For those unaware, more stuff from the Death Guard codex has been revealed, and basically you're limited to whatever is in the kit for Plague Marines. Not only is this stupidly wordy and complex, it's asinine and takes away from various builds that have been done before, all in the name of "write the rules for the kit". Apparently their Terminators suffered a similar fate as well.
These rules writers are on drugs. I don't know what kind, but anything that would make this seem like a good idea would not be good for for brain.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: For those unaware, more stuff from the Death Guard codex has been revealed, and basically you're limited to whatever is in the kit for Plague Marines. Not only is this stupidly wordy and complex, it's asinine and takes away from various builds that have been done before, all in the name of "write the rules for the kit". Apparently their Terminators suffered a similar fate as well.
These rules writers are on drugs. I don't know what kind, but anything that would make this seem like a good idea would not be good for for brain.
honestly this seems like a better change for the players, no need to buy multiple boxes to get a single loadout squad
And if you were enough of a sucker not to magnetize, now you have to hack up your old miniatures to make them battle legal again. Or just buy whole new ones, GW would love if you did that...
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: For those unaware, more stuff from the Death Guard codex has been revealed, and basically you're limited to whatever is in the kit for Plague Marines. Not only is this stupidly wordy and complex, it's asinine and takes away from various builds that have been done before, all in the name of "write the rules for the kit". Apparently their Terminators suffered a similar fate as well.
These rules writers are on drugs. I don't know what kind, but anything that would make this seem like a good idea would not be good for for brain.
honestly this seems like a better change for the players, no need to buy multiple boxes to get a single loadout squad
I don't see how this is better at all. That list is ridiculously wordy and complicated. What's the problem with allowing the loadout in the box to be legal but also allowing flexibility to build squads more freely? If I'm paying points for it, there's no reason you need to restrict a Bubotic Axe, for example, to one in every 5 models. Also, the picture is a bit difficult to read, but does this mean you can't have 2 Blight Launchers in a squad now?
Not exactly thrilled about this. I have a 10 man Blightlord squad with 10x combi-plasma (which took many weeks of trading to get the bits) and a large blob of Plague Marines with dual knives that now cannot be fielded. Also concerned about my CSM Terminators getting hit by the same thing when their book comes around.
The only sour note from what is otherwise a brilliant book. I do wonder how consistently they're going to enforce this in future codexes.
If this design decision follows through with the Chaos Space Marines codex, I am excited to see the 2 page Chaos Terminator entry explaining how every 5 models can have 1 model with X, Y, or Z, 1 model with A, B, or C, so on and so forth.
Rihgu wrote: If this design decision follows through with the Chaos Space Marines codex, I am excited to see the 2 page Chaos Terminator entry explaining how every 5 models can have 1 model with X, Y, or Z, 1 model with A, B, or C, so on and so forth.
Terminators,...
How about the basic CSM instead.. neither enough close combat equipment NOR enough boltguns...
Also one melta / plasma / Flamer + HB / Rocket launcher... Great squad design....
Sgt. Cortez wrote: Yeah, I like basically everything about the new Codex I've read so far but this sucks how do the options look for Blightlord Terminators?
They basically got the same treatment with their Combi-Weapons. You get 1 Blight Launcher or 1 Combi-Weapon.
If you believe thats is extreme conclusion you should look at how the Kharadron Overlord units from AoS need to be equiped.
It would be the equivalent of having your SM devastator squad armed with 1 of each heavy weapon. That basically made me stop my plans to have a Kharadron army. I HATE mixing weapons. I really, really, hate it. it is horrible to use ingame, it looks awfull on the miniatures, and it slows the game down.
Me and my regular opponents have already agreed to stick with 8th ed rules and codices. Even so, I am unreasonably angry about this change. Slayer-Fan is right - this is asinine, and it represents the nadir (hopefully) of the fallout from the Chapterhouse litigation.
Like, it's been years, and dozens of other units in that time have had, and have, options available to them which aren't in the kits.
Lets not try to pretend that this is poor ol' GeeDubs having to be like this because of Chapterhouse - this is GW's doing. It's GW's fault. GW are to blame.
Rihgu wrote: If this design decision follows through with the Chaos Space Marines codex, I am excited to see the 2 page Chaos Terminator entry explaining how every 5 models can have 1 model with X, Y, or Z, 1 model with A, B, or C, so on and so forth.
Terminators,...
How about the basic CSM instead.. neither enough close combat equipment NOR enough boltguns...
Also one melta / plasma / Flamer + HB / Rocket launcher... Great squad design....
So, no more lascannons, combi-weapons for the aspiring champion, reaper chaincannons, ....no more autocannons.
So much for rules supporting kit bashing and customisation.
That is some crazy gak. I would see this as "testing the waters" and suggest that if you think this is dumb you send them a mail to let them know so they know it was a bad idea.
I would bet this is from some middle manager who thinks this idea is GENIUS and won't listen to reason about it.
Except this isn’t about rules, it’s about company policy and the dangerous precedent it sets. It might pertain to rules, but that is the tangential issue of what this change represents, so customer service.
It looks like my friend that plays Death Guard is going to have to borrow some of my Death Guard kill team to fill out his army for a while. I figured he was going to want to every now again, but I figured it would be for special/heavy weapons not regular Plague Marines. I feel bad for him on a couple of levels. He also has a Poxwalker heavy army.
For me, it is also disconcerting what this could mean for my CSM army. I went heavy into getting Havocs as I wanted 4 of each weapon option just to mix and match various lists. That, and I really wanted heavy bolter Havocs but couldn't bring myself to build them until I had the more pressing heavy weapons available. I had also finally kitbashed some stripped-down Havoc champions (no special weapon).
Since I had the bits, I also created three of every heavy/special ranged weapon for my CSM save the chaingun (still have one) and combi-weapons (also have one). I was looking forward to trying out more than just heavy bolters (as good as they are) which was all I fielded before. It would definitely be a shame if I have to jump through extra hoops to field these models. I don't want too, but I could probably make a good number of my CSM with the SM codex as largely stick to spiky versions of marines anyways. Really the only difference would be extra-big bases the Havocs have. I don't really want to do that though.
I agree that I think GW has over-extended this no model, no rule thing. It is annoying to both those that did make models for these options and just figuring out what data sheets allow anymore.
Very disappointing, especially in this specific case. They JUST came out with a set of DG singles, most of which are Plague Marines. And the 5 man set from the 8E starter and two different 3 packs are also pretty recent releases.Who buys those just to have them, rather than to mix and match?
I'll definitely send an email. And if this is the start of a trend, and the Tau suits/Admech infantry etc can only have one of each gun, I will seriously consider cutting my losses.
Rihgu wrote: If this design decision follows through with the Chaos Space Marines codex, I am excited to see the 2 page Chaos Terminator entry explaining how every 5 models can have 1 model with X, Y, or Z, 1 model with A, B, or C, so on and so forth.
Terminators,...
How about the basic CSM instead.. neither enough close combat equipment NOR enough boltguns...
Also one melta / plasma / Flamer + HB / Rocket launcher... Great squad design....
So, no more lascannons, combi-weapons for the aspiring champion, reaper chaincannons, ....no more autocannons.
So much for rules supporting kit bashing and customisation.
Autocannons will likely stick, since the start collecting CSM monopose squad has a autocannon.
Ork nobz may lose kustom shootas, because there aren't any. They'll be warboss/meganob only (if they take this absurd 'what's in the kit' rules approach further). Which is shame, because they're nice and cheap for a shoota boyz nob, rather than a dimwit hanging about with a slugga.
Really does show that they want consumers, not hobbyists that will do their own thing with the materials. Be a customer, take what you're given, don't be creative.
I won't lie, DG are so stupidly powerful now with their stock weapons, strats, and abilities, that kavetching about not getting all the weapons you had before seems, odd. This just leapfrogged the SM codex for sheer killiness, and even pimp slaps the Custodes for survivability. But sure, you can't take the gun from 7th-8th, that's whats important.
Deathwatch are pretty loadout fluid in the proteus killteams. I'm not saying this to detract from the complaints y'all have about how a lot of stuff has been going, but to provide a possible avenue to explore if you're craving that "MY guys, not GW's guys" feel.
If you think this is an argument about the relative power of factions, I would say you have misunderstood the point of what people are saying.
Edit: In reply to Fezzik.
ryzouken wrote: Deathwatch are pretty loadout fluid in the proteus killteams. I'm not saying this to detract from the complaints y'all have about how a lot of stuff has been going, but to provide a possible avenue to explore if you're craving that "MY guys, not GW's guys" feel.
Won't help allay the concerns of people who feel like GW has cranked up the "Problem? Try playing Loyalists!" approach to game design since 2.0
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: I won't lie, DG are so stupidly powerful now with their stock weapons, strats, and abilities, that kavetching about not getting all the weapons you had before seems, odd. This just leapfrogged the SM codex for sheer killiness, and even pimp slaps the Custodes for survivability. But sure, you can't take the gun from 7th-8th, that's whats important.
It really has nothing to do with that, it's more about consistency.
LSM Devastators are not limited to 2 of each Weapon, Vanguard Vets have no limitations (including I believe being able to take certain wargear that isn't even on the sprue?), Retributors are not limited to 2 of each weapon, Necron Overlords have 3 wargear options that don't come with any Overlord model that GW actually sells.
It's not about balance either because have you seen Retributors or Vanguard Vets recently?
I don't see how this is better at all. That list is ridiculously wordy and complicated. What's the problem with allowing the loadout in the box to be legal but also allowing flexibility to build squads more freely? If I'm paying points for it, there's no reason you need to restrict a Bubotic Axe, for example, to one in every 5 models. Also, the picture is a bit difficult to read, but does this mean you can't have 2 Blight Launchers in a squad now?
Bubotic Axe was just some random example here right?
Cause i read it that you can have any number of axes with the Blightlords.
Also, 2 Blight Launchers if you have 10 models.
Otherwise you could still go for 3 Plasma and 2 Blight Launchers with 10 Plague Marines.
Overall i think its not too bad. Minor thing is i have too many Plague Marines with Blight Launchers now because i got enough to play 2 BL in squads of 5.
Most players have a few boxes + easy to build + special models anyway to mix and match and rarely play all of their marines.
So if you have lets say 30 PM most combinations still work.
I feel bad for the people who build and painted 10 Blightlord Terminators with Combiplasma though.
Da Boss wrote: Yeah, if this is going to be the way it works going forward then it is REALLY WEIRD that it was not in the first two codices this edition.
And if it is not going to be how it is going forward, then it is even weirder that they randomly decided to do this for Death Guard.
I think I understand the rationale for the latter. Plague Marines have an almost uniquely terrible datasheet (a full page entry for basic marines, mostly because they filled that sprue with gak and filled it all in, rather than just hand-waving 'plague weapons' regardless of shape, and going with one type of 'plague flamer'). For other factions, we've increasingly seen a split between melee and ranged units in separate datasheets (oblits and maulers, assault and devastator centurions, assault and regular intercessors, etc, etc). Even tau separate their 'breachers' from their 'fire warriors.' So I could potentially see this as a (very poor) attempt to clean this up.
I honestly hope we don't see this again.
On the other hand, I suspect we will see the 'paradigm shift' for psychic powers continuing with future books (you get a better version of several powers if you overcast by 3 or more), and I expect that will make loyalists salty. Except (or especially) if dark angels get this approach too.
Except this isn’t about rules, it’s about company policy and the dangerous precedent it sets. It might pertain to rules, but that is the tangential issue of what this change represents, so customer service.
I would still say that the Rules team would be in a better place to give this feedback to the corporate bigwigs (or whomever is responsible) and would be more likely to lend their support as well.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oh and here's the BRILLIANT Blightlord datasheet. SURE you can't have 4 Combi-Plasmas in the same squad, but look! You can take one of each! So amazing!
Except this isn’t about rules, it’s about company policy and the dangerous precedent it sets. It might pertain to rules, but that is the tangential issue of what this change represents, so customer service.
I would still say that the Rules team would be in a better place to give this feedback to the corporate bigwigs (or whomever is responsible) and would be more likely to lend their support as well.
There's nothing stopping anyone from emailing them both.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: I won't lie, DG are so stupidly powerful now with their stock weapons, strats, and abilities, that kavetching about not getting all the weapons you had before seems, odd. This just leapfrogged the SM codex for sheer killiness, and even pimp slaps the Custodes for survivability. But sure, you can't take the gun from 7th-8th, that's whats important.
Yeah, DG sure will outlive the Custodes.Especially now that DG lost FNP. XD
-1D is not as good as a universal 2+ armour, 4+ inv and "1+ armour" and 3+ inv with shields.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: I won't lie, DG are so stupidly powerful now with their stock weapons, strats, and abilities, that kavetching about not getting all the weapons you had before seems, odd. This just leapfrogged the SM codex for sheer killiness, and even pimp slaps the Custodes for survivability. But sure, you can't take the gun from 7th-8th, that's whats important.
Yeah, DG sure will outlive the Custodes.Especially now that DG lost FNP. XD
-1D is not as good as a universal 2+ armour, 4+ inv and "1+ armour" and 3+ inv with shields.
I don't think anyone will be able to move their characters with their Revoltingly resilient and their Miasma of Pestilance gives them basically HArliquin levels of hard to killness. You can gun down Custodes with massed firepower, but these guys are negative 1 to hit, neg 1 to all wounds over d1, and 2++/4++/5+++ for less than a Custodes Captain. That is insane. Stop spreading the myth that they lost their FNP.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: I won't lie, DG are so stupidly powerful now with their stock weapons, strats, and abilities, that kavetching about not getting all the weapons you had before seems, odd. This just leapfrogged the SM codex for sheer killiness, and even pimp slaps the Custodes for survivability. But sure, you can't take the gun from 7th-8th, that's whats important.
Yeah, DG sure will outlive the Custodes.Especially now that DG lost FNP. XD
-1D is not as good as a universal 2+ armour, 4+ inv and "1+ armour" and 3+ inv with shields.
I don't think anyone will be able to move their characters with their Revoltingly resilient and their Miasma of Pestilance gives them basically HArliquin levels of hard to killness. You can gun down Custodes with massed firepower, but these guys are negative 1 to hit, neg 1 to all wounds over d1, and 2++/4++/5+++ for less than a Custodes Captain. That is insane. Stop spreading the myth that they lost their FNP.
The Custodes are -1 to be hit as well. All it requires is a Vexilla.
Do Bloat Drones have FNP? Plague Marines? Blight-Haulers? Daemon Princes?
I guess they can't do it because of sprues, but I feel the real sin here is the fact you get 7 Plague Marines in a box, which never really made much sense (muh fluff etc being a bit meaningless - nothing stopped you running units of 7 if you had more.)
I think the problem is the precedent. I mean in some ways I would find it quite funny if people who've assembled 10+ VV with claw+shield get told its not a valid loadout, gg.
But yeah. I don't really want to be putting models together and worrying it won't be a valid loadout because I've bought 3 boxes worth to mix and match gear (I probably won't be that angry/upset/bitter if the solution is just buying another box, but idk, its still a concern.)
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oh and here's the BRILLIANT Blightlord datasheet. SURE you can't have 4 Combi-Plasmas in the same squad, but look! You can take one of each! So amazing!
Oh, you've had Death Guard terminators with 4 combi-plasmas for years now? Screw you, no soup40k for you. Buy the new box.
I have no problem with this whatsoever. serves you right for looking to spam whatever was determined to be the most effective.
I have long been of the opinion that the unit should only allow what comes in the box so you only need to buy one box to create a unit none of this crap buying multiple boxes or trying to hunt for bits or recast or 3D print that doesn't extra pieces that you need to equip them all the same.
Wayniac wrote: I have no problem with this whatsoever. serves you right for looking to spam whatever was determined to be the most effective.
I have long been of the opinion that the unit should only allow what comes in the box so you only need to buy one box to create a unit none of this crap buying multiple boxes or trying to hunt for bits or recast or 3D print that doesn't extra pieces that you need to equip them all the same.
Good riddance
Wouldn’t a better solution be more options in the box?
Wayniac wrote: I have no problem with this whatsoever. serves you right for looking to spam whatever was determined to be the most effective.
I have long been of the opinion that the unit should only allow what comes in the box so you only need to buy one box to create a unit none of this crap buying multiple boxes or trying to hunt for bits or recast or 3D print that doesn't extra pieces that you need to equip them all the same.
Good riddance
Man, imagine a cohesive loadout of all the same Combi Weapon as being spamming the most effective option LOL. You're not serious are you?
Wayniac wrote: I have no problem with this whatsoever. serves you right for looking to spam whatever was determined to be the most effective.
I have long been of the opinion that the unit should only allow what comes in the box so you only need to buy one box to create a unit none of this crap buying multiple boxes or trying to hunt for bits or recast or 3D print that doesn't extra pieces that you need to equip them all the same.
Good riddance
Wouldn’t a better solution be more options in the box?
So you can make them your guys?
Yes, of course. But GW hasn't done that ever, so I'd rather see them limit you to prevent spamming. It's not like I am not affected, I don't think my melee PM squad is legal now because I was fielding IIRC a few axes or the mace combo, and 2 flails. I still think it's a great idea to cut down on "durr the meta says 5 combi-plasma is the best choice so I'm going to scrounge around for that"
I understand the outrage because they've only changed it now, but ork infantry units have been this way ever since 4th or maybe even longer.
Want 10 MANz? Buy four boxes, two extras. 30 boyz? Three boxes, six extras. 15 lootas or burnas? Four boxes, one extra loota, three extra spanners. 15 tank bustas? Three boxes, two extra nobz, you need to find 2-8 more rokkits somewhere, depending on how many of the special weapons you want. 12 warbikers? Four boxes. 30 storm boyz? Six boxes.
Buying two boxes to have a maxed out squad seems rather tame to me, a full unit of flash gits is more expensive and doesn't have any extra models.
Wayniac wrote: I have no problem with this whatsoever. serves you right for looking to spam whatever was determined to be the most effective.
I have long been of the opinion that the unit should only allow what comes in the box so you only need to buy one box to create a unit none of this crap buying multiple boxes or trying to hunt for bits or recast or 3D print that doesn't extra pieces that you need to equip them all the same.
Good riddance
When it comes to 5 man units, all boxes (not the tiny ETB boxes, granted) have always been enough to "create a unit".
Wayniac wrote: I have no problem with this whatsoever. serves you right for looking to spam whatever was determined to be the most effective.
I have long been of the opinion that the unit should only allow what comes in the box so you only need to buy one box to create a unit none of this crap buying multiple boxes or trying to hunt for bits or recast or 3D print that doesn't extra pieces that you need to equip them all the same.
Good riddance
When it comes to 5 man units, all boxes (not the tiny ETB boxes, granted) have always been enough to "create a unit".
I mean there are some exceptions since you never get all the options. Which is what I really have no issue with. Since they refuse to give you say 5 of each combi-weapon, just get rid of allowing you to take 5 of the same. Makes it easier for everyone.
Wayniac wrote: I have no problem with this whatsoever. serves you right for looking to spam whatever was determined to be the most effective.
I have long been of the opinion that the unit should only allow what comes in the box so you only need to buy one box to create a unit none of this crap buying multiple boxes or trying to hunt for bits or recast or 3D print that doesn't extra pieces that you need to equip them all the same.
Good riddance
When it comes to 5 man units, all boxes (not the tiny ETB boxes, granted) have always been enough to "create a unit".
I mean there are some exceptions since you never get all the options. Which is what I really have no issue with. Since they refuse to give you say 5 of each combi-weapon, just get rid of allowing you to take 5 of the same. Makes it easier for everyone.
Except people who want to customize their guys and have it represented on the tabletop.
They have to convince others to allow homebrew now... or play as Loyalist Marines.
Eldarain wrote: Even if that is the way you want to design your game leaving other factions free to min max their equipment is a pretty terrible decision.
Yup. Different design philosophy for different codexes. Not an even playing field.
Wayniac wrote: I have no problem with this whatsoever. serves you right for looking to spam whatever was determined to be the most effective.
I have long been of the opinion that the unit should only allow what comes in the box so you only need to buy one box to create a unit none of this crap buying multiple boxes or trying to hunt for bits or recast or 3D print that doesn't extra pieces that you need to equip them all the same.
Good riddance
When it comes to 5 man units, all boxes (not the tiny ETB boxes, granted) have always been enough to "create a unit".
I mean there are some exceptions since you never get all the options. Which is what I really have no issue with. Since they refuse to give you say 5 of each combi-weapon, just get rid of allowing you to take 5 of the same. Makes it easier for everyone.
No, you have never been able to min/max a unit from just one box. However, "only need to buy one box to create a unit". One box always contains enough models to create a 5 man unit.
Wayniac wrote: I have no problem with this whatsoever. serves you right for looking to spam whatever was determined to be the most effective.
I have long been of the opinion that the unit should only allow what comes in the box so you only need to buy one box to create a unit none of this crap buying multiple boxes or trying to hunt for bits or recast or 3D print that doesn't extra pieces that you need to equip them all the same.
Good riddance
When it comes to 5 man units, all boxes (not the tiny ETB boxes, granted) have always been enough to "create a unit".
I mean there are some exceptions since you never get all the options. Which is what I really have no issue with. Since they refuse to give you say 5 of each combi-weapon, just get rid of allowing you to take 5 of the same. Makes it easier for everyone.
And, sure. Make that the standard. But that is NOT the case for the new marine codex.
Wayniac wrote: I have no problem with this whatsoever. serves you right for looking to spam whatever was determined to be the most effective.
I have long been of the opinion that the unit should only allow what comes in the box so you only need to buy one box to create a unit none of this crap buying multiple boxes or trying to hunt for bits or recast or 3D print that doesn't extra pieces that you need to equip them all the same.
Good riddance
When it comes to 5 man units, all boxes (not the tiny ETB boxes, granted) have always been enough to "create a unit".
I mean there are some exceptions since you never get all the options. Which is what I really have no issue with. Since they refuse to give you say 5 of each combi-weapon, just get rid of allowing you to take 5 of the same. Makes it easier for everyone.
