Switch Theme:

At what point do we tell GW to GDIAF re: no model, no rules?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
DeadliestIdiot wrote:
Thought: the 1 of X wargear in a unit thing acts to limit the extent of small power imbalances among the wargear options resulting in OP units because someone just took all of the best option (as in 1 of X makes that less likely to occur).

While I don't personally feel particularly strongly about the rule (I find it slightly distasteful...I play via TTS, so I've got no skin in the model game), I certainly can understand the frustration others feel with changing to these rules. I just wanted to share a silver lining to this trend in unit loadout.


For me, the issue is such a rule is applied unevenly, and can adversely affect older kits.

The alternative already kind of exists for Necromunda and Horus Heresy. Separate weapon packs. Now that is not ideal. The ideal is of course every box comes with every conceivable combo of equipment.

Which GW did do for 40K - just in a completely arse about face way with the current “if your box has 1 of X, Y and Z, and 10 dudes? Those 10 dudes can only have one of X,Y, or Z.

I think the worst example of this (there may be others, don’t crucify me for my lack of knowledge) would be the Ad Mech Skitarii, if only because Rangers want those Arqueba, and the..other ones, which need to be used more aggressively, really don’t benefit from the Arqueba.

The best part about this is that there's a poster here that's UTTERLY convinced this happened because Plasma was being spammed on Rangers, and that the solution was to make it so Rangers couldn't take Plasma LOL
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Insectum7 wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
What do you mean by “falling in line”?
Like the TOs and other groups who fell over one another trying to be the first to adopt GW's standard/minimum board sizes.

Nailed it.


When a local TO set up a 6 x 4 as a table people complained, it cracked me up.
   
Made in us
Warp-Screaming Noise Marine




As a recently radicalized anarchist, I've realized that what the OP is proposing is called "Direct action." The primary issue is that your power structure you build with your community needs to be stronger than the power structure that GW built with your community. In some cases, the player base have a power structure in place to support the player base's policy over the official owners of the game's IP, like when Uno tried to tell us that you can't plus 2/4 a plus 2/4 to stack more cards on the next person. The internet smacked that right the heck out of them.

Basically, if you want to overturn the no rules no model doctrine, you need to build a strong relationship with your local gaming community and propose the idea. It wouldn't hurt to ask your local anarchist/radical lefty friends how to run a committee. Most group projects suck in my experience because without a hierarchal structure, we don't know how to figure out who is doing what. This comes down to a lack of good committee skills.

I'm not saying you need to be an anarchist but having one explain power structures and why you can, can't or are probable to or not probable to be able to make these changes based on a power structure analysis may be helpful.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/10/02 08:18:50


Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. -Kurt Vonnegut 
   
Made in gb
Mighty Brass Scorpion of Khorne




Just as a concept where does the no model no rules thing end for people? For example we know there aren't any modern rules for a chaos lord on daemonic mount as the model doesn't exist. Are people saying they want and expect GW to start producing rules for stuff like that which are balanced and supported in their normal format? Are they saying they want event organisers to accept community made unit profiles? Or is it just to try and turn a blind eye to some of the odd combinations that do have points but with obscure limitations?
   
Made in dk
Loyal Necron Lychguard






Dudeface wrote:
Just as a concept where does the no model no rules thing end for people? For example we know there aren't any modern rules for a chaos lord on daemonic mount as the model doesn't exist. Are people saying they want and expect GW to start producing rules for stuff like that which are balanced and supported in their normal format? Are they saying they want event organisers to accept community made unit profiles? Or is it just to try and turn a blind eye to some of the odd combinations that do have points but with obscure limitations?

Anything that has ever had rules should continue to have rules in case people made a model for it. Options that can easily be converted should be available for characters unless there are fluff reasons not to. The most extreme case might be Chosen on Daemonic mounts from 3,5, those should have rules. Legends rules should be updated ASAP when a codex is updated. Let the out of print options join the high risk group along with Knights and make sure high-risk units never become the flavour of the month.
   
