So does anyone give any credence to the rumor that Scions will be heavily restricted, as in, you cannot spam Plasma Command squads or load up on SW/HWs anymore? I mean, at this point why even keep them as a separate sub faction? Why not just make them a full on Guard Elites slot choice? The only reason I spent the time building up and painting Melta and Plasma death squads was because it was the only good option for their play style. I really hope this isn't true, as it invalidates the entire reason for taking a super troopers with ultra special weapons. Now they are just slightly overcosted veterans.
Do you think Guard need SW/HW restrictions? Were Command Squads broken?
I'm going to guess that the restriction will match the bits available in the box. So the command squad would be allowed to take four different special weapons
Brickfix wrote: I'm going to guess that the restriction will match the bits available in the box. So the command squad would be allowed to take four different special weapons
And just like that Command Squads were never seen again.
Brickfix wrote: I'm going to guess that the restriction will match the bits available in the box. So the command squad would be allowed to take four different special weapons
And just like that Command Squads were never seen again.
I actually think someone said they were gone LOL
Either that or they're forced to be one-of-each-specialty
Yes, it's stupid as hell and inexcusable but it's what GW has been doing with 9th. Unfortunately when I've brought this up before most people seem to think it's just fine, because who cares if your army is invalidated as long as the new one wins more games.
That ain't no longer a problem because, y'know, Veterans are getting the axe anyway .
Otherwise, this new AM codex lost me somewhere around Ursula Creed, so no, I don't think I have the strength to give a gak about weapon restrictions. If you catch my drift.
Brickfix wrote: I'm going to guess that the restriction will match the bits available in the box. So the command squad would be allowed to take four different special weapons
And just like that Command Squads were never seen again.
I actually think someone said they were gone LOL
Either that or they're forced to be one-of-each-specialty
To my mind, it amounts to the same thing regardless.
just get more recruits, an IG army should have at least 100+ infantry, keeping up with the meta, you should have 250-500 infantry of various combinations so when the codex/chapter approve comes out you can rotate what you need.
I feel this is just an inflammatory thread really, it's so heavily baited to just make people spam the usual comments I wonder what else could have been intended.
Well, according to Auspex tactics, we also just lost Conscripts, except for Cadians, which can take White Shields. So infantry spam is not really as effective.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Well, according to Auspex tactics, we also just lost Conscripts, except for Cadians, which can take White Shields. So infantry spam is not really as effective.
Don't infantry spam builds rely on Whiteshields already? So if anything they become more effective due to not needing to spend CP on upgrading Conscripts.
Command squad plasma spam was dumb anyway, so I’d be glad to have it gone. Command squads will still be played because they are the HQ choice now.
The other changes are mildly annoying, but not too bad overall. Kasrkin and scions being relegated to two different special weapons per 5 isn’t great, but getting 4 specials in a 10 man squad is actually a lot already. At least it’s better than the skitarii or plague marine datasheets.
Infantry squads didn’t change so no issue there. Conscripts going away is thematically lame, but they haven’t been useful for a long time anyway.
Yeah, I'll be honest, I don't like that GW is basically saying "F your fully painted and completed armies for the last 2-3 editions, everything is now Cadian or piss off"
I also understand that Command Squads with quad shooting plasma was a bit broken, but now with fishing 6's, is it really that over the top?
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Yeah, I'll be honest, I don't like that GW is basically saying "F your fully painted and completed armies for the last 2-3 editions, everything is now Cadian or piss off"
I also understand that Command Squads with quad shooting plasma was a bit broken, but now with fishing 6's, is it really that over the top?
Ignoring all that, a command squad is meant to be the entourage of the commander, made of specialists that keep the order of the army working. Not a cheap 4 plasma gun squad.
My understanding is the new guard rules no longer have penalties for mixing regiments (or specifically regiment specific units).
So ‘Cadian Shock Troops’ and ‘Whiteshields’ are basically just themed names for ‘veterans’ and ‘conscripts’ respectively, with actual models for the former this time.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Yeah, I'll be honest, I don't like that GW is basically saying "F your fully painted and completed armies for the last 2-3 editions, everything is now Cadian or piss off"
I also understand that Command Squads with quad shooting plasma was a bit broken, but now with fishing 6's, is it really that over the top?
But isn't the new codex "here, pick your traits as you wish, you can play whatever Regiment you want - there're no specific rules to them anymore" ? At least that's what I read so far.
Rules no longer being locked into specific subfactions sounds like a great idea for EVERY codex, tbh - especially if they're staying true to the "no more matched play rules in Campaign books etc".
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Yeah, I'll be honest, I don't like that GW is basically saying "F your fully painted and completed armies for the last 2-3 editions, everything is now Cadian or piss off"
I also understand that Command Squads with quad shooting plasma was a bit broken, but now with fishing 6's, is it really that over the top?
Ignoring all that, a command squad is meant to be the entourage of the commander, made of specialists that keep the order of the army working. Not a cheap 4 plasma gun squad.
But...but...efficiency...math hammer says it's the only way...
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Yeah, I'll be honest, I don't like that GW is basically saying "F your fully painted and completed armies for the last 2-3 editions, everything is now Cadian or piss off"
I also understand that Command Squads with quad shooting plasma was a bit broken, but now with fishing 6's, is it really that over the top?
Ignoring all that, a command squad is meant to be the entourage of the commander, made of specialists that keep the order of the army working. Not a cheap 4 plasma gun squad.
But...but...efficiency...math hammer says it's the only way...
I won't argue that the medic/standard/comms guy etc all have been historically rubbish, but the answer seems to be make them worthwhile more than anything. As to those with multiple 4 weapon squads, you'll need to split them into your infantry squads now I guess and/or just have more flexibility. They're not "invalidated" so much as the layout of the army changes.
I keep forgetting Meta chasing is not Chic or in vogue with this board, oh wait, yes it is. Stop acting like it's a mortal sin to take the best options in a codex. I'm sorry my 8th Ed Guard faction didn't consist entirely of Scout Sentinels, Infantry Squads with Grenade launchers, and a command squad of Snipers, and a standard bearer.
Also, lets not bring the fluff into this. The Fluff dictates that we waste points of Commissars, almost never see a Lord Commissar below a full Regiment, and rarely if ever see a Space Marine.
Also, while you can "pick two" regimental bonuses, you can't mix and match units, as I currently understand it. No Vostoyan or Catachan Conscript spam. You pick 2 regimental bonuses, a Primary Regiment, and then your available units are based off that. Do I have that wrong?
Big Mac wrote: just get more recruits, an IG army should have at least 100+ infantry, keeping up with the meta, you should have 250-500 infantry of various combinations so when the codex/chapter approve comes out you can rotate what you need.
Hell, I'm running 100+ infantry plus vehicles in my Votann list. Imperial Guard should outnumber them by 50% at least.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Votann shouldn't be outnumbering anyone. Can we re-examin the fluff that indicates their species is on verge of extinction?
This is 9th edition, Fez. Gw doesn't write rules to "reflect the fluff" anymore. Or is there some fluff that I've missed explaining how those LoV railguns can blow right through force fields, but bounce off of a Leman Russ'/Land Raider's armour? Or why said Leman Russ has superior armour to a Custodes vehicle?
EviscerationPlague wrote: But that's fluff breaking, you should be taking one of each weapon so you're not a WAAC power gamer!!!!1!
*Breathes in* Ohboyo, if I was up to play by the fluff then I wouldn't be playing at all because outside of MyDudes being literally whoever I want them to be my options would be jackgak and extremely questionable FW organization charts .
Dudeface wrote: They're not "invalidated" so much as the layout of the army changes.
Changing the layout of the army is invalidating it if you've built and painted your units as complete units, not a pile of random models that gets formed into different units for each game. But I suppose the WAAC meta chasers won't care about things like that as long as the new codex is good at winning games for a few months.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: I keep forgetting Meta chasing is not Chic or in vogue with this board, oh wait, yes it is. Stop acting like it's a mortal sin to take the best options in a codex. I'm sorry my 8th Ed Guard faction didn't consist entirely of Scout Sentinels, Infantry Squads with Grenade launchers, and a command squad of Snipers, and a standard bearer.
Also, lets not bring the fluff into this. The Fluff dictates that we waste points of Commissars, almost never see a Lord Commissar below a full Regiment, and rarely if ever see a Space Marine.
Could you overreact any more? The point is the command squad isn't a special weapons squad. The command squad needs to be better so that it isn't just a special weapons squad. Because the last time I checked, military forces aren't run by.. *checks notes* the 4 cheapest employees with the biggest guns.
Dudeface wrote: They're not "invalidated" so much as the layout of the army changes.
Changing the layout of the army is invalidating it if you've built and painted your units as complete units, not a pile of random models that gets formed into different units for each game. But I suppose the WAAC meta chasers won't care about things like that as long as the new codex is good at winning games for a few months.
Well yeah, if you've built an exact 2k army with no extra infantry etc based on the 8th ed codex, then yes, it'll be invalidated. Ultimately the shift to a new codex would facilitate point changes, different power units if that's your jam and likely a change of forces anyway.
Dudeface wrote: Well yeah, if you've built an exact 2k army with no extra infantry etc based on the 8th ed codex, then yes, it'll be invalidated. Ultimately the shift to a new codex would facilitate point changes, different power units if that's your jam and likely a change of forces anyway.
I'm talking about units, not armies. Currently I have a veteran squad with 3x plasma guns and a missile launcher. They're built, painted, and based as a single unit with shared details and they are always played as that specific unit. Technically the models that make up those units can still be used for something but the unit is invalidated. I can no longer use them as their lore dictates, I have to stick the plasma guns in random squads where their aesthetic details don't match the rest of the unit, add the basic infantry to some other unit, etc. If all that was changing was the points I could add a new unit to fill in points, only play with some of my collection at once if points go up too much, etc. That would be fine but that's not what we're getting.
But, like I said, these are issues that the WAAC meta chasers don't care about so the new codex will be great as long as it's as overpowered as the squats.
Dudeface wrote: Well yeah, if you've built an exact 2k army with no extra infantry etc based on the 8th ed codex, then yes, it'll be invalidated. Ultimately the shift to a new codex would facilitate point changes, different power units if that's your jam and likely a change of forces anyway.
I'm talking about units, not armies. Currently I have a veteran squad with 3x plasma guns and a missile launcher. They're built, painted, and based as a single unit with shared details and they are always played as that specific unit. Technically the models that make up those units can still be used for something but the unit is invalidated. I can no longer use them as their lore dictates, I have to stick the plasma guns in random squads where their aesthetic details don't match the rest of the unit, add the basic infantry to some other unit, etc.
But, like I said, these are issues that the WAAC meta chasers don't care about so the new codex will be great as long as it's as overpowered as the squats.
In honesty I doff my cap for that, the level of care and respect you've shown the force and models is next level and yes I am a little sad they've done that in a way that impacts you.
I agree though, if it was simply "I put 3 colour minimum on my guys and I'm sad because I can't spam as much plasma" then I have less sympathy as those players will just move on.
Dudeface wrote: Because the last time I checked, military forces aren't run by.. *checks notes* the 4 cheapest employees with the biggest guns.
Whelp. You should check that again . But jokes aside, if MyDudes are indeed run by the 4 cheapest guardsmen with the biggest guns then what? It is as lore accurate as your vox+medic+banner squad, no telling which one is "better" because the official fluff won't judge us either way.
Dudeface wrote: Because the last time I checked, military forces aren't run by.. *checks notes* the 4 cheapest employees with the biggest guns.
Whelp. You should check that again . But jokes aside, if MyDudes are indeed run by the 4 cheapest guardsmen with the biggest guns then what? It is as lore accurate as your vox+medic+banner squad, no telling which one is "better" because the official fluff won't judge us either way.
It kinda does:
A Company Command Squad accompanies the company's senior officer into combat, and its primary function is to direct the various units of the company in order to carry out the officer's orders[1a].
A typical Company Command Squad numbers five men, including the company officer. The Guardsmen who are selected to join the Command Squad are among the Company's most competent soldiers and have often displayed exceptional gallantry. Command Squad members can expect to receive additional training as specialised orderlies, such as medics or vox-operators[1a].
Edit: in fairness the 8th ed book has the same section in more or less but adds "many company Command Squads include grizzled special weapons operators" which I'd missed previously.
Well, MyDudes are not running that "typical" Command Squad. Now what? We are still well inside that fluff, even when considering the somewhat more leery description of the Command Squad in the 8th Ed codex.
AtoMaki wrote: Well, MyDudes are not running that "typical" Command Squad. Now what? We are still well inside that fluff, even when considering the somewhat more leery description of the Command Squad in the 8th Ed codex.
Yup, see the edit above, GW sort of shot themselves in the foot there.
It's all just rumours at this point - but with it coming from multiple sources and fitting GW's 9th ed approach it's pretty much 99% certainty that quite a lot of stuff will be culled in the new codex.
I'm expecting Guard to come out of this just like Chaos Marines, with lots of grumbling about invalidated collections of models, but at the same time having a codex rule set that is at least from a power level perspective in line with the rest of the game (even though parts of it feel like a slap in the face).
For those wondering which rumours to put faith in, GW's no models no rules stance seems to be based not just on a model existing, but:
A. The contents in the box can drive the datasheet options (even if the options exist elsewhere in the range)
B. The marketing description of the contents of the box can drive which units actually get datasheets (even if it is implied that a specialist squad is just built out of other models in the range)
So - for Scions they are advertised as being able to build either a squad or command squad, I expect the units will survive in some form, but they only have 1 of each weapon option per 5 in the box so will likely receive hefty restrictions. For other units, GW does not actively advertise any of its guard sets as being generic veterans or special weapons squads - they will be retconned out of existence even though we all know how to actually build these units.
So pumped that my MyDudes OOP metal steel legion and classic stormtrooper guard regiments supplied with full plasma loadouts from Ryza, and even some Ryza pattern tanks, Ryza the famed producer of plasma weapons, have been garbage canned.
2x 6 guardsmen special weapon squads with plasma: gone
3x 4 command squads with full plasma: gone
3x 4 tempestus scion command with full plasma or full melta: ????
4x 10 tempestus scion line squads with quad plasma or quad melta: split up ??
100% of those models are metal and 100% of them are OOP, and about 80% of the plasma wielders are converted because a steel legion or stormtrooper plasma gunner is $50 on eBay.
I feel like a huge idiot and GW just pulled the rug on me hardcore. Feth
Yeah, it's kinda like saying that Marines no longer have the ability to use Thunder hammers, simply because only 1 can be used per strike force. It's a dumb short sighted rule that invalidates YEARS of hobby work for many players. I personally have a fully Sniper'd out command squad that I used to play as a Gaunt's Ghosts sort of squad. I even had a lord Commissar next to them with a power sword and bolt Pistol.
I guess I should have called this. I did ask for a full 100% re-structuring of how IG works back before half way thru 9th. Now we're seeing it. Half of people's forces just got legended.
I have 6 Kasrikin units. 2 have quad-Melta. 2 have quad-Plasma. 1 has quad-Grenade Launcher and the final one has quad-flamers. I own multiple 4 special command squads of every type (except plasma). I have multiple Special Weapon squads, both plastic Cadian (with scratch-built demo-charges - those were fun!) and Mordian Iron Guard.
Invalidating is still invalidating, no matter how you dress it up.
If you didn't like it, you didn't have to take it. You considering it "dumb" does not constitute a good reason for getting rid of it. I used to love my x4 Flamer and x4 Melta command squads. Hell, I even had some level of affection for 4 Grenade Launcher command squads. They were a way to concentrate firepower in an extremely fragile package, a great example of risk vs reward. And you call it "dumb".
And let's not kid ourselves here, if the report is true and you really can't take more than 1 of any type of special weapon within a Command Squad, then GW haven't done this because it was "dumb" or any other in-game reason. They've done it just because those are the options on the new Command Squad sprue. There is no other reason.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: So does anyone give any credence to the rumor that Scions will be heavily restricted, as in, you cannot spam Plasma Command squads or load up on SW/HWs anymore? I mean, at this point why even keep them as a separate sub faction? Why not just make them a full on Guard Elites slot choice? The only reason I spent the time building up and painting Melta and Plasma death squads was because it was the only good option for their play style. I really hope this isn't true, as it invalidates the entire reason for taking a super troopers with ultra special weapons. Now they are just slightly overcosted veterans.
Do you think Guard need SW/HW restrictions? Were Command Squads broken?
That's a very good question. Why are Stormtroopers a sub-faction? Terminators aren't a sub-faction, Striking Scorpions aren't a sub-faction, Crisis Suits aren't a sub-faction...
If you didn't like it, you didn't have to take it.
Well, I never did take it, so..? Anyway, the special weapons spam completely overshadowed the command gear and discouraged use of the flag for example. I personally think that’s a shame. Besides, GW deliberately nerfed command squad spam in 8th because they didn’t like it either, so clearly it was on their radar at some point.
Now, me being in favor of restricting command squads does not mean I’m a fan of getting rid of special weapons squads. Those should have stayed.
AnomanderRake wrote: That's a very good question. Why are Stormtroopers a sub-faction? Terminators aren't a sub-faction, Striking Scorpions aren't a sub-faction, Crisis Suits aren't a sub-faction...
