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.

 spiralingcadaver wrote:
Yeah, I gotta say, I'm not buying the "distinct models without distinct rules are worthwhile" argument.

You don't have to. But that doesn't mean other people aren't allowed to. Or that there isn't an entire aspect of the hobby with a competition for this sort of thing. [url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070715150644/http://uk.games-workshop.com/goldendemon/competitors-guidelines/1/] Golden Demon Rules.

 spiralingcadaver wrote:
Yeah, I gotta say, I'm not buying the "distinct models without distinct rules are worthwhile" argument.

There's an extent to which that works though. Hounds of Morkai didn't need specific rules, they could've just been sold as Space Wolves alternative Reivers and have been fine. However, there comes a point, especially for HQ level models, where some consolidating is good and some where it's bad. In the case of Marines, cramming all the Power Weapons into one profile is fine for a Captain, and then you have choice to go heavier with it. However, that was all stripped for Dark Eldar HQs basically.

I see it the other way around. I'm WAY more likely to make weird and fun weapon swaps when the game already has 3-4 things that count as the same profile. When each unique weapon had unique rules, it just left things bound to what was the most cost effective option.

 alextroy wrote:

shortymcnostrill wrote:

 alextroy wrote:

 Arachnofiend wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
Many kitbashes are done purely to make a model look cool and not like every other Model X in the game.

But they still play like every other Model X in the game, so why even bother at this point?

It's a model figurine. The point is to look cool, I think?

Exactly. I have Battle Sister model kitbashed to be holding a Heavy Flamer in one hand and a Bolt Pistol in the other. She is WYSIWYG and plays just like any other Battle Sister with Heavy Flamer. She is also damn cool!

First off, that sounds awesome. But imagine that that model gets new rules and can now only take a bolt pistol. Your converted model is now only ever using its pistol, the heavy flamer is just for show. That's essentially what happened to the haemonculus.

Also you mention wysiwyg, did you by chance model it with heavy flamer and bolt pistol because those weapons are what that model has/had rules-wise (honest question, not familiar with sisters)? I ask because if yes then that'd be exactly what vipoid is getting at, a conversion inspired by rules. There's no inspiration for haemonculus conversions in the statline anymore. You can still make it whatever you want, but it's more fun if your conversion is actually reflected in-game.

There are many weapon flattenings that I don’t agree with. Drukhari were decimated in the weapons option arena, even in cases where simple kitbashes allows for variety. Wyches were done dirty with the loss of all special weapons.

But that wasn’t the question I was answering. That was “why kitbash if it doesn’t change the rules”. My Retributor holding her Bolt Pistol is an example of a kitbash because it was cool, it put an otherwise not represented Bolt pistol on the model, and it let me avoid needing to line up the second hand on the Heavy Flamer.

Ah, I misunderstood then. I've got some corsairs on the workbench with a gun and pistol too for the same reasons :p

Good discussion all around.

To clarify, I absolutely see Vipoid's point, and I do hate what's been done to a lot of equipment, and DE in particular.

And I do also agree that giving players real equipment options again is a better way to encourage conversion than merely featuring conversion in WD.

My point was really semantics-based (sorry for that- I know semantics arguments are dull and problematic). The idea is that if what you're really upset about is limited load out options, then say that you're upset about limited load-out options. Conversions can happen with and without load-out diversity. I do agree that people are more enthusiastic when load-out is part of the conversion (I certainly am). But it's not necessary.

Case and point: I've got three conversions on deck: I needed a few more members of the Locarno family for a narrative project, so Espern Locarno's cousin Dominic has the Locarno Navigator helmet on a Delaque body. The other cousin is known as the Bastard of Widow Watch, because his parents didn't follow the recommendations of the Ordo Famulous- he was born psychic, but without the navigator gene. So he gets a modified Locarno head on a different Delaque body; the third is the Sister Famulous that works with this particular family enclave- she's kit bashed from a GSC Magus, a Sister and the Fleur bits from the spare Simulacrum.