So you think it would be "easier for everyone" if instead of rolling for 5 chainaxes for my chaos terminators I had to roll for 1 chainfist, 1 power sword, 1 power axe, 1 chainaxe, and 1 power maul?
Wayniac wrote: I have no problem with this whatsoever. serves you right for looking to spam whatever was determined to be the most effective.
I have long been of the opinion that the unit should only allow what comes in the box so you only need to buy one box to create a unit none of this crap buying multiple boxes or trying to hunt for bits or recast or 3D print that doesn't extra pieces that you need to equip them all the same.
Good riddance
When it comes to 5 man units, all boxes (not the tiny ETB boxes, granted) have always been enough to "create a unit".
I mean there are some exceptions since you never get all the options. Which is what I really have no issue with. Since they refuse to give you say 5 of each combi-weapon, just get rid of allowing you to take 5 of the same. Makes it easier for everyone.
So you think it would be "easier for everyone" if instead of rolling for 5 chainaxes for my chaos terminators I had to roll for 1 chainfist, 1 power sword, 1 power axe, 1 chainaxe, and 1 power maul?
Unless you're some cutthroat gamer, sure. I don't see any issue with it. I'll take it over people mathing out the "best" weapon and spamming the gak out of it any day of the week. It's clear that is not how the designers intend for you to build a squad, so now they are stopping you from being able to do it.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: So what about the fluff player that decided five Combi-Flamers?
Have you seen/build the actual model?
I'm one of the people that ran Termicide but with 4 Khorne Terminators and all Combi-Flamers for 7th. I spoke up about the Chaos Terminator entry that was created in 8th and I DEFINITELY spoke up about the contents of the box (which now has a precedent to make Chaos Terminators suffer the same fate as Blightlords).
Wayniac wrote: I have no problem with this whatsoever. serves you right for looking to spam whatever was determined to be the most effective.
I have long been of the opinion that the unit should only allow what comes in the box so you only need to buy one box to create a unit none of this crap buying multiple boxes or trying to hunt for bits or recast or 3D print that doesn't extra pieces that you need to equip them all the same.
Good riddance
When it comes to 5 man units, all boxes (not the tiny ETB boxes, granted) have always been enough to "create a unit".
I mean there are some exceptions since you never get all the options. Which is what I really have no issue with. Since they refuse to give you say 5 of each combi-weapon, just get rid of allowing you to take 5 of the same. Makes it easier for everyone.
So you think it would be "easier for everyone" if instead of rolling for 5 chainaxes for my chaos terminators I had to roll for 1 chainfist, 1 power sword, 1 power axe, 1 chainaxe, and 1 power maul?
Unless you're some cutthroat gamer, sure. I don't see any issue with it. I'll take it over people mathing out the "best" weapon and spamming the gak out of it any day of the week. It's clear that is not how the designers intend for you to build a squad, so now they are stopping you from being able to do it.
Wayniac wrote: I have no problem with this whatsoever. serves you right for looking to spam whatever was determined to be the most effective.
I have long been of the opinion that the unit should only allow what comes in the box so you only need to buy one box to create a unit none of this crap buying multiple boxes or trying to hunt for bits or recast or 3D print that doesn't extra pieces that you need to equip them all the same.
Good riddance
When it comes to 5 man units, all boxes (not the tiny ETB boxes, granted) have always been enough to "create a unit".
I mean there are some exceptions since you never get all the options. Which is what I really have no issue with. Since they refuse to give you say 5 of each combi-weapon, just get rid of allowing you to take 5 of the same. Makes it easier for everyone.
So you think it would be "easier for everyone" if instead of rolling for 5 chainaxes for my chaos terminators I had to roll for 1 chainfist, 1 power sword, 1 power axe, 1 chainaxe, and 1 power maul?
Unless you're some cutthroat gamer, sure. I don't see any issue with it. I'll take it over people mathing out the "best" weapon and spamming the gak out of it any day of the week. It's clear that is not how the designers intend for you to build a squad, so now they are stopping you from being able to do it.
It sucks if you want you marines to look and feel like a unit of traind soldiers(even if full of puss) That work as if they had the foresight and planing before they turn up on the battlefield.
It probably also had little to do with the rules design, and was just a kit we have to work with issues. And other than that its just poor design as it can slow the game.
Gadzilla666 wrote: So you think it would be "easier for everyone" if instead of rolling for 5 chainaxes for my chaos terminators I had to roll for 1 chainfist, 1 power sword, 1 power axe, 1 chainaxe, and 1 power maul?
An extreme version of my concern, but I do agree with Gadzilla666.
One of the motivators for my me kitting out so many heavy/special weapons for my CSM/Havocs was for simplicity not optimization. Eldar logistics stealing or not, one of the things I like about Primaris is their squads are armed with the same weapon. I haven't and don't generally plan on in the future of playing 40k all that frequently or with the same army (I'm coming up on 4 of them). While I like generalist squads in principle, I don't really care about to divide up their shooting and/or roll different dice pools to resolve their attacks. I just want to roll a bunch of them all at once and move to my next activation. Because one of the things I dislike about Primaris is shooting the Repulsor. It is such a hassle.
So I went out of my way to build my CSM/Havocs so that I can reduce the mechanics of resolving a bunch of different attacks. I was planning on doing it with my Chaos Terminators in due time because I did build them with a bunch of different weapons when I first started and found them to be pain to resolve even with squads of three. Now I am not going to say, I'm not doing this blind to the idea of making my army more powerful. I know it does. Warhammer 40k wants to run for varied armed squads they can try to tempt me with rules to do so. I still probably won't as I am looking for ease-of-use over power. That's just where I am as a gamer.
Ultimately, I am not overly concerned about my CSM army. I think it is still very possible they will keep most of the weapon options they have had over the editions as the faction has more inertia than Death Guard had. If that turns out not to be the case, I see what adjustments I can make to see make use of the models I have. I am still rather unhappy with how Death Guard been mixed up because a friend of mine just started full 40k last year before the lock down and only managed 2-3 games with his army. He already has to buy a new codex. His army was very much a Typhus and Poxwalker horde and did have a bunch of characters in it as the collection was like 2-3 Dark Imperium boxes with some bits and bobs added on. I don't really want him to feel like he has to spend even more to get something workable at 2000pts again.
First line is basically the same, but the weapon is different
Second is the same
Third is the same
Fourth has been split - instead of two models with any option you get one BL and one spewer
-- Then there is a clause to allow two in ten models
-- The remainder of the fourth line was limited to one model with the remaining 3 options, but limiting it as well to 10 models
Fifth line has been nerfed to 1-in-5 four double plague knife
Sixth and Seventh have been split to prevent overpacking in 5 mans like above
Eighth has been limited to a boltgun model
So what actually changed was the bannerman, access to plague knives, and the amount of weapons you can pack into a 5 man.
Considering the new rules this was necessary. It isn't significantly different than it was before and people are out of their minds, because they've probably never even looked at the old datasheet.
3 Plasmaguns in a 10 man with +1 to hit and exploding unmod 6s from a Tallyman. Flail and knife now push 6 attacks each so preventing stacking them on top of strats they have like no wasted damage might be kind of foolish. Considering they run 3A unconditionally like marines on top of all their other rules makes setting this unit up correctly crucial.
I think this is very crappy of GW to do. If they had done it when the new kits came out it would have sucked but also been in line with the upsides others have mentioned. Making the change now, after people have had three years to build and paint loadouts that are now invalidated? Awful. It is one thing to invalidate old wargear loadouts when a new kit is released, indeed sometimes that can even be a good thing, but this is much different.
It is the sheer stupidity of the chapter-house mentality in full force, which never even worked or had a benefit in the first place. If anything I am more likely to want third-party upgrades/miniatures because then if the loadout changes they were already counts-as anyways.
And really, what does GW gain here? Is it worth pissing off so many customers?
Wayniac wrote: The more I tthinka bout this, it's not really a nerf. It's actually pretty good unless you were one of the people spamming a single weapon.
You could take in a 10-man squad:
* 2 plasma guns AND 2 blight launchers, plus a plasma on the champion.
* 2 plague spewers and 2 plague belchers
* 2 flails of corruption AND 2 plague cleavers.
That is not a nerf at all Just what you can't do is take all the guys with one of the melee weapons (axe I think was popular)
now Blightlords yes it's a nerf you can't spam combi-plasma.
TIL wanting your units to have a focus instead of being forced to have a worthless mishmash of weapons is "spamming". I bet you also think taking a Devastator squad with 4 Lascannons to act as an anti-tank unit rather than taking 1 Lascannon, 1 Heavy Bolter, 1 Missile Launcher, and 1 Plasma Cannon is also "spam".
Also, Death Guard Terminators have been able to take multiple Combi-Plasma for years if not decades. This change makes units some people have had for years or decades unable to be used, all because of corporate greed. GW have a market value of £3b. They don't need you to defend them.
Wayniac wrote: The more I tthinka bout this, it's not really a nerf. It's actually pretty good unless you were one of the people spamming a single weapon.
You could take in a 10-man squad:
* 2 plasma guns AND 2 blight launchers, plus a plasma on the champion.
* 2 plague spewers and 2 plague belchers
* 2 flails of corruption AND 2 plague cleavers.
That is not a nerf at all Just what you can't do is take all the guys with one of the melee weapons (axe I think was popular)
now Blightlords yes it's a nerf you can't spam combi-plasma.
That's quite an expensive unit. You could counter balance it by taking a unit of Poxwalkers to fill a cheap 2nd troop choice, but you'll dump a huge amount of points in Troops and not have much left for elites, heavies, or fast attacks.
Imaging being so riled up that you can't minmax and metagame everything for once.
How is four Combi-Flamers and the Plague Spewer minmaxing and metagame?
I saw people using certain loadouts for theme or specialization as much as for min-maxing. Especially because points change and what was good may only remain so a short period. If the goal was to penalize optimization points changes would be the logical way of doing so. You know what I have never seen someone do? Run 1 of each weapon option. Making a unit 'jack of all trades' like that rarely pays off as compared to skewing loadouts towards a certain specialty, and more importantly people just do not want to deal with the hassle of remembering/rolling that many different weapons.
Wayniac wrote: Unless you're some cutthroat gamer, sure. I don't see any issue with it. I'll take it over people mathing out the "best" weapon and spamming the gak out of it any day of the week. It's clear that is not how the designers intend for you to build a squad, so now they are stopping you from being able to do it.
it adds time to the game unecessarily, people dont only take units with a single loadout because its optimal, they do it because it saves time, and its also more logical.
I built my night lords termis with Lightning claw + combiflamer, tell me i'm minmaxing.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wayniac wrote: Imaging being so riled up that you can't minmax and metagame everything for once.
imagine missing the whole premise of the complaint....
I want to see the people defending it field so many crazy things:
the crisis team on the GW website 1: 2 fusion blasters, 1: plasma and missile pod, 1: just a burst cannon
Catachan heavy weapons team: one mortar, one lascannon, one heavy bolter.
Devastators: missile launcher, heavy bolter, lascannon, grav cannon
War Walkers and vipers with just a random array of junk: missile launcher and scatter laser (actually pictured), shuriken cannon and bright lance, etc.
Its obviously ok and 'intended' so they must be building their own units that way, right? I'm sure they've got pictures.
Having each model with a different weapon looks like gak, works like gak ingame, and it makes everything slower.
Having one guy with a special or heavy weapon is fine. Having the champ with a cool weapon is fine. Forcing everybody to have a different weapon with completely different uses is Kharadron levels stupid. I'm sad GW is expanding that slowed aproach.
First line is basically the same, but the weapon is different
Second is the same
Third is the same
Fourth has been split - instead of two models with any option you get one BL and one spewer
-- Then there is a clause to allow two in ten models
-- The remainder of the fourth line was limited to one model with the remaining 3 options, but limiting it as well to 10 models
Fifth line has been nerfed to 1-in-5 four double plague knife
Sixth and Seventh have been split to prevent overpacking in 5 mans like above
Eighth has been limited to a boltgun model
So what actually changed was the bannerman, access to plague knives, and the amount of weapons you can pack into a 5 man.
Considering the new rules this was necessary. It isn't significantly different than it was before and people are out of their minds, because they've probably never even looked at the old datasheet.
3 Plasmaguns in a 10 man with +1 to hit and exploding unmod 6s from a Tallyman. Flail and knife now push 6 attacks each so preventing stacking them on top of strats they have like no wasted damage might be kind of foolish. Considering they run 3A unconditionally like marines on top of all their other rules makes setting this unit up correctly crucial.
So...chill out, yea?
1. There's literally almost twice the text on the new entry
2. Everything you described was a nerf to 5-9 man squads, especially the players that liked 7 man squads for Nurgle fluff reasons.
Wayniac wrote: I have no problem with this whatsoever. serves you right for looking to spam whatever was determined to be the most effective.
I have long been of the opinion that the unit should only allow what comes in the box so you only need to buy one box to create a unit none of this crap buying multiple boxes or trying to hunt for bits or recast or 3D print that doesn't extra pieces that you need to equip them all the same.
Good riddance
Imagine thinking spamming PM was ever the "most effective" way to play DG. Spoiler alert, the only people playing PM before knew it was a handicap but at least by maxing special weapons you weren't handicapping yourself too much. But nah lets nerf them because GW logic.
If they were going to do this to loyalists, wouldn't they have done it with the new codex and the current devastator kit? I'm really hoping for a day 1 errata/faq.
I think it's good thing in general that unit's wargear options match one-to-one what can be built from the box. Modellers can still do their thing but it puts everyone at the same level regardless of size of their bits box or modelling experience as there is no need proxy, buy, recast or print additional bits if you want to field a certain loadout. People have been crying for years that there are not enough parts in the box to build all possible loadouts. Now there is.
Of course, this approach does come with problems too. Having multiple weapon profiles within the same unit slows down the game. There are so many different wargear options nowadays and sculptors are allowed to come up with even new ones. Does there really need to be separate rules for plague sword, axe, mace and knife or half a dozen primaris boltguns that look identical?
Old system used to limit special and heavy weapons to number of models that could have any listed weapon, but from what I have understood Plague Marine wargear options are written so that you can't build an illegal loadout if you follow the instructions - which is also good for new players.
Then there are problematic kits such as CSM Terminators. Someone really dropped the ball here. A kit that doesn't contain enough parts to build a default wargear for its models shouldn't exist. New player that doesn't have spare parts is forced to build mixed wargear unit regardless of what is written in the codex.
However, the most glaring issue as a whole is if all armies don't follow the same rules or design philosophy. It gives the impression that either the designers don't know what they want 40k to be or that they are in competent. Most likely both.
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: All that just reads to me to be changing what was 2 in any unit size to 1 per 5, but otherwise identical in terms of what you can take.
It doesn't look like options were removed.
Several were. Icon of despair fellow used to be functional with two knives. Now the bolter is mandatory.
Quite a few special weapons were fine for 5 (or 7) man squads, now they're not. spewers, belchers, blight launchers, meltaguns, plasmaguns could all be fielded 2 each for 5 man squads. None of those can be fielded twice except at 10 models (important note: the box is 7 models). Same with maces & axes, cleaver or flail, you could have two (of each choice) at any squad size, now its only 10.
Everything about this is designed to be 'for each squad of plague marines, buy a second box'
On the terminators its worse, since a lot of legal weapon options aren't recoverable at all, unless you're spreading into 3 times the number of terminators. If someone had a 10 man combi-plasma unit, they now need 5 units of 10 terminators to legally field them
Wayniac wrote: Tough, they have to suffer to minimize spamming. It's sad, but the fluff player will most likely have less of a raging fit than the competitive one.
This is bs in the face of factions that spam the same weapons (Primaris Marines). It comes off as pure spite towards CSM players on your part.
1. There's literally almost twice the text on the new entry
k?
Everything you described was a nerf to 5-9 man squads
And?
2. especially the players that liked 7 man squads for Nurgle fluff reasons.
Stop the garbage justification please.
Hah. Show me a person who cares about fluff that is concerned about this. I have never seen a 7 man unit at a tournament nor will I ever.
Stop with the faux outrage, please.
i'm mad at the precedent it sets. And yes, it means that the full flamer blightlords i was planning on building once i started the army are no longer valid.
1. There's literally almost twice the text on the new entry
k?
Everything you described was a nerf to 5-9 man squads
And?
2. especially the players that liked 7 man squads for Nurgle fluff reasons.
Stop the garbage justification please.
Hah. Show me a person who cares about fluff that is concerned about this. I have never seen a 7 man unit at a tournament nor will I ever.
Stop with the faux outrage, please.
Plague Marines have been able to take 3 plasma per squad, even minimum size, since the 4th edition codex, Nurgle marked Chaos Terminators, now called Blightlords, have been able to take full combi-weapons squads for the same amount of time. This invalidates anyones squads from then until now. This basically says "Buy the new kit!", if you want legal units. Invalidating peoples models that they've had for years isn't cool, and definitely not customer friendly.
i'm mad at the precedent it sets. And yes, it means that the full flamer blightlords i was planning on building once i started the army are no longer valid.
I mean we had a huge thread on how awful GW for not supplying models with all the options in the kit (which has rarely been a thing for units with a lot of options).
They design kits and then write rules.
I think people should rightfully tell GW to change the rules if that is what they feel, but assigning intent or precedent is premature or unfounded.
Watch this happen to Havocs (no more than 1 Reaper Chaincannon and 2 of any other HW type per squad), or Scions (one Volley gun per squad!) or Retributors (no more than 2 of any HW in the unit), and Scourges (only one of each heavy weapon type per unit!) and so on and so forth. And then, miraculously, Marines escape this nonsense.
Wayniac wrote: Imaging being so riled up that you can't minmax and metagame everything for once.
Imagine being so anti-WAAC that you don't understand the core concept of the topic being discussed.
Gadzilla666 wrote: ...Plague Marines have been able to take 3 plasma per squad, even minimum size, since the 4th edition codex, Nurgle marked Chaos Terminators, now called Blightlords, have been able to take full combi-weapons squads for the same amount of time...
Two plasma per squad, even at minimum squad size, in the 3rd, 4th, and 6th books. Unless you're counting the sergeant's combi-weapon?
I mean we had a huge thread on how awful GW for not supplying models with all the options in the kit (which has rarely been a thing for units with a lot of options).
They design kits and then write rules.
If that's true why did this appear in the 6th book of 9th? Can Sternguard take 2 of each Combi weapon in each group of 5? Devs get 2 of each Heavy per 5?
I mean we had a huge thread on how awful GW for not supplying models with all the options in the kit (which has rarely been a thing for units with a lot of options).
They design kits and then write rules.
If that's true why did this appear in the 6th book of 9th? Can Sternguard take 2 of each Combi weapon in each group of 5? Devs get 2 of each Heavy per 5?
Because SG come with 8 combis in the kit instead of one along with 2 heavies, 3 specials, and 2 pistols. Devs similarly have a ton of options. That makes it way more plausible to get what you need. Blightlords are ridiculously mono-pose and cutting those models to get combis on to them while very hobby-centric is not for novice players or the feint of heart.
i'm mad at the precedent it sets. And yes, it means that the full flamer blightlords i was planning on building once i started the army are no longer valid.
I mean we had a huge thread on how awful GW for not supplying models with all the options in the kit (which has rarely been a thing for units with a lot of options).
They design kits and then write rules.
I think people should rightfully tell GW to change the rules if that is what they feel, but assigning intent or precedent is premature or unfounded.
yeah, and people were asking for the exact opposite of what GW did. We wanted the kits to have all the weapons options, not the options to be stripped out.
Imma quote Ninth from the other DG thread because it really gets across what some people in this thread are clearly missing:
NinthMusketeer wrote: It is not hard to understand why people are upset, the concept and reasoning is not complex, it takes little thought to realize 'oh hey, that does suck for those affected in such a way' and while such may be the standard of the internet it remains disappointing to see the number of people unwilling to put even a minimal amount of thought into the matter.
Daedalus81 wrote: Because SG come with 8 combis in the kit instead of one along with 2 heavies, 3 specials, and 2 pistols. Devs similarly have a ton of options. That makes it way more plausible to get what you need. Blightlords are ridiculously mono-pose and cutting those models to get combis on to them while very hobby-centric is not for novice players or the feint of heart.
And if Sternguard were suddenly limited to 2 Combi-Meltas, 2 Combi-Flamers, 2 Combi-Plasmas and 2 Combi-Gravs per squad, rather than whatever combination of those people wanted, what would you say then? 'Cause that's the equivalent.
yeah, and people were asking for the exact opposite of what GW did. We wanted the kits to have all the weapons options, not the options to be stripped out.
Yea, man. I get it. You should be able to do that if you're crazy enough to tackle that project and GW might yet change its mind. But I do think it might be unfair to those without the same means to accomplish those conversions.
The horse left the barn a while ago with the mono-pose stuff. It seems to me that DG got the shaft in that regard, because a lot of other new kits haven't had that same treatment. GW may have had to push stylized out kits fast for the release of 8th.
I do not look forward to CSM Terminators and chain axes ( the lack of monopose may save them - we'll see soon enough I suppose ).
Gadzilla666 wrote: ...Plague Marines have been able to take 3 plasma per squad, even minimum size, since the 4th edition codex, Nurgle marked Chaos Terminators, now called Blightlords, have been able to take full combi-weapons squads for the same amount of time...
Two plasma per squad, even at minimum squad size, in the 3rd, 4th, and 6th books. Unless you're counting the sergeant's combi-weapon?
Yes, I'm counting the Aspiring Champion's combi-weapon, that's why I didn't count 3.5, as only combi-meltas and combi-flamers were available.
I mean we had a huge thread on how awful GW for not supplying models with all the options in the kit (which has rarely been a thing for units with a lot of options).
They design kits and then write rules.
If that's true why did this appear in the 6th book of 9th? Can Sternguard take 2 of each Combi weapon in each group of 5? Devs get 2 of each Heavy per 5?
Because SG come with 8 combis in the kit instead of one along with 2 heavies, 3 specials, and 2 pistols. Devs similarly have a ton of options. That makes it way more plausible to get what you need. Blightlords are ridiculously mono-pose and cutting those models to get combis on to them while very hobby-centric is not for novice players or the feint of heart.
