Switch Theme:

Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit  [RSS] 

Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/16 06:09:21


Post by: Hecaton


I'm thinking particularly in terms of the plague marines weapon entry, or the restriction in Skitarii squads to only having one of each special weapon. It's just... un-fun, at least to me.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/16 06:19:33


Post by: Kommisar


No it’s dumb and one of the changes that has me quickly losing interest in 40k. rip my 25 fusion pistol troupes


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/16 06:20:04


Post by: ph34r


There's no way anyone finds them fun. I sure as hell don't.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/16 06:43:14


Post by: Sgt. Cortez


It's one of the main parts driving me away from 40K at the moment, despite finding the base rules better than ever.
But I open up a single page from Grimdark Future and there's more inspiration to build my models than there is in the 42€ book GW sells me.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/16 08:19:37


Post by: MaleficentRuler


Its well liked by the newer and younger players in my area, more than one commented that its how they play anyway as they don't have the cash or time for anything different. Certainly in my area GW is pushing the Scouting/School crowd as a way to get more newer younger players.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/16 08:37:21


Post by: Blackie


No one sane really liked it, but many players (the pick up games crowd) accept it in the sake of a more standardized game.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/16 09:06:18


Post by: Not Online!!!


MaleficentRuler wrote:
Its well liked by the newer and younger players in my area, more than one commented that its how they play anyway as they don't have the cash or time for anything different. Certainly in my area GW is pushing the Scouting/School crowd as a way to get more newer younger players.


Which tbf, would be a non issue for monetary reasons if some kits (basically all outside of SC / Combat patrol type deals) were not horrendusly overpriced and or bad content wise (csm sprue comes to mind as a newish exemple of really lackluster contents).


Ultimativly, the "hobby" side of things, including building, converting, kitbashing, painting has through those changes lost atleast in the 3 first categories whilest painting has remained the same, except maybee improved for the new hobbiest with speed paints and contrast paints.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/16 09:14:17


Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik


There is an argument kit restrictions benefit those who can’t afford to, or don’t way to pay for, extra stuff to chase specific bits and bobs.

However. In certain circumstances (Skitarii spring immediately to mind) longer term players can no longer run their squads with three of the same special weapon. That’s arbitrarily removed player options, as there’s now no way to specialise your squads. And in that specific instance, especially where you’d probably want at least 3, 10 head count units of Skitarii, rendering the “only one of a weapon per kit” largely moot.

It’s also going to depend on how well those weapons synergise. To stick with Skitarii? The Arqeubus in particular doesn’t play nicely with Vanguard. Like. At all. They’re otherwise short ranged and high rate of fire, the Arquebus is the exact opposite, so why would you ever take one in such a squad? Granted you don’t ever need to max out a squad’s load - but it’s still a choice largely made for the player, which I’m not especially keen on.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/16 09:26:19


Post by: H.B.M.C.


No.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/16 09:39:43


Post by: Grimtuff


Gimme a...



Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/16 09:44:46


Post by: Tyel


Not really sure what is meant by fun.

I don't like the pay 2 win aspect of "the best legal loadout" not being in the box. So you will have people 3d printing these extras, or scrounging bitz boxes, or just saying "screw WYSIWYG anyway, these flamers are plasma guns in my heart."

Admittedly though you can say this is a bit stupid with certain units. The Skitarii mentioned are a good example. Yes, there's only one plasma caliver and one arc rifle in the box, so logically I can only have one of each. But its not too much of a hardship for me to buy 2 boxes. Indeed I'll basically have to if I want to round our some detachments. (And just wait until next edition when the minimum size of a Skitarii squad almost invariably goes up to 10 - people will be so mad).

So... from my 2 boxes. Its not that difficult to have 2 guys with plasma calivers and put them in one unit. While the other maybe has 2 arc rifles - or arquebuses or nothing at all.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/16 09:44:49


Post by: brushcommando


I personally don't like the kit restrictions. I haven't actually played since 8th, but I remember them heavily pushing the "three ways to play" with power level and the more granular points. Seems like tying the kit restrictions to the power level version of play would restrict the min-max abuse that allows while you could leave the options in for the more granular points?


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/16 10:10:58


Post by: Crispy78


 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

However. In certain circumstances (Skitarii spring immediately to mind) longer term players can no longer run their squads with three of the same special weapon. That’s arbitrarily removed player options, as there’s now no way to specialise your squads.


Yeah that's a bummer. I built my DE Wyches with 2 x Hydra Gauntlets, which now isn't a valid loadout. My CSM Terminators have 2 guys equipped with Lightning Claws, which is sounding like it won't be legal in the new codex. And I'm vaguely concerned about my Raptors too, as I have 2 x Meltaguns on them and I'm pretty sure the box only came with 1.

I don't really want to have to butcher any of the few models I have actually completed painting, nor do I especially want to re-buy (and worse, re-paint) the same thing again, to have a legal loadout.

I'm sure the guy I play with would be happy enough for me to proxy, or even run with an illegal loadout to be honest, but I'm not really happy about it myself.

I think GW basically heard the problem - "you can't build all the valid squad loadouts with what comes in the box" and fixed it the wrong way round, by removing options from the rules instead of being more generous with their boxes. I guess the former was always the more likely way they would go, but still rankles.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/16 10:44:21


Post by: Dysartes


MaleficentRuler wrote:
Its well liked by the newer and younger players in my area, more than one commented that its how they play anyway as they don't have the cash or time for anything different. Certainly in my area GW is pushing the Scouting/School crowd as a way to get more newer younger players.

Question - what was stopping them fielding units equipped like that before these restrictions were introduced?


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/16 10:51:47


Post by: Karol


They have not been playing in those times by virtue of being new players. A lot of people that play for a longer time overestimate the whole it was better or worse in prior editions thing. New players don't care about that, because they never played in those. To them the only state they know, is the state they have right now.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/16 10:53:42


Post by: blood reaper


IMO kit restrictions are the single worst change Games Workshop has ever made to the game. Like, GW has made many, many, many terrible additions or changes (fliers, the over-abundance of high armour piercing weapons, the complexity of objectives, psychic powers being random, etc.), but kit restrictions take the cake.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/16 12:35:24


Post by: Rihgu


Yup. One of my first boxes was a 5th edition era tactical marine box. IIRC it came with a plasma gun, a flamer, a melta gun(could be wrong on this?) and a missile launcher.

Turns out, I could only use two of those, and one of them had to be the missile launcher. Very unfun to learn, but luckily I hadn't learned about plastic glue yet so was easy to fix.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/16 12:43:37


Post by: BertBert


No. The goal should always be to deliver as many options as is feasible, both in terms of assembly and rules.

There is no reason to not have enough weapon bits in a Havoc sprue to equip them uniformly.

There is also no reason to allow 1 Plasma Gun + 1 Melta in an infantry squad and disallow 2 Plasma Guns or 2 Meltas at the same time.



Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/16 12:47:37


Post by: Gert


"Does anyone like getting punched in the face?"


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/16 12:57:13


Post by: blood reaper


 Gert wrote:
"Does anyone like getting punched in the face?"


Have you met GW fans? Put a price tag on that and they'd be queuing around the block for it! We wouldn't have any Whales left because they'd have been beaten to death by this point.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/16 13:25:32


Post by: Overread


 Dysartes wrote:
MaleficentRuler wrote:
Its well liked by the newer and younger players in my area, more than one commented that its how they play anyway as they don't have the cash or time for anything different. Certainly in my area GW is pushing the Scouting/School crowd as a way to get more newer younger players.

Question - what was stopping them fielding units equipped like that before these restrictions were introduced?


Nothing stopped them, but chances are there were combos which were simply way more powerful/efficient if you had multiple boxes and spare parts.

On the one hand I'd don't like the loss of weapons. I dislike the loss of things like Hive Tyrants with twin-linked devourers or having the option to have one flying around with two pairs of them.

On the other I respect that making the game more about what comes in the box means that it is fair to those who don't have easy access to spare parts, 3rd parties or converting. Heck I recall at the height of the days before the Chapterhouse Lawsuit GW was adding models to armies (esp leaders) which never got a mode. Tyranids only just got one of those the other week. That's YEARS of waiting for a model that appeared so long ago its probably coming up to being old enough to vote.


I think the game is more fair and more fun when what you get in the box is what you can put on the table and when GW sells you all of the product line. One of the biggest downsides, to me, with Infinity (for example) is that you don't get everything. Sure the community is very open to proxies, but you have loads of weapon options which are never modelled; and range rotation exists there too. It's less fun when models can only be found second hand or with converting.


My hope is that these limits can be reversed over time. That GW can update newer kits with more options, at the very least in terms of weapons and kit, even if the poses aren't as variable/poseable (though I accept that modern GW platsics come with VASTLY more dynamic poses than they ever used too).




It's a win some lose some situation.
My hope is that over time we win some of these options back with kit updates.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/16 13:27:17


Post by: VladimirHerzog


I just disregard these restriction. I still use plasma BlightLords or double Plasma 5-man Skitarii.

I will still use Lords/Sorcerers with jump pack if they really get removed
I will still use all plasma Chaos Termis once they get removed.

I pay for the points anyway.

And having 10 different weapons in a squad just slows the game soooo much more.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/16 13:40:57


Post by: blood reaper


 Overread wrote:
 Dysartes wrote:
MaleficentRuler wrote:
Its well liked by the newer and younger players in my area, more than one commented that its how they play anyway as they don't have the cash or time for anything different. Certainly in my area GW is pushing the Scouting/School crowd as a way to get more newer younger players.

Question - what was stopping them fielding units equipped like that before these restrictions were introduced?



On the other I respect that making the game more about what comes in the box means that it is fair to those who don't have easy access to spare parts, 3rd parties or converting. Heck I recall at the height of the days before the Chapterhouse Lawsuit GW was adding models to armies (esp leaders) which never got a mode. Tyranids only just got one of those the other week. That's YEARS of waiting for a model that appeared so long ago its probably coming up to being old enough to vote.



People need to learn how to convert and scratch build more.

(You almost certainly aren't getting those options back btw - sorry no refunds).


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/16 13:54:14


Post by: Gert


 blood reaper wrote:
People need to learn how to convert and scratch build more.

(You almost certainly aren't getting those options back btw - sorry no refunds).

People don't "need" to learn anything. It's an optional part of the hobby that not everyone has the eye for. Some people are excellent painters but aren't good at conversions, some are basically Big Meks that can make a functional model out of sprues.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/16 13:54:18


Post by: Overread


 blood reaper wrote:
 Overread wrote:
 Dysartes wrote:
MaleficentRuler wrote:
Its well liked by the newer and younger players in my area, more than one commented that its how they play anyway as they don't have the cash or time for anything different. Certainly in my area GW is pushing the Scouting/School crowd as a way to get more newer younger players.

Question - what was stopping them fielding units equipped like that before these restrictions were introduced?



On the other I respect that making the game more about what comes in the box means that it is fair to those who don't have easy access to spare parts, 3rd parties or converting. Heck I recall at the height of the days before the Chapterhouse Lawsuit GW was adding models to armies (esp leaders) which never got a mode. Tyranids only just got one of those the other week. That's YEARS of waiting for a model that appeared so long ago its probably coming up to being old enough to vote.



People need to learn how to convert and scratch build more.

(You almost certainly aren't getting those options back btw - sorry no refunds).


Why not? Heck my example is the Tryanid Parasite which was removed and is now back.
Granted we never got the Doom model, but the neurothrope at least filled that kind of slot for a more elite zoanthrope model.

And I've no problem with people learning to convert and scratch build. However there's a difference between a skill which is desirable and one which is essential. I think that moving it from essential to desirable is a net gain. It means that those who either don't want too or are not as talented in that field are not left out of the game.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/16 14:01:52


Post by: blood reaper


 Gert wrote:
 blood reaper wrote:
People need to learn how to convert and scratch build more.

(You almost certainly aren't getting those options back btw - sorry no refunds).

People don't "need" to learn anything. It's an optional part of the hobby that not everyone has the eye for. Some people are excellent painters but aren't good at conversions, some are basically Big Meks that can make a functional model out of sprues.


Because it has been part of the wargaming tradition since the beginning, and enriches the game and their enjoyment of it. The fact that people aren't good initially (indeed, that's why it's called a learning process) should not really be considered a barrier.

 Overread wrote:
 blood reaper wrote:
 Overread wrote:
 Dysartes wrote:
MaleficentRuler wrote:
Its well liked by the newer and younger players in my area, more than one commented that its how they play anyway as they don't have the cash or time for anything different. Certainly in my area GW is pushing the Scouting/School crowd as a way to get more newer younger players.

Question - what was stopping them fielding units equipped like that before these restrictions were introduced?



On the other I respect that making the game more about what comes in the box means that it is fair to those who don't have easy access to spare parts, 3rd parties or converting. Heck I recall at the height of the days before the Chapterhouse Lawsuit GW was adding models to armies (esp leaders) which never got a mode. Tyranids only just got one of those the other week. That's YEARS of waiting for a model that appeared so long ago its probably coming up to being old enough to vote.



People need to learn how to convert and scratch build more.

(You almost certainly aren't getting those options back btw - sorry no refunds).


Why not? Heck my example is the Tryanid Parasite which was removed and is now back.
Granted we never got the Doom model, but the neurothrope at least filled that kind of slot for a more elite zoanthrope model.



The return of a pair of figures is not really indicative that the game will undergo a complete shift in direction - i.e., the shift to cutting out options (largely to try and corner the market which is then presented by GWs incredibly cynical defenders as trying to make something 'easier' for people).

I do not believe we will ever see multiple combi-plasma terminators or chosen or whatever again.

And I've no problem with people learning to convert and scratch build. However there's a difference between a skill which is desirable and one which is essential. I think that moving it from essential to desirable is a net gain. It means that those who either don't want too or are not as talented in that field are not left out of the game.


Everything is a learning process, and that includes conversions. You have to learn to play the game, build models, and paint. I think conversions and converting have always been a key part of the hobby, and therefore should be essential - and should be rewarded.

Simply because people lack a skill initially doesn't mean it shouldn't be part of the hobby.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/16 14:04:47


Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik


The trouble with converting is that it’s not a skill everyone has. And there’s always a risk of TFG claiming it’s not actually WYSIWYG and trying to Colin Robinson a win.

Now of course the correct fix for that is either…

A) Just add an extra sprue to each kit to cover the permutations as best as possible.

B) Take the forthcoming Heresy approach, which I for one fully endorse.

The route GW has taken? As I said there is some sense behind it, but it’s the worst fix - especially for those with established armies (and by extension plans, roles, tactic and strategies) who’ve just had the rug pulled out from under them.

It’s also a bit uneven. First Born Marines? They’ve not (to the best of my, as ever, limited knowledge) been hit by this. So their Devastator squads can still hyper specialise, even though their kit doesn’t allow you to do that without playing swapsies/3rd party bits.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/16 14:07:39


Post by: blood reaper


 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
The trouble with converting is that it’s not a skill everyone has. And there’s always a risk of TFG claiming it’s not actually WYSIWYG and trying to Colin Robinson a win.


Yes but people also don't have a talent for painting or basing - yet we're all in the right to complain about unpainted armies and unbased models?


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/16 14:08:45


Post by: Gert


 blood reaper wrote:
Because it has been part of the wargaming tradition since the beginning, and enriches the game and their enjoyment of it. The fact that people aren't good initially (indeed, that's why it's called a learning process) should not really be considered a barrier.

It might enrich your enjoyment but everyone isn't a clone of you, thank god.
Of my gaming group, two of us enjoy conversions. The other three just want to play the game and very rarely even paint their models. Building models with instructions isn't a barrier because the instructions tell you what to do. Converting has no set of instructions and it is down to the individual. Some people just don't have the converting bug and forcing it upon them is a gakky thing to do.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 blood reaper wrote:
Yes but people also don't have a talent for painting or basing - yet we're all in the right to complain about unpainted armies and unbased models?

That is entirely different and you know it.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/16 14:13:22


Post by: blood reaper


 Gert wrote:
 blood reaper wrote:
Because it has been part of the wargaming tradition since the beginning, and enriches the game and their enjoyment of it. The fact that people aren't good initially (indeed, that's why it's called a learning process) should not really be considered a barrier.

It might enrich your enjoyment but everyone isn't a clone of you, thank god.
Of my gaming group, two of us enjoy conversions. The other three just want to play the game and very rarely even paint their models. Building models with instructions isn't a barrier because the instructions tell you what to do. Converting has no set of instructions and it is down to the individual. Some people just don't have the converting bug and forcing it upon them is a gakky thing to do.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 blood reaper wrote:
Yes but people also don't have a talent for painting or basing - yet we're all in the right to complain about unpainted armies and unbased models?

That is entirely different and you know it.


"You WILL convert or you WILL BE SHOT BEHIND THE CHEMICAL SHED!" I scream in my pseudo NKVD uniform, cocking my revolver before removing another mediocre redditor.


Well, if your group isn't even painting models, I can't really say that speaks highly in their favour. Funny that your next point is claiming that it is totally different from converting - and without explaining either!


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/16 14:15:09


Post by: Grimtuff


 Gert wrote:
 blood reaper wrote:
Because it has been part of the wargaming tradition since the beginning, and enriches the game and their enjoyment of it. The fact that people aren't good initially (indeed, that's why it's called a learning process) should not really be considered a barrier.

It might enrich your enjoyment but everyone isn't a clone of you, thank god.
Of my gaming group, two of us enjoy conversions. The other three just want to play the game and very rarely even paint their models. Building models with instructions isn't a barrier because the instructions tell you what to do. Converting has no set of instructions and it is down to the individual. Some people just don't have the converting bug and forcing it upon them is a gakky thing to do.


It's a learned skill just like painting, basic construction, playing the game itself and whole other plethora of things. Or do you consider all of those barriers too as you seem to lack the basic opposable thumbs to attach a gun to a model it's not meant to go on?

There sure are a lot of people in this hobby nowadays that don't like integral parts of it... Sounds like they're in the wrong hobby.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/16 14:15:28


Post by: Gert


We're just not elitists who judge those who don't conform to their exact opinions on warhammer.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/16 14:16:02


Post by: blood reaper


 Grimtuff wrote:
 Gert wrote:
 blood reaper wrote:
Because it has been part of the wargaming tradition since the beginning, and enriches the game and their enjoyment of it. The fact that people aren't good initially (indeed, that's why it's called a learning process) should not really be considered a barrier.

It might enrich your enjoyment but everyone isn't a clone of you, thank god.
Of my gaming group, two of us enjoy conversions. The other three just want to play the game and very rarely even paint their models. Building models with instructions isn't a barrier because the instructions tell you what to do. Converting has no set of instructions and it is down to the individual. Some people just don't have the converting bug and forcing it upon them is a gakky thing to do.


It's a learned skill just like painting, basic construction, playing the game itself and whole other plethora of things. Or do you consider all of those barriers too as you seem to lack the basic opposable thumbs to attach a gun to a model it's not meant to go on?

There sure are a lot of people in this hobby nowadays that don't like integral parts of it... Sounds like they're in the wrong hobby.


Sounds like you're a heckin' chud gate keeper to me!

 Gert wrote:
 blood reaper wrote:
"You WILL convert or you WILL BE SHOT BEHIND THE CHEMICAL SHED!" I scream in my pseudo NKVD uniform, cocking my revolver before removing another mediocre redditor.


Well, if your group isn't even painting models, I can't really say that speaks highly in their favour. Funny that your next point is claiming that it is totally different from converting - and without explaining either!

We're just not elitist pricks who get off on being gakheads to people who don't conform to their exact opinions on warhammer.


You HECKIN ELITIST!

Still haven't explained the difference.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/16 14:16:09


Post by: Sgt. Cortez


The fix to making people hunt for the best loadout is just to make all options equally viable or allow for easy magnetizing (or just put enough options in the box, but I see that that's not always possible or would raise the prices even more). Unfortunately GW wants to shut alternative companies out so they increasingly produce miniatures that are hard to kitbash and write rules that only allow what's in the box (or don't, like Blightlord terminators that allow for shooting weapons like they are in the box only but allow for optional CC weapons ?.? )


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/16 14:17:50


Post by: Gert


 Grimtuff wrote:
It's a learned skill just like painting, basic construction, playing the game itself and whole other plethora of things.

The difference being there are rules to teach you to play the game and instructions to tell you how to build the models. Painting is only absolutely necessary if you want to go to events, and in my experience, the people who don't want to paint their stuff don't have the time nor the drive to do so.


Or do you consider all of those barriers too as you seem to lack the basic opposable thumbs to attach a gun to a model it's not meant to go on?

Nice. You think of that one all by yourself?

There sure are a lot of people in this hobby nowadays that don't like integral parts of it... Sounds like they're in the wrong hobby.

Depends on how you define hobby


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/16 14:18:56


Post by: blood reaper


 Gert wrote:
 Grimtuff wrote:
It's a learned skill just like painting, basic construction, playing the game itself and whole other plethora of things.

The difference being there are rules to teach you to play the game and instructions to tell you how to build the models. Painting is only absolutely necessary if you want to go to events, and in my experience, the people who don't want to paint their stuff don't have the time nor the drive to do so.


Or do you consider all of those barriers too as you seem to lack the basic opposable thumbs to attach a gun to a model it's not meant to go on?

Nice. You think of that one all by yourself?

There sure are a lot of people in this hobby nowadays that don't like integral parts of it... Sounds like they're in the wrong hobby.

Depends on how you define hobby


"Expecting painted models? Sounds a bit ELITIST to me..." has got to be my favourite take.

BTW there are literally legions of tutorials on how to convert - like, the forum has a whole section for them!


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/16 14:21:10


Post by: Grimtuff


Is that what he said? Didn't read it as clearly he pays no attention to my sig...


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/16 14:21:59


Post by: blood reaper


 Grimtuff wrote:
Is that what he said? Didn't read it as clearly he pays no attention to my sig...


His argument is that you don't need to paint models, it's not important unless you're a tournie or competition player. IMO a wildly dumb position.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/16 14:23:12


Post by: Gert


 blood reaper wrote:
"Expecting painted models? Sounds a bit ELITIST to me..." has got to be my favourite take.

I would expect painted models at an event I paid to go to, such as an upcoming narrative event in a few weeks. If I happen to be at a local club, I don't have expectations because people don't solely exist to do warhammer. I also don't pass judgment on people before I get a chance to know them. I mean it's not like you could just build the models because you like them and then never play a game in your life, that would be dumb right? Couldn't possibly be the majority of people.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Grimtuff wrote:
Is that what he said? Didn't read it as clearly he pays no attention to my sig...

Couldn't be that they don't show up on certain platforms.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/16 14:25:19


Post by: blood reaper


 Gert wrote:
 blood reaper wrote:
"Expecting painted models? Sounds a bit ELITIST to me..." has got to be my favourite take.

I would expect painted models at an event I paid to go to, such as an upcoming narrative event in a few weeks. If I happen to be at a local club, I don't have expectations because people don't solely exist to do warhammer. I also don't pass judgment on people before I get a chance to know them. I mean it's not like you could just build the models because you like them and then never play a game in your life, that would be dumb right? Couldn't possibly be the majority of people.


I don't think it's a moral failure to not paint models or anything, I think you should however aim to actually paint your figures, and develop those skills. Nor have I said I wouldn't play with people with unpainted figures!

What I have said is that it is expected of people to paint their figures at some point and aim to have painted figures - if you think otherwise, then unironically, find another hobby!

A key part of the game has always been lots of painted figures on the table.

Ironically the exact opposite of that (i.e., the 'poorhammer' experience) ... is usually based all around conversion!


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/16 14:31:05


Post by: Gert


 blood reaper wrote:
I don't think it's a moral failure to not paint models or anything, I think you should however aim to actually paint your figures, and develop those skills. Nor have I said I wouldn't play with people with unpainted figures!

Suprise to me considering how ardent you've been about it.

What I have said is that it is expected of people to paint their figures at some point and aim to have painted figures - if you think otherwise, then unironically, find another hobby!

Show me where it says that all people who do warhammer *must* have painted minis.

A key part of the game has always been lots of painted figures on the table.

And? Who cares what things "always have been", it isn't that now and it shouldn't have to be. People can make their own choices in their hobbies and shouldn't have to suffer people like you judging them for it.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/16 14:32:46


Post by: Deadnight


Like...

Converting stuff and being creative with both models and bits has always been a part of this game. Whether it's models or weapons.

I learned very quickly how to make plasma guns from plasma pistols and bolt pistols
20 years ago when I started.

Like anything, you learn and you get better at it.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/16 14:34:23


Post by: Karol


 blood reaper wrote:

"Expecting painted models? Sounds a bit ELITIST to me..." has got to be my favourite take.

BTW there are literally legions of tutorials on how to convert - like, the forum has a whole section for them!


Well any additional activity to the core one, specially one that is not required to perform it is a of different degrees of just that. I am in my last year of sports school, I know why I need an uniform, school track suit etc. But if went out and told people that in order to play football or basketball, they need a PZS approved clothes, people would think I am drunk or on burners. Models being painted is not needed to play, unlike being able to recognise what the unit or model is and what weapon load outs it carries.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/16 14:34:28


Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik


 blood reaper wrote:
 Gert wrote:
 blood reaper wrote:
Because it has been part of the wargaming tradition since the beginning, and enriches the game and their enjoyment of it. The fact that people aren't good initially (indeed, that's why it's called a learning process) should not really be considered a barrier.

It might enrich your enjoyment but everyone isn't a clone of you, thank god.
Of my gaming group, two of us enjoy conversions. The other three just want to play the game and very rarely even paint their models. Building models with instructions isn't a barrier because the instructions tell you what to do. Converting has no set of instructions and it is down to the individual. Some people just don't have the converting bug and forcing it upon them is a gakky thing to do.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 blood reaper wrote:
Yes but people also don't have a talent for painting or basing - yet we're all in the right to complain about unpainted armies and unbased models?

That is entirely different and you know it.


"You WILL convert or you WILL BE SHOT BEHIND THE CHEMICAL SHED!" I scream in my pseudo NKVD uniform, cocking my revolver before removing another mediocre redditor.


Well, if your group isn't even painting models, I can't really say that speaks highly in their favour. Funny that your next point is claiming that it is totally different from converting - and without explaining either!


Speaking of Colin Robinson….I think we’ve found one.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/16 14:34:58


Post by: blood reaper


 Gert wrote:
 blood reaper wrote:
I don't think it's a moral failure to not paint models or anything, I think you should however aim to actually paint your figures, and develop those skills. Nor have I said I wouldn't play with people with unpainted figures!

Suprise to me considering how ardent you've been about it.

What I have said is that it is expected of people to paint their figures at some point and aim to have painted figures - if you think otherwise, then unironically, find another hobby!

Show me where it says that all people who do warhammer *must* have painted minis.

A key part of the game has always been lots of painted figures on the table.

And? Who cares what things "always have been", it isn't that now and it shouldn't have to be. People can make their own choices in their hobbies and shouldn't have to suffer people like you judging them for it.


I don't think it's been written down anywhere (besides a rule which rewards fully painted armies) but imo it is very amusing that a widely agreed principle of the community "try to paint your figures and have painted armies" is treated as this elitist demagoguery. It is a very telling position to take.

Yes people can make their own choices. How they'll suffer because I think they're making bad choices, I don't know, you'll need to tell me about that (I have not started torturing convertlets and paintlets - not yet at least.)


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/16 14:35:25


Post by: catbarf


Gert, if painting is only necessary if you're going to tournaments, why do you feel compelled to convert? Does your casual group not allow proxies?


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/16 14:36:22


Post by: Karol


Deadnight wrote:
Like...

Converting stuff and being creative with both models and bits has always been a part of this game. Whether it's models or weapons.

I learned very quickly how to make plasma guns from plasma pistols and bolt pistols
20 years ago when I started.

Like anything, you learn and you get better at it.

Did you do it because of your love for conversions, or because plasma guns were hard and/or expensive to get, while at the same time being the optimal weapon of choice. How many less optimal or outright bad weapons did you convert, compared to the number of plasmaguns? I have feeling that it may not be many.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/16 14:37:12


Post by: Deadnight


Painting should be encouraged, end of.

It's never been easier (contrast paints etc) to paint decently and quickly.

Plus it makes the visual aspect look so much better.

Karol wrote:

Did you do it because of your love for conversions, or because plasma guns were hard and/or expensive to get, while at the same time being the optimal weapon of choice. How many less optimal or outright bad weapons did you convert, compared to the number of plasmaguns? I have feeling that it may not be many.


This might blow your mind but id answer Yes to all of them.

I was new to the hobby, didn't have much in the way of money for my hobby, didn't really know enough about what other kits had what other bits, didnt have much in the way of retail options either(seriously, I was like the obly person in my whole town who knew what warhammer was...) and didn't know enough about the game to know what was optimal or not. So I had to be creative.

I had meltaguns on my old space wolf kits, didn't have much in the ways of flamers or plasmas and wanted the options. Hell I made my first wolf lord from bits in the grey hunter kit.

As to how many models I hqve converted over all the time ive played/collected, quite a few. Especially for wmh, and no, not for 'meta' options either.

And yes, I also like bring creative. Same reason I loved building my own things out of my lego instead of just following the instructions.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/16 14:37:28


Post by: blood reaper


Karol wrote:
Deadnight wrote:
Like...

Converting stuff and being creative with both models and bits has always been a part of this game. Whether it's models or weapons.

I learned very quickly how to make plasma guns from plasma pistols and bolt pistols
20 years ago when I started.

Like anything, you learn and you get better at it.

Did you do it because of your love for conversions, or because plasma guns were hard and/or expensive to get, while at the same time being the optimal weapon of choice. How many less optimal or outright bad weapons did you convert, compared to the number of plasmaguns? I have feeling that it may not be many.


You can have one or the other! You cannot do it for both reasons!