I have all the parts, but the conversions aren't done yet.

But to Vipoid's disappointment with Drukhari options, check this out:

I've been planning my Wych Cult Arena scenario since 9th. I've got two groups of five basic Wyches- different colours, different themes... but just pistols and knives. I've got 4 classic metal warp-beasts painted up as Khymerae pups.

SO my plan was a three round event. In the first event, there's one of each wych weapon hidden in three special arena pillars (they have opening doors and removable rooves)- player know wych pillars contain weapons, but they don't know which pillar contains which weapon (wych weapon?). The team that gets the most weapons off the board wins. All models track kills and achievements.

In round two, the same two teams battle the Khymerae pups. The team that drops the most pups wins with ties being decided by first kill. Any pup that kills a wych returns in the next game as a full-grown Khymerae. Any surviving pups will also get Khymerae models.

After competing in the first two rounds the MVP of each team is decided.

In the final round, the two MVP's go head-to-head in arena full of traps. The last one standing will earn the title of Succubus, and their Cult will earn the right to Realspace Raid with the Archon.

So this three round fight was going to add 3 models to two gangs with Wych Weapons, Khymerae were earning ranks, and one lucky model would be replaced with a succubus- I have unbuilt duplicates of all 10 models, so I can use the correct heads and bodies to go with the Wych weapon arms, and I can give the Succubus the right head.

And then, 10th comes along.

Not only are Wyches minimum 10, wych weapons don't matter, so the entire first round is reduced to just running identically meaningless objectives off the board. There are no subfaction rules anymore, so the two cults are just paintjobs in rules mirror match.

Khymerae can now only be fielded in pairs as part of mixed beast units which must include the Beastmaster and other beasts, which totally borks all of my plans for the slow-grow beast pack.

Finally, the whole PREMISE that this round is built upon may cease to exist too- that being the Territories of Commorragh and the Ascendant Lord Crusade rules. These rules were also the triggers to bring Corsairs into the narrative; the Corsairs bring the Rangers...

Literally everything has fallen apart, because even if the territory rules are eventually released, they're in Limbo for now.

Yeah man... I LOATHE what 10th has done to best laid plans.

With respect to the way people see it I think saying GW hate kitbashes is incorrect, I don't think their stance on wargear options in the game comes from them having a thing about how you model your little soldiers. If you want to buy 3 boxes of toys to build 1 unit they will like that a lot more than you buying 1 box, both because you give them more money and they enjoy the hobby and love to see the creativity of it.

What it is motivated by is a want to be sure that people don't have to kitbash in order to have an optimal army, that some kid not comfortable with buying multiple kits and getting into that side of the hobby is not hindered competitively in the gaming side of the game.


I think people have a totally backwards view of how the situation has evolved. Lets look at guard, first plastic guard I got were the RTB7 box set in the late 80s. Per 10 models they came with lasguns, laspistols and a heavy lasgun. There were options in the rules to take a lot of weapons not in that kit, but you would need to kitbash if you wanted them to have a missile launcher, heavy plasma gun etc.

Now you can't take weapons that are not in the plastic guard kits, but that is because GW have changed the kits so that if you buy 10 guard they come with plasma gun, grenade launcher, melta gun, flame thrower, sniper rifle, chain sword, power sword, power first, vox etc options in the actual box. They didn't limit the rules because they hate kitbashing, they're fine with kitbashing, they expanded their model kits to not require kitbashing to play with your models effectively because they recognise its expensive and not everyone is into that side of the hobby.


The reason they limit wargear options is because they are trying to simplify and streamline their game, they think the game experience will be more fun for more people if there is less friction caused by tons of tiny options that don't really result in that significant a payoff in terms of the actual gameplay experience. Its nothing to do with kitbashing and the reason you can't take options that are not in the kits are because they expanded the kits to include all the options, they didn't reduce the options because they hate you using parts outside of the kit.