A quick look at the Blightlords sprues on the GW website shows five combi-weapon arms, with the typical 2 halves combi-weapon design, so I don't see cutting being a requirement, just the requisite bits, same as devastators etc. If I'm incorrect about that then correct me.
yeah, and people were asking for the exact opposite of what GW did. We wanted the kits to have all the weapons options, not the options to be stripped out.
Yea, man. I get it. You should be able to do that if you're crazy enough to tackle that project and GW might yet change its mind. But I do think it might be unfair to those without the same means to accomplish those conversions.
The horse left the barn a while ago with the mono-pose stuff. It seems to me that DG got the shaft in that regard, because a lot of other new kits haven't had that same treatment. GW may have had to push stylized out kits fast for the release of 8th.
I do not look forward to CSM Terminators and chain axes ( the lack of monopose may save them - we'll see soon enough I suppose ).
It MIGHT BE unfair to the brand new player with no bits box and no local community when they have just started.
It DEFINITELY IS unfair to everyone who built a legal unit but did not save the extra bits just in case GW did something unprecedented. Oh, and also magnatized/knew to magnetize from day one.
Less sympathy for the theoretical but not existent in the face of the actual screw job real people are actually facing would be real courtesy.
Except this isn’t about rules, it’s about company policy and the dangerous precedent it sets. It might pertain to rules, but that is the tangential issue of what this change represents, so customer service.
I would still say that the Rules team would be in a better place to give this feedback to the corporate bigwigs (or whomever is responsible) and would be more likely to lend their support as well.
There's nothing stopping anyone from emailing them both.
I dropped them an email even though I'm not DG but have many DG player friends who have decided to no longer 40k for the time being as they would have to break up a bunch of modeld etc.
Its simply dick move to single out DG like that.
I am not looking forward to only be forced to take 8 storm guardians with 2 fusion etc..
It would be one thing if it had been this way from the beginning. It's a massive middle finger to existing players, however, to make what used to be legal loadouts illegal.
It honestly floors me that some people here are saying it's no big deal that they've just made many peoples' collections illegal to field. What are they supposed to do? Apparently, either hack their lovingly crafted models apart, or buy new models entirely. Answers I'm sure GW likes because they involve buying more GW-branded plastic, but not that any hobbyist should ever think are adequate.
Crap like this is why I magnetize literally every model that has any alternate option. I even magnetized my Rubrics, which felt stupid at the time but frankly, now, seems like it was a really good decision. But that's not something you should be able to expect, given how unfriendly GW makes their stuff to magnetization. They clearly don't want you to do it, they want you to just go buy new sets of models every time they decide to change what they're allowed to be equipped with.
yeah, and people were asking for the exact opposite of what GW did. We wanted the kits to have all the weapons options, not the options to be stripped out.
Yea, man. I get it. You should be able to do that if you're crazy enough to tackle that project and GW might yet change its mind. But I do think it might be unfair to those without the same means to accomplish those conversions.
The horse left the barn a while ago with the mono-pose stuff. It seems to me that DG got the shaft in that regard, because a lot of other new kits haven't had that same treatment. GW may have had to push stylized out kits fast for the release of 8th.
I do not look forward to CSM Terminators and chain axes ( the lack of monopose may save them - we'll see soon enough I suppose ).
You did not answer the most relevant question:
H.B.M.C. wrote: And if Sternguard were suddenly limited to 2 Combi-Meltas, 2 Combi-Flamers, 2 Combi-Plasmas and 2 Combi-Gravs per squad, rather than whatever combination of those people wanted, what would you say then? 'Cause that's the equivalent.
I feel for the Death Guard players here, I truly do. It's not about weapon spam; it's about aesthetics and customization. These same complaints would likely still be happening if they weren't "overpowered".
My Dark Eldar Trueborn were all lovingly converted with Shard Carbines to go with my Duke Sliscus conversion... only to be invalidated within one codex. My friends let me count them as Splinter Rifles, at least.
The sad thing is, it isn't a playtesting issue. It isn't really even a rules issue. Its a sales decision to move more boxes. Ironically, of kits that are out of stock and have been out of stock for months.
But regardless, buy more to bring your units in line with what's allowed (not even what's good, or in response to a meta shift or the usual optional new codex optimization decisions, but what's allowed at all). Buy more to unlock the ability to field things that aren't DG marines. Buy more to unlock even more special weapons, even if they aren't the ones you want to use.
1. There's literally almost twice the text on the new entry
k?
Everything you described was a nerf to 5-9 man squads
And?
2. especially the players that liked 7 man squads for Nurgle fluff reasons.
Stop the garbage justification please.
Hah. Show me a person who cares about fluff that is concerned about this. I have never seen a 7 man unit at a tournament nor will I ever.
Stop with the faux outrage, please.
Right here, I am concerned of the fluff, liked running my squads with 2 plasma or melta at 7 man and I have a problem with this. Especially when as pointed out it forces more models, just to get the same special weapons and no I don't like blight launchers and didn't want to field them.
1. There's literally almost twice the text on the new entry
2. Everything you described was a nerf to 5-9 man squads, especially the players that liked 7 man squads for Nurgle fluff reasons.
And what happened then? Well, in Dakkaville they say that Slayer-Fan123's heart grew three sizes!
Never thought I would see Slayer-Fan be a fluff-bunny. Welcome home!
yeah, and people were asking for the exact opposite of what GW did. We wanted the kits to have all the weapons options, not the options to be stripped out.
Yea, man. I get it. You should be able to do that if you're crazy enough to tackle that project and GW might yet change its mind. But I do think it might be unfair to those without the same means to accomplish those conversions.
The horse left the barn a while ago with the mono-pose stuff. It seems to me that DG got the shaft in that regard, because a lot of other new kits haven't had that same treatment. GW may have had to push stylized out kits fast for the release of 8th.
I do not look forward to CSM Terminators and chain axes ( the lack of monopose may save them - we'll see soon enough I suppose ).
Where is it written it has to be fair in terms of capability ? I know plenty of people so rich they just toss money at any issue, even this game. I can't hope to keep up with all the variety and having like 3 of any unit in every configuration expertly painted for them. For them, this is no issue at all. If we all have the wargear options, we at least have the choice to scrounge up the bits, do the hobby work for our units and make them what we want. Equality of opportunity not equality of outcomes. I have been behind the 8 ball because I don't put limitless funds into the game but I have put in time and patience to search for those options I wanted, when I can.
Defending these dumb choices is really daft to me. They make the squad feel lame, it feels bad and it's overly penalizing for no reason other than someone feeling we are unable to find, get, craft or otherwise understand how to make the units we want. Disrespecting time, effort and desire. Like you still end up with two specials in 5-9 man squads, but it can't be the same one because, someone would feel bad I found another plasma and they didn't ? So why can't these same people get two boxes and and then run one with 2 blight launchers and one with 2 plasma at 7 man ? Is that really over the top amazing ?
It's a dumb idea they had, and people are right to be annoyed, me included.
1. There's literally almost twice the text on the new entry
2. Everything you described was a nerf to 5-9 man squads, especially the players that liked 7 man squads for Nurgle fluff reasons.
And what happened then? Well, in Dakkaville they say that Slayer-Fan123's heart grew three sizes!
Never thought I would see Slayer-Fan be a fluff-bunny. Welcome home!
You have to realize I'm against fluff lists being bad as a whole, hence me being critical of the rules. So when people's lists suddenly become illegal (Poxwalker horde or 7 man Plague Marine loadouts) or plain bad (the eventual fall of Ynnari, as OP as they were), there is an obligation to call out GW instead of praising them.
BuT gUy'S anD sINgULar Gal , Gw GoOd , sEe frEe ptS uPDatE, gw BeST for VetEranS ....
nvm all the typos and frankly lackluster new equipment System, or that we recently got 2 armies shafted into Legend, or that playtesting is obviously not heeded and proofreading is for wimps.
God that hurt to write out.
Gw has done this for 2 reasons:
Chapterhouse fallout
Spite 3rd Parties
feth the people that had converted their minis.
I guess i can now shelve my power maul honor guard before i even finished them.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Nah you deserved it because ALL the Honour Guard having Power Mauls is minmaxing!
Which is in my case ironic as i Started out as a rather waac player , .
Regardless this doesn't Bode well , in other News does that mean vostroyan guardsmen will also get the Stock because plasma is verboten for mainline squads...
No models no rules? SM codex and its supplements beg to differ.
Wolf Guard terminators can take any sort of weapons, half of them are not included in the codex.
Firstborn SW infantries, both on foot or jump packs, can still take flamers and meltas with none of those bitz in their box.
Bjorn the Fell Handed can still take a Twin Lascannon, despite there isn't one in the kit.
Characters, on foot or mount, can have multiple loadouts, including options that only available by kitbashing.
I also highly doubt that the upcoming ork codex will cut the Big Mek with KFF and I doubt GW will release a model as well. At the moment, one of the best ork HQs doesn't even have an official model.
The no model/bitz no rule is not universal. It's definitely a trend, but not a real rule.
It's not even converted minis. My Death Guard army, which I've had since the 3.5 Codex, is 4 7-man squads, two with 2x Melta and two with 2x Plasma. They are illegal now. But someone who started playing last week could have the exact same config, and their army is also illegal.
Wayniac wrote: The more I tthinka bout this, it's not really a nerf. It's actually pretty good unless you were one of the people spamming a single weapon.
You could take in a 10-man squad:
* 2 plasma guns AND 2 blight launchers, plus a plasma on the champion.
* 2 plague spewers and 2 plague belchers
* 2 flails of corruption AND 2 plague cleavers.
That is not a nerf at all Just what you can't do is take all the guys with one of the melee weapons (axe I think was popular)
now Blightlords yes it's a nerf you can't spam combi-plasma.
TIL wanting your units to have a focus instead of being forced to have a worthless mishmash of weapons is "spamming". I bet you also think taking a Devastator squad with 4 Lascannons to act as an anti-tank unit rather than taking 1 Lascannon, 1 Heavy Bolter, 1 Missile Launcher, and 1 Plasma Cannon is also "spam".
Also, Death Guard Terminators have been able to take multiple Combi-Plasma for years if not decades. This change makes units some people have had for years or decades unable to be used, all because of corporate greed. GW have a market value of £3b. They don't need you to defend them.
CSM Termies (of all stripes) have been able to take as many combi meltas/flamers as they like since their inception, that was kinda their thing. 4th ed CSM dex retconned Chaos having access to combi plasma as well and they've had these options ever since circa 2006/7 IIRC.
It's not even converted minis. My Death Guard army, which I've had since the 3.5 Codex, is 4 7-man squads, two with 2x Melta and two with 2x Plasma. They are illegal now. But someone who started playing last week could have the exact same config, and their army is also illegal.
It's so fething stupid.
Yeap, those were may squads as well, I never would have imagined they'd make such normal squads not legal it's madness.
It's not even converted minis. My Death Guard army, which I've had since the 3.5 Codex, is 4 7-man squads, two with 2x Melta and two with 2x Plasma. They are illegal now. But someone who started playing last week could have the exact same config, and their army is also illegal.
It's so fething stupid.
Yes, it is. It's probably going to actually end up costinggw money. If you want combi-weapons for all of your Blightlords you either A) Buy more kits to get the required bits, B) Buy the bits from bits sellers, who have to buy the kits in the first place in order to part them out, or C) Trade with someone who ALSO had to buy the kits. Now everyone will just buy one box, because that's all you can use.
I get the feeling whatever middle manager came up with this rule is going to hear from their boss.....
It's not even converted minis. My Death Guard army, which I've had since the 3.5 Codex, is 4 7-man squads, two with 2x Melta and two with 2x Plasma. They are illegal now. But someone who started playing last week could have the exact same config, and their army is also illegal.
It's so fething stupid.
Honestly it is either that or to spite 3rd Parties and 3d printers, except that the spite /stupidity will Fall back on them.
What makes this especially offending is that it's happening on an army that's been released 3 years ago when no models no rules was already in effect. Chapterhouse and 3rd Party minis were already there, there's not been a change in the last three years, so it's totally arbitrary to put out these restrictions now.
And it doesn't hit older players mainly. Older players have 40 Plague Marines and will find a playable loadout. Older players also raised an eyebrow when we lost pistols, Plasma pistols and chainswords, but admittedly there were never Minis with these so there was little actual complaining and people just used their chainsword PM as Double knife PM. But now? They've been selling 3 additional kinds of PM kits alongside the main Box so even or especially new players will get hit by this, nobody bought 5 times the PM Main Box and built exactly what's in the kit because it would look terrible with how individual the PM look.
Wayniac wrote: I have no problem with this whatsoever. serves you right for looking to spam whatever was determined to be the most effective.
I have long been of the opinion that the unit should only allow what comes in the box so you only need to buy one box to create a unit none of this crap buying multiple boxes or trying to hunt for bits or recast or 3D print that doesn't extra pieces that you need to equip them all the same.
Good riddance
I have 30 Blightlords (and yes, I have run them all at once before) 7 have combi meltas, 2 combi flamers, 3 plague spewers, 2 blight launchers and a reaper autocannon spread across them. feth me, right?
Now, I've been playing since 2nd- I've been through this rigmarole before, I've been through this with my SWs in the jump to the 5th ed codex when before, Blood Claws could take 1 powerfist/weapon per 5 and were in squads of up to 15, then both got bumped down. But this? This is on another level? It smacks of favouritism for loyalists (again. "And they shall know no unfavourable rules changes!") and GW is once again effectively telling converters and kitbashers they are not welcome.
GW, you entire empire is built on players being able to do their guys, that is what set you apart from other companies. Now, apparently people all of a sudden have gak for brains and cannot work out that not all options in a box are usable at the same time, so GW instead of, slow walking them to this epiphany, like they have done with new layers in the past for time immemorial, now just cow to them because reasons.
I don't get how people can say this is good because it stops min maxing, when this is the first codex this edition designed like this and the other codices this edition (including loyalist marines) have not had this done to them.
How do you defend that? It is a paradigm shift part way through an edition.
Da Boss wrote: I don't get how people can say this is good because it stops min maxing...
It doesn't even do anything to prevent min-maxing. You can still have five Plague Marines with two plasma guns and a blight launcher. (But one plasma gun and two blight launchers, or three plasma guns is obviously crazy!)
Plus, now you can max-maxing with a ten strong squad with three plasma guns and two blight launchers!
Putting my corporate accountant hat back on - these dumb essays of unit entries are not for the benefit of player experience, it is just so that GW can send a message to investors that they have a corporate policy in place that is effectively shutting 3rd parties out of their market as they have no legal ability to do so via courts (imagine a car manufacturer having the gall to sue a 3rd party oil filter producer). Apparently this protectionism is good for business (despite the obvious frustration to actual customers).
What annoys me the most is that growth and profitability at GW will be taken as solid gold proof that this policy is flawless, taking no notice that it is just a stupid policy coinciding with the biggest shake up of the flagship marine range since 3rd edition plastics.
Da Boss wrote: That is some crazy gak. I would see this as "testing the waters" and suggest that if you think this is dumb you send them a mail to let them know so they know it was a bad idea.
I would bet this is from some middle manager who thinks this idea is GENIUS and won't listen to reason about it.
By now huge chunk of codexes are done. Not much testing waters except end of 9e/start of 10e
Insularum wrote: Putting my corporate accountant hat back on - these dumb essays of unit entries are not for the benefit of player experience, it is just so that GW can send a message to investors that they have a corporate policy in place that is effectively shutting 3rd parties out of their market as they have no legal ability to do so via courts (imagine a car manufacturer having the gall to sue a 3rd party oil filter producer). Apparently this protectionism is good for business (despite the obvious frustration to actual customers).
It does absolutely nothing to prevent anybody else making 'Diseased Space Knights' with exactly the same equipment.
It does limit the amount of 'Combination Energy Bolt Weapons' a 3rd party might be able to sell, but that clearly isn't GW's concern because loyalist Marines can still take combi-weapons all over the place.
Vector Strike wrote: It seems like GW wants to reverse the normal flow of power creep - newer codexes will be WORSE than previous ones now!
Really?
Marine codex. Big buff over 8e
Necrons: even bigger buff vs 8e
Dg: big buff
Codex creep is going faster rather than less. Wolves are worst new codex so far and being marines they still good, maybe even better than were in 8e(hard to make supplement to marines that sucks. Worse than ba or ws but still marines)
Honestly other than the combi plasma blightlords not much else changed and death guard was a fairly limited faction to begin with as far as options. I guess you're screwed if you built a crazy melee unit too.
Now if they carry this on to the regular CSM codex then we riot because those have actual options. Although I would bet terminators suffer this fate I would be shocked if say havocs or chaos Marines were limited.
Da Boss wrote: I don't get how people can say this is good because it stops min maxing, when this is the first codex this edition designed like this and the other codices this edition (including loyalist marines) have not had this done to them.
How do you defend that? It is a paradigm shift part way through an edition.
The message is: Only play Loyalist Marines.
Paradigm change betwebn edition is normal for gw.
Albeit this would be rare fast. But could be individual case. Speaking of which what's situation for core in dg? As punishing as necrons or more like marines where most have core?
H.B.M.C. wrote: Except you need two boxes to get 10 models, as the kit only comes with 7 (for the price of 10).
Ding ding ding we have a winner!
And once you've bought the second box, you have four left over which you now can't use due to reduced max unit size.
Technically you had the same issue in 8th as 3 boxes did not give you a nice even 20.
The problem with the box is that they decided to market it as fluffy("See Nurgle is 7") but then made that a very inefficient number in both 8th and 9th.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Da Boss wrote: I don't get how people can say this is good because it stops min maxing, when this is the first codex this edition designed like this and the other codices this edition (including loyalist marines) have not had this done to them.
How do you defend that? It is a paradigm shift part way through an edition.
The message is: Only play Loyalist Marines.
I think the problem is that GW doesn't have the courage to do anything to Loyalist Marines and ends up favoring them over other factions. Technically nothing new, but it has been reaching a certain zenith as of late.
If they do continue down this path it will reflect on how badly they provide loadouts in their kits even moreso.
Da Boss wrote: I don't get how people can say this is good because it stops min maxing, when this is the first codex this edition designed like this and the other codices this edition (including loyalist marines) have not had this done to them.
How do you defend that? It is a paradigm shift part way through an edition.
Or maybe not & it'll prove to be a one-off pile of poo and serve as the rational to sell DG players a 2nd codex in about 18 months....
Wayniac wrote: Honestly other than the combi plasma blightlords not much else changed and death guard was a fairly limited faction to begin with as far as options. I guess you're screwed if you built a crazy melee unit too.
Now if they carry this on to the regular CSM codex then we riot because those have actual options. Although I would bet terminators suffer this fate I would be shocked if say havocs or chaos Marines were limited.
The thing is Havoc Aspiring Champions in the current model kit don't have bits for anything but special weapons (default is a Flamer). Given what Death Guard just experienced, I could see the 9th ed C:CSM taking that away. I also don't think it would be too far of a stretch for Havocs to be limited to 4 choices from this list: 2 Lascannons, 2 Missile Launchers, 2 Autocannons, 2 Heavy Bolters, 1 Reaper Chaincannon. It still does allow for heavy armor and light armor loadouts. It's just extremely annoying to have to construct them as Havoc squads are going to have 2-3 different Heavy Weapons as well as a usually pretty worthless Aspiring Champion special weapon.
I feel more comfortable that regular Chaos Space Marines won't lose anything except perhaps the Reaper Chaincannon. Although, it wouldn't surprise me if GW forgot that the Shadowspear/current Start Collecting CSM have an ETB marine with Autocannon which could also go away as an option. We are talking about a group that literally FAQ'ed away non-Champion Chosen with dual Lightning Claws when the Dark Vengeance Chosen had exactly that model. It could still be used as the Aspiring Champion for Chosen, but that's not what the model was in Dark Vengeance (the Champ was the Power Maul marine). It was annoying having to switch that around when I fielded them.
I will say at this point, I wouldn't be completely shocked if CSM go to Missile Launcher and Heavy Bolter as their only Heavy Weapon options. The Kill Team CSM player in me wouldn't even be that surprised if it was just the Heavy Bolter even if the current CSM model kit has the Missile Launcher as a bit.
My Deathwatch Veterans can take: heavy bolters, heavy flamers, missile launchers, combat shields, bolt pistols, grav-pistols, inferno pistols, hand flamers, lightning claws, plasma pistols, power axes, power fists, thunder hammers, flamers, grav-guns, meltaguns, plasma guns and storm bolters... none of which are in the actual Deathwatch Veterans plastic kit at all.
So limiting Death Guard to exactly what's in their plastic kits seems a bit unfair.
Duskweaver wrote: My Deathwatch Veterans can take: heavy bolters, heavy flamers, missile launchers, combat shields, bolt pistols, grav-pistols, inferno pistols, hand flamers, lightning claws, plasma pistols, power axes, power fists, thunder hammers, flamers, grav-guns, meltaguns, plasma guns and storm bolters... none of which are in the actual Deathwatch Veterans plastic kit at all.
So limiting Death Guard to exactly what's in their plastic kits seems a bit unfair.
"And they shall know no unfavourable rules changes!"
We all know who the protagonists are and who the NPCs are in this game. GW just made it more obvious than ever before.
Grimtuff wrote: We all know who the protagonists are and who the NPCs are in this game. GW just made it more obvious than ever before.
It's not as if Death Guard are the first codex to have silly equipment restrictions. Have a look at the sororitas HQ entry for the character variation of the same.
What I don't get is why GW are restricting units to equipment 'in box' when they must have been making good money in the past from box sales for bitz. There seemed to be a whole sales strategy behind letting a squad take a pair of guns and only supplying them with one per purchase.
GW makes the gane to sell models. They don't make models for the game. All of 8th and 9ths wombo combo, unit specific rules is merely emblematic of this.
kirotheavenger wrote: With a bit of luck, they'll create a Legends entry to reflect their old loadouts. Like Sanguinary Priests.
