Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I'm looking forward to the second wave of Primaris I have to admit. they are way too restrictive at the moment. DW is the only place where they can shine as is.

 Stormonu wrote:
When I first saw the Primaris Aggressors, I did think they were basically Terminators - wouldn't mind if they were, just give them the 2+ save (and maybe an invuln save).

What I do like is they look like someone was smart enough to strap the guns to the forearms and give them dual powerfists. I guess Calgar finally let Cawl peek at the blueprints for his armor, or someone noticed the Grey Knights were keeping their hands free.

Of course, they got wholly outdone by Custodes...

they fill a TOTALLY differant role from what the entire custodes armory fills. Custodes are pretty much your "anti elites" (in fact Custodes are almost the perfect tool to crush a Primaris force) whereas agressors are more anti-hoard.

w1zard wrote:

But for a game that is supposed to be taken seriously and supposedly played competitively...

Boy, have I got news for you...

GW's own admission is that they're a model company first. It would be very poor business for a model company to invalidate its own models, no matter the era.

 Fafnir wrote:

w1zard wrote:

But for a game that is supposed to be taken seriously and supposedly played competitively...

Boy, have I got news for you...

GW's own admission is that they're a model company first. It would be very poor business for a model company to invalidate its own models, no matter the era.

Also GW has never really taken 40k as anything more then a for fun beer and pretzels game.

w1zard wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

w1zard wrote:
Terrible Primaris lore exists because GW needed to shoehorn Primaris marines into the lore somehow. They didn't have the testicular fortitude to say "We are redoing the entire space marine line in truescale. You can use your oldscale marines until we make truescale replacements for that particular unit, at which point those models will become illegal in matched play."

Or maybe even "We are redoing marines as truescale, go ahead and use the oldscale equivalent for the models we release because all our models since rogue trader have slowly grown in size and impressiveness and theres no reason we should dick over our existing fanbase this time in particular".

Can't do that. Having two different legal models of differing sizes for the same unit isn't going to fly. Especially when it may make a difference, like peeking over terrain.

or you mean like when they make a new kit for terminators that's nearly 1.5 times the size and with bases twice as large?

Remember how that ruined competitive balance forever?

the_scotsman wrote:

or you mean like when they make a new kit for terminators that's nearly 1.5 times the size and with bases twice as large?

Remember how that ruined competitive balance forever?

Changing something is fine, especially when a model line gets updated. But keeping both the smaller models and the larger ones legal to run in matched play at the same time is just really dumb IMO. People are going to use that to model to advantage. Not only that it is unfair mechanically considering base size actually has an effect on how assault is resolved. That's why the rule exists that the model needs to run the base that it comes with. There should be another rule that says if a model line is updated and its size is drastically changed, you need to update your models to the new one, or at the VERY LEAST change your bases to the new one that is current for that datasheet.

w1zard wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

or you mean like when they make a new kit for terminators that's nearly 1.5 times the size and with bases twice as large?

Remember how that ruined competitive balance forever?

Changing something is fine, especially when a model line gets updated. But keeping both the smaller models and the larger ones legal to run in matched play at the same time is just really dumb IMO. People are going to use that to model to advantage. Not only that it is unfair mechanically considering base size actually has an effect on how assault is resolved. That's why the rule exists that the model needs to run the base that it comes with. There should be another rule that says if a model line is updated and its size is drastically changed, you need to update your models to the new one, or at the VERY LEAST change your bases to the new one that is current for that datasheet.

So you think invalidating customers' purchases, which they might have made very recently to such a change, is ok?

This is the thing - tournament level competitive play is not the core demagraphic for 40k. It's meant to be a casual game played between friends. Making a model someone has legitimately bought and spent time lovingly painting obsolete is something GW are strongly against, and I support that even if there are some cons for the competitive scene.

w1zard wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

or you mean like when they make a new kit for terminators that's nearly 1.5 times the size and with bases twice as large?

