This is something I've been curious about for a while now, ever since it got to actually modular units like Wyches and Skitarii: What does GW actually GET out of making units' options limited to what's in a single kit box (well, more or less....there are plenty of illegal ways to build a box of skitarii still if you're not careful with those pistols and melee weapons!)
The whole 'it's best to have everyone with the same gun, but we only give you one of each gun in the box' trick has been one of the most well-known and bemoaned GW sales tactics since time immemorial. GW doesn't do something if they don't at least have a PLAN for how it makes money - so what is it here?
It's about making the game more accessible to new people.
GW is well aware that the market and world have changed, kids are far less into craft hobbies than they were many years ago. So GW has been removing some barriers to entry whilst at the same time also adjusting some other elements. EG Killteam is no longer just a few pages in the Big Rule Book, its a product with its own name and marketing and attention.
It's also like how GW has restructed and brought the points up to bring the number of models in armies down a bit iwth both their recent editions. Whilst this also pairs well with their new boards; its also about trying to allow bigger forces, but not so big that they end up a barrier to entry.
Another is that by limiting you to in-box contents it discourages you from looking for 3rd party options. That might start out hunting for a bits shop (which are rare now and any choice items are expensive/rare to get) and might end with a 3D printer; or 3rd party casting firm.
Sure a weapon isn't going to destroy GW; but if you start using more and more 3rd party now you're more at risk of spending your hobby money on stuff "not GW!"
GW wants to sell us lots of models, but at the same time they also realise that customers have limit points.
Of course you can argue that GW could just put all the options in the box en-mass - however that also runs with increased costs (you want 5 weapons 10X for a 10 man box that's going to be a bigger mould that means more cost for GW) .
So in some parts its them protecting themselves; in other its providing a clearer simpler product to the customer; in others its about giving customers "full optoins" without them feeling cheated or having to go outside of the GW ecosystem to find what they need.
The generous interpretation is that it makes it easier for players, as a single box makes all of the potential options and you don't have to buy multiple boxes to max out your gear for just the one unit.
The more cynical guess is that it kills the market for 3rd party components. If the unit only has access to a single special weapon and that's included in the unit box, there's no reason for people to go to 3rd party sellers to buy extra weapons.
1. it's newbie friendly. It's a turn off to have to say to someone "yeah buy this kit, but if you want the real killer loadout you need two more of the same kit." Or these other kits, or whatever. Sometimes a new player is going to balk at a large buy-in so making each box essentially self-contained for game purposes (not bits for aesthetics, conversions etc) is going to make it more attractive.
2. 3rd party hostility. As soon as the chain cannon dropped folks were 3d printing alternatives. And 3rd party companies that make compatible or replacement resin bits have been around for a long time. By making each box self-contained in terms of unit loadout you cut down on people googling or talking about where they bought an alternative product.
It's overall another small step in insulating the game from the larger hobby. "GW is the hobby" is still the push, and everything they can do to quash gamers finding out there's other models out there is worth it for GW's bottom line.
I'm not sure what either the end result of this is or what GW necessarily gains from it.
The biggest issue is how fast and loose the rule is applied.
A unit of Tacticals or Devastators can pretty much take whatever weapon options they want despite them not being in the box, i.e. one flamer and a multimelta or four of any heavy weapon.
But then Wyches and Blightlords are restricted on loadout options.
Now if CSM and Chaos Terminators suffer the same fate, then a solid 60% of my Black Legion suddenly becomes illegal. Which kind of sucks because I put a lot of effort into converting and painting to give each unit loads of character.
No idea. GW seems to have a crystal ball and just pulls hairbrained ideas out of their backside for the most part..
If I had to guess some of the motivation:
1. People not going to 3rd party for bits instead of buying boxes maybe?
2. Discourage shoddy looking converting and magnetizing? - Some of my work falls into this category 3. Easier for rules writing and keeping things simple? HA!!! - Not saying this works but maybe that's what they are aiming for .. Coz.. Why then introduce 30+ different bolters.. and 4 layers of bespoke rules for one plastic person?
Whatever the reasons it makes for an horrible play experience so they should just remove all options associated with a physical model of a weapon if they do this and just make them different by rules.
Instead of an arkebus and a plasma rifle and a whatever give skitarii a anti tank option and anti elite option and make them take 2 per 5 of the same option and boom, fixed.
Argive wrote: 3. Easier for rules writing and keeping things simple?
I dunno man, but this doesn't seem simpler to me:
Kanluwen wrote: It's about taking feedback they shouldn't have onboard for this edition.
You're again blaming the players. You're again absolving the people responsible for rule from actually being responsible for the rules. Tournament players didn't make GW do this. GW did this.
Overread wrote: It's about making the game more accessible to new people.
Nah, insaniak's right. This wasn't done for new players. This was done to stymie any sort of 3rd party market. Stop making excuses for them.
Overread wrote: It's about making the game more accessible to new people.
Nah, insaniak's right. This wasn't done for new players. This was done to stymie any sort of 3rd party market. Stop making excuses for them.
insaniak actually covered both options, as did Overread in the post you just cherry-picked that quote from.
While it's easy to attribute the worse option, there's no particular reason that both things couldn't have been considerations here. Ultimately, whatever their intention, not having to source extra weapons beyond what is in the box does make things easier for new players.
It's not as ideal as leaving those options in place and just making sure their kits include those options... but it is a solution.
Indeed you did, calling one cynical. I prefer the term "realistic".
Now you're right in that both options aren't necessarily mutually exclusive - they certainly could have done it for both reasons - but given everything GW has been doing of late, the "for the players!" option just doesn't ring true to me.
Overread wrote: It's about making the game more accessible to new people.
.
Yeah, when i read the small novel that is the Death Guard unit options and think about resolving the attacks from a melee-oriented min size death guard squad, the thing that springs to mind is "Accessible!"
Automatically Appended Next Post:
insaniak wrote: The generous interpretation is that it makes it easier for players, as a single box makes all of the potential options and you don't have to buy multiple boxes to max out your gear for just the one unit.
The more cynical guess is that it kills the market for 3rd party components. If the unit only has access to a single special weapon and that's included in the unit box, there's no reason for people to go to 3rd party sellers to buy extra weapons.
I guess in theory? But in that case, why leave in the fact that certain weapons are sergeant-only, thus still allowing a total newbie to build his super expensive kit wrong (neato, I like the skitarii with the swords and pistols and maces and tasers, I'm gonna build all mine with those!) and also good lord why make it so ding-dang complicated to read?
it's like how when primaris dropped, instantly I was like "ah, newbie friendly space marines, I get what theyre going for!" and then the sm codex comes out and its like 1500 pages of unique bespoke slightly distinct weapon options.
And I guess it in theory kills 3rd party bits manufacturers...but...it also kills players buying multiple boxes to get all the stuff. The cynical option is "GW chooses to make less money".
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gert wrote: I'm not sure what either the end result of this is or what GW necessarily gains from it.
The biggest issue is how fast and loose the rule is applied.
A unit of Tacticals or Devastators can pretty much take whatever weapon options they want despite them not being in the box, i.e. one flamer and a multimelta or four of any heavy weapon.
But then Wyches and Blightlords are restricted on loadout options.
Now if CSM and Chaos Terminators suffer the same fate, then a solid 60% of my Black Legion suddenly becomes illegal. Which kind of sucks because I put a lot of effort into converting and painting to give each unit loads of character.
Yeah, my DW vets still have a ton of options that....arent in the box at all...
They probably think this will cut-down on 3rd party model makers "stealing" their customers. But its not really going to. The main reason people go to 3rd party sources is $$$. They want to save $ over GW prices.
Indeed you did, calling one cynical. I prefer the term "realistic".
Now you're right in that both options aren't necessarily mutually exclusive - they certainly could have done it for both reasons - but given everything GW has been doing of late, the "for the players!" option just doesn't ring true to me.
I think it is less "for the players" and more "let's but this complaint to bed once and for all".
I also think it is to remove any need for players to convert models while drawing a razor-thin line between converting and kit-bashing. In this case, a kit-bash is any intended interoperability between kits, like the Havok Chaincannon being designed to fit on one of the Chaos Space Marine models. A conversion is any use of a bit on a kit it wasn't designed to fit on. Thus, the First Born Marine unit keep a wide variety options as those kits were all designed to work together.
Does this make much sense outside of GW's brain? Not really, but it seems to cover most of the decisions.
GW could have included all the options in the kits to reduce the amount of people buying 3rd party bits, and make the game more accessible for new players.
Blastaar wrote: GW could have included all the options in the kits to reduce the amount of people buying 3rd party bits, and make the game more accessible for new players.
well with death guard they did put all the options in the kit
The way the new kits are designed make it such that its pretty challenging to swap around arms and weapons in the first place. Seems like an intentional design choice by GW.
Eldenfirefly wrote: The way the new kits are designed make it such that its pretty challenging to swap around arms and weapons in the first place. Seems like an intentional design choice by GW.
It's definitely intentional on their part. Didn't stop me from squeezing 3 Sister Superiors out of a Battle Sister box today though.
I think management has no real plan and just changes ideas every second codex or so and the rule writers are stuck trying to make it work at this point.
I think that the IP issue is concern 1, locking players into a game ecosystem driven by artificial scarcity of “unique” models that is inherently inhospitable to 3rd party businesses...
My reasons? Something like this...
The CCG element has increased as unique models stand in for boosts or other CCG style mechanics. The monopose plastic model business model derives from this angle imho. GW money counters say “ Hey, my kid plays this CCG. He has hundreds of “unique” cards, and those cannot be made at home. He must buy them. What if we made Warhammer more like a card game? Players would have to but new monopose models to stack their figurative decks, like my son does with his CCG cards. Moreover, some of these cards get more valuable due to rarity and powers and we can do that too! Limited releases ... why not sell some models only for a short time, to keep values high? ...”
We'll see how this turns out when CSM and Ork Codizes arrive. I think these two Codizes could really generate some noise if GW is too rigid with that approach. Chosen would disappear, Terminators would look ridiculous, CSM would mix CC and shooty guys, options for Nobz could look pretty clumsy... Orks were already treated badly over several editions though and lost options as Jidmah pointed out several times in another thread, so maybe there's not much left to lose for them, depending on the options in the new Boyz kit.
GW wants to keep as much control over "its models" as possible. As a customer, you are supposed to use those models as intended. Restricting options in kits is one way to achieve it. I consider both the goal and GWs approach to it to be stupid.
jeff white wrote: The CCG element has increased as unique models stand in for boosts or other CCG style mechanics. The monopose plastic model business model derives from this angle imho. GW money counters say “ Hey, my kid plays this CCG. He has hundreds of “unique” cards, and those cannot be made at home. He must buy them. What if we made Warhammer more like a card game? Players would have to but new monopose models to stack their figurative decks, like my son does with his CCG cards. Moreover, some of these cards get more valuable due to rarity and powers and we can do that too! Limited releases ... why not sell some models only for a short time, to keep values high? ...”
We are a good bit down that road already. One of the DG codex options is still not available at all anymore since the DI box has been discontinued. Others you can only get in extremely expensive sets - same for Indomitus contents. For AoS see also the models from "Cursed City".
So yeah, I am only partially looking forward to future releases...
Darnok wrote: GW wants to keep as much control over "its models" as possible. As a customer, you are supposed to use those models as intended. Restricting options in kits is one way to achieve it. I consider both the goal and GWs approach to it to be stupid.
jeff white wrote: The CCG element has increased as unique models stand in for boosts or other CCG style mechanics. The monopose plastic model business model derives from this angle imho. GW money counters say “ Hey, my kid plays this CCG. He has hundreds of “unique” cards, and those cannot be made at home. He must buy them. What if we made Warhammer more like a card game? Players would have to but new monopose models to stack their figurative decks, like my son does with his CCG cards. Moreover, some of these cards get more valuable due to rarity and powers and we can do that too! Limited releases ... why not sell some models only for a short time, to keep values high? ...”
We are a good bit down that road already. One of the DG codex options is still not available at all anymore since the DI box has been discontinued. Others you can only get in extremely expensive sets - same for Indomitus contents. For AoS see also the models from "Cursed City".
So yeah, I am only partially looking forward to future releases...
except GW's made most things from DI and Indomatus avaliableso that falls flat.
Honestly, I buy the "lowers the barrier to entry" argument because I experienced it. I got back into the game just before the pandemic and was trying to figure out how to source plasma guns, since my box came with 1 and I needed 4. My options were shelling out for the correct bits (which would almost double the cost), get affordable bits and deal with conversion (extra expense and work), or mold and cast the guns myself (no expense but a ton of work). Ultimately I just put it off and played Tabletop Sim games instead. I didn't have an army assembled and painted until 9th when the plasma guns stopped being worthwhile.
Of course I buy the hostility to 3rd party argument as an additional benefit.
DarkHound wrote: Honestly, I buy the "lowers the barrier to entry" argument because I experienced it.
I can see that as well, but at the same time they don't have to be so pedantic about this.
To bring it back to the most egregious example of this nonsense, the Plague Marine weapon list, take a look at the 10th bullet point:
"For every 5 models in this unit, 1 Plague Marine's boltgun can be replaced with 1 mace of contagion and 1 bubotic axe."
The only way to get a Mace of Contagion is to also have a Bubotic Axe. You can't just take the Mace on its own. You can take the Axe on its own (point 9), but not the Mace. And all because that's the way that this model goes together in the instructions (either that or a bolter).
Nothing about this is necessary - they didn't need to do it this way - and when you've reached that many nested levels of if/then/else within the core unit to an army, I don't think the barrier to entry has been lowered, do you?
DarkHound wrote: Honestly, I buy the "lowers the barrier to entry" argument because I experienced it.
I can see that as well, but at the same time they don't have to be so pedantic about this.
To bring it back to the most egregious example of this nonsense, the Plague Marine weapon list, take a look at the 10th bullet point:
"For every 5 models in this unit, 1 Plague Marine's boltgun can be replaced with 1 mace of contagion and 1 bubotic axe."
The only way to get a Mace of Contagion is to also have a Bubotic Axe. You can't just take the Mace on its own. You can take the Axe on its own (point 9), but not the Mace. And all because that's the way that this model goes together in the instructions (either that or a bolter).
Nothing about this is necessary - they didn't need to do it this way - and when you've reached that many nested levels of if/then/else within the core unit to an army, I don't think the barrier to entry has been lowered, do you?
on that I agree. the plague marines entry is a complete MESS,
the_scotsman wrote: Yeah, when i read the small novel that is the Death Guard unit options and think about resolving the attacks from a melee-oriented min size death guard squad, the thing that springs to mind is "Accessible!"
accessible =/= easy to play/use
this is a general problem that most people want "easy to use", or streamlined rules but use "easier to get into the game" as argument torwards GW
so to make the game more accessible, you buy a box and build excatly whats in there without needing to know what the best options are, or which loadout is best for each unit if you use 5 of them in an army list
same way as less core rules are seen as "more accessible" because you don't need to know much to play with that 1 unit out of the box
that in the end things are more complicated than before and unit entries harder to read does not matter because the goal was to make the entry easier not the overall game, and this was achieved
One box = one complete unit is a fair enough design decision and does make things easier for new players (or those who can't or won't do a bit of conversion). The usual GW lack of consistency is probably what is irritating about it though.
As a Harlequin player its slightly annoying when the Troupe kit only has two fusion pistols, when the whole unit can be outfitted with them, which is 6 models in a kit. Also, although less relevent, Shadowseers and Death Jesters only get a single pose even though we can field multiples.
Given the incredibly small range of models it wouldn't hurt for them to make an upgrade sprue for Harlequins.
Indeed you did, calling one cynical. I prefer the term "realistic".
Now you're right in that both options aren't necessarily mutually exclusive - they certainly could have done it for both reasons - but given everything GW has been doing of late, the "for the players!" option just doesn't ring true to me.
Making the game easier to access for new people isn't necessarily doing it for "the people", but ultimately a way to increase revenue through enlargement of the player base. Which is a very realistic option considering the world we live in.
I think to understand GW you need to recognise a competing interests approach.
I'd imagine it went something like this:
1. "I like WYSIWYG"
2. "But I don't like having to buy multiple boxes just to get sufficient weapons to make the optimal unit comp. The fact this is so expensive forces me to third party suppliers/printers - and starts that ball rolling which may reduce direct GW purchases in the future."
GW: "Oh okay, yeah. Well lets set the rules so you don't need to do that. If you can only equip what's in the kit then one should do and your unit should broadly be WYSIWYG (although we are still not hard enforcing that)."
3: "But some players do like doing this."
4. "And mechanically having to roll separate dice for every different gun is kind of a waste of time."
GW: "Eh.... we've run out of time on this. Moving on, moving on."
Overread wrote: It's about making the game more accessible to new people.
GW is well aware that the market and world have changed, kids are far less into craft hobbies than they were many years ago. So GW has been removing some barriers to entry whilst at the same time also adjusting some other elements. EG Killteam is no longer just a few pages in the Big Rule Book, its a product with its own name and marketing and attention.
It is not as much not being in to craft part of w40k, and more about not wanting to buy 2-3 boxs of single unit to get a full load out for one unit. I do have my doubts about GW doing this because of that. Companies care only as far and as much about their customers as far income generations is a thing. I think GW what is in the box policy has more to do with secondary markets, 3ed party companies etc. the what is in the box policy is good when the boxs you have are good. GK boxs are awesome. Termintor box is like 2 different units and 4+ different characters at the cost of a single unit, with buckets of extra parts. It gets a bit less fun, if you want to have one or two units csm havocks armed with the gattling guns, when you get one per box.
Another point to consider is that I think GW has moved towards creating quality *display* pieces rather than quality gaming pieces.
GW kits are an absolute work of art. Mould are positioned beautifully along edges of detail such that clean up is often not necessary.
Similarly, they have all sorts of wonderful detail and dynamic poses.
Both of these points have only been able to come about as a result of removing options and posability in kits. Having posable/interchangeable arms prevents you putting any detail around the shoulder joints and limits the arm poses you can use.
Hence you get stuff like weapons A and B can only go on body X, and X is the only body they can go on".
So you take that design paradigm and apply it into rules, because you want the rules to precisely match the box.
Plus it doesn't work for every army. For something like Custodes a limited kit set with 20+ models in an army isn't much of a problem.
It gets a bit different when someone has 120 orks, and you start to notice that each squad has the same guys in the same pose. And it get double for all those , jumping over the rock or doing something wierd posed models.
Karol wrote: Plus it doesn't work for every army. For something like Custodes a limited kit set with 20+ models in an army isn't much of a problem.
It gets a bit different when someone has 120 orks, and you start to notice that each squad has the same guys in the same pose. And it get double for all those , jumping over the rock or doing something wierd posed models.
In that kind of situation, I'd lean into it and trade with other players to field whole units in the same position.
I wanted to avoid turning this discussion into yet another one about monoposes.
At the end of the day it's not relevant to the discussion at hand, beyond the obvious fact that stuff like Plague Marines are very limited and the rules exactly match those limits.
Gert wrote: I'm not sure what either the end result of this is or what GW necessarily gains from it.
The biggest issue is how fast and loose the rule is applied.
A unit of Tacticals or Devastators can pretty much take whatever weapon options they want despite them not being in the box, i.e. one flamer and a multimelta or four of any heavy weapon.
But then Wyches and Blightlords are restricted on loadout options.
Now if CSM and Chaos Terminators suffer the same fate, then a solid 60% of my Black Legion suddenly becomes illegal. Which kind of sucks because I put a lot of effort into converting and painting to give each unit loads of character.
It’s not even applied consistently within a BLT unit. CCWs remain unrestricted despite there only being 3 of each in the box. It is impossible to equip an entire squad with axes or swords without conversion or buying multiple boxes, yet here we are with this asinine trend that is so anti consumer and anti converter it’s not funny.
kirotheavenger wrote: I wanted to avoid turning this discussion into yet another one about monoposes.
At the end of the day it's not relevant to the discussion at hand, beyond the obvious fact that stuff like Plague Marines are very limited and the rules exactly match those limits.
It’s the root of the no model no rules issue. So “Beyond the obvious fact” glosses over the point that it’s core to what’s going on.
Things like the options for a primaris SM captain showcase this. There is no multipart kit, just a series of monopose. And the gear options follow. Even though they make no sense from a lore PoV. Captains should have pretty much free range of the armory, but if you want a plasma pistol, you need to pair it with a powerfist. Despite it being the classic sidearm of the well equipped since time immemorial. It gets worse that some options are chapter locked for no other reasons then it’s what a specific model was geared with.
Intercessor sergeants have more flex in what they can take. But not reivers or most other squads. Despite the ranges being compatible and a weapon swap one of the easiest things to do.
--
On the point of ease of entry, there is a point, but I feel it’s more the official spin on a marketing decision. How many times to we see people here ask “what’s the best way to build X kit?” Compare that with the years before 8th. I feel it’s gone down a lot.
I'm not too sure that people turn to 3rd party kits just to save money. As an example Victoria Miniatures' Arcadian troops cost US $49.99 + S&H for 10 figures. GW charges $45 for 10 figures + local taxes. The GW figures are probably easier to access as well for most people since they have shops world wide.
I think most people buy from 3rd parties for variety. For instance I'm not particularly thrilled with the current choices of either Cadian or Catchacan guard units but I loved the OOP Praetorian units. I can't get those units from GW but I can from Victoria. So, I'd be willing to spend a little extra to get what I like. The same applies to greater daemons. The GW figures are nice but if I need to have more than 1 then I want something a little different. GW doesn't really offer a lot of choices but there are vendors out there that make beautiful greater daemons that cost about the same as GW's. So I get the other vendors' figures as well or in some cases in place of GW's.
The only time it matters is if/when you play in "officially sanctioned" GW events (and, based on rumors, not even always at them). So, while GW may be doing this to discourage buying from 3rd parties I think they're going in the opposite direction by limiting choices rather than embracing them.
My guess is that their new playtesters were giving feedback about needing more <special weapon> models to test properly, and GW finally realized that even normal people would actually go out of their way to buy three or four boxes (or worse, third party bits) to build those combinations.
What do they gain from this? Less variations to test, less knowledge required to start the game, less people leaving from being frustrated over building their first units in a bad/illegal way.
What do they lose? Nothing. Let's be honest, no matter how pissed everyone is about these dumb, dumb changes, none of use will spend vastly more or less money of 40k because of this.
From GW's perspective it's an all upside change, even if you don't imply malice.
Why they just didn't simply produce some upgrade spruces with the extra weapon options is lost on me.
It's the same lesson that itunes proved all those years ago. Want to stop piracy (or in this case 3rd party sellers and ebay-box-set-break-up-ers)? Simple offer people an easy and affordable way to buy what they want directly from you.
I'm glad accessibility came at the cost of people who put in the effort to assemble their models in a certain way, rather than simply telling the designers to put more stuff in the box.
Apple fox wrote: I think management has no real plan and just changes ideas every second codex or so and the rule writers are stuck trying to make it work at this point.
I think it's this one. GW optimizes towards making money when they understand a situation. But I think they often misunderstand how people play the game, and then you just have these little initiatives that come and go and massively screw over one army/kit and leave another army/kit unchanged. It's a boring answer but it's the only one I've got for this particular phenomenon, it's just too arbitrary where it gets applied and where it doesn't.
I guess the one other thing I can think of is that, as far as I can tell, GW has never truly broken a unit (i.e. rendered it non-functional/complete garbage in the game) with this edict, so maybe they understand enough to not cross that particular line. But then again, I seem to recall that exact thing happening in Sigmar to Kharadrons; some multi-layout unit was released with no rules on the weapon comp, and then redone to be 1 of X, 1 of Y, 1 of Z... I don't know if that completely neutered it or not. But I also get why you'd have to have that sort of enforcement in Sigmar since there are no points costs for weapon selections.