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/16 14:43:35


Post by: Gert


 catbarf wrote:
Gert, if painting is only necessary if you're going to tournaments, why do you feel compelled to convert? Does your casual group not allow proxies?

*Events, not just tournaments.
I convert models because I like it and we proxy units all the time. The other day I used a Kataphron Servitor and a Contemptor as proxies for Castellax.
It was only this past year that I really got into painting and mostly because I have events I want to do or if I get a buzz for it. I don't give my friends who don't paint their stuff gak because what would be the point? We all get together and have a fun time regardless. They might paint their stuff eventually but it's not for everyone and we all have more than one hobby to dedicate what is often limited free time to. If it's a complete stranger (like one of my opponents at my first HH event) then I wouldn't ever consider giving them gak, even in jest. I don't know them or their story, and while I would like to play against a fully painted army at a narrative event, I'm not going to kick up a fuss about it.
I used to game with a guy where it seemed like he'd never painted a model in his army. It turned out he was such a perfectionist when it came to painting that if he thought he made one mistake, he'd strip the whole model and start again from scratch.
It's easier to not give people a hard time and just let them be them.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/16 14:46:15


Post by: Karol


My knowladge of the the english language makes is so I don't understand your what you just said. I clearly said that the things as separate and it is a persons choice what they want to do. One doesn't have to play the game to paint the models, or paint the models to play the game. One can do both, one can do both, One can also do non, it is also an option. As wierd as it is to me. But the idea that in order to play one has to paint the models, makes as much sense as if I told someone who wants to start painting a box of beastman, that they first need to show their ranking in the last store event, else they are not allowed to do it, because playing the game is a crucial part of a table top game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Gert wrote:

*Events, not just tournaments.
I convert models because I like it and we proxy units all the time. The other day I used a Kataphron Servitor and a Contemptor as proxies for Castellax.
It was only this past year that I really got into painting and mostly because I have events I want to do or if I get a buzz for it. I don't give my friends who don't paint their stuff gak because what would be the point?


I have a w40k GK army. I also wanted to play Kill Team. To my suprise, even when they are troops and custodes are part of the game, GK can not have a kill team based around termintors, meaning I wouldn't be able to play the game. So I use 3 GK termintors armed with halabards as 3 guardian spear custodes. I have not converted them, I have not repainted them. I just use them to play. I had guy from my school who picked IH at the start of 8th, to have an army which is easy to paint and he liked robots. His army was black and silver +red eyes. There were a ton of people who never finished painting or even started painting their armies in 8th ed. If someone would try to enforce the have to have full army painted with bases etc the only people playing would be guys who are 30+ and playing the game for longer then most of us were, when we started the game.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/16 14:58:14


Post by: Dysartes


 Overread wrote:
On the one hand I'd don't like the loss of weapons. I dislike the loss of things like Hive Tyrants with twin-linked devourers or having the option to have one flying around with two pairs of them.

On the other I respect that making the game more about what comes in the box means that it is fair to those who don't have easy access to spare parts, 3rd parties or converting. Heck I recall at the height of the days before the Chapterhouse Lawsuit GW was adding models to armies (esp leaders) which never got a mode. Tyranids only just got one of those the other week. That's YEARS of waiting for a model that appeared so long ago its probably coming up to being old enough to vote.

I can respect this position, mostly.

Post-Chapterhouse, I can understand GW removing units/characters from books that they had no plan on releasing. I might not like it, but I can understand it.

On the other hand, I don't agree with removing options that can be resolved by purchasing two boxes and using their parts together - regardless of whether it is two or three of the same kit (Skitarii) or using one kit to supply parts for another unit (a Devastator box giving different heavy weapons to a Tac squad, or a Sternguard box being used to mod characters or Sergeants in other squads, for example).

The options are there, in many cases have been there for years, and are being removed almost at random, which is doubly odd.

And that's before we get to the potential slowing down of gameplay if you have to resolve multiple different special weapons for a unit such as Plague Marines.

An ideal world would see a box contain all the options available to the unit, but that's going to make certain boxes rather pricy for their points - see, for example, the possibility of a Guard Infantry Squad coming with the HW team parts, as well as assorted options for the Sergeant. Going to be a very expensive 60 points...


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/16 14:58:22


Post by: Karol


Deadnight 805087 11364599 wrote:

I was new to the hobby, didn't have much in the way of money for my hobby, didn't really know enough about what other kits had what other bits, didnt have much in the way of retail options either(seriously, I was like the obly person in my whole town who knew what warhammer was...) and didn't know enough about the game to know what was optimal or not. So I had to be creative.

I had meltaguns on my old space wolf kits, didn't have much in the ways of flamers or plasmas and wanted the options. Hell I made my first wolf lord from bits in the grey hunter kit.

As to how many models I hqve converted over all the time ive played/collected, quite a few. Especially for wmh, and no, not for 'meta' options either.

And yes, I also like bring creative. Same reason I loved building my own things out of my lego instead of just following the instructions.


This doesn't sound to me like being reallycreative, but just wanting to have plasma guns which were the good weapon options. I doubt you converted many heavy bolters for your Long Fangs, or what ever else was considered a bad weapon in the past. But this doesn't have to be a you thing anyway. One just has to look at 3ed company pages to look what weapons are being bought out and which are never OOP.



Painting should be encouraged, end of.

It's never been easier (contrast paints etc) to paint decently and quickly.

It costs money and takes up time. No one who has to save up models wants to be both told that his army is now pushed 6 months, or more, in to being complet, because they need to paint it first. It only doesn't matter to people who already have painted armies, or ones like me who got their army already painted. This is even more a thing, if the person doesn't like to paint. I never heard of any rules saying that in order to paint another box of w40k models, someone has to show up at the store and play 25-30 hours.



Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/16 15:00:16


Post by: jaredb


I like the method of only using whats in the box for unit options. I never liked having to buy multiple boxes, or get 2nd hand parts to max out the 'good' options in a squad. I remember kharadron overlords having units where this was especially egregious, where if you could afford to buy more boxes you could have a better load out.

For quality of life for the customer, I an very happy knowing whats in the box is all I need to worry about, and not having to worry about hunting down 2nd hand parts, kit bashing, or buying a bunch of boxes for a weapon or two.

Does it look odd on the datasheets sometimes? Yep, totally does.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/16 15:11:07


Post by: Karol


It is not a question of odd. A unit of overlords with 4 of the same "heavy" weapon doesn't just work better, then one armed with one of each. It works at all. If a squad of termintors can't be run as 3 cheap dudes with combi meltas or 5 with combi plasma, but instead you can have one of the combi weapons each, then the unit just losts utility. Worse the way GW cuts some boxs, like for ork boys or csm, you still have to buy two boxs if you want to have 10 shoting or 10 melee models.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/16 15:25:31


Post by: BertBert


Not being able to build 5 Chaos Terminators with Chain axes + combi-bolter actually dissuaded me from buying the kit altogether a couple of years ago.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/16 15:36:07


Post by: Unit1126PLL


The "only what's in the kit" bullgak is just another symptom of the disease:
GW is not interested in making a wargame.
They are interested in making a war-themed boardgame.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/16 15:53:40


Post by: waefre_1


 jaredb wrote:
I like the method of only using whats in the box for unit options. I never liked having to buy multiple boxes, or get 2nd hand parts to max out the 'good' options in a squad. I remember kharadron overlords having units where this was especially egregious, where if you could afford to buy more boxes you could have a better load out.

For quality of life for the customer, I an very happy knowing whats in the box is all I need to worry about, and not having to worry about hunting down 2nd hand parts, kit bashing, or buying a bunch of boxes for a weapon or two.

Does it look odd on the datasheets sometimes? Yep, totally does.

I can sympathize with that viewpoint, but IIRC GW used to allow you to order individual sprues. It's not an ideal solution, but it was a decent middle ground between having to buy multiple kits to outfit a single unit, the SKU hell that would be selling individual bits, and having one UND ONLY EIN way to kit out a squad.

 Gert wrote:
"Does anyone like getting punched in the face?"

Spoiler:
This is not the question you think it is...



Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/16 16:00:41


Post by: Racerguy180


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
The "only what's in the kit" bullgak is just another symptom of the disease:
GW is not interested in making a wargame.
They are interested in making a war-themed boardgame.

Boardgames are popular + MTG is popular = $€£¥ GW wants that level so....we end up with much less WARGAME & are left with just a (small)war(titanic)GAME.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/16 16:03:52


Post by: Unit1126PLL


Racerguy180 wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
The "only what's in the kit" bullgak is just another symptom of the disease:
GW is not interested in making a wargame.
They are interested in making a war-themed boardgame.

Boardgames are popular + MTG is popular = $€£¥ GW wants that level so....we end up with much less WARGAME & are left with just a (small)war(titanic)GAME.


Yes, I know very well. I think I made a thread about it myself back in the day.

I just wanted to be clear that this ONE WAY ONLY to build units is exactly consistent with the overall gamey trend, moving away from a wargame abstracting the setting and the armies within it and instead moving towards a boardgame with some associated novels.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/16 16:11:50


Post by: warhead01


I'm not a fan of the trend. Don't care for GW also dictating what I can field via only providing X models such as was done with the Ork boys.
I guess I knew this was going to happen years ago when someone on da WAAAGH forums said, "I's not your 40K it's GW's 40K". Or something like that. It's more than just the kits and unit options as this point.
The good news is I feel less and less interested in giving GW money for models and rules. And I'm fine with that, which is not something I had ever expected as I was in really deep over the last 25 or so years. I feel like I'm done or that I'm free of the addiction to plastic crack. I have my armies and no desire to add more models and I may just call it quits and "cash out" as best I can.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/16 16:34:00


Post by: Overread


I mean if you're using GW rules it was never "your game" if you were going to stick to only using the GW rules as written.

However the game you and your opponent choose to play is 100% YOUR game if you want it to be.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/16 16:53:31


Post by: EviscerationPlague


It's GW just trying to cut in on 3rd party weapon manufacturers. It's a garbage trend and they should feel bad, as well as anyone trying to defend them.

No, your defense of "you don't have to buy multiple boxes now" is garbage too. 3rd party is a thing.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/16 17:48:27


Post by: Deadnight


Karol wrote:
[
This doesn't sound to me like being reallycreative, but just wanting to have plasma guns which were the good weapon options.


18 year old me thought my 'warhammer on a shoestring budget' was pretty damned creative with the bits available to me at the time!

And I see your reading comprehension is nil. I neither had the knowledge of the game to determine what was 'good', nor for about 2 years a community to engage with to do the same. Plasmas sounded cool so I made some.

But I^do^ greatly appreciate the solidarity from your similar perspective of warhammer on a budget (sarcasm).


Karol wrote:
I doubt you converted many heavy bolters for your Long Fangs, or what ever else was considered a bad weapon in the past.



Nah, never wanted old Bois in my lists thematically, even if they were good. And back then they weren't.

When I got I to the game properly it was with tau and I converted the hell out of my fire warriors kroot and crisis suits. And tau were the grey knights of that whole era. Didn't stop me playing them.

Karol wrote:

It costs money and takes up time. No one who has to save up models wants to be both told that his army is now pushed 6 months, or more, in to being complet, because they need to paint it first.


Sigh.

Just because you don't ^have^ to do someyhing doesn't mean it's not worth doing.

It costs money and time - welcome to life kid. There are very very few things in life that won't require both. Especially hobbies.

And it won't take 6 months. Jesus christ. It's literally never been easier to paint stuff, both quickly and decently. Primer, contrast, wash, pick out details. You can get a squad done in an evening. Contrast is fantastic. In the meantime, play unpainted but imo it should* be an aspiration to have a fully painted army.

*obvious caveats for disabilities- I know we have a few folks posting here with physical limitations.

Karol wrote:

This is even more a thing, if the person doesn't like to paint. I never heard of any rules saying that in order to paint another box of w40k models, someone has to show up at the store and play 25-30 hours.


When I started, I didn't enjoy painting either. Then I got into it and ground great joy in it. Loving 40k for the game will be a disappointment- imo 'the game' is its weakest aspect. If you want to enjoy this hobby long term, a far more healthy approach is to embrace the other aspects alongside the game to enjoy as well.

Karol wrote:

I never heard of any rules saying that in order to paint another box of w40k models, someone has to show up at the store and play 25-30 hours.


So?

Life is more than 'the rules' karol. Oftentimes there are 'soft' expectations and cultural norms and etiquette that are never written down in any rulebook. For me its a pride thing. I won't field anything Unpainted. To us, it detracts far too much from the immersion.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/16 18:33:21


Post by: NinthMusketeer


The plague marine equipment in the new book quite literally stopped me from buying a DG army to play Crusade with. Which is a shame because I love the build-a-plague mechanic.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
EviscerationPlague wrote:
It's GW just trying to cut in on 3rd party weapon manufacturers. It's a garbage trend and they should feel bad, as well as anyone trying to defend them.

No, your defense of "you don't have to buy multiple boxes now" is garbage too. 3rd party is a thing.
It's hilarious, because people were buying conversion bits to use... on GW kits. There's not a lost sale in that.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/16 18:36:29


Post by: Karol




18 year old me thought my 'warhammer on a shoestring budget' was pretty damned creative with the bits available to me at the time!

And I see your reading comprehension is nil. I neither had the knowledge of the game to determine what was 'good', nor for about 2 years a community to engage with to do the same. Plasmas sounded cool so I made some.

But I^do^ greatly appreciate the solidarity from your similar perspective of warhammer on a budget (sarcasm).

I generally don't understand sarcasm. But I will say it like this. It does seem extremly lucky, that without knowladge of the game, you converted exactly the version of the gun which is the most optimal.




Nah, never wanted old Bois in my lists thematically, even if they were good. And back then they weren't.

When I got I to the game properly it was with tau and I converted the hell out of my fire warriors kroot and crisis suits. And tau were the grey knights of that whole era. Didn't stop me playing them.

But they were your second army, so I assume by then you were 20 plus. I still don't get the whole argument. I am not saying someone can't like to convert or paint their models. I just think that the chance a teen starting the game is not going to start it with conversions projects etc and if they do something it i stuff like, veteran intercessors sgts with thunder hammers are the most optimal load out, there for I need to find a way to make 3-6 thunder hammer for my dudes. I am talking about the avarge player here.



Sigh.

Just because you don't ^have^ to do someyhing doesn't mean it's not worth doing.

It costs money and time - welcome to life kid. There are very very few things in life that won't require both. Especially hobbies.

And it won't take 6 months. Jesus christ. It's literally never been easier to paint stuff, both quickly and decently. Primer, contrast, wash, pick out details. You can get a squad done in an evening. Contrast is fantastic. In the meantime, play unpainted but imo it should* be an aspiration to have a fully painted army.

*obvious caveats for disabilities- I know we have a few folks posting here with physical limitations.


It is 6 additional months to how much it takes to get the army to 2k, that is the problem. If the "army has to be painted" is an enforced rule. And yeah it costs money and time, no problem if it is money and time spend on something you want to do. But if it is money and time spend, because others make you do it, so they and not you, have more fun, on top of that their armies are already painted. On top of that having the army painted lowers it resell value. Most people don't last more then an edition, having a painted or rather a covered with paint models, makes the cash you get back from selling the army smaller. And I don't play unpainted, my army was 100% painted, save for one rhino and one dreadnought, the day I bought it.

When I started, I didn't enjoy painting either. Then I got into it and ground great joy in it. Loving 40k for the game will be a disappointment- imo 'the game' is its weakest aspect. If you want to enjoy this hobby long term, a far more healthy approach is to embrace the other aspects alongside the game to enjoy as well.


Most people don't enjoy the hobby long term. They want to have as much fun as possible playing the game. Stuff like painting etc are additional stuff a lot of people don't care much about. The "healthy" approach to the hobby looks like a mechanism to self explain an investment of time and money in to something, by adding a value to the activity.

So?

Life is more than 'the rules' karol. Oftentimes there are 'soft' expectations and cultural norms and etiquette that are never written down in any rulebook. For me its a pride thing. I won't field anything Unpainted. To us, it detracts far too much from the immersion.

So if forcing someone to play the game, if they just want to paint or convert sounds stupid. Then forcing people who want to play the game to do things they don't want to do, is stupid too. Having rules for oneself is, having rules for oneself. I don't care if someone plays with unpainted or only with painted models. But forcing others to do what you want, because you want to immerse yourself in to something that doesn't exist sounds like something I take medicin for.

also rules are the only thing that makes the world semi bearable, it is non regular and chaotic enough.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/16 18:52:30


Post by: EviscerationPlague


 NinthMusketeer wrote:
The plague marine equipment in the new book quite literally stopped me from buying a DG army to play Crusade with. Which is a shame because I love the build-a-plague mechanic.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
EviscerationPlague wrote:
It's GW just trying to cut in on 3rd party weapon manufacturers. It's a garbage trend and they should feel bad, as well as anyone trying to defend them.

No, your defense of "you don't have to buy multiple boxes now" is garbage too. 3rd party is a thing.
It's hilarious, because people were buying conversion bits to use... on GW kits. There's not a lost sale in that.

That also stopped me from doing a Plague Marine army. I'm lucky the Terminators I use for Blightlord stand ins don't have any Combi-Weapons otherwise I'd be more pissed.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/16 18:58:46


Post by: Unit1126PLL


Back in the day, GW solved this problem by having weapons and bits sprues available for purchase. You can still see this with the Baneblade extra sponson kit.

Back when the game was a real wargame I mean.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/16 19:06:28


Post by: Togusa


MaleficentRuler wrote:
Its well liked by the newer and younger players in my area, more than one commented that its how they play anyway as they don't have the cash or time for anything different. Certainly in my area GW is pushing the Scouting/School crowd as a way to get more newer younger players.


This has been my experience as well. Our local GW store is supporting three different school clubs, and the FLGS in the area are also pitching in for the big three as well as for a couple more of the smaller schools. The kids like the simplicity of it, buy the box, buy the contrast paints, build, paint and get on the table. It seems to be doing well.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/16 19:19:22


Post by: Sgt. Cortez


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Back in the day, GW solved this problem by having weapons and bits sprues available for purchase. You can still see this with the Baneblade extra sponson kit.

Back when the game was a real wargame I mean.


I understand your stance when it's about base rules and such (even though I'm not of the same opinion) but in this case I don't think it has anything to do with the "boardgame-trend" but much more to do with GW nowadays being more of an IP company than anything else. They want us to play 40K (TM) exactly as they imagine/ produce it. That's what they learned from the Chapterhouse Incident.
Yes, equipping a GW kit with some spellcrow guns would still give them profit, BUT you're ruining their perfect trademarked product with heretical bits from somewhere else. Don't do that! Build Plague Marines (TM) like shown on the box cover, don't you dare equipping all of them with two knives just because Joe in the modelling department found it funny to build one (and exactly one!) with two knives. GW giveth you what you need and you take it.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/16 22:07:43


Post by: ERJAK


EviscerationPlague wrote:
It's GW just trying to cut in on 3rd party weapon manufacturers. It's a garbage trend and they should feel bad, as well as anyone trying to defend them.

No, your defense of "you don't have to buy multiple boxes now" is garbage too. 3rd party is a thing.


"GW is bad because they're not forcing you to pay someone else even more money to equip your models after they sell you an incomplete product!" is an interesting take.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/16 22:13:33


Post by: Insectum7


 Togusa wrote:
MaleficentRuler wrote:
Its well liked by the newer and younger players in my area, more than one commented that its how they play anyway as they don't have the cash or time for anything different. Certainly in my area GW is pushing the Scouting/School crowd as a way to get more newer younger players.


This has been my experience as well. Our local GW store is supporting three different school clubs, and the FLGS in the area are also pitching in for the big three as well as for a couple more of the smaller schools. The kids like the simplicity of it, buy the box, buy the contrast paints, build, paint and get on the table. It seems to be doing well.

I get the strategy but I sure do think they're underestimating the sophistication of their supposed younger target demographic.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/16 22:19:32


Post by: ERJAK


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Back in the day, GW solved this problem by having weapons and bits sprues available for purchase. You can still see this with the Baneblade extra sponson kit.

Back when the game was a real wargame I mean.


What really defines a wargame vs. something like a boardgame or an RPG or even a CCG type game is the amount and degree of tedium involved in 'true' wargames.

In this way 40k has never been a 'real' wargame, it was just tedious in a way that approximated or mimicked a 'true' wargame. Now it's tedious in entirely new ways.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Grimtuff wrote:
 Gert wrote:
 blood reaper wrote:
Because it has been part of the wargaming tradition since the beginning, and enriches the game and their enjoyment of it. The fact that people aren't good initially (indeed, that's why it's called a learning process) should not really be considered a barrier.

It might enrich your enjoyment but everyone isn't a clone of you, thank god.
Of my gaming group, two of us enjoy conversions. The other three just want to play the game and very rarely even paint their models. Building models with instructions isn't a barrier because the instructions tell you what to do. Converting has no set of instructions and it is down to the individual. Some people just don't have the converting bug and forcing it upon them is a gakky thing to do.


It's a learned skill just like painting, basic construction, playing the game itself and whole other plethora of things. Or do you consider all of those barriers too as you seem to lack the basic opposable thumbs to attach a gun to a model it's not meant to go on?

There sure are a lot of people in this hobby nowadays that don't like integral parts of it... Sounds like they're in the wrong hobby.


Coming from someone on a forum where 90% of posts are people talking about how much they hate the game, this is super fething rich.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/16 22:27:20


Post by: Insularum


Short answer, no.

Long answer(s)
Spoiler:
First up, the argument of simplifying stuff for new/younger players doesn't really hold much water. Read the Death Guard datasheets without getting a migraine and then claim it's simpler than "X number of models can take gear from a short list".

Second, only allowing what's in the box/multiples of a box is simply daft - no one has ever been restricted from building a what's in the box unit, and the simple truth is that outside of killteam, there is no such thing as a one box army; by the time you have built any army up you have had to by necessity buy multiple kits so there is no justifiable reason to not allow someone to double up on certain gear per unit (as they will have purchased it anyway).

Third, a personal bugbear for me is that treating each box as a single use plastic with no re-usable value for spare parts is both wasteful and removes some of the incentive to be creative with the hobby. I get that some people are not interested in conversions and kit bashes, but that is not a reason to take it out almost entirely.

Fourth, using the nuclear option to tackle the non-existent threat of 3rd party companies is peak dumbness. You cannot complain you lost a race you didn't even enter, so until GW actually makes models to represent the bits they never bothered to produce, they cannot claim "lost sales". Deleting your own IP out of spite instead of treating 3rd party company sales as free market research and actually competing for those same sales is frankly ridiculous. If only GW had a subsidiary company capable of doing short production runs of high quality resin kits that don't have the same up front investment requirements of injection moulded plastic kits, they could even be online only and called something catchy like Forge World.



Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/16 22:33:21


Post by: Overread


 Insectum7 wrote:
 Togusa wrote:
MaleficentRuler wrote:
Its well liked by the newer and younger players in my area, more than one commented that its how they play anyway as they don't have the cash or time for anything different. Certainly in my area GW is pushing the Scouting/School crowd as a way to get more newer younger players.


This has been my experience as well. Our local GW store is supporting three different school clubs, and the FLGS in the area are also pitching in for the big three as well as for a couple more of the smaller schools. The kids like the simplicity of it, buy the box, buy the contrast paints, build, paint and get on the table. It seems to be doing well.

I get the strategy but I sure do think they're underestimating the sophistication of their supposed younger target demographic.


It's not about underestimating the talent of the young, its about providing quick achievements to bolster self confidence and enjoyment. People don't become skilled modellers, painters and gamers overnight. If GW can use methods to make getting into the game easier, to make getting models to the table looking half decent then there's a FAR greater chance of getting more young people into the hobby and keeping them in the hobby. That they will go forward and one day they will be building, converting, painting, basing and more at an advanced level.


Every hobby has the same hurdles that people want success, in some form, early on to bolster their confidence. Yes they still have a lot to learn, but those early moments of joy and positive engagement are EVER so critical to people choosing one hobby over another. Especially when many will not start their hobby with a burning passion; that passion grows over time.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/16 22:37:03


Post by: H.B.M.C.


I'm flabbergasted that people are actually defending this practice. As for simplicity? Oh yeah! Look at how simple all this stuff is. I can totally see why something so inherently intuitive would be far easier to use than "You can take 3 special weapons from this list".

You want to know how stupid this whole "only what's in a single kit" crap is, look no further than the current Tyranid Codex and the Carnifex entry.

Since the days of Nidzilla in 4th Ed people have been fielding the "Dakkafex", that being a Carnifex with double twin-Devourers. It's a staple of Carnifex armaments, and whilst it may have waxed and waned in usefulness, it's been there for as long as many of us can remember. However, you can't build a Dakkafex from a Carnifex kit. The sprue only has one set of Devourers. You would always need a second Carnifex sprue in order to make the quad-Devourer loadout.

As we got closer to the current 'Nid Codex, a lot of us were worried about GW doing to 'Nids what they've been doing to most of the other armies - namely reducing options based on the asinine sprue limitations - and among those concerns was the Carnifex, given that it was a unit with a wealth of options. But such a future never came to pass (well, it did for the Hive Tyrant, as Tyranid players still need to be punished because the HT was very powerful at the start of 8th), and the Dakkafex remains a legal option in the new book. Why is this the case, especially in a world where units are being restricted based on sprues (or in the case of upcoming Chosen rules, just having their different weapon options turned into a single generic profile)?

It's simple, and it's also really stupid: Carnifexes now come 2 to a box.

It wasn't always the case, but Carnifexes used to come one to a box. That was the norm. Them coming 2 to a box is a (relatively) new development in the life of that kit. And because there are two in the box, that means there are two sets of Devourers, meaning that a Dakkafex remains something you can build and therefore field in a game of 40k.

It's just dumb luck that Carnifexes come two to a box, and as a result kept their options, and is proof positive of how utterly arbitrary* and asinine this recent trend has become.

And people here are making excuses for it. Mind blowing.




*Other examples of it being arbitrary: Scourges & Devastator Squads! They have limited sprue options, but aren't limited in their rules.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/16 22:46:41


Post by: Overread


I've said that I don't like it - I hate the loss of the dakka-tyrant. But GW has been doing this for decades. 3rd ed Tyranid codex allowed sniper-fexes - carnifex with two heavy weapons. You had to convert a bit to get both to fit comfortably but you were allowed to do it. Heck that book had a second codex inside that was basically "pay points, do whatever you want". Loads of oversized (synapse node) heads or whole teams of warriors with venom cannons. All done away with.

Sniper fexes have come and gone over the years.

IT's why I say that any model as large or bigger than a warrior should have magnetized arms in a Tyranid army. Not only do you get more milage during an edition out of each model; you can also change up when the edition changes and new random limits come and go.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/16 23:00:33


Post by: H.B.M.C.


Weird. I didn't mention, reference, name or even quote you, yet you assumed I was talking about you, rose to defend yourself, and then went onto excuse GW's actions. Again. How many times must I tell you Overread: Dakka already has one Kan. We don't need two.

And in a thread where people are getting really annoyed at the idea of needing to convert, you're suggesting casual mass magnatisation!



Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/16 23:08:15


Post by: Insectum7


 Overread wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:
 Togusa wrote:
MaleficentRuler wrote:
Its well liked by the newer and younger players in my area, more than one commented that its how they play anyway as they don't have the cash or time for anything different. Certainly in my area GW is pushing the Scouting/School crowd as a way to get more newer younger players.


This has been my experience as well. Our local GW store is supporting three different school clubs, and the FLGS in the area are also pitching in for the big three as well as for a couple more of the smaller schools. The kids like the simplicity of it, buy the box, buy the contrast paints, build, paint and get on the table. It seems to be doing well.

I get the strategy but I sure do think they're underestimating the sophistication of their supposed younger target demographic.


It's not about underestimating the talent of the young, its about providing quick achievements to bolster self confidence and enjoyment. People don't become skilled modellers, painters and gamers overnight. If GW can use methods to make getting into the game easier, to make getting models to the table looking half decent then there's a FAR greater chance of getting more young people into the hobby and keeping them in the hobby. That they will go forward and one day they will be building, converting, painting, basing and more at an advanced level.


Every hobby has the same hurdles that people want success, in some form, early on to bolster their confidence. Yes they still have a lot to learn, but those early moments of joy and positive engagement are EVER so critical to people choosing one hobby over another. Especially when many will not start their hobby with a burning passion; that passion grows over time.
I don't think any of that applies to providing the option for a different weapon in the squad. I really, really don't.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/17 00:34:02


Post by: EviscerationPlague


ERJAK wrote:
EviscerationPlague wrote:
It's GW just trying to cut in on 3rd party weapon manufacturers. It's a garbage trend and they should feel bad, as well as anyone trying to defend them.

No, your defense of "you don't have to buy multiple boxes now" is garbage too. 3rd party is a thing.


"GW is bad because they're not forcing you to pay someone else even more money to equip your models after they sell you an incomplete product!" is an interesting take.

You'd have a point if procuring 3rd party bits were actually an expensive endeavor


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/17 01:28:24


Post by: H.B.M.C.


Hell, acquiring first party bits from a 3rd party isn't that hard. Or expensive.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/17 02:23:52


Post by: Hecaton


 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
A) Just add an extra sprue to each kit to cover the permutations as best as possible.

B) Take the forthcoming Heresy approach, which I for one fully endorse.


The extra sprue would be a great solution. Would make GW more money and would make me happier honestly.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
It’s also a bit uneven. First Born Marines? They’ve not (to the best of my, as ever, limited knowledge) been hit by this. So their Devastator squads can still hyper specialise, even though their kit doesn’t allow you to do that without playing swapsies/3rd party bits.


I can't imagine they'll ever fully apply this to loyalist marines.