Although I think it's a forlorn hope.
and the entry will be so badly underpowered that you would be better off with nearly anything else in the game. Why would they reward you with a competant entry? You've already given them their money.
Da Boss wrote: I don't get how people can say this is good because it stops min maxing, when this is the first codex this edition designed like this and the other codices this edition (including loyalist marines) have not had this done to them.
How do you defend that? It is a paradigm shift part way through an edition.
I would be totally in favour of wargear options matching what is available in the box if all armies followed the same principle and it didn't screw the old armies. The current situation sucks but it isn't much of an issue for anyone starting a new army.
I hate paradigm shifts that happen in the middle of an edition. Then again, 40k is too bloated and inconsistent that any changes in design philosophy are not going to fix it regardless of when they are made.
This has nothing to do with power level. I would play death guard if they were the worst army in the game.
This has everything to do with making peoples units illegal to play.
I've spent thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours painting my army to a top quality. Now i have to cut their weapons off just because some fething idiot at GW doesn't know how to write rules properly?
If you think this kind of behaviour is acceptable, it means you don't care when they do this to any army. And if you don't care, then there's no point having a contrary opinion to people who are legitimately put out by this.
My question is, should I start ripping the arms off my Dark Eldar and Black Legion now? or should I wait until their codex drops to see what they've invalidated.
I will preface what I am about to say with saying these two datasheets are rather crazy. If GW is going to limit the datasheet to reflect the models so closely, they really should have paired down the weapon list so that many items were functionally the same (does the unit really need 4 different melee weapons along with the Plague Knife before we even get to Champion options). It is also odd that they went with the 1 in 5 options rather than 2 per unit. Now on to the main points.
Why aren't Space Marines limited like this? If you mean Firstborn Marines, you have a valid question. Primaris Marines are pretty much limited to what is in the kit plus the various upgrade kit options for the Sergeant. Even the Sergeant options are limited to the Intercessor units. The long-standing Firstborn Marine kits that were largely constructed to be kit-bashed, so I suspect they didn't want to toss over that apple cart. Some more recent releases for other armies were designed with limited kit-bashing intended (Chaos Space Marines and Havoks, Battle Sisters and Retributors), so I expect those designed cross-overs will remain valid. I would not be surprised if designed kit bash becomes the limitations on units in the future.
Is this good? Certainly not for people who went through the effort of creating move-effective units by tracking down the bits. It may very well be better for the game as a whole of such mim-maxing is prevented, but I doubt that was the intent. It will encourage more background-compliant looking forces if they sort out the option rules and cost. They certainly took a strong crack at narrowing the effectiveness differences in melee and special weapons.
My question is, should I start ripping the arms off my Dark Eldar and Black Legion now? or should I wait until their codex drops to see what they've invalidated.
Wait for the Codizes. If there's one thing we can say about GW it is that they are consistently inconsistent. They might be reading the reactions to the Plague Marines and Blightlords and not fix it for DG but start returning the Dark Eldar and CSM datasheets to their old way while we speak .
alextroy: It is notable though that the new space marine kits are already optmised in the min-max sense. You have units all with the same weapon already, right? So they come pre-specialised for their role.
My question is, should I start ripping the arms off my Dark Eldar and Black Legion now? or should I wait until their codex drops to see what they've invalidated.
Wait for the Codizes. If there's one thing we can say about GW it is that they are consistently inconsistent. They might be reading the reactions to the Plague Marines and Blightlords and not fix it for DG but start returning the Dark Eldar and CSM datasheets to their old way while we speak .
You realize right that de are coming next month and books are done way in advance? If this changes anything it's for last third of books.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Da Boss wrote: alextroy: It is notable though that the new space marine kits are already optmised in the min-max sense. You have units all with the same weapon already, right? So they come pre-specialised for their role.
But not for old kits. And it's not like pm is new kit. Consistency missing
My question is, should I start ripping the arms off my Dark Eldar and Black Legion now? or should I wait until their codex drops to see what they've invalidated.
Wait for the Codizes. If there's one thing we can say about GW it is that they are consistently inconsistent. They might be reading the reactions to the Plague Marines and Blightlords and not fix it for DG but start returning the Dark Eldar and CSM datasheets to their old way while we speak .
You realize right that de are coming next month and books are done way in advance? If this changes anything it's for last third of books.
You're right about DE, I remembered that they're already on the way after I posted. It will be interesting to see how they're handled then. Since they have old kits only probably no change like for "old" marines...
CSM will be the real reveal, their kits are of a similar age like PM and they're similarly restricted in options that come with the kit(s).
This is the sort of thing that illustrates how terrible GW still is at customer relations. If they were going to make a shift this way (which who knows if they actually are, given that normal Space Marines conveniently escaped it...), it should have been done in some big announcement a year ago: "by the way guys, with 9th, we've made the difficult to decision to generally limited wargear options for squads to what you find in the box. We wanted to let you know now ahead of time so you can plan ahead. We know this is going to inconvenience some people with existing collections that will become technically illegal to field, so in recognition of that, we're going to offer cheap weapon sprues with the release of each new codex to allow effected players to easily source the parts to make their models legal again. We know this doesn't make up for the difficulty of having to cut up and repaint your models, but we wanted to do what we could."
Instead we get this crap just dumped on people with zero explanation and zero recognition of what a dickish thing it is to do to people.
yukishiro1 wrote: This is the sort of thing that illustrates how terrible GW still is at customer relations. If they were going to make a shift this way (which who knows if they actually are, given that normal Space Marines conveniently escaped it...), it should have been done in some big announcement a year ago: "by the way guys, with 9th, we've made the difficult to decision to generally limited wargear options for squads to what you find in the box. We wanted to let you know now ahead of time so you can plan ahead. We know this is going to inconvenience some people with existing collections that will become technically illegal to field, so in recognition of that, we're going to offer cheap weapon sprues with the release of each new codex to allow effected players to easily source the parts to make their models legal again. We know this doesn't make up for the difficulty of having to cut up and repaint your models, but we wanted to do what we could."
Instead we get this crap just dumped on people with zero explanation and zero recognition of what a dickish thing it is to do to people.
Yup. Which tells me that, while this might be an overall change, it wasn't thought about with the level of regard it needed.
You're right about DE, I remembered that they're already on the way after I posted. It will be interesting to see how they're handled then. Since they have old kits only probably no change like for "old" marines...
More like they've culled almost everything that didn't have the corresponding model from Drukhari they could since 6th edition.
yukishiro1 wrote: This is the sort of thing that illustrates how terrible GW still is at customer relations. If they were going to make a shift this way (which who knows if they actually are, given that normal Space Marines conveniently escaped it...), it should have been done in some big announcement a year ago: "by the way guys, with 9th, we've made the difficult to decision to generally limited wargear options for squads to what you find in the box. We wanted to let you know now ahead of time so you can plan ahead. We know this is going to inconvenience some people with existing collections that will become technically illegal to field, so in recognition of that, we're going to offer cheap weapon sprues with the release of each new codex to allow effected players to easily source the parts to make their models legal again. We know this doesn't make up for the difficulty of having to cut up and repaint your models, but we wanted to do what we could."
Instead we get this crap just dumped on people with zero explanation and zero recognition of what a dickish thing it is to do to people.
Yup. Which tells me that, while this might be an overall change, it wasn't thought about with the level of regard it needed.
Then why does the loyalist SM codex have no such restrictions? Sternguard can take any combi weapons, Devastators can take any heavy weapons etc.
Grimtuff wrote: Then why does the loyalist SM codex have no such restrictions? Sternguard can take any combi weapons, Devastators can take any heavy weapons etc.
Grimtuff wrote: Then why does the loyalist SM codex have no such restrictions? Sternguard can take any combi weapons, Devastators can take any heavy weapons etc.
We all know why.
Like I said, "And they shall know no unfavourable rules changes!"
Playing Devil's Advocate here.
It's not because Space Marines are special, but due to the poseability and interchangability of kits.
The Plague Marines are very monopose with just a few options of loadouts for each model. That plasma gun is going on torso A and none-other (out of the box).
Whereas the Sternguard kit is fully interchangable.
Where Space Marine kits are monopose - like the Sanguinary Priest, all their options have been removed. (Except the jump pack on the Sanguinary Priest because players screamed bloody murder. Which maybe defeats my point slightly).
I'd also argue that Primaris kits haven't escaped it at all. The only options you get are what's in the box. It's just generally not obvious due to the fact that there's no prior precedent for anything.
bullyboy wrote:But true that retributors should allow a max of 2 multi meltas, or stop the nonesense for Death Guard. Its obnoxious.
tneva82 wrote:
Da Boss wrote: alextroy: It is notable though that the new space marine kits are already optmised in the min-max sense. You have units all with the same weapon already, right? So they come pre-specialised for their role.
But not for old kits. And it's not like pm is new kit. Consistency missing
But it is somewhat consistent. You can't have anything in a 10-model unit of Plague Marines that you can't build out of two copies of the box just like you can't have any heavy weapons in a unit of Retributors you can't build out of two copies of the box.
Of course, you can't build a 10-model unit of Retributors out of two boxes because you have no Bolter Sisters...
Then why does the loyalist SM codex have no such restrictions? Sternguard can take any combi weapons, Devastators can take any heavy weapons etc.
Drukhari Scourges only have one of each weapon in their kit and I highly doubt that in the new codex they will be forced to play with what's in the box. They'd certainly keep the Devastators' freedom of choice.
Blackie wrote: Drukhari Scourges only have one of each weapon in their kit and I highly doubt that in the new codex they will be forced to play with what's in the box. They'd certainly keep the Devastators' freedom of choice.
That's the million dollar question, isn't it. Guess we'll see when the DE Codex comes out.
Blackie wrote: Drukhari Scourges only have one of each weapon in their kit and I highly doubt that in the new codex they will be forced to play with what's in the box. They'd certainly keep the Devastators' freedom of choice.
That's the million dollar question, isn't it. Guess we'll see when the DE Codex comes out.
Limiting those models with what's in their box would invalidate the unit, which isn't the case of plague marines now that they have some of their options removed.
Can't take a Plague Spewer on a DP unless it has a Sword. Can't take wings if you do.
Can't take an Orb of Dessication (or whatever it's called) on your HQ unless you take a Manreaper as well.
GW are just making this worse and worse. And to think I thought "Finally! They're moving forward" when they gave the DG special rules and toughness boost to Terminator Lords/Sorcerers. Boy did I jump the gun.
One step forward, three steps diagonally backwards, and then they fall on their face.
BlackoCatto wrote: I wonder what this mean for Guard, being that their Infantry kit is only a flame and a Grenade launcher, everything else comes in another box.
BlackoCatto wrote: I wonder what this mean for Guard, being that their Infantry kit is only a flame and a Grenade launcher, everything else comes in another box.
Probably nothing, given that Guard Sergeants have not been able to take lasguns for three editions now despite the kit having enough to outfit all 10.
Or they might finally just shut up and do the thing they should have been doing for editions now and differentiated Guardsmen from Conscripts better.
Why not ignore GW and create an atmosphere that encourages community agreed living rules?
So, this thread could be about how to deal with GW faithlessness.
We might suggest alternatives. We can play test them. These and similar adjustments will become common and people will learn to expect them and slowly GW will lose influence.
If they decide to get cocky, then third party minis and home cooked rules may be what saves the hobby.
If they decide to support the effort, then maybe GW will get serious enough to produce a stable environment for serious collectors...
jeff white wrote: Why not ignore GW and create an atmosphere that encourages community agreed living rules.
it was tried several times, main problem is that GW rules are that bad to begin with that a community based LRB has no chance because it weill be called out for the low quality and the balance issues
so you have to start with the GW and apply minor fixes at first until you are accepted by the people and can start with the major changes needed
the problem here is, that if you reach that point, GW comes up with a new Editon and everyone is gone because this time GW got it right (and you start from scratch because your LRB, not matter how good it is, is outdated and a legacy system)
another problem is that you would need to clean up the game to get it working, because there are too many similar units, weapons, etc.
so people will be pissed that their favourite unit did not make it or got merged with another one (main problem here, Old- and Nu-Marines)
Nah, the main problem with 'community rules' is the inevitably start favoring the armies played by whoever's leading/hosting the project. And armies that they dislike for no apparent reason get worse.
Plus it doesn't solve the low quality or balance issues, just adds new ones.
Voss wrote: Nah, the main problem with 'community rules' is the inevitably start favoring the armies played by whoever's leading/hosting the project. And armies that they dislike for no apparent reason get worse.
Plus it doesn't solve the low quality or balance issues, just adds new ones.
Because GW certainly doesn't have a favored faction, and others get left behind. That'd be insane!
Voss wrote: Nah, the main problem with 'community rules' is the inevitably start favoring the armies played by whoever's leading/hosting the project. And armies that they dislike for no apparent reason get worse.
Plus it doesn't solve the low quality or balance issues, just adds new ones.
Because GW certainly doesn't have a favored faction, and others get left behind. That'd be insane!
Strangely, I didn't say that.
I just don't find any value in adding new problems that people are going to argue over. Especially since the usual mode of argument for these thing is just post _more_, until the people who disagree give up.
House rules work for small, regular groups that play together often and know what they all want. They don't work over the internet.
Voss wrote: Nah, the main problem with 'community rules' is the inevitably start favoring the armies played by whoever's leading/hosting the project. And armies that they dislike for no apparent reason get worse.
Plus it doesn't solve the low quality or balance issues, just adds new ones.
Because GW certainly doesn't have a favored faction, and others get left behind. That'd be insane!
Strangely, I didn't say that.
I just don't find any value in adding new problems that people are going to argue over.
House rules work for small, regular groups that play together often and know what they all want. They don't work over the internet.
The way you said it implied that those were issues exclusively in homebrew rulesets. That GW did not and does not do that.
Voss wrote: Nah, the main problem with 'community rules' is the inevitably start favoring the armies played by whoever's leading/hosting the project. And armies that they dislike for no apparent reason get worse.
I think it has less to do with that and more to do with the inability of the community at large to agree on anything, even something as simple as to the scope of changes. That's why we have to get rulings on high from GW for any change to the rules.
I mean, even the most simple of changes like community-rules Matched Play points would be stymied by simple things like what is the minimum points value for a model just existing on the table? GW says 5.
House rules is what ITC was. It worked because GW's rules in this case (specifically, missions and terrain) were not only bad, they were virtually non-existent and completely unsuitable for competitive play. So it can happen.
But it definitely won't happen because Death Guard players are angry that they have to rip the arms off some of their models. House rules only take off when they address something that is screwing everyone over, because you need buy-in from everyone.
ITC and INATFAQ are good examples. Ironically, they are both instances where GW absolutely failed to meet the customer's needs in mass for an extended period of time and even then a portion of the population wouldn't accept them as not official GW rules.
Community rules simply do not have the same legitimacy and spread of GW ones. They are an optional sign-on and any changes made will inevitably result in some members of the community not liking them and preferring to use the regular GW rules instead. New players coming in are also going to broadly be familiar with the GW rules and not a given fan ruleset. Some people will be perfectly happy with the GW ruleset in the first place and not even look to change. At the end of the day a fraction of players will know the community rules, but all the players will know the GW ones. That 'common ground' element has extremely powerful inertia.
And that is assuming there is just -one- community ruleset which has broad support and coordinated dispersal. Which is already unrealistic to begin with. As for each area just going with its own house rules; people can do that now with little effort. Sometimes they do. But usually not because again, the inertia of common ground. So many players would rather play games using a ruleset they have problems with but has an easily accessed community than fail to find games with a ruleset they really like but has a small following.
The only way a community ruleset works is when GW does not provide rule support in the first place. ITC rules happened because GW did not provide any tourney support, AoS fan-comps happened when GW wasn't providing any balance mechanism. And even then finding agreement on what needed to be changed, how, and how much was difficult to the extreme.
I don't think it's an anti-third-party-bits thing, because if it was, they would have covered normal space marines with it - they are by far the biggest source of sales for third party bit providers.
The fact that space marines were spared it makes me think it has to be just a case of GW's right hand not talking to its left hand and some "genius" getting the idea that since the plague marine set is kinda like an AOS set they should do the same thing they do in AOS and limit weapons by what's in the kit.
GW not knowing what they are doing or having a specific plan for an Edition that get changed with each new book is nothing new
could also be that those who wrote the Codex thought only kids play it who are not able to convert their models
not needing to think too much about list building and useability while building the models is an important part of nu-GW anyway (and the adults all play Marines, so for those this is not an issue)
for community rules, ITC are a very good example:
Community rules that were gone as soon as GW made a new Edition, close to the original without changing major things and you still have to care about new GW models released
Plenty of people were complaining about not having enough bits in the box though.
GW just took the worst possible route to fix the problem. Instead of selling upgrade sprues for more wargear, they decided to curb all the kitbashes.
This kind of reminds me of the picture where people complained that a window was broken and caused a draft, and they just walled the window shut in response.
Jidmah wrote: This kind of reminds me of the picture where people complained that a window was broken and caused a draft, and they just walled the window shut in response.
Or when we wished GW would release minis for the things in their books, and their solution was to cut the things in the books rather than release minis for them.
GW's tagline might as well be "Be careful what you wish for!".
Somehow that really strikes home as prime GW logic right there or lack of it as the case may be.
GW, the real Wishmaster. " So you wish you had all the options in the box ? Granted ! Now you have all the options in the box, they are the only options you can use mawahahaha ! "
Blackie wrote: Limiting those models with what's in their box would invalidate the unit...
How?
Weapons all work with different ranges, which is big for a glass cannon unit. Some want the bearer to get close (18'' assault + melta Heat Lances or 12'' assault Shredders), some prefer the mid range (36'' rapid fire Splinter Cannons or 18'' assault Blasters), Dark Lances (36'' heavy 1) are for long range with a penalty if the bearer moves.
You'll never see a unit of Scourges with mixed weapons, while Plague Marines don't really care if they lost a few special weapons, they're basically the exact same unit that is played in the exact same way than before.
Devastators would work much better with mixed weapons as they all have mid to long range, except for multi meltas. A unit with lascannons, heavy bolters, plasma cannons and missile launchers will still be very functional as everything is heavy 36'' or more. And yet they kept freedom of choice for the unit's wargear.
If scourge units come out like that, I will rage like never before. I actually do own them, and that would be so bad for them.
I did think of that horror story chance, oh god they'd be an awful unit then, who in their right mind would run them if they needed to take one of each weapon in the kit ?
Not that I want Scourges with only one special weapon, but the fact that you have to buy 20 models to build a 5 man of your choice is a mess. I like variety as much as the next guy, but I also think that kits out of the box should be usable wihtout crippling yourself.
If Scourges had good rules (actual mobility and something that makes them survive a turn) and a good basic weapon, I could see Dark Eldar armies running them with a couple special weapons as we do now with Kabalites.
TBH it's a catch 22 for GW if they give units lots of variety in options.
Either the sprues are 90% optional weapons that won't get used by most players (and make the kit a minefield for newbies building invalid models).
Or they only include a few options. In which case players are left to source bits elsewhere.
One option is having a few options in the box, and then having separate upgrade kits with more options.
Although this doesn't work so well with GW's newer lines with less modular parts.
It also has the disadvantage that these upgrade kits won't be that appealing for someone that wants just a few bits within them. Do I want to buy an entire upgrade kit for two plasma guns?
For us experienced players that's all well and good. We probably have the collections to make good use of those bits.
But I think the newbie's perspective is very important, especially for GW. Getting told that just buying the box isn't enough, you also need an upgrade kit, is quite off-putting.
I think a lot of GW's moves are specifically at encouraging new players into the hobby. Us veterans don't really matter, we've already spent the money. In fact, invalidating our current collections is more likely to squeeze more out of us than letting us reuse them.
While I get that, I would also say GW also has a certain identity crisis that it probably needs to address aswell.
They still seem to believe that 40k is a game accessible to children.
Most of the people I see at events and clubs are younger-middle aged guys, aka the guys that have a hobby budget of a hundred or more pounds a month easy.
Those people arn't interested in having units on the table with non functional rules.
Yeah while some people might want to run just what's in the kit, guess what you can already do that. What a lot of people don't want is the time wasting of a unit of 5 models taking 10 minutes per shooting phase as they all have different weapons and have to split fire like crazy to be remotely effective.
I got started in 40k as a 12yr old, I know people who started younger. I think this is quite common.
There's often a dip at ~university age when girls and booze capture people's interest.
And then people return to 40k once they've matured and settled down.
So I think appealing to children is a profitable endeavour for GW.
Phases taking forever because of ridiculous bloat is nothing new to 40k though.
When shooting you've got to consider your stratagems and 3 different buffs so you're rerolling half your dice and some are exploding. Then you need to roll a second handful because you can't fit enough dice from your basic grunt squad in one hand.
Denegaar wrote: Not that I want Scourges with only one special weapon, but the fact that you have to buy 20 models to build a 5 man of your choice is a mess. I like variety as much as the next guy, but I also think that kits out of the box should be usable wihtout crippling yourself.
If Scourges had good rules (actual mobility and something that makes them survive a turn) and a good basic weapon, I could see Dark Eldar armies running them with a couple special weapons as we do now with Kabalites.
It's extremely easy to equip all of the with the same weapon though. Kitbashing is a thing, and any drukhari player with a complete army will always have enough spared weapons to equip them properly. The only gun that is hard to get is the haywire one, but it can be obtained thanks to a super easy conversion: a talos comes with two of those, just cut their barrels and stick to splinter cannons. Done, that's how I made my 4 haywire scourges.
Of course it's not easy for starting players or people with small armies to equip scourges exactly as they want but models can always be magnetized or even played without their arms, waiting to complete them as soon as the player manages to grab the appropriate bitz.
Yeah of course Blackie, I did the same with mine, and I agree with you that right now is the way we play with Scourges and changing it would wreck the unit.
But I was pointing out that maybe GW wants to move from a super-specialized unit to just a better one. We'll have to wait a month or two I guess, I, for sure, I'm going to wait on my next 5 Scourges.