Made in de
Contagious Dreadnought of Nurgle




 vict0988 wrote:
Dudeface wrote:
Just as a concept where does the no model no rules thing end for people? For example we know there aren't any modern rules for a chaos lord on daemonic mount as the model doesn't exist. Are people saying they want and expect GW to start producing rules for stuff like that which are balanced and supported in their normal format? Are they saying they want event organisers to accept community made unit profiles? Or is it just to try and turn a blind eye to some of the odd combinations that do have points but with obscure limitations?

Anything that has ever had rules should continue to have rules in case people made a model for it. Options that can easily be converted should be available for characters unless there are fluff reasons not to. The most extreme case might be Chosen on Daemonic mounts from 3,5, those should have rules. Legends rules should be updated ASAP when a codex is updated. Let the out of print options join the high risk group along with Knights and make sure high-risk units never become the flavour of the month.


This, basically.
These problems could easily be solved with a more generic approach. Equipment lists for characters, there's no reason some nobz can have a Combiskorcha, others can only have a custom shoota and the third one has a big shoota and a bespoken choppa.
Same thing with daemonic steeds. Make it a bulky steed and a fast steed - whether people model their Chaos Lord on a Palanquin, a juggernaut, on the Lord of Discordant thingy or keep it simple and cheap and just walk is their own decision.
   
Made in gb
Ridin' on a Snotling Pump Wagon






Bringing in data from my other thread?

9th Ed has seen something in the region of 140 or so kits (and even then that’s not counting some forthcoming releases).

That’s…a lot of stuff. It suggests that. If GW were of a mind, they could do a Back Filling Edition, where dropped units (Librarian on Bikes, Archon on Board Thing and so on) return with an official model - the existence of which doesn’t prevent conversions. They just don’t require conversions.

With 20 armies (including World Eaters, but not counting individual Chapters), and maybe 160 or so slots (to allow for miscounting) that could translate to 8 kits per Faction if shared out equally.

Of course, at least two Factions (both flavours of Knights) wouldn’t know what to do with that many additions, without including infantry etc. And other armies just don’t need that much right now.

But even so, it does point to GW having the design capacity to bring back a huge swathe of Previously Existing Kits.

Will we see that? Who knows. I think there’s a stronger argument to see stuff left languishing in Finecast redone first. In the thread I think we counted around 60 or so kits not yet in plastic. So even then, there’s still room for New Kits or Stuff Returning.

Some kits could even bring back multiple options, such as Marine Characters on Bikes. Make it a standard sprue size (as in three frames, ala Infantry) and you’ve space for the bike, variant torsos, even variant greaves for the legs, and of course Character Appropriate Equipment. If we make that Chaplain, Captain, Librarian, Techmarine and Apothecary? That’s five units returned for 1 set. Is that practical overall? Honestly don’t know or care, as it’s just an example.

Fed up of Scalpers? But still want your Exclusives? Why not join us?

H.B.M.C, 27 July 2022. Suddenly the Chaos Codex doesn't seem so bad.

Not at all quote mined. 
   
Made in us
Enigmatic Chaos Sorcerer




The dark hollows of Kentucky

Yeah, I'm not going to hold my breath, considering that gw has actually started removing existing models just so that they can remove the options they have. You want actual options not tied to what's on existing models? Play HH.
   
Made in de
Contagious Dreadnought of Nurgle




 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Bringing in data from my other thread?

9th Ed has seen something in the region of 140 or so kits (and even then that’s not counting some forthcoming releases).

That’s…a lot of stuff. It suggests that. If GW were of a mind, they could do a Back Filling Edition, where dropped units (Librarian on Bikes, Archon on Board Thing and so on) return with an official model - the existence of which doesn’t prevent conversions. They just don’t require conversions.

With 20 armies (including World Eaters, but not counting individual Chapters), and maybe 160 or so slots (to allow for miscounting) that could translate to 8 kits per Faction if shared out equally.

Of course, at least two Factions (both flavours of Knights) wouldn’t know what to do with that many additions, without including infantry etc. And other armies just don’t need that much right now.

But even so, it does point to GW having the design capacity to bring back a huge swathe of Previously Existing Kits.

Will we see that? Who knows. I think there’s a stronger argument to see stuff left languishing in Finecast redone first. In the thread I think we counted around 60 or so kits not yet in plastic. So even then, there’s still room for New Kits or Stuff Returning.