The lack of ability to make, say, 3 skitarii squads - 1 with 4 plasma calivers, 1 with 4 arc rifles, and 1 with 4 TUA, is a problem and just makes playing the game more cumbersome.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/17 04:15:03


Post by: Insectum7


The only odd gear issue Firstborn have is the bizzare Sternguard-sergeants-may-not-take-a-Thunder-Hammer, even though Vanguard, Assault, Tactical, Devastator and even SCOUT Squad Sergeants can take them.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/17 05:20:41


Post by: Lord Damocles


The weapons which Dreadnoughts can take also seems to be decided each new codex by reading tea leaves.

They went from the multi-melta being the default option, to not being able to take it even though the Assault on Black Reach model was still available Via Battle of Vedros, back to being able to take it despite there no longer being a model, for example. Meanwhile twin heavy bolters/heavy flamers/autocannons just vanished completely.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/17 05:29:36


Post by: EviscerationPlague


 Insectum7 wrote:
The only odd gear issue Firstborn have is the bizzare Sternguard-sergeants-may-not-take-a-Thunder-Hammer, even though Vanguard, Assault, Tactical, Devastator and even SCOUT Squad Sergeants can take them.

It was obviously a balance decision. Sternguard would be broken if you could take Thunder Hammers on their Sergeants.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/17 06:12:04


Post by: Insectum7


EviscerationPlague wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:
The only odd gear issue Firstborn have is the bizzare Sternguard-sergeants-may-not-take-a-Thunder-Hammer, even though Vanguard, Assault, Tactical, Devastator and even SCOUT Squad Sergeants can take them.

It was obviously a balance decision. Sternguard would be broken if you could take Thunder Hammers on their Sergeants.
With only a single attack more than a Tac squad I can hardly see how it broke the bank. . . especially when Vanguard and Assault Terminators are running around.


 Lord Damocles wrote:
The weapons which Dreadnoughts can take also seems to be decided each new codex by reading tea leaves.

They went from the multi-melta being the default option, to not being able to take it even though the Assault on Black Reach model was still available Via Battle of Vedros, back to being able to take it despite there no longer being a model, for example. Meanwhile twin heavy bolters/heavy flamers/autocannons just vanished completely.
True, true. Although no model no rules sorta explains that, even though there were FW parts for them. But then you have the Multimelta thing so yeah, fiIk.



Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/17 06:21:13


Post by: EviscerationPlague


 Insectum7 wrote:
EviscerationPlague wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:
The only odd gear issue Firstborn have is the bizzare Sternguard-sergeants-may-not-take-a-Thunder-Hammer, even though Vanguard, Assault, Tactical, Devastator and even SCOUT Squad Sergeants can take them.

It was obviously a balance decision. Sternguard would be broken if you could take Thunder Hammers on their Sergeants.
With only a single attack more than a Tac squad I can hardly see how it broke the bank. . . especially when Vanguard and Assault Terminators are running around.

You didn't see posts here defending these unit entries with the excuse of balance?


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/17 08:07:13


Post by: Dysartes


 Overread wrote:
It's not about underestimating the talent of the young, its about providing quick achievements to bolster self confidence and enjoyment. People don't become skilled modellers, painters and gamers overnight. If GW can use methods to make getting into the game easier, to make getting models to the table looking half decent then there's a FAR greater chance of getting more young people into the hobby and keeping them in the hobby. That they will go forward and one day they will be building, converting, painting, basing and more at an advanced level.

Every hobby has the same hurdles that people want success, in some form, early on to bolster their confidence. Yes they still have a lot to learn, but those early moments of joy and positive engagement are EVER so critical to people choosing one hobby over another. Especially when many will not start their hobby with a burning passion; that passion grows over time.

If the concern is about quick achievements and developing skills, maybe part of the School/Scout program should include basic conversion (like weapon or head swaps) to get people started, though I appreciate there may be concerns about modelling knives for that sort of thing.

Hecaton wrote:
The lack of ability to make, say, 3 skitarii squads - 1 with 4 plasma calivers, 1 with 4 arc rifles, and 1 with 4 TUA, is a problem and just makes playing the game more cumbersome.

Quick question ont he Skitarii thing - I know they went up to a 20-strong squad this time around, for some reason, but what was the special weapon ratio before - was it 2/10 total?


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/17 08:14:48


Post by: NinthMusketeer


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
It's simple, and it's also really stupid: Carnifexes now come 2 to a box.
Hot dam I didn't even know about that one. I'm downright impressed at that, albeit in an ironic sort of way; it takes some serious dedication to stupidity to make that happen.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/17 08:28:40


Post by: Hecaton


 Dysartes wrote:
Quick question ont he Skitarii thing - I know they went up to a 20-strong squad this time around, for some reason, but what was the special weapon ratio before - was it 2/10 total?


It was 3/10.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/17 09:17:05


Post by: Deadnight


Karol wrote:

I generally don't understand sarcasm. But I will say it like this. It does seem extremly lucky, that without knowladge of the game, you converted exactly the version of the gun which is the most optimal.


Nothing to do with luck karol. And I don't appreciate the inference you're projecting of me.

Back then, buried power fists was what really did the damage for melee armies like space wolves (google 3rd Ed rhino rush). Plasmas were fine but certsinly not 'optimal' - they had a 1/6 chance of killing your dude. Meltas were arguably better in the context of the army at the time- they killed tanks good, melted marines just as much and had no overheat!

In the sw kit at the time (iirc the 'get started' box then cost me 80 euros and had 3 bikes, a rhino, blood claws and grey hunters).

From the kit I had power weapons, power fists, plasma pistols and a meltagun (I think). Along with plenty bolters, bolt pistols, and ccws. I wasn't bothered about flamers. I wanted options for a couple of plasma guns to go with my meltas and based on what was available, built them from the bits to hand. Turns out back in third, quite a lot of people did this as well (found out later!)

Karol wrote:

But they were your second army, so I assume by then you were 20 plus. I still don't get the whole argument. I am not saying someone can't like to convert or paint their models. I just think that the chance a teen starting the game is not going to start it with conversions projects etc and if they do something it i stuff like, veteran intercessors sgts with thunder hammers are the most optimal load out, there for I need to find a way to make 3-6 thunder hammer for my dudes. I am talking about the avarge player here.


Rubbish.

Tau were my second army. Wolves were my first and I was collecting them when I was sixteen/seventeen. Myself and my folks thought having a non-screen hobby would be a good idea for my senior secondary school years with all the exam pressures. In other words I was your age, and at the time I was converting stuff I was in the hobby less time than you and weirdly, complained less.

Like I said I converted a wolf lord out of the grey hunter kit as well.

Karol wrote:


It is 6 additional months to how much it takes to get the army to 2k, that is the problem. If the "army has to be painted" is an enforced rule. And yeah it costs money and time, no problem if it is money and time spend on something you want to do. But if it is money and time spend, because others make you do it, so they and not you, have more fun, on top of that their armies are already painted. On top of that having the army painted lowers it resell value. Most people don't last more then an edition, having a painted or rather a covered with paint models, makes the cash you get back from selling the army smaller. And I don't play unpainted, my army was 100% painted, save for one rhino and one dreadnought, the day I bought it.


(1)2k games aren't everything.
(2) it doesn't take 6 months. With contrast you can have your squad done in an evening.
(3) you're never going to 'win' when it comes to selling older stuff, whether its painted or not.

Karol wrote:

Most people don't enjoy the hobby long term. They want to have as much fun as possible playing the game. Stuff like painting etc are additional stuff a lot of people don't care much about. The "healthy" approach to the hobby looks like a mechanism to self explain an investment of time and money in to something, by adding a value to the activity.


It's not about self explaining or faux justification. It's taking pride in an activity and doing it well.

And To be fair, Youre ind of making my point for me. those people don't enjoy your hobby long term yet they only focus on the game? Id consider there could be a correlation, eh? You know - On the crummy game that for thirty years has been common knowledge that it is the weakest part of the hobby? And then they leave. Maybe if they'd invested some exp in painting/reading/modelling etc instead of dumping it all into 'the game', they wouldn't be leaving. Or they'd find something else to enjoy within the hobby, instead of dismissing it our of hand as 'something additional to do'

To be fair, the hobby isn't for everyone and that's OK too. But I maintain that if you want to get the most out of the hobby for the longest time, it helps enormously not to ignore sizeable chunks of it, especially big chunks like painting and modelling g.

Karol wrote:

So if forcing someone to play the game, if they just want to paint or convert sounds stupid. Then forcing people who want to play the game to do things they don't want to do, is stupid too.


No one forcing anyone. People are recommending it and encouraging it. Especially coming from a position of twenty years experience. 'I don't want to do it' covers a lot of ground from outside perspectives ranging from 'yep, that'd fair' to 'fine, but not doing it is really shooting yourself in the foot'.

Karol wrote:

Having rules for oneself is, having rules for oneself. I don't care if someone plays with unpainted or only with painted models. But forcing others to do what you want, because you want to immerse yourself in to something that doesn't exist sounds like something I take medicin for.


Grow up kid. Ascribing some kind of mental illness to people who want to immerse themselves in a fiction is disgusting and an extremely low blow to take. how dare you.

People immerse themselves in fictional stories told via, movies, video games, plays, radio shows, hell even campfire stories when none of the above even existed and have done since the dawn of time. Having the right props helps enormously.

No one's being forced. 'Valuing' a painted army for the immersion is perfectly acceptable and has nothing to do with mental illness. Stating your preference, encouraging and recommending is not 'forcing', especially when peiple are not happy with their hobby and are looking for advise. Not wanting to play against it - again, fine. People are allowed to say 'no' too.

But taking it back to the original point, as someone who has been in the hobby for longer that you've been alive, maybe consider my experience and perspective, eh? 'The game' is a mess and always has been. 'The game' isn't what draws me. Long term, if this is a hobby you want to stick with, it helps enormously to invest in the other aspects it covers as well or otherwise you're just punishing yourself.

Karol wrote:

also rules are the only thing that makes the world semi bearable, it is non regular and chaotic enough.


There is a place for rules, sure. And there are times the rules need to be chucked. There is a reason people cheer on rogues who flaunted the rules, like Nottinghams other hero, Robin hood for example.

And rules aren't always right or fair. Sometimes they are oppressive, immoral and/or wrong. In fact I'd argue plenty bad things exist because people follow the rules precisely and without question, instead of standing against them where they dont make sense, are broken or are toxic and problematic. But this is not the thread for that.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/17 09:24:45


Post by: Dudeface


The entire premise of the thread is misleading, it's not about whether it's "fun" to have out of box builds, it's more whether it's a good idea for newer players or for people who just want to buy and use what comes on the box. Arguably it may help with balance if you cap the number of option X that a unit has.

It's not a case of "fun", it's started as a whine that someone doesn't like something.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/17 10:43:27


Post by: Blackie


Dudeface wrote:
The entire premise of the thread is misleading, it's not about whether it's "fun" to have out of box builds, it's more whether it's a good idea for newer players or for people who just want to buy and use what comes on the box. Arguably it may help with balance if you cap the number of option X that a unit has.

It's not a case of "fun", it's started as a whine that someone doesn't like something.


Yes, exactly this. It's more about being practical than fun.

On one hand players can cover all the options out of a single box, but on the other hand such restrictions might slow down the game. For example take the wyches unit: for every 10 models the unit can have up to three girls equipped with either a shardnet/impaler, a pair of razorflails and a pair of hydra gauntles, each with a different profile that must be rolled separately even if their attacks go towards the same target. With up to 3 of the same melee weapon every 10 models such squad can't be assembled out of the box but the fight phase would be much faster and easier to resolve instead.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/17 11:22:07


Post by: blood reaper


 Blackie wrote:
Dudeface wrote:
The entire premise of the thread is misleading, it's not about whether it's "fun" to have out of box builds, it's more whether it's a good idea for newer players or for people who just want to buy and use what comes on the box. Arguably it may help with balance if you cap the number of option X that a unit has.

It's not a case of "fun", it's started as a whine that someone doesn't like something.


Yes, exactly this. It's more about being practical than fun.


It is practical for future customers - not past ones. There is a logic to why GW this - GW is a company and it exists to make money. It has no moral or ethical reasoning to support old customers (I remember when I went to a job interview, the staff told us that the worst time of their careers had been when they were told to be openly hostile to the old guard, who brought little money in).

People can talk about good businesses and bad ones - I personally think they're almost all bad - besides tiny cottage industry companies who live and die by internet word of mouth and often have a direct presence in forums. GW doesn't have to worry about that (which is why 'vote with your wallet' is a staggeringly stupid response, and one only robotically regurgitated).

There were a multitude of options for fixing the problem; selling weapon packs or sprues individually (something GW can, has, and still does), including additional weapons or sprues in the boxes to fill out the missing options (which GW can and does still do - see the new T'au and CSM kits which got updated additional sprues), generalising unit weapon profiles (so units actual options don't matter), or cut out options not in the boxes.

GW, being GW, picked the last option - the option which is 'best' for new players* (best in the sense new players do not 'have to'** convert, trade, or buy additional pieces), and worst for existing players - who are punished hugely and disproportionally.

* IMO generalising options would've been far better for 'new players' - not only is much, much more simple, but it would save a huge amount of time in assembling kits, make balancing easier, and basically remove all these worries; I understand it would've annoyed people, rightfully so, but it would've been far better than what we got!
** Of course, they never had to in the first place - they only had to if they wanted effective units - which of course reveals how poor GWs writing and box organisation is


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/17 12:59:34


Post by: H.B.M.C.


Oh yeah. I see this and it just screams "practicality":

Spoiler:




Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/17 13:13:24


Post by: Sgt. Cortez


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Oh yeah. I see this and it just screams "practicality":

Spoiler:





This is the single worst thing about 9th edition. If, 5 years from now, people talk about what was bad in 9th it won't be strats or balance or vehicle rules that are badly remembered, it will be this crap. At least for me it will be, because all of the other complaints don't bother me or have been worse in prior edition.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/17 13:22:16


Post by: Kanluwen


 Dysartes wrote:

Hecaton wrote:
The lack of ability to make, say, 3 skitarii squads - 1 with 4 plasma calivers, 1 with 4 arc rifles, and 1 with 4 TUA, is a problem and just makes playing the game more cumbersome.

Quick question ont he Skitarii thing - I know they went up to a 20-strong squad this time around, for some reason, but what was the special weapon ratio before - was it 2/10 total?

2 of any (duplicates allowed) at under 10 models; 10 bumped you up to 3 (again: duplicates allowed).
Couldn't take both Data-Tether+Omnispex, had to choose one.

Frankly, it's weird that they didn't just lean into the skid and lock Arquebus to the Rangers and Calivers to Vanguard. It would have gone a long way towards giving each unit a real role again.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/17 13:22:36


Post by: Sgt. Cortez


 blood reaper wrote:

** Of course, they never had to in the first place - they only had to if they wanted effective units - which of course reveals how poor GWs writing and box organisation is


QFT. This is the most important part and makes the whole discussion unnecessary. If you didn't want to convert you never had to, there's not a single old box that couldn't be played with just what was in there (unlike today where you can't build a basic squad out of the CSM or new Boyz kit ironically).
Nothing has been gained with these restrictions but a lot was lost.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/17 13:45:18


Post by: blood reaper


Sgt. Cortez wrote:
 blood reaper wrote:

** Of course, they never had to in the first place - they only had to if they wanted effective units - which of course reveals how poor GWs writing and box organisation is


QFT. This is the most important part and makes the whole discussion unnecessary. If you didn't want to convert you never had to, there's not a single old box that couldn't be played with just what was in there (unlike today where you can't build a basic squad out of the CSM or new Boyz kit ironically).
Nothing has been gained with these restrictions but a lot was lost.


One of the common topics in these conversation is the scorning of players who went and built more effective units - either by converting the additional weapons, buying them, trading them, and possibly in some rare cases, buying multiple boxes.*

If you do this, you're a try hard, WAAC, meta/power chaser, etc. It is an 'illegitimate' way to play (wanting good units). So many people will be forced to admit their issue was not the fact kits were limited, but that people built effective or optimal units, which in their minds should simply never be permitted.


*I do not know any cases of people doing this myself


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/17 14:44:10


Post by: Insectum7


EviscerationPlague wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:
EviscerationPlague wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:
The only odd gear issue Firstborn have is the bizzare Sternguard-sergeants-may-not-take-a-Thunder-Hammer, even though Vanguard, Assault, Tactical, Devastator and even SCOUT Squad Sergeants can take them.

It was obviously a balance decision. Sternguard would be broken if you could take Thunder Hammers on their Sergeants.
With only a single attack more than a Tac squad I can hardly see how it broke the bank. . . especially when Vanguard and Assault Terminators are running around.

You didn't see posts here defending these unit entries with the excuse of balance?
Genuinely I don't know what this is about. Is it sarcasm?


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/17 15:11:01


Post by: Blackie


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Oh yeah. I see this and it just screams "practicality":

Spoiler:




Being able to cover every possible option just out of the box is practical. Practical in terms of listbuilding, I've already said that multiple profiles slow down the game.

Something even more practical would be merge and consolidate most of the weapons. Drukhari special melee weapons for example could just have a single profile, same for all those plague marines close combat weapons, etc... They're all very samey anyway.

Someone of course would become mad, screaming: "They're taking our options away!!!!" .


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/17 15:17:11


Post by: EviscerationPlague


 Insectum7 wrote:
EviscerationPlague wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:
EviscerationPlague wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:
The only odd gear issue Firstborn have is the bizzare Sternguard-sergeants-may-not-take-a-Thunder-Hammer, even though Vanguard, Assault, Tactical, Devastator and even SCOUT Squad Sergeants can take them.

It was obviously a balance decision. Sternguard would be broken if you could take Thunder Hammers on their Sergeants.
With only a single attack more than a Tac squad I can hardly see how it broke the bank. . . especially when Vanguard and Assault Terminators are running around.

You didn't see posts here defending these unit entries with the excuse of balance?
Genuinely I don't know what this is about. Is it sarcasm?

My first post about it being broken was sarcasm. People using the defense of balance is not sarcasm.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/17 15:31:54


Post by: blood reaper


 Blackie wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Oh yeah. I see this and it just screams "practicality":

Spoiler:




Being able to cover every possible option just out of the box is practical. Practical in terms of listbuilding, I've already said that multiple profiles slow down the game.

Something even more practical would be merge and consolidate most of the weapons. Drukhari special melee weapons for example could just have a single profile, same for all those plague marines close combat weapons, etc... They're all very samey anyway.

Someone of course would become mad, screaming: "They're taking our options away!!!!" .


People would be annoyed, and I think that would be fair, but at the same time nothing would be invalidated. I think ultimately that is the best solution.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/17 16:02:46


Post by: Dudeface


 blood reaper wrote:
 Blackie wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Oh yeah. I see this and it just screams "practicality":

Spoiler:




Being able to cover every possible option just out of the box is practical. Practical in terms of listbuilding, I've already said that multiple profiles slow down the game.

Something even more practical would be merge and consolidate most of the weapons. Drukhari special melee weapons for example could just have a single profile, same for all those plague marines close combat weapons, etc... They're all very samey anyway.

Someone of course would become mad, screaming: "They're taking our options away!!!!" .


People would be annoyed, and I think that would be fair, but at the same time nothing would be invalidated. I think ultimately that is the best solution.


I think we all would agree on that one, the only question is how far do they go, using skitarii as an example, if they don't merge the special weapons down to "special weapon" but instead keep them as unique guns, someone is still going to be upset their old unit is invalidated by the cap on special weapons. Same as with the fusion pistol unit on troupes, its a change people saw coming a mile off and personally I'm on board with it as a none-harelquin collector, because it'd help me get into the army if I did, but it's of little solace to those with the units.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/17 16:37:47


Post by: EviscerationPlague


 Blackie wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Oh yeah. I see this and it just screams "practicality":

Spoiler:




Being able to cover every possible option just out of the box is practical.

When was that not covered to begin with?


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/17 16:49:46


Post by: Unit1126PLL


The customer: "put enough of every weapon in the box to cover every option!"
GW: "the customer wants every option in the box! Quick, slash options and rewrite unit entries!"


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/17 16:50:16


Post by: Grimtuff


 blood reaper wrote:
 Blackie wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Oh yeah. I see this and it just screams "practicality":

Spoiler:




Being able to cover every possible option just out of the box is practical. Practical in terms of listbuilding, I've already said that multiple profiles slow down the game.

Something even more practical would be merge and consolidate most of the weapons. Drukhari special melee weapons for example could just have a single profile, same for all those plague marines close combat weapons, etc... They're all very samey anyway.

Someone of course would become mad, screaming: "They're taking our options away!!!!" .


People would be annoyed, and I think that would be fair, but at the same time nothing would be invalidated. I think ultimately that is the best solution.


They already did it with the Dark Eldar back in the day. Wych weapons were all distinct different types, just like they are now, and when the DE got their 3.5 codex (the one with "second edition" printed on the cover), Wych weapons all got consolidated into a single profile that just provided some spicy bonuses for the Wyches.

Frankly, I'd welcome it with open arms. It stifles conversion opportunities when before a power weapon was a power weapon no matter what form it took for example, now if you want to adhere to WYSIWYG, then your hands are tied a bit.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/17 16:52:38


Post by: Nomeny


I kinda like how it kicks min-maxers in the teeth, but part of the game is hanging around in dark parking lots late at night to score some prime, rare bits. I'm torn.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/17 17:42:25


Post by: Racerguy180


Blackie wrote:
Spoiler:
Dudeface wrote:
The entire premise of the thread is misleading, it's not about whether it's "fun" to have out of box builds, it's more whether it's a good idea for newer players or for people who just want to buy and use what comes on the box. Arguably it may help with balance if you cap the number of option X that a unit has.

It's not a case of "fun", it's started as a whine that someone doesn't like something.


Yes, exactly this. It's more about being practical than fun.

On one hand players can cover all the options out of a single box, but on the other hand such restrictions might slow down the game. For example take the wyches unit: for every 10 models the unit can have up to three girls equipped with either a shardnet/impaler, a pair of razorflails and a pair of hydra gauntles, each with a different profile that must be rolled separately even if their attacks go towards the same target. With up to 3 of the same melee weapon every 10 models such squad can't be assembled out of the box but the fight phase would be much faster and easier to resolve instead.

Different colored dice exist and that's how I break down my attacks irrespective of profiles. So slowing the game down angle is obtuse.

There are plenty of valid reasons both for and against GW's reasoning.

Not advocating for/against the restrictions and I don't really care/wouldn't apply them myself. I have plenty of "INVALID" squads that I use consistently. Pay points for it and we'll generally not give a gak. Hell I was called a cheater on here for giving an Assault Intercessor Sgt a TH at the beginning of 9th...


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/17 17:50:42


Post by: Blackie


EviscerationPlague wrote:
 Blackie wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Oh yeah. I see this and it just screams "practicality":

Spoiler:




Being able to cover every possible option just out of the box is practical.

When was that not covered to begin with?


Take the wyches: until 8th it was possible to give 3 of the same special melee weapons to the 10 man squad. The box only comes with one of each though. So it wasn't possible to cover all the options out of the box. Now it is.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Racerguy180 wrote:

Different colored dice exist and that's how I break down my attacks irrespective of profiles. So slowing the game down angle is obtuse.



If both players have to roll colored dice (attacks and save) that's something that slows down the game. I do it in Necromunda, when I have to roll for pistol + close combat attack in melee, and there is a difference between that case or rolling all dice for the same weapon. It might not be extremely significant sometimes, but if it becomes super common and if does involve 40k level volume of dice (a squad of wyches has tons of attacks and up to 5 different weapons' profiles in combat) then it might become pretty significant.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/17 18:08:11


Post by: Insectum7


EviscerationPlague wrote:

My first post about it being broken was sarcasm. People using the defense of balance is not sarcasm.
Got it. I'm catching up now


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
The customer: "put enough of every weapon in the box to cover every option!"
GW: "the customer wants every option in the box! Quick, slash options and rewrite unit entries!"

Ouch. That one stings a bit


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/17 22:33:11


Post by: Shadowbrand


Like squad loadouts and what you get in the box? Yeah...I used to think the old Havoc and Noise Marine kit was the worst for that. I think one of the things that I don't like about Primaris is also the lack of...Diversity in equipment loadout.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/18 00:07:17


Post by: H.B.M.C.


Or maybe just have the rules for the different weapons and let people arm their units how they like, rather than creating artificial restrictions (like we have now) or consolidated generic weapons (like we're about to get for Chaos). I know, radical idea. Only something we've had in the game for longer than most people have been playing.

Like with GW's new board sizes, this change has nothing to do with game balance or even the oft-touted ease of use for new players (as stated, there's nothing "easy" about those unit entries). It's just about bits and sales and killing the 3rd party market.




Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/18 02:14:04


Post by: Hecaton


Dudeface wrote:
The entire premise of the thread is misleading, it's not about whether it's "fun" to have out of box builds, it's more whether it's a good idea for newer players or for people who just want to buy and use what comes on the box. Arguably it may help with balance if you cap the number of option X that a unit has.

It's not a case of "fun", it's started as a whine that someone doesn't like something.


Nah, it's a case of fun and playability. If it's not fun, if it doesn't create a better game experience, then why is it a thing?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Nomeny wrote:
I kinda like how it kicks min-maxers in the teeth, but part of the game is hanging around in dark parking lots late at night to score some prime, rare bits. I'm torn.


How about how it kicks people who like to convert in the teeth?


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/18 03:17:09


Post by: techsoldaten


Nothing fun about kit restrictions. The game has been simplified enough as it is. If you are going to put in the effort to make something that goes beyond, you should be allowed to.

Does it make a big difference? Not so much. Sure, I will miss Plasma Termicide squads, but it's not the end of the world.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/18 04:30:10


Post by: NinthMusketeer


Sgt. Cortez wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Oh yeah. I see this and it just screams "practicality":

Spoiler:





This is the single worst thing about 9th edition. If, 5 years from now, people talk about what was bad in 9th it won't be strats or balance or vehicle rules that are badly remembered, it will be this crap. At least for me it will be, because all of the other complaints don't bother me or have been worse in prior edition.
Same for me. For me this is worse than stratagem oversaturation and blatant power creep in terms of killing fun.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/18 04:33:12


Post by: alextroy


Insectum7 wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
The customer: "put enough of every weapon in the box to cover every option!"
GW: "the customer wants every option in the box! Quick, slash options and rewrite unit entries!"

Ouch. That one stings a bit
Be careful what you wish for. You must might get it.

The big problem is that as GW kits have evolved, the model have become more dynamic and detailed. This makes providing many options, either in the kit or via an option box, unworkable (assuming you expect the kit to go together as instructed without modification).

They can get away with this in Horus Heresy that are old-school Marine models with a drop in gun. However, I think they were luck to cram as many options into the Plague Marine box as they did once you include all the boltguns along with the special and melee weapons.

Is it a perfect solution? No.

Does it mean your kit is all you need to build you unit? Pretty often yes.

Does it support more real-world units where a variety of weapons is actually the norm? In theory if the points cost ever made taking a variety of weapons actually viable. But that is a whole different discussion.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/18 04:55:22


Post by: H.B.M.C.


 alextroy wrote:
Be careful what you wish for. You must might get it.
That already happened after the Chapterhouse debacle.

 alextroy wrote:
The big problem is that as GW kits have evolved, the model have become more dynamic and detailed. This makes providing many options, either in the kit or via an option box, unworkable (assuming you expect the kit to go together as instructed without modification).
Weird. People keep telling me that nothing's changed with GW minis and that they're just as option-rich as they used to be...


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/18 04:59:54


Post by: Unit1126PLL


The issue with taking a variety of weapons in 40k is there aren't really roles anymore.

Grenade launcher: kinda killy
Flamer: kinda killy
Meltagun: killy but for tanks
Plasma Gun: killy but for everything else, and sometimes tanks.

This goes pretty much for every army you'd see across the table from you, so it's no wonder the only real competition is between melta and plasma.

If the roles were more like:
Grenade Launcher: utility (smoke rounds to obscure friendly forces, flares to help friendly forces aim, etc)
Flamer: engineering (ignores all terrain when fired, including Obscuring. Firing a flamethrower at where you expect the enemy to be even if you can't see him is obvious)
Meltagun: anti-tank
Plasma Gun: anti-infantry

Then you would be on to something. But 40k doesn't have mechanics for that stuff mostly.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/18 05:23:32


Post by: NinthMusketeer


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Or maybe just have the rules for the different weapons and let people arm their units how they like, rather than creating artificial restrictions (like we have now) or consolidated generic weapons (like we're about to get for Chaos). I know, radical idea. Only something we've had in the game for longer than most people have been playing.

Like with GW's new board sizes, this change has nothing to do with game balance or even the oft-touted ease of use for new players (as stated, there's nothing "easy" about those unit entries). It's just about bits and sales and killing the 3rd party market.


I have strong suspicions that FLG/ITC had something to do with the board size change. The idea may not have started with them, but I doubt they gave unbiased feedback, so to say.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/18 05:38:30


Post by: H.B.M.C.


 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I have strong suspicions that FLG/ITC had something to do with the board size change. The idea may not have started with them, but I doubt they gave unbiased feedback, so to say.
I very much doubt it, not without reasoning I might add.

I dead certain it was entirely a practicality thing based upon the standard size of the boxes they ship vs the board size they could fit inside there.

You have to remember that GW tried out a few different things before landing on their "recommended" board:

1. They did the expensive fully plastic Realm of Battle boards.
2. They did their own neoprene mats that were 4x4 and obscenely expensive. Not a big shock that they didn't last.
3. Moonbase Klaisus/Blasted Hallowheart sets. These boxes contained paltry amounts of terrain (but did give us the Ryza Ruins for a brief moment), but also contained full sets of foldable double-sided boards. They're not the exact same size as the current boards, and nor are they 6x4, but can certainly be seen as a major prototype to the boards we have today.

The standard GW boxes also can't hold the needed width/height to do a 6x4 table, and it appears that specialist got a special dispensation to make their 1x1 Zone Mortalis tiles (again, the previous card tiles for Newcromunda were not 1x1, as they would not have fit in GW boxes).