Honestly, I think this is all part of trying to balance the kits better with Power Level. One of the biggest criticism of Power Level, is that you could have a 5 man death company squad with nothing, or another with every model armed with thunder hammers and stormshields, and it'd both cost the same PL. Well, if you're not able to do that, and are limited to specific options, it makes it a lot easier for the Power Level rating to hold true and balance.
Makes the Datasheets in 40k look more like the Warscrolls in AoS, which makes balancing minimum unit sizes to a set value of Points/Power Level a lot easier.
SamusDrake wrote: As a Harlequin player its slightly annoying when the Troupe kit only has two fusion pistols, when the whole unit can be outfitted with them, which is 6 models in a kit.
I'll expect this won't be the case when their book gets re-done.
At least with skitarii some effort seems to have been put in to make multiweapon squads functional - ranges were altered to make sniper+plasma optimal for rangers and arc+plasma optimal for vanguard, and a strat eas added to make rangers dangerous at close range so if you build the arc and plasma for them youre not shooting yourself in the foot.
The truly bizarre one was leaving Wracks in DE the same not limiting to one liquifier per 5 as in the kit, and leaving Kabs able to take 2x blaster 1x DL, bit limiting the nearly identical melee options on wyches seemingly just to make them irritating to resolve.
I always took 1x net or 3x razors/3x gauntlets just to make it faster to resolve their attacks. The kits are, as all DE kits are, fully compatible with each other, just like marine kits.
And also, minor thing, but gw pretends to be oh so precise but theyre telling me all the chain-flail thingies that come in the wych kit are "Knives." Uh-huh, GW.
SamusDrake wrote: As a Harlequin player its slightly annoying when the Troupe kit only has two fusion pistols, when the whole unit can be outfitted with them, which is 6 models in a kit. Also, although less relevent, Shadowseers and Death Jesters only get a single pose even though we can field multiples.
Given the incredibly small range of models it wouldn't hurt for them to make an upgrade sprue for Harlequins.
given GW's method of fixing things I am willing to bet their solution will be 1 fusion per 3 harlies in the next codex. as for death jesters and shadowseers being mono pose models I don't expect that to change barring some kind of box set where they include special models to increase sales, that is sadly how most xenos armies sigle blister pack models work. sometimes you can get older edition models for it, the old shadowseer and death jester existed but looks really dated next to new harliquins.
kirotheavenger wrote: I wanted to avoid turning this discussion into yet another one about monoposes.
At the end of the day it's not relevant to the discussion at hand, beyond the obvious fact that stuff like Plague Marines are very limited and the rules exactly match those limits.
It isn't just a monopose thing. It is like that ETB champion with fist, that is build in a such a way that he has a hard to remove plasma gun on his back. monopose is one thing, limitation going back to how GW cuts their models is another.
I was thrilled when the new CSM Havocs were released. Later I found out that the box ONLY included a SINGLE gatling gun. Killed my enthusiasm on the spot and my wallet sighed in relief.
Darnok wrote: GW wants to keep as much control over "its models" as possible. As a customer, you are supposed to use those models as intended. Restricting options in kits is one way to achieve it. I consider both the goal and GWs approach to it to be stupid.
jeff white wrote: The CCG element has increased as unique models stand in for boosts or other CCG style mechanics. The monopose plastic model business model derives from this angle imho. GW money counters say “ Hey, my kid plays this CCG. He has hundreds of “unique” cards, and those cannot be made at home. He must buy them. What if we made Warhammer more like a card game? Players would have to but new monopose models to stack their figurative decks, like my son does with his CCG cards. Moreover, some of these cards get more valuable due to rarity and powers and we can do that too! Limited releases ... why not sell some models only for a short time, to keep values high? ...”
We are a good bit down that road already. One of the DG codex options is still not available at all anymore since the DI box has been discontinued. Others you can only get in extremely expensive sets - same for Indomitus contents. For AoS see also the models from "Cursed City".
So yeah, I am only partially looking forward to future releases...
except GW's made most things from DI and Indomatus avaliableso that falls flat.
I assume "falling flat" now means complete agreement? Because you just stated the same as me: "most things" are available, not all.
The point remains: the DG Lord of Contagion from DI is still no longer available from GW, some others you can only get in absurdly expensive sets - with the second part being true for Indomitus and CC models too. I fail to see where the "falling flat" part happens.
I can't help but notice a strange disconnect between different "types" of wargear.
In the case of "standard" wargear, it has to be represented on the model and there's a good chance (depending on what mood GW is in) that it will be limited to what's in the specific model kit.
But then we get Artefacts, which are also wargear and yet don't need to be represented at all.
Is it because Artefacts cost CPs instead of Points?
Clearly not because the Necron codex introduced Cryptek arcana - which is wargear, that you pay for with Points, but which also doesn't have to be represented on the model in any way, shape or form.
I don't get it. Why is it that some wargear never needs to be represented on the models and yet other wargear must always be represented to the point that it gets removed if the corresponding model/kit is replaced or if GW can't be arsed making it or if GW can't be arsed including enough of them in the relevant kit?
the_scotsman wrote: The truly bizarre one was leaving Wracks in DE the same not limiting to one liquifier per 5 as in the kit, and leaving Kabs able to take 2x blaster 1x DL, bit limiting the nearly identical melee options on wyches seemingly just to make them irritating to resolve.
I always took 1x net or 3x razors/3x gauntlets just to make it faster to resolve their attacks. The kits are, as all DE kits are, fully compatible with each other, just like marine kits.
And also, minor thing, but gw pretends to be oh so precise but theyre telling me all the chain-flail thingies that come in the wych kit are "Knives." Uh-huh, GW.
Don't forget that the Archon keeps the Venom Blade, Agoniser and Blast Pistol and the Succubus keeps the Splinter Pistol, Blast Pistol and Wych weapons (despite none of those coming with the respective kits), yet the Haemonculus loses every single piece of kit he had.
Oh but Archons don't get to keep PGLs or Blasters, in spite of them being every bit as compatible as the out-of-kit wargear they do get to keep, because GW is a rational company that makes sensible, logical decisions.
Heres a question: assuming "only the kit is legal, all builds from the kit are legal" what is the most absurd kit you can think of to apply the standard to?
In my eyes the new csms take the cake here.
Plasma gun, flamer, melta gun, rocket launcher, heavy bolter would be a legal wargear setup, 10- man with chainswords+bolt pistols would no longer be legal. Only 7/10 models would be allowed to use chainswords.
the_scotsman wrote: Heres a question: assuming "only the kit is legal, all builds from the kit are legal" what is the most absurd kit you can think of to apply the standard to?
In my eyes the new csms take the cake here.
Plasma gun, flamer, melta gun, rocket launcher, heavy bolter would be a legal wargear setup, 10- man with chainswords+bolt pistols would no longer be legal. Only 7/10 models would be allowed to use chainswords.
The one-boltgun 10 man tactical squad.
For the original question of what GW gains, this has always struck me as a corporate finance stance rather than a hobby enrichment one. The increasingly bizarre stance on "no models no rules" makes literally no sense unless viewed through a corporate finance lens as a means of protecting market share vs 3rd party companies (this being a question that will be raised at every AGM by every investor who cares enough to show up, doubly so for GW post-Chapter House).
What's annoying about this is that the strategy is a self fulfilling prophecy; execs inform investors of a robust strategy to protect market share from 3rd parties, GW profits keep rising, therefore strategy is a success (conveniently ignoring all other factors like popular range refreshes i.e. space marines).
If GW were more interested in competing against 3rd parties instead of trying to play monopoly, you would see GW selling bits instead of applying no model no rules.
the_scotsman wrote: Heres a question: assuming "only the kit is legal, all builds from the kit are legal" what is the most absurd kit you can think of to apply the standard to?
In my eyes the new csms take the cake here.
Plasma gun, flamer, melta gun, rocket launcher, heavy bolter would be a legal wargear setup, 10- man with chainswords+bolt pistols would no longer be legal. Only 7/10 models would be allowed to use chainswords.
Just because I’m painting a squad now: Assault Intercessors. If you took all the options for the sarge, and spread them around the squad, they would look like a vanguard vet squad that got drunk and looted the armory. And it’s not like there would be a lot of cross purpose gear just bloating the squad. Just CC toys for everyone.
the_scotsman wrote: Heres a question: assuming "only the kit is legal, all builds from the kit are legal" what is the most absurd kit you can think of to apply the standard to?
In my eyes the new csms take the cake here.
Plasma gun, flamer, melta gun, rocket launcher, heavy bolter would be a legal wargear setup, 10- man with chainswords+bolt pistols would no longer be legal. Only 7/10 models would be allowed to use chainswords.
Just because I’m painting a squad now: Assault Intercessors. If you took all the options for the sarge, and spread them around the squad, they would look like a vanguard vet squad that got drunk and looted the armory. And it’s not like there would be a lot of cross purpose gear just bloating the squad. Just CC toys for everyone.
"Only options in the box" doesn't usually mean "you can use all possible combinations of bits in the box"; even kits that have gone overboard on instructions == datasheet have kept the sergeant options to the sergeant. You still can't put swords/pistols on Skitarii other than the Alpha, for instance.
New players who follow the kit instructions can build a usable squad regardless of what additional options exist in the codex. How is stripping those options out any more newbie-friendly?
Seems to me like it's more about undermining third-parties that GW sees as parasites rather than symbiotic entities, with a helpful bonus of making it less important for them to balance wargear if you can't spam just one type of Wych weapon or what-have-you.
the_scotsman wrote: Heres a question: assuming "only the kit is legal, all builds from the kit are legal" what is the most absurd kit you can think of to apply the standard to?
In my eyes the new csms take the cake here.
Plasma gun, flamer, melta gun, rocket launcher, heavy bolter would be a legal wargear setup, 10- man with chainswords+bolt pistols would no longer be legal. Only 7/10 models would be allowed to use chainswords.
The one-boltgun 10 man tactical squad.
For the original question of what GW gains, this has always struck me as a corporate finance stance rather than a hobby enrichment one. The increasingly bizarre stance on "no models no rules" makes literally no sense unless viewed through a corporate finance lens as a means of protecting market share vs 3rd party companies (this being a question that will be raised at every AGM by every investor who cares enough to show up, doubly so for GW post-Chapter House).
What's annoying about this is that the strategy is a self fulfilling prophecy; execs inform investors of a robust strategy to protect market share from 3rd parties, GW profits keep rising, therefore strategy is a success (conveniently ignoring all other factors like popular range refreshes i.e. space marines).
If GW were more interested in competing against 3rd parties instead of trying to play monopoly, you would see GW selling bits instead of applying no model no rules.
"No Model No Rules" makes complete and total sense to me. The competitive HQ for an army very often being something GW makes no model for, and therefore steals market share by me going to a 3rd party producer to buy my Baron Sathonyx or my KFF Big Mek on Warbike or my Autarch on Windrider with reaper launcher and Banshee Mask or my Space Marine captain with Thunder Hammer Storm Shield and Jump Pack ( Oh no, wait, they keep leaving him legal, hi there Space Marine Double Standard I didn't see you there!) obviously takes away business from GW. It's gakky, but it's at least comprehensible.
the_scotsman wrote: Heres a question: assuming "only the kit is legal, all builds from the kit are legal" what is the most absurd kit you can think of to apply the standard to?
In my eyes the new csms take the cake here.
Plasma gun, flamer, melta gun, rocket launcher, heavy bolter would be a legal wargear setup, 10- man with chainswords+bolt pistols would no longer be legal. Only 7/10 models would be allowed to use chainswords.
Just because I’m painting a squad now: Assault Intercessors. If you took all the options for the sarge, and spread them around the squad, they would look like a vanguard vet squad that got drunk and looted the armory. And it’s not like there would be a lot of cross purpose gear just bloating the squad. Just CC toys for everyone.
"Only options in the box" doesn't usually mean "you can use all possible combinations of bits in the box"; even kits that have gone overboard on instructions == datasheet have kept the sergeant options to the sergeant. You still can't put swords/pistols on Skitarii other than the Alpha, for instance.