Some kits could even bring back multiple options, such as Marine Characters on Bikes. Make it a standard sprue size (as in three frames, ala Infantry) and you’ve space for the bike, variant torsos, even variant greaves for the legs, and of course Character Appropriate Equipment. If we make that Chaplain, Captain, Librarian, Techmarine and Apothecary? That’s five units returned for 1 set. Is that practical overall? Honestly don’t know or care, as it’s just an example.


Unfortunately GW very rarely produces these multipurpose chars. There's the CSM Termilord, Eldar Exarch, Dark Angels Lieutenant and Canoness - but next to these are dozens of monopose chars with nothing more than an alternate head (or not even that).
It's more likely to get an Archon on never-seen-before-Coven-beast equipped with Dark sabre and whip of extreme defiling that he can't exchange than getting an Archon on Hover board with three optional CC weapons and two optional guns.
   
Made in eg
[MOD]
Otiose in a Niche






Cairo, Egypt

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
... though if they choose to invalidate every IG infantry squad in the next codex, that might do it for me.
They are.

Join us in our rage.









This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/10/02 12:11:36


 
   
Made in gb
Ridin' on a Snotling Pump Wagon






It’s been, well for want a better and more accurate term, seasonal I suppose.

GW has done plastic characters with lots of options, such as the Space Marine Captain kit.

And it’s only really been 8th and 9th (I believe, as ever correct me if I’m wrong) where the Codex Option have strictly reflected the models available. Even then, we’ve seen some loosening up starting to happen (Autarch).

So whilst GW may continue the broader trend of 8th and 9th? That’s far from a given.

Fed up of Scalpers? But still want your Exclusives? Why not join us?

H.B.M.C, 27 July 2022. Suddenly the Chaos Codex doesn't seem so bad.

Not at all quote mined. 
   
Made in de
Contagious Dreadnought of Nurgle




 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
It’s been, well for want a better and more accurate term, seasonal I suppose.

GW has done plastic characters with lots of options, such as the Space Marine Captain kit.

And it’s only really been 8th and 9th (I believe, as ever correct me if I’m wrong) where the Codex Option have strictly reflected the models available. Even then, we’ve seen some loosening up starting to happen (Autarch).

So whilst GW may continue the broader trend of 8th and 9th? That’s far from a given.


Indeed. GW likes to be inconsistent. And we don't know how much criticism reached them because of 9th nmnr approach.
Just look at DG, the faction that appeared with 8th Edition. In 8th edition the Lord, sorcerer and Possessed in the DG Codex didn't get DG rules because there were only the generic CSM models for these. Coming 9th they got their rules despite the same situation with the models, but you also got hit by the abomination of the Plague Marine datasheet. GW giveth, GW taketh away
   
Made in gb
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain





Cardiff

OP, wishing anyone to Go Die In A Fire is a horrendous, hyperbolic and blatantly disproportionate response to “I don’t like these rules”. Pathetic edgelordery can be expressed in more level-headed terms, especially in this age of actual death threats online. Choose better descriptors and don’t use GDIAF.

 Stormonu wrote:
For me, the joy is in putting some good-looking models on the board and playing out a fantasy battle - not arguing over the poorly-made rules of some 3rd party who neither has any power over my play nor will be visiting me (and my opponent) to ensure we are "playing by the rules"
 
   
Made in us
Morally-Flexible Malleus Hearing Whispers




 H.B.M.C. wrote:
 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
... though if they choose to invalidate every IG infantry squad in the next codex, that might do it for me.
They are.

Join us in our rage.



I'm sorry, can you cite the source on this? I honestly have been away from the game for about 3 months, when did they make that a thing?
   
Made in us
Insect-Infested Nurgle Chaos Lord






FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
... though if they choose to invalidate every IG infantry squad in the next codex, that might do it for me.
They are.

Join us in our rage.



I'm sorry, can you cite the source on this? I honestly have been away from the game for about 3 months, when did they make that a thing?


It's in the IG rumour thread. Page26/27 onwards.


Games Workshop Delenda Est.

If you break apart my or anyone else's posts line by line I will not read them. 
   
Made in dk
Loyal Necron Lychguard






 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
If GW were of a mind, they could do a Back Filling Edition...