It's a relic of the weird 6-7th edition obsession with making as many different codices as possible, like how admech used to be two separate books for Reasons.
Or worse. TBH we'll be lucky if they're only legendsed. Given GW's commitment to never updating or supporting legends options we probably won't even get that much, we'll be stuck hoping people allow fan rules to keep playing with existing units.
While I feel for everyone who's carefully built and painted army gets invalidated by GWs latest codex restrictions, are any of you surprised? GW has been invalidating units and models with just about every edition of every codex for at least 4 editions.
I will raise a glass in honor of your army, but don't cry us a river. We all saw this coming from a long way off.
alextroy wrote: While I feel for everyone who's carefully built and painted army gets invalidated by GWs latest codex restrictions, are any of you surprised? GW has been invalidating units and models with just about every edition of every codex for at least 4 editions.
I will raise a glass in honor of your army, but don't cry us a river. We all saw this coming from a long way off.
And some of us have been unhappy about it since the 9th edition nonsense started, for all armies. It's stupid with guard, it's stupid with admech, it's stupid with CSM, all of it is inexcusable.
Dandelion wrote: Command squad plasma spam was dumb anyway, so I’d be glad to have it gone.
I know, right?
Imagine the audacity of having elite gunners in your Command Squad. As opposed to 'bloke with a radio with less range and use than a pair of walkie-talkies', 'bloke who tries to stick a bandage on the pile of blood and cartilage that used to be Sgt. Tooslow.'
Perhaps for bonus points we could add 'bloke trying to stand still and aim a crummy sniper rifle while the rest of the squad wants to stay mobile' and 'bloke waving a flag around, to help guide enemy artillery and snipers onto the commander'.
Dandelion wrote: Command squads will still be played because they are the HQ choice now.
"You'll use them not because they're good or because you want to but because you have to."
AnomanderRake wrote: That's a very good question. Why are Stormtroopers a sub-faction? Terminators aren't a sub-faction, Striking Scorpions aren't a sub-faction, Crisis Suits aren't a sub-faction...
It's a relic of the weird 6-7th edition obsession with making as many different codices as possible, like how admech used to be two separate books for Reasons.
I know. I was being sarcastic about the rhetorical question in the original post.
I don't think tying Command Squads back to Officers is the problem. It's the kit-based equipment restrictions that are the issue.
alextroy wrote: I will raise a glass in honor of your army, but don't cry us a river. We all saw this coming from a long way off.
Rules changes are common and to be expected. It's another entirely when those changes aren't borne of testing or fluff, but just what bits are on the sprue.
I still don't get the "It's all that's on the spru" arguement. Because that implies GW doesn't want to force you to buy multiple kits to make "the best option". That was the implied argument when I had to buy multiple boxes of command squads to make a single squad of all meltas or Plasma. Why sell one box when you can more easily sell 4? It makes zero financial sense. GW is many things, but averse to screwing over their consumer in the pursuit of greater profits is not one of them. They will always choose profits over player satisfaction.
My comment was aimed at Vipoid because he decided to make a straw man… poorly. There was originally a claim that you wouldn’t see command squads anymore due to the restrictions, I made a minor comment that since they’re the HQs now of course they’d still see play.
Admittedly it’s nit picky, but it also wasn’t even the primary focus of my comment.
In any case, my feelings on the matter are that I just dislike command squads being suicide drops. Allowing full special weapons encouraged that play style so I am glad it’s being toned down.
The other part, is that thematically I don’t think it makes sense. The command squad is ostensibly there to help command things first and foremost. Hence the radio that can issue orders as well as the flag to improve morale.
That is of course merely my opinion.
Ok, but then why does GW sell literal packs of bits for Guard? You can buy packs of plasma, melta, flamers, or anything really. I don't know if that's still a thing, but it was on the GW store last time I checked which was 2021. I remember it was odd, because I literally thought, who wants full Sniper Rifle units? Then Gaunt's Ghosts dropped and I was like, oh.
Dudeface wrote: I feel this is just an inflammatory thread really, it's so heavily baited to just make people spam the usual comments I wonder what else could have been intended.
That's Fezzik's MO. And if anyone shows clearly how what they're saying has no relation to reality they block you to avoid copping to it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ph34r wrote: So pumped that my MyDudes OOP metal steel legion and classic stormtrooper guard regiments supplied with full plasma loadouts from Ryza, and even some Ryza pattern tanks, Ryza the famed producer of plasma weapons, have been garbage canned.
2x 6 guardsmen special weapon squads with plasma: gone
3x 4 command squads with full plasma: gone
3x 4 tempestus scion command with full plasma or full melta: ????
4x 10 tempestus scion line squads with quad plasma or quad melta: split up ??
100% of those models are metal and 100% of them are OOP, and about 80% of the plasma wielders are converted because a steel legion or stormtrooper plasma gunner is $50 on eBay.
I feel like a huge idiot and GW just pulled the rug on me hardcore. Feth
Sisters have managed to dodge the "Only what comes in the box" thing so far. Retributors can still take 4 of the same heavy weapon even though the kit only comes with 2 of each. They did restrict Sisters from taking multiple specials in a 5-girl BSS though, despite the BSS kit having FOUR of each special weapon (mostly because the kit also builds Dominion squads).
As to why that's relevant, I think it means there's hope that Scions might dodge that bullet as well.
ZergSmasher wrote: Sisters have managed to dodge the "Only what comes in the box" thing so far. Retributors can still take 4 of the same heavy weapon even though the kit only comes with 2 of each. They did restrict Sisters from taking multiple specials in a 5-girl BSS though, despite the BSS kit having FOUR of each special weapon (mostly because the kit also builds Dominion squads).
As to why that's relevant, I think it means there's hope that Scions might dodge that bullet as well.
Meanwhile, some have gone backwards. Raptor Champs can't get Lightning Claws anymore even though there are 5 (!) sets on the sprue. You can't even bring a full Chaos Terminator unit with power fists as they're limited to the bonkers 3 per 5 metric.
ph34r wrote: So pumped that my MyDudes OOP metal steel legion and classic stormtrooper guard regiments supplied with full plasma loadouts from Ryza, and even some Ryza pattern tanks, Ryza the famed producer of plasma weapons, have been garbage canned.
2x 6 guardsmen special weapon squads with plasma: gone
3x 4 command squads with full plasma: gone
3x 4 tempestus scion command with full plasma or full melta: ????
4x 10 tempestus scion line squads with quad plasma or quad melta: split up ??
100% of those models are metal and 100% of them are OOP, and about 80% of the plasma wielders are converted because a steel legion or stormtrooper plasma gunner is $50 on eBay.
I feel like a huge idiot and GW just pulled the rug on me hardcore. Feth
Email them and post on their facebook.
Yeeeehhhh.......good luck with that. I can tell you from experience that you're just about as likely to get a response by spray painting your complaints on random overpasses.
H.B.M.C. wrote:Meanwhile, some have gone backwards. Raptor Champs can't get Lightning Claws anymore even though there are 5 (!) sets on the sprue. You can't even bring a full Chaos Terminator unit with power fists as they're limited to the bonkers 3 per 5 metric.
You and I both know that "NMNR" doesn't explain what they did to CSM. It's more like "You get what we say you get". There's no logic to it.
H.B.M.C. wrote: I don't think tying Command Squads back to Officers is the problem. It's the kit-based equipment restrictions that are the issue.
alextroy wrote: I will raise a glass in honor of your army, but don't cry us a river. We all saw this coming from a long way off.
Rules changes are common and to be expected. It's another entirely when those changes aren't borne of testing or fluff, but just what bits are on the sprue.
Sometimes they aren't even that. Look at all the Troops squads that allow 5-10 models that have suddenly can't get multiple special/heavy weapons unless they are at maximum unit size. Didn't use to be that way in most codexes.
GW is definitely moving to a different paradigm when it comes to unit options. Yes, it sucks for old models and units built under old rules. But it is the wave of the future... until they decide to move to yet another paradigm
H.B.M.C. wrote: Meanwhile, some have gone backwards. Raptor Champs can't get Lightning Claws anymore even though there are 5 (!) sets on the sprue. You can't even bring a full Chaos Terminator unit with power fists as they're limited to the bonkers 3 per 5 metric.
This raises another question. I have multiple unopened boxes of "5 guardsmen 5 bases" all monopose. They were 20$ when I bought them, and I thought it would be a good way to fill out squads. If GW went back to monopose options, where your models came with nothing but base weapons, for a cheaper cost, would that be an attractive option? I would much prefer to buy a pack of 5 basic troops with no specials or heavy options, for a reduced cost.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: This raises another question. I have multiple unopened boxes of "5 guardsmen 5 bases" all monopose. They were 20$ when I bought them, and I thought it would be a good way to fill out squads. If GW went back to monopose options, where your models came with nothing but base weapons, for a cheaper cost, would that be an attractive option? I would much prefer to buy a pack of 5 basic troops with no specials or heavy options, for a reduced cost.
As a simple number filler? I wouldn't mind at all, as long as they aren't super dynamic poses that make them stand out when you see multiple together.
Back mostly on topic though. I'm not completely surprised, but moderately disappointed that they likely have changed the weapon restrictions/allowances on units that I have already assembled and painted. Along with the loss of veterans (a unit of which I converted somewhat) leaves me with potentially a fair few models that will need to be pulled apart so I can meet the new requirements, and the one remaining unopened box of Infantry, will have to wait till the codex is out before they get assembled (so I don't have to tear them apart later).
Is it the end of the world, no; somewhat inconvenient and annoying, very much so. I suppose I'll have to buy some stuff for another army to keep me going this winter instead. Ah well.
It was literally like Green Army men, except they were grey, and they had pre-milled bases that you slotted the model into, and painted. Hey presto, 5 new guardsmen with Lasrifles.
I'm sure some of the more talented members out there COULD do all sorts of arcane surgery to them and make them into something better.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: It was literally like Green Army men, except they were grey, and they had pre-milled bases that you slotted the model into, and painted. Hey presto, 5 new guardsmen with Lasrifles.
I'm sure some of the more talented members out there COULD do all sorts of arcane surgery to them and make them into something better.
Literally this product:
About 75% of my traitor guard are from this kit...like 70 or so. Why they ever got rid of the box boggles the mind, oh wait no it doesnt.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: If GW went back to monopose options, where your models came with nothing but base weapons, for a cheaper cost, would that be an attractive option?
My dream infantry box is something like what FW did with the DKoK: 10 infantry monopose models per box but *plot twist* there are three boxes for three different types of poses (relaxed, advancing, firing). Then make the models basic and low on detail so painting them doesn't feel like trying to solve a coloring puzzle, and we are there.
Dudeface wrote: They're not "invalidated" so much as the layout of the army changes.
Changing the layout of the army is invalidating it if you've built and painted your units as complete units, not a pile of random models that gets formed into different units for each game. But I suppose the WAAC meta chasers won't care about things like that as long as the new codex is good at winning games for a few months.
Two things
1. I've got a large guard army and I'm not sure how anything is any more invalidated by this then a simple point change. Unless you have the exact amount of models with weapons that came out to exactly 2k points in 9th, how is this any different then any other point change? just move around which weapons are in which squad or build your extra models as you have to buy additional boxes to spam plasma anyway. This really only changed anything if you were exactly on the dot points wise and at that point any basic point increase or decrease would also cause you to either buy more models or paint more.
2. As a non WAAC player I'm excited for changes, because who wants their army to be 100% identical to what we have been plying for like 3 years now. Why would you even buy a codex that changed nothing? what would be the point? why not just freeze all codexes/rules/models as any change will either invalidate a build/not allow you to bring the same thing/ or force you to get more models.
Personally I love guard so I'm always painting new special weapons and models so I can play my favorite army in all types of fun differing builds
Asmodios wrote: 2. As a non WAAC player I'm excited for changes, because who wants their army to be 100% identical to what we have been plying for like 3 years now. Why would you even buy a codex that changed nothing? what would be the point? why not just freeze all codexes/rules/models as any change will either invalidate a build/not allow you to bring the same thing/ or force you to get more models.
Or why not keep the options so you can change it whenever you want? This isn't increasing choice; this is removing it. How do you not understand that?
Asmodios wrote: 2. As a non WAAC player I'm excited for changes, because who wants their army to be 100% identical to what we have been plying for like 3 years now. Why would you even buy a codex that changed nothing? what would be the point? why not just freeze all codexes/rules/models as any change will either invalidate a build/not allow you to bring the same thing/ or force you to get more models.
Or why not keep the options so you can change it whenever you want? This isn't increasing choice; this is removing it. How do you not understand that?
Its not removing anything all those plasma are still playable just not in the same squad together. No different then when they have switched unit sizes in the past or changed the points on something so you cant fit it into your list. People are acting like this is the equivalent to when they killed fantasy and well.... it just isnt. heck I've found it more annoying that I've had to change HWT base sizes... with squad loadouts i just have to change which models are standing next to each other in my display case
Some people equate needing to change their carefully mapped out and painted units as the end of the world... as if GW has been doing that to people for decades.
alextroy wrote: Some people equate needing to change their carefully mapped out and painted units as the end of the world... as if GW has been doing that to people for decades.
I don't think I've played any edition or codex change without having to change up something that no longer fits. I mean if people are mad about this I guess I should really be throwing a fit about my Yarrick and sentinels
Asmodios wrote: 1. I've got a large guard army and I'm not sure how anything is any more invalidated by this then a simple point change. Unless you have the exact amount of models with weapons that came out to exactly 2k points in 9th, how is this any different then any other point change? just move around which weapons are in which squad or build your extra models as you have to buy additional boxes to spam plasma anyway. This really only changed anything if you were exactly on the dot points wise and at that point any basic point increase or decrease would also cause you to either buy more models or paint more.
If points change but the same units remain legal than the specific unit I have built and painted to be a coherent unit can still be played. I may have to adjust which set of units from my 3000 point collection go into a 2000 point list but no single unit in that collection will ever be impossible to use.
If unit options change then the units are no longer valid. The models that are all painted as third squad complete with 3s on their shoulder pads can no longer be played together, all my units will have a random mix of numbers. Maybe that doesn't matter for the e-sport crowd, where models might as well be cardboard tokens, but for those of us who care about the lore and aesthetics of the game it's a huge problem.
2. As a non WAAC player I'm excited for changes, because who wants their army to be 100% identical to what we have been plying for like 3 years now. Why would you even buy a codex that changed nothing? what would be the point? why not just freeze all codexes/rules/models as any change will either invalidate a build/not allow you to bring the same thing/ or force you to get more models.
What would be the point indeed. Why do we need constant changes to the rules? Why do we need to be trapped in this constant cycle of change for the sake of change and endless $50 books that are no better than the last $50 book?
I don't think I've played any edition or codex change without having to change up something that no longer fits. I mean if people are mad about this I guess I should really be throwing a fit about my Yarrick and sentinels
Yes, you should be mad about GW removing an iconic character just because they don't want to sell the model anymore.
And people are mad about this because it's such an absolutely ****ing stupid change. It isn't being done for fluff reasons, it isn't improving balance, it isn't making the game easier to play. It's purely that 20 years ago the sprue designer for the Catachan kit only put flamers on the sprue so now that's the only thing the unit can take despite a long history of Catachan infantry carrying all kinds of different weapons. It's completely inexcusable.
Oh, the 'by the box' rules are hitting a faction that isn't Chaos.
Hopefully this will help apply more pressure on GW to actually include more things in the box so that 10 guys with bolter/lasgun aren't supporting the 1 guy with the weapon that matters.
Asmodios wrote: 1. I've got a large guard army and I'm not sure how anything is any more invalidated by this then a simple point change. Unless you have the exact amount of models with weapons that came out to exactly 2k points in 9th, how is this any different then any other point change? just move around which weapons are in which squad or build your extra models as you have to buy additional boxes to spam plasma anyway. This really only changed anything if you were exactly on the dot points wise and at that point any basic point increase or decrease would also cause you to either buy more models or paint more.
If points change but the same units remain legal than the specific unit I have built and painted to be a coherent unit can still be played. I may have to adjust which set of units from my 3000 point collection go into a 2000 point list but no single unit in that collection will ever be impossible to use.
If unit options change then the units are no longer valid. The models that are all painted as third squad complete with 3s on their shoulder pads can no longer be played together, all my units will have a random mix of numbers. Maybe that doesn't matter for the e-sport crowd, where models might as well be cardboard tokens, but for those of us who care about the lore and aesthetics of the game it's a huge problem.
2. As a non WAAC player I'm excited for changes, because who wants their army to be 100% identical to what we have been plying for like 3 years now. Why would you even buy a codex that changed nothing? what would be the point? why not just freeze all codexes/rules/models as any change will either invalidate a build/not allow you to bring the same thing/ or force you to get more models.
What would be the point indeed. Why do we need constant changes to the rules? Why do we need to be trapped in this constant cycle of change for the sake of change and endless $50 books that are no better than the last $50 book?