Sure, but um....why is it possible for these theoretical brainless newbies to understand "This is the equipment for the sergeant, I shouldnt' build multiple models with the sergeant weapons because then the squad would be illegal" but not possible for them to understand "these are the weapons for the special weapons guy, I shouldn't build multiple guys with special weapons because then the squad will be illegal and I can take up to this many special weapons guys."
I'll be honest, maybe this is just supposed to be a thing that we're supposed to THANK gw for. Like theyve gotten so many complaints of "y you only put one of each weapon in the box!!?!" that theyve decided this is an actual solution that will actually make people complain less. IDK.
Or, actually, come to think of it: Maybe it's a barrier to entry reducer. Maybe they've identified that a new player often comes in, and has a bad game experience playing against some person with fully optimized, fully mono-purpose specialized squads that they're trying to gradually lower that bar, like with how Primaris marines are essentially purpose-built to make TAC lists and it's really actually difficult to buy a primaris marine army without ending up with some antitank and some anti-infantry stuff and some shooty and some melee stuff.
And the reason it's sporadic is that they're trying to find instances where a squad's various weapons can be made to work quasi-cohesively even if mixed. Like how they boosted up the range on the various Skitarii weapons to make taking the sniper weapon not just automatically a silly thing to do with any other weapon.
Automatically Appended Next Post: All of this is just kind of the same as watching a terrible movie for enjoyment and trying to figure out what their intention was, what they were going for with this or that ridiculous, asinine decision, of course. I'm not saying any of this is 5d chess - GW's trying to figure out 1d chess: one line of squares, each player gets a pawn and a king.
Funny thing, I wanted to make some CSM terminators but didn't like the loadout in the kit. Turns out that the Cataphracti Termies had exactly what I was looking for. The best part is that Cataphracti termies are era correct for CSM so I can use them even fluff wise in an army using normal CSM termie rules. The problem would come in if GW limited terminators to their box set. It would exclude models that would have a perfectly legitimate reason for being in an army from being in that army.
Technically using Cataphractii or Tartaros terminators as Chaos Terminators is a proxy and the only rules for proxying AFAIK in event packs for GW events are that the proxy needs to be the same size and feature the same wargear, both of these are fulfilled by Heresy era pattern armour. The only issue would be if you equipped them with wargear Chaos Terminators don't have access to such as the plasma blaster or volkite charger.
Nope, 1 guy has a heavy flamer and Lightning claw, 1 guy has a Combi-bolter and a chain fist and the other 3 have Combi-bolters and lightning claws. All legal per the current CSM Codex. And all the weapons are straight out of the box.
It is still utterly hilarious to me that GW was just too lazy to give CSMs access to the heresy era stuff they came out with in plastic. Just phenomenal.
I like the box only options, makes it easier to build an army out for new players. GW should really be focusing on reducing the barrier to entry as more people buying/building/painting/playing is great for everyone.
Now as to making units invalid just use them and pay points for it, if anyone doesn't want you to...don't play them, you're better off.
I don't really care and have plenty of "illegal" loadouts, just due to my modeling preferences.
That is up to you. Many prefer a wysiwyg model mentality. Myself included.
As for barrier to entry, I don’t get it. These new monopose mostly mono build minis are finicky and some every bit as difficult to build as imperial guard kits with separate heads and legs and arms and torsos... some of the new sisters models were pretty tough to assemble. I don’t see this making anything easier... and certainly not cheaper, which is how I would usually think abou barriers to entry
The cut torsos and legs make it a bit harder to recast though. It is funny because it makes people play with either upscaled old stuff or cast 3ed party stuff, instead of just recasting plastic GW models.
Jidmah wrote: My guess is that their new playtesters were giving feedback about needing more <special weapon> models to test properly, and GW finally realized that even normal people would actually go out of their way to buy three or four boxes (or worse, third party bits) to build those combinations.
What do they gain from this? Less variations to test, less knowledge required to start the game, less people leaving from being frustrated over building their first units in a bad/illegal way.
What do they lose? Nothing. Let's be honest, no matter how pissed everyone is about these dumb, dumb changes, none of use will spend vastly more or less money of 40k because of this.
From GW's perspective it's an all upside change, even if you don't imply malice.
They did lose my money though. I'm not buying from them or ripping apart all my guys for this stupid policy. If I had to get them I'd do such third party anyways now or buy second hand knowing just how much they could screw over my army set ups all over again. What happens if they change this idea next edtion and MSU becomes coin of the realm with multiple like specials ? Everyone who bent over backwards to comply to this or didn't need to do it and was new now is left going. " How do I get the extra weapons ? " Then sitting on extra bodies.
Then where does it end ? Will CSM terminators suffer such a fate ? How about scions ? Mixed weapons on them would suck. Will guard squads lose their heavy weapon choice ? It doesn't come in the box !! You know how many heavy weapon teams I've got that would be worthless unless they make them troop squads on their own again ? Lots and it would suck and those options have been legal for about 2 decades now.
What did this gain them from me ? Anger, surprising I know if you read all before this.
Jidmah wrote: My guess is that their new playtesters were giving feedback about needing more <special weapon> models to test properly, and GW finally realized that even normal people would actually go out of their way to buy three or four boxes (or worse, third party bits) to build those combinations.
What do they gain from this? Less variations to test, less knowledge required to start the game, less people leaving from being frustrated over building their first units in a bad/illegal way.
What do they lose? Nothing. Let's be honest, no matter how pissed everyone is about these dumb, dumb changes, none of use will spend vastly more or less money of 40k because of this.
From GW's perspective it's an all upside change, even if you don't imply malice.
They did lose my money though. I'm not buying from them or ripping apart all my guys for this stupid policy. If I had to get them I'd do such third party anyways now or buy second hand knowing just how much they could screw over my army set ups all over again. What happens if they change this idea next edtion and MSU becomes coin of the realm with multiple like specials ? Everyone who bent over backwards to comply to this or didn't need to do it and was new now is left going. " How do I get the extra weapons ? " Then sitting on extra bodies.
Then where does it end ? Will CSM terminators suffer such a fate ? How about scions ? Mixed weapons on them would suck. Will guard squads lose their heavy weapon choice ? It doesn't come in the box !! You know how many heavy weapon teams I've got that would be worthless unless they make them troop squads on their own again ? Lots and it would suck and those options have been legal for about 2 decades now.
What did this gain them from me ? Anger, surprising I know if you read all before this.
The thing is, GW is a large company and not your FLGS who knows and cares about you in specific. The people who will stop spending money or even quit because of these changes are very, very few. The vast majority will still buy codices and jump onto new releases when the get rolled out, so their losses are effectively none.
Also, since 40k is massively growing right now, a few angered veterans to who this was the last straw probably won't even be noticeable in their numbers. Just look at how many people in this forum spend days and days writing about how passionately they hate all parts of 9th edition, while still posting their newest additions to their collection on other parts of the forum.
Unless one of those changes causes a massive backlash on social media like some of the ork changes did (axed KFF mek and warboss, mek workshop FAQ), there is absolutely zero downside for GW's profits to keep cutting options down to what's in the box. It's also worth noting that many players are fine with these changes since it often hits top loadouts from previous tournament metas, and everyone hates tournament players, right? It's not surprising that everyone complains about plague marines and blightlords, but no one even noticed that the death guard daemon prince was hit with the same change - except for stupid me who built a full metal sword/spitter/wings prince who is illegal now after playing it five times.
This is what the cancer called capitalism looks like up close. The only value of anything is the amount of money it makes. If something doesn't make money but requires money to maintain, it gets taken out in the back and shot.
the_scotsman wrote: It is still utterly hilarious to me that GW was just too lazy to give CSMs access to the heresy era stuff they came out with in plastic. Just phenomenal.
Heh, just wait for them to give loyalists rules in their next codex for that plastic Spartan that was leaked for HH, along with anything else from HH that they make in plastic, while the Legions get.....a new daemon engine, based on a mutated muskrat.
I have always wondered why Loyalists get easier access to HH models than Chaos does.
As for the "only what's in the kit" method of building squads I think GW is happy to do anything they can to steer people away from 3rd party bits or replacements.
From a player perspective, rules that only allow for what's in the box help get around that sour grapes feeling when a new player wanted to have 3 flamers in their infantry blob but the box only came with one. When that same player is told "oh just buy 3 more boxes" it's an easy way to lose a lifelong customer to a crappy business practice.
So instead of just including more special weapons, they modify the rules to effectively pinch pennies.
Also I've never seen the Plague Marines datasheet before. That looks truly horrid.
It's interesting to me because it feels like over time GW becomes more and more like Privateer Press. Ongoing storylines focused on named characters, units with limited customizability, build it one way only monopose models.
Those were all the things I disliked about PP games, what I liked were the fun, tight rules and simultaneous update schedule that made sure no faction was ever neglected. So to me, GW has the bad aspects of both now.
Though what's really crazy is they only do this for certain factions, not consistently.
I know exactly what you mean, looking over the fence at Age of Sigmar where factions don't get neglected and instead thrive it's often a surprise that both games are made by the same company.
The Red Hobbit wrote: I know exactly what you mean, looking over the fence at Age of Sigmar where factions don't get neglected and instead thrive it's often a surprise that both games are made by the same company.
Plenty of factions get neglected in AoS. It's just not as obvious to outsiders looking in.
For example, Idoneth Deepkin were one of the last books released before AoS2.0 They never received an updated book while others did. Cities of Sigmar literally was the result of them "neglecting" factions after the launch. There's a reason it was poorly received by many and it had to do with the ridiculous culling it made of the Elf ranges.
That all said, what really needs to happen is a standardization of layouts for unit upgrades and the like. And if you're going to cut down on a basic unit's ability? Put a damn stratagem in to give access to a "veteran" version that gets to retain the original setup.
Being honest Traitors have access to both cataphracti and tartaros terminator armor, in the form of blightlord, deathsroud and Scarab Occult Terminators.
Galas wrote: Being honest Traitors have access to both cataphracti and tartaros terminator armor, in the form of blightlord, deathsroud and Scarab Occult Terminators.
That's two Legions. I suppose the other seven just threw theirs away did they?
The Red Hobbit wrote: Also I've never seen the Plague Marines datasheet before. That looks truly horrid.
Essentially it's a super-complicated way of saying "Each marine can have one combination of weapons from the <Plague Marine equipment list>. If the unit has 9 or less models no option can be picked more than once, if the unit has 10 models, no option can be picked more than twice. Up to one/two marines can have a plague knive and either a plasma gun or a melta." Then add little numbers for icon and sigil to say that they can be picked only once.
Whatever the real reason they have for doing it, the uneven way it has been implemented makes little sense. Maybe the execs shared their vision with the writers who then have their own interpretation or decide on their own how to (unevenly) apply it. That might also explain why SoB and Marines have a pile of Core units and other armies have 2.
IMO the Plague Marines are still the most egregious so far. They put out 20 or so PMs that were not in that box between 8E and the 9E release. I think its likely more poeple have the 8E starter PMs than the seperate unit box. But those minis are no longer being sold by GW so they may as well not have existed.
A lot of the reasons posted so far seem plausible enough but still don't quite fit. I was thinking that maybe they were trying to bridge the gap between points and power level, but that doesn't entirely fit either. I wish I knew what they were trying to accomplish.
What do they lose? Nothing. Let's be honest, no matter how pissed everyone is about these dumb, dumb changes, none of use will spend vastly more or less money of 40k because of this.
From GW's perspective it's an all upside change, even if you don't imply malice.
I think you're on to something here. GW has definitely been producing a lot of stuff for the "consoomer" who ties their identity to a brand and will buy anything. The Funco Pops, childrens books complete with Cal Art, cartoons, licensed apparel, action figures and the like are aimed right at them.
I'm not sure about that "None of us" part though. I can tell you I've bought 2 whole kits since the fall and I'm in no rush to buy more. I have been buying some of the books but my spending is down 80% easy. I'd like to find a way to make my Tau have some chance in a game, and have been thinking of maxing out my Missilesides with 6 more, even though the Tau list is currently a complete mess with drones the price of Primaris Space Marines. I'm just not going to buy those 6 kits because I have no idea what they will do. If anything, I'll print up 6 "Alien Communist Rocket Troopers" or more likely, just wait and see.