The return of various types of Crypteks and the limited edition staff of light Necron Overlords means they are doing some of that. One also has to keep in mind that sometimes the designers might just want to do cool stuff like the voidscythe Overlord when the hyperphase sword Overlord and voidblade Overlord already had rules but lacked a model, but that might also be due to a lack of communication. I would have rather had the remaining missing old Cryptek options (Geomancers and Ethermancers) instead of Doomstalkers and Skorpekh Destroyers. The problem with Space Marines is primaris.
   
Made in us
Warp-Screaming Noise Marine




The work required to build the movement to reverse TO's exclusion of legends and to make GW honor rules for all units they used to have is probably a lot more than it's worth, but if you got even half the community on board and committed to this, you could make it happen. Start with your local gaming group and then expand from there.

Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. -Kurt Vonnegut 
   
Made in au
Unstoppable Bloodthirster of Khorne





Melbourne .au

Aecus Decimus wrote:
No model, no rules: it's obviously stupid, we all hate it, but nobody ever seems to do anything about the problem. At what point do we acknowledge that GW is not looking out for the best interests of the community here and stop complying with NMNR? Why are we so concerned with "officialness" that we'll keep playing with obviously bad rules when it would be so easy to just collectively agree that NMNR restrictions do not apply? Is there any hope that major TOs will reject NMNR, as they did with bad GW rules in previous editions, or are they too committed to being good little corporate yes men to do anything that might risk their preferential treatment by GW?


Here's the thing, I guess. I already play how I want. Not that I play often, but for the friendly games in my home with family/friends, Primaris and Fortborn can freely ride in each others' vehicles and my RT & 2nd edition-era Librarian models converted in 3rd to have Jump Packs (and lightning claws in one instance) can still freely exist.

For (theoretical) competitive play or PUG against strangers who wouldn't be aware of these quirky models? Well, I would have to respect the TO's rules and new opponents not expecting me to break out non-current models/units/forces and play more in line with current RAW. Friendly games at home? My toy soldiers, my rules. I doubt it's as uncommon as people think, as the online discourse is so often focused on tournaments and "competitive" games.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
*firstborn

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/10/04 02:17:35


   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




Aecus Decimus wrote:
 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
There are some many things we could tell GW such as... $50 for a 20 year old IG kit?! Or $45 for 10 chaos cultists?!


Sure, but those are things we as players have no power over. We can't force GW to change their prices, we can make NMNR disappear.
This is not true if people stoped buying for 2 weeks and tld games workshop prices were to high the price would come down fast.

Apple fox wrote:
The only time will be if they lose sales, and someone has to work out what is wrong.


But my point is that we don't need GW to recognize the problem. If GW posts nonsense like today's traitor guard datasheet with a rule that you can't take duplicate special weapons we as players can and should pat GW on the head condescendingly, tell them "no, that's stupid, it doesn't work that way", and play the game without that rule. TOs can at any time declare that NMNR will not exist in their events. But instead for some reason people seem to be content to grumble a bit about it and then meekly tear apart their existing models to get into NMNR compliance.

(And yes, I know that in the case of major TOs GW has bought their compliance and made their business success contingent on being good little corporate yes-men. What I don't understand is why the rest of us are willing to put up with NMNR.)



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Not sure the qoutwe worked. Anyways if people stoped buying for 2 weeks and demanded prices come down they would come down. It really is that simple folks. Just need the collective will to stick it out.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/10/04 07:39:14


 
   
Made in gb
Never Forget Isstvan!






This only works if everyone who buys Warhammer products is doing so with the game in mind, which the majority aren't.
Its been proven year after year that most people who buy GW products don't play the game systems. You wouldn't manage to get enough people together to make a statement when even if you had every single player sign up you'd still be outnumbered by a large margin.
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
GW has done plastic characters with lots of options, such as the Space Marine Captain kit.
Dude, that kit is probably older than some of the people at this site, and they don't sell it anymore. So as an example of it being "seasonal", it's a pretty poor one.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
And it’s only really been 8th and 9th (I believe, as ever correct me if I’m wrong) where the Codex Option have strictly reflected the models available.
Yeah. We know. That's what we don't like.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Even then, we’ve seen some loosening up starting to happen (Autarch).
Only after much outcry. Another bad examplt, Grotsnik.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
So whilst GW may continue the broader trend of 8th and 9th? That’s far from a given.
Oh give me a break. Do you seriously think that this is a trend that's going to suddenly go away without a complete reset of the rules paradigm?