I don't think I've played any edition or codex change without having to change up something that no longer fits. I mean if people are mad about this I guess I should really be throwing a fit about my Yarrick and sentinels
Yes, you should be mad about GW removing an iconic character just because they don't want to sell the model anymore.
And people are mad about this because it's such an absolutely ****ing stupid change. It isn't being done for fluff reasons, it isn't improving balance, it isn't making the game easier to play. It's purely that 20 years ago the sprue designer for the Catachan kit only put flamers on the sprue so now that's the only thing the unit can take despite a long history of Catachan infantry carrying all kinds of different weapons. It's completely inexcusable.
1.Good point with the squad numbers. My army definitely isn’t used like “cardboard markers” but I do have a generic symbol for my custom regiment but never marked squad numbers as I like to be able to change load outs on squads just to mix it up/add upgrades if playing a narrative campaign. I guess your option is to either mix match/repaint/ or simple paint more (paint more has always been my go to as it’s always fun to have more stuff)
2. I want stuff to change because games that don’t change will die out. This is just a fact of gaming. Not to mention if it never changed I’d eventually get board as well and want something fresh.
3. I got 15-20 years of service out of my sentinels and I’ll definitely still use them at times but am also looking forward to a new kit. As for yarrick one of my favorite things about guard is…. We die. That’s the point of the faction and it’s what draws me to them… their humanity. I’m glad GW is willing to kill off well established hero’s and not just have them have endless treatments to keep them alive (I’m just really hoping for a good book about his death). But just like the rules if GW never updated models the game would eventually die and the fact I can reliably get 15-20 years out of them and even still use them in most casual games after that is a better investment then any other hobby I’ve ever had. Maybe this all just seems so minor as i stare at 500 goblin models for a game that currently has been squatted
Asmodios wrote: 1.Good point with the squad numbers. My army definitely isn’t used like “cardboard markers” but I do have a generic symbol for my custom regiment but never marked squad numbers as I like to be able to change load outs on squads just to mix it up/add upgrades if playing a narrative campaign. I guess your option is to either mix match/repaint/ or simple paint more (paint more has always been my go to as it’s always fun to have more stuff)
Or there's a third option: GW doesn't make profoundly stupid changes to the game based on what a sprue designer a decade or more put into a specific box. I shouldn't have to choose the lesser of two evils when there was no good reason to force that choice.
2. I want stuff to change because games that don’t change will die out. This is just a fact of gaming. Not to mention if it never changed I’d eventually get board as well and want something fresh.
It's not a fact at all. Lots of games survive without constant changes. There's no reason to be stuck in the endless cycle of change for the sake of change and disposable $50 rulebooks, other than milking the cash cow of people constantly chasing the next shiny new thing. Get the game into a good state and call it done.
As for yarrick one of my favorite things about guard is…. We die. That’s the point of the faction and it’s what draws me to them… their humanity. I’m glad GW is willing to kill off well established hero’s and not just have them have endless treatments to keep them alive (I’m just really hoping for a good book about his death).
That might be a point except that GW has had no problem including dead characters in the game, and even allowing you to take two characters in the same army despite the fact that one had been dead for centuries before the other was born. And Yarricks "death" has nothing to do with lore, it's purely the consequence of GW getting rid of all of their metal and finecast models. If Yarrick had a plastic kit he'd still be in the new codex.
Asmodios wrote: 1. I've got a large guard army and I'm not sure how anything is any more invalidated by this then a simple point change. Unless you have the exact amount of models with weapons that came out to exactly 2k points in 9th, how is this any different then any other point change? just move around which weapons are in which squad or build your extra models as you have to buy additional boxes to spam plasma anyway. This really only changed anything if you were exactly on the dot points wise and at that point any basic point increase or decrease would also cause you to either buy more models or paint more.
If points change but the same units remain legal than the specific unit I have built and painted to be a coherent unit can still be played. I may have to adjust which set of units from my 3000 point collection go into a 2000 point list but no single unit in that collection will ever be impossible to use.
If unit options change then the units are no longer valid. The models that are all painted as third squad complete with 3s on their shoulder pads can no longer be played together, all my units will have a random mix of numbers. Maybe that doesn't matter for the e-sport crowd, where models might as well be cardboard tokens, but for those of us who care about the lore and aesthetics of the game it's a huge problem.
All of my squads have extra models painted up to match so I can swap special/heavy/basic weapons in/out as needed.
Asmodios wrote: Its not removing anything all those plasma are still playable just not in the same squad together. No different then when they have switched unit sizes in the past or changed the points on something so you cant fit it into your list. People are acting like this is the equivalent to when they killed fantasy and well.... it just isnt. heck I've found it more annoying that I've had to change HWT base sizes... with squad loadouts i just have to change which models are standing next to each other in my display case
Yeah but I could do all that before, already, because I had the choice. Now I have less choice.
Jarms48 wrote: I also still hate free weapons because they're clearly not equal. Who is ever going to take a sniper rifle, grenade launcher, or flamer?
So it's not just the options themselves being limited, it's the choices too.
Asmodios wrote: Its not removing anything all those plasma are still playable just not in the same squad together. No different then when they have switched unit sizes in the past or changed the points on something so you cant fit it into your list. People are acting like this is the equivalent to when they killed fantasy and well.... it just isnt. heck I've found it more annoying that I've had to change HWT base sizes... with squad loadouts i just have to change which models are standing next to each other in my display case
Yeah but I could do all that before, already, because I had the choice. Now I have less choice.
You starting to get it yet?
And, restricting the options of all because some are poor sports is a poor reason. I dare say opinions will differ there depending on experience, but I still stand by it.
Asmodios wrote: 1.Good point with the squad numbers. My army definitely isn’t used like “cardboard markers” but I do have a generic symbol for my custom regiment but never marked squad numbers as I like to be able to change load outs on squads just to mix it up/add upgrades if playing a narrative campaign. I guess your option is to either mix match/repaint/ or simple paint more (paint more has always been my go to as it’s always fun to have more stuff)
Or there's a third option: GW doesn't make profoundly stupid changes to the game based on what a sprue designer a decade or more put into a specific box. I shouldn't have to choose the lesser of two evils when there was no good reason to force that choice.
2. I want stuff to change because games that don’t change will die out. This is just a fact of gaming. Not to mention if it never changed I’d eventually get board as well and want something fresh.
It's not a fact at all. Lots of games survive without constant changes. There's no reason to be stuck in the endless cycle of change for the sake of change and disposable $50 rulebooks, other than milking the cash cow of people constantly chasing the next shiny new thing. Get the game into a good state and call it done.
As for yarrick one of my favorite things about guard is…. We die. That’s the point of the faction and it’s what draws me to them… their humanity. I’m glad GW is willing to kill off well established hero’s and not just have them have endless treatments to keep them alive (I’m just really hoping for a good book about his death).
That might be a point except that GW has had no problem including dead characters in the game, and even allowing you to take two characters in the same army despite the fact that one had been dead for centuries before the other was born. And Yarricks "death" has nothing to do with lore, it's purely the consequence of GW getting rid of all of their metal and finecast models. If Yarrick had a plastic kit he'd still be in the new codex.
See now your stating the game doesn’t need “constant” changes so in fact admitting a game does need changes to stay relevant. Considering we have been using the same codex for around 3 years now I’d say this doesn’t amount to “constant changes”. Yarrick was definitely killed off for lore reasons. If it was simply that they didn’t want to sell the old model they would have simply released a new kit. You have seen them do this with essentially every space marine character but guard characters are dropping like flies sense to time jump (which I believe is the right move)
alextroy wrote: Some people equate needing to change their carefully mapped out and painted units as the end of the world... as if GW has been doing that to people for decades.
If it took you 2-3 years to get all models you wanted for a 2000pts legal army, and now you are being told that around 1/4th of the army is illegal and you have to spend more money, you may not have right now, to play your army at the level you played it before, it is not hard to imagine that people are not happy about it. Also a chunk of the community has not been playing for decades. I can imagine that if someone has been playing for 30+ years they do not care, but if you started in 8th ed, had a horrible time with your army in 9th, and now you are told to rebuy it, you may feel as if someone dupped you to waste money and time.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Asmodios 807298 11452551 wrote:
Yarrick was definitely killed off for lore reasons. If it was simply that they didn’t want to sell the old model they would have simply released a new kit. You have seen them do this with essentially every space marine character but guard characters are dropping like flies sense to time jump (which I believe is the right move)
Wasn't Yarrik killed for the same reason everything else, which can't be labeled "made by GW" aka for trademark reasons.
Asmodios wrote: Its not removing anything all those plasma are still playable just not in the same squad together. No different then when they have switched unit sizes in the past or changed the points on something so you cant fit it into your list. People are acting like this is the equivalent to when they killed fantasy and well.... it just isnt. heck I've found it more annoying that I've had to change HWT base sizes... with squad loadouts i just have to change which models are standing next to each other in my display case
Yeah but I could do all that before, already, because I had the choice. Now I have less choice.
You starting to get it yet?
Obviously any restriction takes away choice. If we valued choice above all people would have loved the first iteration of AOS with no points or list building perimeters but that was a disaster. But people weren’t saying just slightly less choice they were saying their models were “invalidated”. They weren’t invalidated they would just adjusted in the way they get run like has happened with tons of point changes or unit size changes
alextroy wrote: Some people equate needing to change their carefully mapped out and painted units as the end of the world... as if GW has been doing that to people for decades.
If it took you 2-3 years to get all models you wanted for a 2000pts legal army, and now you are being told that around 1/4th of the army is illegal and you have to spend more money, you may not have right now, to play your army at the level you played it before, it is not hard to imagine that people are not happy about it. Also a chunk of the community has not been playing for decades. I can imagine that if someone has been playing for 30+ years they do not care, but if you started in 8th ed, had a horrible time with your army in 9th, and now you are told to rebuy it, you may feel as if someone dupped you to waste money and time.
For good or ill, I've rarely seen a new codex where the best options in squads or squad load-outs haven't changed. That is just the way GW has been rolling for decades. Don't go all surprised Pikachu when GW does as GW has always done.
If is truly and outrage, there are many other games you can play. Otherwise, improvise, adapt and overcome. It's just a minatures game after all.
alextroy wrote: For good or ill, I've rarely seen a new codex where the best options in squads or squad load-outs haven't changed. That is just the way GW has been rolling for decades. Don't go all surprised Pikachu when GW does as GW has always done.
If it was just about list optimization most people wouldn't care, but that's not the problem. It's that GW has made those existing units/models illegal, not merely less ideal for the perfect netlist. If GW sets a character's point cost +30 points above the fair price or introduces Tau-style pricing so that 4x plasma command squads pay an increasing price per weapon for the duplicates those options may disappear from tournament netlists but at least you can still use them. If GW removes the character from the codex entirely and adds a "no more than one of each weapon" rule to command squads then those options are simply gone, screw you for being an existing customer.
alextroy wrote: Some people equate needing to change their carefully mapped out and painted units as the end of the world... as if GW has been doing that to people for decades.
If it took you 2-3 years to get all models you wanted for a 2000pts legal army, and now you are being told that around 1/4th of the army is illegal and you have to spend more money, you may not have right now, to play your army at the level you played it before, it is not hard to imagine that people are not happy about it. Also a chunk of the community has not been playing for decades. I can imagine that if someone has been playing for 30+ years they do not care, but if you started in 8th ed, had a horrible time with your army in 9th, and now you are told to rebuy it, you may feel as if someone dupped you to waste money and time.
For good or ill, I've rarely seen a new codex where the best options in squads or squad load-outs haven't changed. That is just the way GW has been rolling for decades. Don't go all surprised Pikachu when GW does as GW has always done.
If is truly and outrage, there are many other games you can play. Otherwise, improvise, adapt and overcome. It's just a minatures game after all.
It's not about the optimal loadout changing.
It's about entire units or loadouts being removed entirely.
Asmodios wrote: See now your stating the game doesn’t need “constant” changes so in fact admitting a game does need changes to stay relevant.
I said no such thing. Please do not be dishonest.
Yarrick was definitely killed off for lore reasons.
Really? What about his story makes this the appropriate time for him to die, apparently of old age rather than anything particularly interesting? Why is his death at most a minor footnote (and possibly not even explicitly said at all) instead of a clear part of his story? What ties does it have to the greater story of the setting?
The answer to all of these questions is that there is no compelling lore reason. Any lore justification is, at best, an after the fact rationalization for GW's decision to discontinue the old metal and finecast kits.
If it was simply that they didn’t want to sell the old model they would have simply released a new kit.
Assuming they had a release slot for it and felt that making a new kit would sell enough copies to justify its cost. And it's not like this would be the first time that GW has discontinued a kit and removed the related unit without any replacement. It's not even the only guard kit being discontinued and removed from the new codex with no replacement!
You have seen them do this with essentially every space marine character but guard characters are dropping like flies sense to time jump (which I believe is the right move)
Why do only some characters die off because of the time jump? As I mentioned already GW has no problem having primaris characters in the same army as characters who died centuries before primaris marines were created. Merely advancing the timeline clearly doesn't require removing all characters who are no longer alive at the present time. So why is Yarrick no longer valid when other dead characters are?
Asmodios wrote: See now your stating the game doesn’t need “constant” changes so in fact admitting a game does need changes to stay relevant.
I said no such thing. Please do not be dishonest.
Yarrick was definitely killed off for lore reasons.
Really? What about his story makes this the appropriate time for him to die, apparently of old age rather than anything particularly interesting? Why is his death at most a minor footnote (and possibly not even explicitly said at all) instead of a clear part of his story? What ties does it have to the greater story of the setting?
The answer to all of these questions is that there is no compelling lore reason. Any lore justification is, at best, an after the fact rationalization for GW's decision to discontinue the old metal and finecast kits.
If it was simply that they didn’t want to sell the old model they would have simply released a new kit.
Assuming they had a release slot for it and felt that making a new kit would sell enough copies to justify its cost. And it's not like this would be the first time that GW has discontinued a kit and removed the related unit without any replacement. It's not even the only guard kit being discontinued and removed from the new codex with no replacement!
You have seen them do this with essentially every space marine character but guard characters are dropping like flies sense to time jump (which I believe is the right move)
Why do only some characters die off because of the time jump? As I mentioned already GW has no problem having primaris characters in the same army as characters who died centuries before primaris marines were created. Merely advancing the timeline clearly doesn't require removing all characters who are no longer alive at the present time. So why is Yarrick no longer valid when other dead characters are?
I guess it was lost in translation but if you really think any modern game will survive with no changes ever then that's an even worse position. I think few posters believe this game would last long if GW just never released an update again.
I think the fact that he was super old before the time jump is justification enough to have him die. What he died to is speculation as every rumor I've seen said part of his page is redacted. Regardless though I'm fine with it because guard lore is not intended to be like space marines or eldar and my only real complaint is we don't see more deaths, especially for races like tau that are supposed to have even shorter life spans then humans.
As to other characters that are dead but still playable I'm not sure who those are off the top of my head but I'm going to assume space marines. I do think they would be better off removing any dead characters still knocking around. They probably are hesitant though because people just like this lose their minds when a model thats been around for 20 years can now only be used to proxy something or in a narrative game
Edit
Also if you really do want an unchanged list forever there is nothing stopping you from forming a group and playing "x" addition forever. I tried this when they killed fantasy and its also when I learned 99.9% of players don't want a rule set that never changes which brings me back to my original point. But if you can find a dedicated group thats fine with a never changing rule set power to you
Asmodios wrote: I guess it was lost in translation but if you really think any modern game will survive with no changes ever then that's an even worse position.
Plenty of games survive just fine without changes. I'm currently playing a D&D campaign that's been running for 4-5 years with the same characters and story. We're using the Pathfinder 1.0 rules, having ignored Pathfinder 2.0, D&D 4th, D&D 5th, and whatever new playtest for D&D 6th they're working on. My other D&D game has been running for 3-4 years with a DM who has run games in the same world for longer, all using the D&D 5th edition rules and ignoring all new content. At no point has the game felt like we needed new stuff, nor have we had even the slightest interest in buying whatever new editions were released.
And it's hardly just RPGs. Buying a game as a one-time purchase is the standard for board games and the best games have plenty of replay value with no need for new releases. People even play old editions of 40k and have no interest in buying the new stuff. The endless treadmill of buying new stuff to keep up with everyone else's new stuff benefits GW's shareholders and nobody else.
I think few posters believe this game would last long if GW just never released an update again.
This is true, but not because games inherently require updates. It's only true because 40k is not in anything remotely resembling a final state, and the only thing keeping people from realizing how bad the rules are is the constant treadmill of new releases making things change too fast for anyone to stop to think about it. If, by some miracle, GW managed to produce a well designed and balanced final version of 40k there would be no need for further updates.
I think the fact that he was super old before the time jump is justification enough to have him die. What he died to is speculation as every rumor I've seen said part of his page is redacted. Regardless though I'm fine with it because guard lore is not intended to be like space marines or eldar and my only real complaint is we don't see more deaths, especially for races like tau that are supposed to have even shorter life spans then humans.
So why are other characters, even other guard characters, from the same era still alive despite having only a mortal lifespan? Do you honestly think that it's purely a coincidence that the only characters GW removed were old metal/finecast models that GW wanted to discontinue?