So I don't blame them for making what they can with the limitations of resources. What I resent is the fumbling immediate adoption by the tournament crowd, like it was a 'better' way to play the game, and the insistence by many (including some here) that the size of the boards has anything to do with game-play, or balance or *groan* fething "average kitchen table size" or whatever other nonsense was cooked up when this first came about when really it's a simple timeline:

Box is Size X ---> Boards of Size Y fit into Size X Box ---> make 'standard' table size for all our games the same as the tiles we sell.



Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/18 05:46:28


Post by: EviscerationPlague


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
The issue with taking a variety of weapons in 40k is there aren't really roles anymore.

Grenade launcher: kinda killy
Flamer: kinda killy
Meltagun: killy but for tanks
Plasma Gun: killy but for everything else, and sometimes tanks.

This goes pretty much for every army you'd see across the table from you, so it's no wonder the only real competition is between melta and plasma.

If the roles were more like:
Grenade Launcher: utility (smoke rounds to obscure friendly forces, flares to help friendly forces aim, etc)
Flamer: engineering (ignores all terrain when fired, including Obscuring. Firing a flamethrower at where you expect the enemy to be even if you can't see him is obvious)
Meltagun: anti-tank
Plasma Gun: anti-infantry

Then you would be on to something. But 40k doesn't have mechanics for that stuff mostly.

There's a couple of things you can do with the grenade launchers, like being absurdly cheap and giving it the ability to ignore LoS.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 alextroy wrote:
Insectum7 wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
The customer: "put enough of every weapon in the box to cover every option!"
GW: "the customer wants every option in the box! Quick, slash options and rewrite unit entries!"

Ouch. That one stings a bit
Be careful what you wish for. You must might get it.

The big problem is that as GW kits have evolved, the model have become more dynamic and detailed. This makes providing many options, either in the kit or via an option box, unworkable (assuming you expect the kit to go together as instructed without modification).

They can get away with this in Horus Heresy that are old-school Marine models with a drop in gun. However, I think they were luck to cram as many options into the Plague Marine box as they did once you include all the boltguns along with the special and melee weapons.

Is it a perfect solution? No.

Does it mean your kit is all you need to build you unit? Pretty often yes.

Does it support more real-world units where a variety of weapons is actually the norm? In theory if the points cost ever made taking a variety of weapons actually viable. But that is a whole different discussion.

Yeah no, the Plague Marine kit is one of the worst kits they've ever done, period.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/18 07:12:08


Post by: Dolnikan


I'm all for generalising weapons a little. There's no reason why the exact shape of a power weapon should have such a huge impact on its rules. Just make all power weapons one weapon, generalise all bolters into one profile, make a general category of wych weapons without bothering with rules for each individual one, and things like that. That alone speeds up the game quite a bit and it means that players won't be told that they went for the trap option because they gave their guys a sword instead of a mallet or whatever.

The only differentiation would be between different armies (obviously) and heavy and special weapons and the like, although some consolidation might also happen there. That way, you can make much simpler profiles, create far more opportunity for conversions, and still give meaningful choices while stripping out fake choice. 40K is a game that just doesn't have the kind of scale anymore where all those little details matter.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/18 07:18:30


Post by: Insectum7


 alextroy wrote:
Insectum7 wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
The customer: "put enough of every weapon in the box to cover every option!"
GW: "the customer wants every option in the box! Quick, slash options and rewrite unit entries!"

Ouch. That one stings a bit
Be careful what you wish for. You must might get it.

The big problem is that as GW kits have evolved, the model have become more dynamic and detailed. This makes providing many options, either in the kit or via an option box, unworkable (assuming you expect the kit to go together as instructed without modification).

They can get away with this in Horus Heresy that are old-school Marine models with a drop in gun. However, I think they were luck to cram as many options into the Plague Marine box as they did once you include all the boltguns along with the special and melee weapons.

Is it a perfect solution? No.

Does it mean your kit is all you need to build you unit? Pretty often yes.

Does it support more real-world units where a variety of weapons is actually the norm? In theory if the points cost ever made taking a variety of weapons actually viable. But that is a whole different discussion.
Have you ever built either of the Genestealer Cult Neophytes or Acolytes boxes? TONS of options in those kits. "Unworkable" my a$$.

They can totally provide the options, they just don't.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/18 07:52:09


Post by: Blackie


 Dolnikan wrote:
I'm all for generalising weapons a little. There's no reason why the exact shape of a power weapon should have such a huge impact on its rules. Just make all power weapons one weapon, generalise all bolters into one profile, make a general category of wych weapons without bothering with rules for each individual one, and things like that. That alone speeds up the game quite a bit and it means that players won't be told that they went for the trap option because they gave their guys a sword instead of a mallet or whatever.

The only differentiation would be between different armies (obviously) and heavy and special weapons and the like, although some consolidation might also happen there. That way, you can make much simpler profiles, create far more opportunity for conversions, and still give meaningful choices while stripping out fake choice. 40K is a game that just doesn't have the kind of scale anymore where all those little details matter.


The idea of having tons of different but not so different weapons for the same squad is something that really bothers me. For example in melee each unit should just have up to 3 close combat weapons: basic anti infantry weapon (like chainswords), one anti elite weapon (like power weapons) and one anti tank option (like a power fist/hammer, merged into a single profile). Stop.

Wyches and Plague Marines are perfect examples of this madness having tons of different but samey profiles, but also take the Sacrestans kit: there's no reason to have two different profiles for maces/halbreds as they're both anti elite weapons and really samey. Just merge the profiles.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/18 07:59:55


Post by: blood reaper


Nomeny wrote:
I kinda like how it kicks min-maxers in the teeth, but part of the game is hanging around in dark parking lots late at night to score some prime, rare bits. I'm torn.


What is it with casuals and having such a strong "cutting off my nose to spite my own face" mindset? Did min-maxers murder their families?


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/18 08:04:50


Post by: Not Online!!!


 blood reaper wrote:
Nomeny wrote:
I kinda like how it kicks min-maxers in the teeth, but part of the game is hanging around in dark parking lots late at night to score some prime, rare bits. I'm torn.


What is it with casuals and having such a strong "cutting off my nose to spite my own face" mindset?


What has that to do with casuals or competitive?

FFS i want to play a wargame, I want to field a squad that uses plague throwers to provide close support, flamers and melee weapons for my assault group and plasmaguns for defensive line duty.

And not squad stupiditis, which can't decide if it wants to stab stuff , shoot stuff and be completely irrelevant due to slots.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/18 08:06:48


Post by: blood reaper


Not Online!!! wrote:
 blood reaper wrote:
Nomeny wrote:
I kinda like how it kicks min-maxers in the teeth, but part of the game is hanging around in dark parking lots late at night to score some prime, rare bits. I'm torn.


What is it with casuals and having such a strong "cutting off my nose to spite my own face" mindset?


What has that to do with casuals or competitive?

FFS i want to play a wargame, I want to field a squad that uses plague throwers to provide close support, flamers and melee weapons for my assault group and plasmaguns for defensive line duty.

And not squad stupiditis, which can't decide if it wants to stab stuff , shoot stuff and be completely irrelevant due to slots.


I do not encounter competitive players seething about multiple plasma guns in a squad. I do find casuals doing it, or rather, casual-at-all-costs (the worst kind of gamer) complaining. This is why I described the action of complaining about 'min-maxing' as 'cutting off your own nose' - because it will hurt everyone.

Of course, ghoulish CAAC people have an axe to grind with the competitive scene - which poisoned their pets and never came back from the store after going out to get cigarettes. The wargaming community is infested with a 'feth you, got mine!' mentality. There's a specific poster in News and Rumours (I think) who every time GW cuts options, will gleefully declare how happy he is to see it, because it happened to his army.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/18 08:17:58


Post by: Not Online!!!


 blood reaper wrote:


I do not encounter competitive players seething about multiple plasma guns in a squad. I do find casuals doing it, or rather, casual-at-all-costs (the worst kind of gamer) complaining. This is why I described the action of complaining about 'min-maxing' as 'cutting off your own nose' - because it will hurt everyone.

Of course, ghoulish CAAC people have an axe to grind with the competitive scene - which poisoned their pets and never came back from the store after going out to get cigarettes. The wargaming community is infested with a 'feth you, got mine!' mentality. There's a specific poster in News and Rumours (I think) who every time GW cuts options, will gleefully declare how happy he is to see it, because it happened to his army.


Fair enough, granted i think there are things that both these pole populations did get wrong, alas most players don't fall into either category.

Hence why this is just a farce, the lack of content in boxes should annoy anyone, as should the proveribial lawtext unit entries because these ultimativly lower the game experience aswell as hobby experience.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/18 10:49:09


Post by: Dudeface


 Insectum7 wrote:
 alextroy wrote:
Insectum7 wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
The customer: "put enough of every weapon in the box to cover every option!"
GW: "the customer wants every option in the box! Quick, slash options and rewrite unit entries!"

Ouch. That one stings a bit
Be careful what you wish for. You must might get it.

The big problem is that as GW kits have evolved, the model have become more dynamic and detailed. This makes providing many options, either in the kit or via an option box, unworkable (assuming you expect the kit to go together as instructed without modification).

They can get away with this in Horus Heresy that are old-school Marine models with a drop in gun. However, I think they were luck to cram as many options into the Plague Marine box as they did once you include all the boltguns along with the special and melee weapons.

Is it a perfect solution? No.

Does it mean your kit is all you need to build you unit? Pretty often yes.

Does it support more real-world units where a variety of weapons is actually the norm? In theory if the points cost ever made taking a variety of weapons actually viable. But that is a whole different discussion.
Have you ever built either of the Genestealer Cult Neophytes or Acolytes boxes? TONS of options in those kits. "Unworkable" my a$$.

They can totally provide the options, they just don't.


Neither of those units provides all the options permitted for their "optimal build" in the box, you can field 2 acolyte heavy melee weapons in a squad of 5, no limit on duplicates, but with 1 of each in the box. Now your options are:
- not give a gak and have 2 mismatched weapons
- bits scalper
- buy 2 kits and potentially make more models than you want/need for the right bits
- GW limits the unit options to match the box contents

Same applies to the neophytes where it's 2 heavy ranged and 2 special ranges weapons per 10 - box of 10 contains one of each, so not the best example.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/18 10:51:03


Post by: blood reaper


"Bits scalper"

Are people on eBay really selling pieces at such disproportionate prices? I 100% feel people exaggerate this.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/18 10:57:13


Post by: Dudeface


 blood reaper wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:
 blood reaper wrote:
Nomeny wrote:
I kinda like how it kicks min-maxers in the teeth, but part of the game is hanging around in dark parking lots late at night to score some prime, rare bits. I'm torn.


What is it with casuals and having such a strong "cutting off my nose to spite my own face" mindset?


What has that to do with casuals or competitive?

FFS i want to play a wargame, I want to field a squad that uses plague throwers to provide close support, flamers and melee weapons for my assault group and plasmaguns for defensive line duty.

And not squad stupiditis, which can't decide if it wants to stab stuff , shoot stuff and be completely irrelevant due to slots.


I do not encounter competitive players seething about multiple plasma guns in a squad. I do find casuals doing it, or rather, casual-at-all-costs (the worst kind of gamer) complaining. This is why I described the action of complaining about 'min-maxing' as 'cutting off your own nose' - because it will hurt everyone.

Of course, ghoulish CAAC people have an axe to grind with the competitive scene - which poisoned their pets and never came back from the store after going out to get cigarettes. The wargaming community is infested with a 'feth you, got mine!' mentality. There's a specific poster in News and Rumours (I think) who every time GW cuts options, will gleefully declare how happy he is to see it, because it happened to his army.


Casual/competitive doesn't come into this topic directly, if casual players are getting whipped by competitive players because they spend more to get optimal loadouts I can see why they'd be pissed. I don't see how having a squad with 5 plasma guns is "helping" (to extrapolate the opposite of hurting) the community or game in any way more or less than limiting the number of specials in a unit?

Surely a competitive player winning with the "box contents" army is a more gratuitous win than "lolz I bought 5 of these kits for that 1 gun so now your units gone because you didn't" which seems to be tone I'm getting.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 blood reaper wrote:
"Bits scalper"

Are people on eBay really selling pieces at such disproportionate prices? I 100% feel people exaggerate this.


Yes, because the competitive market drives up the cost of certain options. When a GW chaincannon was £11 a go, that's bits scalping, what else are you going to call them?


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/18 11:19:31


Post by: blood reaper


Dudeface wrote:
 blood reaper wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:
 blood reaper wrote:
Nomeny wrote:
I kinda like how it kicks min-maxers in the teeth, but part of the game is hanging around in dark parking lots late at night to score some prime, rare bits. I'm torn.


What is it with casuals and having such a strong "cutting off my nose to spite my own face" mindset?


What has that to do with casuals or competitive?

FFS i want to play a wargame, I want to field a squad that uses plague throwers to provide close support, flamers and melee weapons for my assault group and plasmaguns for defensive line duty.

And not squad stupiditis, which can't decide if it wants to stab stuff , shoot stuff and be completely irrelevant due to slots.


I do not encounter competitive players seething about multiple plasma guns in a squad. I do find casuals doing it, or rather, casual-at-all-costs (the worst kind of gamer) complaining. This is why I described the action of complaining about 'min-maxing' as 'cutting off your own nose' - because it will hurt everyone.

Of course, ghoulish CAAC people have an axe to grind with the competitive scene - which poisoned their pets and never came back from the store after going out to get cigarettes. The wargaming community is infested with a 'feth you, got mine!' mentality. There's a specific poster in News and Rumours (I think) who every time GW cuts options, will gleefully declare how happy he is to see it, because it happened to his army.


Casual/competitive doesn't come into this topic directly, if casual players are getting whipped by competitive players because they spend more to get optimal loadouts I can see why they'd be pissed. I don't see how having a squad with 5 plasma guns is "helping" (to extrapolate the opposite of hurting) the community or game in any way more or less than limiting the number of specials in a unit?

Surely a competitive player winning with the "box contents" army is a more gratuitous win than "lolz I bought 5 of these kits for that 1 gun so now your units gone because you didn't" which seems to be tone I'm getting.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 blood reaper wrote:
"Bits scalper"

Are people on eBay really selling pieces at such disproportionate prices? I 100% feel people exaggerate this.


Yes, because the competitive market drives up the cost of certain options. When a GW chaincannon was £11 a go, that's bits scalping, what else are you going to call them?


Anyone who buys 5 boxes for one bit is probably a bit of a moron or has too much money - but if they have that much money what is to stop them from buying 5 boxes of any powerful unit?

I don't see how that is any more 'gratuitous' to win with what you get in a box. What you get in the boxes tends to be pish. But when people win with what they get in the 'boxes', they still get labelled WAAC or spammers. So this line of arguing clearly isn't going to save the casual.

One of my favourite elements of the casual mindset is trying to force people to jump through these sorts of ridiculous ad-hoc hoops to achieve some kind of mythical 'legitimate win', which is not influenced by taking effective units, but some measure of 'skilful play' where actual army building isn't involved. The term 'scrub mentality' comes to mind.

It seems almost like the best approach would be maybe to ... actually balance unit options rather than simply remove them? For GW, this might be too much of a demand.

I put down the cost of the Chaincannon to the fact only one Chaincannon was actually available in the box.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/18 11:58:52


Post by: Hecaton


Dudeface wrote:
Casual/competitive doesn't come into this topic directly, if casual players are getting whipped by competitive players because they spend more to get optimal loadouts I can see why they'd be pissed. I don't see how having a squad with 5 plasma guns is "helping" (to extrapolate the opposite of hurting) the community or game in any way more or less than limiting the number of specials in a unit?


Compared to, say, 1 plasma 1 flamer 1 melta and whatever, 5 plasma guns is much less cumbersome on the table. And it can make Troops squads actually worthwhile when they can lean into a particular role.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/18 12:22:56


Post by: Dudeface


 blood reaper wrote:
Dudeface wrote:
 blood reaper wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:
 blood reaper wrote:
Nomeny wrote:
I kinda like how it kicks min-maxers in the teeth, but part of the game is hanging around in dark parking lots late at night to score some prime, rare bits. I'm torn.


What is it with casuals and having such a strong "cutting off my nose to spite my own face" mindset?


What has that to do with casuals or competitive?

FFS i want to play a wargame, I want to field a squad that uses plague throwers to provide close support, flamers and melee weapons for my assault group and plasmaguns for defensive line duty.

And not squad stupiditis, which can't decide if it wants to stab stuff , shoot stuff and be completely irrelevant due to slots.


I do not encounter competitive players seething about multiple plasma guns in a squad. I do find casuals doing it, or rather, casual-at-all-costs (the worst kind of gamer) complaining. This is why I described the action of complaining about 'min-maxing' as 'cutting off your own nose' - because it will hurt everyone.

Of course, ghoulish CAAC people have an axe to grind with the competitive scene - which poisoned their pets and never came back from the store after going out to get cigarettes. The wargaming community is infested with a 'feth you, got mine!' mentality. There's a specific poster in News and Rumours (I think) who every time GW cuts options, will gleefully declare how happy he is to see it, because it happened to his army.


Casual/competitive doesn't come into this topic directly, if casual players are getting whipped by competitive players because they spend more to get optimal loadouts I can see why they'd be pissed. I don't see how having a squad with 5 plasma guns is "helping" (to extrapolate the opposite of hurting) the community or game in any way more or less than limiting the number of specials in a unit?

Surely a competitive player winning with the "box contents" army is a more gratuitous win than "lolz I bought 5 of these kits for that 1 gun so now your units gone because you didn't" which seems to be tone I'm getting.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 blood reaper wrote:
"Bits scalper"

Are people on eBay really selling pieces at such disproportionate prices? I 100% feel people exaggerate this.


Yes, because the competitive market drives up the cost of certain options. When a GW chaincannon was £11 a go, that's bits scalping, what else are you going to call them?


Anyone who buys 5 boxes for one bit is probably a bit of a moron or has too much money - but if they have that much money what is to stop them from buying 5 boxes of any powerful unit?

I don't see how that is any more 'gratuitous' to win with what you get in a box. What you get in the boxes tends to be pish. But when people win with what they get in the 'boxes', they still get labelled WAAC or spammers. So this line of arguing clearly isn't going to save the casual.

One of my favourite elements of the casual mindset is trying to force people to jump through these sorts of ridiculous ad-hoc hoops to achieve some kind of mythical 'legitimate win', which is not influenced by taking effective units, but some measure of 'skilful play' where actual army building isn't involved. The term 'scrub mentality' comes to mind.

It seems almost like the best approach would be maybe to ... actually balance unit options rather than simply remove them? For GW, this might be too much of a demand.

I put down the cost of the Chaincannon to the fact only one Chaincannon was actually available in the box.


Limiting the amount of something that can be taken is one method of balancing it however (note I doubt that's their reasoning), but people want different stuff out of the game, there's no need to be a dick about it. Warhammer isn't some hormonally charged high school campus where everyone has to belong to some totally unironic social clique. I'm confident if the chaincannon was 12" heavy2 s3 ap- d1 they'd still be selling for £11 as well. The point is they take a box, they sell off the bits they want for as much as they can get to make a profit, the same shops often buy limited boxes and split them up, they're scalpers, or capitalists in action if you prefer.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/18 12:26:56


Post by: Dolnikan


Hecaton wrote:
Dudeface wrote:
Casual/competitive doesn't come into this topic directly, if casual players are getting whipped by competitive players because they spend more to get optimal loadouts I can see why they'd be pissed. I don't see how having a squad with 5 plasma guns is "helping" (to extrapolate the opposite of hurting) the community or game in any way more or less than limiting the number of specials in a unit?


Compared to, say, 1 plasma 1 flamer 1 melta and whatever, 5 plasma guns is much less cumbersome on the table. And it can make Troops squads actually worthwhile when they can lean into a particular role.


The problem with that is that in 40k, generalists generally don't do that well because they're worse at their assigned task than specialists are. That of course is only logical because of different ranges and ideal targets for different weapons. For a long while, it's already been an issue that the standard weapons carried around by base troops are struggling, but with the scope of the game constantly increasing, they fall behind more and more which reduces the ordinary soldiers to being nothing but ablative wounds for the actual weapons. It also means that 'normal' anti-infantry weapons just aren't seen as relevant because ordinary infantry isn't what does the actual fighting and killing.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/18 12:29:28


Post by: blood reaper


It is a way to balance it, I won't deny that - but it seems like a very bad way to balance it - since it invalidates peoples units and also cuts down converting opportunities. There are clearly 'good and bad' ways to balance something - for example - it would be 'a balancing choice' to remove armies like say, Tyranids, from the game at the moment. Of course this wouldn't be a good way to go about it, but it would remove the balance issue.

This would've also worked with Knights, Fliers, etc. Obviously this is not a great approach because it would then stop people using those models in a capacity outside of legends, and despite what people would like to claim, those rules are janky as feth and aren't well supported; so we should instead aim to balance things in another way before we begin clipping options. (I fething hate fliers btw, like, I totally hate them - but I wouldn't remove the option).

I mean I don't think there's anything wrong with wanting something different.

Indeed, I have a major issue with the 'competitive players are x' mentality because like, yeah if you play with a stranger and have no idea how they play they may just go all out and curb stomp you. Perhaps all of us need schooling in social skills so we can like, discuss how we'll play before we play.

I mean if that's the case with the chain cannon, then I think you'd have to accept it's not really a fault of competitive players or whatever.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/18 12:30:42


Post by: Karol


Running 1 plasma, 1 flamer and 1 melta is not being a generalist though. It is just being a bad unit with a bad load out. Specially when most units in w40k require running of multiples, so that at least 1-2 get in to range to use their weapon.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/18 12:31:25


Post by: blood reaper


 Dolnikan wrote:
Hecaton wrote:
Dudeface wrote:
Casual/competitive doesn't come into this topic directly, if casual players are getting whipped by competitive players because they spend more to get optimal loadouts I can see why they'd be pissed. I don't see how having a squad with 5 plasma guns is "helping" (to extrapolate the opposite of hurting) the community or game in any way more or less than limiting the number of specials in a unit?


Compared to, say, 1 plasma 1 flamer 1 melta and whatever, 5 plasma guns is much less cumbersome on the table. And it can make Troops squads actually worthwhile when they can lean into a particular role.


The problem with that is that in 40k, generalists generally don't do that well because they're worse at their assigned task than specialists are. That of course is only logical because of different ranges and ideal targets for different weapons. For a long while, it's already been an issue that the standard weapons carried around by base troops are struggling, but with the scope of the game constantly increasing, they fall behind more and more which reduces the ordinary soldiers to being nothing but ablative wounds for the actual weapons. It also means that 'normal' anti-infantry weapons just aren't seen as relevant because ordinary infantry isn't what does the actual fighting and killing.


I think this is a very good point.

The problem with 40k is we are now in a stage where the game is focussed on huge battles. Armies are a lot bigger than they used to be and games are clearly geared towards having a lot of models. So having generalist units just, doesn't work.

IMO it would probably be better to split 40k into three levels. Kill team, something similar to Bolt Action with very few vehicles or large figures, and then something on the current scale of 40k.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/18 12:48:21


Post by: Blackie


 blood reaper wrote:
It is a way to balance it, I won't deny that - but it seems like a very bad way to balance it - since it invalidates peoples units and also cuts down converting opportunities. There are clearly 'good and bad' ways to balance something - for example - it would be 'a balancing choice' to remove armies like say, Tyranids, from the game at the moment. Of course this wouldn't be a good way to go about it, but it would remove the balance issue.



Removing a whole faction in the sake of balance is much different removing all the options that were never possible out of the boxes though. Don't get me wrong, one of the main reasons why I started 40k during 3rd, specifically orks, was the opportunity to kitbash and convert models. I've always had fun trying to figure out how to get the desired loadout of a unit in the easiest, coolest and cheapest way when it wasn't possible to have it straight out of the box.

But I can understand the arguments behind this "no model no rule" concept. I think it's bad implemented though because it just makes things easier for those who want to assemble the models, which is a good thing, but it doens't for those who are playing since rolling different profiles separately is tedious and time consuming, not to mention that some players might have problems to field the models as they assembled long ago. That's why I think the "no rule no model" concept might even be a good thing IF samey weapons' profiles are merged.

Make all close combat special weapons for wyches the same thing, so it doesn't matter if a new player builds his 10 man squad with one of each weapon and a seasoned one has a squad with 3x of the same weapon. Same for plague marines, etc...


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/18 13:45:55


Post by: Sherrypie


 blood reaper wrote:


IMO it would probably be better to split 40k into three levels. Kill team, something similar to Bolt Action with very few vehicles or large figures, and then something on the current scale of 40k.


Traditionally this would be Kill Team, 40k and Apocalypse (or straight-up Epic). None of that is splitting anything, though, just using the games at the levels of troops and abstraction that they operate best at.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/18 13:53:17


Post by: LunarSol


The old system definitely kept me out of 40k personally. You'd see armies of the same weapon copy pasta'd 15+ times and learn that you only got 1 copy of it for every 5 models you bought. I still don't really attempt to play 40k competitively for this reason, but the gap between what's optimal and what I'm actually willing to put into building an army is a lot closer than its ever been.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/18 13:59:53


Post by: H.B.M.C.


Dudeface wrote:
Yes, because the competitive market drives up the cost of certain options. When a GW chaincannon was £11 a go, that's bits scalping, what else are you going to call them?
That's not scalping. That's supply & demand.

If there's one item in a box that everyone wants, a bits seller has to be able to sell things at a reasonable rate to make purchasing the entire box worthwhile. There can be parts of boxes that sell out instantly the moment they come into stock, and then other parts of a box that sit in stock for ever until maybe they run a 50% off clearance sale to get rid of all the gak people never buy.

So if a box comes with 10 things, 5 of which are unlikely to garner much attention, 2 of which might sell a bit, 2 that will sell quite often, and one that will sell out instantly, you have to price them so that you're not buying expensive boxes and losing out because only a couple of parts sell. Otherwise you're doing everything at a loss.

For it to be scalping the store would have to be buying up the entire supply and then setting unreasonable prices on every part.



Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/18 14:11:14


Post by: blood reaper


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Dudeface wrote:
Yes, because the competitive market drives up the cost of certain options. When a GW chaincannon was £11 a go, that's bits scalping, what else are you going to call them?
That's not scalping. That's supply & demand.

If there's one item in a box that everyone wants, a bits seller has to be able to sell things at a reasonable rate to make purchasing the entire box worthwhile. There can be parts of boxes that sell out instantly the moment they come into stock, and then other parts of a box that sit in stock for ever until maybe they run a 50% off clearance sale to get rid of all the gak people never buy.

So if a box comes with 10 things, 5 of which are unlikely to garner much attention, 2 of which might sell a bit, 2 that will sell quite often, and one that will sell out instantly, you have to price them so that you're not buying expensive boxes and losing out because only a couple of parts sell. Otherwise you're doing everything at a loss.

For it to be scalping the store would have to be buying up the entire supply and then setting unreasonable prices on every part.



It is clear GW have recognised an issue with this as well - because they've put the Chain Cannon into the new CSM upgrade sprue - but none of the other weapons.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/18 14:22:54


Post by: Insectum7


Dudeface wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:
Spoiler:
 alextroy wrote:
Insectum7 wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
The customer: "put enough of every weapon in the box to cover every option!"
GW: "the customer wants every option in the box! Quick, slash options and rewrite unit entries!"

Ouch. That one stings a bit
Be careful what you wish for. You must might get it.

The big problem is that as GW kits have evolved, the model have become more dynamic and detailed. This makes providing many options, either in the kit or via an option box, unworkable (assuming you expect the kit to go together as instructed without modification).

They can get away with this in Horus Heresy that are old-school Marine models with a drop in gun. However, I think they were luck to cram as many options into the Plague Marine box as they did once you include all the boltguns along with the special and melee weapons.

Is it a perfect solution? No.

Does it mean your kit is all you need to build you unit? Pretty often yes.

Does it support more real-world units where a variety of weapons is actually the norm? In theory if the points cost ever made taking a variety of weapons actually viable. But that is a whole different discussion.


Have you ever built either of the Genestealer Cult Neophytes or Acolytes boxes? TONS of options in those kits. "Unworkable" my a$$.

They can totally provide the options, they just don't.


Neither of those units provides all the options permitted for their "optimal build" in the box, you can field 2 acolyte heavy melee weapons in a squad of 5, no limit on duplicates, but with 1 of each in the box. Now your options are:
- not give a gak and have 2 mismatched weapons
- bits scalper
- buy 2 kits and potentially make more models than you want/need for the right bits
- GW limits the unit options to match the box contents

Same applies to the neophytes where it's 2 heavy ranged and 2 special ranges weapons per 10 - box of 10 contains one of each, so not the best example.
I don't care what the options are. The point is that there are tons of them, putting to rest the insipid idea that somehow it's an "unworkable" physical impossibility to provide numerous options on a modern GW sculpt.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 blood reaper wrote:
 Dolnikan wrote:

The problem with that is that in 40k, generalists generally don't do that well because they're worse at their assigned task than specialists are. That of course is only logical because of different ranges and ideal targets for different weapons. For a long while, it's already been an issue that the standard weapons carried around by base troops are struggling, but with the scope of the game constantly increasing, they fall behind more and more which reduces the ordinary soldiers to being nothing but ablative wounds for the actual weapons. It also means that 'normal' anti-infantry weapons just aren't seen as relevant because ordinary infantry isn't what does the actual fighting and killing.


I think this is a very good point.

The problem with 40k is we are now in a stage where the game is focussed on huge battles. Armies are a lot bigger than they used to be and games are clearly geared towards having a lot of models. So having generalist units just, doesn't work.

IMO it would probably be better to split 40k into three levels. Kill team, something similar to Bolt Action with very few vehicles or large figures, and then something on the current scale of 40k.