 JohnnyHell wrote:
OP, wishing anyone to Go Die In A Fire is a horrendous, hyperbolic and blatantly disproportionate response to “I don’t like these rules”. Pathetic edgelordery can be expressed in more level-headed terms, especially in this age of actual death threats online. Choose better descriptors and don’t use GDIAF.
Way to miss the point there...

No one's actually wishing death upon people. "Die in a fire" is an expression, like "Go suck on eggs". Nothing more.


This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2022/10/04 13:52:01


Industrial Insanity - My Terrain Blog
"GW really needs to understand 'Less is more' when it comes to AoS." - Wha-Mu-077

 
   
Made in us
Stalwart Veteran Guard Sergeant





 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
OP, wishing anyone to Go Die In A Fire is a horrendous, hyperbolic and blatantly disproportionate response to “I don’t like these rules”. Pathetic edgelordery can be expressed in more level-headed terms, especially in this age of actual death threats online. Choose better descriptors and don’t use GDIAF.
Way to miss the point there...

No one's actually wishing death upon people. "Die in a fire" is an expression, like "Go suck on eggs". Nothing more.


I think you're the one missing the point in this case...it's all fun and games until it isn't. We're on a public forum where literally anyone with internet access can read what we post. The OP might not have intended to actually wish death on anyone, but interpretation is a different thing.

~~
On a different note, I'd welcome a rules reset if it was accompanied with NMNR going away and I'm a guard player (to be honest, I'd also welcome a reset if it meant we went back to a less multilayered combo and more fun and fluffy rules set, but I know not everyone would appreciate that)
   
Made in us
Mekboy Hammerin' Somethin'




Sedona, Arizona

DeadliestIdiot wrote:

I think you're the one missing the point in this case...it's all fun and games until it isn't. We're on a public forum where literally anyone with internet access can read what we post. The OP might not have intended to actually wish death on anyone, but interpretation is a different thing.


Bud…. “Die in a fire” is very much just jargon like the quoted “go suck on eggs”. Other examples would be “kick rocks,” “kiss my arse,” “kick in the balls,” “kicked my x’s ass,” “come to Jesus.” These aren’t advocating harm to feet, lips to ass, testicular damage, or expediting people to the Christian afterlife. They’re just sayings.

 welshhoppo wrote:

I like my Orks how I like my Emperor, dead.
 
   
Made in us
Ancient Venerable Dreadnought




San Jose, CA

So are racial epithets...and calling everyone a nazi...and....and....

So let's just lay off the hyperbole.

Back on topic, NMNR has yet to effect my group. My Biker Librarian sees the field quite often.
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

Racerguy180 wrote:
So are racial epithets...and calling everyone a nazi...and....and....
No... that's not the same at all.

Industrial Insanity - My Terrain Blog
"GW really needs to understand 'Less is more' when it comes to AoS." - Wha-Mu-077

 
   
Made in us
Mekboy Hammerin' Somethin'




Sedona, Arizona

Racerguy180 wrote:
So are racial epithets...and calling everyone a nazi...and....and....

So let's just lay off the hyperbole.

Back on topic, NMNR has yet to effect my group. My Biker Librarian sees the field quite often.


Excuse me, what? You’re confusing racial slurs with colloquial sayings.

 welshhoppo wrote:

I like my Orks how I like my Emperor, dead.
 
   
Made in au
Unstoppable Bloodthirster of Khorne





Melbourne .au

Aaaand there's Godwin!

   
Made in us
Ancient Venerable Dreadnought




San Jose, CA

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Racerguy180 wrote:
So are racial epithets...and calling everyone a nazi...and....and....
No... that's not the same at all.

You obviously never been to the south,

And also for you native English speakers, gak doesn't necessarily translate well, especially colloquially dependent stuff. So for all intents and purposes someone without a firm grasp of colloquial English, saying "go die in a fire" is literally saying just that, go die in a fire.
   
Made in ca
Mekboy Hammerin' Somethin'




Sedona, Arizona

Nvm. It's not worth it.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/10/06 07:30:10


 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: