns and swords pointing out laterally, very little depth.
The Second Age is multipose plastic minis. Plastic mini molds suffer even more from the "wide but flat" shape... so with plastic comes the necessity to reduce the miniature into components and put them on an extremely flat sprue.
However, plastic is light and can be easily glued, so suddenly models can have parts which can protrude in many directions... or assembled to make a volume like a carnifex body... and VOILA! We have a massive jump in how viable it is to make a model that looks truly 3 dimensional.
With that came the explosion of products like the Tactical Marines kit (and hundreds like it) where you get bodies, arms, guns etc separately and you get to assemble them however you like. The rules then adapted to follow the models - remember at GWmodels always drive rules. They do not say "make me a model that can fill this specific army need". They say "look at this wicked thing we designed now go make up some rules for it".
And the rules for the 2nd age are "you can take x models and y of them can have weapon A and z of them can have weapon B except on a tuesday when they need weapon C". Total flexibility of build.
That's gone. It is dead.
The Third Age, which I believe we have been in for perhaps 2 years, is driven by the refinement of plastic miniature technology and more specifically CAD design packages which have brought us to the stage where models such as Mortarion or Celestine or the Idoneth Aspect of the Sea can be created.
Delicate yet strong, immesely detailed models which are SO FAR beyond what was possible before... they are genuinely stunning. The first time you see one of these things - tall, wide, dynamic, floating in the air... you think "wow".
And building them is amazing - some models you almost don't need to clean the mold lines as they are all perfectly hidden away in the precisely-placed joins.
WOW!
And GW has got hooked on the WOW factor. I think we all are to some extent.
But this CAD designed "best miniatures I have ever seen or painted" factor has drawbacks to the game, which are that the models have lost their "random kit of pieces" nature. The rules writers can give you the option to swap your Wazzbomber Squig Smashblaster for a Tellyporting Rokkitchukker if the model designers made the product so these pieces can be swapped in and out... but if it doesn't, they can't.
tl;dr - The rules always follow the models, and the models are driven by the technology.. GW are (to some people) currently too enslaved to the "perfect scultpure" type model instead of the "kitbashed from parts" models we have become used to.
HoundsofDemos wrote: When medal models were easier to put your own spin on things, something is trending in the wrong direction.
Utter nonsense. The very fact that models are made of plastic means they're easier to convert, even if it's not designed as a modular multi-part kit.
How are GW "hostile to creatives"? They're happy to show off conversions and to do videos on how to kitbash models. The Astra Militarum, Adeptus Mechanicus and Genestealer Cult kits are specifically designed to allow you to swap heads and arms to make your own units. If anything, not providing rules for every possible thing you can put on a model is more freedom for conversions. When 3rd edition was released, you could suddenly go crazy with conversions compared to 2nd edition because of the simplifaction of equipment - and then the codexes added a million stupid bits of wargear on a model and suddenly giving a Tactical trooper a scanner because it looks cool isn't allowed, or those talismans you added to your Wolf Lord cost points you didn't want to spend.
The tradeoff is you can have multi-part kits or you can have more realistic poses where the movement flows through the entire model. Look at the Primaris Captain from Dark Imperium; the whole pose from the legs up all follow the raised sword arm. You can't do that with the old multi-part Space Marine Commander kit - you get an oddly static guy standing with one arm held at an unnatural angle. If that means I need to put five minutes more work into swapping his power fist for a bolt pistol, so be it.
Automatically Appended Next Post: if you want that level of detail in equipment, play Necromunda with ten models. It's ridiculous to worry about whether one guy has a wolf tail talisman or an auspex or he's scrounged up a power axe instead of his regulation chainsword if you're the company (or regimental!) commander.
The new line of models aren’t as easy to convert as the old ones but they are much nicer and better posed. Look at plague marines, complex squishy shapes with tentacles and all sorts all over them. Compare that to normal chaos marines. The old kit is very interchangeable and easy to convert but looks garbage and very basic. What GW do now is make models with next level design elements and poses that aren’t as modular. Anyone can make older style modular models, I even make some basic mounds at home, dynamic and complex posed models made possible with cad etc are the new capturing edge. If you want to convert them you can’t just mix and match anymore you have to get cutting again. Actually be creative.
Look at the old chaos marauders, with the flat arm connections. Very stiff looking but easy to convert. Now look at the poses of kairic acolytes, much more natural and rounded, more dynamic poses but you can’t just switch arms around. Now you need skill and imagination to convert not just kit bash. But it’s still easier than in the metal days.
The other problem is the people playing the game at the minute. The competitive scene who are too serious and up tight about the rules are the ones stifling creativity. Insisting on match play rules and not allowing house rules etc means play with what you have got.
There’s nothing to say the mek special or the shock attack gun on the new kits has to look like they official models. Use your imagination.
I loved that 2nd edition painting style, I really like it when people paint the modern models in this style - especially oldschool ultramarine colour scheme on primaris.
I think customisation was at it's best back then too. I had some set called dark millennium with a bunch of wargear cards for imperials, webbers, vortex grenades, rad grenades, hallucinogen grenades, chameleonene camo. Also the codex back then seemed much more flexible, like you could build an army of all sorts of random stuff and I recall wondering what some of the models even looked like. One major letdown of the new kill team is that it doesn't seem to have that customisation, it doesn't even match the old kill team's customisation.
Back then 40k didn't take itself too seriously and I feel it was kind of endearing.
Bit of a nostalgic rant (maybe since I was a kid I'm looking back with rose tinted specs) but tl;dr I don't think the aesthetic changes are reflective of changes to customisation/theme - orks were cartoony and customisable back then.
Grimtuff wrote: The mini may look superficially different but it is. Still. The. Same. as every one out there rulewise. I don't give a gak if lightning claws are a bad option for my HQ. Give me the option and I'll model it as at least it can be different to someone else's otherwise identical HQ.
Why do the rules have to be different? Why is the character's uniqueness defined by having +1 STR/AP -2 instead of +2 STR/AP -1 and not by the awesome conversion you made using those obscure bits that nobody else even thought to use?
That's certainly how I feel, but I'm an old fart. My favourite level of detail for army lists was 2nd or 3rd edition when you only had the army lists in the core rules. Blood Angels, Dark Angels, Space Wolves, Ultramarines didn't need rules; just use the Space Marine army list for all of them. Make the uniqueness come from your painting and conversion, and your tactics.
I've seen plenty of fantastic Kill Teams I'd never have thought of; perhaps the best way to do it is to build the models without considering the rules? Just make some models that look cool.
I am going to echo Peregrine's sentiment that I do not understand the need for special special special rules for every single option. I kitbash stuff for fun all the time and I see no need for special rules just to make my own - unique creation - special.
However, I am going to add this to the conversation: GW is developing into a game company and not a miniature company even though a lot of its strength is originally from miniatures. All those little boardgames, big boardgames like Blackfortress, various genre targeting games(large scale, skirmish, fantasy, sci-fi), and them cutting off ties with FFG shows that they kinda want to get to their original roots when Steve et al founded the company and make more games.
The motto that they were a miniature company first is a Kirby era thing. Nowadays they are definitely a game company. It's why they are bringing back all their specialty games back.
Honestly, the weirdest thing I saw on this thread was complaints about death guard of all things.
Death guard?
Heck, complaining chaos in general is hard to make your own unique looking dudes is hilarity. you got the entire chaos range, on top of the entire loyalist range, and any hybrid or mix you can think of between any of them as a viable option.
You want to make more custom deathguard? get a CSM kit, a deathguard kit, and mix them up a bit-it CAN be done.
Not every part, and not every combination-but some heads, arms, guns and especially accessories are cross-compatible.
Get some mark 3 marines that they are based off, mix them with the DG models and get "lightly infested DG"
And that took me about half a second to think of.
(daemon princes are my personal favorite point of how easy chaos is to convert. every single chaos player I know has his own custom prince that look NOTHING alike any other player's. and they are all quite obviously princes.)
Converting is EASY with plastics. reaching the same jaw-dropping quality of models that are out-of-the-box in modern kits is the hard part.
Heck, you can come up with nearly ANY concept-and I'm sure I can think of a way to convert something like that, though more likely it was already done.
BoomWolf wrote: Honestly, the weirdest thing I saw on this thread was complaints about death guard of all things.
Death guard?
Heck, complaining chaos in general is hard to make your own unique looking dudes is hilarity. you got the entire chaos range, on top of the entire loyalist range, and any hybrid or mix you can think of between any of them as a viable option.
You want to make more custom deathguard? get a CSM kit, a deathguard kit, and mix them up a bit-it CAN be done.
Not every part, and not every combination-but some heads, arms, guns and especially accessories are cross-compatible.
Get some mark 3 marines that they are based off, mix them with the DG models and get "lightly infested DG"
And that took me about half a second to think of.
(daemon princes are my personal favorite point of how easy chaos is to convert. every single chaos player I know has his own custom prince that look NOTHING alike any other player's. and they are all quite obviously princes.)
Converting is EASY with plastics. reaching the same jaw-dropping quality of models that are out-of-the-box in modern kits is the hard part.
Heck, you can come up with nearly ANY concept-and I'm sure I can think of a way to convert something like that, though more likely it was already done.
This. I did admittedly very mild conversions on my death guard to make them a little less spikey/horned for my kill team. It would have been very easy to use greenstuff or milliput to do further conversions. Saying these models are harder to convert than old metal models is just insanity.
The people who are saying these things are simply comparing these models to basic space marine / guard / boyz kits that need filler work and heaps of mould line removal to look even on the same level as new intercessors and death guard.
I get it. Complain about lack of datasheet options. That's legitimate. The models, though? They are objectively better now.
BaconCatBug wrote: GW have also shifted their focus from adults with disposable income to kids with their parents income.
while I hate No Model, No Rules, this asinine line of thinking about GW dumbing everything down for kids whose parents buy them everything has been around since at least the beginning of 3rd. It was stupid then and it’s stuoid now.
AndrewGPaul wrote: That's certainly how I feel, but I'm an old fart. My favourite level of detail for army lists was 2nd or 3rd edition when you only had the army lists in the core rules. Blood Angels, Dark Angels, Space Wolves, Ultramarines didn't need rules; just use the Space Marine army list for all of them. Make the uniqueness come from your painting and conversion, and your tactics.
I've seen plenty of fantastic Kill Teams I'd never have thought of; perhaps the best way to do it is to build the models without considering the rules? Just make some models that look cool.
Both 2nd and 3rd edition had codexs and codexs for blood and dark angels. In third you also got black templars too. Even in first edition space wolves got their own list and models. With each editon (2+3) you got a army list booklet but they were only a stop gap and only temporary. Personally 3rd was a disaster and put me off playing until 6th. And 8th is the best since then but nothing comes close to second edition for fun. Still play it.
BaconCatBug wrote: The 80's was a camper time, before the Grimdark that 40k literally codified had permeated though all of society.
That photo is from 1996. Nothing to do with the 80s.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Andykp wrote: With each editon (2+3) you got a army list booklet but they were only a stop gap and only temporary.
Exactly - and they were better, IMO, than the codexes. I'll take the codexes for background, but rules-wise? Well, I liked 'em at the time, but I was only a teenager back then.
BaconCatBug wrote: GW have also shifted their focus from adults with disposable income to kids with their parents income.
while I hate No Model, No Rules, this asinine line of thinking about GW dumbing everything down for kids whose parents buy them everything has been around since at least the beginning of 3rd. It was stupid then and it’s stuoid now.
GW dumbed the game way down from 7th and is minimizing the amount of conversion work and rulebook reading required when assembling your models for the game (see the minimal amount of options for primaris aka the beginner army). Its not so much dumbing down for kids so much as simplifying things down for a more casual audience who don't research optimal builds or want to figure out how to kitbash a librarian on a bike. Honestly how can you look at 8th edition and think that its not extremely streamlined to the point of being a bare bones rule set. Its to reduce barrier to entry but unfortunately GW also gutted so much complexity that it ends up being just dumbed down when compared to past editions.
Vankraken wrote: GW dumbed the game way down from 7th and is minimizing the amount of conversion work and rulebook reading required when assembling your models for the game (see the minimal amount of options for primaris aka the beginner army). Its not so much dumbing down for kids so much as simplifying things down for a more casual audience who don't research optimal builds or want to figure out how to kitbash a librarian on a bike. Honestly how can you look at 8th edition and think that its not extremely streamlined to the point of being a bare bones rule set. Its to reduce barrier to entry but unfortunately GW also gutted so much complexity that it ends up being just dumbed down when compared to past editions.
That's a crock. 8th is still far more complex than 3rd.
Vankraken wrote: GW dumbed the game way down from 7th and is minimizing the amount of conversion work and rulebook reading required when assembling your models for the game (see the minimal amount of options for primaris aka the beginner army). Its not so much dumbing down for kids so much as simplifying things down for a more casual audience who don't research optimal builds or want to figure out how to kitbash a librarian on a bike. Honestly how can you look at 8th edition and think that its not extremely streamlined to the point of being a bare bones rule set. Its to reduce barrier to entry but unfortunately GW also gutted so much complexity that it ends up being just dumbed down when compared to past editions.
That's a crock. 8th is still far more complex than 3rd.
Didn't play 3rd edition so I wouldn't know. Its still on the simplistic side compared to the majority of previous editions.
Vankraken wrote: GW dumbed the game way down from 7th and is minimizing the amount of conversion work and rulebook reading required when assembling your models for the game (see the minimal amount of options for primaris aka the beginner army). Its not so much dumbing down for kids so much as simplifying things down for a more casual audience who don't research optimal builds or want to figure out how to kitbash a librarian on a bike. Honestly how can you look at 8th edition and think that its not extremely streamlined to the point of being a bare bones rule set. Its to reduce barrier to entry but unfortunately GW also gutted so much complexity that it ends up being just dumbed down when compared to past editions.
That's a crock. 8th is still far more complex than 3rd.
8th is the most streamlined and minimized rule set GW has produced. Whether that is a good thing or not is a valid debate. To try to argue that it's more complex than any previous edition is not a debate, even GW themselves have admitted the goal was to simplify the game.
Vankraken wrote: GW dumbed the game way down from 7th and is minimizing the amount of conversion work and rulebook reading required when assembling your models for the game (see the minimal amount of options for primaris aka the beginner army). Its not so much dumbing down for kids so much as simplifying things down for a more casual audience who don't research optimal builds or want to figure out how to kitbash a librarian on a bike. Honestly how can you look at 8th edition and think that its not extremely streamlined to the point of being a bare bones rule set. Its to reduce barrier to entry but unfortunately GW also gutted so much complexity that it ends up being just dumbed down when compared to past editions.
That's a crock. 8th is still far more complex than 3rd.
8th is the most streamlined and minimized rule set GW has produced. Whether that is a good thing or not is a valid debate. To try to argue that it's more complex than any previous edition is not a debate, even GW themselves have admitted the goal was to simplify the game.
You might have had a point when it was index only, but there are so many layers to consider with stratagems, traits, relics, and missions that go WAY beyond what we've had in the past.
Outside of Stratagums, (which mostly boil down to some kind of re roll or x unit gets to do something obvious and awesome), all of that and more was present in 5th through 7th.
Excommunicatus wrote: Primaris might have been a bad example, but the wider point stands.
I was very gung-ho on adding a Nurgle force to my roster, until I saw that the DG models (almost to a man) would require a level of talent far in excess of any I actually possess to be passable as an army. My Escher gang didn't reach the planned number of models because even at only ten-strong it was getting hard to make unique looking minis.
And while I am particularly bad at converting, granted, I feel like most people are closer to where I am than closer to, say, KrautScientist.
Just how unique-looking do you expect a horde of people wearing the same armor and using the same guns to be?
Did you ever look at an actual soldier? you can't really tell two people apart, and its intentional.
More than GW does, clearly.
As another poster said, if I wanted historical accuracy or real-world logic I'd play a different game.
One that doesn't include elves, orks and fishpeople.
mdeceiver79 wrote:
Excommunicatus wrote: It doesn't help that the 'Eavy Metal team have adopted a new, cartoony style on the minis they paint.
I remember being in awe of 'Eavy Metal, these days I barely even glance at official pics.
Not sure about this, before that gritty "realistic style" (around the time steel legion were introduced) you had the cartoony style from 2nd edition.
I loved that 2nd edition painting style, I really like it when people paint the modern models in this style - especially oldschool ultramarine colour scheme on primaris.
I think customisation was at it's best back then too. I had some set called dark millennium with a bunch of wargear cards for imperials, webbers, vortex grenades, rad grenades, hallucinogen grenades, chameleonene camo. Also the codex back then seemed much more flexible, like you could build an army of all sorts of random stuff and I recall wondering what some of the models even looked like. One major letdown of the new kill team is that it doesn't seem to have that customisation, it doesn't even match the old kill team's customisation. Back then 40k didn't take itself too seriously and I feel it was kind of endearing.
Bit of a nostalgic rant (maybe since I was a kid I'm looking back with rose tinted specs) but tl;dr I don't think the aesthetic changes are reflective of changes to customisation/theme - orks were cartoony and customisable back then.
I got into 40K in 2nd Ed. too, but I'd wager most people here didn't (and likely weren't yet born in 1996) so I'm just not including that far back in the statement. I'm talking about 5th to now.
Vankraken wrote: GW dumbed the game way down from 7th and is minimizing the amount of conversion work and rulebook reading required when assembling your models for the game (see the minimal amount of options for primaris aka the beginner army). Its not so much dumbing down for kids so much as simplifying things down for a more casual audience who don't research optimal builds or want to figure out how to kitbash a librarian on a bike. Honestly how can you look at 8th edition and think that its not extremely streamlined to the point of being a bare bones rule set. Its to reduce barrier to entry but unfortunately GW also gutted so much complexity that it ends up being just dumbed down when compared to past editions.
That's a crock. 8th is still far more complex than 3rd.
8th is the most streamlined and minimized rule set GW has produced. Whether that is a good thing or not is a valid debate. To try to argue that it's more complex than any previous edition is not a debate, even GW themselves have admitted the goal was to simplify the game.
You might have had a point when it was index only, but there are so many layers to consider with stratagems, traits, relics, and missions that go WAY beyond what we've had in the past.
Apples to apples, the 3E Rulebook lists provide by far the cleanest, most streamlined and best-balanced version of 40kGW has ever produced.
While the 8E Core Rules are streamlined, the amount of rules tacked onto the units, with nary a Universal Special Rule in sight makes 8E on net much more complex than 3E was, particularly 3E Rulebook-only.
8th is a simplified version of 2nd, which in my opinion is a good thing. The idea that complexity in rules is necessarily better or more "adult" is kind of childish in itself. The rules are definitely not perfect, but they never have been.
GW has also always marketed toward kids and teens. I know because I was in middle school when I got into 2nd edition, looking at all of these cartoony, over the top models and art pieces in awe. You can't tell me that 40k is more "kid friendly" than it ever was, while at the same time being worse off or less charming for being less campy and cartoony than it ever really has been.
As for customization and conversion, trying to make custom characters out of metal bits was a huge pain compared to slicing up a couple of joints on a plastic model. You had to drill, pin and greenstuff everything and often had to carefully use a saw if you wanted to modify a model's pose or combine different models. If not being able to immediately swap an arm or weapon with a flat joint on a model that ends up being posed like every other space marine that exists, but with different gear, is enough of a barrier to keep you from "customizing" your dudes, then customization isn't that important to you. Intentionally taking a sub-optimal weapon that no one else is going to use doesn't make your guy "unique" and it doesn't take any effort.
I have an inordinate number of Plague Marines from DI and the PM box and I've somehow managed to make each one totally unique. Comparing the models to the old Plague Marine kit, or really any previous multipart space marines, I would choose the new ones any day. They are more detailed, better proportioned and more dynamically posed than was possible with the other kits. Who cares if you can combine 5 legs and 5 torsos in 25 different ways; you will end up with the same five poses every time unless you chop them up and put some effort into them anyway.
Most people haven't played third, myself included. I started in 5th and played 5th 6th 7th and 8th. My gaming group recently went back to 7th since we found it to be a deeper and more meaningful rule set. It didn't work for pick up games but worked very well if you had a like minded group who respected limits and didn't try to push the game to the limit.
8ths core rules are very simple and even most unit abilities are rather straight forward. Most abilities these days are some variant of a re roll or magically teleporting around the field. Not exactly that complex.
Vankraken wrote: GW dumbed the game way down from 7th and is minimizing the amount of conversion work and rulebook reading required when assembling your models for the game (see the minimal amount of options for primaris aka the beginner army). Its not so much dumbing down for kids so much as simplifying things down for a more casual audience who don't research optimal builds or want to figure out how to kitbash a librarian on a bike. Honestly how can you look at 8th edition and think that its not extremely streamlined to the point of being a bare bones rule set. Its to reduce barrier to entry but unfortunately GW also gutted so much complexity that it ends up being just dumbed down when compared to past editions.
That's a crock. 8th is still far more complex than 3rd.
8th is the most streamlined and minimized rule set GW has produced. Whether that is a good thing or not is a valid debate. To try to argue that it's more complex than any previous edition is not a debate, even GW themselves have admitted the goal was to simplify the game.
You might have had a point when it was index only, but there are so many layers to consider with stratagems, traits, relics, and missions that go WAY beyond what we've had in the past.
Complexity moved from the base rules to the data sheets; considering the base rules, 8E is less complex. Add in the rules that have moved to data sheets, strategems, traits and whatnot and the rules are easily as complex or more so than previous versions. I’d venture to say more complex as the rules are no longer in a consolidated place where everyone has equal base access, and many rules are now only available/known if you have a specific codex or faced an opponent with a codex other than what you are running.
Also, on topic, GW is in a weird state at the moment. Though the staff encourages kitbashing and tweaking models at a narrative level, their marketing and codex books are actively pushing against this in a “use officially sanctioned models as designed” sort of manner. It makes it easy for casual hobbyists to simply pick up kits off the shelf, assemble and play but it does discourage those experienced hobbyists who enjoy customization and kitbashing by making them feel like they’re doing something “illegal”.
Finally, GW has been taking at least a step back from the “no models, no rules” - for narrative games. We’ve had at least two entries in 8th where there’s a data sheet for a model that doesn’t have a kit, so they’re at least open to the idea of doing conversions-on-the-fly, though they’ve been very reserved, almost hush-hush about it. Would like to see them be more open about it, but since they’re still in the mentality that they want all the moneys for themselves (and pretending no one else can do sci-fi/fantasy grimdark besides them), we’re not likely to see much movement on that except in a few cases where the design team can slip in a model every few rulebooks.
BaconCatBug wrote: GW have also shifted their focus from adults with disposable income to kids with their parents income.
while I hate No Model, No Rules, this asinine line of thinking about GW dumbing everything down for kids whose parents buy them everything has been around since at least the beginning of 3rd. It was stupid then and it’s stuoid now.
GW dumbed the game way down from 7th and is minimizing the amount of conversion work and rulebook reading required when assembling your models for the game (see the minimal amount of options for primaris aka the beginner army). Its not so much dumbing down for kids so much as simplifying things down for a more casual audience who don't research optimal builds or want to figure out how to kitbash a librarian on a bike. Honestly how can you look at 8th edition and think that its not extremely streamlined to the point of being a bare bones rule set. Its to reduce barrier to entry but unfortunately GW also gutted so much complexity that it ends up being just dumbed down when compared to past editions.
HoundsofDemos wrote: Most people haven't played third, myself included. I started in 5th and played 5th 6th 7th and 8th.
Where did you come up with that stat? I'd guess that 'most' started in 2nd. Myself included.
I agree with the OP and have been along that line of thinking since the release of the boxes army deals during 3rd. I made a prediction around 2002 (around the time that the rumors were telling us that plastic Chaos Terminators may be in the future) that one day there wouldn't be any customization or list building in the future. That eventually you would choose a faction that would come in one box that was built one way and and had a list of basic rules. It hasn't become completely true but it seems its slowly leaning that way.
Once upon a time everything GW made seemed to be based on its compatibility with the space marine kit. If it was made of plastic it could be combined with space marines. Beastman arms and heads, pistols, gear and grenades ect.
I have seen wonderful armies of marines. Armies where every marine was armed with a bolt pistol and hockey stick. They all had ice skates on and the rhinos all had zambonie devices on them.
I've seen Iron Warriors where every model is highly converted and kitbashed. Where almost everyone has a servo arm or a mechanical limb.
There is no incentive to do this any more. I longed for years to make an Old West themed space marine army. Revolvers and shotguns. Helmets that had a hint of cowboy hat aesthetic. Holsters on everyone. Ponchos instead of capes. Spurs on their boots. Red bandanas and a Sheriffs star as the chapter symbol. But there is no point following that pursuit any more. Maybe a kill team but it will never live up to the dream. No army/chapter would fit the theme.
Remember the 3.5 Chaos Codex? The greatest codex ever written. EVER. That was a book that forced you to convert and kitbash. You want tons of gifts and gear on your chaos lord? No problem but if you make him too powerful he becomes a daemon prince and needs to be on the bigger base and appropriately modeled. That was a rule!
Your friend played Grey Knights? Awesome, now you can have a psychic Tau Etherial or a Possessed Hive Tyrant! Nurgle possessed Orks?! Heck Ya!
Now we have a Grey Knight army that has no character and a Chaos army where Lords are all the same manufactured boring mcblanddull.
I kind of forgot my point... Maybe I made it.
I dunno. I stopped playing 40k regularly about a week after 5th dropped (played a few games if 7th and 8th). It just hasn't been the same. Maybe I was spoiled because I lived down the street from Dakkadakka when I was getting into the game and had countless opponents every day of the week and a dozen fully terrained tables to choose from (and that was before they moved to the other building with like 24 tables and 30 foot ceilings). Man, talk about remembering the good old days...
Can’t see why a Wild West themed chapter wouldn’t fly in 40K now or any previous version - I’ve seen chapters done up as Imperial Snowtroopers, a Gretchen Revolution Guard Army and several other cosmetically altered themed armies. If you’re talking about rules, I don’t think there would be any more possible/impossible with 8E vs. older editions.
I still see custom kitbashes being shown in the likes of White Dwarf, but everyone seems to be pushing matched play so much I rarely see off-the-wall stuff being used at public games; certainly not at tournaments. And sadly, that’s more a fault of the gamer community than GW - unless GW is pushing conformity at their own stores as well.
Of course, I’m one who really doesn’t see an issue with being able to just buy the minis stock and assemble them as-is. I’m fine with a unit having only 2-4 options for build out and prefer the limited options available to Primaris vs. “everything and the kitchen sink” that’s available to marines. The latter just promotes decision paralysis and most folks seem to only select “the best” options that whiddles choices down to 1-2 options anyway.
Vankraken wrote: GW dumbed the game way down from 7th and is minimizing the amount of conversion work and rulebook reading required when assembling your models for the game (see the minimal amount of options for primaris aka the beginner army). Its not so much dumbing down for kids so much as simplifying things down for a more casual audience who don't research optimal builds or want to figure out how to kitbash a librarian on a bike. Honestly how can you look at 8th edition and think that its not extremely streamlined to the point of being a bare bones rule set. Its to reduce barrier to entry but unfortunately GW also gutted so much complexity that it ends up being just dumbed down when compared to past editions.
Right. It's one thing to minimizing the amount of conversion required to represent a certain model - it's completely a different beast when conversion is being discouraged outright by not providing updated rules.
Let's face it - GW is NEVER going to get the rules down to a T where not a single in-house rule is required to play it. If that's the case, better to push MORE mini ranges than restricting it with rules.
Having rules but no model leads to the CH debacle. Having cool models but no rules will work for everyone.
Vankraken wrote: GW dumbed the game way down from 7th and is minimizing the amount of conversion work and rulebook reading required when assembling your models for the game (see the minimal amount of options for primaris aka the beginner army). Its not so much dumbing down for kids so much as simplifying things down for a more casual audience who don't research optimal builds or want to figure out how to kitbash a librarian on a bike. Honestly how can you look at 8th edition and think that its not extremely streamlined to the point of being a bare bones rule set. Its to reduce barrier to entry but unfortunately GW also gutted so much complexity that it ends up being just dumbed down when compared to past editions.
That's a crock. 8th is still far more complex than 3rd.
Armies where every marine was armed with a bolt pistol and hockey stick. They all had ice skates on and the rhinos all had zambonie devices on them.
I've seen Iron Warriors where every model is highly converted and kitbashed. Where almost everyone has a servo arm or a mechanical limb.
There is no incentive to do this any more. I longed for years to make an Old West themed space marine army. Revolvers and shotguns. Helmets that had a hint of cowboy hat aesthetic. Holsters on everyone. Ponchos instead of capes. Spurs on their boots. Red bandanas and a Sheriffs star as the chapter symbol. But there is no point following that pursuit any more. Maybe a kill team but it will never live up to the dream. No army/chapter would fit the theme.
There was no incentive to do that back then, either. Those units didn't get special rules for having ice skates. People make cool looking armies, because it's fun. Absolutely none of that possibility is gone.
Why not? It's not like GW had rules for giving your space marines hockey sticks in any previous edition, you did it because the models look cool. Have they somehow stopped looking cool in 2019?
I don't get it - does nobody play "count as"? Are people so bereft of imagination that they cannot do that, having spent all of their energy on the modeling and painting effort? Do they demand that a Civil War-themed Chess Set have special rules because the Kings are Generals Lee and Grant? WTF is wrong with people? Does GW need to spoon feed you your armies?
I suggest you send this in an e-mail to GW with the widest distribution you can achieve in order to attempt to spur a conversation, even if amongst themselves.
Dakka is a good outlet, but these is the sort of feedback you need to provide GW to express that you are frustrated with what they are doing. THEY MIGHT CHANGE. If you don't let them know there is a problem, they can't begin to fix it.
Nope. I play count-as all the time, it's easily one of my favourite aspects of modelling. Although with lack of options the ability of this only stretches so far.
To use an example I've used before-
Spoiler:
Here's a Lord of Contagion. His giant bell counts as a Plaguereaper. Now there's only so much I can do with counts-as here as the LoC has precisely two weapon options and at the end of the day he still has the same weapon as the one you find in Dark Imperium that loads of other DG players everywhere are using. I like my models to be unique. I don't like knowing there is someone else in the world with a mini exactly like mine. If I had more options to play with I could say that that is a Thunder Hammer (far more appropriate IMO) or a Power Maul, but I'm stuck with whatever GW gives us.
Wait so is this a modeling issue or a rules issue because it sounds like people just want more weapons and options and gribbles rather than the inability to kitbash or convert options that already exist or counts as.
how snowflaky do you need every model to get?
most units get some flavor of special weapons and melee upgrades like the sarge, most heros get all sorts of basic options and relics too.
or should everyone be like that old inquisitor codex with 200 options which only 2-3 were ever always taken.
Desubot wrote: Wait so is this a modeling issue or a rules issue because it sounds like people just want more weapons and options and gribbles rather than the inability to kitbash or convert options that already exist or counts as.
how snowflaky do you need every model to get?
most units get some flavor of special weapons and melee upgrades like the sarge, most heros get all sorts of basic options and relics too.
or should everyone be like that old inquisitor codex with 200 options which only 2-3 were ever always taken.
For me it's both. Look at how many options both modeling wise and rules wise a tactical squad has. Then go look at the primaris kits, so much flavor and possibilities stripped away and now it takes considerably more time and effort to make my guys look different or unique. I loved the old inquisition book cause it had so many bonkers options and fun units. Now we have knights and clam pack characters that are a pain to modify compared to modular kits.
Desubot wrote: Wait so is this a modeling issue or a rules issue because it sounds like people just want more weapons and options and gribbles rather than the inability to kitbash or convert options that already exist or counts as.
how snowflaky do you need every model to get?
most units get some flavor of special weapons and melee upgrades like the sarge, most heros get all sorts of basic options and relics too.
or should everyone be like that old inquisitor codex with 200 options which only 2-3 were ever always taken.
I really don't want to sound like I'm gatekeeping here, but it will probably sound like that. With that preface out of the way...
I take it you've never played Orks or Chaos. For me- these are the standout "tinkerer" armies and for years have had a wealth of conversion potential and options to go wild with modelling. It is something you cannot really understand until you have played one of these armies, Orks especially. The current codex sets a dangerous precedent for what was the army that was THE converter's army. They've been swept up in GW's mass homogenization. Everything (even the board and scenery) is GW branded. Everything can be bought of the shelf. If it cannot be it is cut. Simple as.
Gone are the days of buying random kits, bits of plasticard and other modelling bits and making your own ramshackle Ork trukks. You can still do this, nothing is stopping you but the creativity is stymied by a lack of options. There are only so many Boomshock Dakkawagons (or whatever they're called) you can convert before you run out of creative space and start stepping on your own toes.
It just feels.... bland. You're playing Orks (or Chaos) YOU are the Mek (or dark mechanicus) in charge yet it's like "Here's your blueprints. Stick to the instructions please".
The new Primaris kits are assembled in exactly the same way, with exactly the same number of combinations, as the tactical squads. They just don't have as many special weapon options. Again, unless you're significantly converting the pose of a space marine model it's not going to look different or unique; it's going to be in one of the same five poses every other space marine model of that type is going to be in with a different pair of arms.
Luciferian wrote: The new Primaris kits are assembled in exactly the same way, with exactly the same number of combinations, as the tactical squads. They just don't have as many special weapon options. Again, unless you're significantly converting the pose of a space marine model it's not going to look different or unique; it's going to be in one of the same five poses every other space marine model of that type is going to be in with a different pair of arms.
It wasn't the poses that was the strength there. It was the modularity. Now, Primaris still have this but the problem is there is only a single type of power armour for them.
Taticals? You could put literally any other SM head on them for an insane amount of options. Wanna put a womble head on one guy and a Ven dread head on another despite them having the same torso? Go ahead, they're now both unique-looking. In time, maybe the Primaris range will catch up but for now they all just look cookie cutter due to having the same helmets.
Desubot wrote: Wait so is this a modeling issue or a rules issue because it sounds like people just want more weapons and options and gribbles rather than the inability to kitbash or convert options that already exist or counts as.
how snowflaky do you need every model to get?
most units get some flavor of special weapons and melee upgrades like the sarge, most heros get all sorts of basic options and relics too.
or should everyone be like that old inquisitor codex with 200 options which only 2-3 were ever always taken.
For me it's both. Look at how many options both modeling wise and rules wise a tactical squad has. Then go look at the primaris kits, so much flavor and possibilities stripped away and now it takes considerably more time and effort to make my guys look different or unique. I loved the old inquisition book cause it had so many bonkers options and fun units. Now we have knights and clam pack characters that are a pain to modify compared to modular kits.
tac squads modeling wise you have plenty of options with positioning and gun choices but how many of them are you actually going to use. i dont think you are going to glue your marine legs backwards even if you can because of the ball joints. and many of the positions look wonky af if not done right. really most weapons and arm configs only have a few options to leg and head positions. weapons... well going by this forums why ever bother taking anything but the plasma.
personally i think knights are garbage that shouldn't of been added. clam pack characters are fine as one offs if you feel you need to be extra special then its still absolutely possible to kit bash all sorts of stuff. the pain has never changed its been a part of the hobby forever and it was never easy to get good results.
Luciferian wrote: The new Primaris kits are assembled in exactly the same way, with exactly the same number of combinations, as the tactical squads. They just don't have as many special weapon options. Again, unless you're significantly converting the pose of a space marine model it's not going to look different or unique; it's going to be in one of the same five poses every other space marine model of that type is going to be in with a different pair of arms.
It wasn't the poses that was the strength there. It was the modularity. Now, Primaris still have this but the problem is there is only a single type of power armour for them.
Taticals? You could put literally any other SM head on them for an insane amount of options. Wanna put a womble head on one guy and a Ven dread head on another despite them having the same torso? Go ahead, they're now both unique-looking. In time, maybe the Primaris range will catch up but for now they all just look cookie cutter due to having the same helmets.
I love putting "regular" heads on primaris and vice versa. As long as you're not trying to kitbash RTB-01s with them it's all good. My hellblasters and reivers are kitbashed with "regular" and look great. My aggressors have Crux terminatus and farkle from other terminator kits. I've even used spare primaris weapons on "regular" marines (mk8 marine w hellblaster assault plas) and I think looks good.
I will agree with the overall assessment on "homogenization"/"toyification" of Warhammer. GW is doing everything they can to bring new blood into the games and if making stuff easier and lowering skill level required for entry should be a good thing. Problem is, it's kinda reducing the hobby aspect to an almost negligible level. Unfortunately I love the models more than anything else. if they look great, I'm happy but if all of them start to look cookie cutter (1) it's boring as hell to paint (2) looks lame on tabletop.
This seems to be the "magicthegatheringication" of Warhammer and nothing good can come of it. It's less and less about time/effort/love & more about new hotness and rock/paper/scissors.
But all is not lost, as long as GW wants to make the hobby a portion(however small)of their target market we should still have great kits that are easier to convert(supported by rules or not).
I need to vent. If you like to avoid negativity, it would be best to avoid this thread. Ultimately though, this is a cry for help. I am reaching into the online world to express something that has been on my mind since I got the new Ork Codex, and have not yet seen expressed elsewhere online. I feel compelled to put this out there and see what other Warbosses think and hopefully bring closure, or at least a new perspective to my mind.
The new Ork codex is the worst Ork codex I have ever read. I go back to 2nd edition and I'm not using hyperbole. It is completely discouraging, and it takes the wind out of my sails.
Let me explain. I'm not talking about the play-ability of the army, it's tactical viability, or it's position in the metagame. Frankly, I've never been a great enough tactician for that to matter to me so much. There are other posters who can chew this fat and make that call. For myself, I just want to play a fun game, win or lose. So long as I don't feel like I'm playing non-stop rock paper scissors, I'll have a good time.
What bothers me about this new book is complete neglect for the notion that many (most?) Ork Warbosses are also Mekaniaks at heart. What made Orks unique is that their army books have always been about potential. You could open the book, look at a datasheet, statline, or piece of wargear, and wonder "Wouldn't it be awesome IF _______...?"
Ork miniatures, as far back as 2nd edition, have always been about utility. Any kit bought by an Ork player, is to a certain degree, just a starting point. Even if you aren't scratch building or kitbashing, non-essential bits from nearly any kit can find a home on a miniature from another kit. Not only does it look cool, but those changes could be reflected in the rules. Battlewagons don't come with Rokkits? No problem, we'll figure it out. Deffcoptas don't come with any CCW? No problem, I got a fing for dat somewhere...
At first I thought this problem existed only with the new vehicles. Those are some sexy minis, I'm sure we all agree. They are the mini's we've spent 20 years waiting for. But my heart broke when I read the rules for them: They are no longer Ork vehicles. No options.
This is really disappointing given the emphasis GW has put on the narrative aspect of the game in the past few years. What exactly is the narrative behind the Boomdakka Snazzwagon specifically having burna bottles? Or the only specifically the Boosta Blasta having a burna exhaust? I know these questions might seem silly, but these items, as just one of many examples littered throughout the codex expose a fundamental shift in the creative process at GW. I suspected this notion upon the release the Gorka and Morkanaughts, and I remember having this thought as well when I first saw IG's Taurox, and the revelation that it's weapons are the "Taurox Battle Cannon/gattling gun/missile launcher" rather than, well, ya know, perfectly fine weapons that already exist in the wh40k canon.
I would like to clarify that I'm not just an old git on a porch complaining about new things. I've been at this for 20 years. It's been nothing but new things. Size creep has made dreadnaughts look like kans and Nobs look like boyz. Flyers showed up. Psychic phases have come and gone and come and gone. Hell, between 2nd and 3rd, my whole army became aesthetically obsolete. These are at best, exciting developments for the game, at worst, a minor annoyance. This thread is about a much bigger problem.
What is the fundamental shift in the creative process? Miniatures come first, rules second.
There's no other explanation I can think of. Maybe GW is trying to bolster sales. I have no idea. But this frustrates me immensely. Frustrates me to the degree that I'm having a hard time getting the words out, so here's the less nimble part of my rant;
It looks like somebody made some beautiful minis, and then somebody else, who has zero understanding of the mindset of many established ork players, went "Oh wow! Those are great! It'll be SO COOL to make hyper specific rules for all those cool little touches you put on the model! It'll be SO FLUFFY" and zero thought or consideration was put into leaving at least some space for the creative potential of the gamers at home.
This is what I am calling the Toyification of Orks.
If you think I'm being unreasonable, let me ask you this: Why does virtually every nob have weapon options except the Kommando Nob, which is armed with a PK? If you don't know the answer, here it is: The Kommando Nob model is a pose-specific miniature with a PK. Every other Nob mini has joints/options. It is completely unmotivated as far as story or gameplay are concerned. Why would this default wargear be written into the rules?
This approach to wh40k is anti-conversion and anti-creativity.
A miniature with no assembly options can be a beautiful thing. There is nothing inherently better or worse about it than your standard core kits. To see it reflected in the rules for a non-named character? How can I not be insulted by this? I'm not asking this rhetorically, if you can tell me how you wrap your brain around it, please tell me so I can shake this headache.
This new book effectively spits in the face of the most inspiring part of the hobby for me: Imagining something, creating it, and then putting to test on the battlefield. Our minis are an extension of ourselves. This hobby is a very personal and even vulnerable experience. Who doesn't love the rush of fielding a freshly-dried squad on the tabletop for the first time? Maybe it'll smash the enemy HQ? Maybe it'll be flattened by artillery on turn 1. That feeling of excitement is the feeling of being emotionally engaged. The new Ork Codex doesn't not seem to get this.
The burna-exhaust, nosedrill, spikes, etc etc, should exist and upgrades available to many vehicles. The BoostaBlasta/Snazzwagon should just be able to take whatever weapon on top. I could go on, but you get the idea. As players and hobbyists, we need to craft the story, models, and tactics that are unique to us.
For what it's worth, I don't blame GW for this. For all I know this is a reverse Batman situation: the Orks I need, not the orks I deserve. If Orks were going the way of the Squats, and and this is the result of GW trying to save them, fine so be it. Maybe Ork players don't care as much as I do about walking the line between what they can build vs what they can field? For all I know this has been going on for other factions over the past few years and I just never noticed because I don't analyze the kits vs the codex vs canon to the degree that I do for Orks. What I do know is that I've been hurt, for lack of better phrasing. Like when that one friend drops a revealing comment and you know no amount of re-phrasing can take it back. The trust has been broken, the damage has been done.
Moving forward:
- Keep making the models I want to make.
- Magnetize zoggin everything from here out.
- Laugh and shrug when my opponent is as baffled as I am why the Battelwagon with two clearly big guns on it only has one big gun, and the Painboy holding a choppa is hitting with a Powerklaw.
- Hope that GW figures out why Ork players choose Orks OR come to terms with the notion that a sandbox approach to miniatures' relationships with rules is not sustainable for GW in the long run.
GW are trying to streamline the game, that's why Primaris have pretty much 0 options, you'll just have to get used to it I'm afraid. Space marines have been hit far worse, no longer the utilitarian elite army, the best option our sgt.s have are chainswords, forget powerfists etc. GW have gone too far with the streamlining in my opinion. I mean a slow can learn 8th edition rules, its getting ridiculous now, GW couldn't test the waters at least, they are just diving straight in and who are they kidding, they can't get new players with the cost of their mini's. The main fans are people who have been playing since rouge, 2nd, 3rd etc. Kids can't afford this hobby and they aren't going to get adults to suddenly pick it up.
Desubot wrote: Wait so is this a modeling issue or a rules issue because it sounds like people just want more weapons and options and gribbles rather than the inability to kitbash or convert options that already exist or counts as.
how snowflaky do you need every model to get?
most units get some flavor of special weapons and melee upgrades like the sarge, most heros get all sorts of basic options and relics too.
or should everyone be like that old inquisitor codex with 200 options which only 2-3 were ever always taken.
I really don't want to sound like I'm gatekeeping here, but it will probably sound like that. With that preface out of the way...
I take it you've never played Orks or Chaos. For me- these are the standout "tinkerer" armies and for years have had a wealth of conversion potential and options to go wild with modelling. It is something you cannot really understand until you have played one of these armies, Orks especially. The current codex sets a dangerous precedent for what was the army that was THE converter's army. They've been swept up in GW's mass homogenization. Everything (even the board and scenery) is GW branded. Everything can be bought of the shelf. If it cannot be it is cut. Simple as.
Gone are the days of buying random kits, bits of plasticard and other modelling bits and making your own ramshackle Ork trukks. You can still do this, nothing is stopping you but the creativity is stymied by a lack of options. There are only so many Boomshock Dakkawagons (or whatever they're called) you can convert before you run out of creative space and start stepping on your own toes.
It just feels.... bland. You're playing Orks (or Chaos) YOU are the Mek (or dark mechanicus) in charge yet it's like "Here's your blueprints. Stick to the instructions please".
There's a wealth of variety in the Ork book. Just because you got 3 datasheets for wagons doesn't actually mean you can't make varied wagons anymore. The fact that there are stock buggies doesn't mean the buggies don't have variety overall.
And absolutely none of any of the rules stops you from cutting up any of these kits and making your own stand-in versions of them. There are tons of youtube videos on how to cut up trukks to make multiple mek gunz.
So don't make a "Boomshock Dakkawagon". Make a scrapjet, or a rukkatrukk, or a dragsta, or a boosta blasta.
My buddy cut up Roboute and turned him into Ghaz. He took Centurions and made them MANZ. Literally nothing stops you.
Desubot wrote: Wait so is this a modeling issue or a rules issue because it sounds like people just want more weapons and options and gribbles rather than the inability to kitbash or convert options that already exist or counts as.
how snowflaky do you need every model to get?
most units get some flavor of special weapons and melee upgrades like the sarge, most heros get all sorts of basic options and relics too.
or should everyone be like that old inquisitor codex with 200 options which only 2-3 were ever always taken.
I really don't want to sound like I'm gatekeeping here, but it will probably sound like that. With that preface out of the way...
I take it you've never played Orks or Chaos. For me- these are the standout "tinkerer" armies and for years have had a wealth of conversion potential and options to go wild with modelling. It is something you cannot really understand until you have played one of these armies, Orks especially. The current codex sets a dangerous precedent for what was the army that was THE converter's army. They've been swept up in GW's mass homogenization. Everything (even the board and scenery) is GW branded. Everything can be bought of the shelf. If it cannot be it is cut. Simple as.