Breton wrote:

 spiralingcadaver wrote:
Yeah, I gotta say, I'm not buying the "distinct models without distinct rules are worthwhile" argument.

You don't have to. But that doesn't mean other people aren't allowed to

wow cool dude thanks for teaching me that other people had opinions other than my own! I'm even pretty sure one can share them without necessarily trying to impose them on others!

Anyone remember in 3rd Edition where GW did a revised Dark Eldar Codex that added different weapon stats for Wyches because everyone didn't like having "generic Wych weapons". It also added vehicle upgrades. They revised an entire Codex to add flavour. To add choice.

Ahh... those were the days...

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Anyone remember in 3rd Edition where GW did a revised Dark Eldar Codex that added different weapon stats for Wyches because everyone didn't like having "generic Wych weapons". It also added vehicle upgrades. They revised an entire Codex to add flavour. To add choice.

Pepperidge Farm remembers.

PenitentJake wrote:
Good discussion all around.

To clarify, I absolutely see Vipoid's point, and I do hate what's been done to a lot of equipment, and DE in particular.

And I do also agree that giving players real equipment options again is a better way to encourage conversion than merely featuring conversion in WD.

My point was really semantics-based (sorry for that- I know semantics arguments are dull and problematic). The idea is that if what you're really upset about is limited load out options, then say that you're upset about limited load-out options.

I believe I have. Quite a number of times in fact.

PenitentJake wrote:

Case and point: I've got three conversions on deck: I needed a few more members of the Locarno family for a narrative project, so Espern Locarno's cousin Dominic has the Locarno Navigator helmet on a Delaque body. The other cousin is known as the Bastard of Widow Watch, because his parents didn't follow the recommendations of the Ordo Famulous- he was born psychic, but without the navigator gene. So he gets a modified Locarno head on a different Delaque body; the third is the Sister Famulous that works with this particular family enclave- she's kit bashed from a GSC Magus, a Sister and the Fleur bits from the spare Simulacrum.

I have all the parts, but the conversions aren't done yet.

But to Vipoid's disappointment with Drukhari options, check this out:

I've been planning my Wych Cult Arena scenario since 9th. I've got two groups of five basic Wyches- different colours, different themes... but just pistols and knives. I've got 4 classic metal warp-beasts painted up as Khymerae pups.

SO my plan was a three round event. In the first event, there's one of each wych weapon hidden in three special arena pillars (they have opening doors and removable rooves)- player know wych pillars contain weapons, but they don't know which pillar contains which weapon (wych weapon?). The team that gets the most weapons off the board wins. All models track kills and achievements.

In round two, the same two teams battle the Khymerae pups. The team that drops the most pups wins with ties being decided by first kill. Any pup that kills a wych returns in the next game as a full-grown Khymerae. Any surviving pups will also get Khymerae models.

After competing in the first two rounds the MVP of each team is decided.

In the final round, the two MVP's go head-to-head in arena full of traps. The last one standing will earn the title of Succubus, and their Cult will earn the right to Realspace Raid with the Archon.

So this three round fight was going to add 3 models to two gangs with Wych Weapons, Khymerae were earning ranks, and one lucky model would be replaced with a succubus- I have unbuilt duplicates of all 10 models, so I can use the correct heads and bodies to go with the Wych weapon arms, and I can give the Succubus the right head.

And then, 10th comes along.

Not only are Wyches minimum 10, wych weapons don't matter, so the entire first round is reduced to just running identically meaningless objectives off the board. There are no subfaction rules anymore, so the two cults are just paintjobs in rules mirror match.

Khymerae can now only be fielded in pairs as part of mixed beast units which must include the Beastmaster and other beasts, which totally borks all of my plans for the slow-grow beast pack.

Finally, the whole PREMISE that this round is built upon may cease to exist too- that being the Territories of Commorragh and the Ascendant Lord Crusade rules. These rules were also the triggers to bring Corsairs into the narrative; the Corsairs bring the Rangers...

Literally everything has fallen apart, because even if the territory rules are eventually released, they're in Limbo for now.

Yeah man... I LOATHE what 10th has done to best laid plans.

I feel you there.

Back in Ye Olde days of 8th edition, I had the idea for what seemed at the time to be a great idea for an army. I'd found a few small sections of fluff about DE Archons who had dabbled with daemons, which seemed like a really fun idea to expand on.

Thus, I decided to make a Ynnari Harlequins-DE army, where the Harlequins would represent daemons and some daemon-touched characters (the Shadowseer in particular is more Mandrake-y than any character in the DE book). I liked Ynnari because, apart from the fact it allowed the armies to ally, it embodied the 'undying' mechanics I was looking for. It wasn't shaping up to be a particularly powerful army but I liked the idea and I had several fun conversions in mind - such as 'jetbikes' consisting of DE riding daemonic mounts.

Then 9th dropped and I learned that the DE codex had been written by a platypus. Thus, allying under the banner of Ynnari would strip my DE units of basically all their much-needed abilities. Sigh.

I'd hoped the Ynnari book would address this problem, but instead it was simply subsumed into the flabby guts of the Craftworld book. So now if I wanted a DE/Harlequins army, I would have to dedicate 50+% of the space to Craftworld units. Oh and neither my DE nor my Harlequin units could make use of the singular relic and warlord trait.

I contemplated a few Farseer-led Ynnari lists but in the end there just wasn't enough on the Craftworld side that interested me. Plus the list was supposed to be a DE one, but DE were still screwed over if they dared to ally. Even just including Harlequins as allies was awkward because the rules that allow them to share warlord traits were exclusive to craftworlders. Hence, I was permitted to customise a Harlequin character or a DE character, but never both.

I'll be honest, my enthusiasm for the idea had waned rather substantially by this point. I had a pile of unpainted and half-finished conversions that I as struggling to find any enthusiasm to complete. Still, I wondered if I could make it work with pure DE. I messed around with some unconventional (and frankly pretty weak) HQ builds, which at least somewhat captured the themes I was going for. The project was definitely limping this point but I thought it could at least be partially salvaged.

...and then 10th hit like a bucket of frozen excrement. Suddenly, all themes are out the window entirely. Ynnari exist in name only, with Harlequins just a small step above them. And DE has lost what little customisation it had left, along with any hint of themes or fun.

Thus, the conversion project I'd started in 8th is now well and truly dead, for I have no interest in converting models when I can only represent them with the festering sludge that is the DE index.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Anyone remember in 3rd Edition where GW did a revised Dark Eldar Codex that added different weapon stats for Wyches because everyone didn't like having "generic Wych weapons". It also added vehicle upgrades. They revised an entire Codex to add flavour. To add choice.

I feel for Wyches. It wouldn't have taken much effort to create 2 more weapon profiles for the unit, one for the optional Agonizer and another for the duel melee weapon models. It isn't like three melee weapon profiles in a unit is all that unusual for melee units.

 alextroy wrote:
I feel for Wyches. It wouldn't have taken much effort to create 2 more weapon profiles for the unit, one for the optional Agonizer and another for the duel melee weapon models. It isn't like three melee weapon profiles in a unit is all that unusual for melee units.

It wasn't just Wyches who suffered this fate. Vanguard. Tyranid Warriors. Deathwatch. The list goes on...

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Anyone remember in 3rd Edition where GW did a revised Dark Eldar Codex that added different weapon stats for Wyches because everyone didn't like having "generic Wych weapons". It also added vehicle upgrades. They revised an entire Codex to add flavour. To add choice.

Ahh... those were the days...

Yeah I hear you, I think that's where the real friction at GW is.

