This has annoyed me, now none of my squads are “legal”. I play very casual so it should be ok but it’s just silly now. The options don’t even make sense, vanguard having an arquebus is a waste.
I normally don’t get irked by stuff like this but it’s going a bit too far, the plague marine options and now this. Is sucking the character out of units now.
What are the precise differences? Comparing to my Index Imperium 2, are they allowed one less special weapon, but my go up to 20 and include both the omnispex and data-tether?
I expect we'll see more of this moving forward. Definitely makes it easier when building an army though, as you don't need to worry about acquiring stuff which isn't in the box to fill out your squads.
Waiting for the same thing to happen for my harlequins troupes, I'm glad I've not given all my players fusion pistols lol.
Brickfix wrote: What are the precise differences? Comparing to my Index Imperium 2, are they allowed one less special weapon, but my go up to 20 and include both the omnispex and data-tether?
You can't take multiples of the same weapon - just the options that come in the box.
The White Knights will say it's to make options more beginner friendly, and to stop forcing people to buy multiple boxes to get the 'good' options; and the Black Knights will say it's to cut down on recasting, 3D printing and 3rd-party sales.
Andykp wrote: I normally don’t get irked by stuff like this but it’s going a bit too far, the plague marine options and now this. Is sucking the character out of units now.
Like i said, not YOUR DUDES anymore, it's all sanitised by GW.
jaredb wrote: I expect we'll see more of this moving forward. Definitely makes it easier when building an army though, as you don't need to worry about acquiring stuff which isn't in the box to fill out your squads.
Andykp wrote: This has annoyed me, now none of my squads are “legal”. I play very casual so it should be ok but it’s just silly now. The options don’t even make sense, vanguard having an arquebus is a waste.
No kidding. This will be how it's going to be from now on.
Just as a side, as a non-admech player are 20 strong units of skitarii popular? I can't recall that being used in my experience against them and watching batreps on YT.
I don't give a gak, honestly. I already kitbash my model as I like, and if anyone makes a fuss I simply don't play them again.
GW can delude themselves into those Fomo, collectables practices as much as they want. That's not the foundation of the hobby, and no amount of marketing material will ever change that.
For the few times I really bave to go to a tournament, if this gakky practice will ever reach some of my current armies, I'll bring my Knight Household which is fully magnetized and has few options anyway.
Gert wrote: Just as a side, as a non-admech player are 20 strong units of skitarii popular? I can't recall that being used in my experience against them and watching batreps on YT.
It's a new option - they were capped at 10 (except for the FW Secutarii, who went down to 10 in the Compendium).
ERJAK wrote: Gotta tell ya, I've always hated it when units/vehicles had options that weren't included in the box.
Paid 60$ for this and now I have to arts and crafts the gun I actually want or buy ANOTHER kit. Woo.
Just wish they had gone the 'add the option to the box' route rather than the 'subtract the option from the unit' route.
considering the prices of GW.... .
THIS. SO. MUCH
There'd only need to be another sprue for havocs f.e. to have a full HW selection.
There'd only need to be another sprue for CSM to have a full equipment loadout.
But no...
And for those that say that would be unfeasable, i point to producers like perry miniatures and others which offer vastly more options in their sets for less money than GW:
This is irking me more when you consider no Marine units actually received these changes. Devs, Company Veterans, Vanguard Vets, all free to take whatever they want.
beast_gts wrote: It's a new option - they were capped at 10 (except for the FW Secutarii, who went down to 10 in the Compendium).
Ah, OK. So generally this isn't really an issue because people were never playing 20 strong units before unlike Plague Marines where they were getting restrictions on loadouts they'd had since like 3rd edition.
I get why peeps are annoyed because it's limiting for specific future loadouts they might take but really this isn't that bad if the old units haven't been changed at all.
I am a little bit scared for the eventual CSM book because if they do the same for them all my CSM squads will be illegal but we'll cross that bridge when we get to it.
Old units have been changed, though, Gert - at 5 models strong, a Ranger unit could have two of any Special Weapon, with a third Special Weapon becoming an option at 10 strong.
So small units have lost one SW, and the only way now to take two of the same special weapon is to take a 20 strong unit. You could take two of all three special weapons at that point, but that seems impractical.
People have, presumably, built specialised 10-strong units to date, meaning this stupidity from GW is a right pain in the buttocks.
beast_gts wrote: It's a new option - they were capped at 10 (except for the FW Secutarii, who went down to 10 in the Compendium).
Ah, OK. So generally this isn't really an issue because people were never playing 20 strong units before unlike Plague Marines where they were getting restrictions on loadouts they'd had since like 3rd edition. I get why peeps are annoyed because it's limiting for specific future loadouts they might take but really this isn't that bad if the old units haven't been changed at all. I am a little bit scared for the eventual CSM book because if they do the same for them all my CSM squads will be illegal but we'll cross that bridge when we get to it.
the amount of buffs that can be stacked on a unit of 20 rangers or vanguard is now scary.
In a Lucius <Forge World> (i.e chapter tactics) (grants +1 to saves against damage 1 weapons, and a boost of 3" on the range of all weapons):
Skitarii Marshal [3 PL, 45pts]: Relic: Exemplar's Eternity (reroll 1's to hit & wound), Warlord, Warlord Trait: Firepoint Telemetry Cache (a unit has cover, if infantry already in cover grant a further +1 save)
Tech-Priest Manipulus [6 PL, 105pts]: Logi (ignore AP-1 & -2), Magnarail lance, Mechanicus Locum (1CP - +1 WL Trait), Warlord Trait (Lucius): Luminescent Blessings (Transhuman), (ability on datasheet +6" range on galvanics & +1 additional AP)
Transhuman (i.e. only wounded on 4+) & ignore AP-1 & -2 on the rangers, with potential 1+ save if in cover and against damage 1 weapons (before doctrinas). 39" (Lucius boost + Manipulus) S4, AP-2 D1 shots. x40. (80 in 19" for 2CP - makes rifles RF2 instead of heavy 2) rerolling 1's to hit & wound ignoring light cover. add further skitarii WL traits to stack buffs higher (you can put somthing like ignoring the penalty of moving & firing with heavy wepaons [i.e. galvanic rifles] or fall back & shoot for 1CP, and this can be put on the skitarii alpha in the ranger squad). add a TP with Artisans Holy Order, do the action for the advanced rule of +1S to ranged CORE units shots (and artisans would also give you a -1CP discount on making the rifles RF2 once as well).
Right so I'm not really into the whole math-hammer optimum-combo deal (brain not like big think) so I assume that the combo Forgemaster mention is pretty heckin good?
If that is the case, and indeed there are more wombo-combo's out there, then it seems to me like the SW are balanced so you can't just take the best ones and make them even better.
I guess this means AdMech will be living the Tau life, where troops have few special weapons to speak of and have to do the Troops thing, not the Heavy Support thing.
Who is going to take Transuranic Rifles now? One to a squad, must remain stationary (I assume) to fire one Transuranic Rifle? Hard pass!
Most AdMech players at the moment are thinking of taking one of the following:
a 5-man unit with 1 special weapon e.g. 5 rangers with Arquebus or 5 vanguard with Arc rifle or plasma - for including specials & small chip damage
a 5 man unit basic - no upgrades, for actions/screens/etc
the 20man blob of either rangers or vanguard similar to the mentioned combo above (vanguard have more weaker shots but have a 1CP strat for auto-wounding on a 4+ to hit! so can reliably get rid of a tough unit if needed
EDIT: Arquebus do have a place occasionally - for instance in the MARS <Forge World> every unit gains 1 free hit reroll, and the option to use the canticles abilities - one of which gives 1 reroll hit, wound & damage per turn. so you end up with every unit having 2x reroll hits, 1 reroll wound and 1 reroll damage. which is a neat boost for single shot high damage weapons like the arquebus for example.
an example of the 20 vanguard combo in action vs necrons silver tide (20 warrior blobs). in this game in 2 turns deleted 2x 20 man warriors units.
Brickfix wrote: What are the precise differences? Comparing to my Index Imperium 2, are they allowed one less special weapon, but my go up to 20 and include both the omnispex and data-tether?
You can't take multiples of the same weapon - just the options that come in the box.
Interestingly enough, there's actually a bunch of pictures in the book showing doubled up specials in the squads. It seems like that bit of "9 or less models" gets you a single special while the "every 10 models" gets you another.
But you absolutely can take multiples. It just requires bigger squad sizes.
The White Knights will say it's to make options more beginner friendly, and to stop forcing people to buy multiple boxes to get the 'good' options; and the Black Knights will say it's to cut down on recasting, 3D printing and 3rd-party sales.
The reality is that it's tourney player feedback, which unfortunately the Big Names in Tourney Play had a direct line that the rest of us don't. They wouldn't stop whining about how bits sellers wanted so much for the "good" options(read: plasma calivers). Most people(especially those who played Skitarii not soup/Convocation) had no issue with multiple boxes. Especially since Skitarii were in the Start Collecting.
I personally had a great time gouging locals who saw themselves as "tourney players" on those calivers back when Skitarii first dropped, since I built Rangers with Arquebi. I was getting $15 per caliver+arm set...so every squad I outfitted entirely with Arquebi funded another box of Rangers at $37 a pop.
I'm still furious about the Onagers losing squadron capabilities. I've got 7 of the damn things!
beast_gts wrote: It's a new option - they were capped at 10 (except for the FW Secutarii, who went down to 10 in the Compendium).
Ah, OK. So generally this isn't really an issue because people were never playing 20 strong units before unlike Plague Marines where they were getting restrictions on loadouts they'd had since like 3rd edition.
I get why peeps are annoyed because it's limiting for specific future loadouts they might take but really this isn't that bad if the old units haven't been changed at all.
I am a little bit scared for the eventual CSM book because if they do the same for them all my CSM squads will be illegal but we'll cross that bridge when we get to it.
the amount of buffs that can be stacked on a unit of 20 rangers or vanguard is now scary.
In a Lucius <Forge World> (i.e chapter tactics) (grants +1 to saves against damage 1 weapons, and a boost of 3" on the range of all weapons):
Skitarii Marshal [3 PL, 45pts]: Relic: Exemplar's Eternity (reroll 1's to hit & wound), Warlord, Warlord Trait: Firepoint Telemetry Cache (a unit has cover, if infantry already in cover grant a further +1 save)
Tech-Priest Manipulus [6 PL, 105pts]: Logi (ignore AP-1 & -2), Magnarail lance, Mechanicus Locum (1CP - +1 WL Trait), Warlord Trait (Lucius): Luminescent Blessings (Transhuman), (ability on datasheet +6" range on galvanics & +1 additional AP)
Transhuman (i.e. only wounded on 4+) & ignore AP-1 & -2 on the rangers, with potential 1+ save if in cover and against damage 1 weapons (before doctrinas). 39" (Lucius boost + Manipulus) S4, AP-2 D1 shots. x40. (80 in 19" for 2CP - makes rifles RF2 instead of heavy 2) rerolling 1's to hit & wound ignoring light cover. add further skitarii WL traits to stack buffs higher (you can put somthing like ignoring the penalty of moving & firing with heavy wepaons [i.e. galvanic rifles] or fall back & shoot for 1CP, and this can be put on the skitarii alpha in the ranger squad). add a TP with Artisans Holy Order, do the action for the advanced rule of +1S to ranged CORE units shots (and artisans would also give you a -1CP discount on making the rifles RF2 once as well).
Well, so much for 9th edition codexes cutting down on WOMBO COMBO. And they were doing so well. Seems they just can't help themselves.
Kanluwen wrote: The reality is that it's tourney player feedback, which unfortunately the Big Names in Tourney Play had a direct line that the rest of us don't. They wouldn't stop whining about how bits sellers wanted so much for the "good" options(read: plasma calivers). Most people(especially those who played Skitarii not soup/Convocation) had no issue with multiple boxes. Especially since Skitarii were in the Start Collecting.
I absolutely love how you think this happened because tournament players whined to GW about 3rd party bitz sellers.
It's basically the perfect excuse for you, because you get to do 3 things you love doing:
1. Hate on tournament players for are all cheating WAACs! 2. Hate on 3rd party bitz sellers for taking money away from poor widdle defenceless GW. 3. Blame anyone butGW for the whole mess.
It’s clearly a business choice by GW and won’t be an issue with new releases that are designed with this model in mind it’s when it’s applied retrospectively it invalidates peoples load outs and limits choice and character. I will be going from having 3 specialised squads each with a purpose and background to three identical squads of vanguard. All the same generic mush.
Kanluwen wrote: The reality is that it's tourney player feedback, which unfortunately the Big Names in Tourney Play had a direct line that the rest of us don't. They wouldn't stop whining about how bits sellers wanted so much for the "good" options(read: plasma calivers). Most people(especially those who played Skitarii not soup/Convocation) had no issue with multiple boxes. Especially since Skitarii were in the Start Collecting.
I absolutely love how you think this happened because tournament players whined to GW about 3rd party bitz sellers.
It's basically the perfect excuse for you, because you get to do 3 things you love doing:
1. Hate on tournament players for are all cheating WAACs!
2. Hate on 3rd party bitz sellers for taking money away from poor widdle defenceless GW.
3. Blame anyone butGW for the whole mess.
Incredible. Just incredible.
Aye, it's also really wierd considering that tournament players are the most likely players to just ignore the cost of extra bits / stomach them for the sake of competitiveness.
And this is squarly and solidly only on GW's shoulder, which wouldn't have that issue in the first place if they were slightly less greedy and supply boxes of units with all their options (atleast once)... which would at worst ammount to 1 additional sprue for a 50 CHF kit on average f.e. for CSM which lo and behold would also enable the box to be atleast built in a manner as to equip all the models in it with normal options....
BrookM wrote: That's annoying, I quite like my current Ranger squad with three Arquebus equipped models.
Same...but it looks like we might still be able to do a 10 man with 2x specials as they show it a few times in the book. I've put in a submission to the FAQ email about it as the wording is...interesting.
It talks about 9 or fewer models and then you can take 1 of any.
Then there are 3 separate tags "For every 10 models in the unit", allowing you to take 1 of each.
The gun appears to be a regular heavy weapon now, minus the move or fire rule, if rumours are true.
Indeed, it no longer has the Move or Fire rule. It does have the "ignore Look Out, Sir!" rule and unmodified Wound rolls of 6 cause a Mortal Wound of most sniper type weapons though.
Well, for me this does actually add to the impression of 9th edition as the tournament edition. Don't care about the hobby, just build what's in the Box, don't Kitbash, splash some color on there and if your rules aren't the best take the next best army and repeat.
I like many things about 9th edition but somehow these restrictions make me consider switching to some miniature agnostic system.
Kanluwen wrote: The reality is that it's tourney player feedback, which unfortunately the Big Names in Tourney Play had a direct line that the rest of us don't. They wouldn't stop whining about how bits sellers wanted so much for the "good" options(read: plasma calivers). Most people(especially those who played Skitarii not soup/Convocation) had no issue with multiple boxes. Especially since Skitarii were in the Start Collecting.
I absolutely love how you think this happened because tournament players whined to GW about 3rd party bitz sellers.
It's basically the perfect excuse for you, because you get to do 3 things you love doing:
1. Hate on tournament players for are all cheating WAACs!
2. Hate on 3rd party bitz sellers for taking money away from poor widdle defenceless GW.
3. Blame anyone butGW for the whole mess.
Incredible. Just incredible.
Aye, it's also really wierd considering that tournament players are the most likely players to just ignore the cost of extra bits / stomach them for the sake of competitiveness.
