So a few years ago you spent lots of time lovingly converting/modifying a model to match a particular entry in your codex or IA book. Then comes a new codex, and poof, that configuration is now illegal, or at best really bad. What do you do with the model?
Park in in the back of your shelf / case and forget it?
Try to convert it again into something current?
trash it?
Examples: Ork Big Mek on bike, big trakk with supa-skorcha, metal Ghazghull. but I would think most armies have something similar. Do you have an example from your collection?
It is really rare that any of my models have ever actually been made obsolete.
The most notable exceptions are a small portion of my Squats & my original las/plas Razorbacks.
I mean, there's nothing really comparable to use my squad of squat exo-armor trikes as (atm).....
And my las/plasRBs arent even in Legends.
Beyond that? As long as theres current rules - codex. WD, FW, Legends - i simply keep playing with the models.
Including oder smaller versions of things. Sorry, I'm not spending $100+ dollars on a new Blood Thirster or Avatar.
Some things, like most of my Squats, are used as other units. Squats - most have flack armor. Lasgun. & Imperial special/heavy weapons. Looks like a Guard regiment to me....
And in the case of my OG Razorbacks? I'm not the only one in my circles with these.
We know what a RB costs. We know what a lascannon & 2 plasma guns cost. We know its keywords & weapon rules. We can do some math....
So las/plas razorbacks are still valid on our tables.
I always play them as something else as acceptable proxy.
Old Ghaz? He's now either a warboss in megarmour or just the leader of a meganobz squad. It's actually my favorite ork model ever released so it's not going to be shelved .
Big Mek on bike? He's now the nob of a unit of warbikes. His KFF was magnetized but even if it wasn't it wouldn't be a big deal, he's still a biker nob with a saw that can count as whatever melee weapon I want it to be.
Looted wagon? Just a trukk now.
Something like las/plas razorbacks I'd play them as twin lascannons. I magnetized mine though.
1) I learned to mangetize weapons. For Tyranids a lot of the variation is in the weapon arms alone; using magnets protects you when GW changes things. A lesson I learned hard when they made carnis stop carrying two superheavy weapons at once.
2) Save the model and either shelve it or use it as a proxy. Depending on the model you might well have to shelve it or just use it as a proxy for something else.
3) Save it because GW are GW and as often as they remove and option it can come around again next codex.
I keep them. Chances are they will either be useable as a counts-as, or eventually they'll be legal again. It's rare for models to become completely useless and never return to usefulness.
To take a recent example, I'm fairly sure Chaos Lords with jump packs will become legal again at some point in the future.
Blackie wrote: He's now either a warboss in megarmour...
If only GW hadn't taken away Klawz from Warbosses in Mega Armour...
Eh, orks have been losing options in droves for a decade now. At this point it's just part of playing orks. There really is no point to start complaining about it now, just because it has become cool to do so after everyone's pet armies have been hit with the same gak that was totally fine and dandy when orks have been on the receiving end of it for more than ten years.
Just for reference, options lost to orks that no one batted an eye about, some even celebrated as "positive changes":
Spoiler:
- Boss poles lost on all infantry units and characters - Grot riggers lost on all walkers, trukk and BW - Warboss on Warbike lost shoota, kombi-shootas, kustom shoota, ammo runt and attack squig options - Big Mek lost burna, PK, big choppa, shoota, kombi-shootas, kustom shoota, KMB, warbike, ammo runt, attack squig, cybork - MA big mek lost burna, ammo runt, attack squig, cybork - Weird boy lost warphead upgrade - Burnas and lootas lost grot oilers, kombi-shootas, killsaws and choppas - Nobz lost shootas, kustom shootas, ability to have ranged and melee weapon at the same time, cybork - Nob bikers lost shoota, kombi-shootas, kustom shoota, cybork, ammo runt - Nob with Waaagh! banner lost choppa, big choppa, PK, kombi-shootas, warbike - Mek lost KMB, kombi-shootas, rokkit - Painboy lost option for warbike, killsaw, cybork - Tank bustas lost PK, BC - Kommadoz lost the option to have two burnas, big shootas or rokkits - Ork boyz lost 'ard boyz - Trukk lost stikkbomb chukka, boarding planks, reinforced ram and rokkit launcha - Storm boyz lost big choppa - Warbikers lost the ability to have both slugga and choppa - Koptas lost buzz saws, big shootas, KMB or bigbomm without the other, KMB reduced to 1/unit - battlewagon lost rokkits, stikkbomb chukka, boarding planks, reinforced ram, killkannon no longer possible in addition to zzap gun/kannon - Kanz lost KMB
For the most part.. I would say just play them as whatever loadout if it means you can use your fav models as long as the size is not way off.
There is a very high chance your opponent will not know the difference between weapon1 and weapon2 loadout on your character if they don't play that army especially with conversions..
Like as long as you pay the correct point and explain to me what things do when I ask I'm not going to know the difference.
When I play with my CWE my opponents 90% of the time cannot tell the difference between a star canon and a bright lance visually when I'm WYSIWYG so it doesn't really matter. However, I have magged almost everything because I do like to be wysiwyg for my own sake. But I don't feel like i needed to if I didn't feel so inclined.
Blackie wrote: He's now either a warboss in megarmour...
If only GW hadn't taken away Klawz from Warbosses in Mega Armour...
Yeah, and there's no gretchin handling his big shoota. Oh, no!!
How hard is it to consider that huge klaw like a 'uge choppa and make the model fire with +1 to hit even with no gretchin glued on his back?
The only real "issue" I can find is the different base size. Old ghaz in on 40mm, Warboss in megarmour is on 50mm. But no one complained so far, and to be honest in my army pretty much every model is on wrong size bases: infantry are all on 25mm, bikes have the old bases and most of the vehicles are scratch built so not exactly the same size.
Jidmah: mek/spanner also lost the KFF option, which was a thing in 3rd edition, for burnaboyz squads or the warboss' retinue. I also have several magnetized KMBs for my kanz, now they're just proxies for the skorchas or grotzookas since I don't have any of those. And the looted wagon with boomgun/killkannon was flat out squatted, now I have to play it either as a gunwagon/kannonwagon, although is definitely too small compared to the official model, or as a trukk, which is the same size, but it's a bit hilarious that his huge cannon just counts as a big shoota. Which proxy is better, samey size or samey gun?
Due to space limitations my obsolete models get sold on, or at least that's the plan, currently they're sitting in boxes in my loft never to see the light of day.
Jidmah, I have most of those in one of my cabinets :(
I try to be very WYSIWYG, so tend not to proxy models except on a trial basis. I don't mind if others proxy, unless it gets excessive. Just a personality disorder on my part.
Blackie wrote: He's now either a warboss in megarmour...
If only GW hadn't taken away Klawz from Warbosses in Mega Armour...
Yeah, and there's no gretchin handling his big shoota. Oh, no!!
How hard is it to consider that huge klaw like a 'uge choppa and make the model fire with +1 to hit even with no gretchin glued on his back?
The only real "issue" I can find is the different base size. Old ghaz in on 40mm, Warboss in megarmour is on 50mm. But no one complained so far, and to be honest in my army pretty much every model is on wrong size bases: infantry are all on 25mm, bikes have the old bases and most of the vehicles are scratch built so not exactly the same size.
Jidmah: mek/spanner also lost the KFF option, which was a thing in 3rd edition, for burnaboyz squads or the warboss' retinue. I also have several magnetized KMBs for my kanz, now they're just proxies for the skorchas or grotzookas since I don't have any of those. And the looted wagon with boomgun/killkannon was flat out squatted, now I have to play it either as a gunwagon/kannonwagon, although is definitely too small compared to the official model, or as a trukk, which is the same size, but it's a bit hilarious that his huge cannon just counts as a big shoota. Which proxy is better, samey size or samey gun?
Yeah, I'm sure there is far more lost, I was just going through my collection from memory and I didn't start until the 4th edition's codex. The most infuriating part about listing all that is that many of those options actually are represented in the current plastic kits you can buy at the store today and they were dropped anyways. Jump Chaos Lords getting axed seems like a warm summer breeze in comparison.
Chaos lost more than just Jump Pack Lords. And Orks losing stuff doesn't mean Chaos losing stuff is ok.
Blackie wrote: How hard is it to consider that huge klaw like a 'uge choppa and make the model fire with +1 to hit even with no gretchin glued on his back?
Conversely, why is it so hard to not just allow the damned option in the Codex???
Obsolete models I sold (Gretchin with kannons, zzap gun etc.), metal Ghazghkull is now used as a boss in mega armour.
Models I put effort in converting them are measured on time spend on the converting before they either are thrown away or put in a box, seldom seeing the light of day again .
H.B.M.C. wrote: Chaos lost more than just Jump Pack Lords. And Orks losing stuff doesn't mean Chaos losing stuff is ok.
Ironically, orks losing stuff has been ok with a large part of the playerbase.
I wouldn't say it's been "ok" with them. More so the stuff lost has broadly not been massively gameplay altering (you could never, for example, give a warboss a Rocketpack and double their movement), we've gotten used to it over time (we've been taking losses every codex for well over 15 years), and orks are generally pretty robust so far as "counts as" goes.
Depends. I've got a big enough collection I can just leave them as-is and just have them on display.
Very rarely does something get 100% made obsolete though, you can just do a simple weapon swap or counts as for almost anything.
If something is though, it gets chucked into the bits box for repurposing into another mini. Take the example from this very thread, if you Ork players aren't using your old big gunz on some new vehicles the local Mek has bashed up, you're doing it wrong.
I've got some stuff that ended up in Legends, including a non-Primaris chaplain on a bike, and a Librarian on a bike. I also have 3 3D printed Repressors for my Sisters of Battle, also sadly made into Legends. The Repressors are probably going to get shoved into a box to save shelf space; the bike Marine characters are just staying on the shelf, as I was fairly proud of the paint jobs on them at the time (I've gotten better at painting since).
Switch to a game where the models are actually legal, because that game actually has options, including those that aren't "what's in the box". It even makes it easier if:
1: The game has vastly superior rules for: morale, Terrain, LoS, morale, vehicles, cover, melee, morale, shooting, night fighting, (did I mention morale?).......well basically everything. And no CP.
2: It's a gw game, so all of those models that are supported are the ones that you were already using, so they continue to work as they should. And the rules are based off of older editions that you've already played, so they're nice and familiar.
3: It literally gives your faction the best, most fluffy rules that they've ever had. Hands down.
4: All of this was just released, hilariously, a few weeks before the rules which invalidated your models in 40k.
So yeah, sometimes solutions just present themselves.
Sometimes it's just inevitable though. Take the Avatar of Khaine, it's massive compared to the classic model. But at the same time the older model isn't a good "count as" for anything, except maybe just a wraithlord with some imagination.
I keep them and use them. Chaplain and Libby on bike? Yep, I’ll use them in narrative games (each of mine has a foot option with same traits/relics so I switch out depending on theme of mission.
Stick 'em inna scupper with a hosepipe on 'em
Stick 'em inna scupper with a hosepipe on 'em
Stick 'em inna scupper with a hosepipe on 'em
Ear-ly in the mooornin!
Serious answer: Fortunately, I've never had a model go obsolete on me. If I did, I'd probably try to find some alternate use - diorama or terrain, maybe a special unit for scenarios or an objective piece, possibly gifted to a friend for lootin'.
Either look up legends, if it's not there I'll write my own datasheet for the model. GW's job is to give me rules to play with my models, if GW fails at their task and wants to force some stupid gak on me, I'll do it myself, just like everybody else in my gaming group does. Since GW went a little crazy on scrapping datasheets recently we're more and more moving towards one page rules anyway. It's funny how One Page rules gives you more options on your models on literally one page while GW fails on doing the same on 50 pages.
Blndmage wrote: Just the Legends stuff and the free Core rules, boom! Free 40k.
Sure, if you want to play a tiny subset of the game where the vast majority of models don't exist and most of the ones that do have rules are long OOP and cost a fortune on ebay I guess it's technically something resembling 40k.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ccs wrote: So long they've got Legends rules or such I'm good.
Until those "rules" become hopelessly out of date because GW did a terrible job of writing them and hasn't bothered to make even basic updates since then. There's a reason hardly anyone allows legends rules in normal games.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gadzilla666 wrote: So yeah, sometimes solutions just present themselves.
As long as you play space marines with a specific set of models. Sucks to be the rest of us I guess?
Gadzilla666 wrote: So yeah, sometimes solutions just present themselves.
As long as you play space marines with a specific set of models. Sucks to be the rest of us I guess?
Well, the question in the OP is "What do you do with obsolete models?". So, yes, my answer is mostly for a Night Lords army that avoids things like daemon engines and mutants.