Generalists can still function perfectly well in current 40k. In fact they can function better than ever in post 8th where they can split fire at different targets, as well as charge units other than the one/s they shot at.

The issue is squads being artificially stuck for options because of the kit. No more, no less.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/18 14:35:58


Post by: NinthMusketeer


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I have strong suspicions that FLG/ITC had something to do with the board size change. The idea may not have started with them, but I doubt they gave unbiased feedback, so to say.
I very much doubt it, not without reasoning I might add.

I dead certain it was entirely a practicality thing based upon the standard size of the boxes they ship vs the board size they could fit inside there.

You have to remember that GW tried out a few different things before landing on their "recommended" board:

1. They did the expensive fully plastic Realm of Battle boards.
2. They did their own neoprene mats that were 4x4 and obscenely expensive. Not a big shock that they didn't last.
3. Moonbase Klaisus/Blasted Hallowheart sets. These boxes contained paltry amounts of terrain (but did give us the Ryza Ruins for a brief moment), but also contained full sets of foldable double-sided boards. They're not the exact same size as the current boards, and nor are they 6x4, but can certainly be seen as a major prototype to the boards we have today.

The standard GW boxes also can't hold the needed width/height to do a 6x4 table, and it appears that specialist got a special dispensation to make their 1x1 Zone Mortalis tiles (again, the previous card tiles for Newcromunda were not 1x1, as they would not have fit in GW boxes).

So I don't blame them for making what they can with the limitations of resources. What I resent is the fumbling immediate adoption by the tournament crowd, like it was a 'better' way to play the game, and the insistence by many (including some here) that the size of the boards has anything to do with game-play, or balance or *groan* fething "average kitchen table size" or whatever other nonsense was cooked up when this first came about when really it's a simple timeline:

Box is Size X ---> Boards of Size Y fit into Size X Box ---> make 'standard' table size for all our games the same as the tiles we sell.

Ah, that is very enlightening! Thank you.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/18 14:51:02


Post by: VladimirHerzog


 LunarSol wrote:
The old system definitely kept me out of 40k personally. You'd see armies of the same weapon copy pasta'd 15+ times and learn that you only got 1 copy of it for every 5 models you bought. I still don't really attempt to play 40k competitively for this reason, but the gap between what's optimal and what I'm actually willing to put into building an army is a lot closer than its ever been.


Personally i'd rather have units that have weapons options like Primaris or Tacticals do rather than how blightlords/plague marines are right now.

Nothing fun about disreguarding all the option or needing to inspect every single model in my blightlords squad to know which one has a combi melta/flamer/plasma, then measure from each of them to know which ones are in range, then need to effectively resolve 4 shooting phases for that single unit.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/18 15:02:12


Post by: Crispy78


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I have strong suspicions that FLG/ITC had something to do with the board size change. The idea may not have started with them, but I doubt they gave unbiased feedback, so to say.
I very much doubt it, not without reasoning I might add.

I dead certain it was entirely a practicality thing based upon the standard size of the boxes they ship vs the board size they could fit inside there.

You have to remember that GW tried out a few different things before landing on their "recommended" board:

1. They did the expensive fully plastic Realm of Battle boards.
2. They did their own neoprene mats that were 4x4 and obscenely expensive. Not a big shock that they didn't last.
3. Moonbase Klaisus/Blasted Hallowheart sets. These boxes contained paltry amounts of terrain (but did give us the Ryza Ruins for a brief moment), but also contained full sets of foldable double-sided boards. They're not the exact same size as the current boards, and nor are they 6x4, but can certainly be seen as a major prototype to the boards we have today.

The standard GW boxes also can't hold the needed width/height to do a 6x4 table, and it appears that specialist got a special dispensation to make their 1x1 Zone Mortalis tiles (again, the previous card tiles for Newcromunda were not 1x1, as they would not have fit in GW boxes).

So I don't blame them for making what they can with the limitations of resources. What I resent is the fumbling immediate adoption by the tournament crowd, like it was a 'better' way to play the game, and the insistence by many (including some here) that the size of the boards has anything to do with game-play, or balance or *groan* fething "average kitchen table size" or whatever other nonsense was cooked up when this first came about when really it's a simple timeline:

Box is Size X ---> Boards of Size Y fit into Size X Box ---> make 'standard' table size for all our games the same as the tiles we sell.



It makes sense from a certain perspective, but it does feel like another example of GW choosing the worst way to fix a problem. They know boxes come in different sizes, right?

OK, I'm being slightly flippant. I'm sure there is a challenge there with their storage, their stock management, how boxes stack on pallets for shipping, and so on. I provide IT support for a distribution centre, I see all that sort of thing in my own job. It's really not beyond the wit of a global corporation to solve though, without them having to change their product to fit in a particular box.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/18 15:13:54


Post by: Overread


The thing is it basically costs GW nothing to just change the suggested gameplay board size. Not even a line of text and its done. No redesign work, no investment, no changes to packaging, nothing. Just a second or two changing the size.


Plus in the end players are still free to use whatever size of board they want.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/18 15:20:53


Post by: EviscerationPlague


The scalper thing is such a bad argument. 3rd party bitz exist and not everyone is gouging you for the chaincannon LOL


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/18 15:24:19


Post by: catbarf


Dolnikan wrote:
Hecaton wrote:
Dudeface wrote:
Casual/competitive doesn't come into this topic directly, if casual players are getting whipped by competitive players because they spend more to get optimal loadouts I can see why they'd be pissed. I don't see how having a squad with 5 plasma guns is "helping" (to extrapolate the opposite of hurting) the community or game in any way more or less than limiting the number of specials in a unit?


Compared to, say, 1 plasma 1 flamer 1 melta and whatever, 5 plasma guns is much less cumbersome on the table. And it can make Troops squads actually worthwhile when they can lean into a particular role.


The problem with that is that in 40k, generalists generally don't do that well because they're worse at their assigned task than specialists are. That of course is only logical because of different ranges and ideal targets for different weapons. For a long while, it's already been an issue that the standard weapons carried around by base troops are struggling, but with the scope of the game constantly increasing, they fall behind more and more which reduces the ordinary soldiers to being nothing but ablative wounds for the actual weapons. It also means that 'normal' anti-infantry weapons just aren't seen as relevant because ordinary infantry isn't what does the actual fighting and killing.


This is all true, but there's another part of it too. In a game system where every model can shoot all its weapons every turn, weapons are linearly priced according to fire output, and you're encouraged to put identical weapons together to ensure each is being employed at maximal efficiency.

But in the real world, not every weapon is being used all the time. A four-man fireteam may have a machine gun, anti-tank rocket system, and a grenade launcher, but the team lead can only direct and spot for one specialist at a time, and cover fire and observation are needed from the other members of the team for any special weapon to be effective. Replacing the MG and grenade launcher with additional rocket launchers does not directly triple the fireteam's effective anti-tank capability, as there are diminishing returns.

So in a wargame, if you have to pick whether you're going to use the MG, rockets, or grenades because you can only use one at a time, then you can make extra options cheap because they're not stacking extra firepower. That makes generalists viable as you're just paying for options, and can always use whichever weapon is situationally optimal without 'losing out' on potential firepower.

Meanwhile in 40K, if I'm picking weapons for my Scions I'm always going to take four of the same thing for each squad, because everyone is firing every turn, and mixing and matching just makes them mediocre at everything for the same price. Limiting the ability to mix-and-match weapons is a sledgehammer solution that doesn't really address the root issue- which is that weapon costs are fixed, but the actual utility of a weapon heavily depends on what the rest of the squad looks like.

I suppose one way you could do it would be to have increasing prices with duplicates. Like, in a squad that can take four special weapons, price plasma guns at 6/15/27/42 points. The price goes up the more of them you stack, so a squad with four different special weapons would be substantially cheaper than one with four duplicates. It's more complicated, and it still wouldn't be perfect (flamer+meltagun syncs better than flamer+sniper rifle), but it would at least provide a disincentive against eBaying a bunch of whatever weapon is best.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/18 15:30:12


Post by: EviscerationPlague


Or you make the "best weapon" more expensive period.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/18 15:32:44


Post by: Dudeface


 catbarf wrote:
Dolnikan wrote:
Hecaton wrote:
Dudeface wrote:
Casual/competitive doesn't come into this topic directly, if casual players are getting whipped by competitive players because they spend more to get optimal loadouts I can see why they'd be pissed. I don't see how having a squad with 5 plasma guns is "helping" (to extrapolate the opposite of hurting) the community or game in any way more or less than limiting the number of specials in a unit?


Compared to, say, 1 plasma 1 flamer 1 melta and whatever, 5 plasma guns is much less cumbersome on the table. And it can make Troops squads actually worthwhile when they can lean into a particular role.


The problem with that is that in 40k, generalists generally don't do that well because they're worse at their assigned task than specialists are. That of course is only logical because of different ranges and ideal targets for different weapons. For a long while, it's already been an issue that the standard weapons carried around by base troops are struggling, but with the scope of the game constantly increasing, they fall behind more and more which reduces the ordinary soldiers to being nothing but ablative wounds for the actual weapons. It also means that 'normal' anti-infantry weapons just aren't seen as relevant because ordinary infantry isn't what does the actual fighting and killing.


This is all true, but there's another part of it too. In a game system where every model can shoot all its weapons every turn, weapons are linearly priced according to fire output, and you're encouraged to put identical weapons together to ensure each is being employed at maximal efficiency.

But in the real world, not every weapon is being used all the time. A four-man fireteam may have a machine gun, anti-tank rocket system, and a grenade launcher, but the team lead can only direct and spot for one specialist at a time, and cover fire and observation are needed from the other members of the team for any special weapon to be effective. Replacing the MG and grenade launcher with additional rocket launchers does not directly triple the fireteam's effective anti-tank capability, as there are diminishing returns.

So in a wargame, if you have to pick whether you're going to use the MG, rockets, or grenades because you can only use one at a time, then you can make extra options cheap because they're not stacking extra firepower. That makes generalists viable as you're just paying for options, and can always use whichever weapon is situationally optimal without 'losing out' on potential firepower.

Meanwhile in 40K, if I'm picking weapons for my Scions I'm always going to take four of the same thing for each squad, because everyone is firing every turn, and mixing and matching just makes them mediocre at everything for the same price. Limiting the ability to mix-and-match weapons is a sledgehammer solution that doesn't really address the root issue- which is that weapon costs are fixed, but the actual utility of a weapon heavily depends on what the rest of the squad looks like.

I suppose one way you could do it would be to have increasing prices with duplicates. Like, in a squad that can take four special weapons, price plasma guns at 6/15/27/42 points. The price goes up the more of them you stack, so a squad with four different special weapons would be substantially cheaper than one with four duplicates. It's more complicated, and it still wouldn't be perfect (flamer+meltagun syncs better than flamer+sniper rifle), but it would at least provide a disincentive against eBaying a bunch of whatever weapon is best.


Good input and a solution that would suit most people I think as a concept.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/18 15:34:49


Post by: VladimirHerzog


yeah, making it more expensive >>>>> making it straight up illegal


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/18 15:37:50


Post by: Tallonian4th


Kit restrictions aren't fun and the Plague Marine datasheet is hilarious but I can see how it's much more new player friendly. It's mad for them to be doing it this late in the day though. Pulling the rug out from people's currently legal squads does no one any favors.

It'll never happen but what GW really need to do separate 'bodies' sprues to use up optional parts from the current sprues, which would solve a big chunk of the issues. As has been pointed out in this thread currently GW either makes it so you have to buy multiple boxes just to get one optimal squad, lock the squads to just what is in the box, or provide so many options on the sprue that you end up wasting most of the kit. All of which have the pros and cons as covered already.

Using the current Scions sprues as an example of the benefits of an additions 'bodies' sprue. The current Scions are jam packed with amazing options but only 5 bodies to actually use them, having built your 5 Scions the sprue looks hardly used. When I first built this kit I was new to the game and it really caused a lot of decision paralysis as I didn't want to pick the wrong thing but knew if I did I'd have to buy a whole new box just to get the right ones. However if there was a cheap box of bodies available I'd have had a lot less worry as I'd have known I could use up the rest of the options to swap in and out of the squad.

In this way there would also be no need to lock down datasheets for new players who now have a cheap way use up all of the options presented to them, but players just chasing optimal builds can still buy multiple boxes.

Another big advantage would be to cut down on waste. I know it's great to have a few spares for the bits box but when a majority of the sprue goes into the bits box then there is a real environmental issue. Also with the modern semi-locked dynamic poses bits are not quite as much of an appeal as they were (Scion bits vs Guardsman bits for example). From a cost point of view it's quite disheartening to find that most of what you have paid for isn't going to be used.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/18 15:37:52


Post by: Dudeface


 Insectum7 wrote:
Dudeface wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:
Spoiler:
 alextroy wrote:
Insectum7 wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
The customer: "put enough of every weapon in the box to cover every option!"
GW: "the customer wants every option in the box! Quick, slash options and rewrite unit entries!"

Ouch. That one stings a bit
Be careful what you wish for. You must might get it.

The big problem is that as GW kits have evolved, the model have become more dynamic and detailed. This makes providing many options, either in the kit or via an option box, unworkable (assuming you expect the kit to go together as instructed without modification).

They can get away with this in Horus Heresy that are old-school Marine models with a drop in gun. However, I think they were luck to cram as many options into the Plague Marine box as they did once you include all the boltguns along with the special and melee weapons.

Is it a perfect solution? No.

Does it mean your kit is all you need to build you unit? Pretty often yes.

Does it support more real-world units where a variety of weapons is actually the norm? In theory if the points cost ever made taking a variety of weapons actually viable. But that is a whole different discussion.


Have you ever built either of the Genestealer Cult Neophytes or Acolytes boxes? TONS of options in those kits. "Unworkable" my a$$.

They can totally provide the options, they just don't.


Neither of those units provides all the options permitted for their "optimal build" in the box, you can field 2 acolyte heavy melee weapons in a squad of 5, no limit on duplicates, but with 1 of each in the box. Now your options are:
- not give a gak and have 2 mismatched weapons
- bits scalper
- buy 2 kits and potentially make more models than you want/need for the right bits
- GW limits the unit options to match the box contents

Same applies to the neophytes where it's 2 heavy ranged and 2 special ranges weapons per 10 - box of 10 contains one of each, so not the best example.
I don't care what the options are. The point is that there are tons of them, putting to rest the insipid idea that somehow it's an "unworkable" physical impossibility to provide numerous options on a modern GW sculpt.


Yes, but the flaw with your example is that they didn't put in enough of the options, making it a bad box stand alone if you want an optimal squad, which leads exactly back to the topic of the thread as the solution to that problem. Less options or weird equipment lists.



Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/18 15:52:55


Post by: Insectum7


Dudeface wrote:

Yes, but the flaw with your example is that they didn't put in enough of the options, making it a bad box stand alone if you want an optimal squad, which leads exactly back to the topic of the thread as the solution to that problem. Less options or weird equipment lists.

The point wasn't that they were 100% optimal kits. The point is that an absolute gakload of options can be given to a kit. "Modern, dynamic poses" isn't the excuse people think it is.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tallonian4th wrote:
Kit restrictions aren't fun and the Plague Marine datasheet is hilarious but I can see how it's much more new player friendly. It's mad for them to be doing it this late in the day though. Pulling the rug out from people's currently legal squads does no one any favors.

I disagre with the notion that it's new player friendly, because at some point the new player is going to learn that other squads can load up on the same weapon and be more effective, and this new player is gonna wonder why they got screwed. "Oh, did I choose the wrong army?"


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/18 16:05:04


Post by: Karol


w40k often falls apart for new players, the moment they start to understand how the rule set works, how it gets updated and fixed. The idea that your army may stay bad for the next 2+ years, because GW plans to update it at the end of the edition is not something many players want to expiriance twice. One of the reasons why so many people don't make it past their first edition.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/18 16:11:28


Post by: Racerguy180


Karol, you're describing a FEATURE not a BUG.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/18 16:12:03


Post by: Nomeny


Tallonian4th wrote:
It'll never happen but what GW really need to do separate 'bodies' sprues to use up optional parts from the current sprues, which would solve a big chunk of the issues.

Isn't that what they're doing with the HH game?


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/18 16:12:54


Post by: Tallonian4th


 Insectum7 wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tallonian4th wrote:
Kit restrictions aren't fun and the Plague Marine datasheet is hilarious but I can see how it's much more new player friendly. It's mad for them to be doing it this late in the day though. Pulling the rug out from people's currently legal squads does no one any favors.

I disagre with the notion that it's new player friendly, because at some point the new player is going to learn that other squads can load up on the same weapon and be more effective, and this new player is gonna wonder why they got screwed. "Oh, did I choose the wrong army?"


But that is true if the data sheet is limited or open. At least limited the new player doesn't have to worry about what their micro choices are doing. If you pick a faction that has a weak codex it's weak there is not a lot you can do about it. From my personal experience the options which I admittedly now enjoy were one of the things I disliked most as a new player. Limited datasheets are a bad fix to the problem, but they are a fix.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/18 16:17:13


Post by: Karol


I would rather want to worry before I spend money, and make the proper choices, giving me a proper army to play, which is fun. Then worrying about what I bought after 2000pts of models, which suddenly turn out to be bad and unfun. Limited sheets are no fix at all, besides ones which are good for GW.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Racerguy180 wrote:
Karol, you're describing a FEATURE not a BUG.

Sometimes it is hard to tell the difference. It is like boosting for real money in MMORPGs or existance of bribes anywhere.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/18 16:24:45


Post by: H.B.M.C.


Crispy78 wrote:
It makes sense from a certain perspective, but it does feel like another example of GW choosing the worst way to fix a problem. They know boxes come in different sizes, right?
Strange as it might sound, that may not be up to them. Or, rather, they get their boxes from a specific manufacturer, and that's the size box they offer, so they have to made do with the limitations of the product.

 Overread wrote:
The thing is it basically costs GW nothing to just change the suggested gameplay board size. Not even a line of text and its done. No redesign work, no investment, no changes to packaging, nothing. Just a second or two changing the size.
Yeah but they want people to buy their product, so of course they're going to change the game to meet the limitations of their product.

 Overread wrote:
Plus in the end players are still free to use whatever size of board they want.
But don't, because people are so obsessed with officialdom in all things that they will cut up expensive 6x4 neoprene mats to match the board size GW invented.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/18 16:32:23


Post by: kurhanik


To answer the thread question, no, I rather dislike it. Even as bad as I am at conversion and mix and matching kits, it is an aspect of the hobby I enjoy so its sad to see wargear options vanish because it isn't directly in the kit.

Spoiler:
 catbarf wrote:
Dolnikan wrote:
Hecaton wrote:
Dudeface wrote:
Casual/competitive doesn't come into this topic directly, if casual players are getting whipped by competitive players because they spend more to get optimal loadouts I can see why they'd be pissed. I don't see how having a squad with 5 plasma guns is "helping" (to extrapolate the opposite of hurting) the community or game in any way more or less than limiting the number of specials in a unit?


Compared to, say, 1 plasma 1 flamer 1 melta and whatever, 5 plasma guns is much less cumbersome on the table. And it can make Troops squads actually worthwhile when they can lean into a particular role.


The problem with that is that in 40k, generalists generally don't do that well because they're worse at their assigned task than specialists are. That of course is only logical because of different ranges and ideal targets for different weapons. For a long while, it's already been an issue that the standard weapons carried around by base troops are struggling, but with the scope of the game constantly increasing, they fall behind more and more which reduces the ordinary soldiers to being nothing but ablative wounds for the actual weapons. It also means that 'normal' anti-infantry weapons just aren't seen as relevant because ordinary infantry isn't what does the actual fighting and killing.


This is all true, but there's another part of it too. In a game system where every model can shoot all its weapons every turn, weapons are linearly priced according to fire output, and you're encouraged to put identical weapons together to ensure each is being employed at maximal efficiency.

But in the real world, not every weapon is being used all the time. A four-man fireteam may have a machine gun, anti-tank rocket system, and a grenade launcher, but the team lead can only direct and spot for one specialist at a time, and cover fire and observation are needed from the other members of the team for any special weapon to be effective. Replacing the MG and grenade launcher with additional rocket launchers does not directly triple the fireteam's effective anti-tank capability, as there are diminishing returns.

So in a wargame, if you have to pick whether you're going to use the MG, rockets, or grenades because you can only use one at a time, then you can make extra options cheap because they're not stacking extra firepower. That makes generalists viable as you're just paying for options, and can always use whichever weapon is situationally optimal without 'losing out' on potential firepower.

Meanwhile in 40K, if I'm picking weapons for my Scions I'm always going to take four of the same thing for each squad, because everyone is firing every turn, and mixing and matching just makes them mediocre at everything for the same price. Limiting the ability to mix-and-match weapons is a sledgehammer solution that doesn't really address the root issue- which is that weapon costs are fixed, but the actual utility of a weapon heavily depends on what the rest of the squad looks like.

I suppose one way you could do it would be to have increasing prices with duplicates. Like, in a squad that can take four special weapons, price plasma guns at 6/15/27/42 points. The price goes up the more of them you stack, so a squad with four different special weapons would be substantially cheaper than one with four duplicates. It's more complicated, and it still wouldn't be perfect (flamer+meltagun syncs better than flamer+sniper rifle), but it would at least provide a disincentive against eBaying a bunch of whatever weapon is best.


The flip side of this is also that in 40k often non killing options are just not that great. In Guard, Command Squads (both Scion and regular) are more suicide special weapons teams with better BS than the rest of the army, instead of the lynchpin on which the army pivots. I had to actually look up to see what med packs and the regimental standard do currently, because put bluntly they aren't that great, especially when compared to an extra plasma or meltagun. If the noncombat bits were useful, and the squad had the ability to survive more than a stiff breeze (say recombining into Company Commander and giving entire squad character protection), I could see a version of the unit playing a support role for the rest of the army instead of its current form.

Neat idea on the increasing points cost per repeat weapon, its not perfect but better than outright banning the combo etc.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/18 17:07:16


Post by: Insectum7


Tallonian4th wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tallonian4th wrote:
Kit restrictions aren't fun and the Plague Marine datasheet is hilarious but I can see how it's much more new player friendly. It's mad for them to be doing it this late in the day though. Pulling the rug out from people's currently legal squads does no one any favors.

I disagre with the notion that it's new player friendly, because at some point the new player is going to learn that other squads can load up on the same weapon and be more effective, and this new player is gonna wonder why they got screwed. "Oh, did I choose the wrong army?"


But that is true if the data sheet is limited or open. At least limited the new player doesn't have to worry about what their micro choices are doing. If you pick a faction that has a weak codex it's weak there is not a lot you can do about it. From my personal experience the options which I admittedly now enjoy were one of the things I disliked most as a new player. Limited datasheets are a bad fix to the problem, but they are a fix.
It's true that "did I choose the wrong army" will still be a question, option or not. But if you have a robust set of options in your kit you can at least alter the squads you've already made as you learn. You can essentially maintain your investment and flex to the expanding need of your army. In no world will I see the potential bewilderment brought on by "micro-options" outweigh the benefits of maintainability and customization.



Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/18 17:57:14


Post by: catbarf


EviscerationPlague wrote:
Or you make the "best weapon" more expensive period.


It is possible for a weapon to be undercosted when taken in multiples or on an ideal delivery system, but overcosted when taken singly or on a suboptimal platform. Quad meltaguns on a unit of deep-striking Scions is worthwhile. A single meltagun on a footslogging Veterans squad is a waste of points.

The actual utility of a weapon option depends on more than its damage output in a vacuum, and both the capabilities and equipment composition of the carrying unit will determine how much mileage you get out of it. Setting universal prices is always going to result in min-max incentives.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/18 18:06:51


Post by: LunarSol


 VladimirHerzog wrote:
 LunarSol wrote:
The old system definitely kept me out of 40k personally. You'd see armies of the same weapon copy pasta'd 15+ times and learn that you only got 1 copy of it for every 5 models you bought. I still don't really attempt to play 40k competitively for this reason, but the gap between what's optimal and what I'm actually willing to put into building an army is a lot closer than its ever been.


Personally i'd rather have units that have weapons options like Primaris or Tacticals do rather than how blightlords/plague marines are right now.

Nothing fun about disreguarding all the option or needing to inspect every single model in my blightlords squad to know which one has a combi melta/flamer/plasma, then measure from each of them to know which ones are in range, then need to effectively resolve 4 shooting phases for that single unit.


To be fair, I think the Blightlords thing is just a mess. I think you need to design your game to support your kits, but by the same token, you shouldn't design kits that make almost no sense within your game.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/18 18:17:24


Post by: Altruizine


 blood reaper wrote:
Nomeny wrote:
I kinda like how it kicks min-maxers in the teeth, but part of the game is hanging around in dark parking lots late at night to score some prime, rare bits. I'm torn.


What is it with casuals and having such a strong "cutting off my nose to spite my own face" mindset? Did min-maxers murder their families?

It's indistinguishable from your prescriptivist painting rant earlier, which makes your performance in this thread very, very funny to see as an impartial outside observer.

In both cases each camp thinks the other is abandoning a "key tradition" of gaming, is doing something nasty and cheap, is denying themselves a Source of Pride™, is breaking an unspoken social contract (and each side also glows with the fire of sunk-cost bitterness; the generalist unit-builder secretly thinks they would win more games if they broke ranks and min-maxed, and the paintagandist secretly wishes they had a refund on the hundreds of hours they spent rubbing tinted goo across plastic toys )


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/18 18:21:21


Post by: VladimirHerzog


 LunarSol wrote:
 VladimirHerzog wrote:
 LunarSol wrote:
The old system definitely kept me out of 40k personally. You'd see armies of the same weapon copy pasta'd 15+ times and learn that you only got 1 copy of it for every 5 models you bought. I still don't really attempt to play 40k competitively for this reason, but the gap between what's optimal and what I'm actually willing to put into building an army is a lot closer than its ever been.


Personally i'd rather have units that have weapons options like Primaris or Tacticals do rather than how blightlords/plague marines are right now.

Nothing fun about disreguarding all the option or needing to inspect every single model in my blightlords squad to know which one has a combi melta/flamer/plasma, then measure from each of them to know which ones are in range, then need to effectively resolve 4 shooting phases for that single unit.


To be fair, I think the Blightlords thing is just a mess. I think you need to design your game to support your kits, but by the same token, you shouldn't design kits that make almost no sense within your game.


Why do you consider them a mess?

In theory theyre super simple :

one hand is combi (with all options)
other hand is CC (sword or axe)

you get to replace one pair with one heavy/special weapon per 5 (blight launcher, flamer, autocannon, flail)





Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/18 19:28:00


Post by: blood reaper


 Altruizine wrote:
 blood reaper wrote:
Nomeny wrote:
I kinda like how it kicks min-maxers in the teeth, but part of the game is hanging around in dark parking lots late at night to score some prime, rare bits. I'm torn.


What is it with casuals and having such a strong "cutting off my nose to spite my own face" mindset? Did min-maxers murder their families?

It's indistinguishable from your prescriptivist painting rant earlier, which makes your performance in this thread very, very funny to see as an impartial outside observer.

In both cases each camp thinks the other is abandoning a "key tradition" of gaming, is doing something nasty and cheap, is denying themselves a Source of Pride™, is breaking an unspoken social contract (and each side also glows with the fire of sunk-cost bitterness; the generalist unit-builder secretly thinks they would win more games if they broke ranks and min-maxed, and the paintagandist secretly wishes they had a refund on the hundreds of hours they spent rubbing tinted goo across plastic toys )


Bruh are you suggesting people do not enjoy painting? What is wrong with you?

"People want you to paint their models? Well they secretly deep down, don't enjoy painting!"

The number of weirdos with staggeringly stupid takes in this hobby never ceases to amaze me.

Though personally, I think the anti-painting brigade is so stupid and has such an absurd take that they basically just humiliate themselves wherever they make their claims.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/18 21:31:05


Post by: LunarSol


 VladimirHerzog wrote:
 LunarSol wrote:
 VladimirHerzog wrote:
 LunarSol wrote:
The old system definitely kept me out of 40k personally. You'd see armies of the same weapon copy pasta'd 15+ times and learn that you only got 1 copy of it for every 5 models you bought. I still don't really attempt to play 40k competitively for this reason, but the gap between what's optimal and what I'm actually willing to put into building an army is a lot closer than its ever been.


Personally i'd rather have units that have weapons options like Primaris or Tacticals do rather than how blightlords/plague marines are right now.

Nothing fun about disreguarding all the option or needing to inspect every single model in my blightlords squad to know which one has a combi melta/flamer/plasma, then measure from each of them to know which ones are in range, then need to effectively resolve 4 shooting phases for that single unit.


To be fair, I think the Blightlords thing is just a mess. I think you need to design your game to support your kits, but by the same token, you shouldn't design kits that make almost no sense within your game.


Why do you consider them a mess?

In theory theyre super simple :

one hand is combi (with all options)
other hand is CC (sword or axe)

you get to replace one pair with one heavy/special weapon per 5 (blight launcher, flamer, autocannon, flail)





Because they don't fit into the rule structure the rest of the datasheets are designed to fit in a way that works. That text dump is a mess and is a direct result of trying to translate the sprue to rules rather than something that works for both.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/18 21:37:16


Post by: Insectum7


 blood reaper wrote:

The number of weirdos with staggeringly stupid takes in this hobby never ceases to amaze me.

Hahaha.

Replace "hobby" with "world" and it might surprise you less.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/18 22:21:34


Post by: Karol


 blood reaper wrote:


Bruh are you suggesting people do not enjoy painting? What is wrong with you?

"People want you to paint their models? Well they secretly deep down, don't enjoy painting!"

The number of weirdos with staggeringly stupid takes in this hobby never ceases to amaze me.

Though personally, I think the anti-painting brigade is so stupid and has such an absurd take that they basically just humiliate themselves wherever they make their claims.