And this is squarly on solidly only on GW's shoulder, which wouldn't have that issue in the first place if they were slightly less greedy and supply boxes of units with all their options (atleast once)... which would at worst ammount to 1 additional sprue for a 50 CHF kit on average f.e. for CSM which lo and behold would also enable the box to be atleast built in a manner as to equip all the models in it with normal options....
Interesting fun fact; when Gundestock Thunderers were released they had at least 5 different special weapons that all had wildly different shot profiles and range bandings (like flamethrower vs long range artillery different) including a 36" cannon, an unheard of range at the time. Add on a character that could boost the number of shots per gun by up to 6 and the unit was in very high demand. The problem though, was the box they came in had 1 of each special despite the unit being able to equip a special on every single model in the squad. Most meta lists at that time called for AT LEAST 10 boxes of thunderers in order to get full squads of at least the best 2 guns.
Both GW AND AoS's casual playerbase had NO IDEA this would be how people would build these units. I remember vividly an episode of Signals from the frontline where they had a guest from AoS's large narrative community on the show when they were doing an overview of the original kharadron book.
Reece made a comment about how great thunderers were but also noted how it sucked you had to buy at least 5 boxes to outfit a whole squad. The narrative guy said something along the lines of 'well yeah, that would suck but nobody's actually gonna do that soo...' and both Reece and Franky side-eyed him for a second and were like 'bro...that's the ONLY thing people are gonna do.'
This cascaded into an emergency patch in that years general's handbook that rewrote the warscroll so that the unit had to take one of each gun. Which not only invalidated the majority of people's builds but also lead to the unit being totally dead in the water. Even in their new book they're still not great.
So yeah, always remember that changes GW make are just as likely to be due to ignorance as greed.
If this was a consistent, across the entire edition thing I could kinda understand it. There's something to be said for being able to build the game unit out of the box (though as people point out, it'd be trivial for GW to throw an extra sprue or so into their boxes to allow for all options to be fielded out of the box anyway).
But when it's inconsistently applied I really don't understand this. Some factions have this extremely restrictive style of unit and others are in the older, more loose style? Within the same edition?
Interesting fun fact; when Gundestock Thunderers were released they had at least 5 different special weapons that all had wildly different shot profiles and range bandings (like flamethrower vs long range artillery different) including a 36" cannon, an unheard of range at the time. Add on a character that could boost the number of shots per gun by up to 6 and the unit was in very high demand. The problem though, was the box they came in had 1 of each special despite the unit being able to equip a special on every single model in the squad. Most meta lists at that time called for AT LEAST 10 boxes of thunderers in order to get full squads of at least the best 2 guns.
Both GW AND AoS's casual playerbase had NO IDEA this would be how people would build these units. I remember vividly an episode of Signals from the frontline where they had a guest from AoS's large narrative community on the show when they were doing an overview of the original kharadron book.
Reece made a comment about how great thunderers were but also noted how it sucked you had to buy at least 5 boxes to outfit a whole squad. The narrative guy said something along the lines of 'well yeah, that would suck but nobody's actually gonna do that soo...' and both Reece and Franky side-eyed him for a second and were like 'bro...that's the ONLY thing people are gonna do.'
This cascaded into an emergency patch in that years general's handbook that rewrote the warscroll so that the unit had to take one of each gun. Which not only invalidated the majority of people's builds but also lead to the unit being totally dead in the water. Even in their new book they're still not great.
So yeah, always remember that changes GW make are just as likely to be due to ignorance as greed.
Same thing happened with Idoneth's Namarti Thralls and the Icon Bearers. It debuted as "models in this unit can be...", granting +1A and immunity to battleshock for the unit.
Naturally, there were people wanting to buy the Icons specifically to abuse that.
Interesting fun fact; when Gundestock Thunderers were released they had at least 5 different special weapons that all had wildly different shot profiles and range bandings (like flamethrower vs long range artillery different) including a 36" cannon, an unheard of range at the time. Add on a character that could boost the number of shots per gun by up to 6 and the unit was in very high demand. The problem though, was the box they came in had 1 of each special despite the unit being able to equip a special on every single model in the squad. Most meta lists at that time called for AT LEAST 10 boxes of thunderers in order to get full squads of at least the best 2 guns.
Both GW AND AoS's casual playerbase had NO IDEA this would be how people would build these units. I remember vividly an episode of Signals from the frontline where they had a guest from AoS's large narrative community on the show when they were doing an overview of the original kharadron book.
Reece made a comment about how great thunderers were but also noted how it sucked you had to buy at least 5 boxes to outfit a whole squad. The narrative guy said something along the lines of 'well yeah, that would suck but nobody's actually gonna do that soo...' and both Reece and Franky side-eyed him for a second and were like 'bro...that's the ONLY thing people are gonna do.'
This cascaded into an emergency patch in that years general's handbook that rewrote the warscroll so that the unit had to take one of each gun. Which not only invalidated the majority of people's builds but also lead to the unit being totally dead in the water. Even in their new book they're still not great.
So yeah, always remember that changes GW make are just as likely to be due to ignorance as greed.
Same thing happened with Idoneth's Namarti Thralls and the Icon Bearers. It debuted as "models in this unit can be...", granting +1A and immunity to battleshock for the unit.
Naturally, there were people wanting to buy the Icons specifically to abuse that.
Phrased more appropriately, there were people who read the rules and intended to maximize the units efficiency based on what was written.
The only abuse in these cases is GW's abuse of the phrase 'I'm sure it'll be fine!' internally.
But when it's inconsistently applied I really don't understand this. Some factions have this extremely restrictive style of unit and others are in the older, more loose style? Within the same edition?
It is relatively consistent, Troops, HQs and Elites are more likely to be restricted by this, while Fast Attack and Heavy Support are less likely to be. E.G Wyches were restricted while Scourges were untouched.
Da Boss wrote: If this was a consistent, across the entire edition thing I could kinda understand it. There's something to be said for being able to build the game unit out of the box (though as people point out, it'd be trivial for GW to throw an extra sprue or so into their boxes to allow for all options to be fielded out of the box anyway).
But when it's inconsistently applied I really don't understand this. Some factions have this extremely restrictive style of unit and others are in the older, more loose style? Within the same edition?
I can understand why for Skitarii units. It basically became nothing but Plasma Calivers.
yes because people are going to say that GW has no other option than updating each faction on by a time with the Codex release and therefore this imbalance is something natural until most got their new book
and there is no way GW could avoid this or handle the situation differently, it is not possible
Sgt. Cortez wrote:Well, for me this does actually add to the impression of 9th edition as the tournament edition. Don't care about the hobby, just build what's in the Box, don't Kitbash, splash some color on there and if your rules aren't the best take the next best army and repeat.
I like many things about 9th edition but somehow these restrictions make me consider switching to some miniature agnostic system.
Yup 9th = Tourneyhammer
Luckily this will not effect my skitarii, I don't play matched so no skin off my back.
It is stupid, but GW gon be stupid.
If yall want to continue to care about what GW does, fine.
Come join us filthy casuals where we don't care what dumb restrictions GW places on stuff.
Sgt. Cortez wrote:Well, for me this does actually add to the impression of 9th edition as the tournament edition. Don't care about the hobby, just build what's in the Box, don't Kitbash, splash some color on there and if your rules aren't the best take the next best army and repeat.
I like many things about 9th edition but somehow these restrictions make me consider switching to some miniature agnostic system.
Yup 9th = Tourneyhammer
Luckily this will not effect my skitarii, I don't play matched so no skin off my back.
It is stupid, but GW gon be stupid.
If yall want to continue to care about what GW does, fine.
Come join us filthy casuals where we don't care what dumb restrictions GW places on stuff.
So do you just... Completely ignore the Codecs?
Because that's not a matched play rule. It's not a tournament pack rule. It's the literal Codex entry for Skitarii.
And as a player (with the agreement from person I'm playing with) I can choose to not play with those specific rules. Not that hard to do if you play with like minded people.
We've been playing with 2w CSM this whole edition. Goes against codex
The other 2 Aech players locally agree that the restrictions are stupid, so we won't be using them.
You'd be surprised what you can do if you ask....unless you play with donkey-caves, then you're SOL.
As a player, I wouldn't mind my opponent not sticking to weapon restrictions... unless it is a very blatant WAAC like the best weapon option being spammed all over the unit.
Tyran wrote: As a player, I wouldn't mind my opponent not sticking to weapon restrictions... unless it is a very blatant WAAC like the best weapon option being spammed all over the unit.
What do you consider above and below that line? Can you give some examples?
One of the trends I hate most with GW, and they are just pushing it to the furthest extreme. Ridiculously foolish design choice that makes Warhammer less fun while also managing to simultaneously crap on the legacy of what WH has been AND on the personal customization aspect that it is pushing in the modern day. My sympathy to AdMech players.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Racerguy180 wrote: And as a player (with the agreement from person I'm playing with) I can choose to not play with those specific rules. Not that hard to do if you play with like minded people.
We've been playing with 2w CSM this whole edition. Goes against codex
The other 2 Aech players locally agree that the restrictions are stupid, so we won't be using them.
You'd be surprised what you can do if you ask....unless you play with donkey-caves, then you're SOL.
Unfortunately many communities are not as accommodating as yours, nor in a position to be :(
kodos wrote: yeah lets ignore everything what the Codex say until I say no, than the opponent has to do exactly whats in the Codex
by the time we start ignoring Codex rules and make up our own version of 40k, what is the reason to keep playing it?
Well, I would say that it does depend what is the relationship you have with your opponent. Are they a friend or a stranger? someone you play regularly, once in a while or chances are you will never play against them again? Do you interact with them outside the game? Are your games more the narrative sort or the competitive sort?
Because if that person is someone you trust, that you play to have fun with more than just winning, then the rules become more the guidelines of a sandbox, they become malleable.
But if there is no such relationship, then the interaction has to be defined and regulated by the rules, and for that they have to be rigid.
Sgt. Cortez wrote:Well, for me this does actually add to the impression of 9th edition as the tournament edition. Don't care about the hobby, just build what's in the Box, don't Kitbash, splash some color on there and if your rules aren't the best take the next best army and repeat.
I like many things about 9th edition but somehow these restrictions make me consider switching to some miniature agnostic system.
Yup 9th = Tourneyhammer
Luckily this will not effect my skitarii, I don't play matched so no skin off my back.
It is stupid, but GW gon be stupid.
If yall want to continue to care about what GW does, fine.
Come join us filthy casuals where we don't care what dumb restrictions GW places on stuff.
Just the dumb restrictions YOU put on stuff.
I'm gonna guess, just based off of what I've seen that you limit: no unpainted, no special characters, you get salty over specific units or combos and ban them after losses and you banned superheavies for a really, really long time before you realized there was no such thing as a superheavy in 8th or 9th.
I play against morty & magnus all the time, play(with &) against Knights often. I've never refused a game against someone based upon their list contents. While I have refused to play against specific people that list has exactly 2 people on it & neither of them play anymore.
Even though I don't play with unpainted minis, I have zero issue playing against them. If I had a choice between 2 players and one had fully painted, I would prefer to play them.
Luckily we play in a permissive and thematic group, so these stupid little problems that "by the book" players have, flat out aren't for us.
If I were to expect anyone outside of our group to accept any of these addendum, then I would be wrong to think so.
My biggest problem with this crap is the fact that it looks like gak on the table and it slows down the game.
Why can't I fit my units with specialized wargear? If some choice is OP then balance them all. But having a squad with a anti tank weapon and a flamer and a sniper rifle and a grenade launcher is horrible.
They killed the Thunderers warscroll in aos with this and they are bringing it to 40k.
I don't know what to expect with Tau. If they do this to Crisis Suits they basically kill the army.
Galas wrote: My biggest problem with this crap is the fact that it looks like gak on the table and it slows down the game.
Why can't I fit my units with specialized wargear? If some choice is OP then balance them all. But having a squad with a anti tank weapon and a flamer and a sniper rifle and a grenade launcher is horrible.
They killed the Thunderers warscroll in aos with this and they are bringing it to 40k.
I don't know what to expect with Tau. If they do this to Crisis Suits they basically kill the army.
But that doesn't remove 3rd party bits sellers, which we seem to have an massive issue with... Except most of us were perfectly fine before to buy multiple gw boxes and would do so again if the prices weren't so steep...
Gw's loss tho, they have been chasing that particular booogiemen since chapterhouse ..
EDIT.
I for one look forward to the Chaos terminator entry.
Galas wrote: My biggest problem with this crap is the fact that it looks like gak on the table and it slows down the game.
Why can't I fit my units with specialized wargear? If some choice is OP then balance them all. But having a squad with a anti tank weapon and a flamer and a sniper rifle and a grenade launcher is horrible.
They killed the Thunderers warscroll in aos with this and they are bringing it to 40k.
I don't know what to expect with Tau. If they do this to Crisis Suits they basically kill the army.
The actual reality will be people using the guns that fit into the army dynamic they want and the rest get ignored. Few people will frakenstein their units.
Well this means one thing for me. With staffs being 4 per unit, but one per box, my metal dudes no longer have to worry to not have the opitmal number of weapons per squads.
I do wonder how GW is going to do it with units that have multiple of some weapons, but only one per box. Purgators can take 4 psi lancers, as can paladins, but there is only one weapon of each type per box. Can't even get a full load out.
In general won't matter as much to new players, while hurting people with an army already. Which I think points at the fact that GW does not care as much about people who already bought an army for a faction.
There models works though, old players will buy more legalise their army and new players will keep buying. I started this thread and am very aware of the intention by GW but I have also already bought a box of skitarii so my squads will be legal, even though my mates said I was good to go they were.
Well maybe. But there is also those people who will sit down, look at the 5-6 boxs they have to buy to just make their legal army, legal and working again, and will just quit.
I understand this is less of a problem in places where having 6k of an army is considered nothing out of unusual.
Karol wrote: Well maybe. But there is also those people who will sit down, look at the 5-6 boxs they have to buy to just make their legal army, legal and working again, and will just quit.
I understand this is less of a problem in places where having 6k of an army is considered nothing out of unusual.
Yeah, maybe. I think some people with existing armies will simply not be as strict with wysiwyg as before. "You see, because GW is stupid, only the Guy with that Red helmet over here actually has a special weapon, the others are just normal dudes and I'll remove them first when you shoot the unit."
That wouldn't fly here at all, WYSIWYG is strongly enforced here. Just like the 10VP for painting, another problematic thing if you have to update an army.
here you have a fully painted army and suddenly you lose 1-2 models from a few squads, and you are in a bad position, specially if you commissioned the army.
Karol wrote: Well maybe. But there is also those people who will sit down, look at the 5-6 boxs they have to buy to just make their legal army, legal and working again, and will just quit.
I understand this is less of a problem in places where having 6k of an army is considered nothing out of unusual.
Yeah, maybe. I think some people with existing armies will simply not be as strict with wysiwyg as before. "You see, because GW is stupid, only the Guy with that Red helmet over here actually has a special weapon, the others are just normal dudes and I'll remove them first when you shoot the unit."
That wouldn’t fly with me either, my armies are characters and tell stories. What they look like matters.
Karol wrote: Well maybe. But there is also those people who will sit down, look at the 5-6 boxs they have to buy to just make their legal army, legal and working again, and will just quit.
I understand this is less of a problem in places where having 6k of an army is considered nothing out of unusual.
Don't think it takes that many boxes.
Basically, you'd need to replace one special in any existing squad. So if you're okay with replacing that special with a standard weapon, one box fixes ten squads. If you insist on using replacements who are equipped with the other (sub-optimal) special weapon, you probably still have all the bits that you didn't use the first time around (because sub-optimal), and if so, you can still fix 10 squads with a single box.