But between Mechanicum/Dark Mechanicum, Talons of the Emperor, Solar Auxilia, Cults and Militia, and Daemons of the Ruinstorm you can probably find a home for most Chaos/Loyalist Scum models (but not all, unfortunately). But, it absolutely does "suck" for Xenos players, who are going to be stuck in the mess that 40k has become. And I really wish it didn't, because I'd like to get as many people as possible to make the jump to the HH ruleset. It's just that much better, IMHO.
ccs wrote: It is really rare that any of my models have ever actually been made obsolete.
I feel like its going to become more common as time goes by.
It will be, next on the chopping block are terminators and Assault marines.
So long they've got Legends rules or such I'm good. The rest of you? Alot of you are probably 'd. But that's by your own choice so....
My 40k army was Deathwing raven wing. So, from day the first of primaris i knew my time was limited so rather then just slog on with half assed rules, even when dark angles came out, i just abandoned it, went to 30k, never looked back.
ccs wrote: It is really rare that any of my models have ever actually been made obsolete.
I feel like its going to become more common as time goes by.
It will be, next on the chopping block are terminators and Assault marines.
So long they've got Legends rules or such I'm good. The rest of you? Alot of you are probably 'd. But that's by your own choice so....
Bold of you to assume Legends isn't just a buffer to obselecence.
This, if your unit went into "Legends" then they are his hospice waiting for death.
If you are playing first born, you were diagnosed with terminal cancer back in 8th and you are just biding your time at this point.
I will paraphrase from the old WFB 6th edition Hordes of Chaos books. If you still have a Marauder Chieftain, call him an aspiring champion instead. Unless it honestly does not fit in the army in any way, shape or form, then use the model that you paid good money for. If it is absolutely not able to fit, then it turns into a display/terrain piece, or a objective marker or something else.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Chaos lost more than just Jump Pack Lords. And Orks losing stuff doesn't mean Chaos losing stuff is ok.
Ironically, orks losing stuff has been ok with a large part of the playerbase.
I wouldn't say it's been "ok" with them. More so the stuff lost has broadly not been massively gameplay altering (you could never, for example, give a warboss a Rocketpack and double their movement), we've gotten used to it over time (we've been taking losses every codex for well over 15 years), and orks are generally pretty robust so far as "counts as" goes.
See, this is the exact thing I was talking about.
Warbikes were taken away from all characters, an upgrade which almost tripples their movement. The warboss literally lost that option and was only returned after a massive gakstorm in social media pointed out that FW had renamed Zhadsnark into "Ork Warboss on Warbike" to get more sales out of them, which forced them to put it into the FW compendium, among with nob bikers.
An no, counts-as is not any more more ok for orks than it is for chaos. If you feel like boarding planks or reinforced rams or KMBs not being available to multiple units despite GW still selling those options in their kits, you absolutely have no right to complain about a single lost option for your chosen, legionnaires or chaos lords. Just put a tentacle on them and it's counts-as, amirite?
TinyLegions wrote: I will paraphrase from the old WFB 6th edition Hordes of Chaos books. If you still have a Marauder Chieftain, call him an aspiring champion instead. Unless it honestly does not fit in the army in any way, shape or form, then use the model that you paid good money for. If it is absolutely not able to fit, then it turns into a display/terrain piece, or a objective marker or something else.
I look forward to seeing my friends unit of Tempstus Scions or 20 objective markers represented by Rough Riders.
Isn't the Vindicaire from WH+ basically fit this? I mean it's giant compared to the basic model, so it can literally be LoS'd from anywhere, it has no reason to ever see an actual table. Hence, it's essentially obsolete. In this case, obsolete models become Ebay Fodder or lovingly painted shelf pieces. Or Targets for 1k-2k shooting.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Isn't the Vindicaire from WH+ basically fit this? I mean it's giant compared to the basic model, so it can literally be LoS'd from anywhere, it has no reason to ever see an actual table. Hence, it's essentially obsolete. In this case, obsolete models become Ebay Fodder or lovingly painted shelf pieces. Or Targets for 1k-2k shooting.
ccs wrote: It is really rare that any of my models have ever actually been made obsolete.
I feel like its going to become more common as time goes by.
It will be, next on the chopping block are terminators and Assault marines.
So long they've got Legends rules or such I'm good. The rest of you? Alot of you are probably 'd. But that's by your own choice so....
Bold of you to assume Legends isn't just a buffer to obselecence.
{shrugs} I don't assume anything. I just get on with playing the game (fill in edition # here: ___) with the rules available for my models. For 9e that means some of those rules are in the Codex, some in a supplement/some warzone type expansion book, some are in the FW Compendium, some are in WD, & others are in Legends. Makes no difference to me.
And some, like my Aquilla Strongpoint, I couldn't tell you where they're actually from - I'm just trusting that Wahhapedia pulled it from a valid source. No one I play with has cared though, so....
Jidmah wrote: Great solution - instead of losing rules for some models, just lose the rules for dozens units and armies. Brilliant!
Is anything of value being lost here? Gold marines should never have been a faction in the first place and knights don't work with the scale of the rest of the game. I guess GSC have an argument for existing but TBH that's easily solved by letting Tyranids take IG allies.
Sgt. Cortez wrote: Either look up legends, if it's not there I'll write my own datasheet for the model. GW's job is to give me rules to play with my models, if GW fails at their task and wants to force some stupid gak on me, I'll do it myself, just like everybody else in my gaming group does. Since GW went a little crazy on scrapping datasheets recently we're more and more moving towards one page rules anyway. It's funny how One Page rules gives you more options on your models on literally one page while GW fails on doing the same on 50 pages.
This is a good solution, it's a tabletop game, if you have a regular gaming group then do whatever the hell you want to.
Legends are a solid option if they're available, but even these are becoming obsolete (eg, Uriah Jacobus for my Sisters is garbage compared to a normal priest).
You can always just proxy them as another unit. My 2 poor, converted Iron Priests on Thunderwolf would likely just be used as Wolf Lords or fancy Thunderwolves. I've got enough models that I can just choose to shelve a unit, I've got several models that have never hit the tabletop anyway.
You could always just house rule old models, and although I understand this is not an option for tournament games, I bet you would be surprised how many pick-up game opponents won't mind, especially if the army is fluffy.
I'm currently trying to fit a 1st ed ork army into the new rules and finding troop and weapon options and detachment slots rather limiting. I'll still field Ogryns using the current AM datacard and points but if my opponent wants a 'legal' army they can just count-as Nobz.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Isn't the Vindicaire from WH+ basically fit this? I mean it's giant compared to the basic model, so it can literally be LoS'd from anywhere, it has no reason to ever see an actual table. Hence, it's essentially obsolete. In this case, obsolete models become Ebay Fodder or lovingly painted shelf pieces. Or Targets for 1k-2k shooting.
For one if it can't be seen can't see either so useless. I also doubt it's bigger than knight so since good board has big enough terrain to hide knight i doubt assasin hard.
And if your letting characters be freely shot you should read rulebook again. You'll find pleasant surprise
Jidmah wrote: Great solution - instead of losing rules for some models, just lose the rules for dozens units and armies. Brilliant!
Is anything of value being lost here? Gold marines should never have been a faction in the first place and knights don't work with the scale of the rest of the game. I guess GSC have an argument for existing but TBH that's easily solved by letting Tyranids take IG allies.
GSC had a list at that time, it was in the Citadel Journal.
Jidmah wrote: Great solution - instead of losing rules for some models, just lose the rules for dozens units and armies. Brilliant!
Is anything of value being lost here? Gold marines should never have been a faction in the first place and knights don't work with the scale of the rest of the game. I guess GSC have an argument for existing but TBH that's easily solved by letting Tyranids take IG allies.
If custodians have no place in game neither has ig.
tneva82 wrote: If custodians have no place in game neither has ig.
Guard are an important part of the fluff, are responsible for the majority of the Imperium's wars, and have a clear design concept that doesn't require stealing the spotlight from other factions.
Gold marines are a negligible part of the fluff, have such absurdly tiny numbers that they might as well not exist, and are just marines +1 that try to steal the "elite army of heavy infantry" concept from every other color of space marines.
One of these things is not like the other, no matter how much salty gold marine players try to pretend otherwise.
Jidmah wrote: Great solution - instead of losing rules for some models, just lose the rules for dozens units and armies. Brilliant!
Is anything of value being lost here? Gold marines should never have been a faction in the first place and knights don't work with the scale of the rest of the game. I guess GSC have an argument for existing but TBH that's easily solved by letting Tyranids take IG allies.
If custodians have no place in game neither has ig.
To be fair, Custodes don't have the time in table service that IG does, Custodes are the latest boy band pushed into the limelight. Soon it will be the Space Dwarves. 2 years from now the exact same argument will be used against Votann.
I play custodes, and I honestly don't see why they need to be a separate faction. Just make them, SoS, Inquisitors, Naval units, and Assassins all into one dex. Call agents of the Imperium.
Anyone could argue that any army shouldn't be in the game because everyone has personal preferences. The "play an old edition" is fine for people who can do so but it's not a cure-all.
Goreshrek wrote: So a few years ago you spent lots of time lovingly converting/modifying a model to match a particular entry in your codex or IA book. Then comes a new codex, and poof, that configuration is now illegal, or at best really bad. What do you do with the model?
Park in in the back of your shelf / case and forget it?
Try to convert it again into something current?
trash it?
Examples: Ork Big Mek on bike, big trakk with supa-skorcha, metal Ghazghull. but I would think most armies have something similar. Do you have an example from your collection?
2k out of my 4k Corsairs became non-playable. They are still sitting in box doing nothing with, the other playable units I sold right away just in case. I also had to cut off many weapons on the few models I did keep to reuse (Had 4 Venoms with double Shuriken Cannons for example), also one of my Wraithknights I made rocket Jump packs (Sold this and no longer any pics sadly, I used a RWJF engines to do it).
Here is some fast pics of some of them. I had 50 guys with Jump Packs, 9 Bikes fully custom, and 9 characters all custom (Jump Packs and Bikes),
H.B.M.C. wrote: Chaos lost more than just Jump Pack Lords. And Orks losing stuff doesn't mean Chaos losing stuff is ok.
Ironically, orks losing stuff has been ok with a large part of the playerbase.
I wouldn't say it's been "ok" with them. More so the stuff lost has broadly not been massively gameplay altering (you could never, for example, give a warboss a Rocketpack and double their movement), we've gotten used to it over time (we've been taking losses every codex for well over 15 years), and orks are generally pretty robust so far as "counts as" goes.
Not Online!!! wrote: What an awesome army and what a waste by gw of a concept...
And even worst they were built for 8th it feels like, they had Raiding Force detachment system (2-4 Patrols) and subfactions. Literally the easiest army to port.
Blackie wrote: Or keep the existing rules and use the models as count as. Easiest way to do it.
As I've been saying for 15 years now: 'Counts As' is never the answer.
Why not? As long as there's no confusion and it's clear what is what I don't see any issue in using the official model, a proxy, a conversion, a third party model, etc...
Blackie wrote: Why not? As long as there's no confusion and it's clear what is what I don't see any issue in using the official model, a proxy, a conversion, a third party model, etc...
What do I "counts as" a Salamander tank as? It doesn't look at all like any non-legends unit so when legends rules are finally put out of their misery (or with people who already don't allow them) those models will have no purpose.
Blackie wrote: Or keep the existing rules and use the models as count as. Easiest way to do it.
As I've been saying for 15 years now: 'Counts As' is never the answer.
Why not? As long as there's no confusion and it's clear what is what I don't see any issue in using the official model, a proxy, a conversion, a third party model, etc...
What do I count my big mek on warbike, Waaagh! banner on warbike or painboy on warbike as? How about those nobz which have a kombi-skorcha and a big choppa?
The eight big guns I have? Old ork buggies and skorchas? The third fully magnetized jet? Lootas #13-15 from each mob? The extra turrets and rokkit upgrades for my battlewagons?
The answer is nothing, it's all worthless plastic (and pewter) now. I will never, ever field those again. Because 'counts as' is not a solution for models which have no counterparts anymore, for models which you already own in sufficient number, and for models which cannot be fielded without causing confusion or having vastly different silhouettes and/or footprints.
Blackie wrote: Why not? As long as there's no confusion and it's clear what is what I don't see any issue in using the official model, a proxy, a conversion, a third party model, etc...
What do I "counts as" a Salamander tank as? It doesn't look at all like any non-legends unit so when legends rules are finally put out of their misery (or with people who already don't allow them) those models will have no purpose.
A chimera. As I understand it the current version of the game does really do fire arcs, so the lack of turret is irrelevant. An autocannon is close enough to a multilaser, and it has transport capacity. Easy.
Flinty wrote: A chimera. As I understand it the current version of the game does really do fire arcs, so the lack of turret is irrelevant. An autocannon is close enough to a multilaser, and it has transport capacity. Easy.
A Salamander is not even close to a Chimera. The weapons don't match (and no, an autocannon does not look like a multilaser), the Chimera's lasgun arrays don't exist, and the Salamander has no transport area on the model. It's slightly better than using a cardboard box as a Chimera but it's a completely non-WYSIWYG proxy that just happens to be close in size and shape, not a legitimate counts-as option.
Flinty wrote: A chimera. As I understand it the current version of the game does really do fire arcs, so the lack of turret is irrelevant. An autocannon is close enough to a multilaser, and it has transport capacity. Easy.
A Salamander is not even close to a Chimera. The weapons don't match (and no, an autocannon does not look like a multilaser), the Chimera's lasgun arrays don't exist, and the Salamander has no transport area on the model. It's slightly better than using a cardboard box as a Chimera but it's a completely non-WYSIWYG proxy that just happens to be close in size and shape, not a legitimate counts-as option.
It's based on the Chimera chassis. It has a single turret gun and a hull mounted weapon and an open area at the back that could conceivably hold troops. It's not perfect (counts as never is, by definition) but I seriously doubt anyone is going to be confused by the idea that this Chimera-shaped thing is a Chimera.
Flinty wrote: A chimera. As I understand it the current version of the game does really do fire arcs, so the lack of turret is irrelevant. An autocannon is close enough to a multilaser, and it has transport capacity. Easy.
A Salamander is not even close to a Chimera. The weapons don't match (and no, an autocannon does not look like a multilaser), the Chimera's lasgun arrays don't exist, and the Salamander has no transport area on the model. It's slightly better than using a cardboard box as a Chimera but it's a completely non-WYSIWYG proxy that just happens to be close in size and shape, not a legitimate counts-as option.
I... I don't think you fundamentally understand how Counts As works...
Slipspace wrote: It's based on the Chimera chassis. It has a single turret gun and a hull mounted weapon and an open area at the back that could conceivably hold troops. It's not perfect (counts as never is, by definition) but I seriously doubt anyone is going to be confused by the idea that this Chimera-shaped thing is a Chimera.
The area at the back can hold maybe 1-2 troops in addition to the gunner, not the 12 a Chimera can carry. And it still doesn't have the lasgun arrays a Chimera has. Whether or not someone is going to be confused it's still a stupid looking proxy as a Chimera and not a legitimate counts-as option. A cardboard box with "Chimera" written on it is not going to confuse everyone but it's still a proxy.
Blackie wrote: Or keep the existing rules and use the models as count as. Easiest way to do it.
As I've been saying for 15 years now: 'Counts As' is never the answer.
Why not? As long as there's no confusion and it's clear what is what I don't see any issue in using the official model, a proxy, a conversion, a third party model, etc...
What do I count my big mek on warbike, Waaagh! banner on warbike or painboy on warbike as? How about those nobz which have a kombi-skorcha and a big choppa?
The eight big guns I have? Old ork buggies and skorchas? The third fully magnetized jet? Lootas #13-15 from each mob? The extra turrets and rokkit upgrades for my battlewagons?
The answer is nothing, it's all worthless plastic (and pewter) now. I will never, ever field those again. Because 'counts as' is not a solution for models which have no counterparts anymore, for models which you already own in sufficient number, and for models which cannot be fielded without causing confusion or having vastly different silhouettes and/or footprints.
And don't you dare bring up legends.
Why not? Those are valid 9e rules. GW tells you so. If you choose to play in environments or with people who'd deny you your Legends units? That's on you.
As for your 3rd fully magnetized jet? Idea #1: Save it for when you play Onslaught scale games. Idea #2: Play some Crusade. That silly flyer restriction, indeed the entire Rule of 3? And the Buggy limit BS? Not a thing outside matched play.
I also have an offer for you. I'll buy your Big Gunz. They will go to a good home & they will be used often. PM if you're interested in parting with them & maybe we can work out a deal.
Grimtuff wrote: I... I don't think you fundamentally understand how Counts As works...
I understand perfectly how counts-as works and how it is different from proxying.
Counts-as: "this model is legitimately a WYSIWYG representation of its rules, but it is not the standard GW kit". For example, using third-party plasma guns instead of GW plasma guns is legitimate counts-as. They aren't technically the official representation of a plasma gun but it's clear what they are and you can reasonably argue that it's an alternate pattern of plasma gun that your force uses.
Proxy: "this model is not WYSIWYG but I'm using it to represent these rules anyway". For example, using a flamer and saying "pretend this is a plasma gun" is proxying. You aren't making a credible attempt at an alternate WYSIWYG option, you're just putting down something reasonably similar in size as a substitute for the real model.
So what about a Salamander as a Chimera? The weapons do not match (and the autocannon is a 40k autocannon, so there is no argument that it's an HB/AC/ML), the transport section is not believably present, and the lasgun arrays are missing entirely. It's no better than using a Basilisk as a Chimera, it is the correct size because it uses the Chimera hull parts but that's about it.
No they aren't. GW put very little effort into them when they were originally written and they haven't been updated to keep up with new codex releases. There are still obvious typos, nonsensical rules, missing keywords, old mechanics that no longer apply, etc. GW can say "these are official" all they want but most of us are going to continue to treat them as the garbage they are and not allow them in normal games. At best you have to do a bunch of house ruling on them to get them, there are legends units that literally can not be used RAW because their rules do not work anymore.
Not a thing outside matched play.
Most people use those rules in all games because they are obvious balance changes. In fact, the argument for using them is even stronger than it is in tournament games. In a tournament it's fine if plane spam is overpowered, you just buy a bunch of planes and use the overpowered thing. But nobody wants to get wiped off the table in a narrative game because the thing that is too overpowered for tournaments is somehow legal in an environment where many people are using much weaker lists.
ccs wrote: Why not? Those are valid 9e rules. GW tells you so. If you choose to play in environments or with people who'd deny you your Legends units? That's on you.
I am not using those rules because no matter what GW says, they are *not* valid rules. At least for orks, the rules in legends are dysfunctional, lack essential keywords, have old profiles for weapons and wargear as well rules they shouldn't have. Almost all units are terrible because of that, and the only reason to bring any of them is to exploit the lack of updates, like cheating a 5++ KFF in your army, having warboss which still has advance&charge and breakin' eads or exploiting the fact that there is no point costs attached to the legacy wargear options.
Fixing that mess is essentially the same as just writing your own rules for those models.
Not to mention that some of the models I listed aren't even in legends.
As for your 3rd fully magnetized jet? Idea #1: Save it for when you play Onslaught scale games. Idea #2: Play some Crusade. That silly flyer restriction, indeed the entire Rule of 3? And the Buggy limit BS? Not a thing outside matched play.
Crusade having no limits is a myth. They just aren't spelled out, but part of the rules implicitly. At PL25 you cannot have more than two fliers no matter what, and you will most likely lose the game if you do bring that many. Bringing 3 at 50 not only just as stupid, but also a great way to ruin the game for both players. There is nothing narrative about half an army flying in circles and not interacting with the table. Same about those buggies - sure, you can have five of each in theory, but detachments, PL limits and kustom jobs are a good incentive to diversify.
I also dearly hope you aren't cheating your fellow crusade player by using the buffed Waaagh! from the data slate while also chosing to ignore the restrictions in the same document.
I also have an offer for you. I'll buy your Big Gunz. They will go to a good home & they will be used often. PM if you're interested in parting with them & maybe we can work out a deal.
Eh, I'd take the offer but dealing with sending stuff to the US has been a PITA since orange clown man. Sending 8 converted toys around half the globe isn't worth 80€ of shipping for either of us.
Flinty wrote: Where are those definitions from? I was under the impression that proxy and counts-as were synonyms.
I don't know if anyone has ever made official definitions but that's how it has been since I started in the hobby 15+ years ago. Counts-as is WYSIWYG with a custom model, proxying is using some random non-WYSIWYG object as a placeholder for the real thing.
To my mind "counts as" is just for smaller stuff - i.e. "this flamer counts as a melta gun, this power sword counts as a power fist" while proxying is for entirely units/armies. I.E. I don't have "new hot unit" but want to test it out, so [these models] are standing in until I can get hold of it.
I'd be completely fine with someone using a Salamander as a Chimera. A proxy would be someone chucking in say a Rhino. Or a Wave Serpent.
Grimtuff wrote: I... I don't think you fundamentally understand how Counts As works...
I understand perfectly how counts-as works and how it is different from proxying.
Counts-as: "this model is legitimately a WYSIWYG representation of its rules, but it is not the standard GW kit". For example, using third-party plasma guns instead of GW plasma guns is legitimate counts-as. They aren't technically the official representation of a plasma gun but it's clear what they are and you can reasonably argue that it's an alternate pattern of plasma gun that your force uses.
Proxy: "this model is not WYSIWYG but I'm using it to represent these rules anyway". For example, using a flamer and saying "pretend this is a plasma gun" is proxying. You aren't making a credible attempt at an alternate WYSIWYG option, you're just putting down something reasonably similar in size as a substitute for the real model.
So what about a Salamander as a Chimera? The weapons do not match (and the autocannon is a 40k autocannon, so there is no argument that it's an HB/AC/ML), the transport section is not believably present, and the lasgun arrays are missing entirely. It's no better than using a Basilisk as a Chimera, it is the correct size because it uses the Chimera hull parts but that's about it.
So when the day comes that you can't (or won't) use your Salamander as a Salamander?
1) Remove the autocannon & replace it with something valid for a Chimera. Depending upon the edition details you may need to include a turret.
2) Using simple hobby tools, some glue, & a bit of plastic card, extend the sides of the open crew compartment upwards a bit,
3) Drill out the firing ports for the lasgun array on your compartment extensions.
4) Add lasguns.
5) Finally? Using a bit more plasticard, make a top for the newly extended compartment.
Paint to match original model.
And now you have a Chimera.
No they aren't. GW put very little effort into them when they were originally written and they haven't been updated to keep up with new codex releases. There are still obvious typos, nonsensical rules, missing keywords, old mechanics that no longer apply, etc. GW can say "these are official" all they want but most of us are going to continue to treat them as the garbage they are and not allow them in normal games. At best you have to do a bunch of house ruling on them to get them, there are legends units that literally can not be used RAW because their rules do not work anymore.
Yes Bob, they are. Because GW has told you so.
You might not like them. You might choose to not use them. Some of them might be utter crap. But they are valid rules.
Being out right bad, full of typos, being too expensive/too cheap, being utter nonsense, wrong/missing keywords, not being frequently updated, having little effort invested in their initial writing, etc? Well that also applies to a great many non-Legends things - unit stats/faqs/balance sheets/CA changes - that GW puts out. And you accept those.
And yes, now & then on a Legends unit you might find something that simply doesn't work anymore. You do one of two things: You just shrug & totally ignore the ability. Take that mental sharpie & simply cross it out. Or you discuss it with opponent - who will be OK with having this discussion because you're playing with someone already OK with using Legends.....
Flinty wrote: Where are those definitions from? I was under the impression that proxy and counts-as were synonyms.
To everyone else they are. I guess if you really want to win an online argument badly enough you can just come up with your own self-serving definitions, treat them as the ultimate truth, and show everyone how wrong they are.
I guess my standards are just lower than others. To me the salamander has a hull mount, a support weapon and has space the back for duderz, that typically will be armed with lasguns. Hey presto, a chimera.
If you didn’t have any other basilisks, I’d allow them as a chimera too. To be honest, if you stick a bit of cardboard tube in the back of the salamander I’d allow it as a basilisk. Now whether that was counts-as or proxying, I would leave to the experts.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Or even better, it’s an artillery spotter scout, and therefore acts like a basilisk without the cardboard tube.
ccs wrote: Yes Bob, they are. Because GW has told you so. You might not like them. You might choose to not use them. Some of them might be utter crap. But they are valid rules. Being out right bad, full of typos, being too expensive/too cheap, being utter nonsense, wrong/missing keywords, not being frequently updated, having little effort invested in their initial writing, etc? Well that also applies to a great many non-Legends things - unit stats/faqs/balance sheets/CA changes - that GW puts out. And you accept those.
Sorry, but that is nothing but whataboutism. Just because other rules are slightly flawed doesn't change the fact that Legends are not compatible to current codices, while everything else considered "valid rules" is. Legends was written for 8th edition and not updated since, and there was no updated statement from GW since then.
Technically, legend rules are no more or less valid for 9th edition play than the rules for Goff Rokka and Grukk Face-Rippa from the WD in June 2020.
And yes, now & then on a Legends unit you might find something that simply doesn't work anymore. You do one of two things: You just shrug & totally ignore the ability. Take that mental sharpie & simply cross it out. Or you discuss it with opponent - who will be OK with having this discussion because you're playing with someone already OK with using Legends.....
Riddle me this - if those rules need house rules to function, why do we need them to begin with?