They probably are hesitant though because people just like this lose their minds when a model thats been around for 20 years can now only be used to proxy something or in a narrative game
So in a narrative game, where story is the most important thing, you can use dead characters that don't fit the current timeline. But in a tournament game, where competitive balance is more important than story, you can't use those characters because they don't fit into the current story? That seems completely backwards.
Asmodios wrote: I guess it was lost in translation but if you really think any modern game will survive with no changes ever then that's an even worse position.
Plenty of games survive just fine without changes. I'm currently playing a D&D campaign that's been running for 4-5 years with the same characters and story. We're using the Pathfinder 1.0 rules, having ignored Pathfinder 2.0, D&D 4th, D&D 5th, and whatever new playtest for D&D 6th they're working on. My other D&D game has been running for 3-4 years with a DM who has run games in the same world for longer, all using the D&D 5th edition rules and ignoring all new content. At no point has the game felt like we needed new stuff, nor have we had even the slightest interest in buying whatever new editions were released.
I find it rather humorous that your defense of a system not needing to change to survive is to point out you are using Pathfinder 1.0, a game that is on it's second edition, which is a knockoff of D&D 3rd Edition, a game that is working on it's 6th Edition
The point Asmodios was trying to make is that modern games need to change, expand, or update to keep the publisher in business. Otherwise you are left with games on life-support like Blood Bowl was until GW decided to revive it. And Blood Bowl along with Battle-Tech are to two games that best survived having little to no support from their publishers. Miniatures games wilt on the vine without constant support these days.
Asmodios wrote: I guess it was lost in translation but if you really think any modern game will survive with no changes ever then that's an even worse position.
Plenty of games survive just fine without changes. I'm currently playing a D&D campaign that's been running for 4-5 years with the same characters and story. We're using the Pathfinder 1.0 rules, having ignored Pathfinder 2.0, D&D 4th, D&D 5th, and whatever new playtest for D&D 6th they're working on. My other D&D game has been running for 3-4 years with a DM who has run games in the same world for longer, all using the D&D 5th edition rules and ignoring all new content. At no point has the game felt like we needed new stuff, nor have we had even the slightest interest in buying whatever new editions were released.
And it's hardly just RPGs. Buying a game as a one-time purchase is the standard for board games and the best games have plenty of replay value with no need for new releases. People even play old editions of 40k and have no interest in buying the new stuff. The endless treadmill of buying new stuff to keep up with everyone else's new stuff benefits GW's shareholders and nobody else.
I think few posters believe this game would last long if GW just never released an update again.
This is true, but not because games inherently require updates. It's only true because 40k is not in anything remotely resembling a final state, and the only thing keeping people from realizing how bad the rules are is the constant treadmill of new releases making things change too fast for anyone to stop to think about it. If, by some miracle, GW managed to produce a well designed and balanced final version of 40k there would be no need for further updates.
I think the fact that he was super old before the time jump is justification enough to have him die. What he died to is speculation as every rumor I've seen said part of his page is redacted. Regardless though I'm fine with it because guard lore is not intended to be like space marines or eldar and my only real complaint is we don't see more deaths, especially for races like tau that are supposed to have even shorter life spans then humans.
So why are other characters, even other guard characters, from the same era still alive despite having only a mortal lifespan? Do you honestly think that it's purely a coincidence that the only characters GW removed were old metal/finecast models that GW wanted to discontinue?
They probably are hesitant though because people just like this lose their minds when a model thats been around for 20 years can now only be used to proxy something or in a narrative game
So in a narrative game, where story is the most important thing, you can use dead characters that don't fit the current timeline. But in a tournament game, where competitive balance is more important than story, you can't use those characters because they don't fit into the current story? That seems completely backwards.
A narrative game can be anything including recreating a classic battle. Which if I’m doing a war for Armageddon I don’t see why I wouldn’t break him out. In a purely tournament setting I’m surprised they don’t remove/ add more data slates. Many competitive games remove whole expansions out of ply each season. GW is actually probably one of the best for keeping 99% of stuff in circulation even for competitive.
Last time I checked aren’t the a lot of classic guard characters are gone and or dead. Creed is locked in a time capsule/yarrick is now dead (old age or battle)/ Bastonne we got his sword last supplement and he was killed. The simple answer to why they aren’t all dead is simply they weren’t all as old as yarrick
Also D&D isn’t really the same type of game as Warhammer but the way you are describing how you play is how you would play old editions. You can still go play ever old campaign book and edition but we also get updates… I’m not huge into D&D but I believe they still release regular material? Like isn’t it on its 5th or 6th edition with tons of different campaigns. Using your own logic any new D&D stuff that comes out is a cash grab that players should reject.
Dudeface wrote: Well yeah, if you've built an exact 2k army with no extra infantry etc based on the 8th ed codex, then yes, it'll be invalidated. Ultimately the shift to a new codex would facilitate point changes, different power units if that's your jam and likely a change of forces anyway.
I'm talking about units, not armies. Currently I have a veteran squad with 3x plasma guns and a missile launcher. They're built, painted, and based as a single unit with shared details and they are always played as that specific unit. Technically the models that make up those units can still be used for something but the unit is invalidated. I can no longer use them as their lore dictates, I have to stick the plasma guns in random squads where their aesthetic details don't match the rest of the unit, add the basic infantry to some other unit, etc. If all that was changing was the points I could add a new unit to fill in points, only play with some of my collection at once if points go up too much, etc. That would be fine but that's not what we're getting.
But, like I said, these are issues that the WAAC meta chasers don't care about so the new codex will be great as long as it's as overpowered as the squats.
Hoss, I don't know if you know this or not, but taking a unit of guys that have worked together well and been successful, breaking that unit up and sending the pieces to scatter across a multitude of other worthless units to try and make them just a tiny bit better, is a thing that militaries have been doing since AT LEAST Roman times, and DEFINITELY have been doing a LOT of in the last two centuries. There's nothing in the lore of WH40k that suggests that the Imperium of Man somehow has a more understanding approach, either.
Frankly, you have all the lore/narrative/storyline reason you need to split those guys up and put them wherever you want. The Lord Commissar demanded that this unit over here get stiffened up with some veteran blood, or they were all injured and recovered at different times so they ended up being redeployed with different units, or their unit got confused in the middle of a big battle and recovered with different units so now they fall in over THERE instead of over HERE.
Not trying to be offensive or anything - I get that you want to see them in a group all the time. They're your guys. But I've NEVER been deployed with the same guys twice. Hell, we rarely even have the same guys in our platoons when we do our field exercises! So it's not as narrative-breaking as you seem to feel.
Asmodios wrote: In a purely tournament setting I’m surprised they don’t remove/ add more data slates.
Why would they want to do something that profoundly stupid?
Although hmm, you might have a point there. Maybe I should be a bit surprised GW hasn't been dumb enough to do it when they've certainly demonstrated their capacity for bad decisions.
Last time I checked aren’t the a lot of classic guard characters are gone and or dead.
And, again, there are dead characters that are still in the game because their models are still in production. Dead or alive in the lore has nothing to do with it.
Bastonne we got his sword last supplement and he was killed.
Bastonne was removed multiple editions ago, long before GW needed a name for a relic. And that removal was purely about not having a specific model, the lore that would be added years later had nothing to do with it.
Also D&D isn’t really the same type of game as Warhammer
In what relevant ways is it different?
I’m not huge into D&D but I believe they still release regular material?
They do, the point is that we ignore all of that new material. It isn't necessary, and if WOTC stopped printing new material we wouldn't even notice. And yet somehow this update-free game continues to be fun and engaging for years of play.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dadx6 wrote: Hoss, I don't know if you know this or not, but taking a unit of guys that have worked together well and been successful, breaking that unit up and sending the pieces to scatter across a multitude of other worthless units to try and make them just a tiny bit better, is a thing that militaries have been doing since AT LEAST Roman times, and DEFINITELY have been doing a LOT of in the last two centuries. There's nothing in the lore of WH40k that suggests that the Imperium of Man somehow has a more understanding approach, either.
Of course they do that. But when a unit is broken up and distributed among other units the veterans don't keep the uniforms/equipment/etc of their original units. The veteran from third company (yellow stripe on the shoulder pads) joining seventh company (green stripe) doesn't keep the yellow stripe and 3 iconography. When you mix squads on the table it's very obvious that you're using proxy models that haven't been painted correctly, not representing how the real unit would look.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
alextroy wrote: I find it rather humorous that your defense of a system not needing to change to survive is to point out you are using Pathfinder 1.0, a game that is on it's second edition, which is a knockoff of D&D 3rd Edition, a game that is working on it's 6th Edition
Why is that funny? Those newer editions weren't necessary for our game to survive. In fact, from our point of view they might as well not exist at all. I'm not disputing the fact that WOTC has continued to print new material, only the idea that they must print new material or the game will die.
The point Asmodios was trying to make is that modern games need to change, expand, or update to keep the publisher in business. Otherwise you are left with games on life-support like Blood Bowl was until GW decided to revive it. And Blood Bowl along with Battle-Tech are to two games that best survived having little to no support from their publishers. Miniatures games wilt on the vine without constant support these days.
Again, why? Why are updates necessary if a game is in a polished final state? What value is being added, and what prevents the game from continuing on in that final state without having change for the sake of change?
And Blood Bowl wasn't on life support because of a lack of updates. It was a beloved game that many people still played, and its only problem was that the physical components were all OOP. If GW had continued to sell the original game there would have been no problem at all.
Not sure if this is even worth pointing out given people complaining on this thread of Guard plasma spam of all things, but datasheet restrictions are not good for the game in any way.
Datasheet restrictions do not improve balance:
Spoiler:
Some armies already have all the options they ever needed in their boxes (Necrons, CWE) - these factions get no restrictions.
Some armies have so many kits that restrictions do nothing to them, if you try and apply "what's in the box" to loyalist marines they might lose combi weapons on some characters and devastators might get limited to no more than 2 of each heavy weapon.
Some armies don't have many box sets, restricting players to what's in the box for datasheet options and removing any datasheets that don't have explicitly named box sets of their own guts options. Guard lose veterans, special weapon squads, and specialised shooty command squads just because even though the models exist, they do not exist in the same box labelled as containing that particular unit.
Apparently, a guard plasma squad is WAAC and needs to go, but a marine player can take hellblasters, plasma devastators, combi plasma sternguard and combi plasma vets and be fine.
Datasheet restrictions are not good for business:
Spoiler:
GW's policy of no models no rules seems to revolve around deleting their own stuff to edge out 3rd parties, as if people like chapterhouse are an existential threat to GW. Every time a datasheet gets options retconned, or a unit is dropped entirely, it's one less reason for a customer to buy your product. It makes as much sense as a car manufacturer planning on increasing production by closing factories.
Finally, this nonsense is wasteful:
Spoiler:
Once every datasheet is a faithful what's in the box representation, every spare part is useless. We've all given up plastic straws and carrier bags, but GW didn't get the memo and is trying it's hardest to make it's products single use plastics - throw every spare piece in the bin you'll never need to kitbash anything.
I understand if a guard player has gone into so much more detail than most on their Scions, to the extent that they have painted numbers on shoulder pads for each squad why they'd be annoyed. Particularly if they used a paint mix rather than straight from the pot, making it difficult to repaint those pads.
That aside however there should be some things worth noting:
1) If you have been playing command squads without flags and voxs the past 4 months, you've really been neglecting our secondaries. Particularly deepstriking Scion command squads that find it ridiculously easy to get a flag into an opponents deployment for VPs for both the flag and for the Boots quarter. The vox is exceptional for inflexible command because it can drop anywhere you want it behind obscuring to get you a lovely 24" bubble. The utility of these squads significantly outweighed the damage output of the 4x plasma/melta suicide squad. 2 of these squads gave you so much flexibility for a mere 80pts - the same cost as 1 squad of suicide droppers. (What I will miss is the 4x HSVG squad that dropped and shot from distance as these often stayed alive a lot longer and racked up significantly more damage for their points overall in many battles, as opponents were often less likely to focus on these compared to plasma and melta ones - much to their detriment).
2) With exploding 6's, extra range on the hotshots and Take Aim now giving +1 to hit and -1ap (plus keeping HotE), 1 plasma pistol, 2 plasma, 2 melta and 5 hslgs are now doing more damage on average against every single type of target, from chaff to marines to tanks. That's without taking into account easy access to reroll 1s for both hit and wound.
3) Command squads getting LOS is huge with the buffs they bring. Now the opponent can't just focus on screening out obscruring terrain areas. They will stay around longer and so as long as they get to shoot twice they will get as many shots in as a suicide squad (4 activations of a special weapon over 2 turns rather than 4 activations of a special weapon in 1 turn then dying immediately). Now 110pts for the combination of the squad and Prime does seem a little overcosted however.
I say this as a guy who has 170-180 Scion Infantry.
If you haven't painted them as seperate individual squads - your Scions just got massively buffed despite the 2 of the same special per squad restriction.
Asmodios wrote: In a purely tournament setting I’m surprised they don’t remove/ add more data slates.
Why would they want to do something that profoundly stupid?
Although hmm, you might have a point there. Maybe I should be a bit surprised GW hasn't been dumb enough to do it when they've certainly demonstrated their capacity for bad decisions.
Last time I checked aren’t the a lot of classic guard characters are gone and or dead.
And, again, there are dead characters that are still in the game because their models are still in production. Dead or alive in the lore has nothing to do with it.
Bastonne we got his sword last supplement and he was killed.
Bastonne was removed multiple editions ago, long before GW needed a name for a relic. And that removal was purely about not having a specific model, the lore that would be added years later had nothing to do with it.
Also D&D isn’t really the same type of game as Warhammer
In what relevant ways is it different?
I’m not huge into D&D but I believe they still release regular material?
They do, the point is that we ignore all of that new material. It isn't necessary, and if WOTC stopped printing new material we wouldn't even notice. And yet somehow this update-free game continues to be fun and engaging for years of play.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dadx6 wrote: Hoss, I don't know if you know this or not, but taking a unit of guys that have worked together well and been successful, breaking that unit up and sending the pieces to scatter across a multitude of other worthless units to try and make them just a tiny bit better, is a thing that militaries have been doing since AT LEAST Roman times, and DEFINITELY have been doing a LOT of in the last two centuries. There's nothing in the lore of WH40k that suggests that the Imperium of Man somehow has a more understanding approach, either.
Of course they do that. But when a unit is broken up and distributed among other units the veterans don't keep the uniforms/equipment/etc of their original units. The veteran from third company (yellow stripe on the shoulder pads) joining seventh company (green stripe) doesn't keep the yellow stripe and 3 iconography. When you mix squads on the table it's very obvious that you're using proxy models that haven't been painted correctly, not representing how the real unit would look.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
alextroy wrote: I find it rather humorous that your defense of a system not needing to change to survive is to point out you are using Pathfinder 1.0, a game that is on it's second edition, which is a knockoff of D&D 3rd Edition, a game that is working on it's 6th Edition
Why is that funny? Those newer editions weren't necessary for our game to survive. In fact, from our point of view they might as well not exist at all. I'm not disputing the fact that WOTC has continued to print new material, only the idea that they must print new material or the game will die.
The point Asmodios was trying to make is that modern games need to change, expand, or update to keep the publisher in business. Otherwise you are left with games on life-support like Blood Bowl was until GW decided to revive it. And Blood Bowl along with Battle-Tech are to two games that best survived having little to no support from their publishers. Miniatures games wilt on the vine without constant support these days.
Again, why? Why are updates necessary if a game is in a polished final state? What value is being added, and what prevents the game from continuing on in that final state without having change for the sake of change?
And Blood Bowl wasn't on life support because of a lack of updates. It was a beloved game that many people still played, and its only problem was that the physical components were all OOP. If GW had continued to sell the original game there would have been no problem at all.
1.Many competitive games (especially card games) rotate cards in and out to not only keep the game fresh but to keep it more balanced. I'm not advocating for this at all but it would be much easier to balance without as many data slates. I mean you can call it stupid but many very successful games have done this exact thing
2.Yes I know there are models still in the game that are dead.... doesn't change the fact they didn't go this route with yarrick and it doesn't really bother me at all. If it were up to me you would just move characters like his to the legends data slate which they might do
3. He was officially confirmed KIA this edition.... and this just shows they have had multiple deaths in the guard in the last few years, just like yarrick and creed (even though hes technically alive)
4. its different because its a roll playing playing game not a mass battle game? this is like saying monopoly and warhammer are the same because you roll dice and move figures around
5.So they still release material that people buy and play. You choose to play an earlier edition and don't play the new stuff. How is this any different from warhammer? what's stopping you from just freezing the rules now and playing with your group? Unless your group wants updated rules thus proving my point that most people want updated rules
Asmodios wrote: 1.Many competitive games (especially card games) rotate cards in and out to not only keep the game fresh but to keep it more balanced. I'm not advocating for this at all but it would be much easier to balance without as many data slates. I mean you can call it stupid but many very successful games have done this exact thing
I don't know about "many" successful games, it's mostly CCGs that do it and CCGs are mostly successful because they're really good at exploiting gambling addiction. From a game design point of view aggressive rotation like MTG has is very bad, it's just a very good tool for getting the addicts to keep buying. A hypothetical version of MTG where WOTC found a conscience and decided to market a game based on genuine merits instead of exploiting gambling addiction would work just fine with a much slower pace of new releases, or even with a fixed card pool that never changes once the game is complete.