Karol wrote: Well maybe. But there is also those people who will sit down, look at the 5-6 boxs they have to buy to just make their legal army, legal and working again, and will just quit.
I understand this is less of a problem in places where having 6k of an army is considered nothing out of unusual.
Don't think it takes that many boxes.
Basically, you'd need to replace one special in any existing squad. So if you're okay with replacing that special with a standard weapon, one box fixes ten squads. If you insist on using replacements who are equipped with the other (sub-optimal) special weapon, you probably still have all the bits that you didn't use the first time around (because sub-optimal), and if so, you can still fix 10 squads with a single box.
Karol wrote: That wouldn't fly here at all, WYSIWYG is strongly enforced here. Just like the 10VP for painting, another problematic thing if you have to update an army.
here you have a fully painted army and suddenly you lose 1-2 models from a few squads, and you are in a bad position, specially if you commissioned the army.
Two things, related,
1. Why do we care what GW says? They had some good things going and ruined them. Leading to
2. Who is surprised? Admech was a newer faction on the block, got some nice toys. Now... GW needs an excuse to gouge Admech collectors. My bet is that this change (or something roughly like it, a general strategy) was baked into the initial release, and that the bean counters at GW (G for “gimme” and W for “your wallet”) were waiting to pull the trigger until now, to keep Admech competitive (or whatever) until 40K edition X has us all starting over again, likely with more stormca... err... primar... err... numarines and nuorks and nudars and...yeah.
So, why care at all? Frankly, when GW blew up their legacy universe they jettisoned all of the grounding Moorcockian (ironically, this, for anyone having studied this literature) Middle Earthian generality that served as a sort of clearinghouse for sci fi fantasy tropes and now are left with their own trademarkable IP but at the cost of the fact that the new universe is ignorant nast with none of the depth of reference and scope of appeal. Sure, one can excuse them that they must chase a new market of consumers raised on Harry Potter (more ignorant nast) and card games, but then there is this sort of profit driven tweaking. So again, why care? If a single person acted this way, I would perhaps try to appease that person once, but after it became obvious that this person is a selfish short sighted barely literate likely coke addicted jerk, well, let’s just say that this is where I am at with GW and I am just waiting for the rest of the world to catch up at this point so that we can move on...
Andykp wrote: There models works though, old players will buy more legalise their army and new players will keep buying. I started this thread and am very aware of the intention by GW but I have also already bought a box of skitarii so my squads will be legal, even though my mates said I was good to go they were.
Truthfully, I'm kicking myself for not having grabbed one of the SC AdMech sets with the party barge. Could have added a 3rd hovertank and gotten 12 Skitarii out of the kit plus kitbashed a Technoarchaeologist!
It is one thing to invalidate a loadout when there is a change of kit, quite another to invalidate a loadout arbitrarily and in a manner that benefits no one. There are no players jumping into the game because of this change.
Yeah, I'm not keen on this idea. I have CSM Terminators that I've been using for many years and have lovingly painted them, but I worry for what their legal weapons loadouts will be moving forward.
I would be a little less apprehensive about this if GW could at least provide old weapon option lists in a Legends document. I don't mean full datasheets, stat blocks or points costs; literally just a list of the weapon options.
This would allow us filthy casuals and grognards to at least use our old toys, and help Crusade players to keep their forces legal. Yes, I know we could always houserule it, but having those rules in a Legends document adds an air of legitimacy and makes things a little easier to explain in games with less-frequent opponents.
General Kroll wrote: Marines and Dark Eldar have both had new codexes without this treatment.
DE did ( Wyches did; Scourges did not ). Nobody complained about it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
NinthMusketeer wrote: It is one thing to invalidate a loadout when there is a change of kit, quite another to invalidate a loadout arbitrarily and in a manner that benefits no one. There are no players jumping into the game because of this change.
But there could be players not jumping in or jumping out without it.
Cheex wrote: Yeah, I'm not keen on this idea. I have CSM Terminators that I've been using for many years and have lovingly painted them, but I worry for what their legal weapons loadouts will be moving forward.
I would be a little less apprehensive about this if GW could at least provide old weapon option lists in a Legends document. I don't mean full datasheets, stat blocks or points costs; literally just a list of the weapon options.
This would allow us filthy casuals and grognards to at least use our old toys, and help Crusade players to keep their forces legal. Yes, I know we could always houserule it, but having those rules in a Legends document adds an air of legitimacy and makes things a little easier to explain in games with less-frequent opponents.
Apologies - I shouldn't make such an absolute statement. Not enough people were concerned to create a score of pages in discussion over it. Unless I'm remembering wrong, which is entirely possible.
Perhaps I misunderstood a post above, but is it correct that Scourges are not limited to the options in the box but Wyches are? If that is not the case then you can ignore my post as a misunderstanding.
No, CSM period are the thing to watch. Our basic infantry kit lacks enough bolters or chainswords for a full unit, as well as several currently available heavy weapons, and LOTS of options currently available for the Aspiring Champion. The only melee weapon with multiple copies in the terminator kit is power fists, and the combi-weapon bits are incomplete. Havocs only have two of each weapon except the chaincannon of which they only have one, and the kit doesn't even have a bolter for the Aspiring Champion. And Chosen don't even have models. This could get messy.
NinthMusketeer wrote: It is one thing to invalidate a loadout when there is a change of kit, quite another to invalidate a loadout arbitrarily and in a manner that benefits no one. There are no players jumping into the game because of this change.
This decision won't make people jump into the game, you're right.
But anyone who does jump into the game will not feel pressured by net lists and influencers and Youtubers who tell them they need to buy a second box of Skitarii not for the actual Skitarii in the box, but for a single Arquebus because Skitarii with one Arquebus is USELESS and a WASTE OF POINTS but Skitarii with two Arquebuses are OP auto-take Lulz.
As previously mentioned, GW was surprised that there are people who were willing to actually do that- they never anticipated it, they never planned for it, and while they certainly didn't mind the bigger profit margin, they probably all think we're crazy for doing it.
Da Boss wrote: Perhaps I misunderstood a post above, but is it correct that Scourges are not limited to the options in the box but Wyches are? If that is not the case then you can ignore my post as a misunderstanding.
Yes, that is correct.
Personally, I view these things as some sort of balancing mechanic. It could be an attempt to lower the cost to entry for common troops. Or some odd mix.
What I do not think it is, is a capricious sales tactic as these same changes would reduce the future total boxes sold.
We can already see more of this coming. Rubrics can no longer have 20 mans in their new codex. Surely this is not going to sell more Rubrics. They will also likely not lose the ability to take all flamers and with flamers ( probably ) moving to 12" as well as picking up a wound for 3 points it could create a severely formidable unit. The change is, to me, undoubtedly to keep that scenario off the table.
NinthMusketeer wrote: It is one thing to invalidate a loadout when there is a change of kit, quite another to invalidate a loadout arbitrarily and in a manner that benefits no one. There are no players jumping into the game because of this change.
This decision won't make people jump into the game, you're right.
But anyone who does jump into the game will not feel pressured by net lists and influencers and Youtubers who tell them they need to buy a second box of Skitarii not for the actual Skitarii in the box, but for a single Arquebus because Skitarii with one Arquebus is USELESS and a WASTE OF POINTS but Skitarii with two Arquebuses are OP auto-take Lulz.
As previously mentioned, GW was surprised that there are people who were willing to actually do that- they never anticipated it, they never planned for it, and while they certainly didn't mind the bigger profit margin, they probably all think we're crazy for doing it.
Which is a good thing for the health of the game, the less netlisting the better. Doubly so for any newer player just getting into 40k.
No, CSM period are the thing to watch. Our basic infantry kit lacks enough bolters or chainswords for a full unit, as well as several currently available heavy weapons, and LOTS of options currently available for the Aspiring Champion. The only melee weapon with multiple copies in the terminator kit is power fists, and the combi-weapon bits are incomplete. Havocs only have two of each weapon except the chaincannon of which they only have one, and the kit doesn't even have a bolter for the Aspiring Champion. And Chosen don't even have models. This could get messy.
Exactly this. It becomes a bigger problem when you consider that CSM have two kits (multipart and ETB) that have different options - how will they handle this?
Valkyrie wrote: This is irking me more when you consider no Marine units actually received these changes.
Try finding DW vanguard veteran with relic blade, DW captain with melta fist, DW biker, termie or primaris with SIA (because they all lack frakking button on gun, but that one random biker with said button can take frakking defining trait of a faction!), DW termie with special fuel, DW veteran with one handed shotgun or stalker, etc, etc, etc, really, DW has more such idiotic limitations than DG, AM, and Sisters combined. 'No' Marine unit you said?
Or, you know, the whole imbecile clown comedy that is Primaris access to frakking power weapons I wonder where people now sprinkling crocodile tears now that their faction was affected were back when DW and primaris books were unveiled foretelling the changes, eh? Because I can bet not a single one of complainers helped the players of either faction protest back then...
H.B.M.C. wrote: Did you ever consider that if the other Skitarii weapons were worth taking then maybe it wouldn't've been "nothing but Plasma Calivers"?
Wrong. The other weapons were fine. The problem was with meta heavily leaning into plasma, especially after idiotic W2 buff no one asked for broke it. Melta gun can cost 2 pts and be amazing on paper, but if you're in foot ork heavy meta, it's worthless and no one will take it, and nothing will make it 'worth taking'.
Exactly this. It becomes a bigger problem when you consider that CSM have two kits (multipart and ETB) that have different options - how will they handle this?
Oh, you know, one of those will be discontinued (probably whichever you happen to like best) & the rules will be written to reflect the remaining kit.
I fully expect Chaos Terminators to join their Death Guard counterparts in the "may have 1 of X, 1 of Y" bull gak.
Daedalus81 wrote: Personally, I view these things as some sort of balancing mechanic. It could be an attempt to lower the cost to entry for common troops. Or some odd mix.
If you think that this change was done for the good of the game, then I've got some bridged I need to sell. Interested?
Da Boss wrote: Perhaps I misunderstood a post above, but is it correct that Scourges are not limited to the options in the box but Wyches are? If that is not the case then you can ignore my post as a misunderstanding.
The only consistency so far seems to have been that troops are the most targeted by this. I suspect when CSM gets updated, we'll see the same thing for the troops but Havocs won't have this restriction.
NinthMusketeer wrote: It is one thing to invalidate a loadout when there is a change of kit, quite another to invalidate a loadout arbitrarily and in a manner that benefits no one. There are no players jumping into the game because of this change.
This decision won't make people jump into the game, you're right.
But anyone who does jump into the game will not feel pressured by net lists and influencers and Youtubers who tell them they need to buy a second box of Skitarii not for the actual Skitarii in the box, but for a single Arquebus because Skitarii with one Arquebus is USELESS and a WASTE OF POINTS but Skitarii with two Arquebuses are OP auto-take Lulz.
As previously mentioned, GW was surprised that there are people who were willing to actually do that- they never anticipated it, they never planned for it, and while they certainly didn't mind the bigger profit margin, they probably all think we're crazy for doing it.
Which is a good thing for the health of the game, the less netlisting the better. Doubly so for any newer player just getting into 40k.
Do you mean healthy as in people still play it or healthy as in actually being a good game? Because 40k is a garbage game and the Your Dudes factor that GW is stripping away was about the only advantage it had over other games besides sunk cost and exposure.
Death Guard Termies in particular are an odd duck in this new development. Plague Marines as we all know got their options in sub-10 man squads severely mangled, and the Termies did so too. But only for their ranged weapons, their standard melee weapons (axe or sword) was unchanged. You can still go full on one or the other despite the kit coming with (top of my head) 3 axes and 2 swords.
Da Boss wrote: Perhaps I misunderstood a post above, but is it correct that Scourges are not limited to the options in the box but Wyches are? If that is not the case then you can ignore my post as a misunderstanding.
The only consistency so far seems to have been that troops are the most targeted by this. I suspect when CSM gets updated, we'll see the same thing for the troops but Havocs won't have this restriction.
I dunno. Havocs are a weird unit already. Their weapons are cross-compatible with the CSM kit, but technically the bodies are distinct (and on larger bases and whatever). And that chain gun being singular stands out.
CSM are also in a very weird spot. They don't have all their weapon options, but the autocannon is on the sprue in the Start Collecting (from Shadowspear) so technically that shouldn't be invalidated (it'd be a gak show if they did, but so would killing the chain gun and the other havoc options that aren't on the CSM sprue, but have been options for CSM squads since the... early 90s)
Do you mean healthy as in people still play it or healthy as in actually being a good game? Because 40k is a garbage game and the Your Dudes factor that GW is stripping away was about the only advantage it had over other games besides sunk cost and exposure.
GW may be stripping the "Your Dudes' Equipment factor", but since you're getting more "Your Dudeness" out of Crusade than you ever got out of an equipment section, I can tell you My Dudes are doing just fine.
And I'd add highest number of factions, highest number of models per faction and best quality plastic miniatures on the market as other advantages GW has over the competition- advantages GW will continue to have, even if they do pass rules to protect metachasers from their own instincts to build the best possible squad by buying multiple boxes of models they don't need for a single piece of gear that they think will help them win.
It really doesn’t seem like a balance change, seeing as how they had to buff every special weapon so that the new load out would even be feasible. They gave plasma and arc significantly longer ranges and allowed the arquebus to move and shoot.
I personally liked that plasma was tailored for vanguard and the arquebus for the rangers, while the arc was a middle ground that worked with either. It just feels so lame now.
Do you mean healthy as in people still play it or healthy as in actually being a good game? Because 40k is a garbage game and the Your Dudes factor that GW is stripping away was about the only advantage it had over other games besides sunk cost and exposure.
GW may be stripping the "Your Dudes' Equipment factor", but since you're getting more "Your Dudeness" out of Crusade than you ever got out of an equipment section, I can tell you My Dudes are doing just fine.
And I'd add highest number of factions, highest number of models per faction and best quality plastic miniatures on the market as other advantages GW has over the competition- advantages GW will continue to have, even if they do pass rules to protect metachasers from their own instincts to build the best possible squad by buying multiple boxes of models they don't need for a single piece of gear that they think will help them win.
Fine and dandy if you Like crusade...
I don't and think it's meh for narrative.
Do you mean healthy as in people still play it or healthy as in actually being a good game? Because 40k is a garbage game and the Your Dudes factor that GW is stripping away was about the only advantage it had over other games besides sunk cost and exposure.
GW may be stripping the "Your Dudes' Equipment factor", but since you're getting more "Your Dudeness" out of Crusade than you ever got out of an equipment section, I can tell you My Dudes are doing just fine.
And I'd add highest number of factions, highest number of models per faction and best quality plastic miniatures on the market as other advantages GW has over the competition- advantages GW will continue to have, even if they do pass rules to protect metachasers from their own instincts to build the best possible squad by buying multiple boxes of models they don't need for a single piece of gear that they think will help them win.
Fine and dandy if you Like crusade...
I don't and think it's meh for narrative.
Do you mean healthy as in people still play it or healthy as in actually being a good game? Because 40k is a garbage game and the Your Dudes factor that GW is stripping away was about the only advantage it had over other games besides sunk cost and exposure.
GW may be stripping the "Your Dudes' Equipment factor", but since you're getting more "Your Dudeness" out of Crusade than you ever got out of an equipment section, I can tell you My Dudes are doing just fine.
