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.

Melissia wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
In previous editions, the army itself, aside from the units within it, had no special flavour. It was JUST the units you took, and the synergies they had. There was no flavour - water.

Thaaaaaaat's not true. Unless you're ONLY talking about sixth and seventh?

You're right - I forgot about pre-5th. My bad.

From 5th onwards, barring Space Marines and Chaos Marines who got their Chapter Tactics, there was no "army flavour".

Of course, I forget that many armies had these flavours before this.

BobtheInquisitor wrote:I seem to recall the IG having lots of flavorful army wide options. Remember the all-Commissar IG? The drugged-up thieving IG? Remember when you could choose mutations for your gaunts by squad? The earlier Craftworld Codex?
It wasn't just the heroes you could customize. But, man, I used to love making my own heroes, too.

This was pre-5th, mind. Armies hadn't had army-wide rules for a good time before 8th.

And agreed - I'm in no way saying that I'm okay with GW getting rid of hero upgrades and suchlike. I really do think it should be corrected, but at the same time, armies are more customisable and flavourful than they have been for a long time.

Plus, the Terrax Guard (who I assume you're referring to by the all-Commissar guard) probably wouldn't fit in the new lore for Commissars and suchlike. Maybe? I could be wrong.

Saying I can model something however I want and just then pretend an axe is a chainsword is a great first step towards using soda cans as drop pods and boardgame tokens as space marines. If WYSIWYG is no longer any concern, then I guess I should spend a lot less to get the right models.

That's not really equivalent.

They have the incorrect dimensions, for a start. WYSIWYG only REALLY works with units with options, or ones that could be misidentified. Giving a bunch of guardsman infantry roman-esque shields to me wouldn't be an issue - it creates flavour for the guardsmen, and I know that it can't be a unit choice or effect of wargear. It's cosmetic. If a Primaris Captain can ONLY take a power sword, if I see a Primaris Captain carrying ANY weapon, I know it has to be a sword, because it can't be anything else by rules.

If I see a NORMAL Captain (who can take axes) carrying an axe, I would assume he's armed with one. WYSIWYG is for THOSE cases, where wargear isn't locked, and the unit needs identifying. I don't know about you, but I can identify a Primaris Captain without seeing a sword in his hand. Likewise, I can identify Guilliman if the model was painted in Salamanders colours and carried a hammer. It's Guilliman - just converted.

If WYSIWYG, then conversions must be a massive issue for you. "How can I tell that's a guardsman? He has a lasgun, and all the normal body armour, but a Scion's head? How can I tell?"

Mono builds are fine if they are cheaper. I like converting, so I'll buy bits as needed and fancier kits when the value is there. However, reducing choice and forcing all ranges into cookie cutter mono build clone armies removes a lot of the fun and inspiration from the hobby. It's not like the game itself is what carries the fan base.

Again, the RULE (only power swords) doesn't stop you from changing the model enough to look what you'd prefer, as long as it is still identifiable.

A weapon swap on a model which only has access to one weapon isn't an issue, because as long as I can tell what the wielder is, I know that the weapon is that one it MUST wield. Now, if you'd prefer an in-game effect, that's different, but on a purely modelling standpoint, I don't see the issue.

If I saw a Space Marine Character in Scout armour, but he carried a transauranic arquebus from the Skitarii kit, I wouldn't have any issue, because I know it has to be Telion, and Telion ONLY has access to Quietus.

Not only would I not be able to identify post-5th characters vs HQ, I wouldn't know any of their rules without looking them up, and I'm not going to look them up. If someone tells me his Primaris Camp Instructor has a sonic screwdriver that kills all models on the table for every six he rolls, I'll go with it.

However, The joy of converting a fluffy army is finding your own space in the fluff. If 8th edition fluff bends to 8th edition rules, and thus forbids Primaris Muckymucks from wielding anything other than a powersword, then modelling an axe and calling it "Powersword, Axe of the Cimmeron" isn't going to be very satisfying. And there's not a whole lot of satisfaction margin left to shed in the hobby.

I've said (and been personally attacked for) this before, but I don't think character customization was all it was cracked up to be. I can remember from 3rd, when I was playing before, that SM captains/chapter masters could take almost the entire SM armory. While that meant you could give your HQ practically anything you wanted and have a legal model, very few of those loadouts were actually worth taking in terms of performance over points cost. It just lead to a lot of bloat for little payoff in terms of gameplay, and would be confusing for newer players. What's more, it was impossible to put all of the legal wargear options in a single character kit, which necessitated kitbashing or conversions and made characters even more expensive. I can remember making a captain with a jump pack and lightning claws which I had to special order from GW's bit service (RIP) and at the time the only non-terminator lightning claws were in metal. It was a fun model to build as a creative project, but strictly in terms of gameplay it wasn't worth the effort at all.

Now I love converting and kitbashing, but I'm fine with doing it within the constraints of the rules, and I prefer to do it for aesthetic reasons rather than be forced to do it in order to build the army I want. That's still a problem in 8th, as kits like the Plague Marines box don't give you nearly enough weapons to equip your squads in a sane manner. So what ends up happening is that you have people who are going to do a limited amount of kitbashing in order to equip MSUs with easily available special weapons, and you have people who will just build what's in the box and play it that way for better or worse. I have yet to see another person anywhere on the internet who is converting their plague marines to have all close combat weapons like I am. The vast majority of players simply will not go out of their way to create models with a suboptimal configuration unless they are very committed to a specific concept for their army. And even then, it's done with a conscious decision to prefer style over substance when it comes time to put models on the table.