How much are they trying to make a game that functions purely from a gameplay point of view at the expense of the fluff and how much are they trying to enable a simulation of the models/universe/lore even if it makes the gameplay a bit bloated and clunky for the more casual masses?

I think that's a constant push/pull, there's a war there between differing opinions, everyone probably has a slightly different take on where the optimal point between those 2 opposing design goals rests, even among the design team. There's always going to be significant parts of the community who feel it's gone too far in the wrong direction and they will be the most vocal at the time so I think there's always going to be an endless swing between fluffy depth complexity and ease of play simplicity as each significant edition change is partly shaped by a reaction against the previous one.

 LunarSol wrote:
I see it the other way around. I'm WAY more likely to make weird and fun weapon swaps when the game already has 3-4 things that count as the same profile. When each unique weapon had unique rules, it just left things bound to what was the most cost effective option.

Yeah now you can model your captain with an axe, a sword or whatever without worrying "but is this the most optimal?"

 spiralingcadaver wrote:

Breton wrote:

 spiralingcadaver wrote:
Yeah, I gotta say, I'm not buying the "distinct models without distinct rules are worthwhile" argument.

You don't have to. But that doesn't mean other people aren't allowed to

wow cool dude thanks for teaching me that other people had opinions other than my own! I'm even pretty sure one can share them without necessarily trying to impose them on others!

Hey you're welcome. I even hope that Golden Demon link allows you to "buy" the fact that other people do in fact kit bash just for looks without any rules advantage.

neca_loves_cake wrote:

I think people have a totally backwards view of how the situation has evolved. Lets look at guard, first plastic guard I got were the RTB7 box set in the late 80s. Per 10 models they came with lasguns, laspistols and a heavy lasgun. There were options in the rules to take a lot of weapons not in that kit, but you would need to kitbash if you wanted them to have a missile launcher, heavy plasma gun etc.

Now you can't take weapons that are not in the plastic guard kits, but that is because GW have changed the kits so that if you buy 10 guard they come with plasma gun, grenade launcher, melta gun, flame thrower, sniper rifle, chain sword, power sword, power first, vox etc options in the actual box. They didn't limit the rules because they hate kitbashing, they're fine with kitbashing, they expanded their model kits to not require kitbashing to play with your models effectively because they recognise its expensive and not everyone is into that side of the hobby.


The reason they limit wargear options is because they are trying to simplify and streamline their game, they think the game experience will be more fun for more people if there is less friction caused by tons of tiny options that don't really result in that significant a payoff in terms of the actual gameplay experience. Its nothing to do with kitbashing and the reason you can't take options that are not in the kits are because they expanded the kits to include all the options, they didn't reduce the options because they hate you using parts outside of the kit.

I think they tried to listen to what people wanted but got it backwards and messed it up. What everyone was after was for GW to include more weapons, gear etc with each kit so that there was enough to equip the squad in any way the rules allow without needing to buy multiples, kitbash etc. GW instead appear to have reduced the rules so that units can only be equipped with the models that come in a single box. And they haven't even managed to do that consistently.

Now that traitor guardsmen are in the index it seems like there is a good opportunity to use an AM box to create a kitbash squad. I think the load out options are basically the same

I think the writing on the wall has been the same for a few years now. Kitbashing and conversions are a waste of time, unless you are just doing them for aesthetic reasons and not for adding exotic WYSIWYG loadouts. GW will not shed a single tear for invalidating such models with every new edition of the game. Heck, they deliberately buff/nerf various special and heavy weapons so that if you go too hard into spamming any specific weapon, you will be punished for it soon enough..