As I never really saw something like this happen before, does happen often with GW? I wouldn't want to wake up one day and get told that there can be 2 halabards per unit of GK, because the new box has that many and all my metal models come with 4 per unit. Or that heavy weapons can be only on dudes with nemezis hammers . I get that if someone has a 6000pts collection, then making a 2000pts army is easier. But for people with 2000pts or just starting to collect this is brutal. If someone has 1000pts, they are not going to be happy about hearing that their army is now not even 500pts, because all the units have illegal weapon load outs.
Also about WAAC thing, isn't it just efficiency? I don't think anyone would want to run a unit with mixed load outs. If someone wants anti horde or anti tank they don't want to have one heavy bolter and one multi melta in the squad. Unless it is super cheap or something.
As I never really saw something like this happen before, does happen often with GW? I wouldn't want to wake up one day and get told that there can be 2 halabards per unit of GK, because the new box has that many and all my metal models come with 4 per unit. Or that heavy weapons can be only on dudes with nemezis hammers . I get that if someone has a 6000pts collection, then making a 2000pts army is easier. But for people with 2000pts or just starting to collect this is brutal. If someone has 1000pts, they are not going to be happy about hearing that their army is now not even 500pts, because all the units have illegal weapon load outs.
Ding ding ding, hence why a lot of people are justifyably salty right now... However some factions are as allways better off then others, in this case SM dodged once again the bullet... If the smaller SM subfactions aka Grey knights and DW get this treatment, yeah i am unsure.
If i were you i'd wait and see , but if you'd play Dark eldar, oh well, then it's basically a given, from the simple fact how GW treats them .
Also about WAAC thing, isn't it just efficiency? I don't think anyone would want to run a unit with mixed load outs. If someone wants anti horde or anti tank they don't want to have one heavy bolter and one multi melta in the squad. Unless it is super cheap or something.
WAAC =/= Competitive.
WAAC isn't necessarily competitve, all he want is to win, but not in a way that requires necessarily skill. He is just as happy crushing noobs with his net list as he is cheating in tournaments for the win. Basically the win is all that matters to him.
Competitve players also want to win, but for them the challange of getting that win, fair and square is the actual draw. The challange with the goal to win is what matters to him.
Well it did happen before. Plague Marines could equip 2 Plasmapistols and give their champion all kinds of kombiweapons or powerweapons up until 8th Edition. That's what makes people angry I think, they already adjusted to the new kit, because the aforementioned options never had models, but now restricting the new kit and arbitrarily changing its options is just stupid.
What's even better is that our HQs apparently still have access to a weapon that doesn't have a model - the Balesword. So why is that possible but not two guys with knifes?
Sgt. Cortez wrote: Well it did happen before. Plague Marines could equip 2 Plasmapistols and give their champion all kinds of kombiweapons or powerweapons up until 8th Edition. That's what makes people angry I think, they already adjusted to the new kit, because the aforementioned options never had models, but now restricting the new kit and arbitrarily changing its options is just stupid.
What's even better is that our HQs apparently still have access to a weapon that doesn't have a model - the Balesword. So why is that possible but not two guys with knifes?
Because GW does GW things.
Why is the point update, that is free, full with what can only be assumed obvious typos, f.e. like reaper CHAINcannons for chaos terminators and free reaper autocannons.
The quality control GW puts in their FAQs is really bad.
In the Necromunda FAQ the person that wrote it clearly didn't understand what the convention of pink text meant, and used it wrong.
It's just those little things that shows you GW doesn't particularly care.
Not Online!!! 795404 11032104 wrote:
Ding ding ding, hence why a lot of people are justifyably salty right now... However some factions are as allways better off then others, in this case SM dodged once again the bullet... If the smaller SM subfactions aka Grey knights and DW get this treatment, yeah i am unsure.
If i were you i'd wait and see , but if you'd play Dark eldar, oh well, then it's basically a given, from the simple fact how GW treats them .
I wonder if GW kind of a know this. Imagine if 8th ed was an actual reset or time jump like AoS. And all classic marine stuff went in to legends and the armies ended up with just primaris. People would go for aggro on GW. They still had it to a degree when intercessor squads suddenly got the option to take vet sgts with hammers, fists etc. People had to buy extra boxs to make new sgts, and then edition changed and all those expansive Thunder hammers had to be replaced with chainswords and fists. Still it is way better then getting a box of 7 dudes costed like 10 dudes, and then not making a proper squad anyway. I think the csm box is like that too. Split in half between bolter and melee dudes, so if someone wants 20 csm with either weapon set up, and they don't have a bucket of spare parts, they have to buy 4 boxs to make make two units.
this is GW, were a new Edition means that you basically get a new game and you need to start from scratch
every army you build is just for the very moment, a FAQ/Codex/Edition change can alter it irrelevant and the people will blame you for building it in the first place (because only WAAC players have used those options anyway)
I have a TS army that went from medicore to illigeal to WAAC to illegal and now to medicore again without touching it since 3rd
this is also a reason why lot of people have more than one army and playing marines has an advantage
there will always be a Marine list were you can use your collection without changing anything and people will be angry because you play on a budget and saved money by just changing the chapter instead of buying all the new stuff necessary to be legal again
I actually view major updates as a negative. Relaunching a product should be a last resort for when the product is not good enough and cannot be easily fixed.
However, for 40k it's standard operating procedure.
I'm not that familiar with other games, but I can't think of another major game that's on higher than the 4th edition.
kirotheavenger wrote: I actually view major updates as a negative. Relaunching a product should be a last resort for when the product is not good enough and cannot be easily fixed.
However, for 40k it's standard operating procedure.
I'm not that familiar with other games, but I can't think of another major game that's on higher than the 4th edition.
Part of that is because GW is pretty old for a gaming company, although DnD of course is older, and is at its fifth edition. But one problem that miniature games run into is that the main market is the minis, and, of course, the whole issue that most sales are around new releases. That however requires constant updates, and there are only so many 'even more space marines' books you can sell.
And I have the feeling that some editions go really fast for some reason.
6th and 7th went very quickly, because they were pretty botched. Especially with the campaign books being like a second wave of codexes for factions.
8th continued with the second wave of codexes with the Psychic Awakening stuff.
Although I do agree that the reason is because they make money off of the rules-churn and the subsequent model sales.
But that's a negative for the consumer and why I would prefer to give my money to more stable games.
That way I can spend my money on collecting new stuff rather than just retreading old ground every third year.
kirotheavenger wrote: I got started in 40k as a 12yr old, I know people who started younger. I think this is quite common.
There's often a dip at ~university age when girls and booze capture people's interest.
And then people return to 40k once they've matured and settled down.
So I think appealing to children is a profitable endeavour for GW.
Phases taking forever because of ridiculous bloat is nothing new to 40k though.
When shooting you've got to consider your stratagems and 3 different buffs so you're rerolling half your dice and some are exploding. Then you need to roll a second handful because you can't fit enough dice from your basic grunt squad in one hand.
The thing is how much were you spending as a 12 year old on GW product on a monthly basis.
I'm not saying appealing to younger players is a bad thing, but I really don't think the people genuinely driving sales are the kids buying their army 1 kit a month.
Yeah new blood is key but realistically the players buying up a nee army every year arn't the 10 to 16 year olds with mummy and daddies money.
As to the dice issue. Rerolls are crazy but have you ever timed a comp list shooting phase vrs a casual 1 or 2 of each special weapon in each unit shooting phase.
Each addition weapon profile per unit slows the game down significantly. I'd hate to have to play against 3 havoc squads with 1 of each weapon plus rerolls. It's bad enough when your opponents atleast rolling 4 cannons or bolters simultaneously. Having to roll for 5 weapon profiles per squad is needlessly counter productive rules because some middle manger wants to make a name for themselves.
kirotheavenger wrote: I got started in 40k as a 12yr old, I know people who started younger. I think this is quite common.
There's often a dip at ~university age when girls and booze capture people's interest.
And then people return to 40k once they've matured and settled down.
So I think appealing to children is a profitable endeavour for GW.
Phases taking forever because of ridiculous bloat is nothing new to 40k though.
When shooting you've got to consider your stratagems and 3 different buffs so you're rerolling half your dice and some are exploding. Then you need to roll a second handful because you can't fit enough dice from your basic grunt squad in one hand.
The thing is how much were you spending as a 12 year old on GW product on a monthly basis.
I'm not saying appealing to younger players is a bad thing, but I really don't think the people genuinely driving sales are the kids buying there army 1 kit a month.
Yeah new blood is key but realistically the players buying up a nee army every year arn't the 10 to 16 year olds with mummy and daddies money.
Maybe not, but keep in mind that that group is the one most likely to turn into big spenders a couple of years later. It's a variation on the typical getting them young lots of brands try for. And, of course, plenty of kids have parents who are perfectly willing to spend a bit on gifts for their kids.
Blackie wrote: Weapons all work with different ranges, which is big for a glass cannon unit. Some want the bearer to get close (18'' assault + melta Heat Lances or 12'' assault Shredders), some prefer the mid range (36'' rapid fire Splinter Cannons or 18'' assault Blasters), Dark Lances (36'' heavy 1) are for long range with a penalty if the bearer moves.
So it wouldn't actually invalidate the unit (ie. make them suddenly illegal/non-workable within the framework of the rules as they exist), it would just make them a useless unit.
Blackie wrote: ... while Plague Marines don't really care if they lost a few special weapons...
If you've been keeping up, the players certainly care.
Blackie wrote: Devastators would work much better with mixed weapons as they all have mid to long range, except for multi meltas. A unit with lascannons, heavy bolters, plasma cannons and missile launchers will still be very functional as everything is heavy 36'' or more. And yet they kept freedom of choice for the unit's wargear.
A Dev squad with rando-mixed weapons would not function all that well.
Karol wrote: Also about WAAC thing, isn't it just efficiency? I don't think anyone would want to run a unit with mixed load outs. If someone wants anti horde or anti tank they don't want to have one heavy bolter and one multi melta in the squad. Unless it is super cheap or something.
This discussion has brought up a sub-set of Dakkanauts who think that "trying" in any capacity is the same as being a WAAC player.
kirotheavenger wrote: I got started in 40k as a 12yr old, I know people who started younger. I think this is quite common.
There's often a dip at ~university age when girls and booze capture people's interest.
And then people return to 40k once they've matured and settled down.
So I think appealing to children is a profitable endeavour for GW.
Phases taking forever because of ridiculous bloat is nothing new to 40k though.
When shooting you've got to consider your stratagems and 3 different buffs so you're rerolling half your dice and some are exploding. Then you need to roll a second handful because you can't fit enough dice from your basic grunt squad in one hand.
The thing is how much were you spending as a 12 year old on GW product on a monthly basis.
I'm not saying appealing to younger players is a bad thing, but I really don't think the people genuinely driving sales are the kids buying there army 1 kit a month.
Yeah new blood is key but realistically the players buying up a nee army every year arn't the 10 to 16 year olds with mummy and daddies money.
Older people might get a full second hand army though and stick with that forever, I know players that did that. Kids typically can't invest large sums in a single transaction.
12yo players also will likely paint their models very badly and when they grow up they'll probably want to start a new army, maybe even the same one. I know that, as I started at 11 and my painted models were absolute gak. My history with 40k is exactly like the one described by Kirotheavenger, starting as a kid and leaving in my mid-late teens, then I came back in my early 20s. I don't think I'd have been interested in 40k without my hobby experience as a kid.
They obviously churn out editions to push sales. The fact that 40K is on edition 9 when it has existed for 13 fewer years than Dungeons and Dragons which is on edition 5 is pretty telling.
Ice_can 795404 11032175 wrote:
I'm not saying appealing to younger players is a bad thing, but I really don't think the people genuinely driving sales are the kids buying their army 1 kit a month.
Yeah new blood is key but realistically the players buying up a nee army every year arn't the 10 to 16 year olds with mummy and daddies money.
I can definitly say that this is a case. Only dude under 30 I know who have more then one army, are those whose either brothers or fathers play or played w40k or fantasy
Da Boss wrote: They obviously churn out editions to push sales. The fact that 40K is on edition 9 when it has existed for 13 fewer years than Dungeons and Dragons which is on edition 5 is pretty telling.
Easiest way to monetise the veterans of the game.
recurring monetisation.
kirotheavenger wrote: I actually view major updates as a negative. Relaunching a product should be a last resort for when the product is not good enough and cannot be easily fixed.
However, for 40k it's standard operating procedure.
I'm not that familiar with other games, but I can't think of another major game that's on higher than the 4th edition.
other companies use a new Editon to correct mistakes or to add new stuff that was previously in a different book
a 2nd Edition for a lot of games is just a re-print of the 1st Edition including FAQ/Errata and a 3rd Edi includes rules found in a Scenario/Campaign book
That a new Edition is more of a new Game that shakes everything up and were changes are there for the sake of change without addressing the problems is more a GW exclusive and part of their buisness model
usually you have 2 Editions that are similar and can be considered as the same game and the 3rd is something new (for 40k there is 2nd, 3rd/4th, 5th , 6th/7th, 8th/9th and you can expect 10th to be more different again)
Part of that is because GW is pretty old for a gaming company, although DnD of course is older, and is at its fifth edition. But one problem that miniature games run into is that the main market is the minis, and, of course, the whole issue that most sales are around new releases. That however requires constant updates, and there are only so many 'even more space marines' books you can sell
Constant updates to sell minis does not mean to make a new game all 3-4 years but can also mean to add new faction, have campaigns or new settings, or a simple progress in the story
compare it to Battletech, the game is around for 37 years now and the core rules are still the same
with the changes in the publisher they also stopped naming the Editons after 4th, but it would be now in its 9th edition as well
comparing 2nd Edi 40k with 9th and 2nd Edi BT with 9th, for 40k those games have nothing in common any more except for some names, while for BT it is the same game that saw improvements
kirotheavenger wrote: I got started in 40k as a 12yr old, I know people who started younger. I think this is quite common.
There's often a dip at ~university age when girls and booze capture people's interest.
And then people return to 40k once they've matured and settled down.
So I think appealing to children is a profitable endeavour for GW.
Phases taking forever because of ridiculous bloat is nothing new to 40k though.
When shooting you've got to consider your stratagems and 3 different buffs so you're rerolling half your dice and some are exploding. Then you need to roll a second handful because you can't fit enough dice from your basic grunt squad in one hand.
The thing is how much were you spending as a 12 year old on GW product on a monthly basis.
I'm not saying appealing to younger players is a bad thing, but I really don't think the people genuinely driving sales are the kids buying there army 1 kit a month.
Yeah new blood is key but realistically the players buying up a nee army every year arn't the 10 to 16 year olds with mummy and daddies money.
Older people might get a full second hand army though and stick with that forever, I know players that did that. Kids typically can't invest large sums in a single transaction.
12yo players also will likely paint their models very badly and when they grow up they'll probably want to start a new army, maybe even the same one. I know that, as I started at 11 and my painted models were absolute gak. My history with 40k is exactly like the one described by Kirotheavenger, starting as a kid and leaving in my mid-late teens, then I came back in my early 20s. I don't think I'd have been interested in 40k without my hobby experience as a kid.
Maybe I'm not communicating my point correctly.
I'm not against getting kids into the hobby and that most of the guys in their 20-30's playing 40k did play as a kid and that's why they come back to it in their 20's to 30's.
But what I don't get is how arbitrarily deciding to restrict units to the options in 1 box helps anyone be it little timmy building his army 1 box at a time or Dave the tournament flavour of the month dude going through a commission painted meta army every 6 months.
This feels like someone who has never actually played 40k outside of as a distraction while drinking with mates thibks this is a great idea and is not prepaired for the backlash.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: For those unaware, more stuff from the Death Guard codex has been revealed, and basically you're limited to whatever is in the kit for Plague Marines. Not only is this stupidly wordy and complex, it's asinine and takes away from various builds that have been done before, all in the name of "write the rules for the kit". Apparently their Terminators suffered a similar fate as well.
These rules writers are on drugs. I don't know what kind, but anything that would make this seem like a good idea would not be good for for brain.
This isn't new if you're an Age of Sigmar player. Stormfiends suffered the same change a few years ago with the latest Skaven Battletome. All Age of Sigmar kits are now basically 'Build as the box', and if there are options, limited to what the box can build. Kharadron Overlords recently had this come into effect with their latest battletome too.
looks like the model vs rules philosophy, which exists in AoS, is crossing over to 40k. Especially in kits where there are not interchangeable parts. If this process continues, I could certainly see a point where Power Level becomes more relevant, especially if folks are building kits in more consistent ways. As Someone who plays AoS, army building in that game is so much easier than 40k, and I'd love 40k to be at a stage where Power Level becomes the norm.
WAAC isn't necessarily competitve, all he want is to win, but not in a way that requires necessarily skill. He is just as happy crushing noobs with his net list as he is cheating in tournaments for the win. Basically the win is all that matters to him.
Competitve players also want to win, but for them the challange of getting that win, fair and square is the actual draw. The challange with the goal to win is what matters to him.
yep, i try to win my games even though i don't bring optimal lists. I still play to win instead of just play the fluffy way. A casual can still be competitive, just as a casual can still be waac
Honestly this is such a non issue for me in regards to regular infantry or even elite infantry units. I really couldn't possibly care less.
I only am annoyed by loss of options for characters but that ship already sailed. For instance, no Primaris Iron Hand can take the Iron Hands relic axe. It's literally impossible because there is no Primaris Iron Hands character with a "power axe" (the new tech Marine has a differently named axe FYI, and the lieutenant with an axe is space wolves only)
kirotheavenger wrote: I actually view major updates as a negative. Relaunching a product should be a last resort for when the product is not good enough and cannot be easily fixed.
However, for 40k it's standard operating procedure.
I'm not that familiar with other games, but I can't think of another major game that's on higher than the 4th edition.
Part of the problem lies in the fact that GW never really knew if they wanted to make a roleplaying game or a wargame. Other wargames are really strict about what you can put on your soliders/vehicles or whatever. GW, however, kinda wanted to create a personalized roleplaying game in the form of a wargame so they decided to add options, especially for what they considered the player class(Space Marines).
In later years new options/weapons has become GW's default method in trying to get people to buy the new models which just contributes to the mire that is the Warhammer hobby. They have been slightly better at this in AoS making different weapon layouts act more like separate units rather than just being an option you can take on a singular unit. Unless it is Kharadron Overlords, then they've kinda lost it with options again.
It’s irritating for folks with specialised squads, whether from 2nd hand purchases or getting handy with conversions.
But on the other hand? It does somewhat mitigate “pay to win” mechanics, such as where a certain combination of equipment is super effective, but costs more to put together.
Precedent wise it is worrying. Consider the humble Havoc squad. Since forever, they and their loyalist equivalent have had the choice to super specialise, or mix up the weapons. Generally, specialisation is more desirable, as you’re less likely to wind up with wasted shots/points (though freely splitting fire has mitigated somewhat).
But, if this is implemented for that squad? You could only ever choose between....
That’s....not particularly desirable. And yes whilst I said freely splitting fire does mitigate, it’s still making decisions for the player when it really doesn’t need to.
Likewise Chaos Terminators. With a free choice of combi-weapons (which aren’t tricky to convert at all), the squad can be properly specialised. But if they follow suit to “only the options in one box”? You can’t have more than one combi-plasma, two combi-flamer and two combi-melta.
That’s not a particularly desirable mix either, as you’re definitely winding up in target selection issues where only a couple of weapons are going to pull their weight.
My question is, should I start ripping the arms off my Dark Eldar and Black Legion now? or should I wait until their codex drops to see what they've invalidated.
*Looks at GW's history of deleting DE models and units outright*
Mate, you're not going to need clippers; you're going to need a dustpan and brush.
kirotheavenger wrote: I actually view major updates as a negative. Relaunching a product should be a last resort for when the product is not good enough and cannot be easily fixed.
However, for 40k it's standard operating procedure.
I'm not that familiar with other games, but I can't think of another major game that's on higher than the 4th edition.
Part of that is because GW is pretty old for a gaming company, although DnD of course is older, and is at its fifth edition.
Higher than that. D&D has more editions than just the numbered ones. There were, I believe, 2 editions before 1st edition, the Mentzer Basic/Expert/Champion/Master/Immortal version, 3rd had 3.0 and 3.5 (which was basically errata and a revamp of a whole swath of rules, replacing all the books), 4th edition had the 'Essentials' rewrite after just two years and a complete overhaul of their planned product line, where all the original classes were re-written and the monster math was redone (and the skill challenge system was rewritten upwards of six times during the course of 4th edition, and still a failure every time). So more like 10 editions, give or take some quibbling.
H.B.M.C. wrote: So it wouldn't actually invalidate the unit (ie. make them suddenly illegal/non-workable within the framework of the rules as they exist), it would just make them a useless unit.
Yeah, I could definitely see it. The Scourges come with regular guns also, and it would be more justifiable to limit the datasheet than it was for the Plague Marines as there are not a huge amount of relatively new Scourge minis that came from different boxes. And the Terminators can take one of each combi weapon as there is one of each in the box. So for 9E they might become a mediocre, Swooping Hawks style harassment unit instead of flying Devastators. Sounds fun!
For myself, I can either just add 3 men to each of my PM squads and make them legal (but lose the ability to put a character in their Rhino), or switch guys around and have a bunch of eclectic squads that don't excel at anything. I'd rather have different loadouts for different purposes, but either way they'll probably be pretty good. The power of the book is not the issue.
War of the Spider came out less than a year ago and some of the cults you can pick incentivize melee. Theres got to be at least a few people that made a bunch of dual knife guys and never even got to play them. Thankfully, I didn't do that or make any plasma terminators. I can understand ignoring or retiring older kits, but all the Dark Imperium+ Dg stuff seems far too new to do that. The Death Guard Heroes literally just came out!
I'm not one to complain or always be negative, but this one seems worth complaining about. I'm concerned about how this will play out going forward as it could hit my other armies very hard.
What worries me is the fact of unit or even armies viability with changes like that. If termintors are good, when they have the same set of combi weapon on most or all models, then if that option is taken away, people will stop playing the unit, and if the unit is a corner stone of an army, then there is a risk that a faction won't be played at all.
kirotheavenger wrote: I actually view major updates as a negative. Relaunching a product should be a last resort for when the product is not good enough and cannot be easily fixed.