Gone are the days of buying random kits, bits of plasticard and other modelling bits and making your own ramshackle Ork trukks. You can still do this, nothing is stopping you but the creativity is stymied by a lack of options. There are only so many Boomshock Dakkawagons (or whatever they're called) you can convert before you run out of creative space and start stepping on your own toes.
It just feels.... bland. You're playing Orks (or Chaos) YOU are the Mek (or dark mechanicus) in charge yet it's like "Here's your blueprints. Stick to the instructions please".
. Welllllll I guess I only have like one picture up but did a heavily kit bashes slannesh csm army. Still working on the crabfiler using a heldrake as a carapace. Also a heavily kit bashed mutiant necromunda army that was inspired by very amazing converters here. Also working on a ork kill team which I can’t wait. Using blood bowl guys for better scale edit oh god phone posting is horrible
There's a wealth of variety in the Ork book. Just because you got 3 datasheets for wagons doesn't actually mean you can't make varied wagons anymore. The fact that there are stock buggies doesn't mean the buggies don't have variety overall.
And absolutely none of any of the rules stops you from cutting up any of these kits and making your own stand-in versions of them. There are tons of youtube videos on how to cut up trukks to make multiple mek gunz.
So don't make a "Boomshock Dakkawagon". Make a scrapjet, or a rukkatrukk, or a dragsta, or a boosta blasta.
My buddy cut up Roboute and turned him into Ghaz. He took Centurions and made them MANZ. Literally nothing stops you.
All those converting possibilities you listed are about models that are fully WYSIWYG, which is not the matter here. What about loadouts and combinations that were included at index times and now completely forgotten in the new codex? Sure we can convert a weirdboy, manz or ghaz from other models, but what about players that own biker characters, or big meks with KFF? Transports with rokkits? Kanz with KMB? Kommandos with special weapons? It's always possible to scratch built a vehicle, like a trukk, but then it must be a fixed loadout because the new GW trend is to remove options. So all trukks with big shootas, no possible variations. Good thing I magnetized all my scratch built stuff.
That's the issue. We're going towards an ork army with half the possible combinations, which is bad. SM didn't lose pretty much anything, their TACs and other dudes still have everything and there's no proof that regular marines are going to disappear in 9th edition.
Peregrine wrote: Why does a big mek model with a KFF require special snowflake rules to exist? Just play it as a big mek that has a cool glowy thing attached.
At the moment the ork codex only has two types of big mek: the one with SAG and the one in megarmor. Now a footslogging dude with KFF is too different to be one of those without calling a full proxy, as the dude clearly doesn't have any big gun or heavy armor on him, and the footslogging big mek with KFF was an official monopose model and an extremely popular unit on the table, not something done by crazy kitbashing.
It's like removing all the main weapons from leman russes because GW changed their stats into: tanks with only sponsons, no more big gun on turret. Of course you can still play your outdated models with the cannons, just field them as a tanks with 2 heavy bolters. How would you take that?
Metal is clearly worse for conversion. And more rules doesn't make for better models. Just play count as
I have noticed a trend with GW seemingly "going back" to mono-pose models with no real customisation options in their plastic range (though some excellent packs with lots of options do exist). Granted that was expected with metal models but I feel they've gone from:
Mostly hard to customise metal models -> lots of metal some easy to customise plastic -> some metal lots of easy to customise plastic -> less and less metal models mostly easy to customise plastic -> lots of customisable plastic models but an increasing number of hard to customise monopose models with no customisation options (in rules as well as on model)
I mostly stick around for modelling and I do like the quality of the models but I did prefer getting a model and having a bunch of weapons for the bits box. With the new deathguard minis and nearly all new character models, without extensive cutting work and greenstuffing (like metal model style work), you aren't going to be able to customise much beyond a headswap.
Also I liked the customisation (in rules) remember when you could customise your guard and marines, pay a little extra and give them carapace armour or a camo cloak? Remember before that when you could design your own vehicle rules? or before that when you could loadout your characters with a wide array of esoteric wargear, power armour for guardsmen veteran sergeants. It felt like you could give your army real character.
I feel this is visible most in killteam, kill team is supposed be special, well equipped with attention to detail, most killteam model rules are "normal guy from the codex with a special ability rule" a guard killteam looks like a normal imperial guard squad, literally. Why not offer up increased complexity in the rules (buying extra gear and options) at marked up point cost so it can't be abused in minmaxing, it would encourage modellers to make their stuff more unique - answer is they won't do that because of the legal case mentioned a few times in the thread.
Blackie wrote: At the moment the ork codex only has two types of big mek: the one with SAG and the one in megarmor. Now a footslogging dude with KFF is too different to be one of those without calling a full proxy, as the dude clearly doesn't have any big gun or heavy armor on him, and the footslogging big mek with KFF was an official monopose model and an extremely popular unit on the table, not something done by crazy kitbashing.
I did not know that part. Is the model really so lacking in armor that it wouldn't be at all reasonable for the heavy armor version? There is no generic big mek that has the option to take neither upgrade? If that's the case then yeah, it's a rules failure and GW needs to either reintroduce a mek option that makes the KFF model a reasonable representation of something or consolidate all big mek rules into a single unit so it doesn't matter which of the three models you use. You can't have a situation where two of the three have separate rules but the third is WYSIWYG for neither of them.
To be fair, I do understand the Big Mek KFF problem a bit. It was a popular model(hell, I own two. Fun model to paint.) and there are some models that GW has removed that could still exist and could have continued to exist such as the old Autarch.
However, I disagree with this notion that you can't kitbash or create anything anymore. A friend of mine creates beautiful Ork alternatives from various bits and plasticards and are perfectly viable in the game(Battlewagon, Warboss on trike). Creativity has zero to do with snowflake rules and all about what you want to do with your army. If you really need a special rule for your kitbash then it is more about you feeling that your unit is special than creativity.
I mean, I have a squad or two of Emperor's Children where I've used Drukhari bits to give them a bit more finesse(glory to Slaanesh). I see no need to require that they get Power from Pain or something unique because of it. Their presence and uniqueness of appearance on the table is all I need.
It's like removing all the main weapons from leman russes because GW changed their stats into: tanks with only sponsons, no more big gun on turret. Of course you can still play your outdated models with the cannons, just field them as a tanks with 2 heavy bolters. How would you take that?
This will never happen.
What might happen is that the model designers create a NEW leman russ which only has sponsons, no more big gun on the turret. If that happened then YES the rules writers would change their stats to reflect that.
The workflow is:
- The models concept is created by a small design team including people such as Jez Goodwin
- The models are individually designed in CAD by specialist model designers
- The model designs (probably as a CAD render, perhaps even as a 3d printed mockup) get passed to the rules team
- The rules team look at the models alongside the design team's commentary and say "ok what does this model look like it does/has/can do?" or "this is the new scout/assault type model... they have a skull face which is scary! Let's give them a rule to reduce leadership maybe?"
They do not design rules first. We know this for a fact they say it all the time in interviews etc.
Blackie wrote: At the moment the ork codex only has two types of big mek: the one with SAG and the one in megarmor. Now a footslogging dude with KFF is too different to be one of those without calling a full proxy, as the dude clearly doesn't have any big gun or heavy armor on him, and the footslogging big mek with KFF was an official monopose model and an extremely popular unit on the table, not something done by crazy kitbashing.
I did not know that part. Is the model really so lacking in armor that it wouldn't be at all reasonable for the heavy armor version? There is no generic big mek that has the option to take neither upgrade? If that's the case then yeah, it's a rules failure and GW needs to either reintroduce a mek option that makes the KFF model a reasonable representation of something or consolidate all big mek rules into a single unit so it doesn't matter which of the three models you use. You can't have a situation where two of the three have separate rules but the third is WYSIWYG for neither of them.
The original model was just an ork with a KFF so a t-shirt save looking dude. The megarmor is the equivalent of the terminator armour.
We came from having a single profile of the big mek that was just stock (slugga and choppa) and can be upgraded with many options like:
- Bike
- Megarmor
- KFF - SAG - Melee special weapons (killsaws, power klaws....)
- Ranged special weapons (kombi weapons, kustom mega blastas....)
and some of them that could also be mixed up like Bike+KFF or megarmor+KFF or Bike+killsaw+KFF etc into two different datasheets with basically fixed loadout:
Big mek with SAG, no other options than a grot oiler.
Big mek in megarmor with pk and kustom shoota, with some options available: kombi weapons and either a tellyport blasta or KFF.
All the biker combinations, and the majority of the footslogging ones, completely squatted.
In the age of WYSIWYG not a rule anymore at least older models will always be legal, but this new attitude towards removing options is kinda annoying. The difference between playing with only the ork codex and with index+codex is huge as there are tons of useful (or even just fun to play) combinations in the latter.
It's like removing all the main weapons from leman russes because GW changed their stats into: tanks with only sponsons, no more big gun on turret. Of course you can still play your outdated models with the cannons, just field them as a tanks with 2 heavy bolters. How would you take that?
This will never happen.
What might happen is that the model designers create a NEW leman russ which only has sponsons, no more big gun on the turret. If that happened then YES the rules writers would change their stats to reflect that.
The workflow is:
- The models concept is created by a small design team including people such as Jez Goodwin
- The models are individually designed in CAD by specialist model designers
- The model designs (probably as a CAD render, perhaps even as a 3d printed mockup) get passed to the rules team
- The rules team look at the models alongside the design team's commentary and say "ok what does this model look like it does/has/can do?" or "this is the new scout/assault type model... they have a skull face which is scary! Let's give them a rule to reduce leadership maybe?"
They do not design rules first. We know this for a fact they say it all the time in interviews etc.
Yes that's what I'm saying. 9th edition AM with a new Tanks profile and model: no more big guns on the turrets but just heavy bolters or weapons that are currently equipped on sponsons or completely new weapons that look 100% different from the classic ones. Now proxy that battle cannon into a lascannon, as the model is still original GW and WYSIWYG not a rule anymore. That's basically what happened to the ork buggies, not the big meks but the concept is the same one. Combinations that were legal and popular, now illegal. Like BWs with rokkits, also quite common and an option available since their first datasheet back in 3rd edition, but apparently now they can't have them anymore for some reasons.
AndrewGPaul wrote: I'd say that the mek's force field is enough to count as heavy armour, and go from there.
It doesn't matter if _You_ feel that way though. It has to be whoever you're playing against on that particular day or whatever the TO says. Nothing worse than going to an event and being told your 'Counts as' models can't count.
And we're not even touching stuff like my rough riders. What'll happen to them post Index? They certainly wern't exactly cheap models, we're looking at £10+ per horse. What exactly am I going to 'Counts as' a Guardsman on a horse as? A Scout Sentinel?
I think it's worth drawing a line between models whose entire concept now lacks rules support and models where the kit has few options or a minor weapon option no longer exists. If your rough riders lose rule support that's a big deal, there isn't really anything else that makes any sense for them rules-wise. If your ork vehicle loses the ability to take an additional machine gun then the driver leaning out the window to do a drive-by is just a cool aesthetic thing, the model still works fine for that vehicle. And of course if the model never had upgrades in the first place there's nothing lost, and you're free to add aesthetic bits without worrying about whether or not they're the right choice rules-wise.
I haven't read all 4 pages worth of responses, but based on what I've read so far I think on dakka I've got an unpopular option.
I support and am happy with the streamlining of models and rules to match.
I think I've restarted playing this game from scratch three times now, and 8th was by far one of the smoothest starts. For me personally, once I had dug into a faction my list building would hit a paralysis due to overabundance of individual options (some to many of which were bad). Having fewer options per unit/model works better for me, but I think if helps the game overall too.
By restricting options it gives units clear roles and improves total balance. If one unit comes with all plama weapons (but has drawbacks to balance that), but another unit has no drawbacks (but can pay to take all plasma) then one is clearly the better choice, and invalidates the other.
Moreover, restricting options takes out a lot of exploitable rules interactions. GW is better now, but they're still pretty terrible at good explicit RAW and patches to issues. Simple options decreases the chance that a new stratagem will be broken OP in an unforseen interaction, or that a new character aura only buffs what it was designed to.
TL;DR, toyification is good for players as it tightens rules, even if it's more challenging to create a visually unique army.
There's a wealth of variety in the Ork book. Just because you got 3 datasheets for wagons doesn't actually mean you can't make varied wagons anymore. The fact that there are stock buggies doesn't mean the buggies don't have variety overall.
And absolutely none of any of the rules stops you from cutting up any of these kits and making your own stand-in versions of them. There are tons of youtube videos on how to cut up trukks to make multiple mek gunz.
So don't make a "Boomshock Dakkawagon". Make a scrapjet, or a rukkatrukk, or a dragsta, or a boosta blasta.
My buddy cut up Roboute and turned him into Ghaz. He took Centurions and made them MANZ. Literally nothing stops you.
All those converting possibilities you listed are about models that are fully WYSIWYG, which is not the matter here. What about loadouts and combinations that were included at index times and now completely forgotten in the new codex? Sure we can convert a weirdboy, manz or ghaz from other models, but what about players that own biker characters, or big meks with KFF? Transports with rokkits? Kanz with KMB? Kommandos with special weapons? It's always possible to scratch built a vehicle, like a trukk, but then it must be a fixed loadout because the new GW trend is to remove options. So all trukks with big shootas, no possible variations. Good thing I magnetized all my scratch built stuff.
That's the issue. We're going towards an ork army with half the possible combinations, which is bad. SM didn't lose pretty much anything, their TACs and other dudes still have everything and there's no proof that regular marines are going to disappear in 9th edition.
Orks lost more than most there, sure, but it's such a small impact to the actual game and to the actual act of being Orky.
After all you couldn't arm an Ork with whatever you wanted before. You still had restrictions. And yet you can still make tons of creative changes...
What about modeling this?
"The result was a selfloading ammunition microfactory (quite possibly cobbled together
from looted T’au weaponry) that plugged into Skarkrusha’s shoota
and allowed it to fire armour-piercing high-explosive thermobaric
shells, or, as Skarkrusha preferred to call them, Gitstoppaz."
or this?
"Orkimedes himself fashioned this fearsome weapon from the blades
of a Soul Grinder of Khorne"
or a blunderbuss full of teef?
"Requiring an entire chest of teef to be loaded into its breach before
each shot, the Gobshot Thunderbuss’ worky gubbinz plates its
unconventional ammunition in gold before firing it in an inescapable
cone of fanged death"
I actually like having simplified rules. It means you can convert with impunity because it doesn't matter if you make a model with a cool glaive, the datasheet has an axe on it, so it functions like the axe. It removes confusion with your opponent and gives you MORE opportunities to do crazy conversions because you don't have to worry about your opponent not knowing what your model has, since it doesn't matter how you convert it as long as you use the rules on the sheet.
@DaRealJDB
- I think you need to separate the idea of conversion, from the need for available options for your conversion. What I mean by that is you seem to feel that unless you have options (in some cases for which no stock option exists) that you are unable to make your army cool, themed, converted etc. This simply is a very narrow view of things which to me is harmful to the game as a whole, especially for new players. It is frustrating for new players to look at the rules for a kit, decide "I want a bunch of guys with x upgrade" go buy the kit, only to find that they cannot actually make the models they want out of said kit, they either need to source bitz, buy additional kits, or scratch build the options. TO you this seems like a win, but to many it is exceedingly frustrating, and expensive in an already expensive game. Nothing about streamlined rules prevents conversion, you use the Morkanaut and Gorkanaut as examples of when this started, but I have 2 Gorkanauts, one is the standard model, the other a converted orky Knight. You can convert because you like the aesthetics, not because you are forced to just to make a WYSIWYG model. At the start of 8th they really have cracked down on only allowing models to have options that come in the kit, because they don't want people to need to convert just to play the game. Conversion should be an option to make things interesting, not a requirement to use your models.
Orks lost more than most there, sure, but it's such a small impact to the actual game and to the actual act of being Orky.
I disagree, it's a huge impact on gaming. If you look at competitive lists, there's not a single one of them that is pure codex, all have some index options. Just consider the warboss on bike, probably the most popular auto-take for the ork army, is index only. If you play without index options allowed orks lists change dramatically. Also their level of competitiveness drops significantly. The deathskulls for example can be quite competitive on their own if they can take index options, especially KMBs on meks and koptas and rokkits on transports, other than the biker boss of course. Without the index options that's really no reason to go full death skulls unless it's for purely fluff reasons.
Orks lost more than most there, sure, but it's such a small impact to the actual game and to the actual act of being Orky.
I disagree, it's a huge impact on gaming. If you look at competitive lists, there's not a single one of them that is pure codex, all have some index options. Just consider the warboss on bike, probably the most popular auto-take for the ork army, is index only. If you play without index options allowed orks lists change dramatically. Also their level of competitiveness drops significantly. The deathskulls for example can be quite competitive on their own if they can take index options, especially KMBs on meks and koptas and rokkits on transports, other than the biker boss of course. Without the index options that's really no reason to go full death skulls unless it's for purely fluff reasons.
yeah the index/codex thing is pissing me off, not just with orks now Ironpriests of TWC have just disappeared for some reason, even after converting like 3 through the years which are now kinda useless.
Orks lost more than most there, sure, but it's such a small impact to the actual game and to the actual act of being Orky.
I disagree, it's a huge impact on gaming. If you look at competitive lists, there's not a single one of them that is pure codex, all have some index options. Just consider the warboss on bike, probably the most popular auto-take for the ork army, is index only. If you play without index options allowed orks lists change dramatically. Also their level of competitiveness drops significantly. The deathskulls for example can be quite competitive on their own if they can take index options, especially KMBs on meks and koptas and rokkits on transports, other than the biker boss of course. Without the index options that's really no reason to go full death skulls unless it's for purely fluff reasons.
That is demonstrably false.
The charity hammer players - LVO contenders - did not have index options. Nick even took Orks to the final round there, too.
Ork lists do not lose competitiveness without index. Orks are very competitive. Could you bleed out more effectiveness from the index? Probably, but that's wanting something broken and not something actually being wrong with the codex.
Deathskullz can pull from FW (which are incredibly easy to kitbash from plastic kits). That they need some sort of crutch from stuff like rokkits on trukks is, in my opinion, nonsense. And none of this has anything to do with "toyification".
I disagree, it's a huge impact on gaming. If you look at competitive lists, there's not a single one of them that is pure codex, all have some index options
This is one of those "Fake News" things I've heard so much about, right?
Blackie wrote: At the moment the ork codex only has two types of big mek: the one with SAG and the one in megarmor. Now a footslogging dude with KFF is too different to be one of those without calling a full proxy, as the dude clearly doesn't have any big gun or heavy armor on him, and the footslogging big mek with KFF was an official monopose model and an extremely popular unit on the table, not something done by crazy kitbashing.
I did not know that part. Is the model really so lacking in armor that it wouldn't be at all reasonable for the heavy armor version? There is no generic big mek that has the option to take neither upgrade? If that's the case then yeah, it's a rules failure and GW needs to either reintroduce a mek option that makes the KFF model a reasonable representation of something or consolidate all big mek rules into a single unit so it doesn't matter which of the three models you use. You can't have a situation where two of the three have separate rules but the third is WYSIWYG for neither of them.
Because that's clearly not a SAG? Not even close. I'd be pissed if someone told me mid game that that was a SAG...
Why would you only be finding out about it mid-game?
If you're using something an obsolete model as something different, you point it out before the game. It's not ideal, but it lets you put the model on the table. Worked for all those marine players with Las/plas razorbacks for the 3 or 4 editions where they had no rules...
HoundsofDemos wrote: Most people haven't played third, myself included. I started in 5th and played 5th 6th 7th and 8th.
Where did you come up with that stat? I'd guess that 'most' started in 2nd. Myself included.
Forums tend to be skewed towards longer-term, more 'committed' players, but from my experience the majority of people who pick up 40K don't last more than 3-5 years. GW made a similar observation in their financials some years back.
Because that's clearly not a SAG? Not even close. I'd be pissed if someone told me mid game that that was a SAG...
if its no longer a kff then its clearly some sort of ork energy contraption. id be more pissed if some one tried to pass off a Nob with a power claw as a SAG but as long as that mek was clearly defined as a sag from the start then personally id have no issue with it.
I would have an issue with the big mek with KFF being passed off as a big mek with SAG, firstly because it looks nothing like the SAG and secondly because the big mek with KFF is still a game legal index unit.
bit like I'd have an issue with a rhino standing in for a land raider or predator, its just needlessly confusing
leopard wrote: I would have an issue with the big mek with KFF being passed off as a big mek with SAG, firstly because it looks nothing like the SAG and secondly because the big mek with KFF is still a game legal index unit.
bit like I'd have an issue with a rhino standing in for a land raider or predator, its just needlessly confusing
Then why not run a big mek with kff if its game legal. also so long as the list doesn't have multiple mixed kff,sag counts as then it shouldn't make any difference. they are both infantry sized models
leopard wrote: I would have an issue with the big mek with KFF being passed off as a big mek with SAG, firstly because it looks nothing like the SAG and secondly because the big mek with KFF is still a game legal index unit.
bit like I'd have an issue with a rhino standing in for a land raider or predator, its just needlessly confusing
Then why not run a big mek with kff if its game legal. also so long as the list doesn't have multiple mixed kff,sag counts as then it shouldn't make any difference. they are both infantry sized models
Right you cannot on one hand complain about the removal of a unit from the game, then complain that the model for that unit cannot represent another similarly sized unit because the unit is still part of the game. The real complaint with the KFF is that the wargear still exists for the Mega Armored Mek. That said with little to no conversion it could be a SAG, and I don't think most people would complain.
leopard wrote: I would have an issue with the big mek with KFF being passed off as a big mek with SAG, firstly because it looks nothing like the SAG and secondly because the big mek with KFF is still a game legal index unit.
bit like I'd have an issue with a rhino standing in for a land raider or predator, its just needlessly confusing
Then why not run a big mek with kff if its game legal. also so long as the list doesn't have multiple mixed kff,sag counts as then it shouldn't make any difference. they are both infantry sized models
Personally I do run a big mek with KFF, custom model though., not that one, there is a good reason not to run that as the SAG though, to start with the SAG model is significantly larger due to the bulk of the weapon, but even if there is no KFF mek in the list its using one currently legal model as another when they look nothing like each other
Breng77 wrote: You can convert because you like the aesthetics
But what if I like the aesthetics, and also want to play under the WYSIWYG expectation in tournaments and other more formal events?
It seems like I basically have two choices- build GW's kits as instructed with minimal room for creativity or deviating from inexplicable impositions (why can't my commissar have a chainsword? why is it my Sergeants can't take lasguns, but can take boltguns? etc), or do as I wish and then resign myself to not being able to play in tournaments, and needing to explain to every player 'okay, so this unit is actually armed with X, and this unit counts as Y, and...' Even if they're not a stickler for WYSIWYG, it's annoying for everyone involved to have to remember what wargear isn't what it looks like.
That's really not a satisfying answer, and I don't buy that it's a terrible thing for new players to have options in the codex that the kit doesn't come with. If you're suggesting that the player will be happy with X options in the codex and X options in the kit, then there's really no reason they should be unhappy with X+Y options in the codex and X in the kit. They can simply ignore the Y options that they don't want to build.
I especially think that citing the potential frustration from not being able to build a codex option is a poor justification when GW does that anyways. Many kits don't come with nearly enough weapon options to equip the whole squad. If I want two five-man squads of Skitarii Rangers with Transuranic Arquebuses, I need to buy a minimum of four times my desired number of models to get enough arquebuses. Sure, if I'm using any Rangers or Vanguard with other weapons I might have spares- but if spare parts from other kits are fair game, what's wrong with letting the Ork players use wargear from one kit on another, and providing that option in the codex?