Remember how that ruined competitive balance forever?

Changing something is fine, especially when a model line gets updated. But keeping both the smaller models and the larger ones legal to run in matched play at the same time is just really dumb IMO. People are going to use that to model to advantage. Not only that it is unfair mechanically considering base size actually has an effect on how assault is resolved. That's why the rule exists that the model needs to run the base that it comes with. There should be another rule that says if a model line is updated and its size is drastically changed, you need to update your models to the new one, or at the VERY LEAST change your bases to the new one that is current for that datasheet.

You mean like how we have this big enormous problem with people using old terminators, old dark eldar grotesques, old cardboard ork deff dreads, old 25mm avatars of khaine, old tiny bloodthirsters etc in competitive play?

Oh right, we don't have that problem. Even though all these models exist and are competitively legal.

You guys can argue over if GW should allow old models or not, or if theyre a model company first, or if they should allow old models in tournaments or whatever.

But the fact of the matter is (to my knowledge) GW has not said anywhere that you can't use older models, so any arguement on what you think their position SHOULD be is irrelevant to a discussion on if I can use my old trukks or not.

the_scotsman wrote:

w1zard wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

or you mean like when they make a new kit for terminators that's nearly 1.5 times the size and with bases twice as large?

Remember how that ruined competitive balance forever?

Changing something is fine, especially when a model line gets updated. But keeping both the smaller models and the larger ones legal to run in matched play at the same time is just really dumb IMO. People are going to use that to model to advantage. Not only that it is unfair mechanically considering base size actually has an effect on how assault is resolved. That's why the rule exists that the model needs to run the base that it comes with. There should be another rule that says if a model line is updated and its size is drastically changed, you need to update your models to the new one, or at the VERY LEAST change your bases to the new one that is current for that datasheet.

You mean like how we have this big enormous problem with people using old terminators, old dark eldar grotesques, old cardboard ork deff dreads, old 25mm avatars of khaine, old tiny bloodthirsters etc in competitive play?

Oh right, we don't have that problem. Even though all these models exist and are competitively legal.

Yeah, I can't think of it ever being an issue for a major tournament having players running old models for advantage. Top players in tournament circuits tend to go for new armies often enough that old models are just not practical to begin with, and in less competitive circles, GW's new models tend to be enough of an improvement that most players jump on to the new ones pretty quickly anyway. It's a non-issue that regulating would just end up causing more problems for GW than leaving it.

Also, W1zard, I did point out that most events run with the stipulation that base sizes do indeed have to be updated to match the current standard. AoS 2nd is even coming with a base size guide with its General's Handbook.

 Fafnir wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

w1zard wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

or you mean like when they make a new kit for terminators that's nearly 1.5 times the size and with bases twice as large?

Remember how that ruined competitive balance forever?

Changing something is fine, especially when a model line gets updated. But keeping both the smaller models and the larger ones legal to run in matched play at the same time is just really dumb IMO. People are going to use that to model to advantage. Not only that it is unfair mechanically considering base size actually has an effect on how assault is resolved. That's why the rule exists that the model needs to run the base that it comes with. There should be another rule that says if a model line is updated and its size is drastically changed, you need to update your models to the new one, or at the VERY LEAST change your bases to the new one that is current for that datasheet.

You mean like how we have this big enormous problem with people using old terminators, old dark eldar grotesques, old cardboard ork deff dreads, old 25mm avatars of khaine, old tiny bloodthirsters etc in competitive play?

Oh right, we don't have that problem. Even though all these models exist and are competitively legal.

Yeah, I can't think of it ever being an issue for a major tournament having players running old models for advantage. Top players in tournament circuits tend to go for new armies often enough that old models are just not practical to begin with, and in less competitive circles, GW's new models tend to be enough of an improvement that most players jump on to the new ones pretty quickly anyway. It's a non-issue that regulating would just end up causing more problems for GW than leaving it.