However, for 40k it's standard operating procedure.
I'm not that familiar with other games, but I can't think of another major game that's on higher than the 4th edition.
Battletech comes to mind. It's a pretty stable system overall but every few years they reissue the core book. And sometimes there are minor changes lurking within the pages.
And in a few more years I predict that Flames of War will get a 5th edition.
And of course there's RPGs - D&D etc. Some of them have 4+ editions
kirotheavenger wrote: I actually view major updates as a negative. Relaunching a product should be a last resort for when the product is not good enough and cannot be easily fixed.
However, for 40k it's standard operating procedure.
I'm not that familiar with other games, but I can't think of another major game that's on higher than the 4th edition.
Battletech comes to mind. It's a pretty stable system overall but every few years they reissue the core book. And sometimes there are minor changes lurking within the pages.
And in a few more years I predict that Flames of War will get a 5th edition.
And of course there's RPGs - D&D etc. Some of them have 4+ editions
A big difference between something like D&D and 40k is that you can still play older editions of D&D without too much difficulty. It's much easier to get a group for 3.5 D&D than it is to get 4th edition 40k, for instance.
Higher than that. D&D has more editions than just the numbered ones. There were, I believe, 2 editions before 1st edition, the Mentzer Basic/Expert/Champion/Master/Immortal version, 3rd had 3.0 and 3.5 (which was basically errata and a revamp of a whole swath of rules, replacing all the books), 4th edition had the 'Essentials' rewrite after just two years and a complete overhaul of their planned product line, where all the original classes were re-written and the monster math was redone (and the skill challenge system was rewritten upwards of six times during the course of 4th edition, and still a failure every time). So more like 10 editions, give or take some quibbling.
Yes, there's at minimum 7 editions. After that it becomes an exercise in splitting hairs/opinion.
1) What's now known as "OD&D" - the original stuff launched in '74. This is a very rough un-polished product. And virtually required you to have a copy of the miniatures game (Chainmail) that it grew out of. How this thing survived to spawn the hobby/industry is a testament to the strength of the concept....
2) The Holmes/Moldvay/Mentzer versions of the game - this is a source of much hairsplitting. But it's essentially all the same thing. And, to some confusion, this product line ran concurrently with AD&D 1e & 2e.
3) Advanced Dungeons & Dragons. Known as 1e once the next entry on this list was launched.
4) Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition - this is where the edition #ing started.
5) 3rd edition (and 3.5)
6) 4th ed
7) 5th ed
If your count reaches 8+ for D&D editions your just venturing into hair splitting territory.
yeah, and people were asking for the exact opposite of what GW did. We wanted the kits to have all the weapons options, not the options to be stripped out.
Yea, man. I get it. You should be able to do that if you're crazy enough to tackle that project and GW might yet change its mind. But I do think it might be unfair to those without the same means to accomplish those conversions.
The horse left the barn a while ago with the mono-pose stuff. It seems to me that DG got the shaft in that regard, because a lot of other new kits haven't had that same treatment. GW may have had to push stylized out kits fast for the release of 8th.
I do not look forward to CSM Terminators and chain axes ( the lack of monopose may save them - we'll see soon enough I suppose ).
Where is it written it has to be fair in terms of capability ? I know plenty of people so rich they just toss money at any issue, even this game. I can't hope to keep up with all the variety and having like 3 of any unit in every configuration expertly painted for them. For them, this is no issue at all. If we all have the wargear options, we at least have the choice to scrounge up the bits, do the hobby work for our units and make them what we want. Equality of opportunity not equality of outcomes. I have been behind the 8 ball because I don't put limitless funds into the game but I have put in time and patience to search for those options I wanted, when I can.
Defending these dumb choices is really daft to me. They make the squad feel lame, it feels bad and it's overly penalizing for no reason other than someone feeling we are unable to find, get, craft or otherwise understand how to make the units we want. Disrespecting time, effort and desire. Like you still end up with two specials in 5-9 man squads, but it can't be the same one because, someone would feel bad I found another plasma and they didn't ? So why can't these same people get two boxes and and then run one with 2 blight launchers and one with 2 plasma at 7 man ? Is that really over the top amazing ?
It's a dumb idea they had, and people are right to be annoyed, me included.
I'm not posting to remove your right to be annoyed. I just oppose the histrionics and chicken little assertions paraded as fact.
This isn't the first some valid loadouts ( or models ) got axed and if they change them back it won't be the first time they do that, either.
In regards to fairness - the Blightlords kit has four regular combis. There is a fairly small percentage of folks who would buy jewler's saw and then have the knowledge to cast the bits from the sprue to get something that fits the model appropriately. In the present situation If a poor hobbyist buys Blightlords and a rich one buys them and has them painted - they're both still operating under the same guidelines where previously the rich hobbyist could afford the tools and knowledge it takes to make those conversions. I'm not asserting this to be GW's motive. It is just my own thought.
Would the game be massively up-ended by PGPMs? I don't know. I don't have the book to process everything else it has.
I can see that 5 PMs with 3 PG creates a unit that is stupidly great. With Ferric Blight they'll be Intercessors that move and double tap ( bolters ) and have AP4 PGs. That unit would do 4 wounds to Primaris for 135 and Intercessors would do 1 back for 100 points. If Primaris had the same loadout they'd do just about the same damage as with bolters, so....yea. That isn't even considering 1/10 of the book.
So here's my prediction. This book is so fething cool and fun that literally no one is going to give a gak in a month.
Wayniac wrote: The more I tthinka bout this, it's not really a nerf. It's actually pretty good unless you were one of the people spamming a single weapon.
You could take in a 10-man squad:
* 2 plasma guns AND 2 blight launchers, plus a plasma on the champion.
* 2 plague spewers and 2 plague belchers
* 2 flails of corruption AND 2 plague cleavers.
That is not a nerf at all Just what you can't do is take all the guys with one of the melee weapons (axe I think was popular)
now Blightlords yes it's a nerf you can't spam combi-plasma.
TIL wanting your units to have a focus instead of being forced to have a worthless mishmash of weapons is "spamming". I bet you also think taking a Devastator squad with 4 Lascannons to act as an anti-tank unit rather than taking 1 Lascannon, 1 Heavy Bolter, 1 Missile Launcher, and 1 Plasma Cannon is also "spam".
Also, Death Guard Terminators have been able to take multiple Combi-Plasma for years if not decades. This change makes units some people have had for years or decades unable to be used, all because of corporate greed. GW have a market value of £3b. They don't need you to defend them.
I guess US infantry forces need to learn from 40k and stop issuing squads with things like a designated marksman's rifle, squad automatic weapon, and grenade launcher and make sure their soldiers are focused rather than being flexible. They should also ensure that their anti-tank/anti-aircraft specialists stand in specifically 5 man units with exactly 4 of the same weapons and a sergeant who should also pack a special weapon because as we know winning means killing all the things!
I don't see any reason to frame this as anything but whining about a winning combination of weapons being removed.
People have models they paid for, assembled, painted and played with in a 100% legal, 100% supported manner and now those units are against the rules. No, they were not all optimizing the best possible loadout; most of them were not, because tournament meta is only a small fraction of the player base. To punish optimization like that the method is to change points anyways, such that the options are more balanced. Note that relatively few complain when their min-maxed unit's weapon options become poor due to a point change.
I do not see how someone can look at this and not understand why it is upsetting to people. I can assume it happens when they themselves are not affected, but even then it takes a bare minimum of thought to imagine the circumstance. The only way someone does not understand the legitimacy of the complaint is if they do not want to understand.
Put simply: if someone does not get it, that is their failing.
NinthMusketeer wrote: People have models they paid for, assembled, painted and played with in a 100% legal, 100% supported manner and now those units are against the rules. No, they were not all optimizing the best possible loadout; most of them were not, because tournament meta is only a small fraction of the player base. To punish optimization like that the method is to change points anyways, such that the options are more balanced. Note that relatively few complain when their min-maxed unit's weapon options become poor due to a point change.
I do not see how someone can look at this and not understand why it is upsetting to people. I can assume it happens when they themselves are not affected, but even then it takes a bare minimum of thought to imagine the circumstance. The only way someone does not understand the legitimacy of the complaint is if they do not want to understand.
Put simply: if someone does not get it, that is their failing.
I understand why this is upsetting, but times change. Taking your logic to conclusion means that once something is introduced it can never be removed. That ends up with a system that is untenable in a matter of time.
I guess US infantry forces need to learn from 40k and stop issuing squads with things like a designated marksman's rifle, squad automatic weapon, and grenade launcher and make sure their soldiers are focused rather than being flexible. They should also ensure that their anti-tank/anti-aircraft specialists stand in specifically 5 man units with exactly 4 of the same weapons and a sergeant who should also pack a special weapon because as we know winning means killing all the things!
I don't see any reason to frame this as anything but whining about a winning combination of weapons being removed.
China and Russia do exactly that, and their armies were and are more succesful then the US army. Mortar sections, machine gun sections, Not-dragon anti tank Chinese infantry sections etc.
I guess US infantry forces need to learn from 40k and stop issuing squads with things like a designated marksman's rifle, squad automatic weapon, and grenade launcher and make sure their soldiers are focused rather than being flexible. They should also ensure that their anti-tank/anti-aircraft specialists stand in specifically 5 man units with exactly 4 of the same weapons and a sergeant who should also pack a special weapon because as we know winning means killing all the things!
I don't see any reason to frame this as anything but whining about a winning combination of weapons being removed.
40k isnt real life....
And its obviously whining about loadouts being invalidated, it sucks for people that have minis built a certain way and it also sucks when you keep in mind that other armies that got 9th edition codex don't have these kind of restrictions.
I just wanted to run a squad of blightlord with combiflamers to unleash a miasma of disease on my opponents, guess i'm gak out of luck then.
Wayniac wrote: The more I tthinka bout this, it's not really a nerf. It's actually pretty good unless you were one of the people spamming a single weapon.
You could take in a 10-man squad:
* 2 plasma guns AND 2 blight launchers, plus a plasma on the champion.
* 2 plague spewers and 2 plague belchers
* 2 flails of corruption AND 2 plague cleavers.
That is not a nerf at all Just what you can't do is take all the guys with one of the melee weapons (axe I think was popular)
now Blightlords yes it's a nerf you can't spam combi-plasma.
TIL wanting your units to have a focus instead of being forced to have a worthless mishmash of weapons is "spamming". I bet you also think taking a Devastator squad with 4 Lascannons to act as an anti-tank unit rather than taking 1 Lascannon, 1 Heavy Bolter, 1 Missile Launcher, and 1 Plasma Cannon is also "spam".
Also, Death Guard Terminators have been able to take multiple Combi-Plasma for years if not decades. This change makes units some people have had for years or decades unable to be used, all because of corporate greed. GW have a market value of £3b. They don't need you to defend them.
I guess US infantry forces need to learn from 40k and stop issuing squads with things like a designated marksman's rifle, squad automatic weapon, and grenade launcher and make sure their soldiers are focused rather than being flexible. They should also ensure that their anti-tank/anti-aircraft specialists stand in specifically 5 man units with exactly 4 of the same weapons and a sergeant who should also pack a special weapon because as we know winning means killing all the things!
I don't see any reason to frame this as anything but whining about a winning combination of weapons being removed.
It's only flexible if you can use flexibly. Low saturation of weapons + a turn system where you have to take your shots with a squad and need to make said shots count in a concentration simply doesn't work unless the squad is dumb cheap to begin with.
NinthMusketeer wrote: People have models they paid for, assembled, painted and played with in a 100% legal, 100% supported manner and now those units are against the rules. No, they were not all optimizing the best possible loadout; most of them were not, because tournament meta is only a small fraction of the player base. To punish optimization like that the method is to change points anyways, such that the options are more balanced. Note that relatively few complain when their min-maxed unit's weapon options become poor due to a point change.
I do not see how someone can look at this and not understand why it is upsetting to people. I can assume it happens when they themselves are not affected, but even then it takes a bare minimum of thought to imagine the circumstance. The only way someone does not understand the legitimacy of the complaint is if they do not want to understand.
Put simply: if someone does not get it, that is their failing.
I understand why this is upsetting, but times change. Taking your logic to conclusion means that once something is introduced it can never be removed. That ends up with a system that is untenable in a matter of time.
Not really. But it needs a reason to be removed.
There isn't any game or fluff reason for these changes. The game barely even comes into the apparent rationale here- only what the model team could fit on the sprues. From a sheer power standpoint, this is arguably _better_ as you can inexplicably pack in 3 plasma guns, 2 blight launchers and a plague spewer in a 10 man squad. But there isn't any reason for that, and no one was asking for a change to DG squad organization to accommodate that.
When orks got the overhaul from imperial standard weapons (and their big profile change), it was a major shift and invalidated a lot. But the army was thematically stronger and more 'orky' after the transition. It wasn't perfect, but there was a clear intent to work with the background and introduce new ideas that were beneficial to the orks as an army and a faction, even if more sales of the new ork stuff was also a goal.
This is _just_ to sell more boxes, and it shows in the disregard for existing collections and the background of the army. The only plan here is to invalidate models to sell more models.
It isn't like a meta shift, where people have the agency to decide if they want to chase the 'optimal' loadout, or make do with what they have. This forces a change where people with perfectly reasonable (and even fluffy!) squads have to go buy more if they want to field legal squads. (Or chop and rebuild models that really aren't designed for chopping and rebuilding)
Voss wrote: This is _just_ to sell more boxes, and it shows in the disregard for existing collections and the background of the army. The only plan here is to invalidate models to sell more models.
It isn't like a meta shift, where people have the agency to decide if they want to chase the 'optimal' loadout, or make do with what they have. This forces a change where people with perfectly reasonable (and even fluffy!) squads have to go buy more if they want to field legal squads. (Or chop and rebuild models that really aren't designed for chopping and rebuilding)
Really? They sell more boxes by ensuring you can't use weapon combinations the box doesn't support? Funny how the reasoning has flipped from the bad old days (aka before the Codex was revealed) when people said GW allowed weapon combinations the box didn't support to sell more boxes.
Wayniac wrote: The more I tthinka bout this, it's not really a nerf. It's actually pretty good unless you were one of the people spamming a single weapon.
You could take in a 10-man squad:
* 2 plasma guns AND 2 blight launchers, plus a plasma on the champion.
* 2 plague spewers and 2 plague belchers
* 2 flails of corruption AND 2 plague cleavers.
That is not a nerf at all Just what you can't do is take all the guys with one of the melee weapons (axe I think was popular)
now Blightlords yes it's a nerf you can't spam combi-plasma.
TIL wanting your units to have a focus instead of being forced to have a worthless mishmash of weapons is "spamming". I bet you also think taking a Devastator squad with 4 Lascannons to act as an anti-tank unit rather than taking 1 Lascannon, 1 Heavy Bolter, 1 Missile Launcher, and 1 Plasma Cannon is also "spam".
Also, Death Guard Terminators have been able to take multiple Combi-Plasma for years if not decades. This change makes units some people have had for years or decades unable to be used, all because of corporate greed. GW have a market value of £3b. They don't need you to defend them.
I guess US infantry forces need to learn from 40k and stop issuing squads with things like a designated marksman's rifle, squad automatic weapon, and grenade launcher and make sure their soldiers are focused rather than being flexible. They should also ensure that their anti-tank/anti-aircraft specialists stand in specifically 5 man units with exactly 4 of the same weapons and a sergeant who should also pack a special weapon because as we know winning means killing all the things!
I don't see any reason to frame this as anything but whining about a winning combination of weapons being removed.
Voss wrote: This is _just_ to sell more boxes, and it shows in the disregard for existing collections and the background of the army. The only plan here is to invalidate models to sell more models.
It isn't like a meta shift, where people have the agency to decide if they want to chase the 'optimal' loadout, or make do with what they have. This forces a change where people with perfectly reasonable (and even fluffy!) squads have to go buy more if they want to field legal squads. (Or chop and rebuild models that really aren't designed for chopping and rebuilding)
Really? They sell more boxes by ensuring you can't use weapon combinations the box doesn't support? Funny how the reasoning has flipped from the bad old days (aka before the Codex was revealed) when people said GW allowed weapon combinations the box didn't support to sell more boxes.
I'm not sure what you're trying to argue here.
Yes, this is trying to sell more boxes.
If you were an existing DG player with two 7 man squads (one with two blight launchers, one with 2 plasmaguns), that isn't legal anymore.
So GW's hope is that you'll go in and buy another box so you can field the now legal 10 man squads with 2 blight launchers (and various others bits), and etc. Its going beyond meta-chasing optimization (always optional) into 'But thou must...' territory.
The new rules _do_ support the old weapon combinations (and more besides) _IF_ you buy another box. Or two boxes (or more, depending on what you're existing collection is like).
If other people ever made the 'reasoning is flipped' argument, it wasn't me, so I don't care.
Voss wrote: This is _just_ to sell more boxes, and it shows in the disregard for existing collections and the background of the army. The only plan here is to invalidate models to sell more models.
It isn't like a meta shift, where people have the agency to decide if they want to chase the 'optimal' loadout, or make do with what they have. This forces a change where people with perfectly reasonable (and even fluffy!) squads have to go buy more if they want to field legal squads. (Or chop and rebuild models that really aren't designed for chopping and rebuilding)
Really? They sell more boxes by ensuring you can't use weapon combinations the box doesn't support? Funny how the reasoning has flipped from the bad old days (aka before the Codex was revealed) when people said GW allowed weapon combinations the box didn't support to sell more boxes.
I'm not sure what you're trying to argue here.
Yes, this is trying to sell more boxes.
If you were an existing DG player with two 7 man squads (one with two blight launchers, one with 2 plasmaguns), that isn't legal anymore.
So GW's hope is that you'll go in and buy another box so you can field the now legal 10 man squads with 2 blight launchers (and various others bits), and etc. Its going beyond meta-chasing optimization (always optional) into 'But thou must...' territory.
The new rules _do_ support the old weapon combinations (and more besides) _IF_ you buy another box. Or two boxes (or more, depending on what you're existing collection is like).
If other people ever made the 'reasoning is flipped' argument, it wasn't me, so I don't care.
Actually, if you just don't take the extra Blight Launcher and Plasma, you've got a legal 5 man squad. Sure, you end up with extra models that you cannot legally use, but they didn't invalidate your squad like they did to people who min/max'd Blightlord Terminators. You just have new restrictions that end up preventing you from using those extra special weapons without adding more generic PM.
I have two custom Daemon Prince's which got hosed by this Codex.I added wings to a heavily customized DP of Nurgle (I replaced his legs with the bottom section of a plague drone), and that model cannot use its Plaguespitter anymore as it has wings. It sucks, but such is life.If I really want to use the Plaguespitter, I just won't pay for the wings and use it as a proxy foot variant.
Voss wrote: This is _just_ to sell more boxes, and it shows in the disregard for existing collections and the background of the army. The only plan here is to invalidate models to sell more models.
It isn't like a meta shift, where people have the agency to decide if they want to chase the 'optimal' loadout, or make do with what they have. This forces a change where people with perfectly reasonable (and even fluffy!) squads have to go buy more if they want to field legal squads. (Or chop and rebuild models that really aren't designed for chopping and rebuilding)
Really? They sell more boxes by ensuring you can't use weapon combinations the box doesn't support? Funny how the reasoning has flipped from the bad old days (aka before the Codex was revealed) when people said GW allowed weapon combinations the box didn't support to sell more boxes.
I'm not sure what you're trying to argue here.
Yes, this is trying to sell more boxes.
If you were an existing DG player with two 7 man squads (one with two blight launchers, one with 2 plasmaguns), that isn't legal anymore.
So GW's hope is that you'll go in and buy another box so you can field the now legal 10 man squads with 2 blight launchers (and various others bits), and etc. Its going beyond meta-chasing optimization (always optional) into 'But thou must...' territory.
The new rules _do_ support the old weapon combinations (and more besides) _IF_ you buy another box. Or two boxes (or more, depending on what you're existing collection is like).
If other people ever made the 'reasoning is flipped' argument, it wasn't me, so I don't care.
Actually, if you just don't take the extra Blight Launcher and Plasma, you've got a legal 5 man squad. Sure, you end up with extra models that you cannot legally use, but they didn't invalidate your squad like they did to people who min/max'd Blightlord Terminators. You just have new restrictions that end up preventing you from using those extra special weapons without adding more generic PM.
I have two custom Daemon Prince's which got hosed by this Codex.I added wings to a heavily customized DP of Nurgle (I replaced his legs with the bottom section of a plague drone), and that model cannot use its Plaguespitter anymore as it has wings. It sucks, but such is life.If I really want to use the Plaguespitter, I just won't pay for the wings and use it as a proxy foot variant.
Or, instead of just accepting it, since you're a paying customer, you can email them saying this is ridiculous. The amount of laying back and just accepting it is awful for a consumer to do.
Voss wrote: This is _just_ to sell more boxes, and it shows in the disregard for existing collections and the background of the army. The only plan here is to invalidate models to sell more models.
It isn't like a meta shift, where people have the agency to decide if they want to chase the 'optimal' loadout, or make do with what they have. This forces a change where people with perfectly reasonable (and even fluffy!) squads have to go buy more if they want to field legal squads. (Or chop and rebuild models that really aren't designed for chopping and rebuilding)
Really? They sell more boxes by ensuring you can't use weapon combinations the box doesn't support? Funny how the reasoning has flipped from the bad old days (aka before the Codex was revealed) when people said GW allowed weapon combinations the box didn't support to sell more boxes.
I'm not sure what you're trying to argue here.
Yes, this is trying to sell more boxes.
If you were an existing DG player with two 7 man squads (one with two blight launchers, one with 2 plasmaguns), that isn't legal anymore.
So GW's hope is that you'll go in and buy another box so you can field the now legal 10 man squads with 2 blight launchers (and various others bits), and etc. Its going beyond meta-chasing optimization (always optional) into 'But thou must...' territory.