Everyone who plays the game, had to paint their armies in 9th ed, because a 10VP difference means losing the game everytime, if armies are more or less equal and even more so if ones army is weaker. A ton of people don't like to paint their models for many reasons. Cost and time or just not liking to activity being the main ones. And most of them are not very secretive about the fact that they don't like painting their models.

You say the "anti paint" brigade , when it is more like "don't make me paint stuff, you do what you want" brigade, humiliate themselfs, while you just claimed that painting is an activity that can not be disliked. There are no activities in the world, including eating, drinking and breathing that some people do not dislike.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/18 22:28:39


Post by: VladimirHerzog


Karol wrote:

Everyone who plays the game, had to paint their armies in 9th ed, because a 10VP difference means losing the game everytime, if armies are more or less equal and even more so if ones army is weaker.


i don't know a single person that uses that rule in real life.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/18 22:50:02


Post by: Strg Alt


 blood reaper wrote:
 Gert wrote:
"Does anyone like getting punched in the face?"


Have you met GW fans? Put a price tag on that and they'd be queuing around the block for it! We wouldn't have any Whales left because they'd have been beaten to death by this point.





Automatically Appended Next Post:
 catbarf wrote:
Gert, if painting is only necessary if you're going to tournaments, why do you feel compelled to convert? Does your casual group not allow proxies?


When they are not bothering to paint stuff building the model should be regarded as a waste of time too. Heck at that point models should be represented by bottle caps. Would be cheaper too.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/19 04:33:19


Post by: Sgt. Cortez


Karol wrote:
 blood reaper wrote:


Bruh are you suggesting people do not enjoy painting? What is wrong with you?

"People want you to paint their models? Well they secretly deep down, don't enjoy painting!"

The number of weirdos with staggeringly stupid takes in this hobby never ceases to amaze me.

Though personally, I think the anti-painting brigade is so stupid and has such an absurd take that they basically just humiliate themselves wherever they make their claims.

Everyone who plays the game, had to paint their armies in 9th ed, because a 10VP difference means losing the game everytime, if armies are more or less equal and even more so if ones army is weaker. A ton of people don't like to paint their models for many reasons. Cost and time or just not liking to activity being the main ones. And most of them are not very secretive about the fact that they don't like painting their models.

You say the "anti paint" brigade , when it is more like "don't make me paint stuff, you do what you want" brigade, humiliate themselfs, while you just claimed that painting is an activity that can not be disliked. There are no activities in the world, including eating, drinking and breathing that some people do not dislike.


If you don't like eating and drinking then don't make it your hobby. If you don't like painting then play X-Wing, Attack Wing, Dust or a boardgame - something that doesn't need painting.
It's okay to not love every part of the hobby (for me it's basing, people wonder who are the guys that buy expensive modelled bases when throwing some flock around is extremely cheap and less time consuming than painting a base? Yeah, that’s me ) , but either you find a way around painting like commissioning or choosing a way of the hobby that doesn't need painting, or you just don't start the hobby. Unlike eating, drinking and breathing Wargames aren't a basic need.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/19 05:51:05


Post by: Altruizine


edited by moderator


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/19 07:25:54


Post by: blood reaper


Karol wrote:
 blood reaper wrote:


Bruh are you suggesting people do not enjoy painting? What is wrong with you?

"People want you to paint their models? Well they secretly deep down, don't enjoy painting!"

The number of weirdos with staggeringly stupid takes in this hobby never ceases to amaze me.

Though personally, I think the anti-painting brigade is so stupid and has such an absurd take that they basically just humiliate themselves wherever they make their claims.

Everyone who plays the game, had to paint their armies in 9th ed, because a 10VP difference means losing the game everytime, if armies are more or less equal and even more so if ones army is weaker. A ton of people don't like to paint their models for many reasons. Cost and time or just not liking to activity being the main ones. And most of them are not very secretive about the fact that they don't like painting their models.

You say the "anti paint" brigade , when it is more like "don't make me paint stuff, you do what you want" brigade, humiliate themselfs, while you just claimed that painting is an activity that can not be disliked. There are no activities in the world, including eating, drinking and breathing that some people do not dislike.


The problem is that they're choosing a hobby *which has painting as a key element*. Denying that it is a key element is, imo, frankly delusional. There are other games they can play if they don't enjoy painting which would suit them far better.

I think it's amazing that this entire debate has started over an argument from absurdity I made. The point of my "converting and painting" are both learned skills argument is to show that initially, no one is often that great at anything, and both take time - but amazingly rather than trying to find another argument for why converting isn't a key part of the hobby people have instead tried to argue painting isn't a key element!


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/19 08:12:32


Post by: Tyel


Its pretty clear there are a lot of people who don't like painting. This may be due to "I just hate brushes" - but more often its because they just don't have the time. Either at all - or to get good. They'd rather spend that spare time playing.

And frankly "getting better/good" at painting can be a curse - because the time per mini massively starts to ramp up when you are no longer satisfied with "basecoat spray, main colour spray, pick out metals/skin, wash, throw something on the base and done." Suddenly its "sure, this is a fairly undetailed fire warrior, but... I'm still doing 7 colours including the base, all of which include a basecoat, wash, basecoat back up, first highlight, second highlight". Which looks dramatically better - but its taking an hour per model rather than an hour for 20.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/19 08:15:39


Post by: blood reaper


Tyel wrote:
Its pretty clear there are a lot of people who don't like painting. This may be due to "I just hate brushes" - but more often its because they just don't have the time. Either at all - or to get good. They'd rather spend that spare time playing.


I mean those are all reasonable points, but the thing is...

...maybe don't pick a hobby where you have to paint the models if you don't like painting???


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/19 08:53:24


Post by: Blackie


Painting commissions do exist. So do second hand painted lots. If you are a cut-throat tournament player you'd likely be a meta chaser so you'd dump tons of money anyway into the hobby, so paying someone to paint the models shouldn't be a concern.

But even friendly games do exist, in which armies that are not battle ready don't get the penalty. I for example never played a single game in which me or my opponent scored points for fielding battle ready armies, even if our armies were fully painted.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/19 10:34:27


Post by: Dai


 blood reaper wrote:
Tyel wrote:
Its pretty clear there are a lot of people who don't like painting. This may be due to "I just hate brushes" - but more often its because they just don't have the time. Either at all - or to get good. They'd rather spend that spare time playing.


I mean those are all reasonable points, but the thing is...

...maybe don't pick a hobby where you have to paint the models if you don't like painting???


The hobby is changing friend, the insta gratification video game crowd are the main market now. There'll be pre painted minis before long, mark my words :(


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/19 10:52:00


Post by: blood reaper


Dai wrote:
 blood reaper wrote:
Tyel wrote:
Its pretty clear there are a lot of people who don't like painting. This may be due to "I just hate brushes" - but more often its because they just don't have the time. Either at all - or to get good. They'd rather spend that spare time playing.


I mean those are all reasonable points, but the thing is...

...maybe don't pick a hobby where you have to paint the models if you don't like painting???


The hobby is changing friend, the insta gratification video game crowd are the main market now. There'll be pre painted minis before long, mark my words :(


I don't think there's any problem with pre-painted mins myself. I'd prefer pre-painted mins to unpainted mins, but it staggers me people are seriously arguing that painting isn't a key part of the hobby.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/19 11:02:45


Post by: Unit1126PLL


I do wonder why people engage in playing Warhammer if not for the spectacle (and by extension, painting). The number 1 reason to play Warhammer in its current rule-set is that it looks super cool on the table, but unpainted minis spoil that.

Otherwise, it's not a very good game for "testing your skill", nor is it really that useful for telling a story (you end up writing it yourself essentially), nor is it very deep...


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/19 11:09:09


Post by: Dudeface


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I do wonder why people engage in playing Warhammer if not for the spectacle (and by extension, painting). The number 1 reason to play Warhammer in its current rule-set is that it looks super cool on the table, but unpainted minis spoil that.

Otherwise, it's not a very good game for "testing your skill", nor is it really that useful for telling a story (you end up writing it yourself essentially), nor is it very deep...


It is an excuse for people to get together for food/drinks and chill for a bit though, but maybe that's because I've been in the hobby a little while now and I've grown with it.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/19 11:13:36


Post by: Unit1126PLL


Dudeface wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I do wonder why people engage in playing Warhammer if not for the spectacle (and by extension, painting). The number 1 reason to play Warhammer in its current rule-set is that it looks super cool on the table, but unpainted minis spoil that.

Otherwise, it's not a very good game for "testing your skill", nor is it really that useful for telling a story (you end up writing it yourself essentially), nor is it very deep...


It is an excuse for people to get together for food/drinks and chill for a bit though, but maybe that's because I've been in the hobby a little while now and I've grown with it.


Why do you need an excuse to get food/drinks and chill?

Like your wife or family won't let you if you don't also do something else at the same time?


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/19 11:56:09


Post by: Dudeface


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Dudeface wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I do wonder why people engage in playing Warhammer if not for the spectacle (and by extension, painting). The number 1 reason to play Warhammer in its current rule-set is that it looks super cool on the table, but unpainted minis spoil that.

Otherwise, it's not a very good game for "testing your skill", nor is it really that useful for telling a story (you end up writing it yourself essentially), nor is it very deep...


It is an excuse for people to get together for food/drinks and chill for a bit though, but maybe that's because I've been in the hobby a little while now and I've grown with it.


Why do you need an excuse to get food/drinks and chill?

Like your wife or family won't let you if you don't also do something else at the same time?


I mean, it's a turn of phrase, maybe dial back the deadpan captain literal.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/19 12:50:04


Post by: H.B.M.C.


 blood reaper wrote:
The problem is that they're choosing a hobby *which has painting as a key element*.
Not everyone plays the game. Not everyone likes painting. People do this for different reasons, like different things, and focus on different things.

You need to understand that.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/19 12:59:33


Post by: blood reaper


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
 blood reaper wrote:
The problem is that they're choosing a hobby *which has painting as a key element*.
Not everyone plays the game. Not everyone likes painting. People do this for different reasons, like different things, and focus on different things.

You need to understand that.


I understand that people have different interests, but I find it baffling they'd choose to pick a game where a key part is building and painting miniatures.



Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/19 13:01:13


Post by: Gert


People like what they like. How hard is that to grasp?


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/19 13:05:42


Post by: Voss


 blood reaper wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
 blood reaper wrote:
The problem is that they're choosing a hobby *which has painting as a key element*.
Not everyone plays the game. Not everyone likes painting. People do this for different reasons, like different things, and focus on different things.

You need to understand that.


I understand that people have different interests, but I find it baffling they'd choose to pick a game where a key part is building and painting miniatures.



Enjoy being baffled, I guess? But we don't need 4+ pages of the exact same argument every time the subject comes up in unrelated threads.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/19 13:28:42


Post by: VladimirHerzog


 blood reaper wrote:
Tyel wrote:
Its pretty clear there are a lot of people who don't like painting. This may be due to "I just hate brushes" - but more often its because they just don't have the time. Either at all - or to get good. They'd rather spend that spare time playing.


I mean those are all reasonable points, but the thing is...

...maybe don't pick a hobby where you have to paint the models if you don't like painting???


but you dont have to paint your models to play 40k....


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I do wonder why people engage in playing Warhammer if not for the spectacle (and by extension, painting).


Because its the only wargame that most LGS sell and have existing communities for. It's not exactly complicated to grasp



Automatically Appended Next Post:
 blood reaper wrote:

I understand that people have different interests, but I find it baffling they'd choose to pick a game where a key part is building and painting miniatures.



I didnt have a choice when i started wargaming. The games my store had were : 40k or AoS.

Since then i've started playing Infinity, Malifaux, OnepageRules and Star Wars Legion but i play those a lot less because the local community is much smaller. I've actually been playing with a guy from across the ocean on TTS mostly for these games.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/19 13:49:21


Post by: PenitentJake


I'm all about the "To each his own" these days.

I have played many GW games with unpainted or partially painted collections.

I don't dislike painting, but I don't love it either- I do see it as chore, but it's a chore that's more pleasant than many others. I'm trying hard to change this. So far this year I've completed 5 painting challenges, and I'm engaged in one right now with another beginning on Monday. The total yield is 23 infantry models... Which probably sounds like nothing to some of you who could knock that out in a month.

My issue is that I want to do video batreps and stop motion movies. I have to become the Crusade engine that I've been waiting to see because no one else is getting it right; Skari comes close- he has a Crusade series that I think has four episodes? Problem is that he doesn't organize it in such a way that it's connected: the episodes aren't numbered, and he doesn't talk so much about the motivations of the models he uses or their long term goals.

@Unit- In EVERY storytelling game ever made, including the ridiculous 4th ed 3 tier tree campaigns or the two pages of instructions on how to run a map based campaign which you somehow think holds a candle to Crusade, you have to write the story yourself.

Picking who pursues which agendas IS a part of the story. I choose Battle Honours rather than roll them randomly (which is a RAW option BTW) because then I get to invoke cause and effect: hit a level break because you shot an enemy unit off the board? Sounds like a BH that bumps shooting ability. Wipe out a unit in close combat? Sounds like a BH that affects melee prowess. Cause and effect.

Deploying experienced units with green units to demonstrate mentorship? Story.

Achieving short term or long term goals? Story.

Goals for individual units, goals for individual detachments, goals for the whole army? Story.

And if you want simple tree campaigns, I've already told you where to find them for Crusade (Octarius 1).

And again, do as you will. Don't like Crusade? Fine- don't play it; I'm cool with that; I'm not trying to convince you to play Crusade. I just object to blanket statements like "9th ed is not good for telling stories" being passed off as objective truth.

I personally have never had as many storytelling tools at my disposal for 40k as I do now. I almost want to state THAT as an objective fact, and I feel like it is reasonable- I find it really hard to deny.

Your argument seems to be that the tools don't work the way you want them to, but stating that a system that includes almost no tools is better is odd.



Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/19 14:22:12


Post by: Jidmah


 blood reaper wrote:
"Bits scalper"

Are people on eBay really selling pieces at such disproportionate prices? I 100% feel people exaggerate this.


When blight lords with combi-plasma were the rage (1x per box), the tiny plasma bit you would glue on the bolter to make it "combi" was about 8€ per piece, the melta bit was 5€.

Building a unit of 5 combi-plasma from original bits would have made the unit cost more than double its price.

Instead, I just glued a different combi-weapon to each of them and asked GW to change the rules


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/19 14:35:05


Post by: blood reaper


 Jidmah wrote:
 blood reaper wrote:
"Bits scalper"

Are people on eBay really selling pieces at such disproportionate prices? I 100% feel people exaggerate this.


When blight lords with combi-plasma were the rage (1x per box), the tiny plasma bit you would glue on the bolter to make it "combi" was about 8€ per piece, the melta bit was 5€.

Building a unit of 5 combi-plasma from original bits would have made the unit cost more than double its price.

Instead, I just glued a different combi-weapon to each of them and asked GW to change the rules


I wonder how much it would've cost GW to make a sprue with those pieces in it. Alas, we'll never know.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/19 14:44:10


Post by: Tallonian4th


 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:
 blood reaper wrote:

I understand that people have different interests, but I find it baffling they'd choose to pick a game where a key part is building and painting miniatures.



I didnt have a choice when i started wargaming. The games my store had were : 40k or AoS.

Since then i've started playing Infinity, Malifaux, OnepageRules and Star Wars Legion but i play those a lot less because the local community is much smaller. I've actually been playing with a guy from across the ocean on TTS mostly for these games.


This is the key thing, I'm very pleased for anyone with multiple FLGS and a healthy local scene that can support many games, however that is not true for everyone. The only FLGS near me is the GW store and as such the only games played locally are GW games. Doesn't matter how much better fit x, y or z game may be to my tastes, if it's not a GW game I will have no one to play with. It's not baffling for someone who wants to get into a hobby to pick the only variation of that hobby they have access to, even if there is an element they don't like.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/19 14:56:26


Post by: Dudeface


 blood reaper wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:
 blood reaper wrote:
"Bits scalper"

Are people on eBay really selling pieces at such disproportionate prices? I 100% feel people exaggerate this.


When blight lords with combi-plasma were the rage (1x per box), the tiny plasma bit you would glue on the bolter to make it "combi" was about 8€ per piece, the melta bit was 5€.

Building a unit of 5 combi-plasma from original bits would have made the unit cost more than double its price.

Instead, I just glued a different combi-weapon to each of them and asked GW to change the rules


I wonder how much it would've cost GW to make a sprue with those pieces in it. Alas, we'll never know.


I wonder how much extra they would have charged to include those options on the extra sprue.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/19 15:25:40


Post by: VladimirHerzog


Dudeface wrote:
 blood reaper wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:
 blood reaper wrote:
"Bits scalper"

Are people on eBay really selling pieces at such disproportionate prices? I 100% feel people exaggerate this.


When blight lords with combi-plasma were the rage (1x per box), the tiny plasma bit you would glue on the bolter to make it "combi" was about 8€ per piece, the melta bit was 5€.

Building a unit of 5 combi-plasma from original bits would have made the unit cost more than double its price.

Instead, I just glued a different combi-weapon to each of them and asked GW to change the rules


I wonder how much it would've cost GW to make a sprue with those pieces in it. Alas, we'll never know.


I wonder how much extra they would have charged to include those options on the extra sprue.


well at least theyre doing it with the new 30k marines and their heavy/special weapons boxes


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/19 15:37:05


Post by: Dudeface


 VladimirHerzog wrote:
Dudeface wrote:
 blood reaper wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:
 blood reaper wrote:
"Bits scalper"

Are people on eBay really selling pieces at such disproportionate prices? I 100% feel people exaggerate this.


When blight lords with combi-plasma were the rage (1x per box), the tiny plasma bit you would glue on the bolter to make it "combi" was about 8€ per piece, the melta bit was 5€.

Building a unit of 5 combi-plasma from original bits would have made the unit cost more than double its price.

Instead, I just glued a different combi-weapon to each of them and asked GW to change the rules


I wonder how much it would've cost GW to make a sprue with those pieces in it. Alas, we'll never know.


I wonder how much extra they would have charged to include those options on the extra sprue.


well at least theyre doing it with the new 30k marines and their heavy/special weapons boxes


They're doing a stellar job there, it'll be far easier to balance in theory as well given the limited scope of factions.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/19 15:38:52


Post by: Grimtuff


 blood reaper wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:
 blood reaper wrote:
"Bits scalper"

Are people on eBay really selling pieces at such disproportionate prices? I 100% feel people exaggerate this.


When blight lords with combi-plasma were the rage (1x per box), the tiny plasma bit you would glue on the bolter to make it "combi" was about 8€ per piece, the melta bit was 5€.

Building a unit of 5 combi-plasma from original bits would have made the unit cost more than double its price.

Instead, I just glued a different combi-weapon to each of them and asked GW to change the rules


I wonder how much it would've cost GW to make a sprue with those pieces in it. Alas, we'll never know.


They didn't even need to. The current Assault Squad comes with 3 plasma pistols, the old one came with ten(!). Plasma bits are ten a fething penny yet you have moaners who gnash their teeth as they Must. Have. The. Exact. Bit. even though what they want is just a simple conversion and friendly chat away. They don't even need to buy anything, I guarantee most long term Marine players have a ton of unused plasma pistols just sitting around. Buy them a beer or their drink of choice or do a bits swap, but nope. Let's go moan on the internet about how expensive this exact bit is...


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/19 16:40:02


Post by: Some_Call_Me_Tim


All players should be forced to play orks for 3 months, only given boyz kits (the good ol kind) and a lot of bits from enemy armies with a healthy supply of plasticard. Would do the hobby a lot of good.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/19 16:59:53


Post by: Jidmah


 Grimtuff wrote:
They didn't even need to. The current Assault Squad comes with 3 plasma pistols, the old one came with ten(!). Plasma bits are ten a fething penny yet you have moaners who gnash their teeth as they Must. Have. The. Exact. Bit. even though what they want is just a simple conversion and friendly chat away. They don't even need to buy anything, I guarantee most long term Marine players have a ton of unused plasma pistols just sitting around. Buy them a beer or their drink of choice or do a bits swap, but nope. Let's go moan on the internet about how expensive this exact bit is...


I suggest not doing that because it looks like gak. Plasma pistols are too big, have too little detail and do not have the DG's signature plasma look. Might as well just stick a ball of greenstuff to the gun and paint it blue if min-maxing is more important to you than aesthetics.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/19 17:02:33


Post by: Some_Call_Me_Tim


“Oh this bit doesn’t look like my monoposed to gak new deathguard”
Huh, who could’ve guessed.
Individuality in wargear is very common for traitors btw.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/19 17:04:11


Post by: Unit1126PLL


 VladimirHerzog wrote:


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I do wonder why people engage in playing Warhammer if not for the spectacle (and by extension, painting).


Because its the only wargame that most LGS sell and have existing communities for. It's not exactly complicated to grasp

But like, why wargame at all? What are you looking for out of wargaming?

If it is a test of skill, then I am surprised you stuck with 40k after your first few games.
If it's the narrative, I suppose I could understand if you started in an earlier edition.
If it's for the spectacle, paint your models.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dudeface wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Dudeface wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I do wonder why people engage in playing Warhammer if not for the spectacle (and by extension, painting). The number 1 reason to play Warhammer in its current rule-set is that it looks super cool on the table, but unpainted minis spoil that.

Otherwise, it's not a very good game for "testing your skill", nor is it really that useful for telling a story (you end up writing it yourself essentially), nor is it very deep...


It is an excuse for people to get together for food/drinks and chill for a bit though, but maybe that's because I've been in the hobby a little while now and I've grown with it.


Why do you need an excuse to get food/drinks and chill?

Like your wife or family won't let you if you don't also do something else at the same time?


I mean, it's a turn of phrase, maybe dial back the deadpan captain literal.

I don't know what else you could mean. Why is 40k your activity of choice when chilling with friends?
If you and your friends are looking for a test of skill, play a better game.
If you and your friends are looking for collaborative storytelling, you don't need the 40k game since it doesn't help much.
If you are playing because of spectacle, paint your models.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/19 17:22:37


Post by: Grimtuff


 Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote:
“Oh this bit doesn’t look like my monoposed to gak new deathguard”
Huh, who could’ve guessed.
Individuality in wargear is very common for traitors btw.


I honestly don't know why I bother sometimes. I present a solution that works, and I just get a "yeah... but" excuse. But guess what? You can do the same with melta parts. I've got 30 Blightlords, and several of them have combi meltas and not a single one is the same. Some are metal CSM Termie parts, some plastic CSM Termies, some are Storm Bolters with a barrel shaved off and a Sanguinary Guard inferno pistol part put in place, some are simply an entire meltagun with a bolter slapped on the side of it.

You can even go out there and use exhaust vents as the melta barrel, such as on my (overly large) Chaos Lord.
Spoiler:



There's a myriad of solutions out there for easy conversions, but people just don't want to do it and shoot down every suggestion...


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/19 17:23:09


Post by: Altruizine


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
[feigned confusion]

The funny thing is that your incredibly fake ultra-literalism, turned upon yourself, would equally invalidate any reasons you have for "choosing this game".

In it for the spectacle? So why did you choose a 28mm game? 54mm scale would be even more spectacle, mate...


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/19 18:15:17


Post by: Unit1126PLL


 Altruizine wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
[feigned confusion]

The funny thing is that your incredibly fake ultra-literalism, turned upon yourself, would equally invalidate any reasons you have for "choosing this game".

In it for the spectacle? So why did you choose a 28mm game? 54mm scale would be even more spectacle, mate...


Not the 40k spectacle though. Not since inquisitor.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/19 18:19:25


Post by: Dudeface



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dudeface wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Dudeface wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I do wonder why people engage in playing Warhammer if not for the spectacle (and by extension, painting). The number 1 reason to play Warhammer in its current rule-set is that it looks super cool on the table, but unpainted minis spoil that.

Otherwise, it's not a very good game for "testing your skill", nor is it really that useful for telling a story (you end up writing it yourself essentially), nor is it very deep...


It is an excuse for people to get together for food/drinks and chill for a bit though, but maybe that's because I've been in the hobby a little while now and I've grown with it.


Why do you need an excuse to get food/drinks and chill?

Like your wife or family won't let you if you don't also do something else at the same time?


I mean, it's a turn of phrase, maybe dial back the deadpan captain literal.

I don't know what else you could mean. Why is 40k your activity of choice when chilling with friends?
If you and your friends are looking for a test of skill, play a better game.
If you and your friends are looking for collaborative storytelling, you don't need the 40k game since it doesn't help much.
If you are playing because of spectacle, paint your models.


We do paint our models, we choose to chill over a game of 40k because it's (for us) fun, easy to play and isn't too mentally taxing while engaging our interests too.

It's really not a difficult concept that some people get together to do something they find mutually enjoyable, surely?


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/19 18:40:11


Post by: Altruizine


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
 Altruizine wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
[feigned confusion]

The funny thing is that your incredibly fake ultra-literalism, turned upon yourself, would equally invalidate any reasons you have for "choosing this game".

In it for the spectacle? So why did you choose a 28mm game? 54mm scale would be even more spectacle, mate...


Not the 40k spectacle though. Not since inquisitor.

Ok, so do you think all Necromunda players are errant, then? They could simply play 40K. More vehicles, more monsters, higher unit counts = more 40K spectacle.

I'd love to see an in-depth spectacularity breakdown, actually. What's more spectacular: a 1000 point 40K game between two armies that are extremely poorly painted and straight out of the box with no conversions, or a 5000 point 40K game between two armies that feature amazing conversions and kitbashes, but aren't painted? Can I buy a spectaculometer in the 'Gaming Accessories' section of the GW webstore, to make sure I'm always hitting the minimum recommended spectacle?


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/19 18:40:20


Post by: EviscerationPlague


Dudeface wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dudeface wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Dudeface wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I do wonder why people engage in playing Warhammer if not for the spectacle (and by extension, painting). The number 1 reason to play Warhammer in its current rule-set is that it looks super cool on the table, but unpainted minis spoil that.

Otherwise, it's not a very good game for "testing your skill", nor is it really that useful for telling a story (you end up writing it yourself essentially), nor is it very deep...


It is an excuse for people to get together for food/drinks and chill for a bit though, but maybe that's because I've been in the hobby a little while now and I've grown with it.


Why do you need an excuse to get food/drinks and chill?

Like your wife or family won't let you if you don't also do something else at the same time?


I mean, it's a turn of phrase, maybe dial back the deadpan captain literal.

I don't know what else you could mean. Why is 40k your activity of choice when chilling with friends?
If you and your friends are looking for a test of skill, play a better game.
If you and your friends are looking for collaborative storytelling, you don't need the 40k game since it doesn't help much.
If you are playing because of spectacle, paint your models.


We do paint our models, we choose to chill over a game of 40k because it's (for us) fun, easy to play and isn't too mentally taxing while engaging our interests too.

It's really not a difficult concept that some people get together to do something they find mutually enjoyable, surely?

Well when your best defense for a game is "we like it" that's not a lot to honestly respect.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/19 19:08:34


Post by: NinthMusketeer


At risk of skirting rule 1, dam there are a lot of people here making themselves unhappy by trying to die on the hill of their extremely unreasonable opinions.

Seriously... it is a hobby that involves painting. It doesn't have to, but often does. Many people do enjoy playing the game, without painted models even. None of that affects kit restrictions being unfun.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/19 19:17:34


Post by: Nomeny


Most of the Hobby is people painting and modelling rather than people trying to eke a few extra percentage points out of a unit's efficiency.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/19 19:23:12


Post by: Dudeface


EviscerationPlague wrote:
Dudeface wrote:

We do paint our models, we choose to chill over a game of 40k because it's (for us) fun, easy to play and isn't too mentally taxing while engaging our interests too.

It's really not a difficult concept that some people get together to do something they find mutually enjoyable, surely?

Well when your best defense for a game is "we like it" that's not a lot to honestly respect.


At what point was I defending anything other than how I choose to spend my free time? More importantly why am I having to justify my enjoying spending my free time playing 40k, to 40k players on a 40k forum?

Dear god, then people wonder why this place has the rep it does.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
 NinthMusketeer wrote:
At risk of skirting rule 1, dam there are a lot of people here making themselves unhappy by trying to die on the hill of their extremely unreasonable opinions.

Seriously... it is a hobby that involves painting. It doesn't have to, but often does. Many people do enjoy playing the game, without painted models even. None of that affects kit restrictions being unfun.


You're further from skirting rule 1 than some don't worry.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/19 19:27:30


Post by: Karol


No idea what rep you are talking about. But in general any activity that requires friends or fun people to be fun, can be questionably fun. An activity which can do no matter what the other people are, that is fun, is really fun, because it doesn't build its fun aspect on stuff that comes from outside. If playing the same game of same w40k, becomes unfun when you play it at a store in another city or state, then there is a possibility that the game is not fun, and it is just the people that are fun. And then, there are much cheaper ways to spend time with friends, which require a lot less self invested time too.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/19 19:47:36


Post by: Nomeny


Drugs, for example.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/19 20:04:14


Post by: Insectum7


 Altruizine wrote:

Ok, so do you think all Necromunda players are errant, then? They could simply play 40K. More vehicles, more monsters, higher unit counts = more 40K spectacle.

I'd love to see an in-depth spectacularity breakdown, actually. What's more spectacular: a 1000 point 40K game between two armies that are extremely poorly painted and straight out of the box with no conversions, or a 5000 point 40K game between two armies that feature amazing conversions and kitbashes, but aren't painted? Can I buy a spectaculometer in the 'Gaming Accessories' section of the GW webstore, to make sure I'm always hitting the minimum recommended spectacle?

One could probably, genuinely do a reasonable job of quantifying the various qualities of "spectacle". But I sorta think it'd be a tremendous waste of time here.

But generally, few other games "parade" like 40k or AoS. Big, stylish armies all peackocked up on a good looking table. I've seen a few historical games that do it, but that's about it.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/19 20:35:22


Post by: Unit1126PLL


Yeah. I think the idea that 40k's appeal isn't in the look of the game isn't radical.

And there are plenty of reasons to play a game other than spectacle - I list three in each post. Necromunda is fairly narratively intense as well as having quite a skill ceiling I am told.

40k, though, isn't. It runs almost entirely on spectacle for why it is a fun game to put on the table. "It looks cool."

And if a necromunda game is next to a 40k game in the FLGS, guess which draws more non-wargame observers?

Well Chain of Command but that's beside the point


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/19 21:13:19


Post by: blood reaper


To be clear I think Necromunda can easily have a high level of spectacle - especially with terrain heavy boards.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/19 21:14:04


Post by: EviscerationPlague


Dudeface wrote:
EviscerationPlague wrote:
Dudeface wrote:

We do paint our models, we choose to chill over a game of 40k because it's (for us) fun, easy to play and isn't too mentally taxing while engaging our interests too.

It's really not a difficult concept that some people get together to do something they find mutually enjoyable, surely?

Well when your best defense for a game is "we like it" that's not a lot to honestly respect.


At what point was I defending anything other than how I choose to spend my free time? More importantly why am I having to justify my enjoying spending my free time playing 40k, to 40k players on a 40k forum?

Dear god, then people wonder why this place has the rep it does.

The negative rep comes from the overly positive Paula Facebook comments on the official 40k page. I'm not particularly worried they think it's negative here LOL


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Nomeny wrote:
Drugs, for example.

That depends entirely on the drug, my friend


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/19 22:13:44


Post by: Insectum7


 blood reaper wrote:
To be clear I think Necromunda can easily have a high level of spectacle - especially with terrain heavy boards.
Certainly can. A good board goes a long way. 40k and AoS hit a particular juction of large, showy armies though. The only thing in my experience which compares are big napolionic games. You get the epic scale plus all the colors of uniform. Bigger Epic40k games do it pretty well too, but once the models get too small there's a certain element that's traded for the grander overall scale.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/19 22:17:01


Post by: VladimirHerzog


 Unit1126PLL wrote:

But like, why wargame at all? What are you looking for out of wargaming?

If it is a test of skill, then I am surprised you stuck with 40k after your first few games.
If it's the narrative, I suppose I could understand if you started in an earlier edition.
If it's for the spectacle, paint your models.



moving models on the table and going "pew pew boom boom slash slash" is fun.
i don't need painted models to be able to immerse myself in the battle.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Nomeny wrote:
Most of the Hobby is people painting and modelling rather than people trying to eke a few extra percentage points out of a unit's efficiency.


my main complaint about kit restrictions isnt even that i can't minmax, its that its clunky as feth for my blightlords to shoot :

Bolters
Plasma
Melta
Autocannon



Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/19 22:52:49


Post by: A Town Called Malus


EviscerationPlague wrote:

Nomeny wrote:
Drugs, for example.

That depends entirely on the drug, my friend


Ideally one of the plant based ones, so you can have horticulture as a side hobby.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/19 22:53:24


Post by: H.B.M.C.


Nomeny wrote:
Most of the Hobby is people painting and modelling rather than people trying to eke a few extra percentage points out of a unit's efficiency.
You think that's the only reason why people like options and hate kit-based rule restrictions?


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/19 23:04:50


Post by: Nomeny


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Nomeny wrote:
Most of the Hobby is people painting and modelling rather than people trying to eke a few extra percentage points out of a unit's efficiency.
You think that's the only reason why people like options and hate kit-based rule restrictions?

I must think that, mustn't I?


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/19 23:54:05


Post by: NinthMusketeer


Nomeny wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Nomeny wrote:
Most of the Hobby is people painting and modelling rather than people trying to eke a few extra percentage points out of a unit's efficiency.
You think that's the only reason why people like options and hate kit-based rule restrictions?

I must think that, mustn't I?
Well no, that's why it was a question.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/19 23:58:42


Post by: EviscerationPlague


Nomeny wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Nomeny wrote:
Most of the Hobby is people painting and modelling rather than people trying to eke a few extra percentage points out of a unit's efficiency.
You think that's the only reason why people like options and hate kit-based rule restrictions?

I must think that, mustn't I?

Well if you think Blightlords look better with one of each Combi-Weapon instead of being nice and uniform, that's on you.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/20 00:10:14


Post by: NinthMusketeer


EviscerationPlague wrote:
Nomeny wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Nomeny wrote:
Most of the Hobby is people painting and modelling rather than people trying to eke a few extra percentage points out of a unit's efficiency.
You think that's the only reason why people like options and hate kit-based rule restrictions?

I must think that, mustn't I?

Well if you think Blightlords look better with one of each Combi-Weapon instead of being nice and uniform, that's on you.
Some people honestly do and there is nothing wrong with that. Forcing the whole squad to take the same option would just be an inverted version of the problem.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/20 00:38:46


Post by: H.B.M.C.


Who said anything about being forced to take the same option? Right now they're being forced to take different weapons.



Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/20 04:52:15


Post by: Dai


Sounds Chaotic to me


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/20 05:58:41


Post by: Jidmah


 Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote:
“Oh this bit doesn’t look like my monoposed to gak new deathguard”
Huh, who could’ve guessed.
Individuality in wargear is very common for traitors btw.


Why do you have blight lords in the first place if you don't like their look?


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/20 06:39:14


Post by: Blackie


 blood reaper wrote:
To be clear I think Necromunda can easily have a high level of spectacle - especially with terrain heavy boards.


Exactly. Necromunda is far more "miniature dense" compared to 40k, even if tables are (slightly) smaller and miniatures on the table are between 10 and 20. It's just lots of terrain instead of lots of miniatures. I actually think it has higher level of spectacle on average than 40k.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/20 06:53:56


Post by: NinthMusketeer


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Who said anything about being forced to take the same option? Right now they're being forced to take different weapons.

His sentiment was clearly one of all-the-same being the 'right' way, and faulting another for potentially liking the 'wrong' way. I'm just pointing out that the very concept of there being a right/wrong way of doing it is flawed. Doubly so for GW being able to give us both with no additional effort on their part.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/20 06:56:11


Post by: Jidmah


 Grimtuff wrote:
I honestly don't know why I bother sometimes. I present a solution that works, and I just get a "yeah... but" excuse. But guess what? You can do the same with melta parts. I've got 30 Blightlords, and several of them have combi meltas and not a single one is the same. Some are metal CSM Termie parts, some plastic CSM Termies, some are Storm Bolters with a barrel shaved off and a Sanguinary Guard inferno pistol part put in place, some are simply an entire meltagun with a bolter slapped on the side of it.
[...]
There's a myriad of solutions out there for easy conversions, but people just don't want to do it and shoot down every suggestion...


Sorry, but if you were actually trying to give advice, maybe shouldn't have hidden it in a bucket of vitriol.

According to this post you have no experience with the actual blight lords models and their combi-bolters. For more insight, their bolters have a lot of detail to them and have tiny slots to fit extremely small bits for either melta, plasma or flamer or to stick one of five extra bolters to them. These really look great in my opinion, as you can make 5 unique bolters for each special weapon and a ton of double-bolter combinations. I have to idea why GW couldn't find room for a full set of these bits (they are about 15mmx2mm), but probably the answer is the same as it always is: money.

The reason why I checked the bit price is because when you did so for orks, you usually could get whole sprues very cheap, with just a few weapon options or wheels missing. In case that was unclear, I didn't buy a single one - but many people clearly did.

I was given the same advice when building them back when I started my DG (possibly even by you) and I did try it - unlike you tried to imply with your post, I actually did ask around for plasma bits and had no issues getting them.
The result: Imperial plasma (more rectangular shaped) just looks like gak. Wrong shape, wrong visuals, too clean, and much too large, no matter whether you take plasma guns, plasma pistols, combi-plasma bits.

At that time DI was still available, so I bought an extra noxious blightbringers (2€) and cut up his plasma pistol which had the the round plasma tip I was looking for - still wrong size, plasma coils are too big, it just looks wonky.

In the end I decided that having better guns was neither worth 12-24€ nor as important to me as having my models look good and just used one of each combi-weapon (mostly because I liked how the flamer looks), gave the last one a blight launcher, converted a cohort terminator to hold a plague spewer. I actually do play them WYSIWYG at almost all times, and never really regretted it. My blight lords dodged GWs new design paradigm by pure coincidence.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/20 08:56:03


Post by: Dolnikan


 Insectum7 wrote:
 blood reaper wrote:
To be clear I think Necromunda can easily have a high level of spectacle - especially with terrain heavy boards.
Certainly can. A good board goes a long way. 40k and AoS hit a particular juction of large, showy armies though. The only thing in my experience which compares are big napolionic games. You get the epic scale plus all the colors of uniform. Bigger Epic40k games do it pretty well too, but once the models get too small there's a certain element that's traded for the grander overall scale.


I find that Medievals and Ancients also work pretty well. Basically anything that has colour and fairly large forces without having overly small figures. So definitely any mass battle system using 28mm models, preferably in periods before camouflage became the norm. That tends to make things look much more subdued.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/20 14:54:11


Post by: Nomeny


 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Nomeny wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Nomeny wrote:
Most of the Hobby is people painting and modelling rather than people trying to eke a few extra percentage points out of a unit's efficiency.
You think that's the only reason why people like options and hate kit-based rule restrictions?

I must think that, mustn't I?
Well no, that's why it was a question.

That's just it, people like to customize their miniatures, and limiting the models to WYSIWYG puts an onus on these people. One that doesn't really exist except at the intersection of people customizing models and people playing tournaments. It's just another one of these things that reasonable people can quietly and politely work around at the point of contact (TOs and players during list submission) and another that people can argue about as yet another facet of the Hobby. Incidentally your further posts were spot-on.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/21 01:32:22


Post by: NinthMusketeer


If it's based on people being reasonable that's going to fall through. A lot.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/21 16:40:01


Post by: Nomeny


Well yeah, so we get unit options matching what you can buy. It doesn't seem like a terrible compromise to me. I think a lot of trouble 5th and 6th could have been solved by it.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/21 23:27:13


Post by: EviscerationPlague


Nomeny wrote:
Well yeah, so we get unit options matching what you can buy. It doesn't seem like a terrible compromise to me. I think a lot of trouble 5th and 6th could have been solved by it.

What was going to be solved in 5th by this method?


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/22 01:06:32


Post by: Voss


Nomeny wrote:
Well yeah, so we get unit options matching what you can buy. It doesn't seem like a terrible compromise to me. I think a lot of trouble 5th and 6th could have been solved by it.

Because you're looking at it in a very odd way. I'm not sure what 'trouble' you think would've been solved (and I was a lot more active for 5th and 6th than 7th and 8th), but removing options from both rules AND models seems like a terrible solution to anything.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/22 07:24:38


Post by: Grimtuff


EviscerationPlague wrote:
Nomeny wrote:
Well yeah, so we get unit options matching what you can buy. It doesn't seem like a terrible compromise to me. I think a lot of trouble 5th and 6th could have been solved by it.

What was going to be solved in 5th by this method?


The over-exaggerated "problem" of units being able to spread wounds out throughout the squad due to how wound allocation worked in 5th. I dismiss it as only a handful of units could take full advantage of it, despite what the internet always seems to harp on with it being like some kind of plague on the edition that every army could fully exploit. Nob Bikers, Nobz, TWC, GK Paladins and Bloodcrushers were the only units that could truly take advantage of it due to having multiple wounds and the ability to all take different equipment. Deathwing Termies, Wolf Guard, GK Termies and a couple of other units could exploit it as well, but not to the extent of the others as they only had a single wound.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/22 07:31:26


Post by: Karol


Have you seen the GK termintor box, there is 0 problems with making a unit out of it where every model is armed differently. And paladins were 2W.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/22 11:44:40


Post by: Jidmah


Karol wrote:
Have you seen the GK termintor box, there is 0 problems with making a unit out of it where every model is armed differently. And paladins were 2W.


That's what he said though. Paladins were a problem (probably the biggest one, as they were designed to specifically exploit this rule), terminators were not.

And it's not like nob bikers or TWC were dominating tournaments by any measure.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/22 11:55:27


Post by: vipoid


Karol wrote:
Have you seen the GK termintor box, there is 0 problems with making a unit out of it where every model is armed differently. And paladins were 2W.


Not sure what you mean here.

You certainly could have a GK Terminator squad where every model was armed differently but I don't think it was anywhere near as useful as you seem to think. You could maybe pull the odd trick but every failed save still resulted in a dead Terminator. If a squad lost half its wounds, it would lose half its members.

What made Nobz and Paladins different was that they had 2 wounds apiece. Thus, you could spread wounds around to minimise the number of models lost. As in, you could potentially have a squad of either that had lost half its wounds but still had all its members and could still fight at full effectiveness.

Ideally, you would also have a character accompanying them to further aid durability. Draigo (with EW) or a T5 Warboss could tank melta/lascannon wounds to prevent them from killing a Paladin or Nob outright.


The thing is, I can't say I found either of these units particularly oppressive in 5th. Both units were certainly very tanky but they were also *massive* point sinks with limited shooting. Their melee was more impressive but if an enemy simply spread out, it would be very hard for them to kill the enemy army that way. Especially when you remember that they'd have very little support (as dumping hundreds of points into a single unit doesn't leave you much left to work with).


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/22 21:05:07


Post by: Lord Damocles


Wound spreading in 5th could have been largely mitigated by adding an extra step where wounds had to be allocated in order of AP - so allocate all of the AP1 wounds, then all the AP2 wounds, then AP3 etc. - that would stop the issue of all of the plasma hits stacking on one dude, and bolter wounds being spread around, for example.

(Also Painboys shouldn't have been allowed bikes).


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/22 21:39:29


Post by: Unit1126PLL


Or they could have just not changed it from 4th, where the defending player chooses who takes the wound, and you can't have multiple wounded models in a unit

The only exception was the Torrent of Fire rules, where the attacker can allocate any wounds achieved past the maximum number of models in the squad (for a given wound group). So if a wound group has 11 wounds on 10 space Marines, the attacker chooses where the 11th shot goes.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/22 21:56:25


Post by: NephMakes


This might be a minority opinion, but I'd prefer kits that only have aesthetic build options. Which would mean that (1) some weapons/gear look different but have identical rules, and/or (2) the kit includes enough parts to build all squad options simultaneously, and when you play you just leave a model or two on the shelf. That way you build your toy soldiers whatever ways seems coolest to you, and you never have to worry that you chose the "bad" option or that your build choices become illegal in some future ruleset. I'd be totally okay, for example, with a sergeant's chainsword, power sword, and power fist all having the same stats.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/22 22:52:14


Post by: H.B.M.C.


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Or they could have just not changed it from 4th, where the defending player chooses who takes the wound, and you can't have multiple wounded models in a unit
Exactly. The system already worked. God only knows why they changed it to that... mess!


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/22 23:17:38


Post by: NinthMusketeer


 Grimtuff wrote:
EviscerationPlague wrote:
Nomeny wrote:
Well yeah, so we get unit options matching what you can buy. It doesn't seem like a terrible compromise to me. I think a lot of trouble 5th and 6th could have been solved by it.

What was going to be solved in 5th by this method?


The over-exaggerated "problem" of units being able to spread wounds out throughout the squad due to how wound allocation worked in 5th. I dismiss it as only a handful of units could take full advantage of it, despite what the internet always seems to harp on with it being like some kind of plague on the edition that every army could fully exploit. Nob Bikers, Nobz, TWC, GK Paladins and Bloodcrushers were the only units that could truly take advantage of it due to having multiple wounds and the ability to all take different equipment. Deathwing Termies, Wolf Guard, GK Termies and a couple of other units could exploit it as well, but not to the extent of the others as they only had a single wound.
I feel like it can't be that problem he is referring too as that was done precisely by taking one-offs of a ton of different options; the restricted kits forcing such a loadout would only enable the exploit. Spot on regarding the wound-allocation shenanigans though.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Or they could have just not changed it from 4th, where the defending player chooses who takes the wound, and you can't have multiple wounded models in a unit
Exactly. The system already worked. God only knows why they changed it to that... mess!
'If it aint broke, break it' has been one of those classic GW design pitfalls they run into again and again. TBF they have gotten better about it lately (much better, in AoS' case) but we both know it's just behind pendulum-fixes in terms of bad habits


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/23 07:15:42


Post by: Blackie


 Lord Damocles wrote:
Wound spreading in 5th could have been largely mitigated by adding an extra step where wounds had to be allocated in order of AP - so allocate all of the AP1 wounds, then all the AP2 wounds, then AP3 etc. - that would stop the issue of all of the plasma hits stacking on one dude, and bolter wounds being spread around, for example.

(Also Painboys shouldn't have been allowed bikes).


Painboy at that time wasn't a unit, just an upgrade for a nob squad. A nob from any squad of nobz could become a painboy. That's why nob bikers were allowed to bring the painboy.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/23 08:21:03


Post by: Lord Damocles


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Or they could have just not changed it from 4th, where the defending player chooses who takes the wound, and you can't have multiple wounded models in a unit
Exactly. The system already worked. God only knows why they changed it to that... mess!

It made it so that the specials weren't always the last models in a unit to die, and disincentivised MSU builds.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Blackie wrote:
 Lord Damocles wrote:
Wound spreading in 5th could have been largely mitigated by adding an extra step where wounds had to be allocated in order of AP - so allocate all of the AP1 wounds, then all the AP2 wounds, then AP3 etc. - that would stop the issue of all of the plasma hits stacking on one dude, and bolter wounds being spread around, for example.

(Also Painboys shouldn't have been allowed bikes).


Painboy at that time wasn't a unit, just an upgrade for a nob squad. A nob from any squad of nobz could become a painboy. That's why nob bikers were allowed to bring the painboy.

I know. They still shouldn't have been allowed bikes.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/23 08:40:33


Post by: Blackie


 Lord Damocles wrote:

I know. They still shouldn't have been allowed bikes.


Why not? In 4th edition codex (the one which was in play during 5th) there was just the nobz squad and both the bike and the painboy were upgrades. Nobz and nob bikers were actually the same unit, just with different gear. Meganobz were a separate unit and couldn't take the painboy instead, they had to be joined by Grotsnik (which was utterly overpriced at 160 points) if they wanted a dok in their squad.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/23 09:06:12


Post by: vipoid


Conducting surgery while both you and your patient are riding high-speed, smoke-spewing bikes does sound like a very Orky thing to be doing.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/23 09:13:46


Post by: Jidmah


 vipoid wrote:
Conducting surgery while both you and your patient are riding high-speed, smoke-spewing bikes does sound like a very Orky thing to be doing.


Especially when Apothecaries still have no issues riding a bike at top speed while resurrecting terminators at the same time in 9th.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Lord Damocles wrote:
I know. They still shouldn't have been allowed bikes.


*looks at threat title* I guess I found the one person that thinks kit restrictions are fun.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/23 11:14:07


Post by: CthuluIsSpy


 vipoid wrote:
Conducting surgery while both you and your patient are riding high-speed, smoke-spewing bikes does sound like a very Orky thing to be doing.

So if a Dok paints a big red cross on his bike, does that make it an ambulance, and will he operate faster because the cross is red?


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/23 14:08:25


Post by: Gert


Yes.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/23 14:17:39


Post by: Unit1126PLL


 Lord Damocles wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Or they could have just not changed it from 4th, where the defending player chooses who takes the wound, and you can't have multiple wounded models in a unit
Exactly. The system already worked. God only knows why they changed it to that... mess!

It made it so that the specials weren't always the last models in a unit to die, and disincentivised MSU builds.

Torrent of Fire rules meant that the specials weren't ALWAYS the last to die.

What's wrong with the abstraction of a man picking up the squad's most powerful support weapon once that man is killed anyways? I suppose that doesn't work for Nids as their weapons or attached, but ehh...


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/23 14:29:25


Post by: CthuluIsSpy


 Lord Damocles wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Or they could have just not changed it from 4th, where the defending player chooses who takes the wound, and you can't have multiple wounded models in a unit
Exactly. The system already worked. God only knows why they changed it to that... mess!

It made it so that the specials weren't always the last models in a unit to die, and disincentivised MSU builds.


Pretty sure there were still reasons to take MSUs such as deep strike, objective grabbing and target saturation (there was no split fire in 4th ed. Well, unless you're a space wolf).


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/23 15:02:15


Post by: Unit1126PLL


 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
 Lord Damocles wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Or they could have just not changed it from 4th, where the defending player chooses who takes the wound, and you can't have multiple wounded models in a unit
Exactly. The system already worked. God only knows why they changed it to that... mess!

It made it so that the specials weren't always the last models in a unit to die, and disincentivised MSU builds.


Pretty sure there were still reasons to take MSUs such as deep strike, objective grabbing and target saturation (there was no split fire in 4th ed. Well, unless you're a space wolf).


Iirc not even SW had split fire in 4th, that was a Long Fangs thing from 5th. I haven't played SW since picking 4th back up a year or so ago so it has been a while.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/23 15:02:35


Post by: alextroy


Unit1126PLL wrote:
 Lord Damocles wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Or they could have just not changed it from 4th, where the defending player chooses who takes the wound, and you can't have multiple wounded models in a unit
Exactly. The system already worked. God only knows why they changed it to that... mess!

It made it so that the specials weren't always the last models in a unit to die, and disincentivised MSU builds.

Torrent of Fire rules meant that the specials weren't ALWAYS the last to die.

What's wrong with the abstraction of a man picking up the squad's most powerful support weapon once that man is killed anyways? I suppose that doesn't work for Nids as their weapons or attached, but ehh...
Sometimes more than the man holding the weapon gets broken by an attack.

H.B.M.C. wrote:Who said anything about being forced to take the same option? Right now they're being forced to take different weapons.
I’m pretty sure the kit comes with enough bolters for every model to take a Combi-bolter rather than a Combi-weapon. So I don’t see you being forced to taking anything, just limited. Kinda like how a Tactical Squad can only have 1 Special Weapon and 1 Heavy Weapon, never 2 of the same.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/23 15:04:34


Post by: Unit1126PLL


 alextroy wrote:
Unit1126PLL wrote:
 Lord Damocles wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Or they could have just not changed it from 4th, where the defending player chooses who takes the wound, and you can't have multiple wounded models in a unit
Exactly. The system already worked. God only knows why they changed it to that... mess!

It made it so that the specials weren't always the last models in a unit to die, and disincentivised MSU builds.

Torrent of Fire rules meant that the specials weren't ALWAYS the last to die.

What's wrong with the abstraction of a man picking up the squad's most powerful support weapon once that man is killed anyways? I suppose that doesn't work for Nids as their weapons or attached, but ehh...
Sometimes more than the man holding the weapon gets broken by an attack.

And sometimes but not always in 4th, the special weapon gets removed in the first volley, not the last, if the shooter gets Torrent of Fire.

Turns out the more firepower you put into the enemy, the easier it is to break their toys...


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/23 16:09:28


Post by: Lord Damocles


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
 alextroy wrote:
Unit1126PLL wrote:
 Lord Damocles wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Or they could have just not changed it from 4th, where the defending player chooses who takes the wound, and you can't have multiple wounded models in a unit
Exactly. The system already worked. God only knows why they changed it to that... mess!

It made it so that the specials weren't always the last models in a unit to die, and disincentivised MSU builds.

Torrent of Fire rules meant that the specials weren't ALWAYS the last to die.

What's wrong with the abstraction of a man picking up the squad's most powerful support weapon once that man is killed anyways? I suppose that doesn't work for Nids as their weapons or attached, but ehh...
Sometimes more than the man holding the weapon gets broken by an attack.

And sometimes but not always in 4th, the special weapon gets removed in the first volley, not the last, if the shooter gets Torrent of Fire.

Turns out the more firepower you put into the enemy, the easier it is to break their toys...

Torrent of fire forced a SINGLE model to make a save (from a wounding hit chosen by the defender) if their unit suffered as many wounding hits as it contained models.

So for example a five man Tactical Squad with a lascannon and plasma gun would need to take five wounds for one to be applied to either of the special weapons, and if they took more than five wounds still only one would have to be allocated specifically.

The 5th edition wound allocation only required four wounding hits for one to be assigned to a special, at five both specials would have to take a hit, and at eight one special would need to take two (etc. etc)

It was certainly far easier to break the enemy's toys by applying more firepower in 5th.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 vipoid wrote:
Conducting surgery while both you and your patient are riding high-speed, smoke-spewing bikes does sound like a very Orky thing to be doing.

This



Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Jidmah wrote:
 vipoid wrote:
Conducting surgery while both you and your patient are riding high-speed, smoke-spewing bikes does sound like a very Orky thing to be doing.


Especially when Apothecaries still have no issues riding a bike at top speed while resurrecting terminators at the same time in 9th.

Apothecaries on bikes are also beyond silly.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/23 16:28:18


Post by: EviscerationPlague


 Jidmah wrote:
 vipoid wrote:
Conducting surgery while both you and your patient are riding high-speed, smoke-spewing bikes does sound like a very Orky thing to be doing.


Especially when Apothecaries still have no issues riding a bike at top speed while resurrecting terminators at the same time in 9th.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Lord Damocles wrote:
I know. They still shouldn't have been allowed bikes.


*looks at threat title* I guess I found the one person that thinks kit restrictions are fun.

To be fair when was the last time you saw an Apothecary on a bike? Nobody uses Legends.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/23 16:43:12


Post by: Grimtuff


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
 Lord Damocles wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Or they could have just not changed it from 4th, where the defending player chooses who takes the wound, and you can't have multiple wounded models in a unit
Exactly. The system already worked. God only knows why they changed it to that... mess!

It made it so that the specials weren't always the last models in a unit to die, and disincentivised MSU builds.


Pretty sure there were still reasons to take MSUs such as deep strike, objective grabbing and target saturation (there was no split fire in 4th ed. Well, unless you're a space wolf).


Iirc not even SW had split fire in 4th, that was a Long Fangs thing from 5th. I haven't played SW since picking 4th back up a year or so ago so it has been a while.


Long Fangs had split fire in the pamphlet 3rd ed codex, so long as the unit leader was alive.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/23 17:03:35


Post by: Unit1126PLL


 Lord Damocles wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
 alextroy wrote:
Unit1126PLL wrote:
 Lord Damocles wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Or they could have just not changed it from 4th, where the defending player chooses who takes the wound, and you can't have multiple wounded models in a unit
Exactly. The system already worked. God only knows why they changed it to that... mess!

It made it so that the specials weren't always the last models in a unit to die, and disincentivised MSU builds.

Torrent of Fire rules meant that the specials weren't ALWAYS the last to die.

What's wrong with the abstraction of a man picking up the squad's most powerful support weapon once that man is killed anyways? I suppose that doesn't work for Nids as their weapons or attached, but ehh...
Sometimes more than the man holding the weapon gets broken by an attack.

And sometimes but not always in 4th, the special weapon gets removed in the first volley, not the last, if the shooter gets Torrent of Fire.

Turns out the more firepower you put into the enemy, the easier it is to break their toys...

Torrent of fire forced a SINGLE model to make a save (from a wounding hit chosen by the defender) if their unit suffered as many wounding hits as it contained models.

So for example a five man Tactical Squad with a lascannon and plasma gun would need to take five wounds for one to be applied to either of the special weapons, and if they took more than five wounds still only one would have to be allocated specifically.

The 5th edition wound allocation only required four wounding hits for one to be assigned to a special, at five both specials would have to take a hit, and at eight one special would need to take two (etc. etc)

It was certainly far easier to break the enemy's toys by applying more firepower in 5th.


Unless the enemy's toys were slightly different in multi-wound multi-model units, in which case 5th edition's wound allocation system warped the game in in far more significant ways than 4th's ever did.

But sure, you can kill the special weapons more quickly.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/23 17:10:44


Post by: Inquisitor Lord Katherine


Hecaton wrote:
I'm thinking particularly in terms of the plague marines weapon entry, or the restriction in Skitarii squads to only having one of each special weapon. It's just... un-fun, at least to me.


This is a no-win scenario.

People complained for ages about kits not having all the options or enough options and having to buy multiple copies of the kit to get all the options.
People complained when the options are what is in the kit.

While it's possible to have kits like the Heavy Weapons Squad or the new Sisters of Battle kit, when there are a lot of models with a lot of options to include, this isn't entirely feasible.



As far as painting or converting:
I actually think it's a really gakky thing to do to gatekeep on model paintedness. Painting models is a major obstacle for getting into the hobby of wargaming, and isn't fundamentally that important to it. Wooden cubes and carboard tokens with the symbol for "Infantry" and "Armor" work just as well as nicely painted miniatures, and have done so for 200 years.

This is especially an obstacle as the standard game size keeps being driven up; new players just can't get into it. The time between buying your first models and getting your first game cannot be that long. Also, not everybody possesses the same degree of painting skills, nor the same desire to paint things, and it's generally an unpleasant thing to do to keep someone out of such a multifaceted hobby and community because they don't engage with it in the same way you do.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/23 17:17:10


Post by: Jidmah


EviscerationPlague wrote:
To be fair when was the last time you saw an Apothecary on a bike? Nobody uses Legends.


Uhm, when reading any recent Dark Angels tournament list? The apothecary on bike is alive and well.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/23 17:51:55


Post by: Dysartes


 Jidmah wrote:
EviscerationPlague wrote:
To be fair when was the last time you saw an Apothecary on a bike? Nobody uses Legends.


Uhm, when reading any recent Dark Angels tournament list? The apothecary on bike is alive and well.

Some people appear to enjoy making sweeping statements about "everybody does this" and "nobody does that", and are usually wrong in both cases.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/23 17:56:19


Post by: NinthMusketeer


 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
Hecaton wrote:
I'm thinking particularly in terms of the plague marines weapon entry, or the restriction in Skitarii squads to only having one of each special weapon. It's just... un-fun, at least to me.


This is a no-win scenario.