How is having models with rules that can't be played properly different from having models with no rules?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Flinty wrote: I guess my standards are just lower than others. To me the salamander has a hull mount, a support weapon and has space the back for duderz, that typically will be armed with lasguns. Hey presto, a chimera.
If you didn’t have any other basilisks, I’d allow them as a chimera too. To be honest, if you stick a bit of cardboard tube in the back of the salamander I’d allow it as a basilisk. Now whether that was counts-as or proxying, I would leave to the experts.
I'm totally with you. Most 3rd party printed models look less like the models they are counting as than that salamander tank looks like a chimera.
As Jid said, what do I 'Counts As' all my now-illegal units? Like most of my Death Guard? Like almost all of my Chaos Terminators?
'Counts As' is a pathetic joke of a solution for GW's endless demolishing of certain armies.
Whats wrong with your death guard and terminators in that theyre now 'illegal'?
Genuinely curious...
'Counts as' isn't a perfect fit, but imo where it can work, it should at least be considered. At the very least I see it as a good ol' middle finger to the suits at gw. :p
Deadnight wrote: Whats wrong with your death guard and terminators in that theyre now 'illegal'?
Genuinely curious...
Like almost every chaos player, he most likely built his terminators with matching combi-weapons or had more than one set of lightning claws. Or other horrible things that only a complete WAAC would do
'Counts as' isn't a perfect fit, but imo where it can work, it should at least be considered. At the very least I see it as a good ol' middle finger to the suits at gw. :p
Yeah, it works for some things. It's not like I didn't know that the red gobo would never get any sort of useful rules when I bought him and he makes for a great counts-as runtherd, and KMB kanz counting as rokkit kanz also doesn't require a huge stretch of imagination.
It should be the worst case though, not what happens to big chunks of people's armies regularly.
Whats wrong with your death guard and terminators in that theyre now 'illegal'?
Genuinely curious...
'Counts as' isn't a perfect fit, but imo where it can work, it should at least be considered. At the very least I see it as a good ol' middle finger to the suits at gw. :p
DG used to have acess to a lot more basic CSM stuff (Havocs and Bikers notably).
as for the terminators, its the stupidity in the restricted combi weapons and melee weapons that GW added. Not being able to load a full squad with the same kind of combi weapon is soooo fething stupid and makes the resolution of a shooting phase annoying
I use them count as for another similar model, IG Griffon= IG Wyvern; or as Objectives; or put in storage/display till the day GW rotate them out of obsolete.
DG used to have acess to a lot more basic CSM stuff (Havocs and Bikers notably).
Well ye deserve to be punished for using the 3.5th codex that had that stuff :p I'm still not over that era's iron warriors and if death guard players suffer too, well that's even better. Because they smell and never clean up. ;p (for the record, obvious teasing is obvious - im actually gonna put together a red corsairs band for kill team and tend to agree with your point - thank you).
And the invalidation does strike me as a bit petty/silly.
But in all seriousness its a fair point- I was more thinking thr poster was talking about a new issue from the 'current' incarnation of the death guard and not of the older incarnations and a very poor 'porting over' when dg was updated. I know gw was trying to carve out distinct units for each faction so they can ip-protect everything but imo tying them to a core armoury/roster like they used to was preferable.
as for the terminators, its the stupidity in the restricted combi weapons and melee weapons that GW added. Not being able to load a full squad with the same kind of combi weapon is soooo fething stupid and makes the resolution of a shooting phase annoying
That's what ye get for not having proper stormbolters you filthy traitors. :p I take it that the current rules end up with you having a combi-flamer, a combi-plasma, a combination combi-melta etc and the same for the melee weapons? In which case... yeah that is really poorly conceived.
As to the bolded - Are ye not able to say 'they all have combi-flamers (or whatever) and leave it at that?
DG used to have acess to a lot more basic CSM stuff (Havocs and Bikers notably).
Well ye deserve to be punished for using the 3.5th codex that had that stuff :p I'm still not over that era's iron warriors and if death guard players suffer too, well that's even better. Because they smell and never clean up. ;p (for the record, obvious teasing is obvious - im actually gonna put together a red corsairs band for kill team and tend to agree with your point - thank you).
They are referring to DG all the way up to 7th edition, who prior to their standalone codex in 8th could take Bikers, Obliterators, Dinobots etc.
DG used to have acess to a lot more basic CSM stuff (Havocs and Bikers notably).
Well ye deserve to be punished for using the 3.5th codex that had that stuff :p I'm still not over that era's iron warriors and if death guard players suffer too, well that's even better. Because they smell and never clean up. ;p (for the record, obvious teasing is obvious - im actually gonna put together a red corsairs band for kill team and tend to agree with your point - thank you).
They are referring to DG all the way up to 7th edition, who prior to their standalone codex in 8th could take Bikers, Obliterators, Dinobots etc.
Indeed and jokes aside I answered as such:
But in all seriousness its a fair point- I was more thinking thr poster was talking about a new issue from the 'current' incarnation of the death guard and not of the older incarnations and a very poor 'porting over' when dg was updated. I know gw was trying to carve out distinct units for each faction so they can ip-protect everything but imo tying them to a core armoury/roster like they used to was preferable.
In other words I agree that it's a shame things were invalidated and there's not 'easy' fits for a lot of stuff, short of 'play an older edition'.
Which goes back to what I said previously:
'Counts as' isn't a perfect fit, but imo where it can work, it should at least be considered. At the very least I see it as a good ol' middle finger to the suits at gw. :p
Where 'Counts as' doesn't work -it is a crying shame there isn't a better solution to the problem- I genuinely don't have an answer bit folks do have my genuine sympathies if they've had large parts of their armies invalidated.
Flinty wrote: Where are those definitions from? I was under the impression that proxy and counts-as were synonyms.
To everyone else they are. I guess if you really want to win an online argument badly enough you can just come up with your own self-serving definitions, treat them as the ultimate truth, and show everyone how wrong they are.
You may not like the definitions but they are definitions with a long history in wargaming. Go ask tournaments about their model policies and you'll find that counts-as is legal, proxying isn't. You can use third-party or scratchbuilt models that are WYSIWYG and a reasonable interpretation of the rules, you can't use a random other vehicle that just happens to be the same size as the one you're proxying it as or say "these flamers are really plasma guns".
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ccs wrote: So when the day comes that you can't (or won't) use your Salamander as a Salamander?
1) Remove the autocannon & replace it with something valid for a Chimera. Depending upon the edition details you may need to include a turret.
2) Using simple hobby tools, some glue, & a bit of plastic card, extend the sides of the open crew compartment upwards a bit,
3) Drill out the firing ports for the lasgun array on your compartment extensions.
4) Add lasguns.
5) Finally? Using a bit more plasticard, make a top for the newly extended compartment.
Paint to match original model.
And now you have a Chimera.
What do I count my big mek on warbike, Waaagh! banner on warbike or painboy on warbike as? How about those nobz which have a kombi-skorcha and a big choppa?
The eight big guns I have? Old ork buggies and skorchas? The third fully magnetized jet? Lootas #13-15 from each mob? The extra turrets and rokkit upgrades for my battlewagons?
I too have a big mek on bike, waaagh banner on bike and painboy on a bike and run them as biker nobz or leaders of the warbikers squads. Their weapons are still perfect count as for choppas, big choppas and power klaws. The banner is just for aesthetics purpose, I don't see any issue here.
I also have kombi skorcha and big choppa, I simply use the model like he was equipped with either one of those instead of both.
Lootas are legal up to 36 of them. It's not ideal of course but I'm always against the concept of owning that many models from specialists/vehicles and maxing them out. Like I don't think it was a real problem for the majority of players when stormboyz dropped from max 90 to max 60 and mek gunz from max 18 to max 9. Maxing things out is a choice.
Buggies you can put them on a base, add extra weapons from the spared bitz box and run them as perfect conversions of the new buggies. I've seen plenty of those. Or, you can keep them as they are, along with the big gunz in case you might want to play a retro game. Also those are quite popular where I am and I still play 3rd edition games sometimes.
The third jet you can play in a larger game. Sometimes people do that. Insisting on playing the "official" format at all cost is a sort of mental prison. Especially when there is no offical game format.
Whats wrong with your death guard and terminators in that theyre now 'illegal'?
You mean some combinations of loadout are now illegal? The units still exist, run them as they are. They'd be counts as/proxy but not that unreasonable. A plague marine is a plague marine, a terminator is a terminator. Just bring the list (and this is much more important that WYSIWYGIMHO, I might refuse to play against someone that doesn't provide the list), so there would be no confusion.
What do I count my big mek on warbike, Waaagh! banner on warbike or painboy on warbike as? How about those nobz which have a kombi-skorcha and a big choppa? The eight big guns I have? Old ork buggies and skorchas? The third fully magnetized jet? Lootas #13-15 from each mob? The extra turrets and rokkit upgrades for my battlewagons?
I too have a big mek on bike, waaagh banner on bike and painboy on a bike and run them as biker nobz or leaders of the warbikers squads. Their weapons are still perfect count as for choppas, big choppas and power klaws.
I already have plenty of bikers and leaders for them, and let's face it - nob bikers are both on life support and garbage unless you want to exploit the AoR rules, which means I'm also using those as warbikers. Oh, and the two warbiker mobs I have got shrunken down this edition as well, which apparently is also my fault.
So I got six extra warbikers, five extra nob bikers, a big mek, a waagh! banner, two docs... oops, that's more than the 27 warbikers I'm allowed to field.
It's also highly hypocritical to treat spamming units as a solution, while also preaching that highlander games are the one way to play "true" 40k.
The banner is just for aesthetics purpose, I don't see any issue here.
No issue besides attaching a 3" pole to a biker so everyone can shoot him, while also freaking out when I measure LoS from that banner, of course.
I also have kombi skorcha and big choppa, I simply use the model like he was equipped with either one of those instead of both.
Honestly, I would ask you to remove that model from the battlefield. It's absolutely not clear what wargear it is equipped with, especially if you have multiple of those like me. It breaks all the rules you defined yourself for counts-as and proxying.
Lootas are legal up to 36 of them. It's not ideal of course but I'm always against the concept of owning that many models from specialists/vehicles and maxing them out. Like I don't think it was a real problem for the majority of players when stormboyz dropped from max 90 to max 60 and mek gunz from max 18 to max 9. Maxing things out is a choice.
You are claiming moral high ground, while at the same victim-blaming people getting their models invalidated? I bought a collection another player and ended up with 30 lootas, as almost every ork player owns a squad of them, and no one built those worthless spannas up till now. Fun fact, your extra lootas also get invalidated if you didn't max them out, because you don't have enough spannas to field them. I now have at least 6 lootas I can't field no matter how I cut the mobs, even if I would turn a blind eye to morale issues. And no, there aren't any bitz left to build more after a decade.
Buggies you can put them on a base, add extra weapons from the spared bitz box and run them as perfect conversions of the new buggies.
No, because that ruins the model's paint job, looks like gak and still doesn't even remotely look like any of the buggies. Oh, and I already have plenty of the other buggies because I like those models - unless you are now being a hypocrite and suddenly suggesting maxing out things as a solution. Might as well tell people to melt down their obsolete models and recast them into other models.
I've seen plenty of those.
Pictures or it didn't happen. I frequent a lot of galleries of people painting orks, and I did not see "plenty" of those, in fact I see hardly any at all. Which is not surprising, considering how few people actually bought those models when they were legal. Not to mention that these models have next to zero surface to actually glue anything to them at all.
Or, you can keep them as they are, along with the big gunz in case you might want to play a retro game. Also those are quite popular where I am and I still play 3rd edition games sometimes.
Yay, retro games! Except I don't want to waste my precious game time to play an abandoned train wreck of an edition with messy rules, garbage internal balance and half my collection invalidated. There is nothing any old edition can do that 9th can't do at least just as good. I went back to play 5th once, and boy did I forget what a shitshow those rules were. It's like going back and watching that awesome kids show you used to watch, just to find out that it was hot garbage all along and not even nostalgic feelings can salvage it. As for popularity, I haven't ever witnessed someone playing an old edition unless the current edition had just dropped.
I'd also like to point out that you are essentially telling people to pick between playing the game they enjoy and playing the models they enjoy as a solution
The third jet you can play in a larger game. Sometimes people do that. Insisting on playing the "official" format at all cost is a sort of mental prison. Especially when there is no offical game format.
Larger games are a pain in the ass to play because they take too long. Period. But sure, double down on the victim blaming.
Sorry, blackie, but I really just wanted to show how "use counts as" is not a solution for invalidated models. I personally stopped caring about obsolete models, since GW has been gutting my collection with every single ork release. Either I sell them or put them in a display case, if it would bother me, I wouldn't buy models anymore.