Also, W1zard, I did point out that most events run with the stipulation that base sizes do indeed have to be updated to match the current standard. AoS 2nd is even coming with a base size guide with its General's Handbook.

FWIW, GW did actually attempt at regulating it in their GTs. There was a rule that was put in one year (timeline we're looking at here is when the Craftworld Eldar codex came out, so mid to late 3rd ed.) that only CURRENT GW models could be used and understandably there was outrage from the players (mainly due to the infamously terrible "Striking Bunny Rabbits" which were released at the same time, with many players looking in horror that GW wanted them to use those instead of the previous version). GW backed down PDQ and rescinded the rule.

 Fafnir wrote:

Yeah, I can't think of it ever being an issue for a major tournament having players running old models for advantage.

Then you have a very limited imagination. If I were an competitive ork player I'd make sure to get my hands on those old trukks because they are much smaller and thus easier to hide out of LOS or keep in cover.

Stux wrote:

So you think invalidating customers' purchases, which they might have made very recently to such a change, is ok?

Yes. When I bought my xbox 360, a week later the price was slashed 50$ after the announcement of the xbox one, and I had just spent a decent chunk of money on a system that would be irrelevant in a few months. It sucks but I have no right to whine about it. This is how progress is made.

I said it once and I'll say it again... Purchasing models with the expectation that you can use them indefinitely in matched play, despite possibly massive rule changes or having multiple model line updates is extremely naive, and entitled. Sometimes you just have to retire your 20+ year old models because they just aren't relevant any more. It's as stupid as original xbox or xbox 360 owners demanding to play the newer xbox one games online because they payed money and put a lot of time into getting achievements for games on the older systems.

 Grimtuff wrote:

FWIW, GW did actually attempt at regulating it in their GTs. There was a rule that was put in one year (timeline we're looking at here is when the Craftworld Eldar codex came out, so mid to late 3rd ed.) that only CURRENT GW models could be used and understandably there was outrage from the players (mainly due to the infamously terrible "Striking Bunny Rabbits" which were released at the same time, with many players looking in horror that GW wanted them to use those instead of the previous version). GW backed down PDQ and rescinded the rule.

See? I knew this was going to be a thing. If I were GW I would have stood my ground against the backlash. Tough stuff... Players should be expecting to replace at LEAST some of their army every 15-20 years, if not the entire thing.

The difference is that that xbox you bought still works just as well. It isn't going to become useless after a new console comes out. I have a ps2 and that works perfectly fine despite talk of the ps5 being a thing. The console comparison is just weird.

It's completely reasonable that I expect to be able to keep using the models that I have even when they're old.

pm713 wrote:
The difference is that that xbox you bought still works just as well. It isn't going to become useless after a new console comes out. I have a ps2 and that works perfectly fine despite talk of the ps5 being a thing. The console comparison is just weird.

It's completely reasonable that I expect to be able to keep using the models that I have even when they're old.

And you can keep using them, just not in matched play. I'm not advocating forcefully coming to your house and taking them from you, or forcing you to throw them away.

IRRC the xbox live network for the original xbox has been shut down, and the xbox live network for the 360 is soon to follow. It's just the price of moving forward.

w1zard wrote:

pm713 wrote:
The difference is that that xbox you bought still works just as well. It isn't going to become useless after a new console comes out. I have a ps2 and that works perfectly fine despite talk of the ps5 being a thing. The console comparison is just weird.

It's completely reasonable that I expect to be able to keep using the models that I have even when they're old.

And you can keep using them, just not in matched play. I'm not advocating forcefully coming to your house and taking them from you, or forcing you to throw them away.

Why not? They're models, they show exactly what unit I'm using and there's no reason I couldn't be able to use them. What gives you the right to constantly force me to buy new models for an arbitrary sense of rightness?

pm713 wrote:

w1zard wrote:

pm713 wrote:
The difference is that that xbox you bought still works just as well. It isn't going to become useless after a new console comes out. I have a ps2 and that works perfectly fine despite talk of the ps5 being a thing. The console comparison is just weird.