People complained for ages about kits not having all the options or enough options and having to buy multiple copies of the kit to get all the options.
People complained when the options are what is in the kit.

While it's possible to have kits like the Heavy Weapons Squad or the new Sisters of Battle kit, when there are a lot of models with a lot of options to include, this isn't entirely feasible.



As far as painting or converting:
I actually think it's a really gakky thing to do to gatekeep on model paintedness. Painting models is a major obstacle for getting into the hobby of wargaming, and isn't fundamentally that important to it. Wooden cubes and carboard tokens with the symbol for "Infantry" and "Armor" work just as well as nicely painted miniatures, and have done so for 200 years.

This is especially an obstacle as the standard game size keeps being driven up; new players just can't get into it. The time between buying your first models and getting your first game cannot be that long. Also, not everybody possesses the same degree of painting skills, nor the same desire to paint things, and it's generally an unpleasant thing to do to keep someone out of such a multifaceted hobby and community because they don't engage with it in the same way you do.
People have pointed out the win-win scenario since ever; extra upgrade sprues sold separately with the duplicate weapons required. That's it.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/23 18:12:09


Post by: Jidmah


 Dysartes wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:
EviscerationPlague wrote:
To be fair when was the last time you saw an Apothecary on a bike? Nobody uses Legends.


Uhm, when reading any recent Dark Angels tournament list? The apothecary on bike is alive and well.

Some people appear to enjoy making sweeping statements about "everybody does this" and "nobody does that", and are usually wrong in both cases.


I mean... the ravenwing apothecary isn't even in legends. It's a codex entry, and an extremely well used one at that. Which can be found out with like 5 minutes of research.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/24 00:46:47


Post by: Hecaton


 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:


This is a no-win scenario.

People complained for ages about kits not having all the options or enough options and having to buy multiple copies of the kit to get all the options.
People complained when the options are what is in the kit.


Well they didn't complain if the kits had good options. The problem is that they were sculpting one of each weapon with the assumption that people would convert or kitbash, then they pulled the rug out from under people (but not Astartes, I've noticed).




 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

This is especially an obstacle as the standard game size keeps being driven up; new players just can't get into it. The time between buying your first models and getting your first game cannot be that long. Also, not everybody possesses the same degree of painting skills, nor the same desire to paint things, and it's generally an unpleasant thing to do to keep someone out of such a multifaceted hobby and community because they don't engage with it in the same way you do.


I mean, if you don't like painting you can always get it commissioned. But I have nothing against people who just paint slow... you can see it if they're showing up with grey tide but every month or so another unit gets painted.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/24 01:23:00


Post by: Voss


This is especially an obstacle as the standard game size keeps being driven up; new players just can't get into it.

But... game size went down. Points per model went up, and all the free crap from 7th went away.
???

And, going back even further. Larger game sizes (like 1850 or 2000) came entirely from the player base. GW played and tested and did battle reports at 1500 for a LONG time, and had to be forced to cave into demands for events at higher points values.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/24 01:54:29


Post by: catbarf


Voss wrote:
This is especially an obstacle as the standard game size keeps being driven up; new players just can't get into it.

But... game size went down. Points per model went up, and all the free crap from 7th went away.
???

And, going back even further. Larger game sizes (like 1850 or 2000) came entirely from the player base. GW played and tested and did battle reports at 1500 for a LONG time, and had to be forced to cave into demands for events at higher points values.


If you're only comparing against 8th (or 7th's formations), then sure, points have gone up. Go back farther. My 2000pt Tyranid army from 3rd clocked in at 1300-1400pts in 9th (before the new codex), and since the recommended game size has gone up from 1500 to 2000 as well, that means what used to be a large army in 3rd is now only 2/3 of the way to a standard game in 9th.

GW's writing the rules, not the players. If people want to do 2K games in a system written and intended for 1500 then that's on them, but as soon as GW starts writing rules around 2000pt games, now it's their responsibility.

And that's not even getting into price rises outpacing inflation, let alone actual buying power of the average consumer, which make any given points level more of a financial commitment to achieve even without changes to the game size.

I will acknowledge that GW has done more than ever to make smaller games feel viable, with explicit rules support for 500pt and 1000pt games, but I don't feel the game system works satisfactorily at those levels and the balance is far too easy to break.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/24 03:08:52


Post by: Voss


 catbarf wrote:
Voss wrote:
This is especially an obstacle as the standard game size keeps being driven up; new players just can't get into it.

But... game size went down. Points per model went up, and all the free crap from 7th went away.
???

And, going back even further. Larger game sizes (like 1850 or 2000) came entirely from the player base. GW played and tested and did battle reports at 1500 for a LONG time, and had to be forced to cave into demands for events at higher points values.


If you're only comparing against 8th (or 7th's formations), then sure, points have gone up. Go back farther. My 2000pt Tyranid army from 3rd clocked in at 1300-1400pts in 9th (before the new codex), and since the recommended game size has gone up from 1500 to 2000 as well, that means what used to be a large army in 3rd is now only 2/3 of the way to a standard game in 9th.

That doesn't seem right to me, or at least, seems really exceptional and unusual. The 5th or 6th edition codex has 14 pt tactical marines vs 18 pts now. Vehicles are about 30 points more as well. I'd have to dig for older books, but with the exception of 2nd (which had significantly higher point costs), I remember much lower point values than now (and thus, more stuff).


GW's writing the rules, not the players. If people want to do 2K games in a system written and intended for 1500 then that's on them, but as soon as GW starts writing rules around 2000pt games, now it's their responsibility.

Yeah, except they 'wrote rules' for 2000 and even 3000 point games from the beginning. I'm not sure why its an issue 'now.'


And that's not even getting into price rises outpacing inflation, let alone actual buying power of the average consumer, which make any given points level more of a financial commitment to achieve even without changes to the game size.

Yeah, not touching whoever the 'average consumer' is supposed to be.

I will acknowledge that GW has done more than ever to make smaller games feel viable, with explicit rules support for 500pt and 1000pt games, but I don't feel the game system works satisfactorily at those levels and the balance is far too easy to break.
I feel that's true (and has always been true) for smaller and bigger games, so... whatever. Breaking the game is even easier with bigger game sizes, which is why I hated people lobbying for 2000 points as standard back all those editions ago.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/24 03:31:18


Post by: Unit1126PLL


Yeah, I am all for older editions but my 2000 point guard army in 4th is almost identical to my 2000 point guard army in 9th. I would say within 5-10%. I built the same army for both editions.

My daemons get fewer models in 4th but the army design was fundamentally different back then as well....


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/24 03:52:43


Post by: H.B.M.C.


 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
While it's possible to have kits like the Heavy Weapons Squad or the new Sisters of Battle kit, when there are a lot of models with a lot of options to include, this isn't entirely feasible.
That which is presented without evidence...


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/24 04:28:54


Post by: NinthMusketeer


 catbarf wrote:
Voss wrote:
This is especially an obstacle as the standard game size keeps being driven up; new players just can't get into it.

But... game size went down. Points per model went up, and all the free crap from 7th went away.
???

And, going back even further. Larger game sizes (like 1850 or 2000) came entirely from the player base. GW played and tested and did battle reports at 1500 for a LONG time, and had to be forced to cave into demands for events at higher points values.


If you're only comparing against 8th (or 7th's formations), then sure, points have gone up. Go back farther. My 2000pt Tyranid army from 3rd clocked in at 1300-1400pts in 9th (before the new codex), and since the recommended game size has gone up from 1500 to 2000 as well, that means what used to be a large army in 3rd is now only 2/3 of the way to a standard game in 9th.
The original quote "keeps being driven up" means it is something that is still happening, so comparisons to 20 years ago are more or less irrelevant to the point he is making. (Though I do agree that game size now is notably greater than game size in 3rd.)


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/24 06:32:55


Post by: Blackie


 catbarf wrote:


If you're only comparing against 8th (or 7th's formations), then sure, points have gone up. Go back farther. My 2000pt Tyranid army from 3rd clocked in at 1300-1400pts in 9th (before the new codex), and since the recommended game size has gone up from 1500 to 2000 as well, that means what used to be a large army in 3rd is now only 2/3 of the way to a standard game in 9th.


There's no such thing as "recommended game size", that's entirely of the players' will. If it's too high, players are to blame. I for example still strongly prefer the 1500 points format and constantly ask my community (with terrible results) to play that game size.

And about the size of the army it really depends on the factions. I still keep all the lists I've played since 3rd and 1500 points Orks and Space Wolves lists that I played in 3rd or 5th are about the same size, in terms of models, than 2000 points ones in 9th using the same factions (of course not the same lists). 2000 points armies in 3rd or 5th could easily be much larger than those we have now.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/24 07:59:32


Post by: Slipspace


 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
Hecaton wrote:
I'm thinking particularly in terms of the plague marines weapon entry, or the restriction in Skitarii squads to only having one of each special weapon. It's just... un-fun, at least to me.


This is a no-win scenario.

People complained for ages about kits not having all the options or enough options and having to buy multiple copies of the kit to get all the options.
People complained when the options are what is in the kit.

While it's possible to have kits like the Heavy Weapons Squad or the new Sisters of Battle kit, when there are a lot of models with a lot of options to include, this isn't entirely feasible.


There are so many solutions to this problem, I'm not sure how you can say it's a no-win scenario.

Some solutions involve big changes to the game, such as altering weapon profiles and even removing/consolidating redundant options, so aren't very practical.

Others would work, however. We're seeing one approach in HH, where weapon upgrade sprues are released separately. You'd probably need 3-4 per faction at the most to cover almost everything for 40k, though it would require a change to how the kits are designed in some cases since the new designs often marry specific weapons with specific body/arm combos. That doesn't seem like an insurmountable problem. If we accept that adding such a sprue to every kit is not desirable as it would increase the cost of every individual unit, then we end up with a situation that's as close to win-win as you can get: customers get the option to purchase upgrade boxes to get exactly what they want and GW gets to sell more stuff rather than lose out to companies like Kromlech who provide that sort of service already.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/24 08:38:46


Post by: Tyel


Certain armies have definitely got cheaper as their units fell down the power order - but others have not really.

I don't think my 9th edition DE would weigh in at dramatically lower points than in say 3rd or 5th edition. Incubi (25 points) and Reavers (30 points) seem a bit on the nose - but then raiders are only 55 points base. Ravagers are 25 points cheaper. Talos are much the same at 100 points. Kabalites are the same at 8 (9 in 5th). Wyches down at 10 (although only after they were nerfed to 12 in 9th). Mandrakes are the same. Grotesques are a lot cheaper - but the 3rd edition unit was a kind of a halfway house between todays grotesques and wracks. If we look at 5th Grots were 35 points and Wracks were 10 - which is much of a muchness.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/24 08:55:13


Post by: Dudeface


Tyel wrote:
Certain armies have definitely got cheaper as their units fell down the power order - but others have not really.

I don't think my 9th edition DE would weigh in at dramatically lower points than in say 3rd or 5th edition. Incubi (25 points) and Reavers (30 points) seem a bit on the nose - but then raiders are only 55 points base. Ravagers are 25 points cheaper. Talos are much the same at 100 points. Kabalites are the same at 8 (9 in 5th). Wyches down at 10 (although only after they were nerfed to 12 in 9th). Mandrakes are the same. Grotesques are a lot cheaper - but the 3rd edition unit was a kind of a halfway house between todays grotesques and wracks. If we look at 5th Grots were 35 points and Wracks were 10 - which is much of a muchness.


Cheaper or otherwise, the game got bigger. For many I think the general premise was that a 1500 army in the old system would end up at 2k in the new one given that was GW's "standard" army size, but instead the extra 500 points was to allow for the greater granularity.

Instead we still have squished points costs leaving stuff without the room to define itself in a role and just more stuff on the table, each with the same problem. I'd rather have 25% less army and instead have units with room to be expressed and pointed correctly.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/24 09:33:43


Post by: Blackie


The models became bigger, not the game. Now we have massive infantries, massive vehicles, massive herores and even more massive super heroes that are the size of a child.

For the majority of armies a 2000 points in 3rd required way many models than a 2000 points one in 9th for the same army. In my old ork codex for example the most expensive model was the battlewagon, capped at 0-1, which was 120-140 points depending on the upgrades.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/24 09:35:02


Post by: Sgt. Cortez


Slipspace wrote:
 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
Hecaton wrote:
I'm thinking particularly in terms of the plague marines weapon entry, or the restriction in Skitarii squads to only having one of each special weapon. It's just... un-fun, at least to me.


This is a no-win scenario.

People complained for ages about kits not having all the options or enough options and having to buy multiple copies of the kit to get all the options.
People complained when the options are what is in the kit.

While it's possible to have kits like the Heavy Weapons Squad or the new Sisters of Battle kit, when there are a lot of models with a lot of options to include, this isn't entirely feasible.


There are so many solutions to this problem, I'm not sure how you can say it's a no-win scenario.

Some solutions involve big changes to the game, such as altering weapon profiles and even removing/consolidating redundant options, so aren't very practical.

Others would work, however. We're seeing one approach in HH, where weapon upgrade sprues are released separately. You'd probably need 3-4 per faction at the most to cover almost everything for 40k, though it would require a change to how the kits are designed in some cases since the new designs often marry specific weapons with specific body/arm combos. That doesn't seem like an insurmountable problem. If we accept that adding such a sprue to every kit is not desirable as it would increase the cost of every individual unit, then we end up with a situation that's as close to win-win as you can get: customers get the option to purchase upgrade boxes to get exactly what they want and GW gets to sell more stuff rather than lose out to companies like Kromlech who provide that sort of service already.


Agreed, I'd say there are solutions, in 9th GW decided to take the worst one.
The old solution of not providing kits with all the options but leaving it to the players if they want to get them worked for 30 years, but I'd be open to the HH approach as well as to consolidated weapon rules like Harlequins got them. Yes, you lose some flavor on the way but honestly with the scale the game is at (and I don't want to add whether it has increased during the last 15 years or not) it'd be okay to mesh some weapons together. According to some the game was smaller in 3rd - 5th, yet power weapons were mostly the same aside from fists and claws. If it was possible for a smaller game it's possible in a game where giant Robots and Bombers are a common sight.

For Plague marines specifically?
one handed plague weapon (knive/ axe/ mace) for everyone
two one handed plague weapons (two of knives/axes/ mace with a combination you like, exchange bolter, get +1 attack, possible with every marine)
a two handed plague weapon (= cleaver, flail, exchange bolter, get strong weapon profile, possible with 2/squad)

What would you lose? Right now Bubonic axes are power weapons and would become weaker, maces as well. Flails and Cleaver become the same, you may keep the flail strat (that already works for cleavers, too...)
What would you get? Ability to throw whatever weapon you want on your Plague marines. You like those maces, your warband is the Corrosive Maces of Nurgle? Cool, equip all your marines with maces!
Easy resolution of Plague Marines' CC attacks.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/24 12:00:30


Post by: tneva82


Dudeface wrote:
Tyel wrote:
Certain armies have definitely got cheaper as their units fell down the power order - but others have not really.

I don't think my 9th edition DE would weigh in at dramatically lower points than in say 3rd or 5th edition. Incubi (25 points) and Reavers (30 points) seem a bit on the nose - but then raiders are only 55 points base. Ravagers are 25 points cheaper. Talos are much the same at 100 points. Kabalites are the same at 8 (9 in 5th). Wyches down at 10 (although only after they were nerfed to 12 in 9th). Mandrakes are the same. Grotesques are a lot cheaper - but the 3rd edition unit was a kind of a halfway house between todays grotesques and wracks. If we look at 5th Grots were 35 points and Wracks were 10 - which is much of a muchness.


Cheaper or otherwise, the game got bigger. For many I think the general premise was that a 1500 army in the old system would end up at 2k in the new one given that was GW's "standard" army size, but instead the extra 500 points was to allow for the greater granularity.

Instead we still have squished points costs leaving stuff without the room to define itself in a role and just more stuff on the table, each with the same problem. I'd rather have 25% less army and instead have units with room to be expressed and pointed correctly.


8e indexes had big point increases across the board(vehicles in particular) so suddenly people couldn't field old armies. Players upped the events to 2k to play with same toys.

Come the codexes points were decreased.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/24 21:46:25


Post by: Inquisitor Lord Katherine


 Blackie wrote:
 catbarf wrote:


If you're only comparing against 8th (or 7th's formations), then sure, points have gone up. Go back farther. My 2000pt Tyranid army from 3rd clocked in at 1300-1400pts in 9th (before the new codex), and since the recommended game size has gone up from 1500 to 2000 as well, that means what used to be a large army in 3rd is now only 2/3 of the way to a standard game in 9th.


There's no such thing as "recommended game size", that's entirely of the players' will. If it's too high, players are to blame. I for example still strongly prefer the 1500 points format and constantly ask my community (with terrible results) to play that game size.

And about the size of the army it really depends on the factions. I still keep all the lists I've played since 3rd and 1500 points Orks and Space Wolves lists that I played in 3rd or 5th are about the same size, in terms of models, than 2000 points ones in 9th using the same factions (of course not the same lists). 2000 points armies in 3rd or 5th could easily be much larger than those we have now.


Just because the players are to blame doesn't make it not a problem.

I remember playing at 1500 as the standard size when I started out, which then increased to 1850, and now to 2000. A 2000 point game was considered abnormally large game when I started out. For IG at least, which is what I played then, models are around the same cost points wise, so the army has definitely become larger.

I understand where the desire to increase the game size as the established pool of players collects more models comes from, because we want to see all our collections on the board, but the average start-up cost, coupled with a frequent lack of willingness to play down at 500 or 1000 points makes entering the hobby difficult for new players. Particularly for high school aged kids, which the hobby as a whole needs to survive long-term.
Being an ass about unpainted models and "not enjoying the hobby in the same way you do" further doesn't help, and will drive people away.



Also, all things considered I actually think less weapon discretization could help quite a bit. We don't really need power axes, swords, and maces with different stats. "Power Weapon" will do just fine for the vast majority of pointy stick with AP that a squad leader carries. Considering that I almost never see anyone actually be that WYSIWYG about the power weapon the squad leader has...


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/24 22:32:52


Post by: NinthMusketeer


 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
Also, all things considered I actually think less weapon discretization could help quite a bit. We don't really need power axes, swords, and maces with different stats. "Power Weapon" will do just fine for the vast majority of pointy stick with AP that a squad leader carries. Considering that I almost never see anyone actually be that WYSIWYG about the power weapon the squad leader has...
Completely agreed, that is among the few things I really like about the upcoming CSM codex.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/24 22:39:02


Post by: Hecaton


 NinthMusketeer wrote:
 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
Also, all things considered I actually think less weapon discretization could help quite a bit. We don't really need power axes, swords, and maces with different stats. "Power Weapon" will do just fine for the vast majority of pointy stick with AP that a squad leader carries. Considering that I almost never see anyone actually be that WYSIWYG about the power weapon the squad leader has...
Completely agreed, that is among the few things I really like about the upcoming CSM codex.


Harlequin Troupes were also designed this way. IMO it's one of the good changes with their 9e update.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/24 22:48:35


Post by: H.B.M.C.


Who cares about "need". What if we want that? What if we want different weapons to do different things?

What if we spent years and years with generic weapons, only to have them finally brought back and expanded upon, only to have them ripped away again?


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/25 00:18:47


Post by: A Town Called Malus


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Who cares about "need". What if we want that? What if we want different weapons to do different things?

What if we spent years and years with generic weapons, only to have them finally brought back and expanded upon, only to have them ripped away again?


For the same reason you don't roll to see if each guardsman recharged their las pack in a fire rather than plugging it into a charging station when they are shooting. The same reason we don't sit down with a pad of paper to calculate the trajectory of each round fired. It is a game and some things are best abstracted to make the game function.

A game the size of 40k, with the model counts of 40k, should not care about the difference between an axe or a sword.

If it were a computer game, where such differences can be handled completely by the engine in the blink of an eye? Sure, knock yourself out, dealing with numbers is what computers are for. But when each "calculation" in the game involves a human rolling physical dice, sometimes multiple times at each step, the game should endeavour to streamline that process so it is fluid and quick.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/25 03:24:45


Post by: Unit1126PLL


I liked the old 4th edition Power Weapon, generic.

Modern 40k has weird gak like:
"The 77th Garellan Shock Assault Killer Murderer Regiment uses swords predominantly."
"The 1st Zentrian Bicycle Couriers use rolled-up newspaper power mauls."

"Ah so the 1st Zentrian is better in close combat because Mauls are considerably better against every target type ever than swords."

Or whatever it is now. That was how it was in 8th.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/25 07:35:37


Post by: Blackie


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Who cares about "need". What if we want that? What if we want different weapons to do different things?

What if we spent years and years with generic weapons, only to have them finally brought back and expanded upon, only to have them ripped away again?


Different weapons are good. A plethora of samey weapons isn't.

Take SM: they could easily just have chainswords, power weapons and power fists/hammers in as close combat weapons. Three profiles in total.

What's the point of having something like Power Sword/Axe/Maul, Crozium Arcanum and Lightning Claw or Force Sword/Axe/Stave which all do exactly the same thing? Or to have Power Fist, Chainfist and Thunder Hammer which also do the exact same thing? There's no differentiation between those weapons, just one of each has better averages and gets the edge over its counterparts. Same for all the special wych cult melee weapons for example, which are 4-5 almost identical weapons.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/25 07:51:54


Post by: Slipspace


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Who cares about "need". What if we want that? What if we want different weapons to do different things?

What if we spent years and years with generic weapons, only to have them finally brought back and expanded upon, only to have them ripped away again?


Good game design involves figuring out the balance between "want" and "need". In a game involving supersonic aircraft and Knights that can lay waste to entire squads with a single weapon, or champions of legend and infamy like Guilliman and Abaddon, who massacre swathes of enemies with each sweep of their swords, where we can call down orbital bombardments from our fleets, it seems absurd that we also want to track the exact type of close combat weapon an IG sergeant is carrying, or whether the stealthy Space Marine squad has an Occulus Bolt Carbine, or a Marksman's Bolt Carbine.

3rd edition close combat weapons for SM (and pretty much everyone else) were basically, regular CC weapon, power weapon and heavy power weapon, with lightning claws getting a special rule to also differentiate them. That was it. And it worked fine, just as only having one bolter profile worked fine. You still had the model's A, S and WS stats to differentiate their abilities on top of what they were equipped with.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/25 08:13:15


Post by: NinthMusketeer


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Who cares about "need". What if we want that? What if we want different weapons to do different things?

What if we spent years and years with generic weapons, only to have them finally brought back and expanded upon, only to have them ripped away again?
It's about moderation. Too far to either extreme is bad. Combat weapon, chainblade, 2H chainblade, power weapon, force weapon, lightning claws, power fist, and thunder hammers provide a nice basis for diverse melee loadouts with room for some specialist options on certain units/characters.

Pushing the list up to combat weapon, different combat weapon, spooky weapon, chainblade, 2H chainblade, power sword, power axe, power maul, force sword, force stave, lightning claws, different lightning claws, power fist, chainfist, thunder hammer is where I see it as bloat.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/25 08:20:18


Post by: Deadnight


I tend to agree. Very much lean towards not giving everything its own bespoke profile* - necromunda is very much bogged down by a whole plethora of 'strong melee weapon that does something slightly and pointlessly different to every other strong melee weapon when you roll a 6'. We just homebrewed it to the weapons profiles in 40k 3rd and 4th ed. Aa an added bonus it allows a bit more creativity in modelling. If everything is a power weapon go nuts.

* Though it did always bother me that a chainsword was 'the same' as a guy swinging his boot as both were generic ccws.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/25 08:34:25


Post by: Jidmah


I agree with the posts above, there is a sweet spot between

For example daemonic plague blade, Bubotnic Axes and Baleswords don't really need be different profiles as they are so close in function that they could just summarized as generic plague weapon upgrade.

Greater Plague Cleaver and Plague Flail are both unique two-handed weapons, one for smashing big stuff, one for sweeping through chaff. They both serve a purpose and should not remain as they are.

Splitting the generic "power weapons" and "power fist" profiles into unique profiles seemed like a great idea at the time, four editions later we know that there is always one "best" power weapon and all the others variants don't matter.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/25 10:00:07


Post by: Karol


 Jidmah wrote:

Splitting the generic "power weapons" and "power fist" profiles into unique profiles seemed like a great idea at the time, four editions later we know that there is always one "best" power weapon and all the others variants don't matter.

Meanwhile in the opposit land of GK, every melee weapon is different and most are good and have their roles, aside for the cursed falchions which were the better then everything else option in prior editions and now are just bad.


The problem with weapons for w40k units, is that there are too many different types. It is the wierd "only what is in the box" change in 9th and how many units some armies run or have to run to be efficient. If the game didn't force people in to playing 3 or more identical units and 3 to 9 idential light vehicles, the feeling would be less prominent.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/25 12:57:51


Post by: VladimirHerzog


Hecaton wrote:
 NinthMusketeer wrote:
 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
Also, all things considered I actually think less weapon discretization could help quite a bit. We don't really need power axes, swords, and maces with different stats. "Power Weapon" will do just fine for the vast majority of pointy stick with AP that a squad leader carries. Considering that I almost never see anyone actually be that WYSIWYG about the power weapon the squad leader has...
Completely agreed, that is among the few things I really like about the upcoming CSM codex.


Harlequin Troupes were also designed this way. IMO it's one of the good changes with their 9e update.


Sadly each weapon still gives a unique keyword, it really shouldve been 3 strats that all clowns had access to at all times tbh


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/25 12:58:32


Post by: vipoid


 Blackie wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Who cares about "need". What if we want that? What if we want different weapons to do different things?

What if we spent years and years with generic weapons, only to have them finally brought back and expanded upon, only to have them ripped away again?


Different weapons are good. A plethora of samey weapons isn't.

Take SM: they could easily just have chainswords, power weapons and power fists/hammers in as close combat weapons. Three profiles in total.

What's the point of having something like Power Sword/Axe/Maul, Crozium Arcanum and Lightning Claw or Force Sword/Axe/Stave which all do exactly the same thing? Or to have Power Fist, Chainfist and Thunder Hammer which also do the exact same thing? There's no differentiation between those weapons, just one of each has better averages and gets the edge over its counterparts. Same for all the special wych cult melee weapons for example, which are 4-5 almost identical weapons.


I agree with what you're saying here but it's also the opposite of the current reality.

What we see currently is stuff like Harlequin weapons (which, in terms of fluff, have some of the most unusual and esoteric effects in the game) being consolidated into a single profile, whilst SMs still have 20 different varieties of power weapons and 50 different varieties of bolters.

I think it's fair to question whether the current consolidation is really happening in the most necessary places.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/25 13:15:17


Post by: VladimirHerzog


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Who cares about "need". What if we want that? What if we want different weapons to do different things?

What if we spent years and years with generic weapons, only to have them finally brought back and expanded upon, only to have them ripped away again?


Going back to the BlightLords/Plague Marine example :

I dont want every weapon to have its own stat, i want the squad to be enjoyable to play when resolving attacks.

Let's imagine these dudes got the same treatment as BL/PM


When in combat, this means i need to resolve all of these weapons :
Unarmed
Power axe
Lightning claw
Power fist
Power maul

Thats 5 different dice pools i need to add to a game that is already a slog of dice rolling, hard skip.

Is there really a meaningful difference between :
S6 -2 1
S7 -1 1
S5 -3 1

wouldnt you rather just be able to take whichever option is fluffy visually rather than just take power fists because its the one with the better stats?
I know i would personally love to be able to take ANY power weapon i like visually, which is why i think the rumored "Accursed weapons" is a much better approach.

(give me power tridents/spear/glaive/halberd/katana! )



Automatically Appended Next Post:
 vipoid wrote:

I agree with what you're saying here but it's also the opposite of the current reality.

What we see currently is stuff like Harlequin weapons (which, in terms of fluff, have some of the most unusual and esoteric effects in the game) being consolidated into a single profile, whilst SMs still have 20 different varieties of power weapons and 50 different varieties of bolters.

I think it's fair to question whether the current consolidation is really happening in the most necessary places.


Harlequin consolidation was a good move (they shouldve removed the keyword part tho). every faction should have a much more limited wargear list . right now its just too much.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/25 13:20:34


Post by: Dudeface


 Jidmah wrote:
I agree with the posts above, there is a sweet spot between

For example daemonic plague blade, Bubotnic Axes and Baleswords don't really need be different profiles as they are so close in function that they could just summarized as generic plague weapon upgrade.

Greater Plague Cleaver and Plague Flail are both unique two-handed weapons, one for smashing big stuff, one for sweeping through chaff. They both serve a purpose and should not remain as they are.

Splitting the generic "power weapons" and "power fist" profiles into unique profiles seemed like a great idea at the time, four editions later we know that there is always one "best" power weapon and all the others variants don't matter.


I agree but inevitably someone will wade in with a comment about how it's because gw can't balance anything rather than just accepting it's impossible to not have a "best" weapon in the power weapon realm.


Does anyone find kit restrictions fun? @ 2022/05/25 13:52:52


Post by: Gene St. Ealer


You're all ignoring Vipoid's point though. Like, again, consolidation makes sense when you have 50 different weapon types and 1 group of 5 do something very similar but slightly different, another group of 5 do something very similar but slightly different... and so on. Okay, consolidate that into 10 weapons. Harlequins have 6 *kits*.

When you homogenize their loadouts, you are causing a much greater reduction in terms of variety, but you also create no small amount of resentment from people like me who have been playing Harlequins as a standalone army since I got the ability to do so in 7th. In 7th, Harlequins were not OP, in fact, you could say they weren't even good, but they had a wealth of special, interesting rules that made them feel fluffy and fun. Then, GW turned all their weapons into boring power weapons in 8th (bad), and then completely consolidated them in 9th (worse).

I'm not against consolidation (for example, I'm a fan of the CSM change), but doing it to these already small and unsupported factions is really gakky.