However, you responses are quite shocking. You are being hypocritical, blame the hobbyists for owning "too many" models and accept absolutely no blame to GW for this. None of your suggestions are actual solutions. They are just a way of telling someone to "get rekt", while kicking them in the nuts and flipping them off. I wonder why that is.
You mean some combinations of loadout are now illegal? The units still exist, run them as they are. They'd be counts as/proxy but not that unreasonable. A plague marine is a plague marine, a terminator is a terminator. Just bring the list (and this is much more important that WYSIWYGIMHO, I might refuse to play against someone that doesn't provide the list), so there would be no confusion.
alright, lets say i bring a terminator squad that was legal in 8th : everything with Combi-Plasma + Chainaxe.
So i lose 2 guys to shooting, now i gotta figure out which ones of my identically equipped termis is actually the ones with which weapon that i'm willign to lose. Its tedious to track, for both players
You are claiming moral high ground, while at the same victim-blaming people getting their models invalidated?
No moral high ground of course, people can do whatever they want with their stuff/money and I totally respect it. But I honestly don't see any difference in making something illegal or nerfing it to the ground, to the point that such things are shelved anyway. With GW this is likely going to happen to a lot of stuff, so maxing things out is always a risk. I mean, it's better having rule of 2 on the planes with 1 or more good profiles than no restrictions and terrible profiles, like a stompa. In that case you wouldn't play a single one of your planes.
Yay, retro games! Except I don't want to waste my precious game time to play an abandoned train wreck of an edition with messy rules, garbage internal balance and half my collection invalidated. There is nothing any old edition can do that 9th can't do at least just as good. I went back to play 5th once, and boy did I forget what a shitshow those rules were. It's like going back and watching that awesome kids show you used to watch, just to find out that it was hot garbage all along and not even nostalgic feelings can salvage it.
As for popularity, I haven't ever witnessed someone playing an old edition unless the current edition had just dropped.
I'd also like to point out that you are essentially telling people to pick between playing the game they enjoy and playing the models they enjoy as a solution
I do play 3rd edition, and I'm sure I'm not the only one even on this forum. I still think it's the best version of 40k. What I'm saying is that there's isn't just one game. Playing the current version is easier of course, much easier, and it's perfectly fine if someone only wants to stick with modern rules. Still older versions do exist and they are a solution. Maybe a solution you're not interested in though, also perfectly fine.
However, you responses are quite shocking. You are being hypocritical, blame the hobbyists for owning "too many" models and accept absolutely no blame to GW for this.
None of your suggestions are actual solutions. They are just a way of telling someone to "get rekt", while kicking them in the nuts and flipping them off. I wonder why that is.
I do blame the players sometimes, that's true. Imposing to play with the 2000 points format, demanding the minimum table size, rejecting legends, demanding the current base sizes or the exact dimensions on converted/scratch built models, demanding WYSIWYG etc... are all bad behaviours that GW is not responsible of, and consequence of the "official at all cost" that I consider like a cancer. I have to respect their opinions though, and I do even if I disagree about a lot of things. I blame GW for something like their prices, their reluctancy to release the codexes all at once and digital, or when they put things OOP all of a sudden.
Now we live in an era of very frequent changes, and I love it as long as they are free. It means that for players is much harder to jump on the band wagon because the risk of having everything nerfed into the ground is too high. In my experience this means a large chunk of players avoid maxing out stuff or going to instant buy the current top tier army. It makes the game much healthier, and if that means that players who own 10k or more of a single faction (and I'm also talking about myself) or those who play skew armies (also me) have now some limitations on their collections, even harsh ones, I'll take it.
Besides if an ork player is scared/disgusted of fielding an army of "outdated" models I wonder what the game has become. Orks have always been the faction of scratch built stuff and conversions, even in the codex and the battle reports on WD there was lots of non official models pictured. Now it's perfectly fine if someone wants to stick with official models, even an ork player of course. But to see an ork player, especially a long time player, that is so close minded towards unofficial models really makes me wonder if we're talking about the same game and the same hobby. I can't accept that everyone thinks that the standard game now is just like a tournament game, with all the house rules and restrictions that tournaments have.
Of course if you're only interested in playing like that, and again even if I don't like that way of thinking I respect people's opinions so it's perfectly fine, then yes there's no solution for obsolete models, you have to shelve them permanently or to sell them.
So i lose 2 guys to shooting, now i gotta figure out which ones of my identically equipped termis is actually the ones with which weapon that i'm willign to lose. Its tedious to track, for both players
Exactly, it's not ideal. Even tedious maybe. But it can be done, and not a problem for someone. I don't see any significant advantage for the opponent in having perfect knowledge about what was the exact loadout of the 2 guys killed and how the remaining 3 are actually equipped, they all have basically the same stats. Just the campion is a bit different, and the champion is the last man standing.
Blackie wrote: But I honestly don't see any difference in making something illegal or nerfing it to the ground, to the point that such things are shelved anyway.
The difference is that not every game is the finals of a hardcore competitive tournament. If a unit is merely bad I can still take it as long as the rest of my list is good, if a unit is illegal it isn't an option at all.
I do blame the players sometimes, that's true. Imposing to play with the 2000 points format, demanding the minimum table size, rejecting legends, demanding the current base sizes or the exact dimensions on converted/scratch built models, demanding WYSIWYG etc... are all bad behaviours that GW is not responsible of, and consequence of the "official at all cost" that I consider like a cancer.
Utter nonsense. Some of those things (like basing table sizes on GW's standard cardboard box dimensions) are bad but not all of them. Legends rules are broken and should be banned by default, base and model sizes matter in a game with measurements from bases and true line of sight to and from models, and WYSIWYG is an important part of a game as complicated as 40k.
In my experience this means a large chunk of players avoid maxing out stuff or going to instant buy the current top tier army.
Which is great, right up until you encounter the meta chaser with a bottomless wallet who does do those things and you're in a constant arms race you can never compete in. Change for the sake of change is a fundamentally stupid approach to game design and it is not an acceptable substitute for publishing functioning and balanced rules.
The difference is that not every game is the finals of a hardcore competitive tournament. If a unit is merely bad I can still take it as long as the rest of my list is good, if a unit is illegal it isn't an option at all.
True, but for the same reason we could expect some level of flexiblity. Jidmah complained about the waaagh banner making the model taller than it actually is but how hard is to ignore such banner for LOS purpose since it's a conversion/count as?
There's a youtube channel that I sometimes watch, Strikinscorpion82, in which the guy owning it posts awesome battle reports. He sometimes plays orks, and he fields a looted razorback and a leman russ as trukks. They were looted wagon in the older edition so they're kitted with the kill kannon and they're definitely not exactly as tall or wide as the official trukk model. But we're talking about mm, and for many players such changes don't make any difference. How hard is it to ignore the actual cannons and aknowledge that since those models are trukks they only have one big shoota instead? He also plays with a FW warboss on bike as leader of his bikers, even if the model's massive compared to the actual nob, the bikers are all on the older bases, so are all the infantry models and even the koptas, still on round 60mm and not the current oval ones. Are his games really that different from tournament ones just because a large chunk of his army differs in mm compared to what's supposed to be official? Are his games somehow dimished, or not even real games, because of that? I honestly don't think so.
Is it really that important that everything must exactly be of the current size/bases even if there is no rule that imposes to play with offical models, let alone the current base sizes? Again, not every game is supposed to be the finals of an hardcore competitive tournament. Your words.
Which is great, right up until you encounter the meta chaser with a bottomless wallet who does do those things and you're in a constant arms race you can never compete in. Change for the sake of change is a fundamentally stupid approach to game design and it is not an acceptable substitute for publishing functioning and balanced rules.
Same as before, refusing to play against some players is possible. You're not obliged to play against him like it was an actual competition. There's no point in playing against a meta chaser who field the best build of the moment if you can't compete. If we're talking about friendly games playing with people that share the same mentality is the key for a fun experience.
All I'm saying, the OP asked "What do you do with obsolete models"? The answer is: there is no official solution because how people play and what people expect from their gaming experience might be extremely different. For me counts as/proxies, playing a retro game, etc... are all legit options which I personally adopt. For others such options might not be a solution, that's perfectly fine, but it doesn't mean they're not legit options to consider. As I said people might not have the same goals for their gaming experience.
You are claiming moral high ground, while at the same victim-blaming people getting their models invalidated?
No moral high ground of course, people can do whatever they want with their stuff/money and I totally respect it. But I honestly don't see any difference in making something illegal or nerfing it to the ground, to the point that such things are shelved anyway. With GW this is likely going to happen to a lot of stuff, so maxing things out is always a risk. I mean, it's better having rule of 2 on the planes with 1 or more good profiles than no restrictions and terrible profiles, like a stompa. In that case you wouldn't play a single one of your planes.
Short term, you are right. My kanz have been sitting my display case and have been gathering dust since 5th, and the stompa is one of the few models I don't own for that very reason.
Long term, you are completely wrong though. After their long hiatus, I'm currently painting up those kanz I magnetized a decade ago because they finally got decent rules again. Same for the planes - due to being magnetized, they never went to the display case for long, during almost every edition at least one of the configurations was viable.
Something that gets removed from the codex is gone forever, and will never come back. Unless you are particularly fond of the model, there is no reason to keep it.
Still older versions do exist and they are a solution. Maybe a solution you're not interested in though, also perfectly fine.
Another thing you are completely and unmistakenly wrong about. Losing models is not a solution to losing models, and whenever you go back to an older edition, you lose everything new. For most players who started in 8th or later, this means losing their entire army. For any healthy group which spreads the hobby and regularly welcomes newcomers, going back is not an solution, and almost definitely not a "perfectly fine" one.
Jidmah wrote: I do blame the players sometimes, that's true. Imposing to play with the 2000 points format, demanding the minimum table size, rejecting legends, demanding the current base sizes or the exact dimensions on converted/scratch built models, demanding WYSIWYG etc... are all bad behaviours that GW is not responsible of, and consequence of the "official at all cost" that I consider like a cancer. I have to respect their opinions though, and I do even if I disagree about a lot of things. I blame GW for something like their prices, their reluctancy to release the codexes all at once and digital, or when they put things OOP all of a sudden.
The issue is that you generalize everyone's arguments into "following GW blindly", pass judgement on it and then discard them as invalid after fitting them into your neat little mental drawers.
- Our group doesn't play 2000 points anymore, especially with 9th edition actively supporting smaller games and crusade actively encouraging them, 2000 points only happen when there is an odd amount of players.
- No matter what GW's reason for the smaller boards was, we thoroughly evaluated the new table sizes against the tables we had and found the 60x44 boards to be superior to 6x4 ones. Many of us enjoy melee units and armies, and running towards a gunline is no fun at all. The smaller boards prevent artillery from staying out of reach of infantry units with no effort whatsoever, which made us change to the smaller boards. Especially during the pandemic the smaller boards were a blessing because many of us could suddenly fit a cardboard gaming board on their dining table who couldn't before.
- *I* personally reject to use legends for *my* models because I feel it gives me unfair advantages over my opponent, and I know quite a few people who would gladly exploit such advantages if they could. If legends was properly maintained, I'd have zero issues with it, but GW can't even properly maintain the rules for FW, so who am I kidding. It's also a matter of fact that people rejecting legends mostly exist in hypothetical scenarios found in dakka posts.
- In the age of 3D printing and an abundance of 3rd party modeling companies, no one cares about the exact dimensions of a model. Having printed models on the table is just as common as daemon princes and daemonettes with square bases are. The one thing that decides whether a model is ok or not is the rule of cool. "This tiny buggy with a plasma cannon glued to its driver is a SJD" is not cool.
- The reason why we use WYSIWYG almost exclusively despite it explicitly being voluntary for our games is that it's just simple. PL combined with WYSIWYG is just perfect for playing dadhammer 40k. You just bring the units you want to bring and figure out their equipment by looking at them. You'll find out that your game consists a lot less of "what are these equipped with?" and "I thought those were flamers" and much more quality game time.
You discarded all these conscious decisions as "bad" and "cancer", because you refuse to accept any viewpoint but your own.
Now we live in an era of very frequent changes, and I love it as long as they are free. It means that for players is much harder to jump on the band wagon because the risk of having everything nerfed into the ground is too high. In my experience this means a large chunk of players avoid maxing out stuff or going to instant buy the current top tier army. It makes the game much healthier, and if that means that players who own 10k or more of a single faction (and I'm also talking about myself) or those who play skew armies (also me) have now some limitations on their collections, even harsh ones, I'll take it.
Not really. There are people who have a high end airbrush system and 3d printers, whales who just own everything in their faction(s) three times anyways and those who can scratchbuild or kitbash everything and paint models to a tabletop standard while asleep. These people can switch to whatever, whenever they want. Meanwhile, invalidating models makes it harder for those with less time and/or money to keep up.
Consider yourself lucky to not have such issues in your group, but you are the exception, not the norm.