Nonetheless, I still personally prefer kitbashing and conversions over using "stock" models most of the time. Seeing the same miniature poses and silhouettes year after year is mind-numbing. All armies built from the kits as is, painted with the same GW painting studio "recipes" in the same few colourschemes, man, that stuff just bums me out and makes me want to stop being into the whole hobby. On the other hand, I do understand some people are not miniature fetishists and just want to play the games and have fun playing, instead of scouring ebay for hard to find bitz and studying plastic kits from "wrong factions".. to me, that is the best thing about plastic miniatures, they're to miniature hobby what samplers are to electronic music, you can mix and match anything with a razor saw and some poly cement

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
I feel for Wyches. It wouldn't have taken much effort to create 2 more weapon profiles for the unit, one for the optional Agonizer and another for the duel melee weapon models. It isn't like three melee weapon profiles in a unit is all that unusual for melee units.

It wasn't just Wyches who suffered this fate. Vanguard. Tyranid Warriors. Deathwatch. The list goes on...

Personally I think Deathwatch turned out great outside of Vanguard Vets which for some reason just don't have working rules. The old system made for miserable armies where every couple of months you had to scrounge up 20 combi-bolters so you could swap them from the 20 Storm Bolters you ripped out of a Grey Knights kit or something. Now you can build units with all the cool weapons in the box (or out of the box) and create the kind of eclectic units that are supposed to define the faction.

 tauist wrote:
Heck, they deliberately buff/nerf various special and heavy weapons so that if you go too hard into spamming any specific weapon, you will be punished for it soon enough.

That's why you've got to stay ahead of the curve and make models for things that don't even have rules yet. I had a Deathwatch and an AdMech army before they ever got a Codex!

 alextroy wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Anyone remember in 3rd Edition where GW did a revised Dark Eldar Codex that added different weapon stats for Wyches because everyone didn't like having "generic Wych weapons". It also added vehicle upgrades. They revised an entire Codex to add flavour. To add choice.

I feel for Wyches. It wouldn't have taken much effort to create 2 more weapon profiles for the unit, one for the optional Agonizer and another for the duel melee weapon models. It isn't like three melee weapon profiles in a unit is all that unusual for melee units.

It kind of feel like wyches are paying for the sins of their 9th edition codex. Would have been fun to have "Heavy Wych Weapon" just to clarify between the normal "pistol and blade" and net, razorfist, and what not.

My guess they will be introduced in some form or another later on, but sadly for now they are very simplified.

I suppose, looking on the bright side - my unit of Wyches with 2 x hydra gauntlets, which was invalidated by the 9th ed codex, is now OK again if the special weapons don't actually exist any more and are now just cosmetic...

 LunarSol wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
I feel for Wyches. It wouldn't have taken much effort to create 2 more weapon profiles for the unit, one for the optional Agonizer and another for the duel melee weapon models. It isn't like three melee weapon profiles in a unit is all that unusual for melee units.

It wasn't just Wyches who suffered this fate. Vanguard. Tyranid Warriors. Deathwatch. The list goes on...

Personally I think Deathwatch turned out great

They literally lost the Ammo rules that MADE the Deathwatch their own thing. On top of that losing the shotguns was absolutely ridiculous.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
I feel for Wyches. It wouldn't have taken much effort to create 2 more weapon profiles for the unit, one for the optional Agonizer and another for the duel melee weapon models. It isn't like three melee weapon profiles in a unit is all that unusual for melee units.

It wasn't just Wyches who suffered this fate. Vanguard. Tyranid Warriors. Deathwatch. The list goes on...

Personally I think Deathwatch turned out great

They literally lost the Ammo rules that MADE the Deathwatch their own thing. On top of that losing the shotguns was absolutely ridiculous.

I'd like some special rules for the shotguns, but they're my go to for Long Vigil Range Weapons on my models outside the Sgts.

SIA was taken away in 9th. It's a LOT more usable and faction defining now than it was then.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Anyone remember in 3rd Edition where GW did a revised Dark Eldar Codex that added different weapon stats for Wyches because everyone didn't like having "generic Wych weapons". It also added vehicle upgrades. They revised an entire Codex to add flavour. To add choice.

Ahh... those were the days...