And I'd add highest number of factions, highest number of models per faction and best quality plastic miniatures on the market as other advantages GW has over the competition- advantages GW will continue to have, even if they do pass rules to protect metachasers from their own instincts to build the best possible squad by buying multiple boxes of models they don't need for a single piece of gear that they think will help them win.
Fine and dandy if you Like crusade...
I don't and think it's meh for narrative.
Most of what you said is just bloat. Crusade? Bloat. Loads of factions? Bloat. Loads of models per faction? Bloat. Part of what is making 40k suck is that there is just too many things with too many rules slapped onto them so I don't see how "40k has an advantage because it has lots of useless gak" is an argument.
I will concede they have the best quality plastic. But I don't think many people care what material their models are made of.
Most of what you said is just bloat. Crusade? Bloat. Loads of factions? Bloat. Loads of models per faction? Bloat. Part of what is making 40k suck is that there is just too many things with too many rules slapped onto them so I don't see how "40k has an advantage because it has lots of useless gak" is an argument.
I will concede they have the best quality plastic. But I don't think many people care what material their models are made of.
Especially now that you can 3D print amazing models for cheap in resin, for way less money than GW plastic.
Do you mean healthy as in people still play it or healthy as in actually being a good game? Because 40k is a garbage game and the Your Dudes factor that GW is stripping away was about the only advantage it had over other games besides sunk cost and exposure.
GW may be stripping the "Your Dudes' Equipment factor", but since you're getting more "Your Dudeness" out of Crusade than you ever got out of an equipment section, I can tell you My Dudes are doing just fine.
And I'd add highest number of factions, highest number of models per faction and best quality plastic miniatures on the market as other advantages GW has over the competition- advantages GW will continue to have, even if they do pass rules to protect metachasers from their own instincts to build the best possible squad by buying multiple boxes of models they don't need for a single piece of gear that they think will help them win.
Fine and dandy if you Like crusade...
I don't and think it's meh for narrative.
Most of what you said is just bloat. Crusade? Bloat. Loads of factions? Bloat. Loads of models per faction? Bloat. Part of what is making 40k suck is that there is just too many things with too many rules slapped onto them so I don't see how "40k has an advantage because it has lots of useless gak" is an argument.
I will concede they have the best quality plastic. But I don't think many people care what material their models are made of.
I woulnd't even agree on the best plastic anymore. Certainly not for a lot of factions.
Also, replacing generic guns and rules, which you could grant access to a faction or not via USR and replacing them with free traits and stratagems certainly didn't help because it multiplied the bloat x fold accross multiple factions...
Making it even worse to balance ironically then what GW already did with USRS...
Most of what you said is just bloat. Crusade? Bloat. Loads of factions? Bloat. Loads of models per faction? Bloat. Part of what is making 40k suck is that there is just too many things with too many rules slapped onto them so I don't see how "40k has an advantage because it has lots of useless gak" is an argument.
I will concede they have the best quality plastic. But I don't think many people care what material their models are made of.
Especially now that you can 3D print amazing models for cheap in resin, for way less money than GW plastic.
Dunno a full resin printer setup with decent quality will still net you over here 1.5 full armies so long you don't go with a scion regiment that is...
No one* is going to run 1 of each thing anyways. It is really just cutting down the special weapons options to 1-per, maybe 2-per if there happen to be two weapons with uses that match up right.
*Yes I know someone will. I also know you know what I mean. If I meant *literally* no one I would have said that.
A cheap 3D printer (I've got an Anycubic Photon, the basic model) and a wash+cure machine can set you back $270. You also need resin and some isopropyl alcohol, but for $350 or less you can print a lot of stuff.
The wash+cure isn't needed, but it's very convenient to use and I recommend it.
Once you compare it to recent GW prices, plastic is not the cheapest option for a whole army anymore.
With resin you should also consider the time it takes to print and clean everything, so it may not be for everyon. Considering only the cost for the tools and the materials used, it's definitely cheaper.
General Kroll wrote: Marines and Dark Eldar have both had new codexes without this treatment.
DE did ( Wyches did; Scourges did not ). Nobody complained about it.
I am ambivalent about it. Thematically it is exactly right, Wyches are gladiators/gladiatrices, and to my mind should have a mix of weapons, but it admittedly slows the game down a bit.
Scourges escaped the rule, which is just as well as it would have killed them off as a useful choice.
tneva82 wrote: Well gw being inconsistent itseif seems sisters escape this as troop squad still has multi melta option which doesn't come in box.
Gg gw
For the moment. Remember, the SoBdo have a new codex dropping soon. So there's potential for GW to have corrected this oversight....
Except we got codex point page already thanks to ca. Those are points for new codex. A) ca also has gk/ts codex points that are not yet out(sister codex was supposed to be earlier. Likely february) b) it contains points for stuff old codex was never going to be able to use.
I based statement on new codex points page.
We thus also know for example that either repentia are going to be nerfed in rules or go nuts as new codex dropped points...
Daedalus: Oh, I don't think it's a money making thing. I am not sure why they are doing it, it might have been to ensure people can't build illegal units by mistake?
The reason it blows my mind is that they do it for some units but not for others, so the design is super inconsistent. It just seems messy and weird to me.
Da Boss wrote: Daedalus: Oh, I don't think it's a money making thing. I am not sure why they are doing it, it might have been to ensure people can't build illegal units by mistake?
The reason it blows my mind is that they do it for some units but not for others, so the design is super inconsistent. It just seems messy and weird to me.
Feels weirdly consistent to me as they appear to always skip this rule on units that serve some "heavy" purpose like Devastators, Scourges(Fast Attack but have heavy weaponry), and probably Havocs and Retributors as well. It seems infantry that is more of a troop choice(even if in elite slot) tend to get this enforced on them.
Da Boss wrote: I am not sure why they are doing it, it might have been to ensure people can't build illegal units by mistake?
this is the big question here because there is no good reason for it
Because it is easier to balance unit by restrictiong the options than to try to make all options useable?
Because new players don't need to figure out witch loadout is the best?
Because people don't by 3rd party bits (they don't start searching for bits in the first place so never realise that other comapnies exist)
If GW does really care so much about balance, there are some other issues that need to be solved first.
If they want to make it easier for new players to make a starter army, don't add so many options in the first place
Karol wrote: Well maybe. But there is also those people who will sit down, look at the 5-6 boxs they have to buy to just make their legal army, legal and working again, and will just quit.
I understand this is less of a problem in places where having 6k of an army is considered nothing out of unusual.
Don't think it takes that many boxes.
Basically, you'd need to replace one special in any existing squad. So if you're okay with replacing that special with a standard weapon, one box fixes ten squads. If you insist on using replacements who are equipped with the other (sub-optimal) special weapon, you probably still have all the bits that you didn't use the first time around (because sub-optimal), and if so, you can still fix 10 squads with a single box.
I guess it does depend on the army though.
Purgators can take 4 heavy weapon per squad, and paladins can take 2 for every 10 man. they are both made out of the same sprues as regular termintors and strikes. And don't come with multiple psycannons, psi lancers and incinerators.
For a strike or termintor unit that was running with one it doesn't matter as much, because they run with 1 per 5 anyway.
H.B.M.C. wrote: then I've got some bridged I need to sell. Interested?
Well, I am rather fond of bridges.
Wait so this is world wide joke? Because in Poland we had this dude that was running Warsaw, and among many scummy things he did, one of the main things that makes him rich to this day, was the fact that he as the mayor of Warsaw sold the rights to both pices of land that a new just build bridge was attached to, so every year the city pays him milions for the cars that drive through his propery to use the bridge. I mind blown that stuff like that was done all around the world too. And people say you can't learn interesting things on the forums.
Daedalus: Oh, I don't think it's a money making thing. I am not sure why they are doing it, it might have been to ensure people can't build illegal units by mistake?
A lot of companies, parties or even countries consider money that does not go to them, as money lost.
And it would be a wierd thing to do anyway, because of GW is worried new players will build illegal units, they should be worried they should do the same for bad options for those units. If , to use the newest examples, the dark lance exist , other weapons should not exist as arment for the raider.
Wait so this is world wide joke? Because in Poland we had this dude that was running Warsaw, and among many scummy things he did, one of the main things that makes him rich to this day, was the fact that he as the mayor of Warsaw sold the rights to both pices of land that a new just build bridge was attached to, so every year the city pays him milions for the cars that drive through his propery to use the bridge. I mind blown that stuff like that was done all around the world too. And people say you can't learn interesting things on the forums.
Hah, well, to 'having a bridge to sell' is a phrase used when you think someone is gullible, because you don't actually have a bridge to sell.
Your example is different, but interesting nonetheless.
NinthMusketeer wrote: GW will be flush with cash from the extra revenue of people... not buying the extra guns from anyone?
i guess forcing competition out of the market has long term benefits and makes players more insultated since they don't need to search for bits and maybee stumble over 3rd parties? except i doubt that the goodwill lost via this decision will help them longterm
Daedalus81 wrote: Hah, well, to 'having a bridge to sell' is a phrase used when you think someone is gullible, because you don't actually have a bridge to sell.
Originally, it was a reference to the Brooklyn Bridge, which was fairly regularly 'sold' to unwitting tourists by local conmen in early 20th century New York.
Funny that all the people bitching about the lack of a million and one equipment options are the same people bitching about how having lots of factions and models is bloat.
"I want a list of 30 loadouts per unit, but if we could reduce the game to five factions and one kit for each battlefield role, THAT would reduce bloat, cuz I'm chasing the meta and I'm only gonna use 3 copies of the best unit for each battlefield role anyways cuz WINNING. Lulz"
Pick a side: you either want options or you don't.
PenitentJake wrote: Funny that all the people bitching about the lack of a million and one equipment options are the same people bitching about how having lots of factions and models is bloat.
"I want a list of 30 loadouts per unit, but if we could reduce the game to five factions and one kit for each battlefield role, THAT would reduce bloat, cuz I'm chasing the meta and I'm only gonna use 3 copies of the best unit for each battlefield role anyways cuz WINNING. Lulz"
Pick a side: you either want options or you don't.
1) Is anybody actually making that argument?
2) Restricting Skitarii to one of each special weapon actually increases bloat - just look at the amount of text/bullet points in the unit entry.
3) There is a difference between wanting to be able to choose special weapons freely and not thinking that the game is improved by having sixteen different Terminator squad entries. Those are different issues.
Funny that all the people bitching about the lack of a million and one equipment options are the same people bitching about how having lots of factions and models is bloat.
"I want a list of 30 loadouts per unit, but if we could reduce the game to five factions and one kit for each battlefield role, THAT would reduce bloat, cuz I'm chasing the meta and I'm only gonna use 3 copies of the best unit for each battlefield role anyways cuz WINNING. Lulz"
Pick a side: you either want options or you don't.
No.
GW released new units like Plague Marines and Rangers years ago with specific options that you could build and play with for years. Then they arbitrarily decide to take these options away, leaving myself and others left with ILLEGAL units for no reason.
I equipped all of my Plague Marines with Knifes/Axes because I wanted a close combat Plague Marine army. Was I at any point chasing a meta?
PenitentJake wrote: Funny that all the people bitching about the lack of a million and one equipment options are the same people bitching about how having lots of factions and models is bloat.
I see this all the time and I'm not sure if it counts as a logical fallacy, but it kinda has the feel of one - Of course people complaining sound ridiculous and hypocritical if you put two or more complaints made by the community in the mouth of the same person at the same nebulous period in time when they ostensibly held the same opinion.
Quote the same person saying both things (Especially if it was me, because for all I remember it might have been, and I'll eat this second paragraph and/or try to reconcile the statements if it was) or this cannot be allowed to hold water.
PenitentJake wrote: Funny that all the people bitching about the lack of a million and one equipment options are the same people bitching about how having lots of factions and models is bloat.
"I want a list of 30 loadouts per unit, but if we could reduce the game to five factions and one kit for each battlefield role, THAT would reduce bloat, cuz I'm chasing the meta and I'm only gonna use 3 copies of the best unit for each battlefield role anyways cuz WINNING. Lulz"
Pick a side: you either want options or you don't.
Likely not the same people and this strips the nuance from the issue many people have. I don't agree with some of what they're saying, but it's ok for them to be upset about this.
PenitentJake wrote: Funny that all the people bitching about the lack of a million and one equipment options are the same people bitching about how having lots of factions and models is bloat.
"I want a list of 30 loadouts per unit, but if we could reduce the game to five factions and one kit for each battlefield role, THAT would reduce bloat, cuz I'm chasing the meta and I'm only gonna use 3 copies of the best unit for each battlefield role anyways cuz WINNING. Lulz"
Pick a side: you either want options or you don't.
You can only take 1 strawman per post.
Also as Daedalus81 said you're stripping nuance from the issue. You can have options and not have bloat, especially in this case because the three options are meaningfully different and preform different roles. Its not like Hellblaster squads where they have 3 options which are all minor variations of the same thing or a collection of Primaris's 15 or so bolt weapons. A squad equipped with arqebuseseses are going to fill a different role on the field than a unit with plasma calivers.
A funny thing, I'm starting a chaos army and wanted a specific loadout for my terminators. That loadout wasn't available via the normal CSM terminator box set. However, it was available in the cataphract terminator box. So, I said to myself, since cataphract were around during the crusade and I'm thinking of playing an original legion, why can't I just make my terminators cataphractii? So I made my terminators cataphractii and since there is no rule for cataphract termies in the CSM codex I can run them as "normal" CSM termies without running across WYSIWYG problems.
So I wonder what GW will do to this loophole? I mean I can also take Mk III armour which has a different loadout than either normal CSM or the starter set but it certainly falls within the fluff of 40K.
Is there a term for multi-strawmanning? "Cornfielding?" Is there a proper adjective, like "A Nicholas Cage of Strawmen?"
I feel like "Nicholas Cage" should be reserved for a strawman that is particularly impressive/egregious or which has had an unusual amount of effort put in. A light Googling implies that the collective noun for scarecrows is a "gathering", though I'm uncertain if that's legit or not.
It makes me think that when Guard gets released we're either going to see Veterans and Special Weapon Squads removed, or something silly like:
Special Weapon Squad:
- 3 Guardsmen must be upgraded with the following: 1 Sniper Rifle, 1 Grenade Launcher, 1 Flamer, 1 Plasma Gun, or 1 Melta Gun.
Veteran Squad:
- 3 Veterans may be upgraded with the following: 1 Sniper Rifle, 1 Grenade Launcher, 1 Flamer, 1 Plasma Gun, or 1 Melta Gun.
Scions will be similar something like:
- 2 Scions may be upgraded with 1 Grenade Launcher, 1 Flamer, 1 Plasma Gun, 1 Melta Gun, or 1 Hotshot Volley Gun.
- If this unit numbers 10 models 2 additional Scions may be upgraded with 1 Grenade Launcher, 1 Flamer, 1 Plasma Gun, 1 Melta Gun, or 1 Hotshot Volley Gun.
It's so stupid, but this really seems to be the route GW are going down. If they do this, it's going to kill a lot of Guard options.
I just can't get upset about this. I think not only is it a new player friendly thing, it's an army balance thing. I don't think they want skitarii rangers and vanguard to be the heavy lifters with tons of special weapons.
I will just proxy some of my specials as galvanic/radium for now. Maybe when I pick up another boat I'll use the bodies to replace the extra specials.
I'm not so sure about Scions. They're not what I'd consider a typical troop.
If they wanted to reduce special weapon spam, they could have reduced the specials to 1 per 5 and called it a day. Instead, you can still spam special weapons, except to do so you have to create a Frankenstein squad that doesn’t actually specialize. And let’s not forget that the worst offenders (calivers) got a huge range buff. So no, it’s not a balance change. To me, it just seems like a mandate forced on the rules writers by middle management. Lastly, the new buffs and doctrines/traits to skitarii make them far more deadly than 3 calivers ever could.