How is having to use multiple copies of the same weapon from one kit the same thing as being able to use any weapon from any unit on any other unit in the faction?
It’s pretty lame that Orks lost so many options from index to codex. I was in the middle of converting a Painboy on bike that has now been put away. I have a few KFF Big Meks/on bike that I converted and in some rulesets I’m unable to use them. Looted wagons down the drain.
I don’t really understand the mindset either. Converting models has been a facet of Orks since their conception. I also dislike the fact that the buggies are all stock. Options are fun and allow players to be more competitive.
An Actual Englishman wrote: It’s pretty lame that Orks lost so many options from index to codex. I was in the middle of converting a Painboy on bike that has now been put away. I have a few KFF Big Meks/on bike that I converted and in some rulesets I’m unable to use them. Looted wagons down the drain.
I don’t really understand the mindset either. Converting models has been a facet of Orks since their conception. I also dislike the fact that the buggies are all stock. Options are fun and allow players to be more competitive.
Most options were also more for fun choices or thematic, then again same can be said about the loss of options for IG veterans f.e. Or even worse case of option loss the Fw indexes.
Luciferian wrote:How is having to use multiple copies of the same weapon from one kit the same thing as being able to use any weapon from any unit on any other unit in the faction?
Who's asking to use any weapon from any unit on any other unit in the faction?
Desubot wrote:Then you would have to make a compromise aesthetics over a competitive tournament.
And that's exactly why loss of game-represented options is a bad thing, not an opportunity to let creative freedom fly like some are saying. 'Owning a creative and unique army' and 'participating in official events' shouldn't be mutually exclusive things.
Desubot wrote:i mean you can play with altered magic cards but you cant expect a pro tournament to allow you to play with it.
We're not talking about house rules. We're talking about retaining options that used to be part of the game and have been removed without explanation, and whose removal leaves anyone who wants to play in a tournament, avoid house rules, and/or be considerate and WYSIWYG to their opponent out of luck.
There’s no lack of options in 40k now. U can make what ever you want. It’s the easiest edition to make up your own rules for and worth power levels pricing them has never been easier either. The problem is the player base has become too up tight about rules and balance and all that rubbish. Do what you like and play people who do the same. You’ll have fun and less angst.
Andykp wrote: There’s no lack of options in 40k now. U can make what ever you want. It’s the easiest edition to make up your own rules for and worth power levels pricing them has never been easier either. The problem is the player base has become too up tight about rules and balance and all that rubbish. Do what you like and play people who do the same. You’ll have fun and less angst.
I don’t need a £40 rule book from GW to tell me I can make up rules. I disagree that pricing is easier - in the past I could price options easily enough because they had a points cost and I could elect to take the option or not. Finally I’d posit that if the majority of the player base is ‘too uptight about rules and balance and all that rubbish’ that just shows that it’s the favoured way to play? This isn’t DnD or another role playing game, intelligent, clear rules are key to enjoyment of a war game and ultimately, removing options because GW don’t have an overpriced model to sell you doesn’t encourage brand loyalty and smacks of old GW.
Orks lost more than most there, sure, but it's such a small impact to the actual game and to the actual act of being Orky.
I disagree, it's a huge impact on gaming. If you look at competitive lists, there's not a single one of them that is pure codex, all have some index options. Just consider the warboss on bike, probably the most popular auto-take for the ork army, is index only. If you play without index options allowed orks lists change dramatically. Also their level of competitiveness drops significantly. The deathskulls for example can be quite competitive on their own if they can take index options, especially KMBs on meks and koptas and rokkits on transports, other than the biker boss of course. Without the index options that's really no reason to go full death skulls unless it's for purely fluff reasons.
That is demonstrably false.
The charity hammer players - LVO contenders - did not have index options. Nick even took Orks to the final round there, too.
Ork lists do not lose competitiveness without index. Orks are very competitive. Could you bleed out more effectiveness from the index? Probably, but that's wanting something broken and not something actually being wrong with the codex.
Deathskullz can pull from FW (which are incredibly easy to kitbash from plastic kits). That they need some sort of crutch from stuff like rokkits on trukks is, in my opinion, nonsense. And none of this has anything to do with "toyification".
Wait, I though LVO was an upcoming event. We shall see how those orks lists perform, at the moment it's just pure theoryhammer. And a warboss on bike, burnas on kommandos or some KMB spam are nothing broken at all if soups and their overpowered combo are allowed.
I don't the get the FW advice. What are those FW units that deathskulls may like?
And the lack of alternative weapons on vehicles is the perfect example of toyification, now those vehicles are just monopose models all with fixed loadout like the ugly new imperim/chaos dudes.
About the big mek with KFF I've settled on making him count as weirdboy once the index options are banned. After all he's just a nob sized ork with a close combat weapon and gubbinz on his back, nothing more, and the weirdboy is basically a nob sized ork with a staff.
Blackie wrote: Wait, I though LVO was an upcoming event. We shall see how those orks lists perform, at the moment it's just pure theoryhammer. And a warboss on bike, burnas on kommandos or some KMB spam are nothing broken at all if soups and their overpowered combo are allowed.
I don't the get the FW advice. What are those FW units that deathskulls may like?
And the lack of alternative weapons on vehicles is the perfect example of toyification, now those vehicles are just monopose models all with fixed loadout like the ugly new imperim/chaos dudes.
About the big mek with KFF I've settled on making him count as weirdboy once the index options are banned. After all he's just a nob sized ork with a close combat weapon and gubbinz on his back, nothing more, and the weirdboy is basically a nob sized ork with a staff.
Yea I’ve yet to see any particular evidence that Orks are a competitive army. 3 x 3rd place finishes in December does not a competitive army make and as a faction Orks have massive, glaring weaknesses that are easily exploited.
I’m looking forward to seeing if LVO helps prove some of this wrong but we mustn’t forget the very specific terrain rules that are used in the event and how they help certain factions, Orks included.
Multiple times being on the top 3 is not competitive?
What is then? only if you win every game you play?
Most of whats written here are non-issues. they don't have a point, or aspire to anything-they are mere complaints for the sake of complaining.
99% of conversions are EASY to find a match for in the rules, at least if you didn't purposely tried to do something that just isn't like anything in the rules-even if you don't look at indices.
Most "index only" units, in the case index gets banned at some point, can be easily matched with a codex unit.
Yes, even looted wagons. for the love of me I don't know why they put them in WD when the various wagons and trukks are decent representations of pretty much looted anything.
Now, the matching of a conversion to the rules wont always be PERFECT (especially when you got some outlandish conversion), but it will be plausible. you don't need everything to be snowflex in the rules, they are a simplification anyway.
Lets take the ork converted veichile for an example shall we?
Can you get me even ONE example of anything scaled as a "regular" (as in non-superheavy) 40k veichle that can't be represented good enough with one of the codex entries?
Because for the love of god you got 5 "light racers" and 3 more "heavy tank" variants in codex alone. one of them has GOT to fit.
TL;DR, I call bs on any claim that any kind of conversion you ever made, or planned to make, has been rendered not-usable.
It might not be usable as what you intended if you forgo the index (who is still very much legal), but its usable as something else at the very worst.
Double that on any actual model (squats aside)
Was thinking most of the old ork battlewagons don't really fit within the codex options, e.g. the Gobsmasha, which would be faster than a Leman Russ, smaller than a battle wagon and with a single stonking great gun.
pretty easy as a looted Vindicator though
the "heavy tank" in the codex is lumbered with paying for transport capacity a "tank" doesn't need for one thing and the "light" options are all far too light for an armoured vehicle role
BoomWolf wrote: Multiple times being on the top 3 is not competitive?
What is then? only if you win every game you play?
3x 3rd places for an army that can be the perfect anti meta and was the most recent codex, so not much experience against orks on the table and no list building with orks in mind, doesn't look that amazing. Once people acquire more experience against orks, they would probably go down in the rankings.
Most of whats written here are non-issues. they don't have a point, or aspire to anything-they are mere complaints for the sake of complaining.
I complain that our characters lost pretty much every possible option in the ork codex in the name of No Model No Rule, when other armies, especially imperium ones, didn't. Why are warbosses now forced to be footsloggers and with the only weapons that the 2 official monopose kits come when SMHQs can have a jump packs and every sort of weapons, included some that are not part of their kit? SW wolf lord on thunderwolf is a resin model with shield and axe and yet the unit can be equipped with a good variety of options, all availbe only by kitbashing or by converting a regular TWC model.
Orks lost tons of options between the index and the codex, other armies didn't. That's the complaint.
Here's a good example of why I like less diverse wargear. I assembled a Plague Marine w/Flail of Contagion. I want two; the kit only comes with one (typical GW). I didn't have any ball and chain bits available, so what I did was cut off the mace head of the bubotic mace, cut off the cleaver head on the great plague cleaver, and kitbash together a "Morningstar of Corruption". It looks visually different to the great cleaver, and while it doesn't look like a flail it looks like a similar type of weapon. As long as I don't use it as anything else (and I wouldn't, the great plague cleaver is not good), I doubt there'd be any issue.
Can you get me even ONE example of anything scaled as a "regular" (as in non-superheavy) 40k veichle that can't be represented good enough with one of the codex entries?
Aren't all bike HQs orcs have index only , And the ones in the codex are footslogging or the horrible new trike one?
Orks lost tons of options between the index and the codex, other armies didn't. That's the complaint.
The Drukhari would like to have a word with you.
In Commoragh.
In their torture chamber.
What did drukhari lose between index and codex? Just the blaster for the archon basically and the trueborn, while the succubus even gained some new options.
Andykp wrote: There’s no lack of options in 40k now. U can make what ever you want. It’s the easiest edition to make up your own rules for and worth power levels pricing them has never been easier either. The problem is the player base has become too up tight about rules and balance and all that rubbish. Do what you like and play people who do the same. You’ll have fun and less angst.
That really only applies to like minded people though. You can't really go to a store and say this is how I play.
BoomWolf wrote: 99% of conversions are EASY to find a match for in the rules
I guess I can count my lasgun sergeants as having laspistol+chainsword, and count my chainsword commissar as having a power sword.
So then some of my models that don't have chainswords are counting as having chainswords, and some of the models that do have chainswords are counting as not having chainswords, which is the absolute worst kind of WYSIWYG violation and a headache to remember. I don't like when people do that to me, I certainly don't want to do it to them.
And what do we do with Rough Riders when the Index disappears?
40K, especially in any kind of organized play (not even cutthroat tournaments), has been geared towards WYSIWYG for so long that the idea of 'convert whatever, it doesn't have to look anything like its on-paper stats' represents a fundamentally incompatible approach to the game. Games that want you to be able to heavily convert your models tend to genericize the options (eg 'close combat weapon' rather than chainswords, power swords, power axes, lightning claws, etc all with unique stats), and then provide numerous options. 40K has highly specific weapon profiles, and then limits codex choices to only specific ones. As a game system, it's just not geared to that style of customization.
Wayniac wrote: Here's a good example of why I like less diverse wargear. I assembled a Plague Marine w/Flail of Contagion. I want two; the kit only comes with one (typical GW). I didn't have any ball and chain bits available, so what I did was cut off the mace head of the bubotic mace, cut off the cleaver head on the great plague cleaver, and kitbash together a "Morningstar of Corruption". It looks visually different to the great cleaver, and while it doesn't look like a flail it looks like a similar type of weapon. As long as I don't use it as anything else (and I wouldn't, the great plague cleaver is not good), I doubt there'd be any issue.
That's totally different. Converting a special weapon because a kit didn't come with enough is fine. You can tell your opponent at the start of the game 'hey, this thing that doesn't look like anything else in the army and doesn't have any official stats is counting as this other thing'. That's easy to remember, there's no ambiguity- you've even stated that you wouldn't use it as anything else. You've made it clear that your conversion 'is' a FoC, so it's still WYSIWYG.
Telling your opponent at the start of the game 'hey, this X is counting as X on these models, but it's counting as Y on these models, and these models that have Y modeled are actually counting it as Z, and...' is another thing entirely. Now when your opponent looks at a model they have no way to tell what it has without asking and then remembering for that specific model. That's basically what some of us with legacy models have to do.
Orks lost tons of options between the index and the codex, other armies didn't. That's the complaint.
The Drukhari would like to have a word with you.
In Commoragh.
In their torture chamber.
What did drukhari lose between index and codex? Just the blaster for the archon basically and the trueborn, while the succubus even gained some new options.
Drukhari have been losing since 5th edition. We lost all of our special HQ. We lost our HQ, Vect, blasters, Bloodbrides, Trueborn, and so on. "No model, no rule" has been the motto of Drukhari codexes for years now. You could say I have become Inured to Suffering.
To be fair you also gained options in the Ork codex with quite a few new units(so many cars and a trike). I think the net gain is currently better for the Orks than Drukhari since the only new options for Drukhari have been the Ossefactor and the Void Raven if I remember correctly, then an update for the 3 main HQ(less options) and I guess Ur-Ghul if you count BSF . Orks got 5 new buggies, a trike, special terrain, Orka/Gorkanaut, Flash Gitz, as well as properly expanded kits in mega armor, mek gunz, wazbom blastajet. New beautiful models with the Ork Painboy, Ork Mek, and Big Mek. Seriously, compare the model and options orks have gotten new in the same timeframe as Drukhari have been losing options. Night and day, night and day.
Miniature and unit-wise Ork players have been spoiled. That is a fact. It is one of the reasons I have a small Ork army, they get beautiful new models on a frequent basis which I am always tempted to buy.
even if the rules had no real options the ability to make the kits build cosmetically different models would have worked well, heck most ork vehicles could easily be done with one (medium sized) box marked "Ork Vehicles" that had a lot of parts in, and set instructions to make a range of basic vehicles with a lot of optional bits.
even the humble deff dread, which doesn't have many actual options beyond the arms has a stack of parts to make multiples of the same model all different
even if the rules had no real options the ability to make the kits build cosmetically different models would have worked well, heck most ork vehicles could easily be done with one (medium sized) box marked "Ork Vehicles" that had a lot of parts in, and set instructions to make a range of basic vehicles with a lot of optional bits.
The new buggies are incredibly dynamic. Asking for a kit of that type would have been prohibitively expensive and instead of this thread it would be one about how nuts it is for GW to charge something like $80 instead of $45.
Absolutely nothing stops you from making your own buggies.
How can models with no options at all be "dynamic?"
Also and someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I remember reading that the orks drivers and passengers are not compatible with existing ork kits? If that's true, that is another pointless nut kick to players via GW.
Breng77 wrote: You can convert because you like the aesthetics
But what if I like the aesthetics, and also want to play under the WYSIWYG expectation in tournaments and other more formal events?
It seems like I basically have two choices- build GW's kits as instructed with minimal room for creativity or deviating from inexplicable impositions (why can't my commissar have a chainsword? why is it my Sergeants can't take lasguns, but can take boltguns? etc), or do as I wish and then resign myself to not being able to play in tournaments, and needing to explain to every player 'okay, so this unit is actually armed with X, and this unit counts as Y, and...' Even if they're not a stickler for WYSIWYG, it's annoying for everyone involved to have to remember what wargear isn't what it looks like.
That's really not a satisfying answer, and I don't buy that it's a terrible thing for new players to have options in the codex that the kit doesn't come with. If you're suggesting that the player will be happy with X options in the codex and X options in the kit, then there's really no reason they should be unhappy with X+Y options in the codex and X in the kit. They can simply ignore the Y options that they don't want to build.
I especially think that citing the potential frustration from not being able to build a codex option is a poor justification when GW does that anyways. Many kits don't come with nearly enough weapon options to equip the whole squad. If I want two five-man squads of Skitarii Rangers with Transuranic Arquebuses, I need to buy a minimum of four times my desired number of models to get enough arquebuses. Sure, if I'm using any Rangers or Vanguard with other weapons I might have spares- but if spare parts from other kits are fair game, what's wrong with letting the Ork players use wargear from one kit on another, and providing that option in the codex?
You do realize more options makes WYSIWYG much more arduous right? Think back to when power weapons was just a universal header before the sword was different from the axe etc. in that situation you could pick the cool looking weapon without having to worry about it’s in game effect. Now you are forced to use specific options due to specific rules. Same with the chain sword. When it was just a CCW it did not matter if you wanted to use a different weapon, now it does matter. As for your Sargent options, boot pistols can just be las pistols because boot pistol is not an option, as long as you are consistent. The more unique rules you have the more wargear matters. If every guardsman could only have one type of gear you could model it any way you wanted, because there would be no confusion. As soon as rules exist your aesthetic choices now matter.
How can models with no options at all be "dynamic?"
(of a process or system) characterized by constant change, activity, or progress.
As in a model that has a lot of motion or a lot going on.
Are we really squabbling over weapon swaps for buggies? Ok guys - you can put an extra big shoota on this model now! Amazing - it's a whole new kit now!
I can understand being perturbed by the lack of wargear options trending in recent codices, but can you seriously expect GW to make rules for literally anything you can conceive of kitbashing or converting?
Luciferian wrote: I can understand being perturbed by the lack of wargear options trending in recent codices, but can you seriously expect GW to make rules for literally anything you can conceive of kitbashing or converting?
My apologies. I forgot that no other HQs in the game have wings/bikes/jetbikes/jump packs.
And indeed, why should a supposedly fast army - one with jetbike, winged, and skyboard units - have even a single HQ that isn't stuck footslogging?
As usual, it's just me being completely unreasonable.
Eldar have been specialists pretty much since the aspect warriors came out with only a few options for the exarches and some hq options.
As long as the units themselves are good the standardisation of wargear needn't be a bad thing. It seems that the primaris line is going down a similar route with units functioning in a specialist role with less customisation.
Luciferian wrote: I can understand being perturbed by the lack of wargear options trending in recent codices, but can you seriously expect GW to make rules for literally anything you can conceive of kitbashing or converting?
My apologies. I forgot that no other HQs in the game have wings/bikes/jetbikes/jump packs.
And indeed, why should a supposedly fast army - one with jetbike, winged, and skyboard units - have even a single HQ that isn't stuck footslogging?
As usual, it's just me being completely unreasonable.
To be honest, yeah you are being unreasonable. Building a model for which there are no rules and then complaining that there are no rules for your model is just silly. So is expecting that every type of wargear option available to every faction or unit type should be available to any unit just because you think it should be. The fact that there are other factions with flying HQ models doesn't really mean that your faction is owed one as well.
Luciferian wrote: I can understand being perturbed by the lack of wargear options trending in recent codices, but can you seriously expect GW to make rules for literally anything you can conceive of kitbashing or converting?
My apologies. I forgot that no other HQs in the game have wings/bikes/jetbikes/jump packs.
And indeed, why should a supposedly fast army - one with jetbike, winged, and skyboard units - have even a single HQ that isn't stuck footslogging?
As usual, it's just me being completely unreasonable.
To be honest, yeah you are being unreasonable. Building a model for which there are no rules and then complaining that there are no rules for your model is just silly. So is expecting that every type of wargear option available to every faction or unit type should be available to any unit just because you think it should be. The fact that there are other factions with flying HQ models doesn't really mean that your faction is owed one as well.
Ignoring the fact that Archons could originally take both Hellion Skyboards and Jetbikes in previous codexes...
That hypothetical model could have been made years ago with the wings counting as either. Now it can't be used as anything without some creative counts-as by souping in an Autarch or something.
Also and someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I remember reading that the orks drivers and passengers are not compatible with existing ork kits? If that's true, that is another pointless nut kick to players via GW.
The writing on the wall for this was the when the Savage Orc kit was released. Unlike every other Ork/Orc kits out there is was not compatible with anything other than itself.
Luciferian wrote: Building a model for which there are no rules and then complaining that there are no rules for your model is just silly.
But this is the whole point - what's the point in converting at all when options are so narrow and limited that there's classically nothing fun or interesting you can do?
Luciferian wrote: So is expecting that every type of wargear option available to every faction or unit type should be available to any unit just because you think it should be. The fact that there are other factions with flying HQ models doesn't really mean that your faction is owed one as well.
So we're just ignoring the fact that (as Grimtuff pointed out) DE *did* have HQs with Skyboards and Jetbikes. It's just that those were removed, along with about 90% of the past codices.
Let me know when Marines, Eldar etc. lose every Bike and Jump Pack option for every single HQ in their army, with any and all Biker/Jump Pack special characters being removed altogether, and we'll discuss fairness.
Luciferian wrote: I can understand being perturbed by the lack of wargear options trending in recent codices, but can you seriously expect GW to make rules for literally anything you can conceive of kitbashing or converting?
Andykp wrote: There’s no lack of options in 40k now. U can make what ever you want. It’s the easiest edition to make up your own rules for and worth power levels pricing them has never been easier either. The problem is the player base has become too up tight about rules and balance and all that rubbish. Do what you like and play people who do the same. You’ll have fun and less angst.
That really only applies to like minded people though. You can't really go to a store and say this is how I play.
Of course I can. U can walk into the store, say “look I’ve made some conversions with made up rules who fancies trying them out.” Nothing at all to stop you asking. That’s how you get to know about like minded people. It’s called social interaction. Not only that the rules will become better and the conversions will follow, before you know it you’re a group of like minded adults playing games and designing a whole imaginary world with history culture and personalities and having childish fun drawing maps and naming people and places. IT ALL ATARTS WITH A QUESTION.
Luciferian wrote: I can understand being perturbed by the lack of wargear options trending in recent codices, but can you seriously expect GW to make rules for literally anything you can conceive of kitbashing or converting?
Of course not.
We are not asking GW to "make" rules.
We wish they would stop unmaking them.
With the index’s I can’t think of any models I’ve “lost” from my armies. Perfectly legally with out house rules or anything.
vipoid wrote: Let me know when Marines, Eldar etc. lose every Bike and Jump Pack option for every single HQ in their army, with any and all Biker/Jump Pack special characters being removed altogether, and we'll discuss fairness.
The Eldar lost a ton of wargear options going from 2E to 3E.
Luciferian wrote: I can understand being perturbed by the lack of wargear options trending in recent codices, but can you seriously expect GW to make rules for literally anything you can conceive of kitbashing or converting?
Of course not.
We are not asking GW to "make" rules.
We wish they would stop unmaking them.
With the index’s I can’t think of any models I’ve “lost” from my armies. Perfectly legally with out house rules or anything.
Ignoring the fact that Archons could originally take both Hellion Skyboards and Jetbikes in previous codexes...
That hypothetical model could have been made years ago with the wings counting as either. Now it can't be used as anything without some creative counts-as by souping in an Autarch or something.
Technically those special archons could be just used as sergeants in Hellion, Scourge, or Reaver units.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Let me know when Marines, Eldar etc. lose every Bike and Jump Pack option for every single HQ in their army, with any and all Biker/Jump Pack special characters being removed altogether, and we'll discuss fairness.
Many factions have been losing units just like Orks. Drukhari have been losing the longest. Just recently - from index to codex - eldar lost their warp spider pack as well as quite a few weapon options. People also used to run Farseers on Vypers for good fun. Many of these factions even lost options that technically existed as resin models(Couple of Autarch models, the old Archon, Vect, etc).