2.Yes I know there are models still in the game that are dead.... doesn't change the fact they didn't go this route with yarrick and it doesn't really bother me at all. If it were up to me you would just move characters like his to the legends data slate which they might do
Cool. So we're in agreement that Yarrick being removed from the game has nothing to do with lore and is purely about GW discontinuing metal and finecast models?
3. He was officially confirmed KIA this edition.... and this just shows they have had multiple deaths in the guard in the last few years, just like yarrick and creed (even though hes technically alive)
Sure. But that confirmation had nothing to do with the original removal. Back when he was actually removed GW didn't bother with any lore explanations at all, they just removed the entry from the next version of the codex when "no model no rules" started to be a thing.
4. its different because its a roll playing playing game not a mass battle game? this is like saying monopoly and warhammer are the same because you roll dice and move figures around
I asked what relevant differences there are. Obviously the game mechanics are very different but those differences have nothing to do with the question of whether or not change is required to keep a game alive.
5.So they still release material that people buy and play. You choose to play an earlier edition and don't play the new stuff. How is this any different from warhammer? what's stopping you from just freezing the rules now and playing with your group? Unless your group wants updated rules thus proving my point that most people want updated rules
I'm not sure what your point here is. You claimed that change is required for a game to survive, I pointed out examples of games surviving without change, and now you seem to be in agreement with me that games survive without change. The fact that companies continue to print new material doesn't mean that it is necessary for them to do so if they want to keep the games alive.
Asmodios wrote: 1.Many competitive games (especially card games) rotate cards in and out to not only keep the game fresh but to keep it more balanced. I'm not advocating for this at all but it would be much easier to balance without as many data slates. I mean you can call it stupid but many very successful games have done this exact thing
I don't know about "many" successful games, it's mostly CCGs that do it and CCGs are mostly successful because they're really good at exploiting gambling addiction. From a game design point of view aggressive rotation like MTG has is very bad, it's just a very good tool for getting the addicts to keep buying. A hypothetical version of MTG where WOTC found a conscience and decided to market a game based on genuine merits instead of exploiting gambling addiction would work just fine with a much slower pace of new releases, or even with a fixed card pool that never changes once the game is complete.
2.Yes I know there are models still in the game that are dead.... doesn't change the fact they didn't go this route with yarrick and it doesn't really bother me at all. If it were up to me you would just move characters like his to the legends data slate which they might do
Cool. So we're in agreement that Yarrick being removed from the game has nothing to do with lore and is purely about GW discontinuing metal and finecast models?
3. He was officially confirmed KIA this edition.... and this just shows they have had multiple deaths in the guard in the last few years, just like yarrick and creed (even though hes technically alive)
Sure. But that confirmation had nothing to do with the original removal. Back when he was actually removed GW didn't bother with any lore explanations at all, they just removed the entry from the next version of the codex when "no model no rules" started to be a thing.
4. its different because its a roll playing playing game not a mass battle game? this is like saying monopoly and warhammer are the same because you roll dice and move figures around
I asked what relevant differences there are. Obviously the game mechanics are very different but those differences have nothing to do with the question of whether or not change is required to keep a game alive.
5.So they still release material that people buy and play. You choose to play an earlier edition and don't play the new stuff. How is this any different from warhammer? what's stopping you from just freezing the rules now and playing with your group? Unless your group wants updated rules thus proving my point that most people want updated rules
I'm not sure what your point here is. You claimed that change is required for a game to survive, I pointed out examples of games surviving without change, and now you seem to be in agreement with me that games survive without change. The fact that companies continue to print new material doesn't mean that it is necessary for them to do so if they want to keep the games alive.
1. arguing their practice any any worse then any other companies seems counter productive and off topic. These games simply rotate out cards to keep the game easier to balance and fresh and i give props for GW for delivering the amount of balance they do with keeping 99% of units in the game all the time
2.some of the other characters that are dead but in game have fine cast and metal models. other models have received new models instead of being killed off. So it clearly isnt just for a model purpose as they would just release the new one or continue to sell the old. There is both lore and modeling reason for it/ if it was only model purposes there would e no metal or fine cast in the game
3.i mean your not removed until you are removed. If it was just no model no rules then yarrick wouldn't be going away. the fact is certain kits and character get updates and some don't even if they are plastic.... see the sentinel
4.uhhhhhh yeah its a relevant difference. A roll playing game with a dm that's about story/acting is not going to be as reliant on fresh rules (despite these companies releasing new rules). A mass battle game like any game that's naturally player vs player experience is going to require updates to keep the vast majority of the player base engaged (just look at the constant talk about 10th edition already... people are always looking for the next update)
5. Yes these companies need to have updates to sell more material to keep the game going..... you disproved your own point by using D&D as an example that i looked up and the company still produces new content. I mean your reasoning is that if I get my brother and go play a game of 8th edition fantasy the game is still "alive" and GW will be able to just not release anything new for any game system. I mean using your definition warhammer online age of reckoning is still "alive" because i know a guy that plays with like 50 other people on a private server. But if you seriously see no point to updates and a game is "alive" if someone is playing it why does any of the effect you? why dont you just play without the codex? you just said that these updates are useless and not necessary so simply play without it. Its a self defeating argument. If you can play those old editions without need of any new material.... then play the old edition without the new material
Asmodios wrote: 1. arguing their practice any any worse then any other companies seems counter productive and off topic. These games simply rotate out cards to keep the game easier to balance and fresh and i give props for GW for delivering the amount of balance they do with keeping 99% of units in the game all the time
They say they do it for balance. The reality is they do it to exploit gambling addiction as effectively as possible. And GW gets zero credit for having the decency to not target their game at gambling addicts at the expense of everyone else. Keeping 100% of units in the game at all times is the expected bare minimum, not something that gets you praise.
2.some of the other characters that are dead but in game have fine cast and metal models. other models have received new models instead of being killed off. So it clearly isnt just for a model purpose as they would just release the new one or continue to sell the old. There is both lore and modeling reason for it/ if it was only model purposes there would e no metal or fine cast in the game
Discontinuing a metal or finecast model without a new plastic replacement is still a sales decision, not a lore decision. There is zero lore reason for Yarrick to be removed while dead characters are not.
4.uhhhhhh yeah its a relevant difference. A roll playing game with a dm that's about story/acting is not going to be as reliant on fresh rules (despite these companies releasing new rules). A mass battle game like any game that's naturally player vs player experience is going to require updates to keep the vast majority of the player base engaged (just look at the constant talk about 10th edition already... people are always looking for the next update)
You aren't demonstrating any cause and effect here. Why does a mass battle game require new rules if the existing rules are already working fine? Why are you starting from the assumption that a game has limited replay value and is only fun if it's a completely different game every few years?
And the reality is that people are looking for 10th edition because the game is a raging dumpster fire and they hope that a new edition will fix the problems. People are looking for new codex updates because their current codex has a 30% win rate and they know power creep in the new book will get them to 60% for a while (and at least 40-50% for even longer). Obviously a broken and unbalanced game needs updates but that doesn't mean that all wargames require them to survive.
5. Yes these companies need to have updates to sell more material to keep the game going..... you disproved your own point by using D&D as an example that i looked up and the company still produces new content.
You weren't paying attention to the point then. The point is not that WOTC is not releasing new material, it's that people can and do play D&D without any updates at all. Their game experience does not in any way require new material, nor is new material even desirable. Your claim that a game inherently requires an endless treadmill of change for the sake of change is simply false.
Asmodios wrote: In a purely tournament setting I’m surprised they don’t remove/ add more data slates.
Again, why? Why are updates necessary if a game is in a polished final state? What value is being added, and what prevents the game from continuing on in that final state without having change for the sake of change?
And Blood Bowl wasn't on life support because of a lack of updates. It was a beloved game that many people still played, and its only problem was that the physical components were all OOP. If GW had continued to sell the original game there would have been no problem at all.
This section here is really, really wrong.
Almost ANY kit that GW makes (or basically any product ever) sells probably 80% of what it's going to over its lifetime very shortly after it's release. The exact timetable changes based on the product (PC components it's days, something like warhammer it's months), but it's almost always the way it works out. Exploiting that fact is how Apple made its bajillions of dollars. GW needs to constantly release new kits or it's sales will stagnate like a still pond in a Louisiana summer.
Also, Bloodbowl wasn't on lifesupport because it was already dead. I'm sure a lot of people loved it, I'm sure a lot of people still played it. You know what they WEREN'T doing, though? Buying it. That stuff wasn't OOP out of nowhere. That stuff was OOP because maintaining the infrastructure necessary to produce it was costing more money than it was making (or at least making less money than they could make using those resources elsewhere).
Finally, games that intend to have any significant longevity, usually NEED to change over time. There are exceptions, Chess, Checkers, Tic-Tac-To (for some reason), but for everything else, lack of change equals death. League of Legends stays relevant by constantly tweaking and adding new features season over season. Same with just about every other Esport (which is the closest analogue to wargaming, regardless of what the board game purests want to believe). 40k settles into a meta after about 3 months following a competitively relevant release. If the meta is healthy, it'll hold players for about another 9 months before people get bored and start going elsewhere. After 18 months, you'd be down to just the diehards and the collectors.
Changing the meta is also one of the only ways to drive sales of older kits.
Gadzilla666 wrote: It's entirely possible to have "change" in the game without removing things that were previously there. Change can be accomplished by adding things.
I'm just waiting for them to defend Tycho still being able to be ran alongside Primaris units
Asmodios wrote: 1. arguing their practice any any worse then any other companies seems counter productive and off topic. These games simply rotate out cards to keep the game easier to balance and fresh and i give props for GW for delivering the amount of balance they do with keeping 99% of units in the game all the time
They say they do it for balance. The reality is they do it to exploit gambling addiction as effectively as possible. And GW gets zero credit for having the decency to not target their game at gambling addicts at the expense of everyone else. Keeping 100% of units in the game at all times is the expected bare minimum, not something that gets you praise.
2.some of the other characters that are dead but in game have fine cast and metal models. other models have received new models instead of being killed off. So it clearly isnt just for a model purpose as they would just release the new one or continue to sell the old. There is both lore and modeling reason for it/ if it was only model purposes there would e no metal or fine cast in the game
Discontinuing a metal or finecast model without a new plastic replacement is still a sales decision, not a lore decision. There is zero lore reason for Yarrick to be removed while dead characters are not.
4.uhhhhhh yeah its a relevant difference. A roll playing game with a dm that's about story/acting is not going to be as reliant on fresh rules (despite these companies releasing new rules). A mass battle game like any game that's naturally player vs player experience is going to require updates to keep the vast majority of the player base engaged (just look at the constant talk about 10th edition already... people are always looking for the next update)
You aren't demonstrating any cause and effect here. Why does a mass battle game require new rules if the existing rules are already working fine? Why are you starting from the assumption that a game has limited replay value and is only fun if it's a completely different game every few years?
And the reality is that people are looking for 10th edition because the game is a raging dumpster fire and they hope that a new edition will fix the problems. People are looking for new codex updates because their current codex has a 30% win rate and they know power creep in the new book will get them to 60% for a while (and at least 40-50% for even longer). Obviously a broken and unbalanced game needs updates but that doesn't mean that all wargames require them to survive.
5. Yes these companies need to have updates to sell more material to keep the game going..... you disproved your own point by using D&D as an example that i looked up and the company still produces new content.
You weren't paying attention to the point then. The point is not that WOTC is not releasing new material, it's that people can and do play D&D without any updates at all. Their game experience does not in any way require new material, nor is new material even desirable. Your claim that a game inherently requires an endless treadmill of change for the sake of change is simply false.
1. you say its for "gambling" but i think from a design aspect it would be much easier to balance 200 cards vs 2000 or 200 data slates vs 2000... I think things like random card packs target things like gambling. not rotating cards in and out to adjust the meta
2. I mean the reason to would be a lore decision. we will never know unless we were sitting in the meeting where they decided but considering they sometimes make new model and sometimes they don't shows that its not some standardized business decision based solely on the model/ profits. lore clearly has a roll in it.
3. A mass battle game needs updates to keep players engaged.. its just a fact what mass battle game is popular currently that is not updated? why are things like warhammer fantasy not played by the exact same amount of people that played them the day they shut down? Are you saying their is no correlation between updates and player base size? Because that just seems disconnected from reality.
Calling 9th a dumpster fire seems to be all the rage on forums like this despite actual statistics showing the game is more balanced then ever. That and a growing player base that was only set back number wise because of covid. But once again if modern updated rules aren't important why do any of these people care about 9th 10th 11th ect just got play 2nd 3rd 4th or whatever you consider the peak
5. You are missing the point... people also still play old editions of 40k (you can actually find groups that play old versions of basically every popular game) that doesn't mean that these games do not need updates to survive because a "dead game" does not mean there are 0 people playing it. it means it has a shrinking player base that hinders your ability to actually play the game. Once again for example i was a huge fantasy fan. i continued to play after it was wiped out but without the updates the game died.... and i say dead knowing there are a few people in my area that still play. But 5 people playing a game every weekend of WHFB around me vs 500 playing WH40k is two different things. One is an unsupported "dead" game one is an "alive" game, want to guess which is which?
You dodged the primary question though. If a game doesn't require updates to stay alive and all it takes is you playing it... then why don't you simply ignore this codex and keep playing. You can ignore this update just like you said you ignore all the D&D ones so your models and army comp are actually 100% unaffected
ERJAK wrote: Almost ANY kit that GW makes (or basically any product ever) sells probably 80% of what it's going to over its lifetime very shortly after it's release.
I am highly skeptical of this claim. An 80/20 split would mean that 80% of GW's sales are going to existing customers who are ready and eager to buy it on (or shortly after) release day, while the remaining 20% is split between existing customers who buy the new thing later and new customers. That's a possible scenario, but it's one that stands in direct contrast to GW's business practices. We know for a fact that the metrics GW judges their retail employees by are overwhelmingly focused on sales to new customers, while GW's stores are actively hostile to long-term customers. If GW really was generating 80% of its sales from long-term customers you'd see way more emphasis on customer retention beyond the three purchase model (initial, birthday, christmas). But instead GW continues to focus on a high-turnover model of recruiting customers as fast as possible and treating it as a nice bonus if they stick around.
Exploiting that fact is how Apple made its bajillions of dollars.
That's not really a comparable situation. Apple didn't make their money by figuring out the 80/20 split, they made it by an incomprehensible success of marketing: convincing people that buying an incremental improvement over the previous version of their inferior product is somehow a status symbol, and that if you don't own the latest iphone you're poor and a loser and you should probably kill yourself out of shame. There's nothing even remotely like that in 40k. If anything the prestige goes the other way, an army full of obscure OOP miniatures from 30 years ago will get you way more respect than buying the latest primaris marine toy.
Also, Bloodbowl wasn't on lifesupport because it was already dead. I'm sure a lot of people loved it, I'm sure a lot of people still played it. You know what they WEREN'T doing, though? Buying it. That stuff wasn't OOP out of nowhere. That stuff was OOP because maintaining the infrastructure necessary to produce it was costing more money than it was making (or at least making less money than they could make using those resources elsewhere).
Do you have numbers that confirm it was losing money? Remember that this is the era where GW was aggressively cutting everything but their core games under the absurd assumption that all GW products were interchangeable and all the BFG/Blood Bowl/etc players were fans of Spending™ Money™ On™ GW™ Products™ who would obediently transfer all of their spending to space marine tactical squads if GW got rid of all the side games. Stuff was getting cut even if it was still making a profit because GW thought they could make more profits by moving all those players to 40k.
And you'll note that, having realized the sheer stupidity of that assumption and brought back the side games, Blood Bowl remains in production despite having very little new content.
After 18 months, you'd be down to just the diehards and the collectors.
Fortunately that's still the majority of customers. Supposedly the majority of customers don't play at all and even among the people who do play the ones who care about the e-sport meta are a tiny minority. A narrative player doesn't care how the meta changes or doesn't change because they're making list choices based on the story, and there are always new stories to drive new purchases. A casual player who plays a handful of games in a year doesn't care if the meta changes month to month. Someone who mostly paints but occasionally plays a game doesn't care about a stagnant meta when they're buying models primarily based on what looks cool on the display shelf. And TBH given how chasing the e-sport crowd is driving some poor game design decisions we might be better off if GW ignored that market entirely.
Asmodios wrote: 1. you say its for "gambling" but i think from a design aspect it would be much easier to balance 200 cards vs 2000 or 200 data slates vs 2000... I think things like random card packs target things like gambling. not rotating cards in and out to adjust the meta
Exploiting gambling addiction is why you have 2000 cards instead of 200 cards, because you need to keep printing new cards for the addicts to buy. If you stop at a healthy and stable 200-card game then once the addicts successfully get all of the cards they don't have any reason to keep buying. MTG's goal, above all, is to make sure that as soon as the addicts get anywhere near winning they move the goalposts and start the cycle over again. That's why you've seen WOTC increase the pace of new releases on top of adding layers and layers of alternate super-rare cards, collector packs, etc.