Galas wrote: Being honest Traitors have access to both cataphracti and tartaros terminator armor, in the form of blightlord, deathsroud and Scarab Occult Terminators.
That's two Legions. I suppose the other seven just threw theirs away did they?
Isn't that what they did at the end of the Night Lords trilogy? Hauled some terminator armor out of storage, killed some folks, then tossed it along the way?
Galas wrote: Being honest Traitors have access to both cataphracti and tartaros terminator armor, in the form of blightlord, deathsroud and Scarab Occult Terminators.
That's two Legions. I suppose the other seven just threw theirs away did they?
Isn't that what they did at the end of the Night Lords trilogy? Hauled some terminator armor out of storage, killed some folks, then tossed it along the way?
That armor was more modern terminator armor they stripped from some dead loyalists (Salamanders IIRC) that they found on a space hulk.
In that case the 'can't do maintenance' argument kinda works, where would they find spare parts if they never used that model of armor before?
Galas wrote: Being honest Traitors have access to both cataphracti and tartaros terminator armor, in the form of blightlord, deathsroud and Scarab Occult Terminators.
That's two Legions. I suppose the other seven just threw theirs away did they?
Isn't that what they did at the end of the Night Lords trilogy? Hauled some terminator armor out of storage, killed some folks, then tossed it along the way?
That armor was more modern terminator armor they stripped from some dead loyalists (Salamanders IIRC) that they found on a space hulk.
In that case the 'can't do maintenance' argument kinda works, where would they find spare parts if they never used that model of armor before?
No it doesn't. Those suits were used in what was a "final stand". At that point, Talos had conceded that 10th Company was going to lose, and was only interested in doing as much damage to the Eldar as possible. They had already sacrificed their only ship just to get planetside for the fight. They had no intention on using those suits again, as they planned to die, but take as many Eldar with them as possible. In contrast, the suits of the Atrementar, who were not involved in the final stand as they were some of the warbands forces designated to survive by escaping (along with the warband's neophyte Astartes, Dark Mechanicus contingent, etc) had been maintained up to that point.
Also worth mentioning that the publication date for the book in question was 2012, 5 years before HH the game, and therefore any HH models, existed. So Indomutus pattern terminator armour was all that we had at the time.
Galas wrote: Being honest Traitors have access to both cataphracti and tartaros terminator armor, in the form of blightlord, deathsroud and Scarab Occult Terminators.
That's two Legions. I suppose the other seven just threw theirs away did they?
Isn't that what they did at the end of the Night Lords trilogy? Hauled some terminator armor out of storage, killed some folks, then tossed it along the way?
That armor was more modern terminator armor they stripped from some dead loyalists (Salamanders IIRC) that they found on a space hulk.
In that case the 'can't do maintenance' argument kinda works, where would they find spare parts if they never used that model of armor before?
No it doesn't. Those suits were used in what was a "final stand". At that point, Talos had conceded that 10th Company was going to lose, and was only interested in doing as much damage to the Eldar as possible. They had already sacrificed their only ship just to get planetside for the fight. They had no intention on using those suits again, as they planned to die, but take as many Eldar with them as possible. In contrast, the suits of the Atrementar, who were not involved in the final stand as they were some of the warbands forces designated to survive by escaping (along with the warband's neophyte Astartes, Dark Mechanicus contingent, etc) had been maintained up to that point.
So... what you're saying is they used an expendable resource rather than the taking armor they could keep maintaining.
I mean it's great that you want to "ackshuuuually" me but it's drifting away from the point of the thread.
Galas wrote: Being honest Traitors have access to both cataphracti and tartaros terminator armor, in the form of blightlord, deathsroud and Scarab Occult Terminators.
That's two Legions. I suppose the other seven just threw theirs away did they?
Isn't that what they did at the end of the Night Lords trilogy? Hauled some terminator armor out of storage, killed some folks, then tossed it along the way?
That armor was more modern terminator armor they stripped from some dead loyalists (Salamanders IIRC) that they found on a space hulk.
In that case the 'can't do maintenance' argument kinda works, where would they find spare parts if they never used that model of armor before?
No it doesn't. Those suits were used in what was a "final stand". At that point, Talos had conceded that 10th Company was going to lose, and was only interested in doing as much damage to the Eldar as possible. They had already sacrificed their only ship just to get planetside for the fight. They had no intention on using those suits again, as they planned to die, but take as many Eldar with them as possible. In contrast, the suits of the Atrementar, who were not involved in the final stand as they were some of the warbands forces designated to survive by escaping (along with the warband's neophyte Astartes, Dark Mechanicus contingent, etc) had been maintained up to that point.
So... what you're saying is they used an expendable resource rather than the taking armor they could keep maintaining.
I mean it's great that you want to "ackshuuuually" me but it's drifting away from the point of the thread.
Yes, and the "expendable resource" was newer armour, not the older armour that the Atrementar was already using. The Legions have always been represented as using older technology.
And don't complain about drifting from the point of the thread when I was responding to a comment that you made that was already drifting from it.
I am not against against unit options matching the kits per se. And it's not just for the new players, it's convenient for anyone starting a new army. I have been into hobby for 20 years and if I were to start, say Dark Eldar army, I would prefer if I didn't have to find any extra bits to arm the units as I like. And I can understand GW point of view, they don't want encourage third party sales. Making old collections illegal does suck though.
The real problem is that GW lacks long time vision and consistency. This would be a non-issue if it had been the same since the beginning and affected all armies similarly. The modelling decisions are sometimes mind-boggling. Why did all original IG regiments lack a single special weapon model? Why do CSM Terminators come with only one pair of default equipment? Do Plague Marines really need D6 different close combat weapon options? Why is the unit entry in codex written for 5 or 10 miniatures when the kit comes with 7?
If they don't want to put all the special or heavy weapons in a box, but also don't want third parties getting the sales to fill the gap, GW could just fill the gap themselves - do more sets like these meltaguns, for example, though in plastic rather than resin.
If you're the market leader, act like it - don't throw your toys out of the pram about someone making a little money around the edges of your product.
Given the nature of the newer model kits, a kit of weapons along doesn't really help with requiring conversion work on the customer's part. That's why newer expansion kits, like the various chapter kits, are built to work along side specific kits. You can't just toss out a bunch of melta rifles and expect players to kit-bash Heavy Intercessors into Eradicators.
alextroy wrote: Given the nature of the newer model kits, a kit of weapons along doesn't really help with requiring conversion work on the customer's part. That's why newer expansion kits, like the various chapter kits, are built to work along side specific kits. You can't just toss out a bunch of melta rifles and expect players to kit-bash Heavy Intercessors into Eradicators.
...Why not? GW's perfectly happy to toss an extra sprue in with the Guard and expect people to figure out how to kit-bash Cadians into GSC troopers, or swap weapons between Knight kits, or whatever. Why not carry that concept a few steps further?
because those are old models build in a different way with interchangeable parts in mind
same way as the old Orks were designed to fit the fantasy stuff
GW changed the model design from easy interchangeable parts to more unique builds were bits cannot be used on different models without cutting or Green Stuff
Save for the non ETB primaris. Changing heads, arms or weapons between various intercessors, hellblasters etc seems to be easy. I know people were making extra eliminators out of the 3ETB reavers and a box of regular eliminators that had enough guns to make multiple squads.
If you're the market leader, act like it - don't throw your toys out of the pram about someone making a little money around the edges of your product.
This is how a market leader acts.
Car manufacturers patent special designs of nuts and spanners specifically so that no one can repair their vehicles except them (and those that spend big bucks on their tools).
I can easily see why GW wouldn't want to just release a pack of melta guns to fix this solution.
Why would I buy a pack of Space Marine meltaguns that I'd have to cut and convert to fit my Guard squad, and that probably still won't look quite right, when for the same price I can hope on over to Victoria or Anvil or similar and buy a pack of 'fusion guns' specifically designed to be compatible with my Guard squad, thereby requiring no conversion and giving a better end look anyway.
Additionally, got a newbie entering into the hobby, "you're expected to convert your own stuff" is a big hurdle. Nowadays dads building model tanks with their kids is getting a lot rarer, for a lot of new players the idea of building your own tools is a weird concept. The idea that not only do you have to build them yourself, but you need to buy more parts and convert them yourself will seem like a significant barrier.
I think there is a fairly substantial design between "take two [officially] designed compatible kits and kitbash" that GW approves of, and "taking incompatible bits/kits and cutting/converting them to fit" that they don't approve.
Hence Intercessors get options only present in Primaris Upgrade Kits. But nothing beyond that.
Jidmah wrote: My guess is that their new playtesters were giving feedback about needing more <special weapon> models to test properly, and GW finally realized that even normal people would actually go out of their way to buy three or four boxes (or worse, third party bits) to build those combinations.
What do they gain from this? Less variations to test, less knowledge required to start the game, less people leaving from being frustrated over building their first units in a bad/illegal way.
What do they lose? Nothing. Let's be honest, no matter how pissed everyone is about these dumb, dumb changes, none of use will spend vastly more or less money of 40k because of this.
From GW's perspective it's an all upside change, even if you don't imply malice.
They did lose my money though. I'm not buying from them or ripping apart all my guys for this stupid policy. If I had to get them I'd do such third party anyways now or buy second hand knowing just how much they could screw over my army set ups all over again. What happens if they change this idea next edtion and MSU becomes coin of the realm with multiple like specials ? Everyone who bent over backwards to comply to this or didn't need to do it and was new now is left going. " How do I get the extra weapons ? " Then sitting on extra bodies.
Then where does it end ? Will CSM terminators suffer such a fate ? How about scions ? Mixed weapons on them would suck. Will guard squads lose their heavy weapon choice ? It doesn't come in the box !! You know how many heavy weapon teams I've got that would be worthless unless they make them troop squads on their own again ? Lots and it would suck and those options have been legal for about 2 decades now.
What did this gain them from me ? Anger, surprising I know if you read all before this.
The thing is, GW is a large company and not your FLGS who knows and cares about you in specific. The people who will stop spending money or even quit because of these changes are very, very few. The vast majority will still buy codices and jump onto new releases when the get rolled out, so their losses are effectively none.
Also, since 40k is massively growing right now, a few angered veterans to who this was the last straw probably won't even be noticeable in their numbers. Just look at how many people in this forum spend days and days writing about how passionately they hate all parts of 9th edition, while still posting their newest additions to their collection on other parts of the forum.
Unless one of those changes causes a massive backlash on social media like some of the ork changes did (axed KFF mek and warboss, mek workshop FAQ), there is absolutely zero downside for GW's profits to keep cutting options down to what's in the box. It's also worth noting that many players are fine with these changes since it often hits top loadouts from previous tournament metas, and everyone hates tournament players, right? It's not surprising that everyone complains about plague marines and blightlords, but no one even noticed that the death guard daemon prince was hit with the same change - except for stupid me who built a full metal sword/spitter/wings prince who is illegal now after playing it five times.
This is what the cancer called capitalism looks like up close. The only value of anything is the amount of money it makes. If something doesn't make money but requires money to maintain, it gets taken out in the back and shot.
I never said they'd care about me or anyone else i really doubt they care about anything outside profit or care what happpened to any of us outside of lost money if we all vanished. I'm just saying it sucks and that is what it earned from me. I'm fully sure anything any of us say here won't change anything but where is it written you must be able to make the change to speak about it ? It's a simply a forum and give our opinions is what we do here.
AngryAngel80 wrote: I never said they'd care about me or anyone else i really doubt they care about anything outside profit or care what happpened to any of us outside of lost money if we all vanished. I'm just saying it sucks and that is what it earned from me. I'm fully sure anything any of us say here won't change anything but where is it written you must be able to make the change to speak about it ? It's a simply a forum and give our opinions is what we do here.
I didn't mean to shut your opinion down. I just wanted to explain that the few disgruntled veterans who buy less product very much are perceived as "lose nothing" from GW.