The new rules _do_ support the old weapon combinations (and more besides) _IF_ you buy another box. Or two boxes (or more, depending on what you're existing collection is like).
If other people ever made the 'reasoning is flipped' argument, it wasn't me, so I don't care.
Actually, if you just don't take the extra Blight Launcher and Plasma, you've got a legal 5 man squad. Sure, you end up with extra models that you cannot legally use, but they didn't invalidate your squad like they did to people who min/max'd Blightlord Terminators. You just have new restrictions that end up preventing you from using those extra special weapons without adding more generic PM.
I have two custom Daemon Prince's which got hosed by this Codex.I added wings to a heavily customized DP of Nurgle (I replaced his legs with the bottom section of a plague drone), and that model cannot use its Plaguespitter anymore as it has wings. It sucks, but such is life.If I really want to use the Plaguespitter, I just won't pay for the wings and use it as a proxy foot variant.
Or, instead of just accepting it, since you're a paying customer, you can email them saying this is ridiculous. The amount of laying back and just accepting it is awful for a consumer to do.
I paid for that model and I used it for an entire edition. I got a bunch of use out of it as it was, and now I have to pivot. GW did not sell me a kit last week, and then turn around this week and say "Nope, you cannot use that." I'm sure I'll be attacked as some sort of apologist, but I don't really care that much. Small incremental changes like this are rough, but it is better than waiting for something like the end times to happen which invalidates an entire game because they let things get past the point of no return.
yeah, and people were asking for the exact opposite of what GW did. We wanted the kits to have all the weapons options, not the options to be stripped out.
Yea, man. I get it. You should be able to do that if you're crazy enough to tackle that project and GW might yet change its mind. But I do think it might be unfair to those without the same means to accomplish those conversions.
The horse left the barn a while ago with the mono-pose stuff. It seems to me that DG got the shaft in that regard, because a lot of other new kits haven't had that same treatment. GW may have had to push stylized out kits fast for the release of 8th.
I do not look forward to CSM Terminators and chain axes ( the lack of monopose may save them - we'll see soon enough I suppose ).
Where is it written it has to be fair in terms of capability ? I know plenty of people so rich they just toss money at any issue, even this game. I can't hope to keep up with all the variety and having like 3 of any unit in every configuration expertly painted for them. For them, this is no issue at all. If we all have the wargear options, we at least have the choice to scrounge up the bits, do the hobby work for our units and make them what we want. Equality of opportunity not equality of outcomes. I have been behind the 8 ball because I don't put limitless funds into the game but I have put in time and patience to search for those options I wanted, when I can.
Defending these dumb choices is really daft to me. They make the squad feel lame, it feels bad and it's overly penalizing for no reason other than someone feeling we are unable to find, get, craft or otherwise understand how to make the units we want. Disrespecting time, effort and desire. Like you still end up with two specials in 5-9 man squads, but it can't be the same one because, someone would feel bad I found another plasma and they didn't ? So why can't these same people get two boxes and and then run one with 2 blight launchers and one with 2 plasma at 7 man ? Is that really over the top amazing ?
It's a dumb idea they had, and people are right to be annoyed, me included.
I'm not posting to remove your right to be annoyed. I just oppose the histrionics and chicken little assertions paraded as fact.
This isn't the first some valid loadouts ( or models ) got axed and if they change them back it won't be the first time they do that, either.
In regards to fairness - the Blightlords kit has four regular combis. There is a fairly small percentage of folks who would buy jewler's saw and then have the knowledge to cast the bits from the sprue to get something that fits the model appropriately. In the present situation If a poor hobbyist buys Blightlords and a rich one buys them and has them painted - they're both still operating under the same guidelines where previously the rich hobbyist could afford the tools and knowledge it takes to make those conversions. I'm not asserting this to be GW's motive. It is just my own thought.
Would the game be massively up-ended by PGPMs? I don't know. I don't have the book to process everything else it has.
I can see that 5 PMs with 3 PG creates a unit that is stupidly great. With Ferric Blight they'll be Intercessors that move and double tap ( bolters ) and have AP4 PGs. That unit would do 4 wounds to Primaris for 135 and Intercessors would do 1 back for 100 points. If Primaris had the same loadout they'd do just about the same damage as with bolters, so....yea. That isn't even considering 1/10 of the book.
So here's my prediction. This book is so fething cool and fun that literally no one is going to give a gak in a month.
Be faster to just say you don't know.
Jeweler's saw? They're 2 piece combis.
And milliput for casting is something like $10 at a craft store. It's just practice. If you can afford the kit, you can afford that 5-6 times.
I am sorry you apparently resent other people out in the ether somewhere who simultaneously pay to have their stuff done while mastering the skills to do masterwork themselves.
kirotheavenger wrote: I actually view major updates as a negative. Relaunching a product should be a last resort for when the product is not good enough and cannot be easily fixed.
However, for 40k it's standard operating procedure.
I'm not that familiar with other games, but I can't think of another major game that's on higher than the 4th edition.
Battletech comes to mind. It's a pretty stable system overall but every few years they reissue the core book. And sometimes there are minor changes lurking within the pages.
And in a few more years I predict that Flames of War will get a 5th edition.
And of course there's RPGs - D&D etc. Some of them have 4+ editions
I could be wrong but hasn't BattleTech gone through some seriously rough times since it came to exist. To start with there have been what 3 owners of the rules IP (FASA, WizKids, Topps) with multiple different publishers. The IP lawsuits... It's successful but not a model any company would want to follow.
I ran all Axe/knife units for combat in a Rhino. Are you even going to attempt to call that cheesy?
Now, it's illegal. I can't play my army without either ripping my beautifully painted models apart, or buying all new models.
If you are not affected by this change, or don't care that it has changed that means you don't deserve to have an opinion on this because it never affected you to begin with. Please stop posting. Nothing you say makes sense, and there is no legitimate counter argument here. You are just posting to be inflammatory.
Everyone who is affected. I hope you will write in to GW and give them a piece of your mind. This is absolute bs on the highest level.
I guess US infantry forces need to learn from 40k and stop issuing squads with things like a designated marksman's rifle, squad automatic weapon, and grenade launcher and make sure their soldiers are focused rather than being flexible. They should also ensure that their anti-tank/anti-aircraft specialists stand in specifically 5 man units with exactly 4 of the same weapons and a sergeant who should also pack a special weapon because as we know winning means killing all the things!
I don't see any reason to frame this as anything but whining about a winning combination of weapons being removed.
40k isnt real life....
And its obviously whining about loadouts being invalidated, it sucks for people that have minis built a certain way and it also sucks when you keep in mind that other armies that got 9th edition codex don't have these kind of restrictions.
I just wanted to run a squad of blightlord with combiflamers to unleash a miasma of disease on my opponents, guess i'm gak out of luck then.
oh yes daddy GW, deeper pls
We have what 3 released codices Codex: SM, Codex: Necrons, and now Codex: DG. Necrons didn't have unique weapons in their units to fold in. Space Marines kept rules for multi-pose models and have this entire line of mono-pose models with incredibly restrictive loadouts. It is far too early to say that DG are being treated unfairly.
I ran all Axe/knife units for combat in a Rhino. Are you even going to attempt to call that cheesy?
Now, it's illegal. I can't play my army without either ripping my beautifully painted models apart, or buying all new models.
If you are not affected by this change, or don't care that it has changed that means you don't deserve to have an opinion on this because it never affected you to begin with. Please stop posting. Nothing you say makes sense, and there is no legitimate counter argument here. You are just posting to be inflammatory.
Everyone who is affected. I hope you will write in to GW and give them a piece of your mind. This is absolute bs on the highest level.
Welcome to the game. If this is your first time having options removed I suggest you see a DE, Ork, Squat, or Tyranid player for some counseling.
Brutus_Apex wrote: If you are not affected by this change, or don't care that it has changed that means you don't deserve to have an opinion on this because it never affected you to begin with. Please stop posting. Nothing you say makes sense, and there is no legitimate counter argument here. You are just posting to be inflammatory.
So because I am affected but shrug my shoulders and carry on, it means I don't deserve to have an opinion? That makes no sense. Some people view this as world ending stuff, and others don't. If you can't respect other viewpoints, and I don't mean the views of trolls intentionally trying to stir up trouble, then that's on you. I have a DG army, I am affected by some of the data sheet changes, but I just don't care enough to make a huge deal out of it. The book looks like it is going to a ton of fun, and I cannot wait for it. I'm sorry this has you and others so upset.
I don't respect the viewpoint of, oh well too bad, carry on.
No, you don't get to have the opinion of "that sucks for you because it doesn't affect me".
You should all be supporting those who are losing out, not being actively against them.
Because it may be me left out in the cold today, but if you don't stand up for what is right now, it will be you tomorrow.
I just don't care enough to make a huge deal out of it
Then don't post.
Welcome to the game. If this is your first time having options removed I suggest you see a DE, Ork, Squat, or Tyranid player for some counseling.
How does any of this make what just happens right? It's all wrong. I've sat through enough of GW gaking on my armies. So now I'm saying something. I thought I might be safe with an army that was only 4 years old. Guess not.
Plague marines that are assembled with now illegal combination would likely still be legit models, although not strictly WYSIWYG.
In older editions both Trukks and Battlewagons could be equipped with rokkits but since their kits come with big shootas only GW decided to remove the rokkit option. Guess what? Those original BWs and Trukks modeled with rokkits are still 100% legit models.
The scenario I described for Scourges is way worse: imagine they'd be force to play with only the exact weapons that are included in the box when EVERY player modelled their dudes with one basic and 4 special/heavy weapons of the same kind. Now their unit is actually invalidated as that combination is illegal, but singularly taken those models AREN'T illegal. Unlike those plague marines it would be harder to let 3 of them count as something else (a legal combination of weapons) because they're all equipped with the same weapon!
I used to run 9 CC dudes in a Rhino with a Tallyman to tag along. Was it good. Oh yes! Was it broken? Very much no.
CCDG is pretty much dead now with Tallyman sucking ass and can't go with my 10 dudes in the Rhino.
I basically HAVE to start using Blightlords now, and 10 man CC squads in a Rhino with Morty as support. And with only one DP per detachment...
And I have to buy another box of Marines now so I can make my -now- 10 man CC unit legal.
and everyone who played it for more than 1 Edition should know better
if you were playing in 8th and bought into 9th you should have known the risk that your army ends up on the shelf as soon as the Codex hit
yes the complains are valid and you should shout out to GW for it
but you also should have known better and staying with 8th or any other older Edition is a valid option for now (as if pandemic continous, we see 10th Edition before it is really relevant what version people are playing)
Blackie wrote: The scenario I described for Scourges is way worse: imagine they'd be force to play with only the exact weapons that are included in the box when EVERY player modelled their dudes with one basic and 4 special/heavy weapons of the same kind.
So, like what people did with DG Terminator Combi-Weapons?
Your example isn't unique. DE wouldn't be any more or less 'hard done by' were this to happen to them.
kodos wrote: and everyone who played it for more than 1 Edition should know better
I was trying to figure out which was the more toxic attitude to have. Originally I thought it was the "don't care, got mine" attitude, but it seems that the "it's your fault really - you should know better" might be the winner here.
mokoshkana wrote: Actually, if you just don't take the extra Blight Launcher and Plasma, you've got a legal 5 man squad. Sure, you end up with extra models that you cannot legally use, but they didn't invalidate your squad like they did to people who min/max'd Blightlord Terminators. You just have new restrictions that end up preventing you from using those extra special weapons without adding more generic PM.
You don't even need to do that do you? If you have two squads of 7 Plague Marines, one with two plasma guns and one with two blight launchers, you literally just have to swap one plasma gun from one squad and a blight launcher from another, and voila, two legal units.
Melee are worse off because if you made a two knife/axe guys or double knife guys (2 for every 7 models) you have potentially got quite a few more than 1 in 5 that there isn't an obvious way to dilute down. Also a hard ban on double knife icon holding seems a bit strange and unnecessary.
Tbh I'd give it a 50/50 chance they'll reword the datasheet in a FAQ. Maybe Blightlords too. But I do think there has to be some divide on "I've paid GW money angry angry face, they owe me" and "okay actually yeah, I bought a load of combi plasmas from a bits site/ebay/printed my own for sub $10."
mokoshkana wrote: Actually, if you just don't take the extra Blight Launcher and Plasma, you've got a legal 5 man squad. Sure, you end up with extra models that you cannot legally use, but they didn't invalidate your squad like they did to people who min/max'd Blightlord Terminators. You just have new restrictions that end up preventing you from using those extra special weapons without adding more generic PM.
You don't even need to do that do you? If you have two squads of 7 Plague Marines, one with two plasma guns and one with two blight launchers, you literally just have to swap one plasma gun from one squad and a blight launcher from another, and voila, two legal units.
But why would I want to mix plasma and blightlaunchers? One unit basically NEEDS a reroll 1's aura (access to which has been severely nerfed I might add) the other is fine without, which is why I liked splitting out my launchers from my plasma squads. Yes the nerfs to melee squads are even worse but there are (well were) good reasons to specialize your squads all of which as been arbitrarily thrown out of the window.
Voss wrote: This is _just_ to sell more boxes, and it shows in the disregard for existing collections and the background of the army. The only plan here is to invalidate models to sell more models.
It isn't like a meta shift, where people have the agency to decide if they want to chase the 'optimal' loadout, or make do with what they have. This forces a change where people with perfectly reasonable (and even fluffy!) squads have to go buy more if they want to field legal squads. (Or chop and rebuild models that really aren't designed for chopping and rebuilding)
Really? They sell more boxes by ensuring you can't use weapon combinations the box doesn't support? Funny how the reasoning has flipped from the bad old days (aka before the Codex was revealed) when people said GW allowed weapon combinations the box didn't support to sell more boxes.
I'm not sure what you're trying to argue here.
Yes, this is trying to sell more boxes.
If you were an existing DG player with two 7 man squads (one with two blight launchers, one with 2 plasmaguns), that isn't legal anymore.
So GW's hope is that you'll go in and buy another box so you can field the now legal 10 man squads with 2 blight launchers (and various others bits), and etc. Its going beyond meta-chasing optimization (always optional) into 'But thou must...' territory.
The new rules _do_ support the old weapon combinations (and more besides) _IF_ you buy another box. Or two boxes (or more, depending on what you're existing collection is like).
If other people ever made the 'reasoning is flipped' argument, it wasn't me, so I don't care.
Actually, if you just don't take the extra Blight Launcher and Plasma, you've got a legal 5 man squad. Sure, you end up with extra models that you cannot legally use, but they didn't invalidate your squad like they did to people who min/max'd Blightlord Terminators. You just have new restrictions that end up preventing you from using those extra special weapons without adding more generic PM.
I have two custom Daemon Prince's which got hosed by this Codex.I added wings to a heavily customized DP of Nurgle (I replaced his legs with the bottom section of a plague drone), and that model cannot use its Plaguespitter anymore as it has wings. It sucks, but such is life.If I really want to use the Plaguespitter, I just won't pay for the wings and use it as a proxy foot variant.
Or, instead of just accepting it, since you're a paying customer, you can email them saying this is ridiculous. The amount of laying back and just accepting it is awful for a consumer to do.
I paid for that model and I used it for an entire edition. I got a bunch of use out of it as it was, and now I have to pivot. GW did not sell me a kit last week, and then turn around this week and say "Nope, you cannot use that." I'm sure I'll be attacked as some sort of apologist, but I don't really care that much. Small incremental changes like this are rough, but it is better than waiting for something like the end times to happen which invalidates an entire game because they let things get past the point of no return.
That's literally the worst attitude you could have since it affects the future in ways you're not thinking about, whether it's your own army or the army of someone else.
H.B.M.C. wrote: I was trying to figure out which was the more toxic attitude to have. Originally I thought it was the "don't care, got mine" attitude, but it seems that the "it's your fault really - you should know better" might be the winner here.
you still play 40k and you started to play 9th
if you really expected that GW will do it right this time and does not mess it up, my sympathie is limited
I got thru is on my own and the only solution is to stop playing the new Edition
there is no other one
kodos wrote: and everyone who played it for more than 1 Edition should know better
I was trying to figure out which was the more toxic attitude to have. Originally I thought it was the "don't care, got mine" attitude, but it seems that the "it's your fault really - you should know better" might be the winner here.
Death Guard came out under the "no model, no rules" paradigm. People had no reason to know better, as they should have been safe. As I said before, I've been through this malarkey several times before, but nothing on this level.
Death Guard came out under the "no model, no rules" paradigm. People had no reason to know better, as they should have been safe. As I said before, I've been through this malarkey several times before, but nothing on this level.
GW not messing up at least one new book in the first year of an Edition would be something new
it was just the question who get hit by it
and now people complain because they thought they would have been save and someone else would be it?
we are still talking about GW here, they always find a way to make you buy more
I don't say you should not complain or that you should not be angry, it is just that I am not surprised and it is not unexpected (as this was the Posterboy Enemy of the last Edition)
I have here an invalid Space Wolves, Dark Angels, Daemons and Thousand Sons army
each one from a different Codex/Edition change
it does not matter how many armies you have or how large your collection is, you are never save and if you don't start a new Army with each Edition but expect to use you exiting army without buying something new or have to make major changes, you are either new to GW, were lucky in the past or are just gambling and hoping for the best
Voss wrote: This is _just_ to sell more boxes, and it shows in the disregard for existing collections and the background of the army. The only plan here is to invalidate models to sell more models.
It isn't like a meta shift, where people have the agency to decide if they want to chase the 'optimal' loadout, or make do with what they have. This forces a change where people with perfectly reasonable (and even fluffy!) squads have to go buy more if they want to field legal squads. (Or chop and rebuild models that really aren't designed for chopping and rebuilding)
Really? They sell more boxes by ensuring you can't use weapon combinations the box doesn't support? Funny how the reasoning has flipped from the bad old days (aka before the Codex was revealed) when people said GW allowed weapon combinations the box didn't support to sell more boxes.
Gotta run with whatever reasoning is convenient for the moment.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
mokoshkana wrote: Actually, if you just don't take the extra Blight Launcher and Plasma, you've got a legal 5 man squad. Sure, you end up with extra models that you cannot legally use, but they didn't invalidate your squad like they did to people who min/max'd Blightlord Terminators. You just have new restrictions that end up preventing you from using those extra special weapons without adding more generic PM.
Or I'll dig up couple of spare bolters & equip them to the guys with the now illegal weapons. Oh, look at that, a legal squad with a couple of guys carrying their buddies extra plasma gun etc around.
NinthMusketeer wrote: People have models they paid for, assembled, painted and played with in a 100% legal, 100% supported manner and now those units are against the rules. No, they were not all optimizing the best possible loadout; most of them were not, because tournament meta is only a small fraction of the player base. To punish optimization like that the method is to change points anyways, such that the options are more balanced. Note that relatively few complain when their min-maxed unit's weapon options become poor due to a point change.
I do not see how someone can look at this and not understand why it is upsetting to people. I can assume it happens when they themselves are not affected, but even then it takes a bare minimum of thought to imagine the circumstance. The only way someone does not understand the legitimacy of the complaint is if they do not want to understand.
Put simply: if someone does not get it, that is their failing.
I understand why this is upsetting, but times change. Taking your logic to conclusion means that once something is introduced it can never be removed. That ends up with a system that is untenable in a matter of time.
The issue is not so much the invalidation, it is the invalidation without (1) any warning or (2) any acknowledgement of what they are doing. Especially when they didn't do it to Space Marines, so it isn't clear whether this is a new thing that is going to be applied to everyone, or just a "screw you deathguard players because <reasons>." GW has previous for both, so everyone is left scratching their heads, and Deathguard players are left feeling like GW perhaps didn't even realize what they were doing.
This is why communication is important. But GW still doesn't understand that. They think communication means putting up posts on social media every day trying to get people to buy more stuff.
It would be one thing if they had said at the start of 9th that this is a direction they were going in, and warning everyone that with the release of each new codex, you're going to be limited to what comes in the box, preferably with some sort of token offering to help players rebuild their models to make them legal. But GW being GW, not only didn't do that...they didn't make any sort of statement about the issue at all.
Castozor wrote: But why would I want to mix plasma and blightlaunchers? One unit basically NEEDS a reroll 1's aura (access to which has been severely nerfed I might add) the other is fine without, which is why I liked splitting out my launchers from my plasma squads. Yes the nerfs to melee squads are even worse but there are (well were) good reasons to specialize your squads all of which as been arbitrarily thrown out of the window.
Sure, but at the danger of being pedantic, "this is worse and I don't want it to be worse" is different from "I have these models and I literally can't put them on the table, oh wait I can if I move swap one model between squads".
As said, I think it will get FAQed. To go with the Scourge example, I can't believe GW would seriously want someone to turn up with each squad having say one heat lance, one splinter cannon, one dark lance, one haywire blaster etc. Or for every 3 Crisis Suits you can only have 3 flamers, 3 plasma guns, 4 burst cannons split between them etc.
This is why communication is important. But GW still doesn't understand that. They think communication means putting up posts on social media every day trying to get people to buy more stuff.
It would be one thing if they had said at the start of 9th that this is a direction they were going in, and warning everyone that with the release of each new codex, you're going to be limited to what comes in the box, preferably with some sort of token offering to help players rebuild their models to make them legal. But GW being GW, not only didn't do that...they didn't make any sort of statement about the issue at all.
but to do this, GW would need to understand what they do in the first place
they just put the first crazy idea they have into a book and don't think of it ever again, if there might be issues with older collections or what it means for other books
and as soon as they got another crazy idea the direction changes again
they cannot communicate that this will be the case for that Edition in general because they don't know it either
if they make an Errata to reverse it, it will because of the complains and not because they understand what they have done
I wrote them an email explaining their design philosophy in this regard is bad as it stifles creativity and converting side of the hobby and has affected my local player base who have to break up models and remove converted models and units from play... (a lot of DG around here). I can see this is BS and im not even DG player.
We can see where this is heading.. Look at AOS and how bland stuff gets if you can only ever use whats in the box? Uggh.. thats not 40k..
It sets a bad precedent for the future. Do you guys really want to play a game where every SINGLE UNIT AND SQUAD will always be the same? Whats even the point of having an army if they no longer are your dudes? That sounds utterly bland and terrible.. That sounds so mind bogglingly boring...
I don't want any more of that for my army. Its been gutted enough already.
Also, if they did that for Space marines the community would loose its gak..
Argive wrote: Also, if they did that for Space marines the community would loose its gak.
Up to two Sternguard may replace their Bolters with a Combi-Flamer. Up to two Sternguard may replace their Bolters with a Combi-Plasma. Up to two Sternguard may replace their Bolters with a Combi-Grav. Up to two Sternguard may replace their Bolters with a Combi-Melta. Up to two Sternguard may replace their Bolters with a Storm Bolter. Up to one Sternguard may replace his Bolter with a Plasma Gun. Up to one Sternguard may replace his Bolter with a Meltagun. Up to one Sternguard may replace his Bolter with a Gravgun. Up to one Sternguard may replace his Bolter with a Flamer. Up to one Sternguard may replace his Bolter with a Heavy Flamer. Up to one Sternguard may replace his Bolter with a Heavy Bolter.
Up to two Devastators may replace their Bolters with a Heavy Bolter. Up to two Devastators may replace their Bolters with a Missile Launcher. Up to two Devastators may replace their Bolters with a Plasma Cannon. Up to two Devastators may replace their Bolters with a Lascannon. Up to two Devastators may replace their Bolters with a Multi-Melta. Up to two Devastators may replace their Bolters with a Grav-Cannon. (The unit may not contain more than 4 heavy weapons in any combination)
Up to two Retributors may replace their Bolters with a Heavy Bolter. Up to two Retributors may replace their Bolters with a Heavy Flamer. Up to two Retributors may replace their Bolters with a Multi-Melta. (The unit may not contain more than 4 heavy weapons in any combination)
One Havoc may take a Reaper Chaincannon. Up to two Havocs may take Lascannons. Up to two Havocs may take Autocannons. Up to two Havocs may take Missile Launchers. Up to two Havocs may take Heavy Bolters. (All Havocs must take a Heavy Weapon)
Up to 6 Chaos Space Marines may take a Heretic Astartes Chainsword. Up to 6 Chaos Space Marines may take a Bolter. Up to 1 Chaos Space Marines may take a Plasma Gun. Up to 1 Chaos Space Marines may take a Meltagun. Up to 1 Chaos Space Marines may take a Flamer. Up to 1 Chaos Space Marines may take a Missile Launcher. Up to 1 Chaos Space Marines may take a Heavy Bolter. (Only 1 heavy weapon can be included in a Chaos Space Marine squad)
Argive wrote: Also, if they did that for Space marines the community would loose its gak.
Up to two Sternguard may replace their Bolters with a Combi-Flamer.
Up to two Sternguard may replace their Bolters with a Combi-Plasma.
Up to two Sternguard may replace their Bolters with a Combi-Grav.
Up to two Sternguard may replace their Bolters with a Combi-Melta.
Up to two Sternguard may replace their Bolters with a Storm Bolter.
Up to one Sternguard may replace his Bolter with a Plasma Gun.
Up to one Sternguard may replace his Bolter with a Meltagun.
Up to one Sternguard may replace his Bolter with a Gravgun.
Up to one Sternguard may replace his Bolter with a Flamer.
Up to one Sternguard may replace his Bolter with a Heavy Flamer.
Up to one Sternguard may replace his Bolter with a Heavy Bolter.
And watch the sparks fly...
You forgot the "per 5 model in the unit" for each line along with limitation of only 4 models out of 5 being allowed combi-weapons.
Or they could just leave the datasheet the way it is since it is more limiting than the actual kit is, except for the lack of Combi-Weapon bits for every model (4 Combi-Weapon, with 2 of each type).
Argive wrote: I wrote them an email explaining their design philosophy in this regard is bad as it stifles creativity and converting side of the hobby and has affected my local player base who have to break up models and remove converted models and units from play... (a lot of DG around here). I can see this is BS and im not even DG player.
We can see where this is heading.. Look at AOS and how bland stuff gets if you can only ever use whats in the box? Uggh.. thats not 40k..
It sets a bad precedent for the future. Do you guys really want to play a game where every SINGLE UNIT AND SQUAD will always be the same? Whats even the point of having an army if they no longer are your dudes? That sounds utterly bland and terrible.. That sounds so mind bogglingly boring...
I don't want any more of that for my army. Its been gutted enough already.
Also, if they did that for Space marines the community would loose its gak..
90% of systems out there are exactly what you fear 40k becoming. Many have every model mono-pose, every squad with a single given loadout, heck many of them use the exact same rules for units in multiple factions with only army-wide special rules making them different.
I personally want 40k to keep its breadth of options and in that sense, the DG codex actually succeeds. No option was taken away, every weapon you could use before can still be used you just can't cram 'extra' weapons into 5-man units anymore, and given the need for board control limiting MSU spam from DG is a wise choice for game balance. GW didn't have a good option here but they picked the least bad option this time.
-----
For the cut options and balance 40k at all costs crowd, how do you feel about this change to DG?
alextroy wrote: Or they could just leave the datasheet the way it is since it is more limiting than the actual kit is...
A literal falsehood.
"Any Space Marine Veteran may replace his special issue boltgun with a weapon from the Combi-Weapons list."
That's "more limiting than the actual kit" is it? The ability to take anything in any amount and combination is more limiting than the kit, which has 2 of each type?
And milliput for casting is something like $10 at a craft store. It's just practice. If you can afford the kit, you can afford that 5-6 times.
I am sorry you apparently resent other people out in the ether somewhere who simultaneously pay to have their stuff done while mastering the skills to do masterwork themselves.
Think your logic through, please.
Yea, I see that high horse. You're going to force people to learn these skills and spend that money even if they have no interest in it? Not everyone is in the hobby for the same reasons and I'd wager the vast majority of people have done no conversions to their models and nor do they care to.
Argive wrote: Also, if they did that for Space marines the community would loose its gak.
Up to two Sternguard may replace their Bolters with a Combi-Flamer.
Up to two Sternguard may replace their Bolters with a Combi-Plasma.
Up to two Sternguard may replace their Bolters with a Combi-Grav.
Up to two Sternguard may replace their Bolters with a Combi-Melta.
Up to two Sternguard may replace their Bolters with a Storm Bolter.
Up to one Sternguard may replace his Bolter with a Plasma Gun.
Up to one Sternguard may replace his Bolter with a Meltagun.
Up to one Sternguard may replace his Bolter with a Gravgun.
Up to one Sternguard may replace his Bolter with a Flamer.
Up to one Sternguard may replace his Bolter with a Heavy Flamer.
Up to one Sternguard may replace his Bolter with a Heavy Bolter.
Up to two Devastators may replace their Bolters with a Heavy Bolter.
Up to two Devastators may replace their Bolters with a Missile Launcher.
Up to two Devastators may replace their Bolters with a Plasma Cannon.
Up to two Devastators may replace their Bolters with a Lascannon.
Up to two Devastators may replace their Bolters with a Multi-Melta.
Up to two Devastators may replace their Bolters with a Grav-Cannon.
(The unit may not contain more than 4 heavy weapons in any combination)
Up to two Retributors may replace their Bolters with a Heavy Bolter.
Up to two Retributors may replace their Bolters with a Heavy Flamer.
Up to two Retributors may replace their Bolters with a Multi-Melta.
(The unit may not contain more than 4 heavy weapons in any combination)
One Havoc may take a Reaper Chaincannon.
Up to two Havocs may take Lascannons.
Up to two Havocs may take Autocannons.
Up to two Havocs may take Missile Launchers.
Up to two Havocs may take Heavy Bolters.
(All Havocs must take a Heavy Weapon)
Up to 6 Chaos Space Marines may take a Heretic Astartes Chainsword.
Up to 6 Chaos Space Marines may take a Bolter.
Up to 1 Chaos Space Marines may take a Plasma Gun.
Up to 1 Chaos Space Marines may take a Meltagun.
Up to 1 Chaos Space Marines may take a Flamer.
Up to 1 Chaos Space Marines may take a Missile Launcher.
Up to 1 Chaos Space Marines may take a Heavy Bolter.
(Only 1 heavy weapon can be included in a Chaos Space Marine squad)
I don't know how to feel about this. I was angry, but now I'm more just disappointed because 9th seemed to be doing so much right. The biggest stinger is that they didn't do this to the loyalist codices, but couldn't wait to pounce on the latest Chaos one.
I'm not a power gamer, but now I'm looking at my 2 regular traitor marines with reaper chain cannons and thinking, 'are they next?' Given how in advance the codices are, and the likelihood plans are already in motion, it'll be more of the same for the Tzeentchian, CSM, and probably Xenos factions.
It's just so ugly, so debilitating, and so uninspired. Now it's not even about balance, but about how much they can fit onto a sprue dictating weapon choice. Dual-kits have just become a bane to army planning. Couple this with more stuff getting put into 'legends', which sounds like a Logan's Run tier euphemism, and I start to feel the same way I did about the 4.0-5.0 chaos codex terror... where I walked away, bought a ton of heroclix, flames of war, bolt action, and board games. I'd hate to do that. I love supporting my local GW, my hobby, and my fellow gamer community.
And milliput for casting is something like $10 at a craft store. It's just practice. If you can afford the kit, you can afford that 5-6 times.
I am sorry you apparently resent other people out in the ether somewhere who simultaneously pay to have their stuff done while mastering the skills to do masterwork themselves.
Think your logic through, please.
Yea, I see that high horse. You're going to force people to learn these skills and spend that money even if they have no interest in it? Not everyone is in the hobby for the same reasons and I'd wager the vast majority of people have done no conversions to their models and nor do they care to.
Argive wrote: Also, if they did that for Space marines the community would loose its gak.
Up to two Sternguard may replace their Bolters with a Combi-Flamer.
Up to two Sternguard may replace their Bolters with a Combi-Plasma.
Up to two Sternguard may replace their Bolters with a Combi-Grav.
Up to two Sternguard may replace their Bolters with a Combi-Melta.
Up to two Sternguard may replace their Bolters with a Storm Bolter.
Up to one Sternguard may replace his Bolter with a Plasma Gun.
Up to one Sternguard may replace his Bolter with a Meltagun.
Up to one Sternguard may replace his Bolter with a Gravgun.
Up to one Sternguard may replace his Bolter with a Flamer.
Up to one Sternguard may replace his Bolter with a Heavy Flamer.
Up to one Sternguard may replace his Bolter with a Heavy Bolter.
Up to two Devastators may replace their Bolters with a Heavy Bolter.
Up to two Devastators may replace their Bolters with a Missile Launcher.
Up to two Devastators may replace their Bolters with a Plasma Cannon.
Up to two Devastators may replace their Bolters with a Lascannon.
Up to two Devastators may replace their Bolters with a Multi-Melta.
Up to two Devastators may replace their Bolters with a Grav-Cannon.
(The unit may not contain more than 4 heavy weapons in any combination)
Up to two Retributors may replace their Bolters with a Heavy Bolter.
Up to two Retributors may replace their Bolters with a Heavy Flamer.
Up to two Retributors may replace their Bolters with a Multi-Melta.
(The unit may not contain more than 4 heavy weapons in any combination)
One Havoc may take a Reaper Chaincannon.
Up to two Havocs may take Lascannons.
Up to two Havocs may take Autocannons.
Up to two Havocs may take Missile Launchers.
Up to two Havocs may take Heavy Bolters.
(All Havocs must take a Heavy Weapon)
Up to 6 Chaos Space Marines may take a Heretic Astartes Chainsword.
Up to 6 Chaos Space Marines may take a Bolter.
Up to 1 Chaos Space Marines may take a Plasma Gun.
Up to 1 Chaos Space Marines may take a Meltagun.
Up to 1 Chaos Space Marines may take a Flamer.
Up to 1 Chaos Space Marines may take a Missile Launcher.
Up to 1 Chaos Space Marines may take a Heavy Bolter.
(Only 1 heavy weapon can be included in a Chaos Space Marine squad)
Is this what we want people?
Ah, slippery slope. Thy name is ridiculous.
What's slippery slope about it? This literally happened and that's why I made the thread. Do you even know what you're defending?
That's not what a slippery slope argument is. And until a week ago, no one would have imagined the changes to the Death Guard this thread is about.
"This type of argument is sometimes used as a form of fearmongering in which the probable consequences of a given action are exaggerated in an attempt to scare the audience."
Why do people insist that this isn't a big deal, or isn't worth worrying about, or is something we are wrong for not being happy about.
To two units in a codex that has dozens. We literally only have 3 of 28 codices released and Necrons never had special weapons mixed into their units to start so we really only have 2 codices to compare which isn't enough to predict a trend. If we get Codex DE and it's had exactly the same changes to the same style of mono-pose models then we can tag the start of a trend.
Why do people insist that this isn't a big deal, or isn't worth worrying about, or is something we are wrong for not being happy about.
To two units in a codex that has dozens. We literally only have 3 of 28 codices released and Necrons never had special weapons mixed into their units to start so we really only have 2 codices to compare which isn't enough to predict a trend. If we get Codex DE and it's had exactly the same changes to the same style of mono-pose models then we can tag the start of a trend.
The two units that had means of equipping other items?
Also don't forget the Lord of Contagion that can't carry around a ball if he chooses the incorrect Scythe to use!
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Also don't forget the Lord of Contagion that can't carry around a ball if he chooses the incorrect Scythe to use!
Space Marine HQ options are likewise limited to oddly specific load outs based on extant sculpts. That shows a trend among HQ and other single model units but not a trend among multi-model units.
The only way that's a slippery slope argument is if you are working on the assumption that the same thing that happened to DG happening to Space Marines would be a worse outcome, rather than the same outcome.
In other words, you have to be a Space Marine supremacist to call that a slippery slope argument.
Argive wrote: I wrote them an email explaining their design philosophy in this regard is bad as it stifles creativity and converting side of the hobby and has affected my local player base who have to break up models and remove converted models and units from play... (a lot of DG around here). I can see this is BS and im not even DG player.
We can see where this is heading.. Look at AOS and how bland stuff gets if you can only ever use whats in the box? Uggh.. thats not 40k..
It sets a bad precedent for the future. Do you guys really want to play a game where every SINGLE UNIT AND SQUAD will always be the same? Whats even the point of having an army if they no longer are your dudes? That sounds utterly bland and terrible.. That sounds so mind bogglingly boring...
I don't want any more of that for my army. Its been gutted enough already.
Also, if they did that for Space marines the community would loose its gak..
90% of systems out there are exactly what you fear 40k becoming. Many have every model mono-pose, every squad with a single given loadout, heck many of them use the exact same rules for units in multiple factions with only army-wide special rules making them different.
I personally want 40k to keep its breadth of options and in that sense, the DG codex actually succeeds. No option was taken away, every weapon you could use before can still be used you just can't cram 'extra' weapons into 5-man units anymore, and given the need for board control limiting MSU spam from DG is a wise choice for game balance. GW didn't have a good option here but they picked the least bad option this time.
-----
For the cut options and balance 40k at all costs crowd, how do you feel about this change to DG?
If somebody wanted to build a dedicated large blob CC themed DG army and equipped them with knives, bubonic axes and flails they could.. If they wanted a blobby shooty squad they could.
Now they HAVE to do what's in the box.. As you say 90% of other games do this. So why pay 90% more for that GW premium cheddar if it tastes like other cheddar?
"Like you know that squad there ? Well they don't all have the same weapon oh no no no.. they all come with different one in the box you see... Let me declare all of these 5 models at different targets and resolve and roll all of these separately one at a time and cause no effect rather than roll 5 dice at once at one target coz that's good game design"
Nobody knows if this stupid trend will continue.. We can only guess and speculste worse case scenario and try to do something about it. (My bet is it does because 40k needs to be AOS clone because GW). So unless people feedback how this is bad design it will absolutely become a trend where every army will be exactly the same and you will be limited to play it the same way.. Like why would anyone want this? Why people dislike options and creativity so much ? Baffling..
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Also don't forget the Lord of Contagion that can't carry around a ball if he chooses the incorrect Scythe to use!
Space Marine HQ options are likewise limited to oddly specific load outs based on extant sculpts. That shows a trend among HQ and other single model units but not a trend among multi-model units.
Yeah and I hate how the Primaris HQs have been handled overall.
alextroy wrote:Or they could just leave the datasheet the way it is since it is more limiting than the actual kit is, except for the lack of Combi-Weapon bits for every model (4 Combi-Weapon, with 2 of each type).
alextroy wrote: Or they could just leave the datasheet the way it is since it is more limiting than the actual kit is...
A literal falsehood.
"Any Space Marine Veteran may replace his special issue boltgun with a weapon from the Combi-Weapons list."
That's "more limiting than the actual kit" is it? The ability to take anything in any amount and combination is more limiting than the kit, which has 2 of each type?
You must be from an alternate reality.
Do you always criticize in bad faith or am I special? I literally mentioned Combi-Weapons in my response, but you had to cut that out to attempt to make a point.
Argive wrote: If somebody wanted to build a dedicated large blob CC themed DG army and equipped them with knives, bubonic axes and flails they could.. If they wanted a blobby shooty squad they could.
Now they HAVE to do what's in the box.. As you say 90% of other games do this. So why pay 90% more for that GW premium cheddar if it tastes like other cheddar?
Because GW cheddar will never taste like other cheddar. The quality difference between GW sculpts and the field is still vast and no other game in the genre has the same themes and depths of lore as 40k. You may not like the change but the ability to equip a single model with a specific weapon isn't the main draw of 40k.
"Like you know that squad there ? Well they don't all have the same weapon oh no no no.. they all come with different one in the box you see... Let me declare all of these 5 models at different targets and resolve and roll all of these separately one at a time and cause no effect rather than roll 5 dice at once at one target coz that's good game design"
If you're not having any effect with your shots you're likely making bad choices on the table. Also, you probably shouldn't build a PM unit with all the fixings anyway just due to the points cost. In fact, this is exactly what this type of change targets, you can get your toys on the table if you spend a premium in points but you can't take the most efficient load out at minimum unit sizes. How is this not a win for game balance if it continues as a trend?
And milliput for casting is something like $10 at a craft store. It's just practice. If you can afford the kit, you can afford that 5-6 times.
I am sorry you apparently resent other people out in the ether somewhere who simultaneously pay to have their stuff done while mastering the skills to do masterwork themselves.
Think your logic through, please.
Yea, I see that high horse. You're going to force people to learn these skills and spend that money even if they have no interest in it? Not everyone is in the hobby for the same reasons and I'd wager the vast majority of people have done no conversions to their models and nor do they care to.
Argive wrote: Also, if they did that for Space marines the community would loose its gak.
Up to two Sternguard may replace their Bolters with a Combi-Flamer.
Up to two Sternguard may replace their Bolters with a Combi-Plasma.
Up to two Sternguard may replace their Bolters with a Combi-Grav.
Up to two Sternguard may replace their Bolters with a Combi-Melta.
Up to two Sternguard may replace their Bolters with a Storm Bolter.
Up to one Sternguard may replace his Bolter with a Plasma Gun.
Up to one Sternguard may replace his Bolter with a Meltagun.
Up to one Sternguard may replace his Bolter with a Gravgun.
Up to one Sternguard may replace his Bolter with a Flamer.
Up to one Sternguard may replace his Bolter with a Heavy Flamer.
Up to one Sternguard may replace his Bolter with a Heavy Bolter.
Up to two Devastators may replace their Bolters with a Heavy Bolter.
Up to two Devastators may replace their Bolters with a Missile Launcher.
Up to two Devastators may replace their Bolters with a Plasma Cannon.
Up to two Devastators may replace their Bolters with a Lascannon.
Up to two Devastators may replace their Bolters with a Multi-Melta.
Up to two Devastators may replace their Bolters with a Grav-Cannon.
(The unit may not contain more than 4 heavy weapons in any combination)
Up to two Retributors may replace their Bolters with a Heavy Bolter.
Up to two Retributors may replace their Bolters with a Heavy Flamer.
Up to two Retributors may replace their Bolters with a Multi-Melta.
(The unit may not contain more than 4 heavy weapons in any combination)
One Havoc may take a Reaper Chaincannon.
Up to two Havocs may take Lascannons.
Up to two Havocs may take Autocannons.
Up to two Havocs may take Missile Launchers.
Up to two Havocs may take Heavy Bolters.
(All Havocs must take a Heavy Weapon)
Up to 6 Chaos Space Marines may take a Heretic Astartes Chainsword.
Up to 6 Chaos Space Marines may take a Bolter.
Up to 1 Chaos Space Marines may take a Plasma Gun.
Up to 1 Chaos Space Marines may take a Meltagun.
Up to 1 Chaos Space Marines may take a Flamer.
Up to 1 Chaos Space Marines may take a Missile Launcher.
Up to 1 Chaos Space Marines may take a Heavy Bolter.
(Only 1 heavy weapon can be included in a Chaos Space Marine squad)
Is this what we want people?
Ah, slippery slope. Thy name is ridiculous.
The situation prior to this: If you are unwilling to invest more time and or money, you can create something beyond the box.
If you aren't, you can build the box.
Your argument is essentially no different than "The guy who gies above and beyond is making the other guy feel bad, so he has to have his options taken away."
It's firing the guy who has a job because the guy who won't work is angry the working guy has more money. It's nonsense.
Painting, modelling- part of the game since firever. Use Vassal if all you want is the rules, or chits.
Tell me, do you keep 100% of your bits once done building a unit, and never toss them out or use them for an alternate project?
This is needlessly penalizing to those that aren't paranoid. If you magbetize-way more expensive than milliput, say- you are OK.
GW is cutting their own ties here. If units aren't customizable, how many will lose interest or become negative word of mouth?
EDIT: Fundamentally, the guy who has more has put in more, whether time, effort, or cash. Everyone is free to do so.
how do the options look for Blightlord Terminators?
.
Do you always criticize in bad faith or am I special? I literally mentioned Combi-Weapons in my response, but you had to cut that out to attempt to make a point.