2. I mean the reason to would be a lore decision. we will never know unless we were sitting in the meeting where they decided but considering they sometimes make new model and sometimes they don't shows that its not some standardized business decision based solely on the model/ profits. lore clearly has a roll in it.
You keep saying "lore has a role" but you have yet to provide a single compelling lore argument for why Yarrick was removed but other characters weren't.
3. A mass battle game needs updates to keep players engaged.. its just a fact what mass battle game is popular currently that is not updated? why are things like warhammer fantasy not played by the exact same amount of people that played them the day they shut down? Are you saying their is no correlation between updates and player base size? Because that just seems disconnected from reality.
Why does a mass battle game require updates? You keep pointing to games which have updates but haven't said one bit about why those updates are necessary.
As for WHFB it died while it was still receiving regular updates so it's pretty clear that its lack of popularity has nothing to do with the fact that GW isn't printing more rules for it.
Calling 9th a dumpster fire seems to be all the rage on forums like this despite actual statistics showing the game is more balanced then ever.
Balance is not everything. A game where the winner of the roll to go first wins 99% of the time is very well balanced. Each player has the same 50% chance to win the game-deciding roll, each faction will have a 50% win rate in tournaments. But the game would obviously be a miserable dumpster fire that would rapidly lose all of its players.
5. You are missing the point... people also still play old editions of 40k (you can actually find groups that play old versions of basically every popular game) that doesn't mean that these games do not need updates to survive because a "dead game" does not mean there are 0 people playing it. it means it has a shrinking player base that hinders your ability to actually play the game.
Again, there's a difference between a broken dumpster fire of a game (9th edition 40k) that receives no further updates and a complete balanced and engaging game that receives no further updates. 40k needs updates to fix its massive flaws but that doesn't mean that all wargames require an endless treadmill of change for the sake of change.
Fortunately that's still the majority of customers. Supposedly the majority of customers don't play at all and even among the people who do play the ones who care about the e-sport meta are a tiny minority. A narrative player doesn't care how the meta changes or doesn't change because they're making list choices based on the story, and there are always new stories to drive new purchases. A casual player who plays a handful of games in a year doesn't care if the meta changes month to month. Someone who mostly paints but occasionally plays a game doesn't care about a stagnant meta when they're buying models primarily based on what looks cool on the display shelf. And TBH given how chasing the e-sport crowd is driving some poor game design decisions we might be better off if GW ignored that market entirely.
So you early in the thread have said you are not a meta chaser and are more concerned with the paint job on you guys shoulders "The models that are all painted as third squad complete with 3s on their shoulder pads can no longer be played together, all my units will have a random mix of numbers. Maybe that doesn't matter for the e-sport crowd, where models might as well be cardboard tokens, but for those of us who care about the lore and aesthetics of the game it's a huge problem" So aren't you a player that falls under the category of "Someone who mostly paints but occasionally plays a game doesn't care about a stagnant meta when they're buying models primarily based on what looks cool on the display shelf." from your post. so by your own logic of not requiring updates and them not really mattering for casual player I'm just having a hard time trying to understand why this change has you so upset.
I'm not knocking you at all I'm honestly curious. I consider myself a casual player who cares more about how my guys look in the display case as well, I just consider a frequently updated game as part of a healthy and lasting game system. If you see these as disconnected I just don't see why the changes affect you at all. isnt it an either or choice. Either only meta chasers care about changing rules/ so us non meta chasers can just play old editions forever like your D&D example OR my fluffy army is about to be invalidated because a updated set of rules is important to the game and community so I'm going to play using the update
Asmodios wrote: So you early in the thread have said you are not a meta chaser and are more concerned with the paint job on you guys shoulders "The models that are all painted as third squad complete with 3s on their shoulder pads can no longer be played together, all my units will have a random mix of numbers. Maybe that doesn't matter for the e-sport crowd, where models might as well be cardboard tokens, but for those of us who care about the lore and aesthetics of the game it's a huge problem" So aren't you a player that falls under the category of "Someone who mostly paints but occasionally plays a game doesn't care about a stagnant meta when they're buying models primarily based on what looks cool on the display shelf." from your post. so by your own logic of not requiring updates and them not really mattering for casual player I'm just having a hard time trying to understand why this change has you so upset.
Once again: 40k is not currently in a state where it can function without updates, it has way too many problems. That doesn't mean that updates are required for games in general to survive, or that GW shouldn't be aiming to get 40k to a state where updates are no longer needed.
Exploiting gambling addiction is why you have 2000 cards instead of 200 cards, because you need to keep printing new cards for the addicts to buy. If you stop at a healthy and stable 200-card game then once the addicts successfully get all of the cards they don't have any reason to keep buying. MTG's goal, above all, is to make sure that as soon as the addicts get anywhere near winning they move the goalposts and start the cycle over again. That's why you've seen WOTC increase the pace of new releases on top of adding layers and layers of alternate super-rare cards, collector packs, etc.
You seem to think number of cards has a direct correlation to gambling.... why does all the top gambling games on earth all use the same 52 card deck invented hundreds of years ago? I think you are confusing sales tactics with gambling. Random card packs encourage gambling like behavior, not new cards in the game. Heck not sure about MTG but like i said i played hearth stone competitively and i could just forge the cards i wanted with resources earned in the games. I don't see how one of those cards moving out of rotation was supposed to turn me into a gambling addict. once again random rng packs isnt the same thing as rotating cards
Asmodios wrote: So you early in the thread have said you are not a meta chaser and are more concerned with the paint job on you guys shoulders "The models that are all painted as third squad complete with 3s on their shoulder pads can no longer be played together, all my units will have a random mix of numbers. Maybe that doesn't matter for the e-sport crowd, where models might as well be cardboard tokens, but for those of us who care about the lore and aesthetics of the game it's a huge problem" So aren't you a player that falls under the category of "Someone who mostly paints but occasionally plays a game doesn't care about a stagnant meta when they're buying models primarily based on what looks cool on the display shelf." from your post. so by your own logic of not requiring updates and them not really mattering for casual player I'm just having a hard time trying to understand why this change has you so upset.
Once again: 40k is not currently in a state where it can function without updates, it has way too many problems. That doesn't mean that updates are required for games in general to survive, or that GW shouldn't be aiming to get 40k to a state where updates are no longer needed.
So it does need updates.... say like changing the composition of squads?
Asmodios wrote: You seem to think number of cards has a direct correlation to gambling.... why does all the top gambling games on earth all use the same 52 card deck invented hundreds of years ago?
Because in blackjack/poker/etc you're directly gambling on the outcome of a random draw from the deck of 52 cards, in MTG you're "gambling" on the contents of the pack you buy. In blackjack the reward is money and you always want more money. In MTG the reward is a desirable card and if you already own all of the desirable cards you have much less incentive to keep playing. That means that MTG needs a constant supply of new cards to ensure that even when the addicts spend thousands of dollars on their addiction they still have rewards to chase. As soon as WOTC stops printing new content the addicts will complete their collections and stop buying, at which point the game has to succeed on its highly questionable gameplay merits.
And remember, MTG is not literally gambling like a casino game, it's exploiting gambling addiction as a sales tactic. It's a physical equivalent of F2P loot box games where the game is nothing more than a platform to sell you loot boxes and the target of the game is the whales who will spend thousands of dollars on packs/loot boxes chasing the thrill of opening a rare card/item.
I don't see how one of those cards moving out of rotation was supposed to turn me into a gambling addict. once again random rng packs isnt the same thing as rotating cards
It doesn't turn you into a gambling addict. It exploits the minority of the population that is already gambling addicts, or at least prone to gambling addiction. Remember, like F2P cash shop games, the target is the whales and normal players like you are just a nice bonus. You don't see it because you don't feel that overwhelming urge to buy "just one more pack" even if it means you won't be able to afford your rent this month.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Asmodios wrote: So it does need updates.... say like changing the composition of squads?
No, it absolutely does not need updates like changing the composition of squads based on what the sprue designer put in a specific box 20 years ago. Those changes do not address any balance or gameplay issues, they're purely about GW trying to destroy the market for third-party bits sales.
Asmodios wrote: You seem to think number of cards has a direct correlation to gambling.... why does all the top gambling games on earth all use the same 52 card deck invented hundreds of years ago?
Because in blackjack/poker/etc you're directly gambling on the outcome of a random draw from the deck of 52 cards, in MTG you're "gambling" on the contents of the pack you buy. In blackjack the reward is money and you always want more money. In MTG the reward is a desirable card and if you already own all of the desirable cards you have much less incentive to keep playing. That means that MTG needs a constant supply of new cards to ensure that even when the addicts spend thousands of dollars on their addiction they still have rewards to chase. As soon as WOTC stops printing new content the addicts will complete their collections and stop buying, at which point the game has to succeed on its highly questionable gameplay merits.
And remember, MTG is not literally gambling like a casino game, it's exploiting gambling addiction as a sales tactic. It's a physical equivalent of F2P loot box games where the game is nothing more than a platform to sell you loot boxes and the target of the game is the whales who will spend thousands of dollars on packs/loot boxes chasing the thrill of opening a rare card/item.
I don't see how one of those cards moving out of rotation was supposed to turn me into a gambling addict. once again random rng packs isnt the same thing as rotating cards
It doesn't turn you into a gambling addict. It exploits the minority of the population that is already gambling addicts, or at least prone to gambling addiction. Remember, like F2P cash shop games, the target is the whales and normal players like you are just a nice bonus. You don't see it because you don't feel that overwhelming urge to buy "just one more pack" even if it means you won't be able to afford your rent this month.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Asmodios wrote: So it does need updates.... say like changing the composition of squads?
No, it absolutely does not need updates like changing the composition of squads based on what the sprue designer put in a specific box 20 years ago. Those changes do not address any balance or gameplay issues, they're purely about GW trying to destroy the market for third-party bits sales.
You just said that until a game is balanced changes are necessary to get it to your prefect state where it will no longer need changes. So up until that point they should continue to change and tweak things until they hit the magical "no changes needed" point. I see no reason why unit size or composition should be treated as holy ground that cant change. If the game is in such a "dumpster fire" status as you believe then any and all options should be used to make it playable
The "reason" is that the changes to unit composition and options has absolutely nothing to do with achieving "balance". It's because it matches what's in the box. And everyone knows it.
Asmodios wrote: You just said that until a game is balanced changes are necessary to get it to your prefect state where it will no longer need changes. So up until that point they should continue to change and tweak things until they hit the magical "no changes needed" point. I see no reason why unit size or composition should be treated as holy ground that cant change. If the game is in such a "dumpster fire" status as you believe then any and all options should be used to make it playable
Once again: these changes are not driven by balance concerns. They are a direct result of what the sprue designer put in a specific box, usually in a completely different edition of the game. If they improve balance it will be purely by coincidence.
Asmodios wrote: You just said that until a game is balanced changes are necessary to get it to your prefect state where it will no longer need changes. So up until that point they should continue to change and tweak things until they hit the magical "no changes needed" point. I see no reason why unit size or composition should be treated as holy ground that cant change. If the game is in such a "dumpster fire" status as you believe then any and all options should be used to make it playable
Once again: these changes are not driven by balance concerns. They are a direct result of what the sprue designer put in a specific box, usually in a completely different edition of the game. If they improve balance it will be purely by coincidence.
That's impossible. Skitarii Rangers and Vanguard can only take 1 of each Special Weapon for balance reasons!
The change isn't made for balance reasons but its simultaneously clear that some units and loadouts, such as command squads, had internal balance issues anyway. I'm not convinced anyone would somehow manage to make all the admin models relevantly priced, as well as making all the special weapons priced to be reasonable against one another.
GW removed that issue in a ham-fisted manner. It's not a problem solved, it's a problem removed.
Jarms48 wrote: I also still hate free weapons because they're clearly not equal. Who is ever going to take a sniper rifle, grenade launcher, or flamer?
So it's not just the options themselves being limited, it's the choices too.
That is still a choice.
That's not a choice, as everyone is just going to take the best option.
Dudeface wrote: The change isn't made for balance reasons but its simultaneously clear that some units and loadouts, such as command squads, had internal balance issues anyway. I'm not convinced anyone would somehow manage to make all the admin models relevantly priced, as well as making all the special weapons priced to be reasonable against one another.
GW removed that issue in a ham-fisted manner. It's not a problem solved, it's a problem removed.
GW doesn't care about internal balance though, they make it clear in their community articles that the aim is 50% win rate at faction level - over perform and get nerfed, under perform get buffed. If a flavour of the month unit is carrying your faction so be it.
Options are being deleted because that is GW's policy, the balance issue people are projecting over this is not being removed, it will be amplified. People will continue to gravitate towards what wins games and if there are fewer options it's just going to make armies even less diverse.
Jarms48 wrote: I also still hate free weapons because they're clearly not equal. Who is ever going to take a sniper rifle, grenade launcher, or flamer?
So it's not just the options themselves being limited, it's the choices too.
That is still a choice.
That's not a choice, as everyone is just going to take the best option.
Or they'll take the ones they like best. I always take flamers, as many as possible.
Insularum wrote: GW doesn't care about internal balance though, they make it clear in their community articles that the aim is 50% win rate at faction level - over perform and get nerfed, under perform get buffed. If a flavour of the month unit is carrying your faction so be it.
Yep. If you saw the rumours, Guard has 5 super OP units for their cost. The rest is trash. Those are:
- Rough Riders: Super OP trade unit. Can do 17.5 wounds to a knight or kill 8 CSM terminators. Doesn't matter if they die. You just slam them into the most expensive unit, butcher it, die.
- Leman Russ: Executioner is the clear winner, TC with Gatekeeper is still great, Vanquisher is next but needs the RR hit trait, regular Battle Tank, then Demolisher. The rest is trash and not worth taking.
- Sentinels: Got even more annoying for their cost. More durable and faster. Don't care about damage. They're for blocking off areas and slowing down opponents.
- Kasrkins and Scions: Got a ton of small buffs, best infantry we have.
Everything else is sadly just okay or bad. These 4 will be what makes Guard win tournaments.
Jarms48 wrote: I also still hate free weapons because they're clearly not equal. Who is ever going to take a sniper rifle, grenade launcher, or flamer?
So it's not just the options themselves being limited, it's the choices too.
That is still a choice.
That's not a choice, as everyone is just going to take the best option.
You're choosing to take the option you've mathematically decided is most efficient.
Dudeface wrote: You're choosing to take the option you've mathematically decided is most efficient.
It's not what I've decided, math is constant.
Also looking at the rumours again, a ton of vehicle upgrades are gone too.
You don't cover every little scenario in your tests, plasma/melta isn't an efficient return against a horde for example, flamers if you're closer will likely bag more hits than either which might be preferable. What you mean is you pick the most versatile with the greatest return against the optimal and numerous targets (marines). The point stands. You're choosing to pick that weapon, nobody is making you, you're not mandated to pick whatever the hotness of the day is, it's a choice.
If there are no horde armies to worry about, and on top of that flamers with their random number of attacks are bad against horde, especialy if it has higher toughness then 3, then taking melta or plasma over the flamer is the better option. There is no choice involved, it is just the better option. Unless of course we assume that making bad picks or playing the units or even armies wrong, is a valid way to play. But what such an argument means in a discussion about rules, validity etc I just don't know. I mean what is next an argument, that the new IG are better, because they are not painted yet, while the older models are probably already painted. And somehow painting is more important then playing the game.
Jarms48 wrote: I also still hate free weapons because they're clearly not equal. Who is ever going to take a sniper rifle, grenade launcher, or flamer?
So it's not just the options themselves being limited, it's the choices too.
Your choices might be limited based on how you choose to play (ex; you're in a tourney & don't have the option to change weapons between games) or collect.
Mine? My options are the same as always.
● I don't play in tourneys.
● I've gone to the effort to have an extra model of each weapon type (including basic lasgun) painted up for each of my squads "special weapons trooper".
● I don't generally play random games. So i almost always know what I'll be facing. Against some foes the trusty plasma/melta will do. Againt others a flamer. Sometimes a sniper rifle....
● I have zero qualms about tailoring my weapon choices vs what I expect to face.
I've done it this way for many years.
The difference between then & now? Now I'm not paying pts per gun.
Sledgehammer wrote: "Patiently waits for a different wargame that focuses on tactics, or for 10th edition"
You won't be able to win at that one either.