The difference between the Aeldari losing units and Ork losing units is that GW does everything to make up for the loss of the Ork units by providing a slew of new units that then have a few of their own options. This is why I have no qualms about mentioning that Orks are spoiled compared to many other factions.
Anybody remember that Harry Potter meme where the kid says "39? But last year I got 40!"? At this rate this meme for Orks will be: "40? But last year I got 35!"
So if there is any compassion in my Commorite heart it would only be for those options that had a good, servicable resin model such as the Mek with KFF(plus I liked the model, resin and all). I am not a fan of good models being retired without being replaced with a new one.
Technically those special archons could be just used as sergeants in Hellion, Scourge, or Reaver units.
But this goes back to the point I made before. What's the point?
Why should I bother converting a model when the only thing I can use it as is a crappy sergeant? And, in the case of Scourges, a sergeant so worthless that he's always singled out as the first squad member to die.
Many factions have been losing units just like Orks. Drukhari have been losing the longest. Just recently - from index to codex - eldar lost their warp spider pack as well as quite a few weapon options.
Indeed.
That said, at least most of these "lost" options still exist in the index. Dark Eldar don't even have that luxury when it comes to Jetbikes and Skyboards.
The difference between the Aeldari losing units and Ork losing units is that GW does everything to make up for the loss of the Ork units by providing a slew of new units that then have a few of their own options. This is why I have no qualms about mentioning that Orks are spoiled compared to many other factions.
Honestly, whilst I'd argue that Dark Eldar have lost a lot more, I still very much sympathise with Ork players.
I dislike the homogenisation of units - especially commanders - and I feel bad for any faction that gets this treatment. And Orks perhaps suffer more than most, as their army is (or was) practically themed around kit-bashing.
What's more, whilst Orks have (arguably) been fortunate in that they at least got new models, I don't hold it against them. After all, if there's one faction that could do with not receiving new models for a time, it's not Orks but the sodding Imperium.
Andykp wrote: There’s no lack of options in 40k now. U can make what ever you want. It’s the easiest edition to make up your own rules for and worth power levels pricing them has never been easier either. The problem is the player base has become too up tight about rules and balance and all that rubbish. Do what you like and play people who do the same. You’ll have fun and less angst.
That really only applies to like minded people though. You can't really go to a store and say this is how I play.
Of course I can. U can walk into the store, say “look I’ve made some conversions with made up rules who fancies trying them out.” Nothing at all to stop you asking. That’s how you get to know about like minded people. It’s called social interaction. Not only that the rules will become better and the conversions will follow, before you know it you’re a group of like minded adults playing games and designing a whole imaginary world with history culture and personalities and having childish fun drawing maps and naming people and places. IT ALL ATARTS WITH A QUESTION.
Luciferian wrote: I can understand being perturbed by the lack of wargear options trending in recent codices, but can you seriously expect GW to make rules for literally anything you can conceive of kitbashing or converting?
Of course not.
We are not asking GW to "make" rules.
We wish they would stop unmaking them.
With the index’s I can’t think of any models I’ve “lost” from my armies. Perfectly legally with out house rules or anything.
Its clear you haven't spent much time in GW shops lol
Luciferian wrote: I can understand being perturbed by the lack of wargear options trending in recent codices, but can you seriously expect GW to make rules for literally anything you can conceive of kitbashing or converting?
Of course not.
We are not asking GW to "make" rules.
We wish they would stop unmaking them.
With the index’s I can’t think of any models I’ve “lost” from my armies. Perfectly legally with out house rules or anything.
Orks lost a ton of units from Index to Codex.
Index units are still perfectly legal though. That’s my point.
Andykp wrote: Index units are still perfectly legal though. That’s my point.
Until GW decide they aren't.
This, it's pretty clear that leaving them out of the codex means that they are not long for this world. This along with more and more events banning index options for "balance"/F you long term players, means that more and more models will be invalid before along.
But this goes back to the point I made before. What's the point?
Why should I bother converting a model when the only thing I can use it as is a crappy sergeant? And, in the case of Scourges, a sergeant so worthless that he's always singled out as the first squad member to die.
Because converting is fun? It is cool to have unique looking units in your armies regardless of their power?
I'll be honest, but here I feel there is a bit of a disconnect in the argument so for the sake of the argument I think this needs to be clear and precise and not implied in future answers: are people mostly wanting to make unique units that are overpowered? Is nothing worth doing in 40k unless you can get a leg up on your opponent? Because if that is true then it sounds more like converting is a chore and elimination of converting should please that group of individuals.
Because speaking for myself I can say converting is fun and having unique models - regardless of powerful and unique rules - can be a delight as it gives you something no one else has on the table: model(s) you put together and painted yourself. Yet I get the impression again and again that people are just pissed off they can't use some special rules to punish their opponents with or use units that can eviscerate other armies.
I converted some Dark Angel scouts using Dark Angel veteran heads and Skitarii heads, are these worthless conversions because they don't belong to some named super special scout? I would say no. Is my old Thunder Hammer Belial worthless as a Terminator Sergeant? I would say no because I love the idea of the sergeant being slightly more imposing than the rest of the squad. Is my old Vect kitbash worthless as a generic Archon? No, I would say it just adds flavor to my army because I am not a fan of the current plastic Archon.
So perhaps the question should be: Do you enjoy kitbashing/converting models or are you doing so more for special gains than anything else?
Now, for the record I don't hate options, but as I've repeatedly stated Orks have been getting ton of new units and options to play with over the years even though some have disappeared. Especially compared to many other factions. Without dwelling into each and every book I would say Orks and core Space Marines(Primaris is a whole new level) stand relatively equally when it comes to losing options and gaining new ones.
Andykp wrote: Index units are still perfectly legal though. That’s my point.
Until GW decide they aren't.
Exactly, anyone pretending the codex's are going to exist in a year or two are just being disingenuous to say 'stop moaning'. The reason people are pissed is not because they can't use these units, its because we know we can't in the future.
Why get annoyed about something that hasn’t happened yet? Saying they have removed units and options is “currently” untrue. Events with their own rules is one thing, but officially index units ARE legal. Index options ARE legal. This is just moaning for he sake of it. Even IF they invalidate old models there’s nothing to stop you using them in friendly games and if your friends won’t let you then that says more about your friends than GW. It’s a non issue. Stop making it sound like you have been hard done by when nothing has actually happened.
Andykp wrote: Why get annoyed about something that hasn’t happened yet? Saying they have removed units and options is “currently” untrue. Events with their own rules is one thing, but officially index units ARE legal. Index options ARE legal. This is just moaning for he sake of it. Even IF they invalidate old models there’s nothing to stop you using them in friendly games and if your friends won’t let you then that says more about your friends than GW. It’s a non issue. Stop making it sound like you have been hard done by when nothing has actually happened.
"There is nothing stopping you making up rules" isn't an argument and you know it.
Andykp wrote: Why get annoyed about something that hasn’t happened yet? Saying they have removed units and options is “currently” untrue. Events with their own rules is one thing, but officially index units ARE legal. Index options ARE legal. This is just moaning for he sake of it. Even IF they invalidate old models there’s nothing to stop you using them in friendly games and if your friends won’t let you then that says more about your friends than GW. It’s a non issue. Stop making it sound like you have been hard done by when nothing has actually happened.
Because I have the ability for foresight. If I know I'll be fired at the end of the month, I will be annoyed about it and yet I will still be working till the end of the month. This isn't moaning for the sake of it, this is the classic 'If you have any misgivings about the game then you are simply moaning, regardless of evidence or good reasons and should said argument should immediately be shut down and the moaners judged because by default we should be happy and greatful with everything GW does because it is an uber special business that doesn't have to cater to its consumers'
I'll be honest, but here I feel there is a bit of a disconnect in the argument so for the sake of the argument I think this needs to be clear and precise and not implied in future answers: are people mostly wanting to make unique units that are overpowered? Is nothing worth doing in 40k unless you can get a leg up on your opponent? Because if that is true then it sounds more like converting is a chore and elimination of converting should please that group of individuals.
As above, no, it's entirely unrelated to a unit's power.
In the case of the winged DE model I converted, I'd be fine with overpaying for wings (or for a Skyboard, Jetbike or anything else I could get away with representing with wings).
Again, it's not about power it's about actually having those options - good or bad.
Because speaking for myself I can say converting is fun and having unique models - regardless of powerful and unique rules - can be a delight as it gives you something no one else has on the table: model(s) you put together and painted yourself. Yet I get the impression again and again that people are just pissed off they can't use some special rules to punish their opponents with or use units that can eviscerate other armies.
If you're referring to me (which I have to assume, since I was the only one you quoted), then I have no idea where I gave that impression.
Power is not and has never been my objective when it comes to converting.
I agree that having unique models in my army is fun. What isn't fun is having unique models gathering dust on a shelf because there's nothing in the rules to represent them.
I converted some Dark Angel scouts using Dark Angel veteran heads and Skitarii heads, are these worthless conversions because they don't belong to some named super special scout?
Are you sure you even quoted the right person?
Eldarsif wrote: Is my old Thunder Hammer Belial worthless as a Terminator Sergeant? I would say no because I love the idea of the sergeant being slightly more imposing than the rest of the squad.
Here's the thing, though - you might choose to use Balial as a terminator sergeant (which is fine), but you could just as easily choose to use their model as a Terminator HQ.
I don't have that option with my winged conversion (nor with my Baron Sathonyx conversion or anything else involving a Skyboard or Jetbike).
I can understand liking impressive sergeants, but it's of absolutely no use to me if I'm making a model to be my army's leader.
So perhaps the question should be: Do you enjoy kitbashing/converting models or are you doing so more for special gains than anything else?
Could you please name a single in-game benefit I've supposedly obtained from converting my models? If not, then I'm baffled as to why you'd think I'd be converting models for that purpose.
Anyway, to answer your question, I convert for fun. But, as I originally stated, a big part of that fun is finding ways to represent the models I make on the table. If anything, it usually leads to my taking suboptimal wargear and spending far too much on artefacts.
But apparently none of that matters. Because I'd like even a single mobility option for even one of the HQ choices in an army based around mobility, then apparently i must just be a WAAC power gamer or something.
Breng77 wrote: You do realize more options makes WYSIWYG much more arduous right?
More options doesn't make WYSIWYG arduous- fewer options in combination with wargear-specific rules makes WYSIWYG arduous. If power swords and power axes are treated differently under the rules, but I only have the option to take a power sword, then a model with a power axe is non-WYSIWYG.
If I have the option to freely take a chainsword, power sword, power axe, lightning claws, etc, then I can count the power axe as a power axe and it's WYSIWYG.
If all of those weapons are genericized to 'Close Combat Weapon', then I can count the power axe as a CCW and it's WYSIWYG.
I'd be perfectly happy if GW went in either direction, it's the current halfway point that's awkward.
Eldarsif wrote: So perhaps the question should be: Do you enjoy kitbashing/converting models or are you doing so more for special gains than anything else?
I would rather play chess with plain models than checkers with custom ones.
Personally I'm expecting a lot of the "lost" units where there is nothing new - e.g. "big guns" have been replaced by Mek Guns so they are gone for good, but say the bike characters here - are going to vanish in a new edition but will likely return as new models at some point in the future.
e.g. the next ork codex, likely in 9th, which has enough changes to invalidate the indexes (as in GW put out FAQ/Errata for the codex books but not the indexes) could easily see the big mek on bike, with KFF, the bike warboss etc return with new models
So perhaps the question should be: Do you enjoy kitbashing/converting models or are you doing so more for special gains than anything else?
WEll my answer to this is easy. It is because of certain lore or certain model designs that I cherish.
In 8th edition I have played with my 3 Eldar Exodite Scout Walkers. [ this was a Citadel Journal article creation, Datafaxes, Mail-Order PART number, history, pictures, etc]
Basically it was a lighter faster War Walker with a holo field and ONLY 1 gun. My choice of rules is to use a Vyper as the stand in rule. It still has an extra set of guns...but it has weaker armor and more speed. The fly word doesn't really fit.
My friends told me just to USE the WAR WALKER stats and costs. Well I am against this for a few reasons. The model ONLY has one gun....perhaps it can shoot twice as fast could be a reason. Then again where is the holo field or the faster movement and the lighter armor...and the LOWER point cost.
I loved the VDR rules they made sense to players that did not try to break it as you suggest in the 2nd question. Due to those players.....guys like me have found many of our conversion/Mail-Order kit bashes are no longer playable.
I have at least a handful of models from the past that fit this 'unplayable' state. Mind you these are GW Marketed, GW sold, GW Labeled units.
Andykp wrote: Why get annoyed about something that hasn’t happened yet? Saying they have removed units and options is “currently” untrue. Events with their own rules is one thing, but officially index units ARE legal. Index options ARE legal. This is just moaning for he sake of it. Even IF they invalidate old models there’s nothing to stop you using them in friendly games and if your friends won’t let you then that says more about your friends than GW. It’s a non issue. Stop making it sound like you have been hard done by when nothing has actually happened.
Because I have the ability for foresight. If I know I'll be fired at the end of the month, I will be annoyed about it and yet I will still be working till the end of the month. This isn't moaning for the sake of it, this is the classic 'If you have any misgivings about the game then you are simply moaning, regardless of evidence or good reasons and should said argument should immediately be shut down and the moaners judged because by default we should be happy and greatful with everything GW does because it is an uber special business that doesn't have to cater to its consumers'
You are moaning about units being gone, but they aren’t gone. And as leopard said, they could well get new models and rules later on. Look at calgar all pretty as a primaris now. I’m not saying GW can do no wrong, I had my entire ORK army invalidated when 3rd arrived and my good mate was less than impressed with the treatment his squats got. But they haven’t done that, they’ve written “rules” (that’s for you bacon cat thing) so you can still use everything. You expect them to keep investing time and money in updating rules for models they don’t make anymore so that other companies can make money out of them. That makes no business sense at all. As for catering to their consumers, I think the last two years have shown they have changed on that front but they aren’t going to pander to consumers every whim especially if it would discourage them from buying the products. Why buy the sexy new unit if your old one is still good to go.
. As for making your own rules up as an excuse for them not making rules for you, what’s up with it? Making rules and converting models and being creative is a huge part of the hobby and GW actively encourage it. Write campaigns with unique rules and missions and characters. I would have thought a rules obsessive like bacon cat thingy would love the chance to show off his rules writing abilities doing some homebrew stuff.
Don’t let the miserable minority in the hobby dictate how you should have your fun.
On that note, I think I’m going to build a gargant. And I’ll demand GW write rules for it because I’m the consumer and they should do what I want! (Not really, ill write my own),
If you're referring to me (which I have to assume, since I was the only one you quoted), then I have no idea where I gave that impression.
I might be quoting you, but the comment was targeted to a broader audience because as I mentioned I feel there is a disconnect going on. So do not take everything say as explicitly targeted at you.
Again, it's not about power it's about actually having those options - good or bad.
I feel this is irrelevant to the kitbash question. Having options can be fun, but I feel like the arguing for kitbashing and arguing for options are two separate discussions that occasionally cross territories.
I don't have that option with my winged conversion (nor with my Baron Sathonyx conversion or anything else involving a Skyboard or Jetbike).
Technically you have, because as I mentioned you can use them as cool sergeants. It might be suboptimal, but you technically still can. Now, I agree that the loss of options for Drukhari was not fun, especially since we didn't get anything back, but my argument originally was that Orks have really no valid complaint as they've been drowning in new options compared to the few they lost. I think the only thing they could really complain about is the Mek with the KFF as that was a valid, good looking model that existed until a year ago or so. I also collect Ravenwing and you can guess about how many HQ are no longer HQ or don't even exist in any form anymore(hint: Librarian). I am just surprised they left my Sammael on Sableclaw alone as that is an old model they don't even make anymore and new players have to technically kitbash.
Could you please name a single in-game benefit I've supposedly obtained from converting my models?
The reason I asked this is because the optics make it appear you are. Whether you are or are not is irrelevant when you see people asking for special/unique rules to satiate their needs. It's why I wanted to ask a rather blunt and direct question so we could remove all doubt.
In 8th edition I have played with my 3 Eldar Exodite Scout Walkers. [ this was a Citadel Journal article creation, Datafaxes, Mail-Order PART number, history, pictures, etc]
I do agree that it sucks losing a model that existed and was in production. I have mentioned that I think it is weird and unnecessary of GW to remove the Mek with KFF as it was a good model that existed up until recently.
I might be quoting you, but the comment was targeted to a broader audience because as I mentioned I feel there is a disconnect going on. So do not take everything say as explicitly targeted at you.
I feel this is irrelevant to the kitbash question. Having options can be fun, but I feel like the arguing for kitbashing and arguing for options are two separate discussions that occasionally cross territories.
I disagree. I'd argue that it's a lot harder to make worthwhile kitbashes when you have very few options.
To go back once again to DEHQs, the lack of any mobility options basically rules out any cool conversions involving wings/jetbikes/skyboards (all of which exist within the DE range), unless you're happy with them being entirely non-functional. I suppose if someone really wanted an Archon whose Jetbike has run out of fuel, then they have that option. But for anyone else, they're basically converting with the knowledge that they'll never be abe to use their lovingly-converted model as anything more than a paperweight.
Do you really think that this never comes into play when people are deciding whether or not to bother converting something?
Technically you have, because as I mentioned you can use them as cool sergeants.
But that's not what I said.
I didn't say that I lacked the option to use them as sergeants. We've already been over that. What I said was that, unlike a terminator character, I don't have the option to use a winged model as an HQ.
Yes, I can use them as sergeants. But that's meaningless if I want to convert a model to be my army's leader.
Eldarsif wrote: Now, I agree that the loss of options for Drukhari was not fun, especially since we didn't get anything back
We're at least in agreement on that front.
Eldarsif wrote: I also collect Ravenwing and you can guess about how many HQ are no longer HQ or don't even exist in any form anymore(hint: Librarian). I am just surprised they left my Sammael on Sableclaw alone as that is an old model they don't even make anymore and new players have to technically kitbash.
To be honest, this highlights another thing I dislike - the inconsistency of how the 'no model, no rules' policy is applied. Some factions have lost options left, right and centre, and yet on the other hand we have Grey Knights being given a unit that never existed and is only possible via kitbashing.
I'm not sure why you're in this thread being argumentative with Ork players Eldarsif.
Ork players aren't drowning in options and we lost more than we gained from index to codex. Including the new models.
Removing a fluffy HQ or Elite on bike and replacing it with a buggy is not an equivalent exchange.
Consider my army that has always been fluffy Evil Sunz speed freaks. According to GW Evil Sunz typically field large numbers of bikes led by various characters that are also mounted. If a boy can afford to purchase a bike, a Painboy and certainly a Big Mek would too. Now I am unable to take both of these options outside of index and my issue is that I don't understand why.
It is thematic and fluffy for an Evil Sunz army, contrary to the popular competitive Ork lists at the moment, to be fully mechanised. It is fluffy for Big Meks, who are responsible for maintaining Ork vehicles, to have a ride of their own (probably second in performance only to the boss' ride). Painboys can often also be addicted to speed and get a bike. The primary reason I believe that particular option was removed is because Kromlech launched a beautiful model for which GW had no equivalent.
Outside of bike characters, I can't for the life of me explain (in a fluff sense) why a warboss would ever use Meganobz but wouldn't take mega armour himself? Given the fluff it makes no sense.
Dark Eldar players should be more sympathetic than most, I don't think it's right that their flying/board HQs were removed, particularly if it fits with the fluff.
I might be quoting you, but the comment was targeted to a broader audience because as I mentioned I feel there is a disconnect going on. So do not take everything say as explicitly targeted at you.
I feel this is irrelevant to the kitbash question. Having options can be fun, but I feel like the arguing for kitbashing and arguing for options are two separate discussions that occasionally cross territories.
I disagree. I'd argue that it's a lot harder to make worthwhile kitbashes when you have very few options.
If you kitbash with a completely codex-standard target in mind then it will be playable for the foreseeable future. I have a whole Kroot themed army with Kroot battlesuits, tanks and all sorts. When kitbashing those I had the standard Tau units in mind for rules purposes so my various Kroot kitbashes are Crisis/Broadside/Ghostkeel/Riptide battlesuits in the rules and should be pretty easy to identify as such by my opponents (they all have at least 50% donor parts from the model they are standing in as). Those models will be playable as-is for a long time, probably for the rest of my life. They may be horribly sub-optimal in some future version of the game/codex (as some were especially in the Index period of 8th) but they will be playable.
With a whole codex to aim at i have a vast set of options. That is true for most codexes - although obviously if you target one of the smaller codexes with only a few similar units it is less true.
I do not feel the need to add options onto *rules* that do not exist. There is no need for me to be able to add Fly to a Broadside battlesuit just because I can attach a huge pair of jetpacks to it - if I do that then I am on my way to building a different battlesuit entirely, perhaps a Ghostkeel? While it might be fun on the kitchen table to have those sorts of options having them more widely available would inevitably lead to modelling for rules advantage problems in the competitive game, a Broadside with Fly loses one of its few disadvantages so how would you correctly points-cost the option? It only takes one option with an application that the designer did not anticipate for it to suddenly be all over the tournament scene like a pox.
If I kitbash something that is only an option in the index then it may or may not have a shorter play lifespan. Could just be a couple of years if they deprecate and eventually remove the indexes. Maybe. The thing is that nobody really knows so if I do that sort of kitbash it is a risk I am taking.
I already got left high and dry with my Eldar Corsairs kitbashes so I have decided in future to aim my green-stuff modelling at current codex rules so that I will get a lot of years play out of the results. That is just because once I put all that effort into a model I want to show it off for more than a few months!
Andykp wrote: Why get annoyed about something that hasn’t happened yet? Saying they have removed units and options is “currently” untrue. Events with their own rules is one thing, but officially index units ARE legal. Index options ARE legal. This is just moaning for he sake of it. Even IF they invalidate old models there’s nothing to stop you using them in friendly games and if your friends won’t let you then that says more about your friends than GW. It’s a non issue. Stop making it sound like you have been hard done by when nothing has actually happened.
Because I have the ability for foresight. If I know I'll be fired at the end of the month, I will be annoyed about it and yet I will still be working till the end of the month. This isn't moaning for the sake of it, this is the classic 'If you have any misgivings about the game then you are simply moaning, regardless of evidence or good reasons and should said argument should immediately be shut down and the moaners judged because by default we should be happy and greatful with everything GW does because it is an uber special business that doesn't have to cater to its consumers'
You are moaning about units being gone, but they aren’t gone. And as leopard said, they could well get new models and rules later on. Look at calgar all pretty as a primaris now. I’m not saying GW can do no wrong, I had my entire ORK army invalidated when 3rd arrived and my good mate was less than impressed with the treatment his squats got. But they haven’t done that, they’ve written “rules” (that’s for you bacon cat thing) so you can still use everything. You expect them to keep investing time and money in updating rules for models they don’t make anymore so that other companies can make money out of them. That makes no business sense at all. As for catering to their consumers, I think the last two years have shown they have changed on that front but they aren’t going to pander to consumers every whim especially if it would discourage them from buying the products. Why buy the sexy new unit if your old one is still good to go.
. As for making your own rules up as an excuse for them not making rules for you, what’s up with it? Making rules and converting models and being creative is a huge part of the hobby and GW actively encourage it. Write campaigns with unique rules and missions and characters. I would have thought a rules obsessive like bacon cat thingy would love the chance to show off his rules writing abilities doing some homebrew stuff.