I know because in my company sometimes beloved software features get shut down and despite the outrange among the most dedicated fans, the business is "in the right" from their perspective. They weight the money they are investing in that feature against the users they gain from having the feature and against the users they expect to lose when they shut it down.
The same thing just happened here. Limiting rules to what's in the box saves them effort and increases accessibility (and now players make them the most money after whales), keeping those options allows them to a few occasional boxes to the few people who actually bought four boxes of blightlords to have one of each combi-weapon.
Considering how those people would probably have spend the money on the hobby anyways, and that everyone else was getting bits elsewhere, the reason to actually keep supporting options that are not in the box is pretty much goodwill.
kodos wrote: because those are old models build in a different way with interchangeable parts in mind
same way as the old Orks were designed to fit the fantasy stuff
GW changed the model design from easy interchangeable parts to more unique builds were bits cannot be used on different models without cutting or Green Stuff
This is only actually true some of the time. Plenty of bits in the new kits are designed to be fully-swappable. GW basically has 3 model design philosophies:
2) limited-pose - each model in the box can actually be only built in 1-3 distinct poses with MAYBE 1 hot-swappable component typically heads. Kits like Aberrants is what I'm talking about here, typically this is the more intricate/beefier elite models where they figure at most you'll need a couple of boxes of dudes.
3) hot-swappable arms, heads, and accessories - basically the same as the old-style kits except that they basically always remove the hip rotation as a source of customization to make more varied body poses.
People have a tendency to forget something, though: Almost ALL elite units that ended up as category "2" extremely limited poses used to be true monopose metal/finecrap models precisely because the anticipated sales volume did not justify the creation of a full, multisprue kit.
If you're the market leader, act like it - don't throw your toys out of the pram about someone making a little money around the edges of your product.
This is how a market leader acts.
Car manufacturers patent special designs of nuts and spanners specifically so that no one can repair their vehicles except them (and those that spend big bucks on their tools).
Tell that to all the companies that make parts "compatible with" a given vehicle - car companies were the prime example during the Chapterhouse case of how a sensible company approaches this. No matter how much after-market crap someone buys to stick on their car, they've still had to buy your car in the first place... sound familiar?
And yes, I appreciate that full sculpts are a different kettle of fish.
kirotheavenger wrote: I can easily see why GW wouldn't want to just release a pack of melta guns to fix this solution.
Why would I buy a pack of Space Marine meltaguns that I'd have to cut and convert to fit my Guard squad, and that probably still won't look quite right, when for the same price I can hope on over to Victoria or Anvil or similar and buy a pack of 'fusion guns' specifically designed to be compatible with my Guard squad, thereby requiring no conversion and giving a better end look anyway.
That pack is an example of something that is currently produced. I agree that it wouldn't be the ideal way to produce an IG Meltagun pack (or packs) - but you've got the CAD files for the appropriate arms on a computer somewhere. Copy, paste, and add the appropriate sprue framework around them. Do the same with plasma and sniper rifles, and people can buy a box of Cadians and one of these add-ons (or a command squad, or whatever) and be sorted.
As you're making it convenient for them by having everything under one roof (assuming pricing wasn't too stupid, which may be where this falls down ), it removes the need to go look for 3rd party bits or bits sellers.
kirotheavenger wrote: Additionally, got a newbie entering into the hobby, "you're expected to convert your own stuff" is a big hurdle. Nowadays dads building model tanks with their kids is getting a lot rarer, for a lot of new players the idea of building your own tools is a weird concept. The idea that not only do you have to build them yourself, but you need to buy more parts and convert them yourself will seem like a significant barrier.
I think there is a fairly substantial design between "take two [officially] designed compatible kits and kitbash" that GW approves of, and "taking incompatible bits/kits and cutting/converting them to fit" that they don't approve.
Hence Intercessors get options only present in Primaris Upgrade Kits. But nothing beyond that.
Again, if you make the add-ons in-house - and ideally directly compatible with the kits you're already selling - you're not really converting as such.
I'm still not clear on how we go from 'there are options in the codex beyond what is in the kit, but the kit can be built as instructed and is fully legal' to 'new players are forced to buy four boxes for every unit and convert their models to have a playable force'.
It's only true if the configurations you can build with a single kit are so atrocious that they're unplayable... in which case it sounds like the right solution is to address that in the rules, rather than just lock out all other options.
GW's reaction to "trap options" is simply to remove all the options, rather than actually work towards balance.
I suppose from that perspective, it worked. Now the trap options exist in the form of units, subfactions, stratagems, crusade rules, and all sorts of other places. But at least it's not unit wargear.
I agree, but that's not typically how it's presented to newbies.
"Plasmaguns are the best choice, you want the whole squad with plasmaguns"
"Don't bother with flamers, flamers are terrible, if you're taking that unit you want plasmaguns".
"So buy that box, then buy an upgrade sprue just to get the options you actually want..."
That sort of thing.
It's obviously not a total deterrent and many newbies either don't experience that or ignore it, but it is there.
At the end of the day, GW doesn't want you buying 3rd party bits, because they know that people generally spend the same amount of money on the hobby. So every £10 you spend on 3rd party bits is £10 that doesn't go towards a new GW box.
Limiting codex options is the quickest and easiest way for them to curtail that, whilst also reducing potential hurdles for new comers.
I don't mean to justify it, from our perspective as more dedicated players it's a purely anti-player move. Even from the newbie's perspective it's the laziest way to solve the problem.
About the only party that truly wins from this practice is the shareholders.
Wayniac wrote: They clearly want you to build models for variety rather than pick the best option and spam it
Because, as we all know, nothing says "I'm a serious military force!" like an eclectic collection of mismatched weapons that all perform a different mission set mashed together into a single tactical unit!
It's why an American squad is usually a single jeep, one man with a grenade launcher, one man with a flamethrower, one man with two knives, one man with a big flail, one man with a 9mm and a knife, the sergeant who can choose between an ATGM or a single .45, and like 2 people with the standard issue M4. Though one of them has a scope.
Wayniac wrote: They clearly want you to build models for variety rather than pick the best option and spam it
Because, as we all know, nothing says "I'm a serious military force!" like an eclectic collection of mismatched weapons that all perform a different mission set mashed together into a single tactical unit!
It's why an American squad is usually a single jeep, one man with a grenade launcher, one man with a flamethrower, one man with two knives, one man with a big flail, one man with a 9mm and a knife, the sergeant who can choose between an ATGM or a single .45, and like 2 people with the standard issue M4. Though one of them has a scope.
To be fair, that is often how it gets portrayed in film and tv.
Wayniac wrote: They clearly want you to build models for variety rather than pick the best option and spam it
Because, as we all know, nothing says "I'm a serious military force!" like an eclectic collection of mismatched weapons that all perform a different mission set mashed together into a single tactical unit!
It's why an American squad is usually a single jeep, one man with a grenade launcher, one man with a flamethrower, one man with two knives, one man with a big flail, one man with a 9mm and a knife, the sergeant who can choose between an ATGM or a single .45, and like 2 people with the standard issue M4. Though one of them has a scope.
To be fair, that is often how it gets portrayed in film and tv.
Yeah, TIL that Warhammer armies accurately reflect a futuristic fighting force, rather than a weird anachronistic WW2 style combined arms ground combat army based 100% on movies and TV rather than historical reality.
That's why there's fething officers on the battlefield locking lightsabers with one another instead of hundreds of miles away using communicators.
the_scotsman wrote: Yeah, TIL that Warhammer armies accurately reflect a futuristic fighting force, rather than a weird anachronistic WW2 style combined arms ground combat army based 100% on movies and TV rather than historical reality.
That's why there's fething officers on the battlefield locking lightsabers with one another instead of hundreds of miles away using communicators.
To be fair, they used to be able to actually be pretty "realistic" as far as the setting goes.
You could in fact play an Imperial Guard army organized around a real-life platoon (well, Company), that stuck its CO in the back and let him use a vox to distribute his leadership to his squads without ever coming out of his bunker/command track/whatever.
The fact that 40k is no longer like that is part of the problem, at least for people that cared about that sort of thing.
a_typical_hero wrote: Not sure if your target audience are people who like to be realistic about their military stuff with covers like these for your starter boxes..
Spoiler:
Well, there's a reason I don't play Space Marines. The Imperial Guard and Imperial Armor cover art was usually a good bit more sensible (e.g.
kirotheavenger wrote: I agree, but that's not typically how it's presented to newbies.
"Plasmaguns are the best choice, you want the whole squad with plasmaguns"
"Don't bother with flamers, flamers are terrible, if you're taking that unit you want plasmaguns".
"So buy that box, then buy an upgrade sprue just to get the options you actually want..."
That sort of thing.
It's obviously not a total deterrent and many newbies either don't experience that or ignore it, but it is there.
If only there was another option, like putting enough of the different weapons in the kit that you don't need to look elsewhere to make even a minimum squad with the same loadout.
kirotheavenger wrote: I agree, but that's not typically how it's presented to newbies.
"Plasmaguns are the best choice, you want the whole squad with plasmaguns"
"Don't bother with flamers, flamers are terrible, if you're taking that unit you want plasmaguns".
"So buy that box, then buy an upgrade sprue just to get the options you actually want..."
That sort of thing.
It's obviously not a total deterrent and many newbies either don't experience that or ignore it, but it is there.
If only there was another option, like putting enough of the different weapons in the kit that you don't need to look elsewhere to make even a minimum squad with the same loadout.
Updating kits to reflect the rules is expensive. Updating rules to match the kit is cheap. I wonder why they made the choice they did?
Not to mention they just updated the Cadian Infantry Squad kit to include everything except the Heavy Weapons team. I’ve mostly noticed salt about the increased cost of the kit, not thanks for all the options.
kirotheavenger wrote:"Plasmaguns are the best choice, you want the whole squad with plasmaguns"
"Don't bother with flamers, flamers are terrible, if you're taking that unit you want plasmaguns".
"So buy that box, then buy an upgrade sprue just to get the options you actually want..."
That sort of thing.
I totally get that, I've certainly done it myself.
What I'm saying is just that you would think this would prompt the designers to look at how the game functions and think about what needs to be done to make the optimal unit composition more closely align with what the model/fluff unit composition suggests.
Just nuking all those options certainly is a solution, but it's not the only solution.
Unit1126PLL wrote:Because, as we all know, nothing says "I'm a serious military force!" like an eclectic collection of mismatched weapons that all perform a different mission set mashed together into a single tactical unit!
It's why an American squad is usually a single jeep, one man with a grenade launcher, one man with a flamethrower, one man with two knives, one man with a big flail, one man with a 9mm and a knife, the sergeant who can choose between an ATGM or a single .45, and like 2 people with the standard issue M4. Though one of them has a scope.
I mean... tying in with the above, if you look at an actual US Army infantry squad, only two out of the nine guys are basic riflemen, and the squad has a mix of SAWs, grenadiers, and both magnified and non-magnified optics on their M4s.
But there are practical real-world reasons for such a composition, which 40K doesn't do a good job of replicating. The disparate weapon types come together to function greater than the sum of their parts. In 40K, such a setup is strictly less optimal than spamming just SAWs or just grenade launchers and making sure everyone has the same optic (rifle type).
Wayniac wrote: They clearly want you to build models for variety rather than pick the best option and spam it
Which is more varied, 3 Skitarii squads with one of each different gun upgrade, or 3 squads with that each have 3 of one of the choices?
Yes, both are less varied than 3 squads all with 3 of the same gun and some folks would/will/did run them that way.
A lot of the units hit with this have been Troops, which you would usually buy more than one box of anyways. Whereas you might only want one unit of Scourges but that unit escaped "attention". If everyone actually is on the same page and this is all "intended", its still seems really half assed.
catbarf wrote: I mean... tying in with the above, if you look at an actual US Army infantry squad, only two out of the nine guys are basic riflemen, and the squad has a mix of SAWs, grenadiers, and both magnified and non-magnified optics on their M4s.
But there are practical real-world reasons for such a composition, which 40K doesn't do a good job of replicating. The disparate weapon types come together to function greater than the sum of their parts. In 40K, such a setup is strictly less optimal than spamming just SAWs or just grenade launchers and making sure everyone has the same optic (rifle type).
At the scale of 40k, this is a 9 man squad with 4 special weapons - 2 Grenade Launchers and 2 Stubbers (for example; however you want to count the SAWs). It's not a hodgepodge mix, but rather two separate teams with exactly the same gear between them and a single squad leader. If the Plague Marines entry looked like this, it'd be much more sensible.
Unit1126PLL wrote: At the scale of 40k, this is a 9 man squad with 4 special weapons - 2 Grenade Launchers and 2 Stubbers (for example; however you want to count the SAWs). It's not a hodgepodge mix, but rather two separate teams with exactly the same gear between them and a single squad leader. If the Plague Marines entry looked like this, it'd be much more sensible.
I guess I'm just saying that 40K has always had a problem with giving you a reason to take 2 GLs and 2 Stubbers if you have the option to take 4 of one or the other. They have to put these heavy restrictions in because the game mechanics don't implicitly give you reasons to mix- and when taking a mix is almost always worse than spamming one type, you get these feels-bad situations where you're incentivized to hoard bits or buy multiple kits to get the 'right' setup.
If taking the mix of weapons that comes in the box were tactically viable, then it would be fine to have duplicate weapons be an option that isn't in the box.
Unit1126PLL wrote: At the scale of 40k, this is a 9 man squad with 4 special weapons - 2 Grenade Launchers and 2 Stubbers (for example; however you want to count the SAWs). It's not a hodgepodge mix, but rather two separate teams with exactly the same gear between them and a single squad leader. If the Plague Marines entry looked like this, it'd be much more sensible.
I guess I'm just saying that 40K has always had a problem with giving you a reason to take 2 GLs and 2 Stubbers if you have the option to take 4 of one or the other. They have to put these heavy restrictions in because the game mechanics don't implicitly give you reasons to mix- and when taking a mix is almost always worse than spamming one type, you get these feels-bad situations where you're incentivized to hoard bits or buy multiple kits to get the 'right' setup.
If taking the mix of weapons that comes in the box were tactically viable, then it would be fine to have duplicate weapons be an option that isn't in the box.
Oh, yes. I see your point. Other games do actually do this much better, but they typically have more ways for units to interact with the game than just murder.
F.E. Suppressive fire necessitates an MG but has good utility. The need to fire flares (f.e. to illuminate things in a night-fight) or project grenades (f.e. smoke grenades) further than they can be thrown makes the launcher useful - but I don't need to list these for you.
Easiest thing to do is just continue using the "illegal" loadouts & play with people who don't care. I understand that it may not be viable for some players(tourney and tourney adjacent), but as long as you continue to support GW by giving them $€£¥, they have ZERO incentive to change.
If you stop giving GW your money it doesn't matter either because the number of new players that will seems to be only growing. Just look at last year. GW had huge sales, and that is with production and supply problems.
Racerguy180 wrote: Easiest thing to do is just continue using the "illegal" loadouts & play with people who don't care.
if you have a group that does not care, you can go that far and just use the models for a different game, as the loadout not matching the rules won't be a problem
I feel the need to re-post this from the 'State of 40k' thread. It was about how GW minis have gone from multi-part, multi-post, multi-option kits to what we have today, but it applies equally to the weapon options within said kits:
H.B.M.C. wrote: When I first pointed it out the usual suspects said I was wrong, I was crazy, and that nothing had changed. Then when it became too obvious to ignore "You're wrong!" became "So what?" with all the usual excuses (ie. "They're not that posable now, so it's not that big a difference!"). Then it moved onto "We like it because they're dynamic!" or "The old ones were bad anyway!". At the moment it's "No options and nonposable is actually better for everyone/the game/etc.!".
Pretty soon the next step is "You should be thankful there are even options at all!".
Judging by this thread, we're still at the "actually better for the game" stage.
I am entirely, 100% confident it's an attempt to kill off the third party market for bitz and 3d printed parts.
It certainly isn't there to make things simpler - just look at Plague Marines. I've been playing them for years and that thing still makes me scratch my head, as well as making coherency and model removal much more irritating to work out as they all have different things.
I get they may want to make it so you can make the best squad you can straight from the box - but they did it via adding a complexity in an edition already quite complex - especially for brand new players.
I don't think anyone's actually arguing it's better for the game.
People have just been explaining why GW did it, which is that it's easy for GW to do and better for new players.
Obviously we're all agreed it's far from the optimum solution and isn't better for us established folk.
kirotheavenger wrote: I agree, but that's not typically how it's presented to newbies.
"Plasmaguns are the best choice, you want the whole squad with plasmaguns"
"Don't bother with flamers, flamers are terrible, if you're taking that unit you want plasmaguns".
"So buy that box, then buy an upgrade sprue just to get the options you actually want..."
That sort of thing.
It's obviously not a total deterrent and many newbies either don't experience that or ignore it, but it is there.
If only there was another option, like putting enough of the different weapons in the kit that you don't need to look elsewhere to make even a minimum squad with the same loadout.
Updating kits to reflect the rules is expensive. Updating rules to match the kit is cheap. I wonder why they made the choice they did?
Not to mention they just updated the Cadian Infantry Squad kit to include everything except the Heavy Weapons team. I’ve mostly noticed salt about the increased cost of the kit, not thanks for all the options.
?? Of course, thank you GW for charging us 11 more dollars for the same squad that has only gone up in cost for its entire long life so far. You are correct we should be kissing their booty for the gift of being able to pay more and still perhaps losing access to the heavies in our troop squads. What amazing charitable folks they are. The gift of being ripped off, how could I not have seen it already ? So yeah, I don't thank them for the options as they didn't give it as a gift you are paying plenty for it and it means little to nothing to a vet player of guard as you can't even buy the upgrades sprues on their own. Thanks GW, real class act there. For the cost of the cadian infantry squad they might as well have just made a new kit you'd be paying about the same.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
H.B.M.C. wrote: I feel the need to re-post this from the 'State of 40k' thread. It was about how GW minis have gone from multi-part, multi-post, multi-option kits to what we have today, but it applies equally to the weapon options within said kits:
H.B.M.C. wrote: When I first pointed it out the usual suspects said I was wrong, I was crazy, and that nothing had changed. Then when it became too obvious to ignore "You're wrong!" became "So what?" with all the usual excuses (ie. "They're not that posable now, so it's not that big a difference!"). Then it moved onto "We like it because they're dynamic!" or "The old ones were bad anyway!". At the moment it's "No options and nonposable is actually better for everyone/the game/etc.!".
Pretty soon the next step is "You should be thankful there are even options at all!".
Judging by this thread, we're still at the "actually better for the game" stage.
My first quoted post above yours is already on the " You should be grateful for any options plebs" camp. So there you go, some of us have reached that point already and it'll only grow I bet ya.
I'm waiting for " It's so much easier on new players as they don't need to think for even one second about unit options, way more beginner friendly, GW is genius, brilliant ! Options are lame, only shameful old grognards like choices. I for one welcome are new no option overlords.
It's beneficial to beginners because they'll never get told that their Plague Marine box wasn't good enough, and they now need to buy or convert (presumably after buying bits as well).
Clearly GW thinks that that's a bigger hurdle than slightly convoluted wording. Which I'd tend to agree with, you can just build your models according to the instructions and need'nt bother even attempting to navigate the options because you'll assemble the kit in a legal loadout.
a_typical_hero wrote: Not sure if your target audience are people who like to be realistic about their military stuff with covers like these for your starter boxes..
Spoiler:
The combi-bolter is a double flamer with no bolter on the 3rd edition box. Never realized that until now.
It's only true if the configurations you can build with a single kit are so atrocious that they're unplayable... in which case it sounds like the right solution is to address that in the rules, rather than just lock out all other options.
Well, they've had only 9 editions to work out balance between those weapons and so far it is not going well.
kirotheavenger wrote: It's beneficial to beginners because they'll never get told that their Plague Marine box wasn't good enough, and they now need to buy or convert (presumably after buying bits as well).
Clearly GW thinks that that's a bigger hurdle than slightly convoluted wording. Which I'd tend to agree with, you can just build your models according to the instructions and need'nt bother even attempting to navigate the options because you'll assemble the kit in a legal loadout.
Except I'd say the one box of plague marines still isn't really good enough when for just 3 more marines you can get so much more bang for your buck, forcing the buy of two boxes anyways just to have one full squad and 4 extra dead weight. Way more beginner friendly, thanks GW help me buy 2 troop boxes for one potent squad and some wasted bodies, amazing, wonderful, fantastic and totally pro new player move, power move on their part.
From what I understand new DG players are being told to never buy Plague Marines, just buy the artilery, 3 boxs of termintors and poxwalkers, anda bunch of characters. Actual PM in a DG army are rather rare. Plus the number of errors a new player can do with how the unit is build out of the box, specially the ETB one, makes them not want to deal with the problem at all.
The point is that they want mixed units, then they should make having mixed units desirable in the game rules.
But the weird thing is, with some factions they want mixed units, but with others (Primaris) they've moved from mixed units to mono-weapon units. So it seems like as usual there is no overall design intent behind any of this, just good old fashioned GW unprofessionalism and incompetence.
Da Boss wrote: But the weird thing is, with some factions they want mixed units, but with others (Primaris) they've moved from mixed units to mono-weapon units. So it seems like as usual there is no overall design intent behind any of this, just good old fashioned GW unprofessionalism and incompetence.
What if the design intent is for Primaris to have mono weapon squads and for other armies to function differently? Wouldn't that be an overall design intent? I wouldn't throw insults around so freely if all you go by is guesswork.
Faction balance is much more nuanced than a reductive "you got mono weapon squads, so you are stronger".
Marines have a lower win rate than Death Guard for example, despite tournament Marines making great use of (more flexible) Firstborn.
And just a quick reminder that Eradicator spam is nowhere to be seen winning anything.
Try again to spin a narrative where you can gak on GW.
Because, as we all know, nothing says "I'm a serious military force!" like an eclectic collection of mismatched weapons that all perform a different mission set mashed together into a single tactical unit!
It's why an American squad is usually a single jeep, one man with a grenade launcher, one man with a flamethrower, one man with two knives, one man with a big flail, one man with a 9mm and a knife, the sergeant who can choose between an ATGM or a single .45, and like 2 people with the standard issue M4. Though one of them has a scope.
Currently with our small specialist armies squads look quite different to the WW2 mass squads. Case in point
WW2 British section (squad was a looser term) - 3 sections per platoon
10 men, but 2 were reserve and 8 patrolled.
Corporal Submachine gun and wire cutters
Lance Corporal Lee-Enfield rifle and sometimes machete
1 Bren light machine gun
Assistant gunner with Lee-Enfield rifle, spare barrel and the bulk of the magazines (everyone else carried 2 for the gun)
4 Lee-Enfield riflemen
PIAT anti-tank weapons were allocated to squads from the company level as required
Modern British section
2 4 man fireteams each carrying
1 × L85A2 rifle
1 × L85A2 with Under-slung Grenade Launcher
1 × Minimi light machine gun
1 × L129A1 DMR (sharpshooter rifle)
1 × 84mm Antitank Weapon
1 × Light Anti Structure Munition
4 × White Phosphorus smoke grenades
8 × high explosive grenades
4 × smoke grenades
If patrolling as a section will sometimes leave the second minimi and sharpshooter rifle behind and take 2 rifles carrying more ammo for the single minimi.
Karol wrote: From what I understand new DG players are being told to never buy Plague Marines...
"Don't buy the most iconic unit of your faction, artwork of which has likely drawn you to this army in the first place."
Garbage advice from a toxic "community" and best be ignored.
Eh, there were times where this actual was good advice. But today? Plague marines aren't the top competitive choice for troops, but you can totally make them work and even work well outside of hyper-competitive games.
Heck, I even get away with running squads of 7 all the time without a major impact on my army's performance.
Because, as we all know, nothing says "I'm a serious military force!" like an eclectic collection of mismatched weapons that all perform a different mission set mashed together into a single tactical unit!
It's why an American squad is usually a single jeep, one man with a grenade launcher, one man with a flamethrower, one man with two knives, one man with a big flail, one man with a 9mm and a knife, the sergeant who can choose between an ATGM or a single .45, and like 2 people with the standard issue M4. Though one of them has a scope.
Currently with our small specialist armies squads look quite different to the WW2 mass squads. Case in point
WW2 British section (squad was a looser term) - 3 sections per platoon 10 men, but 2 were reserve and 8 patrolled. Corporal Submachine gun and wire cutters Lance Corporal Lee-Enfield rifle and sometimes machete 1 Bren light machine gun Assistant gunner with Lee-Enfield rifle, spare barrel and the bulk of the magazines (everyone else carried 2 for the gun) 4 Lee-Enfield riflemen PIAT anti-tank weapons were allocated to squads from the company level as required
Modern British section 2 4 man fireteams each carrying 1 × L85A2 rifle 1 × L85A2 with Under-slung Grenade Launcher 1 × Minimi light machine gun 1 × L129A1 DMR (sharpshooter rifle) 1 × 84mm Antitank Weapon 1 × Light Anti Structure Munition 4 × White Phosphorus smoke grenades 8 × high explosive grenades 4 × smoke grenades
If patrolling as a section will sometimes leave the second minimi and sharpshooter rifle behind and take 2 rifles carrying more ammo for the single minimi.
At the 40k scale, that's 4 men "Combat Squad" (team) 2 bolter (one modeled with scope) 1 combi-weapon (bolter with underslung special thing) 1 special weapon 1 Missile Launcher with frag and krak (probably on one of the bolter guys, not sure who carries this in your example; in 40k it's the 5th man in the tactical squad) ... so basically a tactical squad, except you give the Missile Launcher to one of the 4 other guys rather than making him a guy by himself. That really isn't all that unreasonable.
Now, if 40k modeled things like different grenade types, or designated marksmen within squads, you'd have a point.
Da Boss wrote: The point is that they want mixed units, then they should make having mixed units desirable in the game rules.
But the weird thing is, with some factions they want mixed units, but with others (Primaris) they've moved from mixed units to mono-weapon units. So it seems like as usual there is no overall design intent behind any of this, just good old fashioned GW unprofessionalism and incompetence.
Let me see…
Uniformly armed squads of the newest poster boy of the stagnant and orderly Imperium.
Every man with his own unique weapon options for Chaos.
IDK, cynical reasons aside, when I first got into the game I was pretty put off by the tendency to need to buy 30 models to make the 5 man squad I wanted, and competitively for my army to require me to take that same 5 man squad as many times as possible. It feels far more doable these days to make a viable army from the kits sold by the company designing them. That seems like an improvement to me.
Da Boss wrote: The point is that they want mixed units, then they should make having mixed units desirable in the game rules.
But the weird thing is, with some factions they want mixed units, but with others (Primaris) they've moved from mixed units to mono-weapon units. So it seems like as usual there is no overall design intent behind any of this, just good old fashioned GW unprofessionalism and incompetence.
Let me see…
Uniformly armed squads of the newest poster boy of the stagnant and orderly Imperium.
Every man with his own unique weapon options for Chaos.
There can’t possible be any design theory here
Only disagreement is you put "weapon options" there, instead of just "weapon".
Y'know, because there's no option - it's just either "weapon" or "default weapon"
It strikes me as odd that if you build plague marines out of the DG codex you have different options than if you build them from the CSM codex. I wonder how the game designers are going to reconcile that situation.
Uniformly armed squads of the newest poster boy of the stagnant and orderly Imperium.
Every man with his own unique weapon options for Chaos.
There can’t possible be any design theory here
Where do the Skitarii fit into that?
Regarding real world loadouts, each army is going to try to use what they've got the best way they can, and it can vary quite a bit. WWII Americans had extra BAR, Thompson and Bazookas assigned to a company, so theres one instance where the historical GW loadouts would make sense. Private Smith and Private Johnson are given Bazookas as their squad is tasked with destroying the enemy bunker. WWII Soviets fielded entire platoons with SMG instead of a rifle, and different numbers of LMG in both the rifle and SMG squads. In fairness, that seems more of a WWII "lets do this until we can give the whole platoon assault rifles" thing.
More modern US platoons have a "Devastator" squad with 2 MGs and 2 missile launchers. Are they Heavy Support even though they are in an infantry platoon, or Troops?
alextroy wrote: Easy. They will port over the weapon options from Codex Death Guard whenever they get around to publishing Codex Chaos Space Marines.
Yeah this. They probably didn't want to errata just the one entry to create an odd situation where plague marines have two wounds, while chosen with the mark of nurgle don't.
Because, as we all know, nothing says "I'm a serious military force!" like an eclectic collection of mismatched weapons that all perform a different mission set mashed together into a single tactical unit!
It's why an American squad is usually a single jeep, one man with a grenade launcher, one man with a flamethrower, one man with two knives, one man with a big flail, one man with a 9mm and a knife, the sergeant who can choose between an ATGM or a single .45, and like 2 people with the standard issue M4. Though one of them has a scope.
Currently with our small specialist armies squads look quite different to the WW2 mass squads. Case in point
WW2 British section (squad was a looser term) - 3 sections per platoon
10 men, but 2 were reserve and 8 patrolled.
Corporal Submachine gun and wire cutters
Lance Corporal Lee-Enfield rifle and sometimes machete
1 Bren light machine gun
Assistant gunner with Lee-Enfield rifle, spare barrel and the bulk of the magazines (everyone else carried 2 for the gun)
4 Lee-Enfield riflemen
PIAT anti-tank weapons were allocated to squads from the company level as required
Modern British section
2 4 man fireteams each carrying
1 × L85A2 rifle
1 × L85A2 with Under-slung Grenade Launcher
1 × Minimi light machine gun
1 × L129A1 DMR (sharpshooter rifle)
1 × 84mm Antitank Weapon
1 × Light Anti Structure Munition
4 × White Phosphorus smoke grenades
8 × high explosive grenades
4 × smoke grenades
If patrolling as a section will sometimes leave the second minimi and sharpshooter rifle behind and take 2 rifles carrying more ammo for the single minimi.
At the 40k scale, that's
4 men "Combat Squad" (team)
2 bolter (one modeled with scope)
1 combi-weapon (bolter with underslung special thing)
1 special weapon
1 Missile Launcher with frag and krak (probably on one of the bolter guys, not sure who carries this in your example; in 40k it's the 5th man in the tactical squad)
...
so basically a tactical squad, except you give the Missile Launcher to one of the 4 other guys rather than making him a guy by himself. That really isn't all that unreasonable.
Now, if 40k modeled things like different grenade types, or designated marksmen within squads, you'd have a point.
Not quite - I would say that is an imperial guard (or other squad) of 8 men carrying
2 lasguns and demolition charge
2 Sniper Rifles
2 Heavy stubbers
2 grenade launchers/combi weapons and one shot rocket launcher
Everyone has frag and smoke grenades.
4 different load outs, 2 of each. If you wanted to take it to 10 men maybe include a two man GPMG, essentially a heavier stubber but here we can call it a heavy bolter.
Compare to 40k, pistol/rifle, 8 lasguns, 1 special weapon and 1 heavy weapon.
Say
1x Bolter/pistol (and most players want him to have a lasgun)
8 x Lasgun
1 x Sniper Rilfe
1 x Heavy Bolter
I think real life still has more variety than most of 40Ks troop choices currently.
And to add to that thought. I doubt any of the GW designers have any real military experience. I can't say that none of them do but I'd be surprised if one did.
Galas wrote: Why are you comparing modern military squad weapon distribution to an universe that isn't based in that?
You can look at Infinity if you want something similar to those weapon options in your dudes.
40K has no semblance to contemporary military tactics in any of their factions, not even the more professional ones like tau or stormtroopers.
Gates of Antares is probably a better option for putting a bit more realism in your sci-fi, given that it's in the same scale as 40k and built by ex-40k designers. If you go into Infinity expecting something resembling contemporary military tactics the ninjas with vampiric health regen that hack your IFF so you can't shoot them wandering into your lines and eating everyone are going to come as a bit of a shock.
Because, as we all know, nothing says "I'm a serious military force!" like an eclectic collection of mismatched weapons that all perform a different mission set mashed together into a single tactical unit!
It's why an American squad is usually a single jeep, one man with a grenade launcher, one man with a flamethrower, one man with two knives, one man with a big flail, one man with a 9mm and a knife, the sergeant who can choose between an ATGM or a single .45, and like 2 people with the standard issue M4. Though one of them has a scope.
Currently with our small specialist armies squads look quite different to the WW2 mass squads. Case in point
WW2 British section (squad was a looser term) - 3 sections per platoon
10 men, but 2 were reserve and 8 patrolled.
Corporal Submachine gun and wire cutters
Lance Corporal Lee-Enfield rifle and sometimes machete
1 Bren light machine gun
Assistant gunner with Lee-Enfield rifle, spare barrel and the bulk of the magazines (everyone else carried 2 for the gun)
4 Lee-Enfield riflemen
PIAT anti-tank weapons were allocated to squads from the company level as required
Modern British section
2 4 man fireteams each carrying
1 × L85A2 rifle
1 × L85A2 with Under-slung Grenade Launcher
1 × Minimi light machine gun
1 × L129A1 DMR (sharpshooter rifle)
1 × 84mm Antitank Weapon
1 × Light Anti Structure Munition
4 × White Phosphorus smoke grenades
8 × high explosive grenades
4 × smoke grenades
If patrolling as a section will sometimes leave the second minimi and sharpshooter rifle behind and take 2 rifles carrying more ammo for the single minimi.
At the 40k scale, that's
4 men "Combat Squad" (team)
2 bolter (one modeled with scope)
1 combi-weapon (bolter with underslung special thing)
1 special weapon
1 Missile Launcher with frag and krak (probably on one of the bolter guys, not sure who carries this in your example; in 40k it's the 5th man in the tactical squad)
...
so basically a tactical squad, except you give the Missile Launcher to one of the 4 other guys rather than making him a guy by himself. That really isn't all that unreasonable.
Now, if 40k modeled things like different grenade types, or designated marksmen within squads, you'd have a point.
Not quite - I would say that is an imperial guard (or other squad) of 8 men carrying
2 lasguns and demolition charge
2 Sniper Rifles
2 Heavy stubbers
2 grenade launchers/combi weapons and one shot rocket launcher
Everyone has frag and smoke grenades.
4 different load outs, 2 of each. If you wanted to take it to 10 men maybe include a two man GPMG, essentially a heavier stubber but here we can call it a heavy bolter.
Compare to 40k, pistol/rifle, 8 lasguns, 1 special weapon and 1 heavy weapon.
Say
1x Bolter/pistol (and most players want him to have a lasgun)
8 x Lasgun
1 x Sniper Rilfe
1 x Heavy Bolter
I think real life still has more variety than most of 40Ks troop choices currently.
The Imperial Guard has long had more in common with WWI than modern military combat. That's why everyone has the same gun, they stick in big groups, and are ready for the First Rank Fire, Second Rank Fire order
Imperial Guard are more an amalgamation of 19th and 20th century militaries than any one specific war, depending on regiment.
I'd say the Cadians are definitely more WW2 though.
Also depends on the author or story. Some like to go all in on the Zapp Brannigan 'clog their guns with our corpses' take, others play it a lot more smart/tactical.
In the Lore the Guard take calls from all walks of life because they come from millions of worlds over the whole Imperium.
Some are dumb as ditchwater and little more than cannon fodder; some use archaic tactics and armours; some use cutting edge materials with outdated tactics. Some use cutting edge tactics coupled with poor equipment. Some get it all. Some are clones, some are almost like nobility and some as rough as sandpaper
They vary a lot and whilst there are common themes, there's a huge scope for authors to make their Guard their own in their story, even if they are from an already established world with some set styles of attitude and equipment.
Cadians I would say are very WW1-2 which is the backbone of the visuals we get from the Guard.
), it removes the need to go look for 3rd party bits or bits sellers.