It's completely reasonable that I expect to be able to keep using the models that I have even when they're old.

And you can keep using them, just not in matched play. I'm not advocating forcefully coming to your house and taking them from you, or forcing you to throw them away.

Why not? They're models, they show exactly what unit I'm using and there's no reason I couldn't be able to use them. What gives you the right to constantly force me to buy new models for an arbitrary sense of rightness?

Because allowing multiple types of models that may be greatly varying in both physical size or in base size is not fair on a mechanical or balance level. It should be standardized, for any particular datasheet.

pm713 wrote:

w1zard wrote:

pm713 wrote:
The difference is that that xbox you bought still works just as well. It isn't going to become useless after a new console comes out. I have a ps2 and that works perfectly fine despite talk of the ps5 being a thing. The console comparison is just weird.

It's completely reasonable that I expect to be able to keep using the models that I have even when they're old.

And you can keep using them, just not in matched play. I'm not advocating forcefully coming to your house and taking them from you, or forcing you to throw them away.

Why not? They're models, they show exactly what unit I'm using and there's no reason I couldn't be able to use them. What gives you the right to constantly force me to buy new models for an arbitrary sense of rightness?

Magic makes you buy new cards every expansion soooooo

Maybe if people bought more models the price would drop, jk, that'll never happen lol

 fraser1191 wrote:

pm713 wrote:

w1zard wrote:

pm713 wrote:
The difference is that that xbox you bought still works just as well. It isn't going to become useless after a new console comes out. I have a ps2 and that works perfectly fine despite talk of the ps5 being a thing. The console comparison is just weird.

It's completely reasonable that I expect to be able to keep using the models that I have even when they're old.

And you can keep using them, just not in matched play. I'm not advocating forcefully coming to your house and taking them from you, or forcing you to throw them away.

Why not? They're models, they show exactly what unit I'm using and there's no reason I couldn't be able to use them. What gives you the right to constantly force me to buy new models for an arbitrary sense of rightness?

Magic makes you buy new cards every expansion soooooo

Maybe if people bought more models the price would drop, jk, that'll never happen lol

With TCGs it can get a bit more complicated (I'll cover Yugioh as I did that competitively for quite a few years) as you'll have either obscene power creep (I remember Qliphorts or something near the end of when I quit Yugioh) or decks that still keep going on for a few formats that are somewhat viable (Mermails were a Yugioh example of a deck that, even with hits, still got use because of some of the combos it could get off).

Typically there are upsides and downsides to having a model be bigger or smaller, so it's totally not a big deal.

jcd386 wrote:
Typically there are upsides and downsides to having a model be bigger or smaller, so it's totally not a big deal.

Not true, assault units for example will always want to be smaller models because it allows more bases in contact, and allows them to take advantage of cover better. There is literally no advantage (at least none that I can think of) to having a big assault model. Even "big one" assault models like knights want smaller bases to minimize the amount of enemies that strike at them while maximizing the amount of enemies that they can strike at.

An Xbox or deck of Magic cards don't take a lot of time and effort to complete, though. That's the thing- if GW ever wanted to implement a system like Magic has, where sets rotate out of Standard, then they should just switch to cheap prepaints. Demanding people stop using models they've spent many hours on isn't right- and it isn't the players' fault GW can't make up their darn mind what scale everything should be.

Not to mention that while Magic has rotation, it has many formats, all of which exist within "matched play". There are even tournaments for pauper now!

jcd386 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

w1zard wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
No, not correct. No correct now, not correct in the past, and never will be correct. Where in the name of the Manperor of Mankind did you get that idea?

Common fething sense? Sanity?

In case you haven't noticed, common sense has zero place in 40k. 40k is a world where being flamethrowers are the supreme anti-aircraft weaponry.

Can you show that mathematically or are you just complaining Flamers can hit them now?

(In case anyone was actually wondering)

Assuming ideal ranges and no re-rolls vs a T7 3+ Sv flier with -1 to hit:

Meltagun - 1.5 wounds
OC Plasmagun - 1.111 wounds
Las cannon - 0.97 wounds
Missile Launcher - 0.777 wounds
Grav gun - .5555 wounds
Flamer - 0.3888 wounds

So for space marines anyway, it's actually the worst option.

Some of the big flamers aren't terrible at killing fliers, but they are more just good at everything.

At 0.04 wounds per point it's better than the lascannon, missile launcher and grav-gun.

Blastaar wrote:
An Xbox or deck of Magic cards don't take a lot of time and effort to complete, though. That's the thing- if GW ever wanted to implement a system like Magic has, where sets rotate out of Standard, then they should just switch to cheap prepaints. Demanding people stop using models they've spent many hours on isn't right- and it isn't the players' fault GW can't make up their darn mind what scale everything should be.

Not to mention that while Magic has rotation, it has many formats, all of which exist within "matched play". There are even tournaments for pauper now!

Absolutely!

If you want a game that is balance and competitive viability first, 40k is not your game. It never has been and never will be. If you want to collect awesome models, craft an army of your dudes, and forge the narrative in fun games with friends, then this is totally the game to get into though!

Blastaar wrote:
An Xbox or deck of Magic cards don't take a lot of time and effort to complete, though. That's the thing- if GW ever wanted to implement a system like Magic has, where sets rotate out of Standard, then they should just switch to cheap prepaints. Demanding people stop using models they've spent many hours on isn't right- and it isn't the players' fault GW can't make up their darn mind what scale everything should be.

Not to mention that while Magic has rotation, it has many formats, all of which exist within "matched play". There are even tournaments for pauper now!

If you had to switch out models every few years then I might agree with you, but come on... replacing 20+ year old models is not asking for much. If you can afford the hundreds of dollars per year on this hobby you can afford to replace parts of your army occasionally to stay relevant.

w1zard wrote:

Blastaar wrote:
An Xbox or deck of Magic cards don't take a lot of time and effort to complete, though. That's the thing- if GW ever wanted to implement a system like Magic has, where sets rotate out of Standard, then they should just switch to cheap prepaints. Demanding people stop using models they've spent many hours on isn't right- and it isn't the players' fault GW can't make up their darn mind what scale everything should be.

Not to mention that while Magic has rotation, it has many formats, all of which exist within "matched play". There are even tournaments for pauper now!

If you had to switch out models every few years then I might agree with you, but come on... replacing 20+ year old models is not asking for much. If you can afford the hundreds of dollars per year on this hobby you can afford to replace parts of your army occasionally to stay relevant.

What about the people who bought the model yesterday, if it's obsolete today?

You end up with the super messy situation of either allowing models for a set period of time after they are discontinued and thus having mixed sizes available anyway, or giving customers a long heads up before a model is discontinued in which case no one buys it.

Stux wrote:
..or giving customers a long heads up before a model is discontinued in which case no one buys it.

Bingo. There should be a point they stop production and announce the new remodels. The remaining stock will be bought by collectors and can be offered at a discount.

Plastic sisters have been announced to be coming out next year. I expect sisters players to be getting ready for that... There should be some sort of grace period for a few weeks or something after release, but I would expect NOT to be playing a metal sisters army in 2020.

w1zard wrote:

Stux wrote:
..or giving customers a long heads up before a model is discontinued in which case no one buys it.

Bingo.

Plastic sisters have been announced to be coming out next year. I expect sisters players to be getting ready for that... There should be some sort of grace period after release, but I would expect NOT to be playing a metal sisters army in 2020.

I just strongly disagree that all the people who've spent the last decade or so crafting an awesome metal sisters army, jumping all the hurdles presented for it, should be expected to ditch it if they want to play competitively. That's just not what this game is about.

This has gone back and forth enough that I think we need to agree to disagree at this point to be honest though!

w1zard wrote:

Blastaar wrote:
An Xbox or deck of Magic cards don't take a lot of time and effort to complete, though. That's the thing- if GW ever wanted to implement a system like Magic has, where sets rotate out of Standard, then they should just switch to cheap prepaints. Demanding people stop using models they've spent many hours on isn't right- and it isn't the players' fault GW can't make up their darn mind what scale everything should be.

Not to mention that while Magic has rotation, it has many formats, all of which exist within "matched play". There are even tournaments for pauper now!

If you had to switch out models every few years then I might agree with you, but come on... replacing 20+ year old models is not asking for much. If you can afford the hundreds of dollars per year on this hobby you can afford to replace parts of your army occasionally to stay relevant.

I think you may have missed my point. It isn't just the money, it's the time. i suspect that, for most people, they can either build and paint new projects, or work on models that replace older versions of the same kit just because GW chooses to be inconsistent with sizing- but not both. I certainly couldn't do both, and I'm not willing to choose maintaining my existing army over new units, conversions, a second army, terrain, etc. etc.

w1zard wrote:

jcd386 wrote:
Typically there are upsides and downsides to having a model be bigger or smaller, so it's totally not a big deal.

Not true, assault units for example will always want to be smaller models because it allows more bases in contact, and allows them to take advantage of cover better. There is literally no advantage (at least none that I can think of) to having a big assault model. Even "big one" assault models like knights want smaller bases to minimize the amount of enemies that strike at them while maximizing the amount of enemies that they can strike at.

Larger bases take up more room, which means you control more space, can be within 12" of more things and therefore charge more things, can string out farther to play aura/coherency games, they create more space distance when models are removed, and so on. Lots of vehicles would prefer larger bases to avoid getting surrounded, to create bigger explosions, etc. I agree that there might be specific cases where you might want to be bigger or smaller, but it is usually not a game breaking issue and can hardly be called modeling for advantage when it's rarely seen and fairly random which units are effected.

Blastaar wrote:
I think you may have missed my point. It isn't just the money, it's the time. i suspect that, for most people, they can either build and paint new projects, or work on models that replace older versions of the same kit just because GW chooses to be inconsistent with sizing- but not both. I certainly couldn't do both, and I'm not willing to choose maintaining my existing army over new units, conversions, a second army, terrain, etc. etc.

I know this is going to sound rude, but I seriously mean this in a completely impartial sense. But if you don't have the time to paint models to maintain your existing army over a 15 to 20 year period, do you really have the time for this hobby?

jcd386 wrote:

Larger bases take up more room, which means you control more space, can be within 12" of more things and therefore charge more things, can string out farther to play aura/coherency games, they create more space distance when models are removed, and so on. Lots of vehicles would prefer larger bases to avoid getting surrounded, to create bigger explosions, etc. I agree that there might be specific cases where you might want to be bigger or smaller, but it is usually not a game breaking issue and can hardly be called modeling for advantage when it's rarely seen and fairly random which units are effected.

This is a common misconception. Larger bases certainly have a bigger "footprint" so to speak, but it doesn't help you get into combat faster because no matter how large the base is you can only move a certain distance. Unless you want to make the argument that you are deploying the model already within charge range. Good point on the explosion radius though, but I don't see how that remotely compares to the advantage of having a smaller base in assault.

Stux wrote:
I just strongly disagree that all the people who've spent the last decade or so crafting an awesome metal sisters army, jumping all the hurdles presented for it, should be expected to ditch it if they want to play competitively. That's just not what this game is about.

This has gone back and forth enough that I think we need to agree to disagree at this point to be honest though!

But I spent many hundreds of hours on my xbox360 account racking up gamerscore. Why should I have to abandon that to upgrade to the xbox one? Things move forward, sometimes that involves leaving things in the past.

But you are right in that we are really far off topic.