Don’t let the miserable minority in the hobby dictate how you should have your fun.
On that note, I think I’m going to build a gargant. And I’ll demand GW write rules for it because I’m the consumer and they should do what I want! (Not really, ill write my own),
"On that note, I think I’m going to build a gargant. And I’ll demand GW write rules for it because I’m the consumer and they should do what I want! (Not really, ill write my own)" - Again you are just ignoring the actual argument because you've been caught out arguing for the sake of arguing, so all you have are straw man arguments.
No not really. Read the rest of my post. I explain why I think you are moaning and I’ll spell it out her again.
1. You are complaining that units have lost options - they have not. Index options are legal.
2. You are complaining that factions have lost units - they have not, they are still legal to use.
3 you are demanding that GW continue to spend time and money updating rules for models they no longer make, which would a) discourage people buying newer models and b) prop up third party companies cashing in on their IP. U are criticising a company for not shooting its self in the foot.
4. You are basing all your moaning on the fact that you b believe these units won’t be legal soon. Ignoring that they may be replaced with better versions with new rules. (Look at the warboss on the trike).
5. U are arguing that you cannot use your creativity to enjoy a wargaming hobby by saying you couldn’t even ask people to use home made rules/models. that’s just daft.
See not a straw man in sight. I do intend to build a gargant but the bit about the rules was just me being flippant to demonstrate how silly yours and others position was. Not arguing for the sake of it, arguing because I believe you are wrong and misrepresenting the facts.
Andykp wrote: No not really. Read the rest of my post. I explain why I think you are moaning and I’ll spell it out her again.
1. You are complaining that units have lost options - they have not. Index options are legal.
2. You are complaining that factions have lost units - they have not, they are still legal to use.
3 you are demanding that GW continue to spend time and money updating rules for models they no longer make, which would a) discourage people buying newer models and b) prop up third party companies cashing in on their IP. U are criticising a company for not shooting its self in the foot.
4. You are basing all your moaning on the fact that you b believe these units won’t be legal soon. Ignoring that they may be replaced with better versions with new rules. (Look at the warboss on the trike).
5. U are arguing that you cannot use your creativity to enjoy a wargaming hobby by saying you couldn’t even ask people to use home made rules/models. that’s just daft.
See not a straw man in sight. I do intend to build a gargant but the bit about the rules was just me being flippant to demonstrate how silly yours and others position was. Not arguing for the sake of it, arguing because I believe you are wrong and misrepresenting the facts.
Yeah and they all rest upon you trying to suggest that you cannot worry about something that is going to happen lol
point 3 is also just wrong, they still sell the models that have no rules, so yeah we should expect them to make new rules for them and no one is demanding them of anything.
Point 4 is just laughable, I don't even have to rebuke that; as is point 5.
You are the silly one, you are acting like a clown with the points you have made. 'We can do whatever we want, because we have that special thing called imagination, therefore there are no issues with 40k.
You don't like that Burna Boyz only have D3 hits, why not make them 100 hits, because we have the imagination to do so' lol Suggesting that we demand that GW make rules for models that don't exist, rather than models that have existed and have models is a strawman.
If you kitbash with a completely codex-standard target in mind then it will be playable for the foreseeable future.
But that's the whole point.
If my codex has very few options, then I'm stuck between kitbashes that are little more than weaponswaps, or else making elaborate conversions that will never see play.
happy_inquisitor wrote: I have a whole Kroot themed army with Kroot battlesuits, tanks and all sorts. When kitbashing those I had the standard Tau units in mind for rules purposes so my various Kroot kitbashes are Crisis/Broadside/Ghostkeel/Riptide battlesuits in the rules and should be pretty easy to identify as such by my opponents (they all have at least 50% donor parts from the model they are standing in as). Those models will be playable as-is for a long time, probably for the rest of my life. They may be horribly sub-optimal in some future version of the game/codex (as some were especially in the Index period of 8th) but they will be playable.
With a whole codex to aim at i have a vast set of options.
With a whole codex to aim at, I *still* don't have a vast set of options.
Shall I run you through the options my HQs can take?
Spoiler:
Archon
- 4 Swords
- 2 Pistols (or a Blaster if you use the Index)
Succubus
- 5 melee weapons (some of which require both hands)
- 2 Pistols
Haemonculus
- 8 melee weapons (most of them useless)
- 3 Ranged weapons
TLR None of my HQs have even a single option that isn't just a weapon. And even the weapons are laid out in the most boring manner possible, such that I can't even run a 'gunslinger' Archon with 2 pistols anymore (however uncompetitive that might have been).
I do not feel the need to add options onto *rules* that do not exist.
Nope, you're right. It's far more fun to have basically no options whatsoever. Because why would I want the leader of my army to be remotely interesting or fun?
I already got left high and dry with my Eldar Corsairs kitbashes
You and me both.
happy_inquisitor wrote: so I have decided in future to aim my green-stuff modelling at current codex rules so that I will get a lot of years play out of the results.
Perhaps I should do the same. How could I possibly resist the thrill of exchanging one my my Archon's arms for a slightly different arm. The possibilities are just endless!
Andykp wrote: No not really. Read the rest of my post. I explain why I think you are moaning and I’ll spell it out her again.
1. You are complaining that units have lost options - they have not. Index options are legal.
2. You are complaining that factions have lost units - they have not, they are still legal to use.
3 you are demanding that GW continue to spend time and money updating rules for models they no longer make, which would a) discourage people buying newer models and b) prop up third party companies cashing in on their IP. U are criticising a company for not shooting its self in the foot.
4. You are basing all your moaning on the fact that you b believe these units won’t be legal soon. Ignoring that they may be replaced with better versions with new rules. (Look at the warboss on the trike).
5. U are arguing that you cannot use your creativity to enjoy a wargaming hobby by saying you couldn’t even ask people to use home made rules/models. that’s just daft.
See not a straw man in sight. I do intend to build a gargant but the bit about the rules was just me being flippant to demonstrate how silly yours and others position was. Not arguing for the sake of it, arguing because I believe you are wrong and misrepresenting the facts.
Yeah and they all rest upon you trying to suggest that you cannot worry about something that is going to happen lol
point 3 is also just wrong, they still sell the models that have no rules, so yeah we should expect them to make new rules for them and no one is demanding them of anything.
Point 4 is just laughable, I don't even have to rebuke that; as is point 5.
You are the silly one, you are acting like a clown with the points you have made. 'We can do whatever we want, because we have that special thing called imagination, therefore there are no issues with 40k.
You don't like that Burna Boyz only have D3 hits, why not make them 100 hits, because we have the imagination to do so' lol Suggesting that we demand that GW make rules for models that don't exist, rather than models that have existed and have models is a strawman.
Have gamesworkshop stated that index rules are going to scrapped anytime soon? I haven’t heard anything but am happy to be shown the statement where they say this. If they haven’t then all your moaning is based on speculation.
Point 4 is about the fact that they haven’t made a warboss on a bike model ever, the rules were there. Forgeworld did one. Now instead you have the wartrike filling the same role and having a subtle nod to the nobbikes of the good old days (first edition). New rules and pretty new model. Who is to say that warboss in mega armour or big mek on a bike of some sort isn’t in the offing. Also the old forgeworld model and your own conversions are still legal.
So even with out imagination you can still use a warboss on a bike. Or mega armour. So what are you so upset about? The prospect that you might not be able to? In the future? Maybe? That’s where imagination and creativity come in then. If you can’t use something and you want to then you can make up rules. I have done just that for my boar boyz. Much prefer that to counts as. Would I prefer GW to write the rules, maybe, they are better at it than me.
What models do they sell that have no rules?
As for burna boyz I might try some house rules for them but it wouldn’t be to make them super amazing, it would be a collaborative thing with my friends, as it should be. But I’m quite happy to use them as they are too.
You and others on here are saying that you can’t use this model or that option and it isn’t true today. So think me a clown if you like mate, I’m happy to stand behind my arguments and happy to play my index units, and as long as my opponent is happy to use our house rules then I will have squats and boar boyz and all sorts of lovely things on the table. Now I’m going to look for models on the gw site that don’t have rules, I’m intrigued to see what they are.
I'm not sure why you're in this thread being argumentative with Ork players Eldarsif.
Original input was someone bemoaning their loss as the only real loss. I added a cheeky comment that Drukhari would like to have a word with that individual in Commoragh. That in turn stated that Drukhari hadn't really lost much which of course meant the discussion had to evolve/devolve(depending on your stance and disposition in the discussion).
When I said Orks have been overall receiving more than losing I am talking about several editions. GW have overall rewarded Ork players more with new kits compared to most other factions. I mean, compare 37 results(on the GW website) of the Drukhari to the 58 of Orks. That's a 21 entry difference between Orks and Drukhari.
Now, if there ever was a part I might be argumentative it is that some people in the discussion(overall, not necessarily targeting anyone here) is the implication that kitbashing is only worthwhile if the unit is special or not. I feel like it cheapens the act of kitbashing, especially for those who go to great lengths to make very unimportant(and often bad) units both unique and beautiful. It is one of the reasons I like the idea of models being more 1-to-1 to their unit profile, as it allows for more options regarding kitbashing without worrying that you are breaking some WYSIWYG rule. That is however a personal preference.
Finally, index units still exist as far as I know. I am using index units for my Craftworld and Dark Angels and so far the phasing out of Index should - and probably will - only affect tournament goers when that happens. I feel like people need to accept the fact that modern GW is focusing a little bit more on tournaments than before as that is bringing in revenues through presence and indirect advertisement. There Orks have a leg up on Drukhari as Drukhari's unit losses were huge between 7th edition and 8th edition so we never had an index entry for many of the things we lost compared to Orks. Orks at least have the option even if it is Index only, Drukhari much less so.
Dark Eldar players should be more sympathetic
Surprisingly enough I do sympathize, but mostly with case where there existed a perfectly good model that was then phased out along with unit rules. Everything else is, and always will be, a certain risk as it enters the arena where copyright and third party are at play and gets removed one way or another throughout the editions. Perhaps the more appropriate term would be that I am jaded. Ever since 2nd edition I have seen models and such phased out due to availability/legal ramifications and I at this point expect it to be a part of the game.
To be honest, this highlights another thing I dislike - the inconsistency of how the 'no model, no rules' policy is applied. Some factions have lost options left, right and centre, and yet on the other hand we have Grey Knights being given a unit that never existed and is only possible via kitbashing.
I agree there. The haphazard way they approach their "no model, no rule" is very inconsistent. I definitely agree that if they are to enforce it it should be all or nothing.
When I said Orks have been overall receiving more than losing I am talking about several editions. GW have overall rewarded Ork players more with new kits compared to most other factions. I mean, compare 37 results(on the GW website) of the Drukhari to the 58 of Orks. That's a 21 entry difference between Orks and Drukhari.
Blame GW politics about expanded factions for that. They don't see drukhari as a faction anymore, they see the aeldari one. With CWE, harlequins and the new ynnari models.
The point is that someone who used to play dark eldar in 3rd-5th edition did lose several units but also gained tons of new stuff, just available from different books and 100% legal. So just like an ork player did get the chance to expand his army with the 2014-2018 releases at the same time even the dark eldar player got the same possibility, and actually he gained even more options overall. Not by adding new kits (barring the ynnari guys) but adding already existing kits that weren't part of the faction before.
I'm not saying this is a good thing, I despise soups, but that's how GW see 40k since 5 years at least.
If you kitbash with a completely codex-standard target in mind then it will be playable for the foreseeable future.
But that's the whole point.
If my codex has very few options, then I'm stuck between kitbashes that are little more than weaponswaps, or else making elaborate conversions that will never see play.
Seems to me that is just a limitation you place on yourself. My conversions are pretty elaborate and see regular play. They had no issue with them at Warhammer World, although they did ask me to do a reference sheet for opponents so I mocked up something in Ordo Xenos style. Those conversions all end up with codex-standard rules and equipment, although for the most part they start out as a bunch of very different stuff in my bits box.
happy_inquisitor wrote: I have a whole Kroot themed army with Kroot battlesuits, tanks and all sorts. When kitbashing those I had the standard Tau units in mind for rules purposes so my various Kroot kitbashes are Crisis/Broadside/Ghostkeel/Riptide battlesuits in the rules and should be pretty easy to identify as such by my opponents (they all have at least 50% donor parts from the model they are standing in as). Those models will be playable as-is for a long time, probably for the rest of my life. They may be horribly sub-optimal in some future version of the game/codex (as some were especially in the Index period of 8th) but they will be playable.
With a whole codex to aim at i have a vast set of options.
With a whole codex to aim at, I *still* don't have a vast set of options.
Shall I run you through the options my HQs can take?
Spoiler:
Archon
- 4 Swords
- 2 Pistols (or a Blaster if you use the Index)
Succubus
- 5 melee weapons (some of which require both hands)
- 2 Pistols
Haemonculus
- 8 melee weapons (most of them useless)
- 3 Ranged weapons
TLR None of my HQs have even a single option that isn't just a weapon. And even the weapons are laid out in the most boring manner possible, such that I can't even run a 'gunslinger' Archon with 2 pistols anymore (however uncompetitive that might have been).
Not a single unique item/relic available in the whole codex? My son plays DE and I am pretty sure there are quite a few.
Also he just uses all sorts of different models as a base so that one Archon does not have to look like another. He sticks to pointy-eared jerks because he likes them but if he pulls in the odd fantasy mini and kitbashes it up for 40K that is par for the course.
If you are modelling for the long term then considerations like a weapons being "useless" are short term at best as they rarely last over editions. They are probably not actually useless, just not completely optimal. But then you keep saying that the power of the resulting model is not an issue for you just that is it playable, do you mean that or are you just saying it while really hoping for super-optimal builds out of this?
I do not feel the need to add options onto *rules* that do not exist.
Nope, you're right. It's far more fun to have basically no options whatsoever. Because why would I want the leader of my army to be remotely interesting or fun?
I am not sure I see your point here. Are you saying that none of the HQ choice in your chosen codex are remotely interesting or fun? If so why are you choosing to play that codex?
You are genuinely confusing me here.
Pick a unit that is fun to play, find an interesting and fun way to model it. Fun all round.
Andykp wrote: No not really. Read the rest of my post. I explain why I think you are moaning and I’ll spell it out her again.
1. You are complaining that units have lost options - they have not. Index options are legal.
2. You are complaining that factions have lost units - they have not, they are still legal to use.
3 you are demanding that GW continue to spend time and money updating rules for models they no longer make, which would a) discourage people buying newer models and b) prop up third party companies cashing in on their IP. U are criticising a company for not shooting its self in the foot.
4. You are basing all your moaning on the fact that you b believe these units won’t be legal soon. Ignoring that they may be replaced with better versions with new rules. (Look at the warboss on the trike).
5. U are arguing that you cannot use your creativity to enjoy a wargaming hobby by saying you couldn’t even ask people to use home made rules/models. that’s just daft.
See not a straw man in sight. I do intend to build a gargant but the bit about the rules was just me being flippant to demonstrate how silly yours and others position was. Not arguing for the sake of it, arguing because I believe you are wrong and misrepresenting the facts.
Yeah and they all rest upon you trying to suggest that you cannot worry about something that is going to happen lol
point 3 is also just wrong, they still sell the models that have no rules, so yeah we should expect them to make new rules for them and no one is demanding them of anything.
Point 4 is just laughable, I don't even have to rebuke that; as is point 5.
You are the silly one, you are acting like a clown with the points you have made. 'We can do whatever we want, because we have that special thing called imagination, therefore there are no issues with 40k.
You don't like that Burna Boyz only have D3 hits, why not make them 100 hits, because we have the imagination to do so' lol Suggesting that we demand that GW make rules for models that don't exist, rather than models that have existed and have models is a strawman.
Have gamesworkshop stated that index rules are going to scrapped anytime soon? I haven’t heard anything but am happy to be shown the statement where they say this. If they haven’t then all your moaning is based on speculation.
Point 4 is about the fact that they haven’t made a warboss on a bike model ever, the rules were there. Forgeworld did one. Now instead you have the wartrike filling the same role and having a subtle nod to the nobbikes of the good old days (first edition). New rules and pretty new model. Who is to say that warboss in mega armour or big mek on a bike of some sort isn’t in the offing. Also the old forgeworld model and your own conversions are still legal.
So even with out imagination you can still use a warboss on a bike. Or mega armour. So what are you so upset about? The prospect that you might not be able to? In the future? Maybe? That’s where imagination and creativity come in then. If you can’t use something and you want to then you can make up rules. I have done just that for my boar boyz. Much prefer that to counts as. Would I prefer GW to write the rules, maybe, they are better at it than me.
What models do they sell that have no rules?
As for burna boyz I might try some house rules for them but it wouldn’t be to make them super amazing, it would be a collaborative thing with my friends, as it should be. But I’m quite happy to use them as they are too.
You and others on here are saying that you can’t use this model or that option and it isn’t true today. So think me a clown if you like mate, I’m happy to stand behind my arguments and happy to play my index units, and as long as my opponent is happy to use our house rules then I will have squats and boar boyz and all sorts of lovely things on the table. Now I’m going to look for models on the gw site that don’t have rules, I’m intrigued to see what they are.
Repeating your ridiculous argument doesn't make it any less ridiculous.
Seems to me that is just a limitation you place on yourself. My conversions are pretty elaborate and see regular play. They had no issue with them at Warhammer World, although they did ask me to do a reference sheet for opponents so I mocked up something in Ordo Xenos style. Those conversions all end up with codex-standard rules and equipment, although for the most part they start out as a bunch of very different stuff in my bits box.
You seem to be making contradictory statements here. You're saying that I should make some really elaborate conversions . . . so long as I stick to the handful of dull, samey options my codex allows.
Do you really not see anything incongruous about this?
Not a single unique item/relic available in the whole codex? My son plays DE and I am pretty sure there are quite a few.
We're including Relics as well are we? It seems we're really reaching to try and pretend that DEHQs have options.
But, yes, there are indeed relics. Mostly just more sodding weapons (because DE characters aren't allowed worthwhile weapons except as Relics, but that's a rant for another time).
However, even if I pretend that relics are the same as wargear, it still doesn't actually help with the problem I brought up.
Also he just uses all sorts of different models as a base so that one Archon does not have to look like another. He sticks to pointy-eared jerks because he likes them but if he pulls in the odd fantasy mini and kitbashes it up for 40K that is par for the course.
Because, shocking as this revalation may be, I bought into Dark Eldar when they were fun and interesting. Back when our HQs were actually allowed options. And before about half the units in the codex was deleted from existence.
As for why I continue to play, because I like the models and the playstyle. And I'm also stupid enough to think that, one day, GW might allow someone to write the book who doesn't have a screwdriver lodged in his skull.
And once again you have baffled me. You keep contradicting yourself again and again. Am I supposed to be modelling a ""fun"" DEHQ based solely on the options it actually has, or am I supposed to just be converting a model to serve as an HQ, based on the aesthetics I actually enjoy?
Because, as I keep explaining, the two are not the same and will not produce the same results.
I mean, would it help if I gave some examples to try and explain my point?
Seems to me that is just a limitation you place on yourself. My conversions are pretty elaborate and see regular play. They had no issue with them at Warhammer World, although they did ask me to do a reference sheet for opponents so I mocked up something in Ordo Xenos style. Those conversions all end up with codex-standard rules and equipment, although for the most part they start out as a bunch of very different stuff in my bits box.
You seem to be making contradictory statements here. You're saying that I should make some really elaborate conversions . . . so long as I stick to the handful of dully, samey options my codex allows.
Do you really not see anything incongruous about this?
Exactly. I've got back into 40k with Death Guard and the HQ options are really found wanting. I already posted ITT (I think) of my LoC with a massive bell that would be far more appropriate to be armed with a Thunder Hammer but is stuck with precisely two options. I converted two Chaos Lords on Palanquins. Both of these sit in the cabinet as they're index only so cannot even take DG options (No Balesword for you!). I feel like I've reached my limit in what I can convert for them and still be somewhat game legal. I've got loads of ideas floating around and can't really use them as the codex lacks the options.
I've got Plague furnace bits I want to put on a DP maybe. I just feel I can't as there is no option that looks like that. I was brought up on WYSIWYG and it's still ingrained.
Reading through this (and being an Ork player/collector since 3rd edition), I am really struck by the question of "Why doesn't GW just overtly have a tournament mode?"
The Looted Wagons in Chapter Approved, for example, only have Power level, and no points values, which arguably means that they can't be used in matched play (although I have never understood why you can't match power levels instead of points, but I digress).
Why not just provide power levels for older models, weapons variants, wargear variants, etc., but not points values---and overtly tell people that 'tournament play' (or whatever you want to call it)will use points values?
This would mean that 'tournaments' would use a smaller selection of basically current models, and basically current rules, that newer players would be familiar with, and power-level play (whatever you wanted to call it) could include loads of older models, different wargear combinations, and other cool things (experimental rules for models, etc.)
Magic tournaments do something like this all the time. Tournaments are restricted to certain sets of releases, while other tournaments allow older cards, and it doesn't seem to bother anyone.
I can certainly understand GW wanting to keep the game accessible and understandable to new players, and not presenting them with options that they can't easily purchase definitely fits in that plan, but putting out power level rules for legacy models and legacy wargear/weapons/options would keep those things playable for gamers, while keeping them distinct from the 'core game'.
Sure, it would prevent us from using some of our models in certain tournaments (whatever you want to call points-based ones), but it would enable you to use them in any sorts of game which used power levels, whether those were a tournament variant or something else, all without requiring some sort of negotiation with your opponents at the game, as power levels and rules would be codified, just without points values).
I totally get the frustration. I have Warboss on Bike, Mek on Bike, Doc on Bike, all sorts of Ork variations that were legal at one point and have dropped off the map. It's frustrating in particular because some of the combinations are very clearly X with Y, when X can't take Y any longer, but Z can still take Y. At that point, the previously legal model becomes more of a confusion for others than a fun conversion.
Breng77 wrote: You do realize more options makes WYSIWYG much more arduous right?
More options doesn't make WYSIWYG arduous- fewer options in combination with wargear-specific rules makes WYSIWYG arduous. If power swords and power axes are treated differently under the rules, but I only have the option to take a power sword, then a model with a power axe is non-WYSIWYG.
If I have the option to freely take a chainsword, power sword, power axe, lightning claws, etc, then I can count the power axe as a power axe and it's WYSIWYG.
If all of those weapons are genericized to 'Close Combat Weapon', then I can count the power axe as a CCW and it's WYSIWYG.
I'd be perfectly happy if GW went in either direction, it's the current halfway point that's awkward.
It does make it more arduous unless:
1.) You don’t care about performance on the table top. If axes are better than swords, then you won’t want to conver cool swords etc if that matters to you.
2.) All possible option you might want actually have rules. If you have power axes, swords, etc. But want to model a guy with a power whip or something the extra rules are still an annoyance.
I will concede we’re we are now is pretty bad, but less options makes conversions easier than more options does.
Blackie wrote: At the moment the ork codex only has two types of big mek: the one with SAG and the one in megarmor. Now a footslogging dude with KFF is too different to be one of those without calling a full proxy, as the dude clearly doesn't have any big gun or heavy armor on him, and the footslogging big mek with KFF was an official monopose model and an extremely popular unit on the table, not something done by crazy kitbashing.