Besides if an ork player is scared/disgusted of fielding an army of "outdated" models I wonder what the game has become. Orks have always been the faction of scratch built stuff and conversions, even in the codex and the battle reports on WD there was lots of non official models pictured. Now it's perfectly fine if someone wants to stick with official models, even an ork player of course. But to see an ork player, especially a long time player, that is so close minded towards unofficial models really makes me wonder if we're talking about the same game and the same hobby. I can't accept that everyone thinks that the standard game now is just like a tournament game, with all the house rules and restrictions that tournaments have.
A strawman to support a "no true scotsman", peppered with ad hominem and some good old boomer tournament hate. Spicy! I literally wrote none of that, and therefore will not respond to any of it. Attacking me in such an emotional way just for not agreeing with you says a lot about you though.
Of course if you're only interested in playing like that, and again even if I don't like that way of thinking I respect people's opinions so it's perfectly fine, then yes there's no solution for obsolete models, you have to shelve them permanently or to sell them.
Ooh, let me misrepresent your argument in the same way you did mine:
If you shout down everyone who dares to disagree with your interpretation of the unquestionable ambiguous rules, consider the content of your trashcan a valid proxy an eldar army, don't care whether models are painted, based, assembled or even unboxed, you play the with the same three people who never get a new partner, have kids, change jobs, have to take care of parents or change for any other reason for the last and next 20 years, new players are actively driven away to not pollute your pristine wargaming, see no issues with disembarking McFarlane MANz glued to 10" blast templates from a regular sized trukk, exclusively play 10000 point open war games with no army constraints whatsoever, no one you play with every buys more than one box of anything and you can and all your boards are at least 360'x110', then, without doubt, "counts as" is the right solution for every model-related issue.
<US commercial voice on>
Your army is bad? Count them as the current op stuff!
Your opponent can't identify what your models are equpped with? Just glue more bits to them until your opponent can't even tell which units they represent!
Are you completely incompetent at modeling and scratch building? Don't worry, no matter how terrible your skills are, you can just count it as any ork vehicle you want, because orks are about having vehicles that look like gak!
Internal balance sucks? Count your nobz as manz, your lootas as kommandoz, your nob bikers as squig riders and your battlewagon as kill rigs, allowing you to field the current tournament hotness to crush the dreams of your friends using your benched models!
Hate painting? Count your models as painted!
Your 3d print failed and left you with an unidentifiable blob of resin? Put some googly eyes on it and have it count as looted wagon that counts as baneblade that counts as kill tank!
Losing the game? Just count yourself as the winner!
Call 555-COUNTS-AS today!
Blackie wrote: True, but for the same reason we could expect some level of flexiblity. Jidmah complained about the waaagh banner making the model taller than it actually is but how hard is to ignore such banner for LOS purpose since it's a conversion/count as?
There is an immense difference between not taking a perfectly optimized netlist and having to negotiate rule changes.
How hard is it to ignore the actual cannons and aknowledge that since those models are trukks they only have one big shoota instead?
Very hard because it looks stupid. They're obviously tanks with significant weapons, not flimsy transports with a token light machine gun. Proxying is not a solution here.
Same as before, refusing to play against some players is possible. You're not obliged to play against him like it was an actual competition. There's no point in playing against a meta chaser who field the best build of the moment if you can't compete. If we're talking about friendly games playing with people that share the same mentality is the key for a fun experience.
Do you honestly not understand why it's a bad thing that you have to refuse games against certain people because GW sucks at writing rules?
Goreshrek wrote: So a few years ago you spent lots of time lovingly converting/modifying a model to match a particular entry in your codex or IA book. Then comes a new codex, and poof, that configuration is now illegal, or at best really bad. What do you do with the model?
Park in in the back of your shelf / case and forget it?
Try to convert it again into something current?
trash it?
Examples: Ork Big Mek on bike, big trakk with supa-skorcha, metal Ghazghull. but I would think most armies have something similar. Do you have an example from your collection?
Since his release the metal Goff warboss is serving as my Bad Moonz warboss. Combination of mega armour and power klaw was the selling point.
Blackie wrote: True, but for the same reason we could expect some level of flexiblity. Jidmah complained about the waaagh banner making the model taller than it actually is but how hard is to ignore such banner for LOS purpose since it's a conversion/count as?
All parts of a model can be shot, no matter how you modify it. If you can see something, you can shoot it. If the model has a banner, the banner can be shot. It's really as simple as that. Anything else opens up a can of worms, especially when non-official models are regularly found at your tables.
Speaking of worms, these are my DG chaos spawns. Which parts of them are shootable in your opinion? Feel free to draw a diagram to make it absolutely clear for every possible direction. Base size is 50mm by the way, the same as for the spawns currently sold.
Spoiler:
This should also debunk your "jidmah hates inofficial models" nonsense.
Some people just don't want every game they play to look like this (actual game I played):
Spoiler:
Now, I'd kindly ask you to stop making baseless assumption and talking gak about people.
I don't see any significant advantage for the opponent in having perfect knowledge about what was the exact loadout of the 2 guys killed and how the remaining 3 are actually equipped, they all have basically the same stats. Just the campion is a bit different, and the champion is the last man standing.
i mean, theres a pretty fuckin huge difference between a chainfist + combi melta vs accursed weapon + combibolter.
and usually, my sargeant dies before my special weapons.
i guess we both approach the game differently tho, even if i play casually, i want to make good informed decisions
All parts of a model can be shot, no matter how you modify it. If you can see something, you can shoot it. If the model has a banner, the banner can be shot. It's really as simple as that.
Anything else opens up a can of worms, especially when non-official models are regularly found at your tables.
to be fair, thats an absolutely stupid rule that prevents cool modeling, i usually only count the main body as shootable and when i do count-as (osirion contemptor as a helbrute for example), i'll approximate the size (benefitting my opponent when in doubt)
All parts of a model can be shot, no matter how you modify it. If you can see something, you can shoot it. If the model has a banner, the banner can be shot. It's really as simple as that. Anything else opens up a can of worms, especially when non-official models are regularly found at your tables.
to be fair, thats an absolutely stupid rule that prevents cool modeling, i usually only count the main body as shootable and when i do count-as (osirion contemptor as a helbrute for example), i'll approximate the size (benefitting my opponent when in doubt)
Heavily depends on the opponent in my case. Some insist on shooting the banner and will also insist that you take the shot at a tip of a spear barely visible through six ruins because they can hit it with their laser pointer, others will never shoot banners or wings on principle, others will not take any shot that isn't absolutely clear and very few will flip-flop their opinion depending on how well the game is going for them
The point is that people are fully in their right to shoot that banner according to the current rules, and there isn't really a reason for me to bring that one potentially problematic model when I have more than 30 other models that can count as warbikes at home. Heck, I just found another six bikers on sprues in my bitz box, I blame GW for putting them in every other box set. Just sucks for all the work I did grinding through WHFB orc payer's bitz to get the stuff I wanted.
Hmm...I wonder why gw can't write LoS rules that get around this problem. Oh wait! Some gw rules writers can!:
Sometimes all that will be visible of a model is a weapon, banner, or other ornament they are carrying. In these cases, the model is not visible. Similarly, mechanical appendages such as cables, probes and ammo feeds are ignored, even though they may be part of a model's body. These rules are intended to ensure that models don't get penalized for having impressive banners, weaponry, and so on.
Horus Heresy Rulebook, page 155: Line of Sight
I wonder if these guys and the 40k guys ever talk?
Gadzilla666 wrote: Hmm...I wonder why gw can't write LoS rules that get around this problem. Oh wait! Some gw rules writers can!:
Sometimes all that will be visible of a model is a weapon, banner, or other ornament they are carrying. In these cases, the model is not visible. Similarly, mechanical appendages such as cables, probes and ammo feeds are ignored, even though they may be part of a model's body. These rules are intended to ensure that models don't get penalized for having impressive banners, weaponry, and so on.
Horus Heresy Rulebook, page 155: Line of Sight
I wonder if these guys and the 40k guys ever talk?
Try searching YMDC for "what counts as banner" or "what counts as weapon" to find out how well that worked in the past.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Hmm...I wonder why gw can't write LoS rules that get around this problem. Oh wait! Some gw rules writers can!:
Sometimes all that will be visible of a model is a weapon, banner, or other ornament they are carrying. In these cases, the model is not visible. Similarly, mechanical appendages such as cables, probes and ammo feeds are ignored, even though they may be part of a model's body. These rules are intended to ensure that models don't get penalized for having impressive banners, weaponry, and so on.
Horus Heresy Rulebook, page 155: Line of Sight
I wonder if these guys and the 40k guys ever talk?
Try searching YMDC for "what counts as banner" or "what counts as weapon" to find out how well that worked in the past.
No thanks. I'd rather not venture into Dakka's containment cell for wannabe lawyers and people trying to get an edge by parsing every last comma and apostrophe. Bad for both one's sanity and blood pressure.
No thanks. I'd rather not venture into Dakka's containment cell for wannabe lawyers and people trying to get an edge by parsing every last comma and apostrophe. Bad for both one's sanity and blood pressure.
Great. Now I have an image in my head of a Night Lord cowering above an archway, preying on two people playing 40k with a badly translated Spanish version of a White Dwarf in one hand and an oxford dictionary in the other.
If it's only a simple weapon swap, I might try to change it over to make it legal/viable. Otherwise it goes in the cabinet as a display piece and waits for the day it gets to be relevant again.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Hmm...I wonder why gw can't write LoS rules that get around this problem. Oh wait! Some gw rules writers can!:
Sometimes all that will be visible of a model is a weapon, banner, or other ornament they are carrying. In these cases, the model is not visible. Similarly, mechanical appendages such as cables, probes and ammo feeds are ignored, even though they may be part of a model's body. These rules are intended to ensure that models don't get penalized for having impressive banners, weaponry, and so on.
Horus Heresy Rulebook, page 155: Line of Sight
I wonder if these guys and the 40k guys ever talk?
Try searching YMDC for "what counts as banner" or "what counts as weapon" to find out how well that worked in the past.
The rules debates that happen in YMDC rarely have any relevance to the real world. I've literally never met anyone in over 20 years of gaming who would have a problem with that rule in HH. Up until 8th edition, 40k used pretty much the same rule. Personally I always view rules like that as a handy opponent test. If they're going to try to rules lawyer and argue over the definition of a banner I have better things to do with my time than play them. Again, assuming such people actually exist in the real world in any relevant numbers.
Do you people play nothing but marines and guard? There are a ton of model out there where it is genuinely not possible to differentiate between "weapon" and "body"/"hull". And let's not get started on ornaments.
But sure, blame YMDC and your opponents for unclear rules.
Jidmah wrote: Do you people play nothing but marines and guard? There are a ton of model out there where it is genuinely not possible to differentiate between "weapon" and "body"/"hull".
And let's not get started on ornaments.
But sure, blame YMDC and your opponents for unclear rules.
Not even guard are excluded from it. I remember arguments over whether a Valkyrie's wings counted as "hull" or not, which mattered a lot when blast templates were a thing. The rules even said that "wings" don't count, but there was a reasonable argument to be made that it was referring to something like decorative wings on a chaos character, not a major structural component on a vehicle, and so RAI the Valkyrie's wings should be a valid target even if they aren't by strict RAW. Or you could argue that in addition to being RAW that the wings don't count the Valkyrie also shouldn't be impossible to hide behind terrain or miss with a blast template.
(Which then brings up the question of whether it's modeling for advantage to do the popular helicopter conversion where the wings are removed entirely!)
Jidmah wrote: Do you people play nothing but marines and guard? There are a ton of model out there where it is genuinely not possible to differentiate between "weapon" and "body"/"hull".
And let's not get started on ornaments.
But sure, blame YMDC and your opponents for unclear rules.
I'd prefer clearer rules. However, as I stated, in well over 20 years of playing 40k this has never been a problem, under either set of rules. That's playing against literally every army that's been released in that time.
I'm not blaming YMDC for unclear rules. I'm pointing out it's a cesspit of one-upmanship and purely theoretical argumentation for its own sake, very briefly punctuated by genuine rules questions with useful answers.
tneva82 wrote: If custodians have no place in game neither has ig.
Guard are an important part of the fluff, are responsible for the majority of the Imperium's wars, and have a clear design concept that doesn't require stealing the spotlight from other factions.
Gold marines are a negligible part of the fluff, have such absurdly tiny numbers that they might as well not exist, and are just marines +1 that try to steal the "elite army of heavy infantry" concept from every other color of space marines.
One of these things is not like the other, no matter how much salty gold marine players try to pretend otherwise.
Imperial Guard are your army bob, that is the ONLY differance.
Slipspace wrote: I'd prefer clearer rules. However, as I stated, in well over 20 years of playing 40k this has never been a problem, under either set of rules. That's playing against literally every army that's been released in that time.