Will be really interesting to see what they do to GK melee. All the weapons cost the same according to the points document. Right now, you can equip the whole squad with whatever you want, and I wager that basically 100% of everyone's existing squads are armed with identical weapons. There will be a massive outcry if all those squads (except the ones with swords, I guess, which literally nobody has because they were the worst option) get invalidated by some weird plague marine style hodgepodge.
Quasistellar wrote: I'm not so sure about Scions. They're not what I'd consider a typical troop.
They come in boxes of 5. I've listed how they would work given what's in their box and their current rules. People also play mono-Militarum Tempestus armies.
PenitentJake wrote: Funny that all the people bitching about the lack of a million and one equipment options are the same people bitching about how having lots of factions and models is bloat.
I see this all the time and I'm not sure if it counts as a logical fallacy, but it kinda has the feel of one - Of course people complaining sound ridiculous and hypocritical if you put two or more complaints made by the community in the mouth of the same person at the same nebulous period in time when they ostensibly held the same opinion.
Quote the same person saying both things (Especially if it was me, because for all I remember it might have been, and I'll eat this second paragraph and/or try to reconcile the statements if it was) or this cannot be allowed to hold water.
It was Sim-Life I was specifically reacting to; his first post was about stripping the your dudeness by restricting weapon options. I then suggested that any loss of customization from changes to equipment lists could be recovered by simply choosing to play Crusade, which, by offering customization benefits from different sources which stack offers far more combinations and hence an even greater number of options than having multiple equipment builds, because by virtue of all of those options being from the same source (equipment) they are less likely to stack.
To which he responded that Crusade was bloat, that having many factions is bloat, that many models are bloat... though his precious weapon list options, obviously are not bloat from his point of view, since the removal of these combinations is the thing that caused him to lament that 40k has become a garbage game.
Now a few things: someone pointed out that the load out restrictions cause bloat... And while I don't agree with that entirely, certainly the convoluted wording they use to explain the limits does add a fair bit of text to the data card. This further got me thinking about my original stance, and yeah, upon reflection weapon options AREN'T as much bloat because all the same weapons still need to be described- it's just the numbers of each that you are allowed to take that have changed.
So apologies for not quoting the person I was specifically talking about- it comes mostly from the fact that I still haven't figured out Multiquote on this forum.
Also, when I see Crusade- the whole reason I bothered with 9th, and the version of the game I've wanted for more than three decades referred to as bloat, it does get my ire up. I'm usually fairly polite (or try to be), and I'm generally good at seeing things from other peoples' points of view. So maybe a bit more rude than usual, and apologies for that too.
But consider: have you ever argued that all Spacemarines should be combined in a single dex? Have you ever suggested ditching the Inquisition? Or putting them all in a book with Sisters or Grey Knights to reduce the options available to them? Have you ever suggested combining all Eldar into a single dex? Doing away with SoS?
Because if you've done ANY of those things, but you consider whether or not you can take one or two Arc rifles in a squad a loss of "customizability" and "options" that you just can't deal with, well quite frankly, you've got issues because the thing you're okay with represents a far greater loss of "options" than the straw that broke your back. And these are ALL arguments I've seen on Dakka.
Only difference is THAT loss of options doesn't affect YOUR army, so it doesn't really make a difference to you.
To reply to you specifically Kasen, you are correct about that mistake- I do know for 100% sure I've made that mistake before- combining something that one person said with something that someone else said as if it was the same person saying both things... I've definitely done that before, and again: my bad. There's a lot of noise in here sometimes, and it does get me mixed up from time to time.
I'm getting better though, because I am starting to to remember and recognize some of you all- didn't really start to happen until my post count was in the high six hundreds low sevens. Before then, you all just blended together- hope that doesn't make me sound like too much of an @55.
Anyway, if nothing else, this conversation has helped me see that I might need to take a bit of a break from the more negative threads for a day or two- if I'm starting to lose my diplomacy skills, it's usually an indicator that I need a break.
See y'all in happier threads (if such a thing exists on Dakka), or if I can't find happier threads, maybe in couple days.
PenitentJake wrote: But consider: have you ever argued that all Spacemarines should be combined in a single dex? Have you ever suggested ditching the Inquisition? Or putting them all in a book with Sisters or Grey Knights to reduce the options available to them? Have you ever suggested combining all Eldar into a single dex? Doing away with SoS?
I neither feel that Inquisition should be eliminated nor do I play AdMech, but I think there is a big difference between options that provide negligible distinctions for the sake of distinction (see: SM spinoffs with one or two special units that are basically just codex units with minor variation) versus options that provide distinctive specialization of particular units.
The argument I've always seen is against options that provide false choice, where the distinctions don't actually make a real gameplay impact- mauls vs swords vs hammers, for example. But in the case of special weapons that define a unit's role, that's a much bigger deal.
PenitentJake wrote: Funny that all the people bitching about the lack of a million and one equipment options are the same people bitching about how having lots of factions and models is bloat.
I see this all the time and I'm not sure if it counts as a logical fallacy, but it kinda has the feel of one - Of course people complaining sound ridiculous and hypocritical if you put two or more complaints made by the community in the mouth of the same person at the same nebulous period in time when they ostensibly held the same opinion.
Quote the same person saying both things (Especially if it was me, because for all I remember it might have been, and I'll eat this second paragraph and/or try to reconcile the statements if it was) or this cannot be allowed to hold water.
It was Sim-Life I was specifically reacting to; his first post was about stripping the your dudeness by restricting weapon options. I then suggested that any loss of customization from changes to equipment lists could be recovered by simply choosing to play Crusade, which, by offering customization benefits from different sources which stack offers far more combinations and hence an even greater number of options than having multiple equipment builds, because by virtue of all of those options being from the same source (equipment) they are less likely to stack.
To which he responded that Crusade was bloat, that having many factions is bloat, that many models are bloat... though his precious weapon list options, obviously are not bloat from his point of view, since the removal of these combinations is the thing that caused him to lament that 40k has become a garbage game.
Now a few things: someone pointed out that the load out restrictions cause bloat... And while I don't agree with that entirely, certainly the convoluted wording they use to explain the limits does add a fair bit of text to the data card. This further got me thinking about my original stance, and yeah, upon reflection weapon options AREN'T as much bloat because all the same weapons still need to be described- it's just the numbers of each that you are allowed to take that have changed.
So apologies for not quoting the person I was specifically talking about- it comes mostly from the fact that I still haven't figured out Multiquote on this forum.
Also, when I see Crusade- the whole reason I bothered with 9th, and the version of the game I've wanted for more than three decades referred to as bloat, it does get my ire up. I'm usually fairly polite (or try to be), and I'm generally good at seeing things from other peoples' points of view. So maybe a bit more rude than usual, and apologies for that too.
But consider: have you ever argued that all Spacemarines should be combined in a single dex? Have you ever suggested ditching the Inquisition? Or putting them all in a book with Sisters or Grey Knights to reduce the options available to them? Have you ever suggested combining all Eldar into a single dex? Doing away with SoS?
Because if you've done ANY of those things, but you consider whether or not you can take one or two Arc rifles in a squad a loss of "customizability" and "options" that you just can't deal with, well quite frankly, you've got issues because the thing you're okay with represents a far greater loss of "options" than the straw that broke your back. And these are ALL arguments I've seen on Dakka.
Only difference is THAT loss of options doesn't affect YOUR army, so it doesn't really make a difference to you.
To reply to you specifically Kasen, you are correct about that mistake- I do know for 100% sure I've made that mistake before- combining something that one person said with something that someone else said as if it was the same person saying both things... I've definitely done that before, and again: my bad. There's a lot of noise in here sometimes, and it does get me mixed up from time to time.
I'm getting better though, because I am starting to to remember and recognize some of you all- didn't really start to happen until my post count was in the high six hundreds low sevens. Before then, you all just blended together- hope that doesn't make me sound like too much of an @55.
Anyway, if nothing else, this conversation has helped me see that I might need to take a bit of a break from the more negative threads for a day or two- if I'm starting to lose my diplomacy skills, it's usually an indicator that I need a break.
See y'all in happier threads (if such a thing exists on Dakka), or if I can't find happier threads, maybe in couple days.
Peace.
I have to do this often. I enjoy talking about the game when I get a few minutes after doing some research or before my wife gets home from work, but this forum can be excessively negative and if I'm not real careful, I will let it affect me without realizing that its affecting me. There is only so much negativity you can open yourself up to before it begins to wear on you, and at that point, its too late and its affecting your behavior.
PenitentJake wrote: It was Sim-Life I was specifically reacting to; his first post was about stripping the your dudeness by restricting weapon options. I then suggested that any loss of customization from changes to equipment lists could be recovered by simply choosing to play Crusade, which, by offering customization benefits from different sources which stack offers far more combinations and hence an even greater number of options than having multiple equipment builds, because by virtue of all of those options being from the same source (equipment) they are less likely to stack.
To which he responded that Crusade was bloat, that having many factions is bloat, that many models are bloat... though his precious weapon list options, obviously are not bloat from his point of view, since the removal of these combinations is the thing that caused him to lament that 40k has become a garbage game.
Now a few things: someone pointed out that the load out restrictions cause bloat... And while I don't agree with that entirely, certainly the convoluted wording they use to explain the limits does add a fair bit of text to the data card. This further got me thinking about my original stance, and yeah, upon reflection weapon options AREN'T as much bloat because all the same weapons still need to be described- it's just the numbers of each that you are allowed to take that have changed.
So apologies for not quoting the person I was specifically talking about- it comes mostly from the fact that I still haven't figured out Multiquote on this forum.
Also, when I see Crusade- the whole reason I bothered with 9th, and the version of the game I've wanted for more than three decades referred to as bloat, it does get my ire up. I'm usually fairly polite (or try to be), and I'm generally good at seeing things from other peoples' points of view. So maybe a bit more rude than usual, and apologies for that too.
But consider: have you ever argued that all Spacemarines should be combined in a single dex? Have you ever suggested ditching the Inquisition? Or putting them all in a book with Sisters or Grey Knights to reduce the options available to them? Have you ever suggested combining all Eldar into a single dex? Doing away with SoS?
Because if you've done ANY of those things, but you consider whether or not you can take one or two Arc rifles in a squad a loss of "customizability" and "options" that you just can't deal with, well quite frankly, you've got issues because the thing you're okay with represents a far greater loss of "options" than the straw that broke your back. And these are ALL arguments I've seen on Dakka.
Only difference is THAT loss of options doesn't affect YOUR army, so it doesn't really make a difference to you.
I know I have said that I'd happily forgo Emperor's Children getting a book (and rolling Death Guard and Thousand Sons back into one army) if it meant we did away with all the Marine Supplements. But I'm no longer convinced that alone would solve the problem; each faction needs less junk, Marines just need... slightly more less junk. Neither of these is realistically going to happen at this point - the problem is already too heavily baked in to what's expected of a codex in 9th. You've got a dozen-plus relics that will never be represented on a model, you've got six warlord traits, you've got your faction trait, your subfaction trait, your no-soup bonus and your ever-increasing number of unnecessary stratagems granted by faction and subfaction; in the case of Marines, your own extra psychic discipline, bonus warlord traits, double helping of unnecessary stratagems, extra datasheets, and one-turn no-soup superbonus that gives you +2" to your Ballsack range in the Kumquat doctrine.
None of this is helpfully USR'ed, so you can't just learn keywords to understand abilities; you have to know each individual variation of each model's rules and each faction's stratagems and that means you have to learn, by my rough and highly unscientific estimate, 2400% of the rules you'd have to know otherwise. It's really, really tiring. Sometimes GW figures out halfway through a codex cycle that wording a Fight Third ability with the words "On a bread roll of 5.25 hectares" results in your Obfuscators unintentionally having to be placed on a shuttle to Mars and given a wedgie in the sauna unless it's a Tuesday, so they fix it in future codexes, and maybefaq the older ones, but whoooo knows, better look that up in the middle of the goddamn game too, and...
...I mean, am I an idiot for having trouble with this and/or finding this boring as hell? Also I think I've forgotten what point I was actually trying to make, so that might make me an idiot.
Oh yeh, why is cutting out this bloat acceptable but removing weapon options isn't really so helpful.
Uh, well... In the case of Plague Marines or Admech, Dandelion said it. "For every 5.67 models you can have 1 Power Trimmer; for every 5.67 models you can have 1 Rad Colonoscope; for every 5.67 models you can have 1 Elucidated Buggerclaw" is a way bigger pain than just reducing the number of special weapons a squad can have. It's actually adding more bloat.
Ya wanna know what my least favorite tank I've ever actually seen on a field was? The Repulsor. Not because it was broken, but because it takes forever to fire. All six to eight of its profiles; Usually shooting at different targets, each one a separate decision with its own decision time. Probably isn't even close to the worst offender, either. But you dole out weapon options like that, and you're at best basically begging to turn every poorly configured squad into a mini-Repulsor.
As for Crusade... well, yeah, that's messy as hell, and frankly, the thought of trying to run Crusade cross-faction when not everyone had or indeed has a codex and with players of varying skill and intent kept me from trying to run one, but Crusade is heavily optional systems crammed onto a straining core, and is nowhere near a foundational issue with 40K 9th.
Spoiler:
To reply to you specifically Kasen, you are correct about that mistake- I do know for 100% sure I've made that mistake before- combining something that one person said with something that someone else said as if it was the same person saying both things... I've definitely done that before, and again: my bad. There's a lot of noise in here sometimes, and it does get me mixed up from time to time.
I'm getting better though, because I am starting to to remember and recognize some of you all- didn't really start to happen until my post count was in the high six hundreds low sevens. Before then, you all just blended together- hope that doesn't make me sound like too much of an @55.
Anyway, if nothing else, this conversation has helped me see that I might need to take a bit of a break from the more negative threads for a day or two- if I'm starting to lose my diplomacy skills, it's usually an indicator that I need a break.
See y'all in happier threads (if such a thing exists on Dakka), or if I can't find happier threads, maybe in couple days.
Peace.
No problem. I get it. It's easy to conflate two people pulling on opposite sides of the game.
Sometimes I wonder if this whole exercise is unhealthy for me, too, or if it's more of a therapeutic 40K Rehab Clinic.
It was Sim-Life I was specifically reacting to; his first post was about stripping the your dudeness by restricting weapon options. I then suggested that any loss of customization from changes to equipment lists could be recovered by simply choosing to play Crusade, which, by offering customization benefits from different sources which stack offers far more combinations and hence an even greater number of options than having multiple equipment builds, because by virtue of all of those options being from the same source (equipment) they are less likely to stack.
To which he responded that Crusade was bloat, that having many factions is bloat, that many models are bloat... though his precious weapon list options, obviously are not bloat from his point of view, since the removal of these combinations is the thing that caused him to lament that 40k has become a garbage game.
A couple of points here:
1. You're erroneously conflating all options into one big bucket and calling it all "bloat". That's not really what people are usually complaining about. Bloat is not necessarily just having a bunch of weapon options. I would argue that's exactly the kind of thing you want in a wargame like 40k but only if they're actually usefully distinct. Furthermore, GW is adding to bloat through the convoluted way they're presented instead of just saying "for every X models 1 may have a special weapon". That's much less bloated than what we have currently. The real bloat problems in 40k are with the endless stratagems, doctrines, army-wide special rules, the million-and-one bolt weapons SM get, all of which are variations on the same S4 theme and even things like having separate datasheets for the new SM tanks and speeders. It's just pointless extra stuff for no real reason in many cases. The example of Archon melee weapons was a good one - they have a bunch of options but they're all just bad, leading to a single useful loadout, restricted to a single Archon because it requires a specific relic/warlord combo. Sure, you can technically take any one of over a dozen combinations of equipment on your Archon but if they're all equally useless that's just bloat.