I did not know that part. Is the model really so lacking in armor that it wouldn't be at all reasonable for the heavy armor version? There is no generic big mek that has the option to take neither upgrade? If that's the case then yeah, it's a rules failure and GW needs to either reintroduce a mek option that makes the KFF model a reasonable representation of something or consolidate all big mek rules into a single unit so it doesn't matter which of the three models you use. You can't have a situation where two of the three have separate rules but the third is WYSIWYG for neither of them.
This guy. Not particularly usable as either IMO.
This (from a few pages back) is a good example of a reasonable frustration. This model clearly has a KFF. The KFF is a current option, but not on a model without Mega-Armor. Players know what KFFs look like, and they know what Mega-Armor looks like. Using this official GW model as a count-as (let's say the KFF also counts-as Mega-Armor) is confusing.
Rather than being confusing, or banning the model from any sort of non-negotiated, pick-up gaming, why not have a Power Level for this option? It won't show up in 'Points Tournaments', but it becomes an accurately modeled, reasonable option for any power level game.
Alternatively, why not just keep the rules for that model in the codex?
GW could even add a Conversion Guide in the codex, if they felt so inclined, showing players how to convert an appropriate HQ out of parts from other kits.
This way:
- Anyone who owns that model (or who finds it on ebay or such down the line) is happy.
- Anyone who enjoys kitbashing is happy.
- Any new players who want to try their hand at kitbashing have a guide to follow.
- GW gets to sell more kits to make those models.
- New players who don't want to kitbash can just use the 'ready-made' HQs instead.
Del, just calling my argument ridiculous and giving absolutely no counter argument or any points to back up your position is a bit weak really. It’s almost like you have no valid counter.
I agree on the tournament mode for 40k. I’ve been saying that since 8th came in.
As for the mek with the kff, why not just use the index rules?
As for the mek with the kff, why not just use the index rules?
I know you disagree here, but you want an answer so whatever...
I believe the Index model rules are on borrowed time. Right now, I'm not getting a lot of games of 8th in (not due to a lack of trying, but I digress...) and have to take what I can get. The safe route for that is codex. In this hobby in PUGs you meet a whole host of people who have crazy concepts about what is "legal" or not in 40k. I've lived through special characters, FW, WD lists and everything in between. I'd rather not go through the rigmarole of whether someone thinks part of my list is not legal and just get on with the game.
If I'm playing a game against a regular opponent (hey Grimtuff, remember them?) then I'll use Index units as we all know where we stand with games.
Well that’s very sad that the hobby has gone that way. GW are really trying to encourage the more casual way of approaching the hobby. Narrative books, campaign generating rules, character creations tools and the urban conflict box. Gamesworkshop couldn’t make it more clear what rules to use for old models and that they are all still legal in all three game styles. It strikes me that they have a reasonable business reason for not updating these rules but are making every effort to make it clear they are currently still legal. In an ideal world it would be different but they have business to run. They have improved since earlier editions where models and whole factions were invalidated over night.
The way the player base seems to behave nowadays , online and apparently in gaming groups, makes me wonder how any new players are attracted to the hobby.
Not by adding new kits (barring the ynnari guys) but adding already existing kits that weren't part of the faction before.
I'm not saying this is a good thing, I despise soups, but that's how GW see 40k since 5 years at least.
That may very well be true, and I am both excited and afraid for when that becomes more solidified. Brave new world and all that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Andykp wrote: Well that’s very sad that the hobby has gone that way. GW are really trying to encourage the more casual way of approaching the hobby. Narrative books, campaign generating rules, character creations tools and the urban conflict box. Gamesworkshop couldn’t make it more clear what rules to use for old models and that they are all still legal in all three game styles. It strikes me that they have a reasonable business reason for not updating these rules but are making every effort to make it clear they are currently still legal. In an ideal world it would be different but they have business to run. They have improved since earlier editions where models and whole factions were invalidated over night.
The way the player base seems to behave nowadays , online and apparently in gaming groups, makes me wonder how any new players are attracted to the hobby.
I am personally of the opinion that GW is trying to become more tourney friendly/focused which is why they want more focused role units and so on. Big matches, online streaming, and all that. Much like digital games it is all about E/T-Sports these days.
Andykp wrote: Del, just calling my argument ridiculous and giving absolutely no counter argument or any points to back up your position is a bit weak really. It’s almost like you have no valid counter.
I agree on the tournament mode for 40k. I’ve been saying that since 8th came in.
As for the mek with the kff, why not just use the index rules?
There is no point in arguing with you that's why. If you can't see how ridiculous you are being then I'm not going to bother. Trying to explain and justify your argument to everyone else just proves it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Andykp wrote: Well that’s very sad that the hobby has gone that way. GW are really trying to encourage the more casual way of approaching the hobby. Narrative books, campaign generating rules, character creations tools and the urban conflict box. Gamesworkshop couldn’t make it more clear what rules to use for old models and that they are all still legal in all three game styles. It strikes me that they have a reasonable business reason for not updating these rules but are making every effort to make it clear they are currently still legal. In an ideal world it would be different but they have business to run. They have improved since earlier editions where models and whole factions were invalidated over night.
The way the player base seems to behave nowadays , online and apparently in gaming groups, makes me wonder how any new players are attracted to the hobby.
GW made it very clear that old marines aren't going anywhere and then Calgar became Primaris. When people started saying that if current characters become Primaris they'll do away with old marines, then GW didn't say another word for years about current marines going Primaris, then out of nowhere Calgar becomes Primaris. They are a company, they will do and say whatever makes them money.
point 3 is also just wrong, they still sell the models that have no rules, so yeah we should expect them to make new rules for them and no one is demanding them of anything.
I am curious which models these are. If they are truly selling models on the Games Workshop website that have no corresponding unit entry then that is a strange oversight on GW's part.
On a semi-related/unrelated note(and no connectionwith the quote above). I am still perplexed that GW has never properly assembled a kit for the Deffkoptas that came in the 5th edition starter. Really liked those kits and sad to see them relegated to some Revell line at best.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
They are a company, they will do and say whatever makes them money.
That goes without saying. It is the nature of the capitalist machine.
Andykp wrote: Well that’s very sad that the hobby has gone that way. GW are really trying to encourage the more casual way of approaching the hobby. Narrative books, campaign generating rules, character creations tools and the urban conflict box. Gamesworkshop couldn’t make it more clear what rules to use for old models and that they are all still legal in all three game styles. It strikes me that they have a reasonable business reason for not updating these rules but are making every effort to make it clear they are currently still legal. In an ideal world it would be different but they have business to run. They have improved since earlier editions where models and whole factions were invalidated over night.
The way the player base seems to behave nowadays , online and apparently in gaming groups, makes me wonder how any new players are attracted to the hobby.
The thing is what GW wants to give people isn't what people may want from the game. Just look at the Starwars frenchise, bigger then w40k, am sure The Mouse wanted it to sell ton of tickets, toys and collectables. I have no doubt that non at the studios wanted to sabotage the movies or make the fans feel bad, and not spend money. But what they gave people, starting with cuting of the extended universe and culminating in Solo and Last Jedi, had an opposite effect on the fandom.
There is nothing wrong in GW designers like of narrative games, as long as it is not forced on the majority of people who seem to not be interested in playing without points, and with rules more loose then a 7year olds front teeth. Mr Johnson can play his historicals, design open and narrative rule sets. He seems to like those things. But he should remember that the way he likes to play w40k, is not the way people like to play w40k. I also agree with you, partily, about the new player problem. The rule set and its quality are at the core of it. Sure there maybe some small minority of painters, who will buy this or that models to paint. But they do not buy whole armies, specially when they start. And it is hard to get new players in to w40k. It is not even the premium cost of w40k armies, comparing to other games. w40k is popular enough to be the first pick of new players anyway. The problem is the initial expiriance a new player gets. Unless a vet makes a list for him, or he copies one from the net, the new player is in for a cassino run, with really money being at stacke. Some armies have a ton of trap choices, some whole armies are trap choices. Others come with so many ifs to have fun games, you can play them in very specific local metas .
Armies should all be good, and all be worth playings, and if not all then most units should be something a faction player wants to buy, if off faction players want to buy them too it should be a bonus. The game shouldn't be start with IG+castellan then fill rest with army of your choice, if your imperial. Builds and armies that cost 600$+ shouldn't be killed off with single FAQs or errata, specially when GW themselfs sifoned people in to picking up those choices in the first place. Switch of edition, am ok with, there should be a big hakes up. But stuff like first making a jump pack codex and then nerfint it in to the ground a few months later, and mostly because of synergies with later books, should not be happening. this is not a company that works out of someones basement. And the w40k armies aren't 80$ games.
point 3 is also just wrong, they still sell the models that have no rules, so yeah we should expect them to make new rules for them and no one is demanding them of anything.
I am curious which models these are. If they are truly selling models on the Games Workshop website that have no corresponding unit entry then that is a strange oversight on GW's part.
On a semi-related/unrelated note(and no connectionwith the quote above). I am still perplexed that GW has never properly assembled a kit for the Deffkoptas that came in the 5th edition starter. Really liked those kits and sad to see them relegated to some Revell line at best.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
They are a company, they will do and say whatever makes them money.
That goes without saying. It is the nature of the capitalist machine.
point 3 is also just wrong, they still sell the models that have no rules, so yeah we should expect them to make new rules for them and no one is demanding them of anything.
I am curious which models these are. If they are truly selling models on the Games Workshop website that have no corresponding unit entry then that is a strange oversight on GW's part.
On a semi-related/unrelated note(and no connectionwith the quote above). I am still perplexed that GW has never properly assembled a kit for the Deffkoptas that came in the 5th edition starter. Really liked those kits and sad to see them relegated to some Revell line at best.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
They are a company, they will do and say whatever makes them money.
That goes without saying. It is the nature of the capitalist machine.
I thought it went without saying, but...
Still not showing us these models with no rules?
As for the newbies first experience of the game being bad because they can’t bring a competitive list, if the existing players are power gaming against a new player trying it out it’s not the rules that’s the problem. It’s the existing player base. I still believe the competitive seven is highly toxic for the game and have seen nothing to dissuade me from that opinion. But it’s easy fixed by separating the two different games. That way both sides would benefit.
GW is trying to appeal to both camps of "casual" vs "competitive" with the rules.
They need to control the overall "kit" used in a unit to come up with a reasonable points value to make some passing effort to limit the capabilities of the unit for competitive play.
We are seeing the looted wagons in Chapter Approved so that the converting and casual crowd can still field Ork crazy inventions and let all the add-ons fall under the power level points.
My friend is a die-hard Ork player and we figured out a point value for looted vehicles to keep it "fair" and kept playing.
Just do not expect to play a pickup game using points and expect to use a looted vehicle.
I understand the draw of Orks for customization, you still can, it just needs to have weapons number the allotted amount despite their inability to count.
Ever since the Chapterhouse legal matter GW has religiously followed the rule of "No model, no rules." the main fear being that the law is behind whomever has a physical product so it can be a scary thing if a knock-off model company gets a model out first.
Ever since the Chapterhouse legal matter GW has religiously followed the rule of "No model, no rules." the main fear being that the law is behind whomever has a physical product so it can be a scary thing if a knock-off model company gets a model out first.
If that was true, that No Model No rule was religiously followed by GW I wouldn't be pissed at all. Instead we get SMHQs with all sort of weapons and loadout that are available only by kitbashing, and rhinos with the option of taking 2 storm bolters while the kit just come with one. So why SM are entitled to customize their army even with bitz that are not included in the original kits and orks can't? Why HQs with jump packs still exist while biker ones don't?
Cause SM fans can scream louder as there are more of them and most of those options have had some kind of official representation in the past (we know what a jumppack and a bike look like.
Also GW is bad at following a single direction completely to it's end.
point 3 is also just wrong, they still sell the models that have no rules, so yeah we should expect them to make new rules for them and no one is demanding them of anything.
I am curious which models these are. If they are truly selling models on the Games Workshop website that have no corresponding unit entry then that is a strange oversight on GW's part.
On a semi-related/unrelated note(and no connectionwith the quote above). I am still perplexed that GW has never properly assembled a kit for the Deffkoptas that came in the 5th edition starter. Really liked those kits and sad to see them relegated to some Revell line at best.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
They are a company, they will do and say whatever makes them money.
That goes without saying. It is the nature of the capitalist machine.
I thought it went without saying, but...
Still not showing us these models with no rules?
As for the newbies first experience of the game being bad because they can’t bring a competitive list, if the existing players are power gaming against a new player trying it out it’s not the rules that’s the problem. It’s the existing player base. I still believe the competitive seven is highly toxic for the game and have seen nothing to dissuade me from that opinion. But it’s easy fixed by separating the two different games. That way both sides would benefit.
I don't need to. They left them out of the codex, I'm not trying to be a dick here, but I mean honestly, you seriously can't be that obtuse, I think you are just being stubborn and clinging on to 'we still have the index, they could keep the index forever' to justify your argument. Listen to what you are saying.
We're including Relics as well are we? It seems we're really reaching to try and pretend that DEHQs have options.
Succubi do
Glaive is ok.
Blood Glaive is really good.
Shardnet and Impailer is good
Hydra Guantlets or Razorflails can be built into a pretty good Succubus depending on WL trait, cult, drug, etc.
Archons not really. Basically "do you have 17 points to add a BS 2 blaster?"
My only real complaint with DE is that their transports don't fit a squad + a character. Having to take an extra transport or two just for characters is lame.
Automatically Appended Next Post: No model no rule usually doesn't apply to options. Only models themselves(granted it's still not 100% followed).
Units I can think of that have options not in the kit:
Archon
Succubus
Haemonculus
Farseer
Warlock
Autarch
All Space Marine HQs except named characters
Crisis Commanders
Ethereals
Basically every monopose character ever made and some of the non monopose ones
Non Characters
Crisis Suits
Hell, all Tau suits
All Eldar vehicles
Most Guard vehicles
etc
Just what I can think of off the top of my head. There are tons of units that don't come with bits for all their options and that doesn't stop them from being in the codex.
Edit:
I'm also seeing a lot of people saying "I spent years kitbashing X unit and now it's index only and will probably get removed"
I understand that feeling, and would feel it somewhat myself if I was in that situation too. However if you have a really old army and you just want to keep playing your really old models then GW doesnt' care about you at all. They care about selling new models. New models to new players and new models to old players. They're going to phase out some old models, esp ones that were only metal or had no GW model, and sell new ones to everyone. That's why the war trike exists. GW doesn't make an official bike, they don't have one copyrighted, and basically everyone who played orks for a long time built their own. Of course they're going to phase out something they don't sell a model for and make a new, copyrightable model that fills a similar role instead of finally releasing a less-copyrightable model for something 90% of old ork players made their own a decade ago.
There's no money in catering to the models people already have. It sucks for everyone with index only stuff but it's the way the game is going to be because it's good business. The profit they made this past year proves they know what they're doing.
Glaive is ok. It's literally an inferior Power Fist.
Blood Glaive is really good. Frankly, I find it depressing that a Dark Eldar melee HQ is forced to take an artefact just to get an actual Power Fist.
Shardnet and Impailer is good It's situational but can be useful.
Hydra Guantlets or Razorflails can be built into a pretty good Succubus depending on WL trait, cult, drug, etc. Hydra Gauntlets can. Not sure about Razorflails.
Archons not really. Basically "do you have 17 points to add a BS 2 blaster?" Which is also an Index option, so who knows how long that will be around.
My only real complaint with DE is that their transports don't fit a squad + a character. Having to take an extra transport or two just for characters is lame.
My complaint is that every non-weapon piece of wargear has been removed. The Soul Trap is basically gone (no, I don't count the stratagem because you can't model a stratagem), the option to choose between a Shadowfield and a Clone Field is gone. And, of course, the option to give them a Skyboard or Jetbike is long gone.
I had forgotten that the Archon blaster was index only. So yeh that sucks.
Glaives/Blood Glaive - Wyches aren't supposed to be hard hitters. They're infantry killers and attrition fighters. They force infantry to stay in melee with them, hold them with a net, and clean them up while surviving with their 4++ save. I wouldn't expect a Succubus to have a thunder hammer.
Shardnet and Impailer for a Succubus is a decent character hunter. Hold them them with the net and a 3++ save and stick them with a D2 weapon. Not amazing but not bad.
Razorflails I think can be ok if you build a specific Succ for it. The WL trait that gets exploding hits, STR boosts, etc. It's definitely not a good general weapon for a Succ.
I don't really miss the old codex options like soul trap. They were kind of neat but I don't really care. I play DE for a really fast transport army with good firepower. The 2 wyches and 2 archons I take are, to me, a tax for a double battalion. They're hard to get into transports and are a little underwhelming. They have their uses but delivery can be a pain.
So, because I am such a nice person I decided to see if Delvarus was correct and after going through all the Ork models on the GW website they all have corresponding units in the codex. At best one could argue that Grukk's Boss Mob does not exist, but that was never a core unit in the line so I would not really count that as a strike against GW.
In short, my guess is that Delvarus is complaining that FW models do not have entries in the Ork Codex, but the problem there is that FW models have rarely - if ever - been part of Codexes.
So, because I am such a nice person I decided to see if Delvarus was correct and after going through all the Ork models on the GW website they all have corresponding units in the codex. At best one could argue that Grukk's Boss Mob does not exist, but that was never a core unit in the line so I would not really count that as a strike against GW.
In short, my guess is that Delvarus is complaining that FW models do not have entries in the Ork Codex, but the problem there is that FW models have rarely - if ever - been part of Codexes.
No it doesn't have anything to do with FW and I never said that or even once mentioned FW. Ork mega armour warbosses have no rules, the mega nobz kit has options to make a warboss, no mega armour now,but I assumed you'd be including converting so regardless of models we previously kitbashed models, which was what GW intended and now have no rules, its just as bad without having to have actual models. They have advertised converting they have given tutorials on how to kit bash etc. its just as bad. There are options that have made us convert or spend money on making and they are no longer there and are completely useless now, like Iron priests on TWC. Plus GW are going to strip down the game and make it just like every other boring game out there in the market. If you don't think that is a problem, them giving us options that have to be converted and taking them away rendering the things you bought useless, just for the failed attempt of bringing in new consumers, then you are being just as obtuse. They've done enough streamlining, the way they are going the game will be just as boring as GW competitors that can't compete with them.
So, because I am such a nice person I decided to see if Delvarus was correct and after going through all the Ork models on the GW website they all have corresponding units in the codex. At best one could argue that Grukk's Boss Mob does not exist, but that was never a core unit in the line so I would not really count that as a strike against GW.
In short, my guess is that Delvarus is complaining that FW models do not have entries in the Ork Codex, but the problem there is that FW models have rarely - if ever - been part of Codexes.
No it doesn't have anything to do with FW and I never said that or even once mentioned FW. There are options that have made us convert or spend money on making and they are no longer there and are completely useless now, like Iron priests on TWC. If you don't think that is a problem, them giving us options that have to be converted and taking them away rendering the things you bought useless, just for the failed attempt of bringing in new consumers, then you are being just as obtuse. They've done enough streamlining, the way they are going the game will be just as boring as GW competitors that can't compete with them.
Nothing about obtuse, just confused about our posts. At one point you said there are models on the GW website that are now not in the codex(I assumed the Ork codex). If you are referring to another codex and model then I would be happy to know which models those are.
If you are talking about models(actual models that had a 1-to-1 correspondence in the codices) that are no longer available - but used to be up until recently - then I state - as I have done repeatedly especially in regards to the Mek with the KFF - then I sympathize. However, it would have been best if that had been stated clearly in previous posts so we could have avoided any unnecessary banter. Now, you might accuse me - as well as others - of being obtuse, but at some point you have to realize that quite a few people are not reading your intent clearly which does imply that perhaps you could have approached your posts a bit differently. I do not say this to provoke, but to establish that this discourse could have been improved considerably with better intent and/or proper answers to people's questions.
So if I am to read you properly - and feel free to correct me - but your biggest issue is unit entry options that have disappeared and not actual models that had unit entries?
So, because I am such a nice person I decided to see if Delvarus was correct and after going through all the Ork models on the GW website they all have corresponding units in the codex. At best one could argue that Grukk's Boss Mob does not exist, but that was never a core unit in the line so I would not really count that as a strike against GW.
In short, my guess is that Delvarus is complaining that FW models do not have entries in the Ork Codex, but the problem there is that FW models have rarely - if ever - been part of Codexes.
No it doesn't have anything to do with FW and I never said that or even once mentioned FW. There are options that have made us convert or spend money on making and they are no longer there and are completely useless now, like Iron priests on TWC. If you don't think that is a problem, them giving us options that have to be converted and taking them away rendering the things you bought useless, just for the failed attempt of bringing in new consumers, then you are being just as obtuse. They've done enough streamlining, the way they are going the game will be just as boring as GW competitors that can't compete with them.
Nothing about obtuse, just confused about our posts. At one point you said there are models on the GW website that are now not in the codex(I assumed the Ork codex). If you are referring to another codex and model then I would be happy to know which models those are.
If you are talking about models(actual models that had a 1-to-1 correspondence in the codices) that are no longer available - but used to be up until recently - then I state - as I have done repeatedly especially in regards to the Mek with the KFF - then I sympathize. However, it would have been best if that had been stated clearly in previous posts so we could have avoided any unnecessary banter. Now, you might accuse me - as well as others - of being obtuse, but at some point you have to realize that quite a few people are not reading your intent clearly which does imply that perhaps you could have approached your posts a bit differently. I do not say this to provoke, but to establish that this discourse could have been improved considerably with better intent and/or proper answers to people's questions.
So if I am to read you properly - and feel free to correct me - but your biggest issue is unit entry options that have disappeared and not actual models that had unit entries?
I could have been clearer just ignore point 3 as there is confusing if you are only talking about the codex's, but my main point is that 'there is a problem' and anyone saying there isn't is being obtuse but seeing that you agree that there is still a problem than I take that back.
There are options that have made us convert or spend money on making and they are no longer there and are completely useless now, like Iron priests on TWC
.
Now I might be being obtuse here but you keep saying that things are completely useless as you said above. But here we have a useable and legal datasheet. Some players and tournaments might not like it but it’s useable. This is the misinformation you are spreading. As well as gamesworkshop doesn’t sell models it has no rules for. That is also not true. You can make a meganob and call it a warboss. It’s just a meganob really. There’s nothing specifically warboss about it. In fact it would be a tiny warboss.
And as I’m such I nice person I’ve looked on the gw site and on the interwebs and can’t find any statement saying the index units will be invalidated anytime soon.
So I may be obtuse but I am at least factually accurate. I accept some people won’t play using the index but that is hardly GWs fault.
Mm. I had a cursory look through the GW Webstore and [to my suprise] I couldn't actually find anything in any faction that doesn't have rules. Granted, it's a lot smaller than when I last looked, but everything up there does indeed appear to have its own data sheet for whatever it's worth.
[Disclaimer - I didn't go through every single unit with a fine tooth comb, just areasonable sample.]
There are options that have made us convert or spend money on making and they are no longer there and are completely useless now, like Iron priests on TWC
.
Now I might be being obtuse here but you keep saying that things are completely useless as you said above. But here we have a useable and legal datasheet. Some players and tournaments might not like it but it’s useable. This is the misinformation you are spreading. As well as gamesworkshop doesn’t sell models it has no rules for. That is also not true. You can make a meganob and call it a warboss. It’s just a meganob really. There’s nothing specifically warboss about it. In fact it would be a tiny warboss.
And as I’m such I nice person I’ve looked on the gw site and on the interwebs and can’t find any statement saying the index units will be invalidated anytime soon.
So I may be obtuse but I am at least factually accurate. I accept some people won’t play using the index but that is hardly GWs fault.
Yeah because they will be useless. They are going to go the way of the dodo and you saying they aren't is you being obtuse. They sell models that are no longer going to have rules I mean seriously, you can only justify your argument over semantics. You aren't factually accurate, the rules are not in the codex, what does that mean to you. To you it means 'they might keep the codex's forever' which is absurd to suggest or 'They'll make models for them in the future' which is just as absurd. From this point on, my argument is based on them not making models for these units or keeping the indexes, so stop being semantic over the comments I make and assume they are regarding that fact.
As for the mega nob, its not just a mega nob they have parts just like in the nob set that are designed to use for warbosses and GW have always worked with that understanding and you know it. GW have models/kitbashed warbosses and the like in their own codex army display pics and white dwarf etc. But regardless even if they don't they are still doing away with rules that we have bought kits to make for and in some cases bought multiple kits to make these models.
Glaives/Blood Glaive - Wyches aren't supposed to be hard hitters. They're infantry killers and attrition fighters. They force infantry to stay in melee with them, hold them with a net, and clean them up while surviving with their 4++ save. I wouldn't expect a Succubus to have a thunder hammer.
So why do Glaives need a -1 to hit at all?
It literally just makes them terribad Power Fists.
Also, if Succubi are supposed to be infantry-killers, why do they have the fewest attacks of any of our HQs?
Shardnet and Impailer for a Succubus is a decent character hunter. Hold them them with the net and a 3++ save and stick them with a D2 weapon. Not amazing but not bad.
A D2 weapon with S3 and AP-1. Most characters are going to punch the weakling Succubus to oblivion - 3++ or not - long before they fall to her worthless Impailer.
Razorflails I think can be ok if you build a specific Succ for it. The WL trait that gets exploding hits, STR boosts, etc. It's definitely not a good general weapon for a Succ.
But if you're going that route, you might as well just give her the Agoniser artefact.
One thing that really makes me sad is that you can't have Hydra Gauntlets and a Pistol. I'd really love to have Hydra Gauntlets, the Warlord Trait that does Mortal Wounds on 6s to wound, and the relic pistol.
I don't really miss the old codex options like soul trap.
Fine. But I do.
cmspano wrote: They were kind of neat but I don't really care. I play DE for a really fast transport army with good firepower.
Here's the thing - you always had the option to not take those items. I now have no option to still take them.
You lose nothing by those wargear options remaining in the codex. I (along with anyone else who liked them) do lose when they're removed.
cmspano wrote: The 2 wyches and 2 archons I take are, to me, a tax for a double battalion. They're hard to get into transports and are a little underwhelming. They have their uses but delivery can be a pain.
See, this is another point - I'd really like HQs that are actually worth taking on their own merits. I don't want DEHQ choices to keep being absolute garbage in every edition.
There are options that have made us convert or spend money on making and they are no longer there and are completely useless now, like Iron priests on TWC
.
Now I might be being obtuse here but you keep saying that things are completely useless as you said above. But here we have a useable and legal datasheet. Some players and tournaments might not like it but it’s useable. This is the misinformation you are spreading. As well as gamesworkshop doesn’t sell models it has no rules for. That is also not true. You can make a meganob and call it a warboss. It’s just a meganob really. There’s nothing specifically warboss about it. In fact it would be a tiny warboss.
And as I’m such I nice person I’ve looked on the gw site and on the interwebs and can’t find any statement saying the index units will be invalidated anytime soon.
So I may be obtuse but I am at least factually accurate. I accept some people won’t play using the index but that is hardly GWs fault.
Yeah because they will be useless. They are going to go the way of the dodo and you saying they aren't is you being obtuse. They sell models that are no longer going to have rules I mean seriously, you can only justify your argument over semantics. You aren't factually accurate, the rules are not in the codex, what does that mean to you. To you it means 'they might keep the codex's forever' which is absurd to suggest or 'They'll make models for them in the future' which is just as absurd. From this point on, my argument is based on them not making models for these units or keeping the indexes, so stop being semantic over the comments I make and assume they are regarding that fact.
As for the mega nob, its not just a mega nob they have parts just like in the nob set that are designed to use for warbosses and GW have always worked with that understanding and you know it. GW have models/kitbashed warbosses and the like in their own codex army display pics and white dwarf etc. But regardless even if they don't they are still doing away with rules that we have bought kits to make for and in some cases bought multiple kits to make these models.
You have claimed that GW sell models with no rules, untrue.
You claimed models with rules were useless. Untrue.
I never claimed that the indexes were here forever, you just said that they are “definitely” going based on suspicion alone.
As it happens I think at some point the indexes will become useless, probably if and when a new edition comes out. Until then they will keep saying to just use those rules in the index. Back to my original points, the ORK range is still as customisable and convertible as ever. It does seem that to okay with non codex models (index or converted/himebrew) then you are going to need a more casual group that is happy to play by non match play rules. I don’t really see how GW can do much more, they say clearly which rules are used in which games etc.
The new style of less options on kits is that. The new style. In the past we had metal models where you had to repeat the same models in a squad. Then the git the plastic kits that were monopose. Then the modular plastic kits, that were interchangeable but that created some ugly looking models, like marauders, now we move to one or two pose plastic kits that are prettier and more dynamic than the interchangeable kits. They still provide variety and poseabilty but less than before. It’s a trade off. And one that’s worth it. Compare the kairic acolytes to the marauders. I’m currently building a load more primaris marines, less interchangeable than other marines but with a bit of cutting and filling still easy to convert and kitbash.
There are options that have made us convert or spend money on making and they are no longer there and are completely useless now, like Iron priests on TWC
.
Now I might be being obtuse here but you keep saying that things are completely useless as you said above. But here we have a useable and legal datasheet. Some players and tournaments might not like it but it’s useable. This is the misinformation you are spreading. As well as gamesworkshop doesn’t sell models it has no rules for. That is also not true. You can make a meganob and call it a warboss. It’s just a meganob really. There’s nothing specifically warboss about it. In fact it would be a tiny warboss.
And as I’m such I nice person I’ve looked on the gw site and on the interwebs and can’t find any statement saying the index units will be invalidated anytime soon.
So I may be obtuse but I am at least factually accurate. I accept some people won’t play using the index but that is hardly GWs fault.
Yeah because they will be useless. They are going to go the way of the dodo and you saying they aren't is you being obtuse. They sell models that are no longer going to have rules I mean seriously, you can only justify your argument over semantics. You aren't factually accurate, the rules are not in the codex, what does that mean to you. To you it means 'they might keep the codex's forever' which is absurd to suggest or 'They'll make models for them in the future' which is just as absurd. From this point on, my argument is based on them not making models for these units or keeping the indexes, so stop being semantic over the comments I make and assume they are regarding that fact.
As for the mega nob, its not just a mega nob they have parts just like in the nob set that are designed to use for warbosses and GW have always worked with that understanding and you know it. GW have models/kitbashed warbosses and the like in their own codex army display pics and white dwarf etc. But regardless even if they don't they are still doing away with rules that we have bought kits to make for and in some cases bought multiple kits to make these models.
You have claimed that GW sell models with no rules, untrue.
You claimed models with rules were useless. Untrue.
I never claimed that the indexes were here forever, you just said that they are “definitely” going based on suspicion alone.
As it happens I think at some point the indexes will become useless, probably if and when a new edition comes out. Until then they will keep saying to just use those rules in the index. Back to my original points, the ORK range is still as customisable and convertible as ever. It does seem that to okay with non codex models (index or converted/himebrew) then you are going to need a more casual group that is happy to play by non match play rules. I don’t really see how GW can do much more, they say clearly which rules are used in which games etc.
The new style of less options on kits is that. The new style. In the past we had metal models where you had to repeat the same models in a squad. Then the git the plastic kits that were monopose. Then the modular plastic kits, that were interchangeable but that created some ugly looking models, like marauders, now we move to one or two pose plastic kits that are prettier and more dynamic than the interchangeable kits. They still provide variety and poseabilty but less than before. It’s a trade off. And one that’s worth it. Compare the kairic acolytes to the marauders. I’m currently building a load more primaris marines, less interchangeable than other marines but with a bit of cutting and filling still easy to convert and kitbash.
I claimed they 'will' be useless and already told you that, but keep repeating that I don't really care you can think that's what I said all you want.
If you don't think there is a problem you very much have implied that you think the indices are staying, why else would you say there isn't a problem or 'will never be' a problem.
"As it happens I think at some point the indexes will become useless, probably if and when a new edition comes out. " - exactly, so you are just arguing for the sake of arguing. If you could have said that earlier on, we wouldn't have wasted all this time.
As for the casual group, what if you can't find people that are willing to bend on the rules? What if all your friends are tight arses or overly competitive and won't bend.
This is the point. You said the models with index rules aren’t useable NOW. Your words not mine. That’s not true. If your group play by the rules then the indexes are fine as they are still legal. You are that one making definite statements that are guess at best or lies at worst. About iron priest for example. “completely useless NOW”. Not true. So you are moaning about GW not addressing an issue that is created by the players. You apparently being as guilty as the rest. So I don’t think there’s a problem because the rules says it’s ok and GW haven’t said they plan on changing those rules anytime soon.
I have said that as it stands all the units are still playable legally. We don’t know for sure when or if they are going. I think for the duration of 8th they are here to stay. So no I don’t think there is a problem. Like I say I only play open and narrative style, prob some where between the two.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And if you can’t find people who are willing to use index rules or even on occasion homemade rules, look for new people or maybe look at why nice open minded people don’t want to be friends with you.
Andykp wrote: This is the point. You said the models with index rules aren’t useable NOW. Your words not mine. That’s not true. If your group play by the rules then the indexes are fine as they are still legal. You are that one making definite statements that are guess at best or lies at worst. About iron priest for example. “completely useless NOW”. Not true. So you are moaning about GW not addressing an issue that is created by the players. You apparently being as guilty as the rest. So I don’t think there’s a problem because the rules says it’s ok and GW haven’t said they plan on changing those rules anytime soon.
I have said that as it stands all the units are still playable legally. We don’t know for sure when or if they are going. I think for the duration of 8th they are here to stay. So no I don’t think there is a problem. Like I say I only play open and narrative style, prob some where between the two.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And if you can’t find people who are willing to use index rules or even on occasion homemade rules, look for new people or maybe look at why nice open minded people don’t want to be friends with you.
Are completely useless now, as in from this point on we know they will no longer be in the codex. I normally debate with people that assume that 'that's what they are talking about' that have the ability to think past the text on the screen, never talked to someone where you have to be completely literal. you're a clown mate, I'm not even going bother, just keep repeating things I'm not gonna reply.
Andykp wrote: Not kidding. Interested to see if could defended your position. Again you refuse to which suggests it is flawed. Not a leg to stand on.
Defend what, how can you defend anything when you ignore every point that has been made. Again its useless NOW as in from the point of the codex we understand that it is USELESS because in the future there won't have any rules. This is ridiculous now I mean are you just messing with me?
Useless means with out any uses. Now tends to mean now, as in not in the future or past, but the present. As in, now.
So if by useless now, you actually meant useless some time in the future possibly or can be used now but isn’t in one particular book but is still legal now then that’s ok. It’s not really English but it’s ok.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And yes, a little bit. But my point still stands.
Delvarus, nobody is ignoring any point you have made.
You just didn't make any point, at all.
Your base claims are unbased future speculation at best, while some are outright false. Any "conclusion" you draw from such failed assumptions doesn't even need to be addressed as it is not anchored in reality.
Camkierhi wrote: GW don't want you to be creative, they want you to buy their kits, and their kits only. The Orks where created in a time of wonder when the developers liked creativity, indeed regularly encouraged scratch building, but now they are a liability. I honestly believe they would drop them if they could.
I take you never bothered to watch WC youtube channel? You know, the one full of conversion videos? That often encourages 'illegal' units or builds solely because they are creative?
Mind if I ask why they are doing that if they hate creativity like you said?
HoundsofDemos wrote: Compare the level of bitz and variety between regular marines and the new kits they produced now.
You mean, like a tactical marine can take bolter, bolter, or even bolter?
I'll take primaris with their multiple poses and multiple options on every single guy over tacticals coming with squat, squat, or squat (and above-mentioned bolter) any day. Really, all primaris need is giving their sarge access to sarge weapon options (and maybe new melta/flamer squad) to make old kits look completely obsolete in comparison...
As for the mega nob, its not just a mega nob they have parts just like in the nob set that are designed to use for warbosses and GW have always worked with that understanding and you know it. GW have models/kitbashed warbosses and the like in their own codex army display pics and white dwarf etc. But regardless even if they don't they are still doing away with rules that we have bought kits to make for and in some cases bought multiple kits to make these models.
There are no Warboss specific parts in the Meganob kit Sprues include
3 Power klaws
6 Kill sawz
Various kombi options
a KMB for the big mek
KFF for the big mek
a tellyporta gun for the big mek
a grot oiler
various bitz to add character
None of these are warboss specific options, they are options a warboss can take, but at that point it is just counting a mega nob as a mega boss. There are no instructions in the package for building said boss either.
The point remains that GW is only producing rules for models that can be built using bits from a single kit and leaving the rest for the index at this time. Those may go away at some point. IT stinks from the stand point of a long time player who owns those models. It is good practice for selling the game going forward, to new people because it is frustrating to need to buy 3 different kits to create an option in your codex.
On the other hand being forced to buy a 10man strike squad just to be able to play an escalation league, is just as bad as being forced to buy 2 single model kits. The whole GK line is bogus though. No HQs other then specials and a walker, that doesn't have the designation of being an HQ on the box. One HQ is resin the other one is the big 3 box. there is no model for librarians, chapters masters, champions, ancients etc And maybe that is way GW also makes those options not worth taking. I do sympitize with people that have important list units or models hidden in index or FW, with a good chance of them being gone soon.
It is not though, the issue with needing multiple boxes is that a new player has no way to know they need to purchase those boxes. They look in the codex and see an option, then look for the kit needed and see no available kit, or see options for a squad only to buy the box and not have those options. GK are actually good on that front, their kits contain all the upgrades they have available.
Automatically Appended Next Post: The issue with GK is they started as an army with inquisition supplementing their model line, then inquisition was removed but nothing was really added.
Shardnet and Impailer for a Succubus is a decent character hunter. Hold them them with the net and a 3++ save and stick them with a D2 weapon. Not amazing but not bad.
A D2 weapon with S3 and AP-1. Most characters are going to punch the weakling Succubus to oblivion - 3++ or not - long before they fall to her worthless Impailer.
-Well yeh, you don't take it as S3, you take it as S5. Cursed blade and combat drugs are +2 S
Razorflails I think can be ok if you build a specific Succ for it. The WL trait that gets exploding hits, STR boosts, etc. It's definitely not a good general weapon for a Succ.
But if you're going that route, you might as well just give her the Agoniser artefact.
-Cause when you're S5 you wound most characters on a 3+. Not a lot of characters that matter have a good armor save but no invul save, so the Agonizer's -3 AP doesn't matter so much.
cmspano wrote: They were kind of neat but I don't really care. I play DE for a really fast transport army with good firepower.
Here's the thing - you always had the option to not take those items. I now have no option to still take them.
You lose nothing by those wargear options remaining in the codex. I (along with anyone else who liked them) do lose when they're removed.
-That's true, if I had the power I would keep the options. I'm just saying I personally don't care. It would be nice to have them for those who do.
But this is the thing I never asked for Succubi to be dirt cheap. I don't see why they can't be more expensive but actually good in combat with access to meaningful weapons.
Alternatively, make the Glaive more expensive, but bring it up to Power Fist standards. That way anyone wanting a Cheap succubus can just swap out the Glaive for Wych weapons or such if they prefer.
cmspano wrote: -Well yeh, you don't take it as S3, you take it as S5. Cursed blade and combat drugs are +2 S
But if you do that then you're wasting one of the best combat drugs for Wych/Hellion squads on your HQ, and she's still a poor-man's duellist.
-Cause when you're S5 you wound most characters on a 3+.
I guess, but the opportunity cost to get her to that point seems excessive, to say the least.
cmspano wrote: Not a lot of characters that matter have a good armor save but no invul save, so the Agonizer's -3 AP doesn't matter so much.
Eh, I've seen quite a lot of characters with an armour save 2 better than their invulnerable save. (Also, minor correction - the Agoniser is only AP-2).
Regardless, even for a budget Succubus, I really don't see the appeal of Razorflails over the Hydra Gauntlets. You already hit on 2s rerolling 1s, so all you're getting is d3 extra attacks. Meanwhile, the Gauntlets have the same AP, give +1 attack and let you reroll all failed to-wound rolls. Even with the warlord trait that lets you generate extra attacks on 6s to hit, you're still only getting (on average) 1 extra base attack over the Gauntlets. Doesn't seem worth it to me.
Andykp wrote: Useless means with out any uses. Now tends to mean now, as in not in the future or past, but the present. As in, now.
So if by useless now, you actually meant useless some time in the future possibly or can be used now but isn’t in one particular book but is still legal now then that’s ok. It’s not really English but it’s ok.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And yes, a little bit. But my point still stands.
Anyways,
What makes everyone so sure the Indexes are going away? We were told the Indexes will exist so that people who have those models no longer supported in the official line can still play with them for ever.
Andykp wrote: Useless means with out any uses. Now tends to mean now, as in not in the future or past, but the present. As in, now.
So if by useless now, you actually meant useless some time in the future possibly or can be used now but isn’t in one particular book but is still legal now then that’s ok. It’s not really English but it’s ok.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And yes, a little bit. But my point still stands.
Anyways,
What makes everyone so sure the Indexes are going away? We were told the Indexes will exist so that people who have those models no longer supported in the official line can still play with them for ever.
Lack of further support in the form of:
Lack of updating rules on dattasheets for future editions/changes/faqs Lack of new models
Creep
These are things observable in both AOS and 40K already.
What makes everyone so sure the Indexes are going away? We were told the Indexes will exist so that people who have those models no longer supported in the official line can still play with them for ever.
My guess is that people are simply preparing themselves for the worst.
It's possible that Indexes will stick around forever . . . but if that's the case, then what exactly was the point of not just including those options in the codices? That way, GW wouldn't have had to release an entire flowchart to explain to people what options they can still take.
I fully expect Index's to vanish in time. Just like all the old options vanish with time.
Basically GW is aiming their current line at having 1 codex/battletome that has all the models for an army within it at the point of printing. A new gamer will pick that up and go with it and won't even consider the index because GW won't produce any model that isn't in the codex already.
New models will, of course, be added over time and will appear in revised codex and stand alone (AoS at least has the rules for all models in the box and we can expect GW to do the same for new 40K models released between codex editions).
The index are not even listed on the GW stores once a codex is released for an army. GW clearly intends to run down stock of them and chances are they will go off sale at some point, but might stick around as PDFs or the like.
From a gamer angle it makes sense that the index will go away; certainly I can see tournaments restricting them and banning them, esp as the game keeps evolving and the Index do not get updated to remain balanced nor enter into FAQ and other balance adjustments. That attitude will filter down into matched play and general play at most clubs.
Of course many people will still be happy for players to break out some "retro" or custom models for some fun games now and then; and some clubs which have a more casual attitude will favour this whilst those which don't won't. So there will be some variation within the community at the club level.
There will likely be more leniency for armies found only within Index/old versions of rules; so that might mean some of the specialist Imperial Guard sub-faction groups; however they might still wind up banned at competitive events, but you're more likely to get a causal game.
But ultimately the game will evolve as it always has and old stuff that is no longer supported will be retired. Now we MIGHT well see GW bring some back. Many Tyranid players were saddened at the loss of their special character Zoanthrope, however the Neurothrope was added and many are using their old character conversions as neurothropes. Other times GW might bring back a model in its entirety - eg I can see them one day bringing back characters on bikes for Marines.
So its not all doom and gloom for gamers and there's justifiable reasons to hold onto old models.
Andykp wrote: Useless means with out any uses. Now tends to mean now, as in not in the future or past, but the present. As in, now.
So if by useless now, you actually meant useless some time in the future possibly or can be used now but isn’t in one particular book but is still legal now then that’s ok. It’s not really English but it’s ok.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And yes, a little bit. But my point still stands.
Anyways,
What makes everyone so sure the Indexes are going away? We were told the Indexes will exist so that people who have those models no longer supported in the official line can still play with them for ever.
What makes everyone so sure the Indexes are going away? We were told the Indexes will exist so that people who have those models no longer supported in the official line can still play with them for ever.
My guess is that people are simply preparing themselves for the worst.
It's possible that Indexes will stick around forever . . . but if that's the case, then what exactly was the point of not just including those options in the codices? That way, GW wouldn't have had to release an entire flowchart to explain to people what options they can still take.
The answer to that is simple, they don't want new players looking at options in the codex that have no models for sale. SO the answer is they did not want to eliminate models owned by long time players at the change of edition, and so rules were provided for use by those players. My guess though is that those models may lose their rules as of 9th ed whenever that occurs.
The fact they no longer sell the index is a worrying sign.
Want to play with a model from the index? Sure. You just have to try and find someone else who owns an Index and doesn't want to play with those models anymore... And as time passes the number of Index's in print will only go down.
The answer to that is simple, they don't want new players looking at options in the codex that have no models for sale.
See, I can't see how having options in the codex that have no models for sale is any different from having options in the index that have no models for sale.
They were transitional books, so they have no reason to continue printing them, if you did not own those old models with the index, they don't intend on you starting to use them now.
Want to play with a model from the index? Sure. You just have to try and find someone else who owns an Index and doesn't want to play with those models anymore... And as time passes the number of Index's in print will only go down.
Aye but GW might be persuaded to release them online for free. Heck AoS has all their unit stats online for free right this very moment so its certainly an approach GW are now open to considering. Index would be legacy models and they might well not update it for a new 9th edition and further on.
I mean heck GW doesn't make rules for Squats any more; nor Zoats or a huge number of retired models. The only difference we've had recently is that GW has done this en-mass for the whole game at once rather than a very slow drip feed of faction by faction as they released new codex.
The answer to that is simple, they don't want new players looking at options in the codex that have no models for sale.
See, I can't see how having options in the codex that have no models for sale is any different from having options in the index that have no models for sale.
The index is a transitional book, so it includes models no longer for sale, and is only needed by those who either own those old models, or started playing this edition before the codex for their army was released. The codex is meant (much like the kits) to include only those options that are available for sale out of the box. So a new player can pick up the codex, look at a unit, and then buy that exact unit. Indices were designed to cover long term players with legacy models, the codex is not it is not hard to understand.
GW still sells digital copies of the indicies. They weren't going to print the physical ones forever. They probably will phase them out but it's not happening right now. They just don't want to keep spending the money and logistics to maintain the physical copies of something that 99% of everyone who needs them already has.
The index are not even listed on the GW stores once a codex is released for an army. GW clearly intends to run down stock of them and chances are they will go off sale at some point, but might stick around as PDFs or the like.
They aren't? Looking through the online store a few moments ago I saw the Imperium 1 & 2, & Xeno 1 & 2 Index - print, EPub, & Enhanced. I didn't see Index: Chaos, but then I also wasn't looking for it....
R None of my 