I literally have a hand-written list of questions to clarify with my opponent ahead of a game penned in the cover of my 4th edition ork codex. I'd post a picture but it's in German and not even I can read all of it anymore because my handwriting is horrible Quite a few of those questions were about whether certain things were considered hull or not. Just because you don't regularly get into a shouting fight over something, doesn't mean it's not a problem.
Just from the top of my head, which of the following things would you consider legal targets for shooting according to that 30k rule: - kopta blades of a kopta - Thrakka's roar of mork (his quad gun) - Thrakka's klaw - a warbosses' attack squig - a deff rolla - exhaust pipes on a BW - exhaust pipes on a deff dread - the jaws of a squigosaur - a squig on a stick held by an ork (yes, that's a thing) - a gretchin hanging off a buggy - a burna's fuel tank - the tail of a trygon - a lictor's claws
If you need to stop and think about even one item on that list, the rule doesn't work as well as the current one in 9th does despite its flaws in regards to immersion and modeling.
Very hard because it looks stupid. They're obviously tanks with significant weapons, not flimsy transports with a token light machine gun. Proxying is not a solution here.
And yet, even youtubers with thousands of views, like the example I provided, think it is. What looks stupid for you might look awesome for others. So again, it might not be a solution for you. It is for others.
Now, I'd kindly ask you to stop making baseless assumption and talking gak about people.
I won't reply point by point, just clarify one thing. When I said I blame the players for "list of bad behaviours" I didn't mean I blame YOU for "list of bad behaviours" just that blaming the players might be legit. For some people it isn't, and when they have no arguments they throw down "Oh yeah, you're blaming the players". Maybe not in your specific case, but when I see the "you're blaming the players" argument I usually get heated . Yes, there are a lot of behaviours I don't like and that unfortunately they're becoming common. I feel free to criticize such behaviours nonetheless.
In none of my posts I intended to offend you personally, if I did or you got the impression that I did, I'm sorry .
I also try to be very clear that opinions are just opinions, so in no way I do consider my point of view as the truth or how everybody should think. Things are subjective, different contexts matter and different opinions are still legit opinions to hear, even if we disagree. People should always have it in mind.
The decision to put a minimum size that was different from what was the most common table size was definitely by design. People demanding the min size because otherwise they feel their game is not "official" anymore is just dumb behaviour.
And to clairfy, I love the min size since a 4x6 wouldn't fit on my table at home and I could finally buy a 44x60 battle mat that nicely fits. It doesn't mean IT HAS to be min size or the game is not valid. I was criticizing this kind of mentality.
BrianDavion wrote: Imperial Guard are your army bob, that is the ONLY differance.
Other than the differences I gave you in the post you quoted, sure, it's the only difference. Like it or not gold marines should never have been retconned into a tabletop army.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Blackie wrote: Which is what you admitted to do. Demanding painted models for example, that's not a rule.
What's your point? Whether or not I (or anyone else) play by some platonic ideal of Official™ Warhammer™ 40k™ there is still the simple fact that less than perfect optimization is not the same thing as having to convince people to accept house rules. I accept that by refusing to play against unpainted models I am limiting the pool of possible opponents I have available, by merely taking a less than perfectly optimized list I do no such thing.
And yet, even youtubers with thousands of views, like the example I provided, think it is. What looks stupid for you might look awesome for others. So again, it might not be a solution for you. It is for others.
Popularity doesn't guarantee taste. Lots of people get views for ugly and stupid armies, especially when the focus is competitive play where you might as well use cardboard boxes to proxy your netlist. And no matter how many times it appears on a youtube video proxying a LRBT as a paper-thin transport vehicle with minimal weapons is a stupid looking proxy. And it is not an option for anyone who cares about the story of the game or the models as anything other than slightly fancier cardboard tokens in the tabletop equivalent of a competitive e-sport.
Taste is completely subjective, that's the point. There's no such thing as universal good taste, especially for something like a tabletop game, since a huge portion of its appeal is based on aesthetics.
You can find possibly perfect fluffy explanations for a looted LRBT that counts as a trukk: first it's a looted wagon which means it was destroyed or damaged before salvaging it, so having a "degraded" profile than the original battle tank is reasonable. And about the cannon, someone might argue that it ran out of ammo before the upcoming battle. So it's modelled but the player doesn't pay the points for that and he doesn't use it. It's just pure aesthetics for the game purposes, and generates no confusion since the model can't possibly have anything else other than the basic weapon. Besides, it's orks stuff and orks stuff works bad or doesn't work all the time . This is perfectly reasonable for those who like the story of the game or the models, it's people who want 40k to be the equivalent of an e-sport that would demand the exact original models since every differences in size in terms of fractions of millimiters matter for them.
And about painted models the point is you're also trying to convince people to accept (your) house rules. So demanding painted models or asking to tone up/down the lists or accept other some house rules are the exact same thing conceptwise. Something requires a longer talk maybe but in each case one player is just trying to convince a possible opponent to accept his/her own version of the game.
Because, as you also said, there is no Official Warhammer 40k. Therefore what works for someone might not work for others.
Blackie wrote: You can find possibly perfect fluffy explanations for a looted LRBT that counts as a trukk: first it's a looted wagon which means it was destroyed or damaged before salvaging it, so having a "degraded" profile than the original battle tank is reasonable. And about the cannon, someone might argue that it ran out of ammo before the upcoming battle.
Nope. You aren't starting from a fluff concept and asking how best to represent it on the table, you're starting from a proxy and inventing weak rationalizations for how it can be made to fit some other unit's rules. You can do this in some groups but it's no different from using a cardboard box with "trukk" written on it.
and generates no confusion since the model can't possibly have anything else other than the basic weapon.
How does it create no confusion when the model looks nothing like the unit it is being proxied as? If you put the LRBT next to a trukk it's very obvious that they are not the same thing, and the LRBT doesn't look any closer to a trukk than any other ork vehicle. You're completely ignoring WYSIWYG and expecting your opponent to keep track of which thing you proxied your model as.
This is perfectly reasonable for those who like the story of the game or the models, it's people who want 40k to be the equivalent of an e-sport that would demand the exact original models since every differences in size in terms of fractions of millimiters matter for them.
Lolwut. No. This is not about fractions of a millimeter for competitive e-sport reasons like "but your bases are smaller so you can get an extra model into engagement range in this one specific configuration", it's about the models representing the story. A proxy that looks nothing like the unit it is claiming to be is fine for e-sport players since the models are just markers on the table. It looks stupid as hell for those of us who care about the narrative because no matter how many absurd rationalizations you invent a looted LRBT is not a trukk. You're no longer creating a lore-accurate 40k battle and you might as well use cardboard boxes and cheap toys for your e-sport.
And about painted models the point is you're also trying to convince people to accept (your) house rules. So demanding painted models or asking to tone up/down the lists or accept other some house rules are the exact same thing conceptwise. Something requires a longer talk maybe but in each case one player is just trying to convince a possible opponent to accept his/her own version of the game.
Why is it so hard for you to understand that taking a less than optimal list doesn't require agreement between players? If I want to take a Macharius (a very bad unit with a cool model) I don't have to ask for permission or negotiate a house rule, I just put the Macharius in my list and hope that the rest of my list is good enough to make up for ~350 points of my total being taken up by a bad unit. If I want to negotiate a rule that banners/wings/etc don't count for LOS I have to convince my opponent to agree to the change. The two cases are not at all the same.
Nope. You aren't starting from a fluff concept and asking how best to represent it on the table, you're starting from a proxy and inventing weak rationalizations for how it can be made to fit some other unit's rules. You can do this in some groups but it's no different from using a cardboard box with "trukk" written on it.
How does it create no confusion when the model looks nothing like the unit it is being proxied as? If you put the LRBT next to a trukk it's very obvious that they are not the same thing, and the LRBT doesn't look any closer to a trukk than any other ork vehicle. You're completely ignoring WYSIWYG and expecting your opponent to keep track of which thing you proxied your model as.
This is not about fractions of a millimeter for competitive e-sport reasons like "but your bases are smaller so you can get an extra model into engagement range in this one specific configuration", it's about the models representing the story. A proxy that looks nothing like the unit it is claiming to be is fine for e-sport players since the models are just markers on the table. It looks stupid as hell for those of us who care about the narrative because no matter how many absurd rationalizations you invent a looted LRBT is not a trukk. You're no longer creating a lore-accurate 40k battle and you might as well use cardboard boxes and cheap toys for your e-sport.
Look, this is the last official datasheet of the looted wagon, before he became obsolete and food for this thread:
As you can see it's a looted leman russ with the profile and point cost that match the trukk stats. Trukk was AV10/10/10, open topped, had a transport capacity and cost 30 points. Leman russ was AV14/13/10, not open topped, no transport capacity and 150 points. The looted wagon was basically a trukk, not a battle tank. And yet GW used the leman russ model to represent it. They actually made it look even sturdier than the original model by adding the reinforfed ram from the battle wagon kit. This isn't me inventing anything, it's official GW work.
It's definitely 100% lore accurate. A looted wagon and a trukk are basically the same thing, except for the weapons' options. But the profile was almost identical. And the opponent doesn't need to keep track of anything, since there's no possible other units that might be an acceptable count as for that model.
Why is it so hard for you to understand that taking a less than optimal list doesn't require agreement between players? If I want to take a Macharius (a very bad unit with a cool model) I don't have to ask for permission or negotiate a house rule, I just put the Macharius in my list and hope that the rest of my list is good enough to make up for ~350 points of my total being taken up by a bad unit. If I want to negotiate a rule that banners/wings/etc don't count for LOS I have to convince my opponent to agree to the change. The two cases are not at all the same.
But you want to negotiate that the opponent has to bring painted models. Which is the same as negotiating an house rule, you have to convince him in both cases. That's what I was saying.
Blackie wrote: Look, this is the last official datasheet of the looted wagon, before he became obsolete and food for this thread:
A datasheet which, IIRC, was criticized at the time for being stupid as hell and going blatantly against the fluff. And it's still stupid as hell now. One previous mistake by GW doesn't excuse continued bad decisions.
And the opponent doesn't need to keep track of anything, since there's no possible other units that might be an acceptable count as for that model.
Why not? You've already declared that shape doesn't matter, size doesn't matter, weapons don't matter, and armor doesn't matter. Literally nothing about the LRBT model is being considered in evaluating it as a suitable proxy so why isn't it an equally valid proxy for every single vehicle in the ork codex?
But you want to negotiate that the opponent has to bring painted models. Which is the same as negotiating an house rule, you have to convince him in both cases. That's what I was saying.
Why do you keep going on about painted models when it has nothing to do with what I said? The comparison was between modifying the LOS rules (house rules required) and bringing a sub-optimal unit (no house rules required), my refusal to play a game against unpainted models has nothing to do with it. So please stop this pathetic attempt at a "BOTH SIDES LOL" argument.
(And I don't negotiate anything. If someone asks to play a game with me and doesn't have a fully painted army I do not play the game, end of discussion.)
Technically yes, but those rules are not allowed in matched play and have not been updated to match the current ork codex (or any other changes since 2018). You could technically update them yourself and use them if you're willing to allow house rules, but at that point you might as well house rule your own datasheets from scratch.
Edit: actually, Warzone Octarius 2 has current 9th rules for a Looted Wagon.
Only in Crusade. Their datasheet is tied into the ork Crusade mechanics and can't be used without them. So that's not really useful unless you're playing Crusade and get far enough in your campaign to build up scrap points and create one.
A datasheet which, IIRC, was criticized at the time for being stupid as hell and going blatantly against the fluff. And it's still stupid as hell now. One previous mistake by GW doesn't excuse continued bad decisions.
By whom? I don't remember any of that. Reference please.
Why not? You've already declared that shape doesn't matter, size doesn't matter, weapons don't matter, and armor doesn't matter. Literally nothing about the LRBT model is being considered in evaluating it as a suitable proxy so why isn't it an equally valid proxy for every single vehicle in the ork codex?
Never said that. I said that sizes should be roughly the same, that differences in mm don't matter. And weapons don't matter as well as long as there's no confusion. I assume people can read a list.
Why do you keep going on about painted models when it has nothing to do with what I said? The comparison was between modifying the LOS rules (house rules required) and bringing a sub-optimal unit (no house rules required), my refusal to play a game against unpainted models has nothing to do with it. So please stop this pathetic attempt at a "BOTH SIDES LOL" argument.
(And I don't negotiate anything. If someone asks to play a game with me and doesn't have a fully painted army I do not play the game, end of discussion.)
The comparison between you refusing to play a game against unpainted models and people asking to negotiate for changing some rules was to underline that you also demand house rules, your house rules, to play the game. The discussion might be shorter, but the concept is the same. The concept is that you demand playing your own version of the game to your possible opponents.