Who gives a gak about winning if the game is not enjoyable? Give me a game where better tactics means you will win and i will enjoy it more than 9th ed even if i have a 100% lose rate
Karol wrote: If there are no horde armies to worry about, and on top of that flamers with their random number of attacks are bad against horde, especialy if it has higher toughness then 3, then taking melta or plasma over the flamer is the better option. There is no choice involved, it is just the better option. Unless of course we assume that making bad picks or playing the units or even armies wrong, is a valid way to play. But what such an argument means in a discussion about rules, validity etc I just don't know. I mean what is next an argument, that the new IG are better, because they are not painted yet, while the older models are probably already painted. And somehow painting is more important then playing the game.
please bring all meltas against my horde army, i'll love it
Karol wrote: If there are no horde armies to worry about, and on top of that flamers with their random number of attacks are bad against horde, especialy if it has higher toughness then 3, then taking melta or plasma over the flamer is the better option. There is no choice involved, it is just the better option. Unless of course we assume that making bad picks or playing the units or even armies wrong, is a valid way to play. But what such an argument means in a discussion about rules, validity etc I just don't know. I mean what is next an argument, that the new IG are better, because they are not painted yet, while the older models are probably already painted. And somehow painting is more important then playing the game.
Why would you assume there won't be horde or chaff units to flame? You literally wrote all that after opening "if we discount an entire army type", which is a sure fire way to make certain its poor logic. Making a "bad" pick is valid because how do you define bad?
Sledgehammer wrote: "Patiently waits for a different wargame that focuses on tactics, or for 10th edition"
You won't be able to win at that one either.
Who gives a gak about winning if the game is not enjoyable? Give me a game where better tactics means you will win and i will enjoy it more than 9th ed even if i have a 100% lose rate
I feel like this would be a case of "watch out what you wish for" if it actually came true.
Sledgehammer wrote: "Patiently waits for a different wargame that focuses on tactics, or for 10th edition"
You won't be able to win at that one either.
Who gives a gak about winning if the game is not enjoyable? Give me a game where better tactics means you will win and i will enjoy it more than 9th ed even if i have a 100% lose rate
I feel like this would be a case of "watch out what you wish for" if it actually came true.
?
Like having a game where the factions played have less impact than the tactical skill of the player could ever be a bad thing?
Jarms48 wrote: I also still hate free weapons because they're clearly not equal. Who is ever going to take a sniper rifle, grenade launcher, or flamer?
So it's not just the options themselves being limited, it's the choices too.
Your choices might be limited based on how you choose to play (ex; you're in a tourney & don't have the option to change weapons between games) or collect.
Mine? My options are the same as always.
● I don't play in tourneys.
● I've gone to the effort to have an extra model of each weapon type (including basic lasgun) painted up for each of my squads "special weapons trooper".
● I don't generally play random games. So i almost always know what I'll be facing. Against some foes the trusty plasma/melta will do. Againt others a flamer. Sometimes a sniper rifle....
● I have zero qualms about tailoring my weapon choices vs what I expect to face.
I've done it this way for many years.
The difference between then & now? Now I'm not paying pts per gun.
What are you using Sniper Rifles to tailor for LOL
At the end of the day, ANY special weapon (besides the Sniper) is an upgrade, and any squad with it is better than a squad without it, yes?
Sledgehammer wrote: "Patiently waits for a different wargame that focuses on tactics, or for 10th edition"
You won't be able to win at that one either.
Who gives a gak about winning if the game is not enjoyable? Give me a game where better tactics means you will win and i will enjoy it more than 9th ed even if i have a 100% lose rate
I feel like this would be a case of "watch out what you wish for" if it actually came true.
?
Like having a game where the factions played have less impact than the tactical skill of the player could ever be a bad thing?
Of course! In fact, that approach (emphasis on player skill) leads to the single most unfun game type: the sweaty one. I'm not even sure why you guys are up in arms vs 9th ed here, it is, actually, pretty close to what you want. I mean, like it or not stacking buffs into the stratosphere and setting up huge "gotcha" moments is (a kind of) tactical skill. You are basically wishing for 9th ed on overdrive.
9e is won by list stage. Not tactics. So 9e is super far from what he wish. Especially if you look at tournament try-hard lists whose guiding principle is "make player input irrelevant"
tneva82 wrote: 9e is won by list stage. Not tactics. So 9e is super far from what he wish. Especially if you look at tournament try-hard lists whose guiding principle is "make player input irrelevant"
I think a lot of casual lists try and do this as well, just tend to be worse at it.
Sometimes it’s a fun but awful unit that needs it to get any fun from it :(
GW design has also been a huge contribution to this. If I didn’t have fondness for the setting I wouldn’t be dragging my face though 9e
AtoMaki wrote: Of course! In fact, that approach (emphasis on player skill) leads to the single most unfun game type: the sweaty one.
Um, what? How does an emphasis on player skill lead to "the single most unfun game type"?
I'm not even sure why you guys are up in arms vs 9th ed here, it is, actually, pretty close to what you want. I mean, like it or not stacking buffs into the stratosphere and setting up huge "gotcha" moments is (a kind of) tactical skill. You are basically wishing for 9th ed on overdrive.
Lol no. 9th edition buff stacking is "tactical skill" like knowing that 1+1=2 is math skill. Yes, by the strictest literal definition of the term it technically is. But it's an incredibly low level of skill where the correct answer is almost always obvious to anyone who isn't a newbie and the decision trees have all the depth of a puddle. It doesn't take a tactical genius (CREEEEEEEEEED!!!!!!) to know that yes, you should probably use the fight twice stratagem on your best melee unit every turn and it's even better if you stack it with the stratagem that gives double strength and the other stratagem that gives re-rolls to hit and wound. Or that maybe, just maybe, the weapon that does 12 mortal wounds on a 6 to hit might be a good combination with the character buff that gives you an automatic 6 to hit.
Honest question: have you ever played a non-GW game? If so, could you tell me which games and how much experience you had with them?
Jarms48 wrote: I also still hate free weapons because they're clearly not equal. Who is ever going to take a sniper rifle, grenade launcher, or flamer?
So it's not just the options themselves being limited, it's the choices too.
Your choices might be limited based on how you choose to play (ex; you're in a tourney & don't have the option to change weapons between games) or collect.
Mine? My options are the same as always.
● I don't play in tourneys.
● I've gone to the effort to have an extra model of each weapon type (including basic lasgun) painted up for each of my squads "special weapons trooper".
● I don't generally play random games. So i almost always know what I'll be facing. Against some foes the trusty plasma/melta will do. Againt others a flamer. Sometimes a sniper rifle....
● I have zero qualms about tailoring my weapon choices vs what I expect to face.
I've done it this way for many years.
The difference between then & now? Now I'm not paying pts per gun.
What are you using Sniper Rifles to tailor for LOL
Forces that like their character models - GSC, SoB, other Guard. One particular UltraMarine (very annoying with all his medics, standard, LT, etc).
At least the ones I play against. Players of these forces in your area might not rely as heavily upon these characters, but I'm only concerned with who/what I play against.
I'll grant you that a Guard sniper rifle isn't the best weapon. But it's what I've got for the job I'm using it for & I'll just have to fish for 6s & hope the targets fail saves....
Forces that like their character models - GSC, SoB, other Guard. One particular UltraMarine (very annoying with all his medics, standard, LT, etc).
At least the ones I play against. Players of these forces in your area might not rely as heavily upon these characters, but I'm only concerned with who/what I play against.
I'll grant you that a Guard sniper rifle isn't the best weapon. But it's what I've got for the job I'm using it for & I'll just have to fish for 6s & hope the targets fail saves....
i litterally have never killed a single character using snipers lol, that whole class of weapons is so terrible and fails to do its job.
Thadin wrote: IIRC, the best sniper in the game for 8th and mmmmaybe 9th? Was an Autarch with the Dark reaper's missile launcher and the WLT to target characters.
Yeah my point more being that the best sniper wasn't a sniper, it was a damn missile launcher
I liked running Eliminators in my not-terribly-competitive Ultramarines list. An annoying roadbump that can deploy in annoying spots potentially, with an okay threat to characters or vehicles depending on loadout. Also liked them when Aggressors and custodes or other 3 wound stuff was hot in my meta.
It would be nice to make snipers suitably threatening at their specific job, with an appropriate points cost to match. I feel like that the good sniper units have also been good at roles other than killing characters.
Jarms48 wrote: I also still hate free weapons because they're clearly not equal. Who is ever going to take a sniper rifle, grenade launcher, or flamer?
So it's not just the options themselves being limited, it's the choices too.
Your choices might be limited based on how you choose to play (ex; you're in a tourney & don't have the option to change weapons between games) or collect.
Mine? My options are the same as always.
● I don't play in tourneys.
● I've gone to the effort to have an extra model of each weapon type (including basic lasgun) painted up for each of my squads "special weapons trooper".
● I don't generally play random games. So i almost always know what I'll be facing. Against some foes the trusty plasma/melta will do. Againt others a flamer. Sometimes a sniper rifle....
● I have zero qualms about tailoring my weapon choices vs what I expect to face.
I've done it this way for many years.
The difference between then & now? Now I'm not paying pts per gun.
What are you using Sniper Rifles to tailor for LOL
Forces that like their character models - GSC, SoB, other Guard. One particular UltraMarine (very annoying with all his medics, standard, LT, etc).
At least the ones I play against. Players of these forces in your area might not rely as heavily upon these characters, but I'm only concerned with who/what I play against.
I'll grant you that a Guard sniper rifle isn't the best weapon. But it's what I've got for the job I'm using it for & I'll just have to fish for 6s & hope the targets fail saves....
What you described is attempted tailoring and actually realizing the weapon sucks for that job.
So I'll reiterate: what are you using Sniper Rifles to tailor for LOL
AtoMaki wrote: You can hate it all you want, but this is all player skill. Sure, it is indeed as deep as a puddle, but making it deeper will NOT make it magically more enjoyable, it will just make the meta harder to figure out for, like, the first two weeks or so.
When people ask for a deeper game, they mean one that is less solvable and forces players to make heuristic decisions based on aggregated game state. Not one where the solution is simply obfuscated, and a mathematically optimal strategy exists but takes longer to figure out. You seem to be confusing complexity for depth; they're not synonymous, and increasing complexity can very well fail to increase depth, as we've seen in 9th.
AtoMaki wrote: You can hate it all you want, but this is all player skill. Sure, it is indeed as deep as a puddle, but making it deeper will NOT make it magically more enjoyable, it will just make the meta harder to figure out for, like, the first two weeks or so.
When people ask for a deeper game, they mean one that is less solvable and forces players to make heuristic decisions based on aggregated game state.
I know that. I'm just pointing out that stacking buffs is an aggregative game already, so their wishes here might be kind of misplaced. I would be on a different opinion if we were talking about a card game where perfect information is not a given, but we are not, so ...
I know that. I'm just pointing out that stacking buffs is an aggregative game already, so their wishes here might be kind of misplaced. I would be on a different opinion if we were talking about a card game where perfect information is not a given, but we are not, so ...
No, you're just playing some inane monkey paw game where you pretend that "we want more depth and for player skill to matter" means "we want a shallow game that has more complicated dice math optimization calculations to solve".
I was considering the possibility that you genuinely held this point of view because you have only played GW games and are unfamiliar with how good games can create depth that can't be solved in the list building phase but since you claim to have a lot of experience with other games the only remaining conclusion is that you are doing this deliberately.
Thadin wrote: Yeah my point more being that the best sniper wasn't a sniper, it was a damn missile launcher
I liked running Eliminators in my not-terribly-competitive Ultramarines list. An annoying roadbump that can deploy in annoying spots potentially, with an okay threat to characters or vehicles depending on loadout. Also liked them when Aggressors and custodes or other 3 wound stuff was hot in my meta.
It would be nice to make snipers suitably threatening at their specific job, with an appropriate points cost to match. I feel like that the good sniper units have also been good at roles other than killing characters.
yeah, snipers need a buff. They should also be able to target specific models in units IMO
Aecus Decimus wrote: "we want more depth and for player skill to matter" means "we want a shallow game that has more complicated dice math optimization calculations to solve".
That's a nice strawman you've got there. Good thing I have already referred to the opposite in my above post where I specifically mentioned depth and did not mention dice math - for a reason, because unlike what you try to put into my mouth, I'm fully aware of the difference.
Aecus Decimus wrote: "we want more depth and for player skill to matter" means "we want a shallow game that has more complicated dice math optimization calculations to solve".
That's a nice strawman you've got there. Good thing I have already referred to the opposite in my above post where I specifically mentioned depth and did not mention dice math - for a reason, because unlike what you try to put into my mouth, I'm fully aware of the difference.
Sure, it is indeed as deep as a puddle, but making it deeper will NOT make it magically more enjoyable, it will just make the meta harder to figure out for, like, the first two weeks or so. -You
Genuine depth that is not just complicated dice math can't be figured out in list building and meta analysis because it happens with on-table decisions that can't be known in advance. Since you are talking about solving the game before it even begins and exploiting rule interactions as "skill" the only possible conclusion is that you are dishonestly using the word "depth" to refer to dice math complexity.
Aecus Decimus wrote: Since you are talking about solving the game before it even begins
I didn't say that anywhere in the part you quoted. I didn't even say anything about list building. Where do you even get these things? Especially the dice math. I could understand if you just said "math" because sure, I was indeed thinking about game theory, but dice math?
Aecus Decimus wrote: the only possible conclusion is that you are dishonestly using the word "depth" to refer to dice math complexity
That's a... really-really misplaced conclusion. Kinda like this whole wishing for more depth and greater emphasis on player skill to achieve fun, really.
Sorry, I'm not interested in discussing this any further with you when you have demonstrated very clearly that you are not arguing in good faith and see this whole thing as some inane monkey paw game.
VladimirHerzog wrote: i litterally have never killed a single character using snipers lol, that whole class of weapons is so terrible and fails to do its job.
Snipers in 40k are counter-intuitive to how snipers really work.
To get snipers to work in 40k you need batteries of them - whole units opening up on a single target - to cause damage. At some points in their history, 40k sniper weapons have been more adept at taking out high toughness targets like Wraithlords than the targets they should be aiming for (key personnel and HQ units).
VladimirHerzog wrote: i litterally have never killed a single character using snipers lol, that whole class of weapons is so terrible and fails to do its job.
Snipers in 40k are counter-intuitive to how snipers really work.
To get snipers to work in 40k you need batteries of them - whole units opening up on a single target - to cause damage. At some points in their history, 40k sniper weapons have been more adept at taking out high toughness targets like Wraithlords than the targets they should be aiming for (key personnel and HQ units).
The Vindicare I'd argue is okay since there's a cheap Strat to let him shoot at two different targets, and mortal wounds from the Headshot rule add up.
VladimirHerzog wrote: i litterally have never killed a single character using snipers lol, that whole class of weapons is so terrible and fails to do its job.
Snipers in 40k are counter-intuitive to how snipers really work.
To get snipers to work in 40k you need batteries of them - whole units opening up on a single target - to cause damage.
In fairness, that's not inherently bad. I mean, if a single Sniper Rifle could reliably take down a character, then a few Ratling squads would probably clear your opponent's entire HQ section on turn 1.
The issue is that GW seems to have a weird fetish for making a battery weapon a 1-per-squad option. We see this with stuff like Command Squads which can take one - and only one - Sniper Rifle. This is both ineffective and also likely to be counter-productive to what the rest of the squad wants to be doing (i.e. moving).
It's also by no means a unique problem. Dark Eldar, for example, can take a 1/unit Heavy Sniper Rifle . . . but only on a melee squad.
(And don't even get me started on the DE Relic Sniper weapon with a range of just 18" that struggles to kill even a Platoon Commander. But don't worry, GW buffed it in 9th... by removing its ability to ignore Line of Sight. )
I'd hazard a guess that the reason for making Sniper weapons terrible is because GW presumably thinks that having your characters sniped isn't much fun. However, this does raise the question of why they continue not only to keep include them but also to include rules that let you turn non-Sniper weapons into Snipers.
VladimirHerzog wrote: i litterally have never killed a single character using snipers lol, that whole class of weapons is so terrible and fails to do its job.
Snipers in 40k are counter-intuitive to how snipers really work.
To get snipers to work in 40k you need batteries of them - whole units opening up on a single target - to cause damage.
In fairness, that's not inherently bad. I mean, if a single Sniper Rifle could reliably take down a character, then a few Ratling squads would probably clear your opponent's entire HQ section on turn 1.
The issue is that GW seems to have a weird fetish for making a battery weapon a 1-per-squad option. We see this with stuff like Command Squads which can take one - and only one - Sniper Rifle. This is both ineffective and also likely to be counter-productive to what the rest of the squad wants to be doing (i.e. moving).
It's also by no means a unique problem. Dark Eldar, for example, can take a 1/unit Heavy Sniper Rifle . . . but only on a melee squad.
(And don't even get me started on the DE Relic Sniper weapon with a range of just 18" that struggles to kill even a Platoon Commander. But don't worry, GW buffed it in 9th... by removing its ability to ignore Line of Sight. )
I'd hazard a guess that the reason for making Sniper weapons terrible is because GW presumably thinks that having your characters sniped isn't much fun. However, this does raise the question of why they continue not only to keep include them but also to include rules that let you turn non-Sniper weapons into Snipers.
If you hadn't noticed, most relic "Sniper" weapons or those that ignore LoS won't kill a Platoon Officer in one go.
Thadin wrote: Yeah my point more being that the best sniper wasn't a sniper, it was a damn missile launcher
I liked running Eliminators in my not-terribly-competitive Ultramarines list. An annoying roadbump that can deploy in annoying spots potentially, with an okay threat to characters or vehicles depending on loadout. Also liked them when Aggressors and custodes or other 3 wound stuff was hot in my meta.