That being said, there's nothing stopping anyone from chopping up models and putting together whatever they want if they simply want to be creative with modelling and painting. As mentioned above, there's also very little stopping anyone from playing those models as "counts as" at game time. However, I think that very few people actually put the effort into doing that, and even fewer care about having their every aesthetic choice reflected in the rules. That's actually an unrealistic expectation, in my opinion. Thus, what we see with the dearth of character customization options in 8th simply reflects the way a majority of players engage in the hobby, as well as what is feasible and profitable for GW as a company.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Not only would I not be able to identify post-5th characters vs HQ, I wouldn't know any of their rules without looking them up, and I'm not going to look them up. If someone tells me his Primaris Camp Instructor has a sonic screwdriver that kills all models on the table for every six he rolls, I'll go with it.

And you wouldn't think to ask them to show the model's rules?

If someone does pull that off against you, I'm sorry, but you had every right to see their datasheet. I feel happy that I could identify most HQ models in 8th and what they should roughly be armed with, and if not, I'd ask to see.

However, The joy of converting a fluffy army is finding your own space in the fluff. If 8th edition fluff bends to 8th edition rules, and thus forbids Primaris Muckymucks from wielding anything other than a powersword, then modelling an axe and calling it "Powersword, Axe of the Cimmeron" isn't going to be very satisfying. And there's not a whole lot of satisfaction margin left to shed in the hobby.

Have we seen in fluff that NO Primaris has ever wielded an axe? No - all we know is that, in game, they can only have power swords. Does that mean your sword can't suspiciously look like an axe? No.
I see no reason why a Primaris Captain can't wield one in the fluff. In game, maybe not, but we're not talking about that.

This isn't really an issue in my eyes - you're taking a forced weapon and simply making it look different - no different to me arming one of my normal Captains with a sword taken from the GK kit. What DOES bother me is things more like Veterans not being able to take doctrines, and Acolytes not having any of their flair. That can't be proxied, or is a massive hindrance on gameplay for that unit.

It's more that I wouldn't care. If that's what a person needs to do to enjoy his game, well, I won't mind letting him win it and end it really quickly. As the saying goes, winning might be the object of the game, but it's not the point of the game.

Anyway, the Primaris conversation is a bit beyond me. I was using the example more as a proxy for my Tyranids and Eldar conversions, but I guess it's not really a crucial fight to me anyway. I just want lots of optional weapons and bling for my minis.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
It's more that I wouldn't care. If that's what a person needs to do to enjoy his game, well, I won't mind letting him win it and end it really quickly. As the saying goes, winning might be the object of the game, but it's not the point of the game.

Again, different people find enjoyment in different things, in different ways.

You don't NEED to know everything, and shouldn't be required to, but if someone does take advantage and lie about what their models are armed with and the appropriate stats, that's not just on them for lying, but also that you could have checked, and didn't.
If you'd prefer to have your opponents lie to you, that's on you, but I can't say I'd enjoy it.

However, whatever you prefer, you do

Anyway, the Primaris conversation is a bit beyond me. I was using the example more as a proxy for my Tyranids and Eldar conversions, but I guess it's not really a crucial fight to me anyway. I just want lots of optional weapons and bling for my minis.

Again, it comes down to "is it a cosmetic thing, or a gameplay thing". Cosmetics, most people largely agree that, so long as whatever it is can be distinguished, it's fair game. Sure, that big chaingun looking thing being held by my Heavy Weapon Team certainly isn't a standard heavy bolter model, but it's identifiable as one. That organ protruding from your Hive Tyrant - could be anything, really - what kind of conversion did you have in mind that 8th now prohibits you from that you couldn't do in 7th or 5th?

Gameplay is different, and I can't really speak for that beyond streamlining. I don't agree with it, but I can sort-of see why? By simplifying things, removing options that could be fodder for third party producers, and suchlike, they can better tailor what they put out on the tabletop.

the ancient wrote:
Wait, what?
The Knights of Blood dead.
For emperors sake.
Let me guess, Seth (who should have 20 men left) realises the path his chapter treads?
feth this hollywood gak.

Yeah, I'm pretty salty about that... Since that is what I am currently painting my army as. Oh well, me headcannon is going to be either:

-Seth was so impressed with the Knights of Blood's heroic act he sent a few Veteran Sergeants and Scouts to their fortress monastary to rebuild them

-Although they had all fallen, not all of them actually died, and a few managed to crawl off the battlefield and return to safety while the Tyranids devoured the biomass/or the Tyranids didn't have the time to devour the injured left on the battlefield and a few managed to survive and rebuild.

It honestly seems a strange Chapter to kill off in that way.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Have we seen in fluff that NO Primaris has ever wielded an axe? No - all we know is that, in game, they can only have power swords. Does that mean your sword can't suspiciously look like an axe? No.
I see no reason why a Primaris Captain can't wield one in the fluff. In game, maybe not, but we're not talking about that.

This isn't really an issue in my eyes - you're taking a forced weapon and simply making it look different - no different to me arming one of my normal Captains with a sword taken from the GK kit. What DOES bother me is things more like Veterans not being able to take doctrines, and Acolytes not having any of their flair. That can't be proxied, or is a massive hindrance on gameplay for that unit.

There are rules for power swords and there are rules for power axes; they're different (I'd be fine if they weren't, 'power weapon' was good enough in the past editions, but this is not the case.) It gets confusing really fast if you just start slapping whichever weapons on the models and the use them as different weapons in game terms.

Whoa, so here's a topic which suddenly seems to have come back into relevance. With the coming of 10th edition and the huge changes to points system, I was reminded of this thread. So here's a necro post

I'd be keen to hear people's thoughts, considering it seems to have been coming for years now? I think a lot of the arguments still apply, perhaps even more acutely now.