2. Your comment about "simply choosing to play Crusade" feels pretty disingenuous. It may be the way you normally play but the overwhelming anecdotal evidence from this board and many other places is that it isn't the most common so it's hardly a simple solution. It also ignores the fact that a lot of the bloat issues are exacerbated by Crusade because it adds yet more layers of rules on top of what's already there. It's perfectly possible to streamline the game without having to use a completely different game mode.
yukishiro1 wrote: Will be really interesting to see what they do to GK melee. All the weapons cost the same according to the points document. Right now, you can equip the whole squad with whatever you want, and I wager that basically 100% of everyone's existing squads are armed with identical weapons. There will be a massive outcry if all those squads (except the ones with swords, I guess, which literally nobody has because they were the worst option) get invalidated by some weird plague marine style hodgepodge.
GK boxs come with enough falchions, although no one sane takes those, halabards, swords etc for everyone in the squads. There is only one hammer in the box and one staff. the first is not a problem, because in general they were run at 1 per squad, if run at all. The staffs are going to be a problem though, because a ton of people were running four of them.
Purgators, paladins and purfires are going to be a LOT less efficient, if they are going to be limited to what is in the box, Because mixing psycanons, incinerators and psi lancers would require some drastic rules rewrites to make such a combination valid.
First up, thanks for taking the time to reply- I said I was maybe going to get some distance from the thread and negativity, but I feel like if I did that, it would be disrespect for the time you put into your response to me. Having recognized my own tonal issues from the second to last post, I'll try to keep a cooler head. I suspect we'll end up having to agree to disagree, but that's always okay if we still manage to be decent to each other.
I know I have said that I'd happily forgo Emperor's Children getting a book (and rolling Death Guard and Thousand Sons back into one army) if it meant we did away with all the Marine Supplements.
At the beginning of the edition, we were all overwhelmed by the magnitude of Space Marine love. Once I got my hands on the Drukhari dex though, I realized that everyone was eventually going to get a similar style of Codex with a similar quantity of options- by which I don't mean load out- I mean all the other things. And once I realized that, I relaxed. And I would be stoked, absolutely amped to sing GW's praise from a rooftop if EC become a faction. It's another thing I've wanted from this game for two decades. Any deal you might make to dial back on bloat that costs us that dex would be a mistake. And I hope at least one other person is with me on that.
But I'm no longer convinced that alone would solve the problem; each faction needs less junk, Marines just need... slightly more less junk.
Okay, maybe. I'm willing to hear you out on this, but I want you to really think about this: if, in this game of ours, we field only what we like, why does it actually matter how much stuf there is in the book that you read once, decide to dismiss, and then you never have to read about it, see it again, or field it? If it sits there in your book, ignored; if the kits sit on the shelf unpurchased... how does that actually affect your enjoyment? You just choose to ignore it. And if it's as bad as you think it is, you won't ever have to fight against it either. Unless your analysis of what is gak turns out to not be as sound as you thought it was, and somebody ends up doing something with it that you never thought of doing.
So really, philosophically, fundamentally, in a game where you only use what you like, why does it matter how much stuff there is in your book that you don't like as long as there is enough stuff that you do?
Because I guarantee you, for every player who hates a given unit and thinks it's garbage, there is likely to be another person somewhere who does like it. Reivers come to mind; I can't count how many times I've read about how terrible Reivers are- for some it's the tacticool aesthetic- I've probably seen more complaints about that than their functionality. But on another forum today, I asked about whether or not their fear auras stack. It seems as though they do. And there's other traits, straits and gear that allow you to go total mind war- like dropping a unit's LD to ONE before you force the break test and then debuffing their attrition rolls on top of it. And I don't care if it ever wins me a tourney (who are we kidding- I don't play in them lol), I just want to be the guy who breaks a squad- doing something completely off the wall and unexpected that no one else would ever do because it's not meta.
Like I love Jokaero. Just the idea of a monkey on the spectrum who understands machines like Temple Grandon understands horses and cows is one of the coolest, most off the wall sci-fi concepts I've read. And you know what? Jokaero as written in PA Pariah are weak. But wait until you get a load of my Legendary Jokaero who uses an unlikely WL trait in addition to his 4 battle honours so that I finally have rules that could represent the Jokaero den warden. Now I have a reason to convert a ridiculous resin model- obviously, I need a way to differentiate a den warden from an adolescent who hasn't even managed to jury rig his first flying machine. If YOU think it's junk, all YOU'VE got to do is let it sit ignored in the book and unpurchased one the shelf. But that's not what I am going to do.
Neither of these is realistically going to happen at this point - the problem is already too heavily baked in to what's expected of a codex in 9th. You've got a dozen-plus relics that will never be represented on a model,
Unless you convert. And count the number of comments you see in a week that whine about GW doing nothing to encourage conversion. I'm not saying that's why GW made all these relics that don't have models (before anyone tries to paraphrase so they can pin those words on me); what I'm saying is back in whatever distant edition we tend to think of as the golden age, would we have seen a relic that doesn't exist on a model as a conversion opportunity, or would our teenage selves do then what our mature adult selves are doing now- dismissing it as a possibility that shouldn't even exist?
you've got six warlord traits, you've got your faction trait, your subfaction trait, your no-soup bonus
Which is EXACTLY the point I've been trying to make in this five page thread about how you've lost SOOOOO many options by not being able to take two copies of the same special weapon in a single squad. Seriously! This entire thread is about that one. little. change. when you yourself point out just how many damned options that aren't equipment that we DO have.
your ever-increasing number of unnecessary stratagems granted by faction and subfaction;
And as previously discussed, you determine them to be unnecessary on your first close read, and then you just simply ignore for the rest of the edition once you've made that determination. And if you do like it, and you do think it might come in handy, you write it down on a little index card that you can buy in packs of 100 at buck store for pennies instead of trying to get the GW official cards and then bitching about how expensive they are, and then bitching again when they sell out. And now, you never need to trouble yourself with how many strats there are in your dex ever again- you just grab your cards, knowing those are the ones you'll want to use, and pretend that nothing else exists.
None of this is helpfully USR'ed, so you can't just learn keywords to understand abilities;
Okay, USR's are not a bad idea in principle; if the full text of a USR appears on the data sheet for a unit and in the BRB, it creates that kind of "Everyone wins" solution that I'm always seeking; problem is, the previous implementation of USRs didn't do that. On the data card, they told you the USRs name, and if you didn't have it memorized that meant cross referencing in a different book. I $%^&ing HATED USRs! But I concede- if the full text of the rule appears on both the data card and in the BRB, both of us get what we want, and they can be made to work.
you have to know each individual variation of each model's rules and each faction's stratagems and that means you have to learn, by my rough and highly unscientific estimate, 2400% of the rules you'd have to know otherwise.
Okay, you've already told me most strats are unnecessary, so which is it? Do you need to memorize them, or are they unnecessary? Because I'm not sure how both of those statements can be true. And there are some people who believe that in order to be a good player, you have to know all of your opponents strats as well as your own. And maybe at the top levels of the tourney circuit, the savant who can do this will have an edge. But see, I interpret this possibility differently than you; to me, it looks like evidence that pretending 40k is a sport has done far more harm to the game than any other thing that has happened- because if that's how you're playing, yeah, it's no wonder you aren't having fun. That's a damn job, not a game.
All of these hobbies- pen and paper RPG's, trading card games and table top miniature games- were all invented by nerds- people who were picked on by ultra-competitive, trophy seeking, toxically masculine alpha @55holes. Now our gamer communities of refuge are becoming that very thing. Think I'm exaggerating? When's the last time you've read one of Karol's posts? (And yeah- some of y'all on here bash pretty hard on him sometimes, so I anticipate some of you will will question his reliability, but I take him at face value- which is not to say that any of us would see the situation exactly as he does in his shoes, but rather that he is doing his best to genuinely describe what HE genuinely perceives... and if so man, that kid is tough as nails)
Sometimes GW figures out halfway through a codex cycle that wording a Fight Third ability with the words "On a bread roll of 5.25 hectares" results in your Obfuscators unintentionally having to be placed on a shuttle to Mars and given a wedgie in the sauna unless it's a Tuesday, so they fix it in future codexes, and maybefaq the older ones, but whoooo knows,
Fair enough- I'll give you that; I'm in agreement here...
better look that up in the middle of the goddamn game too, and...
But now I'm not so sure.
Because again, I do know MY fave strats and MY rules (just the ones I actually plan to use, mind you). Knowing yours is your job- and if you choose to believe you have to know all of them, rather than just the ones you're going to use, well that isn't on me or GeeDubs; it's on you. I'll also have my stuff written out on index cards, and yes, before you ask, I include the name of the document the rule comes from and the page number on the card just in case I'm playing TFG who needs to see every damn rule printed directly from an official source.
Oh yeh, why is cutting out this bloat acceptable but removing weapon options isn't really so helpful.
Well this is one of those paraphrases... It's similar to the point I'm trying to make, but twisted around; I'm trying to say that all of that "bloat" as you call it provides so many more options than the loss of a particular load out that having a whole thread to bitch about the loss of a particular load out is a little much, given the plethora of non-equipment options that continue to exist. Tell you what though: we'll come back to that...
Uh, well... In the case of Plague Marines or Admech, Dandelion said it. "For every 5.67 models you can have 1 Power Trimmer; for every 5.67 models you can have 1 Rad Colonoscope; for every 5.67 models you can have 1 Elucidated Buggerclaw" is a way bigger pain than just reducing the number of special weapons a squad can have. It's actually adding more bloat.
Something like this has definitely been said in this thread for sure, and it probably was Dandelion who said it, because given your very appropriate concern for quoting the correct people, I take it on faith that you put in the time to do it right. But here is something else Dandelion said in this very thread:
"Lastly, the new buffs and doctrines/traits to skitarii make them far more deadly than 3 calivers ever could."
Now I didn't say the buffs, doctrines/ traits are more deadly, I said they provide more options. But in order for those things to have provided more deadliness than one of the load outs we've all been complaining about losing for the past 5-7 pages, well, I'd assume that the bloat must have contained enough options that at least one other person sees that in terms of the way the game plays, the loss of the load out was more than compensated for by the other non equipment options that have become available.
Ya wanna know what my least favorite tank I've ever actually seen on a field was? The Repulsor. Not because it was broken, but because it takes forever to fire. All six to eight of its profiles; Usually shooting at different targets, each one a separate decision with its own decision time. Probably isn't even close to the worst offender, either. But you dole out weapon options like that, and you're at best basically begging to turn every poorly configured squad into a mini-Repulsor.
Sure. But again, this thread is about how much of a tragedy it is to lose all of those equipment only options. I'm the one who is saying the loss of equipment options isn't a big deal because of all the extra non-equipment options. So I'm not sure this is actually a point against the argument I've been trying to make?
As for Crusade... well, yeah, that's messy as hell, and frankly, the thought of trying to run Crusade cross-faction when not everyone had or indeed has a codex and with players of varying skill and intent kept me from trying to run one, but Crusade is heavily optional systems crammed onto a straining core, and is nowhere near a foundational issue with 40K 9th.
It's messy... if the goal is still purely to win. I say this because, yeah, stacking four layers of battle honours, if your purpose is purely game advantage CAN be a nightmare. I LOVE Crusade, but even I can admit this. But people who are actual Crusade players in spirit rather than competitive players who are giving Crusade a try typically don't. We pick the options that bring us closer to representing our dudes on the table- like Uber Jokaero, who isn't really a threat to anyone's win rate, but is just a hella cool lil dude.
As for the bespoke content and needing to wait for the dexes... I'll agree that could have been better; since all of the dexes for the ed have already been written, the COULD have put all the bespoke Crusade content for every faction in a single book and dropped it on day one. I would have preferred that myself- I wouldn't have had to wait almost a year to start really playing my sisters the way they deserve to be played.
And look, I got into it with Not Online! a few posts ago because he is lamenting the loss of R&H. And I know nothing will ever replace HIS R&H- man, brother loved that army. But we had talked about things like Alpha legion and their Cultists... And yeah, just like my Jokaero, Cultists as written in the 8th chaos dex are boring and do suck. So I suggested drop three units of Cultists into a Crusade; give them different battle honours and you can actually have three distinct units of cultists that all function in different ways and have different strengths. Heck, there are champions in cultist units, which even means you can give all three champs different weapon upgrades so its like sargeants having something as cool or cooler than the load out options that they no longer have. Now he, like many, doesn't like Crusade, and that's cool- I'm not here to force anyone to play Crusade... But at some point you gotta ask yourself: What bugs me more- the fact that all matched play cultists are samey, boring, uninspired and vacuous, or the fact that I need to play in a system that seems a little bit different than what I would expect a game of 40k to feel like.
(And BTW Not Online!- if you're reading this, in your last response to me in that post you asked me to point out where you had been rude to me; I went back and checked- you weren't rude at all; I did that think Kasen talks about- someone with a similar point of view to yours said something that got my ire up (probably suggested abolishing something I love because he thought it was bloat) and due to the similarities in your points of view, I assumed both comments came from the same person. I had to get away from that thread, like I had intended to get away from this one, so I never apologized. Well brother, here it is- better late than never. Leaving you hanging like that was another reason I had to come back to this thread and dignify Kasen with a response; didn't want to make the same mistake twice)
No problem. I get it. It's easy to conflate two people pulling on opposite sides of the game.
Sometimes I wonder if this whole exercise is unhealthy for me, too, or if it's more of a therapeutic 40K Rehab Clinic.
And back to you brother Kasen; this particular quote more than anything is what made me come back to this damned thread for one. more. post. Because this is the nice segue into agreeing to disagree, and this quote was pretty damned classy given my wall of text loquaciousness and highly opinionated and over-wrought arguments to try and convince everyone that Crusade really, genuinely is closer to the spirit of what this game was in Rogue Trader days than any of the math hammer crap that has happened since.
Thanks for being civil in times of disagreement. Hope I pulled it of in this post too.
So really, philosophically, fundamentally, in a game where you only use what you like, why does it matter how much stuff there is in your book that you don't like as long as there is enough stuff that you do?
It matters a lot if the stuff you like is bad. If you like termintor armour, and GW wrote your book in a such a way that termintor armoured stuff is bad you are not going to be able to just go over it. And vice versa. And if on top of that the stuff you like isn't supported, but other stuff gets update people just get more angry. If someone would like to play a space marine scout army or a space marine termintor army, they are not going to be very happy about the fact that non of the models they like have a chance to be updated, and even more unhappy about the fact that there are literal better replacments in the books, but they don't just like them.
It is like asking a XIXth century irish why doesn't he just become welsh or scotish, because on a philosophical level it doesn't matter much, as all people die, so why not take the easy way out.
Andykp wrote: There models works though, old players will buy more legalise their army and new players will keep buying. I started this thread and am very aware of the intention by GW but I have also already bought a box of skitarii so my squads will be legal, even though my mates said I was good to go they were.
Not really, I'm not going to buy one more box for any of the armies they'd screwed like this for me. Nor am I going to buy the codex these asinine rules come from. If it means my collections are settled, that is fine with me. If they keep screwing over my armies I will not support it, period and that is from me at least a good chunk of change they won't see from me in the future. I will not just support them not respecting my time to build, paint, model my guys in ways that have been legal for 2 or more editions now just because they have their finger far from the pulse and right up their own bum bum.
General Kroll wrote: Marines and Dark Eldar have both had new codexes without this treatment.
DE did ( Wyches did; Scourges did not ). Nobody complained about it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
NinthMusketeer wrote: It is one thing to invalidate a loadout when there is a change of kit, quite another to invalidate a loadout arbitrarily and in a manner that benefits no one. There are no players jumping into the game because of this change.
But there could be players not jumping in or jumping out without it.
I did complain about the wych change, as it also punched me in the bum.
Da Boss wrote: I am not sure why they are doing it, it might have been to ensure people can't build illegal units by mistake?
this is the big question here because there is no good reason for it
Because it is easier to balance unit by restrictiong the options than to try to make all options useable?
Because new players don't need to figure out witch loadout is the best?
Because people don't by 3rd party bits (they don't start searching for bits in the first place so never realise that other comapnies exist)
If GW does really care so much about balance, there are some other issues that need to be solved first.
If they want to make it easier for new players to make a starter army, don't add so many options in the first place
The fact people think GW are doing this because they finally really care about balance is maybe the saddest joke of all.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jarms48 wrote: It makes me think that when Guard gets released we're either going to see Veterans and Special Weapon Squads removed, or something silly like:
Special Weapon Squad:
- 3 Guardsmen must be upgraded with the following: 1 Sniper Rifle, 1 Grenade Launcher, 1 Flamer, 1 Plasma Gun, or 1 Melta Gun.
Veteran Squad:
- 3 Veterans may be upgraded with the following: 1 Sniper Rifle, 1 Grenade Launcher, 1 Flamer, 1 Plasma Gun, or 1 Melta Gun.
Scions will be similar something like:
- 2 Scions may be upgraded with 1 Grenade Launcher, 1 Flamer, 1 Plasma Gun, 1 Melta Gun, or 1 Hotshot Volley Gun.
- If this unit numbers 10 models 2 additional Scions may be upgraded with 1 Grenade Launcher, 1 Flamer, 1 Plasma Gun, 1 Melta Gun, or 1 Hotshot Volley Gun.
It's so stupid, but this really seems to be the route GW are going down. If they do this, it's going to kill a lot of Guard options.
If they do that, which feels oddly like they might, they will screw another army of mine because few of my squads are set up so strangely. So far, aside from Deathwatch and Space wolves they screwed every other army I have a workable force with. Some with units that have been viable for a decade or more. I'm not sure if even one of my Skittari troops is legal anymore. If you can have 2 plasma at 10, I have 2 viable squads of vanguards, if not, nope.
Because like a dip, I liked smaller ranger squads with arc rifles for tank hunting, and small Arq teams to snipe things. I ran literally every special they could take in squads where I felt they did better without really min maxing but trying to have them feel useful.
If the change happens to Scions, it'll crap on them too, which I do have a stand alone force of. Destroying both command squads, and troop squads for them and what you'll run them as 1 plasma, 1 melta in a squad ? For all the players I've ever seen or heard play this game who does stuff for OCD, this is going to drive people crazy.
@PenitantJake
Something I'm noticing in your posts is that you seem to think that just heaping more options on something is the same as Your Dudes/customization.
The problem is that its not actually helping, it's just the illusion of choice. Back before 8th/9th if you wanted, say, a melee focused army you would simply focus on the units in your army that specialized in melee and take more of them, slap whatever melee weapon option you wanted on them and deck your leader with whatever special wargear your codex had that pumped up his melee stats. There's your melee themed army, dictated by your unit and weapon options instead of extraneous multiple special rules that add a +1 here or a reroll there.
And if you needed a specific role for them you would just equip them appropriately and in whole squads of said weapon. Like for terminators if you wanted them to hunt vehicles you stick thunder hammer/storm shields on them. If you wanted them to blend infantry you give them lightning claws. In fact the best example I can think of is the carnifex. In 5th Ed they had LOADS of options. I forget how many exactly but it was easily into the upper teens. This wasn't bloat because you could tailor it to a specific role. If you wanted a regerating, tough to kill hive save Fex you could make that. If you wanted a melee blender you could make that, if you wanted a gun platform you could make that, and it didn't need faction traits, doctrines or any outside rules to acomplish that. It was all based on equipment options.
The equipment option are what primarily decide the role of the unit and how it works in an army, not all the extra bumpf GW have stuck on top of it. All the extra faction rules, doctrines, battleforged rules, auras, warlord traits etc is just gilding the lily.
yukishiro1 wrote: Will be really interesting to see what they do to GK melee. All the weapons cost the same according to the points document. Right now, you can equip the whole squad with whatever you want, and I wager that basically 100% of everyone's existing squads are armed with identical weapons. There will be a massive outcry if all those squads (except the ones with swords, I guess, which literally nobody has because they were the worst option) get invalidated by some weird plague marine style hodgepodge.
GK boxs come with enough falchions, although no one sane takes those, halabards, swords etc for everyone in the squads. There is only one hammer in the box and one staff. the first is not a problem, because in general they were run at 1 per squad, if run at all. The staffs are going to be a problem though, because a ton of people were running four of them.
The really interesting part will be the heavy weapons for GK squads because each sprue of 5 comes with one Incinerator, one Psilencer, and two Psycannons.
Will it be something like:
1 in every 5 Grey Knights may have a Nemesis Daemon Hammer 1 in every 5 Grey Knights may have a Nemesis Matt Warding Stave 1 in every 5 Grey Knights may have a Psilencer 1 in every 5 Grey Knights may have an Incinerator 2 in every 5 Grey Knights may have take Psycannons
CEO Kasen wrote: and one-turn no-soup superbonus that gives you +2" to your Ballsack range in the Kumquat doctrine.
This gave me a good chuckle.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AngryAngel80 wrote: The fact people think GW are doing this because they finally really care about balance is maybe the saddest joke of all.
I'm not convinced it is for balance, but it is closer to that possibility than some sales plot to undercut 3rd parties, force people to buy more, etc. I find that to be less rational.
AngryAngel80 wrote: The fact people think GW are doing this because they finally really care about balance is maybe the saddest joke of all.
I'm not convinced it is for balance, but it is closer to that possibility than some sales plot to undercut 3rd parties, force people to buy more, etc. I find that to be less rational.
Honestly, this feels to me more like the usual incompetence/misunderstanding/sloppy work that we've come to expect from GW. I think this was posited up-thread (and if not, it's certainly come up in similar threads when this happened to that DG kit), but I'd think it most likely that this was GW hearing "we don't want to buy five kits to equip a single squad of $unit with $special_weapon" and then flubbing the Insight check and coming up with a bone-headed solution that they assume solves the issue without really thinking about it or doing any amount of community outreach to see if it does or not.
It is definitely not for balance reasons because you can actually stack MORE special weapons on a 10-man Plague Marine squad then you ever could before. It's just squads between 6-9 man that are borked.
yukishiro1 wrote: Will be really interesting to see what they do to GK melee. All the weapons cost the same according to the points document. Right now, you can equip the whole squad with whatever you want, and I wager that basically 100% of everyone's existing squads are armed with identical weapons. There will be a massive outcry if all those squads (except the ones with swords, I guess, which literally nobody has because they were the worst option) get invalidated by some weird plague marine style hodgepodge.
GK boxs come with enough falchions, although no one sane takes those, halabards, swords etc for everyone in the squads. There is only one hammer in the box and one staff. the first is not a problem, because in general they were run at 1 per squad, if run at all. The staffs are going to be a problem though, because a ton of people were running four of them.
Purgators, paladins and purfires are going to be a LOT less efficient, if they are going to be limited to what is in the box, Because mixing psycanons, incinerators and psi lancers would require some drastic rules rewrites to make such a combination valid.
I don't have a sprue in front of me to confirm, but GW has the sprues posted on their website, and it jives with my memory, which is that in a 10-man box you get:
10 swords
6 halberds
12 falchions, but they are paired, so 6 total pairs
2 hammers
2 staves
Kanluwen wrote: The reality is that it's tourney player feedback, which unfortunately the Big Names in Tourney Play had a direct line that the rest of us don't. They wouldn't stop whining about how bits sellers wanted so much for the "good" options(read: plasma calivers). Most people(especially those who played Skitarii not soup/Convocation) had no issue with multiple boxes. Especially since Skitarii were in the Start Collecting.
I absolutely love how you think this happened because tournament players whined to GW about 3rd party bitz sellers.
It's basically the perfect excuse for you, because you get to do 3 things you love doing:
1. Hate on tournament players for are all cheating WAACs!
2. Hate on 3rd party bitz sellers for taking money away from poor widdle defenceless GW.
3. Blame anyone butGW for the whole mess.
Incredible. Just incredible.
No, CSM period are the thing to watch. Our basic infantry kit lacks enough bolters or chainswords for a full unit, as well as several currently available heavy weapons, and LOTS of options currently available for the Aspiring Champion. The only melee weapon with multiple copies in the terminator kit is power fists, and the combi-weapon bits are incomplete. Havocs only have two of each weapon except the chaincannon of which they only have one, and the kit doesn't even have a bolter for the Aspiring Champion. And Chosen don't even have models. This could get messy.
Yeah, I was going to start building out my CSM army when they released the DG book. Put that on hold right and fast. Actually, I put everything on hold right then and there basically. I'm waiting to see how the various codexes shake out so I can avoid illegal builds or having to rebuild my stuff, etc. Its infuriating that there seems to be zero consistency thus far in how they've applied these rules, etc. so I can't even guess at what will be impacted and what won't be. I'll be honest though, I'm right terrified that CSM units will be forced to take mixed bolter and pistol/chainsword units instead of being able to standardize to one or another. I like standardization for the sake of simplicity, having the ability to tool up a unit with a bunch of different pieces of kit does nothing for me.
I will concede they have the best quality plastic. But I don't think many people care what material their models are made of.
You must be new here. People care about this a *lot*.
I woulnd't even agree on the best plastic anymore. Certainly not for a lot of factions.
GW absolutely does have the best plastics, its not even close. Wyrd and Kingdom Death, etc. make some really nice sculpts but the assembly of those kits is a nightmare, with things like having to attach individual fingers to hands, or goatees/noses onto faces, etc. GW has turned mold engineering into an art form and figured out how to sculpt incredibly detailed minis that are still generally easy to assemble and reliant on what are generally fairly large and robust parts. Even the most difficult to assemble GW kits are still head and shoulders above the hell I've gone through trying to assemble Malifaux or KD plastics.
NinthMusketeer wrote: Don't forget the setup time, and the maintenance; 3D printers are as reliable as their 2D counterparts.
And at the end of the day, er, week, er, month, er... Eventually, you'll have an army that cost less money for less quality!
Thats pretty generous to 3d printers, 2d printers are far more reliable and less frustrating to troubleshoot in my experience.
PenitentJake wrote: Funny that all the people bitching about the lack of a million and one equipment options are the same people bitching about how having lots of factions and models is bloat.
"I want a list of 30 loadouts per unit, but if we could reduce the game to five factions and one kit for each battlefield role, THAT would reduce bloat, cuz I'm chasing the meta and I'm only gonna use 3 copies of the best unit for each battlefield role anyways cuz WINNING. Lulz"
Pick a side: you either want options or you don't.
If you pay attention you'll also notice the people who complain most about GWs monopose plastic kits are also the same people who are first to turn to largely monopose 3D printable minis as their way of "sticking it to GW" for not catering to their whims.
Jarms48 wrote: It makes me think that when Guard gets released we're either going to see Veterans and Special Weapon Squads removed, or something silly like:
Special Weapon Squad:
- 3 Guardsmen must be upgraded with the following: 1 Sniper Rifle, 1 Grenade Launcher, 1 Flamer, 1 Plasma Gun, or 1 Melta Gun.
Veteran Squad:
- 3 Veterans may be upgraded with the following: 1 Sniper Rifle, 1 Grenade Launcher, 1 Flamer, 1 Plasma Gun, or 1 Melta Gun.
Scions will be similar something like:
- 2 Scions may be upgraded with 1 Grenade Launcher, 1 Flamer, 1 Plasma Gun, 1 Melta Gun, or 1 Hotshot Volley Gun.
- If this unit numbers 10 models 2 additional Scions may be upgraded with 1 Grenade Launcher, 1 Flamer, 1 Plasma Gun, 1 Melta Gun, or 1 Hotshot Volley Gun.
It's so stupid, but this really seems to be the route GW are going down. If they do this, it's going to kill a lot of Guard options.
The only saving grace (for me) in all of this is that I built out so many extra special weapon troopers for my Scions that this wouldn't impact me in the slightest, other than preventing me from running my preferred builds of standardized weapons.
There needs to be more love for Open Play in the community. The more I think about it, the more it makes sense, and allows you to tweak 40K to follow your tastes better.
Advocating Open Play doesn't have to mean you throw the baby out with the bathwater. Make small tweaks, and suggest them to your opponent. Allow him/her some leeway for some tweaks if they feel the same.
In this case, I'd try something like "I want to suggest we Open Play this battle, using MTched play rules as usual but allowing me to change the wording on this datasheet to read 'For every 5 models/.. Do you accept? And if you do, is there something you want to change?"
Our group is currently using Open Play to change the "max modifier cap +1/-1" rule into the form "max modifier cap +1/-2".
tauist wrote: There needs to be more love for Open Play in the community. The more I think about it, the more it makes sense, and allows you to tweak 40K to follow your tastes better.
Advocating Open Play doesn't have to mean you throw the baby out with the bathwater. Make small tweaks, and suggest them to your opponent. Allow him/her some leeway for some tweaks if they feel the same.
This is one of those situations where the convenience of Matched Play outweighs most other options.
tauist wrote: There needs to be more love for Open Play in the community. The more I think about it, the more it makes sense, and allows you to tweak 40K to follow your tastes better...
If you want to play a game you can tweak to your tastes 9th is a pretty terrible starting point. The whole thing is founded on killing off options/customizability to make tournament players gripe less.
PenitentJake wrote: First up, thanks for taking the time to reply- I said I was maybe going to get some distance from the thread and negativity, but I feel like if I did that, it would be disrespect for the time you put into your response to me. Having recognized my own tonal issues from the second to last post, I'll try to keep a cooler head. I suspect we'll end up having to agree to disagree, but that's always okay if we still manage to be decent to each other.
I get it, to some extent. It's very easy to forget that this is all about overpriced plastic spacemen sometimes; I know my post history has more than its share of unnecessarily furious vomit. So thank you for taking my increasingly exaggerated drivel so well.
I'll give a full response to the various points in a bit - it was long! - but the portion of my work that consists of actual work calls, so it'll have to wait a little longer.
And back to you brother Kasen; this particular quote more than anything is what made me come back to this damned thread for one. more. post. Because this is the nice segue into agreeing to disagree, and this quote was pretty damned classy given my wall of text loquaciousness and highly opinionated and over-wrought arguments to try and convince everyone that Crusade really, genuinely is closer to the spirit of what this game was in Rogue Trader days than any of the math hammer crap that has happened since.
Thanks for being civil in times of disagreement. Hope I pulled it of in this post too.
One of the hallmarks of a good scientist (Albeit one of the reasons science sometimes has trouble convincing the public) is the acknowledgement that it is possible to be wrong. Philosophically that can extend to a lot of things, including opinions on rules for overpriced plastic spacemen or what to do about bad ones.
I'll take 'brother' as high praise. You're clearly passionate about all this, but decidedly not uncivil.