Blackie wrote: By whom? I don't remember any of that. Reference please.
Yes, I will absolutely give you recordings of past offline conversations with friends who play/played orks, and long forgotten forum posts on the subject. Please wait patiently for your evidence.
And weapons don't matter as well as long as there's no confusion. I assume people can read a list.
People can read a list but showing me a list at the start of the game doesn't help me remember that this proxy is a trukk, this other proxy is a battelwagon, etc, when none of them look anything like the units they're being proxied as. It is not fair to give your opponent the burden of keeping track of what your proxies are.
The comparison between you refusing to play a game against unpainted models and people asking to negotiate for changing some rules was to underline that you also demand house rules, your house rules, to play the game. The discussion might be shorter, but the concept is the same. The concept is that you demand playing your own version of the game to your possible opponents.
And, once again, that comparison is not relevant. The original comment was comparing house rules to taking a sub-optimal unit in your list, stop dishonestly trying to substitute in unrelated stuff about whether or not I accept unpainted models.
It's also a stupid argument to make, as I never claimed to play some morally superior Official™ Warhammer™ 40k™ with no house rules. The fact that I or anyone else may use house rules does not change the fact that modifying the LOS rules to ignore banners/wings/etc is a house rule that must be negotiated, while taking a sub-optimal unit in your list is not.
Blackie wrote: By whom? I don't remember any of that. Reference please.
Yes, I will absolutely give you recordings of past offline conversations with friends who play/played orks, and long forgotten forum posts on the subject. Please wait patiently for your evidence.
I also don't remember ever reading or hearing anything like that. If anything, the comments were about how appropriately Orky it was. You were also very quick to dismiss other people's personal testimony as unsubstantiated in the recent PL thread, yet now you're quite happy to assert your own as fact. Nice double standard.
And weapons don't matter as well as long as there's no confusion. I assume people can read a list.
People can read a list but showing me a list at the start of the game doesn't help me remember that this proxy is a trukk, this other proxy is a battelwagon, etc, when none of them look anything like the units they're being proxied as. It is not fair to give your opponent the burden of keeping track of what your proxies are.
There's definitely a degree if give and take and understanding required with proxying. I think there's pretty broad agreement that the most basic requirement is not to confuse your opponent. That's obviously a subjective thing, but in most cases I've seen played and discussed, using the same model to represent two different things is usually where a line is drawn. If your army is full of weird proxies that don't really match anything in size or function then it's also likely to be rejected, but a single proxy that's close enough (which is a personal evaluation unique to each opponent) is often not a problem.
Ultimately it's always opponent's discretion whether a proxied model is allowed so it's never going to be a perfect solution to obsolete models, but a lot of the arguments over specific cases here seem pretty ridiculous to me. If an opponent can't accept a single Salamander as a Chimera, for example, I'm probably going to be a little reluctant to play them anyway, as I've found that sort of attitude is often paired with other attitudes that make the game more hassle than it's worth.
There's definitely a degree if give and take and understanding required with proxying. I think there's pretty broad agreement that the most basic requirement is not to confuse your opponent. That's obviously a subjective thing, but in most cases I've seen played and discussed, using the same model to represent two different things is usually where a line is drawn. If your army is full of weird proxies that don't really match anything in size or function then it's also likely to be rejected, but a single proxy that's close enough (which is a personal evaluation unique to each opponent) is often not a problem.
Agree, the point is there's no official rules that demand using the exact models that GW sell. Requiring the current models, bases, etc... are house rules that are meant for tournaments, where there are a few referees every X players and they need to eliminate arguments and discussion as much as possible.
That degree is entirely subjective. For me anything is reasonable as long as there is no confusion. A leman russ for example can only be a trukk, as all the other vehicles are either walkers, have bases, or are twice the size. I can't possibly mistake that russ for something else. Of course I won't field a looted leman russ as a trukk and another looted leman russ as a battlewagon or a FW big trakk. In that case there would be confusion, both players have to constantly remember what is what.
Blackie wrote: They're Crusade only now, so for people who don't play Crusade they're definitely obsolete.
I don't play Crusade and there's no way I can field the same looted wagon that was an official unit during 3rd-7th, it has to be a count as.
So, you can't play a datasheet with PL printed on it because the "official" rules tell you to not do it?
Blackie wrote: Insisting on playing the "official" format at all cost is a sort of mental prison. Especially when there is no offical game format.
Blackie wrote: Imposing to play with the 2000 points format, demanding the minimum table size, rejecting legends, demanding the current base sizes or the exact dimensions on converted/scratch built models, demanding WYSIWYG etc... are all bad behaviours that GW is not responsible of, and consequence of the "official at all cost" that I consider like a cancer
Blackie wrote: Is it really that important that everything must exactly be of the current size/bases even if there is no rule that imposes to play with offical models, let alone the current base sizes? Again, not every game is supposed to be the finals of an hardcore competitive tournament.
OP here.
I really was not trying to start an argument thread about GW practices. I was just interested if other players had models they can't use any more, and what they did with them. This means Ork models, since I have a lot of OBE models, and non-Ork models, since I am less familiar with those. Regards to all.
Blackie wrote: They're Crusade only now, so for people who don't play Crusade they're definitely obsolete.
I don't play Crusade and there's no way I can field the same looted wagon that was an official unit during 3rd-7th, it has to be a count as.
So, you can't play a datasheet with PL printed on it because the "official" rules tell you to not do it?
Blackie wrote: Insisting on playing the "official" format at all cost is a sort of mental prison. Especially when there is no offical game format.
Blackie wrote: Imposing to play with the 2000 points format, demanding the minimum table size, rejecting legends, demanding the current base sizes or the exact dimensions on converted/scratch built models, demanding WYSIWYG etc... are all bad behaviours that GW is not responsible of, and consequence of the "official at all cost" that I consider like a cancer
Blackie wrote: Is it really that important that everything must exactly be of the current size/bases even if there is no rule that imposes to play with offical models, let alone the current base sizes? Again, not every game is supposed to be the finals of an hardcore competitive tournament.
Is this you?
Yeah, absolutely. I tend to play with the actual rules and try to avoid house rules, whenever possible. I think the real only house rule I use is the one that ignores the 10VPs for painted stuff. There's no rule that demands official models or official base sizes, etc... so playing with older bases or conversions, legends, larger tables, different formats than 2000 points, no strict WYSIWYG... it's all 100% RAW gaming.
Changing a unit's datasheet is a complete different beast instead. A kind of house rule I don't use, although I totally respect someone that does it.
I'm against the mentality that demands some specific official standards as the only way to play when those are just unwritten rules to facilitate playing random pick up games with no to little degree of negotiations/arguments, but there are no official standards in 40k. That's the mental prison I was talking about. I can't understand demanding features/standards that are not actual rules as the only official and validated way to play 40k. There's nothing official in something that isn't actually printed in the rulebooks or from the additional online rules that GW releases periodically.
Besides, regardless of what my gaming experience is, the looted wagon is an osbolete model by some standards at least, that's an undisputable fact :
Jidmah wrote: There is no rule saying that you can't use those datasheets in other game modes than crusade and there is no need to change them at all to do so.
You are the very exact kind of player you are complaining about.
Ehm...no.
It's explicitly written "If your Crusade faction is Orks you can....", which my Ork faction (or any other Ork faction playing matched) isn't, as it's not a Crusade one. If your faction isn't a Crusade Ork one you can't field the Looted Wagon in matched play RAW.
Using crusade stuff in a matched play game requires negotiations, pre game talks or the opponent understanding, you can't invent rules and datasheets or take them from other game formats and then claiming it's all good, you need house rules to run that stuff. Which is perfectly fine and a legit solution to the "What do you do with obsolete models"? about this specific obsolete model of course. The conversion from PL to points is all you need (and this is something you absolutely need to change if you play with points), and takes no time.
But at that point running the model as a "counts as" is IMHO easier/simpler for both players and doesn't contradict any actual rules. There might be some pre game talk as well since it's not an official model so if you think that using house rules in order to play more WYSIWYG looking models is better than using proxies/counts as go for it; as I said it's a legit option to consider when we're talking about friendly/casual games. I simply prefer to stick with actual rules/profiles. But I'd definitely allow that option to an opponent since I'm not strictly against playing with house rules.
I complain about people who DEMAND things that aren't actual rules, while I'm doing no such things.
The short answer is...it's my table/house, my friends and family, and we stick to open war.
Or as Warhammer RPG puts it. Remember the golden rule, if something is fun, use it. If a rule makes the game less fun...don't use it.
So yes, second edition orks and Gorkamorka orks are still boyz. 2nd edition gretchin are still grots. The old third edition trukk is still a trukk with a single big shoota. (So are the old trakks). Haven't used the second edition buggy with the heavy skorcha on it in 9th yet. (But seriously, why not just make it a trukk with a skorcha mounted on it?)
Jidmah wrote: There is no rule saying that you can't use those datasheets in other game modes than crusade and there is no need to change them at all to do so.
You are the very exact kind of player you are complaining about.
Ehm...no.
It's explicitly written "If your Crusade faction is Orks you can....", which my Ork faction (or any other Ork faction playing matched) isn't, as it's not a Crusade one. If your faction isn't a Crusade Ork one you can't field the Looted Wagon in matched play RAW.
Wrong. There is literally no rule preventing you from just running the three datasheets in any other PL based mode. The rules just tell you how to run them in a crusade.
You yourself claimed that models are never obsolete because you can just go back to 3rd and play them anyways or play 3000 point games. At the same time, you are claiming that models are obsolete because you limit yourself to matched play.
Apparently your stance on this topic in general seems to be "I am right about everything and everyone else is wrong" and all your arguments are justification for not changing your mind, no matter how much your stances contradict each other. You are not having a discussion you are proclaiming your own opinions as undeniable facts.
Bottom line, looted wagons are, as a matter of fact, not obsolete, you merely have decided for yourself to no longer field them.
Dekskull wrote: Haven't used the second edition buggy with the heavy skorcha on it in 9th yet. (But seriously, why not just make it a trukk with a skorcha mounted on it?)
Because via Legends I have access to the data sheet for the actual Skorcha.
Wich is exactly what a buggy/trike with a heavy skorcha is....
Jidmah wrote: There is no rule saying that you can't use those datasheets in other game modes than crusade and there is no need to change them at all to do so.
You are the very exact kind of player you are complaining about.
Ehm...no.
It's explicitly written "If your Crusade faction is Orks you can....", which my Ork faction (or any other Ork faction playing matched) isn't, as it's not a Crusade one. If your faction isn't a Crusade Ork one you can't field the Looted Wagon in matched play RAW.
Wrong. There is literally no rule preventing you from just running the three datasheets in any other PL based mode. The rules just tell you how to run them in a crusade.
You yourself claimed that models are never obsolete because you can just go back to 3rd and play them anyways or play 3000 point games. At the same time, you are claiming that models are obsolete because you limit yourself to matched play.
Apparently your stance on this topic in general seems to be "I am right about everything and everyone else is wrong" and all your arguments are justification for not changing your mind, no matter how much your stances contradict each other. You are not having a discussion you are proclaiming your own opinions as undeniable facts.
Bottom line, looted wagons are, as a matter of fact, not obsolete, you merely have decided for yourself to no longer field them.
Please Jidmah, don't be obtuse, I know you aren't. Everytime I talk and propose solutions in this thread I always add that they are subjective and entirely depend on players' standards and what they expect from the game. There is no universal solution or cure to the "problem".
I play 3rd edition, don't care about official models, only play matched, etc.... so the solution I've proposed reflect that and I've clearly explained that, I've simply put a context to explain how and why I consider those ideas as solutions to the problem. I've explicitly said that those solutions work for me but not for someone who have very different standards, especially someone who only wants to play with official models. I've also said that looted wagons are perfectly fine for those who play crusade. I simply don't. And for those who don't as well, that's a solution that doesn't work. It's all there, in my previous posts. I'm not Bob who says something doesn't work because it goes against his standards.
It's you that are actually saying "I'm right about everything". You seem so motivated to win an argument on the internet that you either missed most of my lines entirely or deliberately ignored/changed them to prove your point. But there's no real argument to prove here or minds to change, I'm not saying you're wrong. Or entirely wrong, you're just missing the whole point of my posts, even if I've explained it pretty clearly and multiple times. To avoid additional confusion, I'll do it once again: there's no universal solution, what to do with obsolete models depends entirely on what a player expects from the game, his/her meta and his/her standards.
It's perfectly fine to have a solution that works for you and not for me, or viceversa.
They become display models.
The old Shadowsun resin model has been replaced by the new, bigger plastic one. But it is still a nicely painted model so it's sitting in my display cabinet.
Both Shadowsun models are sitting there together, almost like in the "you vs the girl he told you not to worry about" meme.
.
.
.