It was the other way around with Wyches, as the weapons (which were one each to a squad) were not really worth taking on their own so they changed them to be WYSIWYG markers as it were for the Wych Weapons option, which amped up their HTH abilities. It was in the 5th ed codex that they got made distinct again.

 LunarSol wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
I feel for Wyches. It wouldn't have taken much effort to create 2 more weapon profiles for the unit, one for the optional Agonizer and another for the duel melee weapon models. It isn't like three melee weapon profiles in a unit is all that unusual for melee units.

It wasn't just Wyches who suffered this fate. Vanguard. Tyranid Warriors. Deathwatch. The list goes on...

Personally I think Deathwatch turned out great

They literally lost the Ammo rules that MADE the Deathwatch their own thing. On top of that losing the shotguns was absolutely ridiculous.

SIA was taken away in 9th.

No it wasn't

Crispy78 wrote:


I think they tried to listen to what people wanted but got it backwards and messed it up. What everyone was after was for GW to include more weapons, gear etc with each kit so that there was enough to equip the squad in any way the rules allow without needing to buy multiples, kitbash etc. GW instead appear to have reduced the rules so that units can only be equipped with the models that come in a single box. And they haven't even managed to do that consistently.

What makes you think that tho? Why does it appear that way? All the kits they've been making for ages have all the wargear options in the box, there's an insane amount of extra wargear in the boxes that covers the full range of options. They have reduced rules right across the game in general to streamline the game, but when it comes to wargear and what is included in the box they have been making kits that include the whole range of wargear for a long time no?

Like I said with the guard, in the past you got laspistols, lasguns and a lascannon for 10 men, but in the rules you could swap that lascannon for a heavy plasma gun, heavy bolter, missile launcher, autocannon or a conversion beamer, none of which were in the box.

If you look at one of their recent guard kits like the Kasrkin it contains a lasgun for all the troops but also 2 plasma guns, 2 grenade launchers, 2 melta guns, 2 flame throwers, a sniper rifle, melta mine, vox caster, laspistol, bolt pistol, plasma pistol, chainsword and a powersword along with a gas masked head for every model and an open faced head for every model, theres 25 guns and 26 heads in a box with 10 models.

Surely the reason that a modern box like Kasrkin can't take any wargear options that are not in the box and theres little need to do any kitbashing to them at all is because they added all the wargear in the box and also included a bunch of cosmetic options to customise your troops the way you want them? Why do people think they only add 10 guns in the box and then nerf the rules so that the unit can only equip those 10 guns because they hate kitbashing?

GW is a collection of human beings almost all of whom are deeply into the hobby and love kitbashing.

neca_loves_cake wrote:

Crispy78 wrote:


I think they tried to listen to what people wanted but got it backwards and messed it up. What everyone was after was for GW to include more weapons, gear etc with each kit so that there was enough to equip the squad in any way the rules allow without needing to buy multiples, kitbash etc. GW instead appear to have reduced the rules so that units can only be equipped with the models that come in a single box. And they haven't even managed to do that consistently.

GW is a collection of human beings almost all of whom are deeply into the hobby and love kitbashing.

If that were the case they'd write rules to reflect as such.

neca_loves_cake wrote:


GW is a collection of human beings almost all of whom are deeply into the hobby and love kitbashing.

Thanks for the laugh mate. I needed it today.

 LunarSol wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

They literally lost the Ammo rules that MADE the Deathwatch their own thing. On top of that losing the shotguns was absolutely ridiculous.

I'd like some special rules for the shotguns, but they're my go to for Long Vigil Range Weapons on my models outside the Sgts.

SIA was taken away in 9th. It's a LOT more usable and faction defining now than it was then.

I always thought the thing that most made Deathwatch their own thing were the kill teams. I mean ammo was important, sure. But kill teams man- that's where it's at.

Now unfortunately, the loss of combat squads and the weird caps on some of the unit types that can be included in a KT have messed that up a bit.