The "three ways to play" bit is a bit of a laugh when the vast majority of the community will only ever play one of those three ways. Pushing Crusade might open up narrative play a bit more but theres a still sizeable number of players who will reject any such game because it doesn't help them prep for their next tournament.
tauist wrote: There needs to be more love for Open Play in the community. The more I think about it, the more it makes sense, and allows you to tweak 40K to follow your tastes better.
Advocating Open Play doesn't have to mean you throw the baby out with the bathwater. Make small tweaks, and suggest them to your opponent. Allow him/her some leeway for some tweaks if they feel the same.
In this case, I'd try something like "I want to suggest we Open Play this battle, using MTched play rules as usual but allowing me to change the wording on this datasheet to read 'For every 5 models/.. Do you accept? And if you do, is there something you want to change?"
Our group is currently using Open Play to change the "max modifier cap +1/-1" rule into the form "max modifier cap +1/-2".
Open play serves no purpose. If you want to tweak things, you just can. There's literally no point to rules and restrictions for a concept like open play.
Narrative can at least have campaigns and other complicated subsystem hung off it. Its legitimately extra work to do that stuff, and I don't begrudge some guideposts to keep things reasonable.
But matched works just fine as a default.
Open just... doesn't do anything, or achieve any goals. Its magic tea party, and a company writing rules for it is inherently defeating the purpose in the first place.
Voss wrote: Open just... doesn't do anything, or achieve any goals. Its magic tea party, and a company writing rules for it is inherently defeating the purpose in the first place.
Open is for the kids who just can't quite cobble full armies together and they just want to have fun. It just isn't a mode that you will see used in an organized setting.
CEO Kasen wrote: and one-turn no-soup superbonus that gives you +2" to your Ballsack range in the Kumquat doctrine.
This gave me a good chuckle.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AngryAngel80 wrote: The fact people think GW are doing this because they finally really care about balance is maybe the saddest joke of all.
I'm not convinced it is for balance, but it is closer to that possibility than some sales plot to undercut 3rd parties, force people to buy more, etc. I find that to be less rational.
I don't at all see how trying to sell more product for a company that sells that product is not rational. That is perhaps the most rational answer for them. If they wanted to make this game balanced at this point it could be, they don't want that, or don't know how to do it, they want to sell things however that is assured as it is literally what they do.
Voss wrote: Open just... doesn't do anything, or achieve any goals. Its magic tea party, and a company writing rules for it is inherently defeating the purpose in the first place.
Open is for the kids who just can't quite cobble full armies together and they just want to have fun. It just isn't a mode that you will see used in an organized setting.
Open was the brilliant only way to play AoS on its launch. What an amazing time to be alive and see a company basically make their play rules be " Don't let your dreams be dreams, just do it !!!! " When they do stuff so far removed from a good idea it has to make you doubt anything else they do as someone passed that off as a great idea, an idea which proved to be far from.
tauist wrote: There needs to be more love for Open Play in the community. The more I think about it, the more it makes sense, and allows you to tweak 40K to follow your tastes better.
Advocating Open Play doesn't have to mean you throw the baby out with the bathwater. Make small tweaks, and suggest them to your opponent. Allow him/her some leeway for some tweaks if they feel the same.
In this case, I'd try something like "I want to suggest we Open Play this battle, using MTched play rules as usual but allowing me to change the wording on this datasheet to read 'For every 5 models/.. Do you accept? And if you do, is there something you want to change?"
Our group is currently using Open Play to change the "max modifier cap +1/-1" rule into the form "max modifier cap +1/-2".
That is great for you guys, and I mean that honestly. My venomthropes are certainly jealous. But unfortunately for the vast majority asking to use open play might as well be asking the weather to change. It just won't happen regardless of how nice it would be.
The fact that “ most” don’t use open play isn’t a reason to deride it. In most of these threads it’s those that play some kind of open play who are less bothered or upset by changes. After starting this thread my mates told me to just ignore the restrictions, we play narrative games but with very open rules, lots of home brew rules and made up stuff. I’m now happier.
Just because you don’t play a way that makes people happier doesn’t mean those who do should stop so we can all be as miserable as you. Learn from the side of the community who are happy using the rules as a framework to craft their own games. We convert and scratch build units and whole army’s, I love making datasheets for home brew units and we have games in a setting where every game counts to a narrative and we get to have fun and use all our favourite models. If everyone was a bit more “open” then we would all be a bit more chilled.
tauist wrote: There needs to be more love for Open Play in the community. The more I think about it, the more it makes sense, and allows you to tweak 40K to follow your tastes better.
Advocating Open Play doesn't have to mean you throw the baby out with the bathwater. Make small tweaks, and suggest them to your opponent. Allow him/her some leeway for some tweaks if they feel the same.
In this case, I'd try something like "I want to suggest we Open Play this battle, using MTched play rules as usual but allowing me to change the wording on this datasheet to read 'For every 5 models/.. Do you accept? And if you do, is there something you want to change?"
Our group is currently using Open Play to change the "max modifier cap +1/-1" rule into the form "max modifier cap +1/-2".
That is great for you guys, and I mean that honestly. My venomthropes are certainly jealous. But unfortunately for the vast majority asking to use open play might as well be asking the weather to change. It just won't happen regardless of how nice it would be.
Asking to play open play would go over about as well as saying " Hey guys, let's instead of playing warhammer we all just paint some happy trees, and some happy clouds, that'd be swell for our afternoon. " I mean it's good if people will do it but I doubt I'd ever get someone to, even friends.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Andykp wrote: The fact that “ most” don’t use open play isn’t a reason to deride it. In most of these threads it’s those that play some kind of open play who are less bothered or upset by changes. After starting this thread my mates told me to just ignore the restrictions, we play narrative games but with very open rules, lots of home brew rules and made up stuff. I’m now happier.
Just because you don’t play a way that makes people happier doesn’t mean those who do should stop so we can all be as miserable as you. Learn from the side of the community who are happy using the rules as a framework to craft their own games. We convert and scratch build units and whole army’s, I love making datasheets for home brew units and we have games in a setting where every game counts to a narrative and we get to have fun and use all our favourite models. If everyone was a bit more “open” then we would all be a bit more chilled.
I don't think anyone, at least not most, are deriding it. Not even myself, it's just not an option anyone would accept around most of us. People being more open would be great, but I doubt that will happen any time soon.
Andykp 798654 11138489 wrote:
Just because you don’t play a way that makes people happier doesn’t mean those who do should stop so we can all be as miserable as you. Learn from the side of the community who are happy using the rules as a framework to craft their own games. We convert and scratch build units and whole army’s, I love making datasheets for home brew units and we have games in a setting where every game counts to a narrative and we get to have fun and use all our favourite models. If everyone was a bit more “open” then we would all be a bit more chilled.
You know that just doesn't work, things done under different metas, and more important in different countries don't translate that well to other places. Someone from UK can say that there is no problems with finding a community to play, because stores and clubs are everywhere. At the same time someone from Asia will tell you that they have 3 stores in the entire country, so if they don't have a community they like, they can't just switch or find other people to play. People in the US can tell others to find other games to play, if someone doesn't like w40k or GW games in general, but it doesn't help for all those places where w40k is more or less the only game played. It took me 3 years to understand what is the problem people have with FW armies like Krieg or Chaos Renegades, with them talking how expensive it is all the time, while to me Krieg cost less then a normal IG army as long as you don't want too many drills and tanks. But I live in a place where a good chunk of all armies are recast.
The "open" argument may work for you, and that is great. But I can tell you that at certain income to army cost ratios, people become very unchill about stuff like w40k, specially when the norm is not to have 4-5 armies. You can't imagine how unchill people become when after 2 years of collecting people try to tell them that to play, they are now suppose to not use 2/3 of their army. And I have actually seen it in real life , when two brussels kids tried to play at our old store.
I was recently flicking through my 4th ed Imperial Guard codex for nostalgia's sake, and happened to notice the Rough rider entry. It had so many more options than I remembered.
You could outfit the squad with:
Laspistol + close combat weapon
Lasgun + CCW Shotgun + CCW Hunting lance + laspistol or CCW There was also the option for two special weapons and a vox. The sergeant could access various weapon options.
Most of these never had specific models (I think there were only ever Attilan and Tallarn riders outside FW), but they encouraged interesting conversions. Now we don't even have rough riders because they discontinued the Attilan ones.
It does make me sad, because whilst I could homebrew some for open play, new players won't even know this is part of the background. So I think removing these kinds of loadout options makes the game and hobby less exciting.
Valkyrie wrote: This is irking me more when you consider no Marine units actually received these changes. Devs, Company Veterans, Vanguard Vets, all free to take whatever they want.
They have to convince people to buy all those backstocked Firstborn kits somehow.
I don't at all see how trying to sell more product for a company that sells that product is not rational. That is perhaps the most rational answer for them. If they wanted to make this game balanced at this point it could be, they don't want that, or don't know how to do it, they want to sell things however that is assured as it is literally what they do.
Lots of talk about finding people who like to play the way you like to play. I'm curious if other folks experience matches my own:
I always liked having small forces for multiple armies because I've found that my friends who say they have no interest in playing really mean they have no interest in BUYING. I've turned so many people on to this game over the past 32 years by supplying them with an army I'd have trouble counting them all.
It was one of the things I LOVED about 8th- Kill Team and BSF: they all facilitate this style of collecting. It was great to have 3 small Imp forces knowing you could soup'em up to hit a high point game against someone who did have their own army. Ninth is taming it down a bit; souping is still possible, but it has way more disadvantages than 8th did. Where 9th supports this style of collecting is its support for small games.
I think if you're having trouble talking someone into trying the game, you need to check your approach. Are you showing off a beautifully painted 2k point army that it took you 3 years to purchase, assemble and paint, telling your friend those details, and then asking if they are interested in doing the same thing?
Instead, if you're sitting around bored with a friend and you throw together a 25 PL force and offer to let your friend use another of your 25 PL forces (and give them the choice of which one they want to use), I think you'll have a lot more success creating your own circle. I've got 25 PL lists and models for Sisters, Drukhari, GSC, CSM, DW and Daemons on deck at all times. Rarely have a hard time talking a newb into a game.
Of course, I associate primarily with nerds, because I generally find non-nerds to be just too boring to sustain a friendship, so your experience may be different. But if you insist that the only way to play is a WYSIWYG, 2k, fully optimized, face melting, meta chasing army, it doesn't surprise me at all that you may have trouble talking a friend into taking a risk by trying something out of their comfort zone.
Incidentally, I think Space Hulk was GW's best ever gateway drug to 40k- it's the one that got me.
Andykp wrote: The fact that “ most” don’t use open play isn’t a reason to deride it. In most of these threads it’s those that play some kind of open play who are less bothered or upset by changes. After starting this thread my mates told me to just ignore the restrictions, we play narrative games but with very open rules, lots of home brew rules and made up stuff. I’m now happier.
Just because you don’t play a way that makes people happier doesn’t mean those who do should stop so we can all be as miserable as you. Learn from the side of the community who are happy using the rules as a framework to craft their own games. We convert and scratch build units and whole army’s, I love making datasheets for home brew units and we have games in a setting where every game counts to a narrative and we get to have fun and use all our favourite models. If everyone was a bit more “open” then we would all be a bit more chilled.
I entirely agree, and was not being sarcastic or critical. Much to the contrary I was seeking to display a degree of envy.
Andykp wrote: The fact that “ most” don’t use open play isn’t a reason to deride it. In most of these threads it’s those that play some kind of open play who are less bothered or upset by changes. After starting this thread my mates told me to just ignore the restrictions, we play narrative games but with very open rules, lots of home brew rules and made up stuff. I’m now happier.
Just because you don’t play a way that makes people happier doesn’t mean those who do should stop so we can all be as miserable as you. Learn from the side of the community who are happy using the rules as a framework to craft their own games. We convert and scratch build units and whole army’s, I love making datasheets for home brew units and we have games in a setting where every game counts to a narrative and we get to have fun and use all our favourite models. If everyone was a bit more “open” then we would all be a bit more chilled.
I'm not trying to tell you you're wrong for enjoying Open Play. I'm trying to tell you that if I, personally, am going to let the tyranny of officialdom go I don't see why I have to nail myself to the 9e core rules at all when I could use my homemade Necromunda-Kill Team hybrid or my patched 7th/30k-xenos project (linked in my signature if anyone thinks either of those sounds exciting).
Andykp wrote:The fact that “ most” don’t use open play isn’t a reason to deride it. In most of these threads it’s those that play some kind of open play who are less bothered or upset by changes. After starting this thread my mates told me to just ignore the restrictions, we play narrative games but with very open rules, lots of home brew rules and made up stuff. I’m now happier.
Just because you don’t play a way that makes people happier doesn’t mean those who do should stop so we can all be as miserable as you. Learn from the side of the community who are happy using the rules as a framework to craft their own games. We convert and scratch build units and whole army’s, I love making datasheets for home brew units and we have games in a setting where every game counts to a narrative and we get to have fun and use all our favourite models. If everyone was a bit more “open” then we would all be a bit more chilled.
This is how the game should be for each individual. If you have "friends" that won't work around some of the stupid bs40k has become/always been...hint, they're not.
Honestly I feel bad for players who only can play in an environment that is counter to how they WANT to play.
If I played in Karol's (or other insert worst possible) meta, I wouldnt!
It must suck to not be able to play the way you would enjoy. I just think much of the community needs to be more open minded about it. Me too, I have never been to a tournament or played one and don’t see the pleasure but I imagine if someone persuaded me too I would actually have a nice time. But I’d most likely annoy my opponents but forgetting most the rules. I am part of a small group who play with same way with the same ideas but we don’t play often. I imagine if you wanted to play a few times a week you need to be less picky about who you play against.
40k is an absolute spoiling husk of a game at this point. I am glad to see that effectively no one defends this choice (since let's be honest, they'd have to be a whale or a complete consoomer) but unfortunately GW seems fully committed to it.
Clearly there has been some design direction regarding streamlining the options, but its been done in such a haphazard way, often at cross purposes, that its hard to tell what they are trying to achieve with this.
One of any weapon doesn't work too well using the newer rules. Using the older rules, sure one flamer or melta or whatever can make an impact if you set it up right. They seemed to realize that and "fixed" the landspeeders so that they might actually be able to kill something with their one Multimelta. And many other newer/revamped guns have become more reliable. Then they go in the opposite direction with the infantry.
People say Marines weren't hit with this, but they were IMO. Other than Intercessors, the Primaris just don't have many options, or have specific packages of options (nu-speeder/nu-predator). Intercessors didn't have much for options either until those upgrade packs came out. Other than the baby marine stuff getting grandfathered in, the difference is the marines just get new units where the whole squad has plasma guns, heavy bolters, etc and the other armies options are limited and then replaced with nothing.
I've got 3 Skitari squads in the pile of shame and would have made 3 squads each with 3 of the same gun, and use them in different ways. Now I'd end to give them no special guns and use them all in the same way, as they are still pretty good with their small arms. For the Plague Marines, I am forced to use a clumsy eclectic loadout because bolters combined with their expense are not enough to get it done.
I wish I knew what they were trying to accomplish with this, if they even know. Seeing the Scourges get a pass makes me feel a little better about my CSM future, but between this and the new points changes (or lack thereof) I'm very nervous about the Tau. Suits with only one of a given gun and drones that cost the same as Primaris Marines seem like a real possibility.
Slowroll wrote: Clearly there has been some design direction regarding streamlining the options, but its been done in such a haphazard way, often at cross purposes, that its hard to tell what they are trying to achieve with this...
They want to make you buy new minis because the loadouts on the stuff you used last edition are no longer legal. Obviously.