It would be nice to make snipers suitably threatening at their specific job, with an appropriate points cost to match. I feel like that the good sniper units have also been good at roles other than killing characters.
yeah, snipers need a buff. They should also be able to target specific models in units IMO
Having that ability would absolutely make snipers useful, especially in a game where that ability is very tactically advantageous. I know that for a fact. My guys don't go anywhere without their Nemesis bolter equipped Recon marines.
The problem is GW thinks sniper rifles are cool, but we can’t have sniper rifles doing what we want them to do without making them astronomically expensive. Do you want a 100 point sniper rifle?
I remember when Marbo was the best "sniper" unit in the game. Oh wait, that's now. His character targeting pistol and ability to Deploy-Shoot-charge-redeploy makes him stupidly powerful for only 50 points.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: I remember when Marbo was the best "sniper" unit in the game. Oh wait, that's now. His character targeting pistol and ability to Deploy-Shoot-charge-redeploy makes him stupidly powerful for only 50 points.
I also love that his knife is better than most Power Weapon options.
AtoMaki wrote: That's a... really-really misplaced conclusion. Kinda like this whole wishing for more depth and greater emphasis on player skill to achieve fun, really.
Nope, it's great. Depth (i.e. more meaningful decisions, and no, calculating optimum buff layering isn't a meaningful decision) makes for more fun games.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
vipoid wrote: I'd hazard a guess that the reason for making Sniper weapons terrible is because GW presumably thinks that having your characters sniped isn't much fun. However, this does raise the question of why they continue not only to keep include them but also to include rules that let you turn non-Sniper weapons into Snipers.
Based off the situation with the Kellermorph I think they only get worried when Astartes players have an NPE in that way.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: I remember when Marbo was the best "sniper" unit in the game. Oh wait, that's now. His character targeting pistol and ability to Deploy-Shoot-charge-redeploy makes him stupidly powerful for only 50 points.
I also love that his knife is better than most Power Weapon options.
To be fair, Marbo's stats are massively nerfed compared to His power in the fluff. It sucks that His weapons are a bit underwhelming but if you put a fluff-accurate Marbo into the tabletop game it would completely wreck the meta.
ccs wrote: Forces that like their character models - GSC, SoB, other Guard. One particular UltraMarine (very annoying with all his medics, standard, LT, etc).
At least the ones I play against. Players of these forces in your area might not rely as heavily upon these characters, but I'm only concerned with who/what I play against.
I'll grant you that a Guard sniper rifle isn't the best weapon. But it's what I've got for the job I'm using it for & I'll just have to fish for 6s & hope the targets fail saves....
Have you ever actually killed a character using your sniper rifle? None of those targets are likely to die to a sniper rifle over the course of an entire game if they're specifically targeted every turn, never mind the 1 or 2 shots you're likely to be able to take at them in reality.
This is the point I think you've missed. The sniper rifle is a bad choice of weapon to take because it absolutely sucks at...well, everything. It's a non-choice because it doesn't even fill the role it's supposed to due to terrible rules. It's the inverse of the "just spam plasma" approach, and just as bad for the game because of it. The solution shouldn't be to make bad choices available, but to try to make all choices equally valid through a combination of rules and cost. I'm all for thematic and fluffy choices in list building, but when they are so bad at their job they actively break immersion something has gone wrong.
alextroy wrote: The problem is GW thinks sniper rifles are cool, but we can’t have sniper rifles doing what we want them to do without making them astronomically expensive. Do you want a 100 point sniper rifle?
You've just described a Vindicare Assassin. 100 points, cool sniper rifle, still sucks at its job.
alextroy wrote: The problem is GW thinks sniper rifles are cool, but we can’t have sniper rifles doing what we want them to do without making them astronomically expensive. Do you want a 100 point sniper rifle?
You don't need to make snipers super expensive for them to work..... It's ok if they can actually threaten characters, forces your opponent to be smart and hide his character behind terrain/bodyguards. Why is it acceptable that litterally every other unit type can be vaporised trivially but characters should be untouchable?
To be fair, Marbo's stats are massively nerfed compared to His power in the fluff. It sucks that His weapons are a bit underwhelming but if you put a fluff-accurate Marbo into the tabletop game it would completely wreck the meta.
if you put a fluff-accurate anything into the tabletop game, it would wreck the meta
alextroy wrote: The problem is GW thinks sniper rifles are cool, but we can’t have sniper rifles doing what we want them to do without making them astronomically expensive. Do you want a 100 point sniper rifle?
You've just described a Vindicare Assassin. 100 points, cool sniper rifle, still sucks at its job.
Sniper units are imo near impossible to balance, too much power is cooped up in character auras these day. Removing that character and bypassing their LoS protection is a very powerful thing and being too good at it just makes feelbads for people. Instead you're left having Snipers tickle things mostly because it's too lopsided otherwise.
I tend to think sniper units are reasonably balanced. They tend to have okay maths into their respective targets. Unfortunately they are bad into everything else. And since there's a lot of "everything else" and its not overly difficult to just keep a lynchpin character behind a wall for a couple of turns, they don't see much competitive play.
But I'm unclear on "how good" they should be. I don't think you should be able to go "right, I've put 4 snipers into my guardsmen squads, now I'm going to pop 50-100 point characters every turn".
Tyel wrote: I tend to think sniper units are reasonably balanced. They tend to have okay maths into their respective targets. Unfortunately they are bad into everything else. And since there's a lot of "everything else" and its not overly difficult to just keep a lynchpin character behind a wall for a couple of turns, they don't see much competitive play.
But I'm unclear on "how good" they should be. I don't think you should be able to go "right, I've put 4 snipers into my guardsmen squads, now I'm going to pop 50-100 point characters every turn".
"Okay math into their respective targets"
What? Can you run these calculations for me because i'm pretty sure a 5 man sniper team would have a hard time killing any character that isnt a warlock/commissar
GW has always had issues with single shot weapons, especially since we're only relegated to using a D6 so it's very limited on what you can do to make it reliable enough to make it count without feeling like it has to basically borderline autopass and do guaranteed damage each turn to make it worth it. It's part of the reason why GW had to uptune railguns and now vanquisher cannons to have the current stats they have now, and that's just to take out tanks.
I feel snipers need to have more utility than just their ability to 360 no scope characters. If GW had a proper morale mechanic with nuance and a proper suppression system, I could see snipers being able to consistently "suppress" a unit, with higher level snipers like Vindicares being able to suppress HQ level units to prevent their aura and other command phase abilities from going off, so even if they don't kill them outright, they can do some sort of impact that isn't based on making up their points cost in kills. Hard to give out commands or prayers when you're getting shot at mid-sentence.
alextroy wrote: The problem is GW thinks sniper rifles are cool, but we can’t have sniper rifles doing what we want them to do without making them astronomically expensive. Do you want a 100 point sniper rifle?
You've just described a Vindicare Assassin. 100 points, cool sniper rifle, still sucks at its job.
I'd say he's mediocre, not terrible. Cheap strat to shoot another target and the mortal wounds add up.
EviscerationPlague wrote: If you hadn't noticed, most relic "Sniper" weapons or those that ignore LoS won't kill a Platoon Officer in one go.
Oh absolutely. What irked me, though, was that GW took an already bad weapon and decided it needed to lose one of the few advantages it had (as well as the 'cool factor' of being able to shoot through walls).
Tbh, I think a lot of relic Sniper weapons suffer from the same problem as the Vanquisher Cannon and other big anti-tank weapons, in that they simply don't seem suited to the targets they're supposedly designed to kill.
I feel snipers need to have more utility than just there to 360 no scope characters. If GW had a proper morale mechanic with nuance and a proper suppression system, I could see snipers being able to consistently "suppress" a unit, with higher level snipers like Vindicares being able to suppress HQ level units to prevent their aura and other command phase abilities from going off, so even if they don't kill them outright, they can do some sort of impact that isn't based on making up their points cost in kills. Hard to give out commands or prayers when you're getting shot at mid-sentence.
That's a good point. IIRC, snipers used to cause Pinning, back when morale wasn't just a lose-more mechanic.
I do also agree with the suggestion above that allowing snipers to target individual models in units might also give them a role in terms of taking out sergeants and special weapons.
What? Can you run these calculations for me because i'm pretty sure a 5 man sniper team would have a hard time killing any character that isnt a warlock/commissar
Well... lets take Eldar Rangers. 13 points a model.
Picking a target is harder. But Idk, lets say a Master of Possession. 105 points without a mark.
Well rangers expect to do 5/36 mortal wounds and 5/36 regular damage each shot. So theoretically you'd need 18 to do the 5 wounds.
18*13=234 points. 105/234=44.8% return. Seems reasonable enough to me.
You could argue this is a bit unfair (the rangers would likely have to move, the MoP could have some defensive buffs, but then you could buff the rangers etc) - but that's the baseline numbers if you stuck the rangers in a good spot and could just pop the character as he jogs across the table.
But are you going to take 18 rangers on the off-chance you can nuke your opponent's MoP? Probably not. But I think this is because of the issues mentioned - the Chaos player would just keep the MOP safely behind the wall. But this applies equally for hiding any units from any guns.
I feel if 5 Rangers at 65 points could even vaguely reliably pop characters costing 65, let alone 100 points in a shooting phase, there would be balance concerns.
Jarms48 wrote: I also still hate free weapons because they're clearly not equal. Who is ever going to take a sniper rifle, grenade launcher, or flamer?
So it's not just the options themselves being limited, it's the choices too.
Your choices might be limited based on how you choose to play (ex; you're in a tourney & don't have the option to change weapons between games) or collect.
Mine? My options are the same as always.
● I don't play in tourneys.
● I've gone to the effort to have an extra model of each weapon type (including basic lasgun) painted up for each of my squads "special weapons trooper".
● I don't generally play random games. So i almost always know what I'll be facing. Against some foes the trusty plasma/melta will do. Againt others a flamer. Sometimes a sniper rifle....
● I have zero qualms about tailoring my weapon choices vs what I expect to face.
I've done it this way for many years.
The difference between then & now? Now I'm not paying pts per gun.
What are you using Sniper Rifles to tailor for LOL
Forces that like their character models - GSC, SoB, other Guard. One particular UltraMarine (very annoying with all his medics, standard, LT, etc).
At least the ones I play against. Players of these forces in your area might not rely as heavily upon these characters, but I'm only concerned with who/what I play against.
I'll grant you that a Guard sniper rifle isn't the best weapon. But it's what I've got for the job I'm using it for & I'll just have to fish for 6s & hope the targets fail saves....
[spoiler]
What you described is attempted tailoring and actually realizing the weapon sucks for that job.
So I'll reiterate: what are you using Sniper Rifles to tailor for LOL
What am I targeting? GSC characters, SoB characters, Guard characters, and now & then some UM characters.
It's worked well enough for me to date & I'll be sad if/when I can't use multiples in vet/command/special weapon squads anymore.
On admitting Guard sniper rifles aren't the best weapon (I was thinking specifically within the sniper rifle category)? It's true, they'd be better if they had even a pt of AP like many others in other factions. But nothing I can do about that, so....
On the fishing for 6's & hoping for failed saves? That's not anything particular to the sniper rifle. Any weapon in any army I play that has effects that trigger on x#? Well, I hope I roll that #. Same with hoping the target fails their save
What? Can you run these calculations for me because i'm pretty sure a 5 man sniper team would have a hard time killing any character that isnt a warlock/commissar
Well... lets take Eldar Rangers. 13 points a model.
Picking a target is harder. But Idk, lets say a Master of Possession. 105 points without a mark.
Well rangers expect to do 5/36 mortal wounds and 5/36 regular damage each shot. So theoretically you'd need 18 to do the 5 wounds.
18*13=234 points. 105/234=44.8% return. Seems reasonable enough to me.
You could argue this is a bit unfair (the rangers would likely have to move, the MoP could have some defensive buffs, but then you could buff the rangers etc) - but that's the baseline numbers if you stuck the rangers in a good spot and could just pop the character as he jogs across the table.
But are you going to take 18 rangers on the off-chance you can nuke your opponent's MoP? Probably not. But I think this is because of the issues mentioned - the Chaos player would just keep the MOP safely behind the wall. But this applies equally for hiding any units from any guns.
I feel if 5 Rangers at 65 points could even vaguely reliably pop characters costing 65, let alone 100 points in a shooting phase, there would be balance concerns.
5/6 chance to hit, 1/6 chance of mortal wounds is 5/36 mortal wounds each and then 1/2 to wound so 5/12 wounds, of which half are saved so 5/24 damage. 0.21 damage + 0.14 MW = 0.35 wounds each or 14 rangers by my reckoning?
Jarms48 wrote: I also still hate free weapons because they're clearly not equal. Who is ever going to take a sniper rifle, grenade launcher, or flamer?
So it's not just the options themselves being limited, it's the choices too.
Your choices might be limited based on how you choose to play (ex; you're in a tourney & don't have the option to change weapons between games) or collect.
Mine? My options are the same as always.
● I don't play in tourneys.
● I've gone to the effort to have an extra model of each weapon type (including basic lasgun) painted up for each of my squads "special weapons trooper".
● I don't generally play random games. So i almost always know what I'll be facing. Against some foes the trusty plasma/melta will do. Againt others a flamer. Sometimes a sniper rifle....
● I have zero qualms about tailoring my weapon choices vs what I expect to face.
I've done it this way for many years.
The difference between then & now? Now I'm not paying pts per gun.
What are you using Sniper Rifles to tailor for LOL
Forces that like their character models - GSC, SoB, other Guard. One particular UltraMarine (very annoying with all his medics, standard, LT, etc).
At least the ones I play against. Players of these forces in your area might not rely as heavily upon these characters, but I'm only concerned with who/what I play against.
I'll grant you that a Guard sniper rifle isn't the best weapon. But it's what I've got for the job I'm using it for & I'll just have to fish for 6s & hope the targets fail saves....
[spoiler]
What you described is attempted tailoring and actually realizing the weapon sucks for that job.
So I'll reiterate: what are you using Sniper Rifles to tailor for LOL
What am I targeting? GSC characters, SoB characters, Guard characters, and now & then some UM characters.
Someone already mathed out you need 15 Rangers to kill a Marine character. Please tell me you don't think that even 10 Sniper Rifles from Imperial Guard are going to do anything like "sniping some UM characters".
Dudeface wrote: 5/6 chance to hit, 1/6 chance of mortal wounds is 5/36 mortal wounds each and then 1/2 to wound so 5/12 wounds, of which half are saved so 5/24 damage. 0.21 damage + 0.14 MW = 0.35 wounds each or 14 rangers by my reckoning?
Dudeface wrote: 5/6 chance to hit, 1/6 chance of mortal wounds is 5/36 mortal wounds each and then 1/2 to wound so 5/12 wounds, of which half are saved so 5/24 damage. 0.21 damage + 0.14 MW = 0.35 wounds each or 14 rangers by my reckoning?
I dunno, aren't Eliminators, or whatever the Primaris Sniper scout unit is, one of the best (points efficient) units in their entire lineup? Also their Troops choice that gets sniper weapons, Infiltrators? Also, the Primaris Captain in Phobos armor with the sniper rifle has a 3 dam character targeting sniper rifle thats S4 AP2 3d. That's not bad for 95 points. BS2+ with re-rolls.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: I dunno, aren't Eliminators, or whatever the Primaris Sniper scout unit is, one of the best (points efficient) units in their entire lineup? Also their Troops choice that gets sniper weapons, Infiltrators? Also, the Primaris Captain in Phobos armor with the sniper rifle has a 3 dam character targeting sniper rifle thats S4 AP2 3d. That's not bad for 95 points. BS2+ with re-rolls.
This is just a worse Vindicator, which as I said earlier isn't great either.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: I dunno, aren't Eliminators, or whatever the Primaris Sniper scout unit is, one of the best (points efficient) units in their entire lineup? Also their Troops choice that gets sniper weapons, Infiltrators? Also, the Primaris Captain in Phobos armor with the sniper rifle has a 3 dam character targeting sniper rifle thats S4 AP2 3d. That's not bad for 95 points. BS2+ with re-rolls.
Eliminators were good in the 8.5 Codex (along with a lot of SM units). They're pretty much trash now as a shooting unit, mainly because they neutered their weapons. They have some movement tricks, so you sometimes see them for that. No SM Troops choice gets sniper weapons. The Phobos Captain is a meme at best. He can get up to Damage 4 with the right Warlord Trait but he can't re-roll unless it's from a Chapter Master and has no weapon options.
The las talons ones, are one of the better marine units. The thing is, being one of the better marine units doesn't put you high on the pile of good units over all. Most marine units are like that.
I'd actually look at the Command Squads more as a utility buffer now... Banner, Medkit, Vox, free ablative wound... I'd rather not add anything extra to it to draw further fire...
.
.
. But jokes aside, if MyDudes are indeed run by the 4 cheapest guardsmen with the biggest guns then what? It is as lore accurate as your vox+medic+banner squad, no telling which one is "better" because the official fluff won't judge us either way.
