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.

'lo there

Been reading the fluff in the new Nids codex, more accurately the war on Baal. In this section the end of the Knights of Blood is depicted, the last of them sacrificing themselves to buy time for Gabriel Seth and the BA successors he's with to withdraw from Baal's moon. As they do so, Seth sees as the final Knights fall to the Black Rage, cutting swathes through the bioforms before falling. As classic and picturesque as a scene this is, it I personally met it with mixed feelings; while it is always interesting to see the old wood get thrown on the fire, this felt as though it was perhaps not the right chapter to do it with. The Knights of Blood were always touted as the "renegade" Blood Angels chapter, the one that, while not chaos, walked a dangerous path. They were a chapter that kept the spectrum broad and encouraged imagination when designing your own Chapters and fluff.

In recent Codexs, while core factions and chapters have been fleshed out and developed nicely, the fringe and unique, DIY kitbash, special snowflake ideas where any concept was a good one seems to be somewhat faltering. When the Traitor Legions book came out last edition, it was amazing. Finally, not just ragtag warbands, we can make our legions feel special. When the new GW codex came out however, it was pretty much ONLY CSM: Traitor legions. Warbands were pretty much non existent, everything felt geared towards putting you in one of 8 slots or you could chose the, still nice, but generic rule.

Each codex seems to be focusing on creating 6-8 core factions for each army. While this of course allows more development and greater choice from GW than ever before down these paths, does anyone feel as though it's sacrificing the fringe areas of the hobby? I'm genuinely interested to hear what people have to say, as while yes it damages one part of the hobby, it unquestionably strengthens the core of the game and what is relevant to the vast majority of people.

There is still some DIY Fluff aspects to it, but it's within the constraints of what's published to acknowledge your concern. you still could run a renegade faction using a legion rule set, but you would have to ensure that this is clear from the outset of the game. you could also run 2 separate detachments, run them with different legion rules and still have a legal list.

For example, you could run a Battalion as an Imperial fists battalion then run a separate outrider detachment as ravenguard to give a fluffy but diverse feel to your army. Core troops being siege experts and assault units being tough to pin down.

The alternative could have been a set list of minor special rules, a battleforged army gets to pick 3 but there are also Chapter/ Legion specific ones where you can only choose from one of them. that would be much harder to balance however and could ultimately lead to a stagnant system where to be balanced, every army has the same special rules, just under a different name in an attempt to keep balance.

Realistically there's nothing preventing a player from forming their own Chapter or Legion or whatever, looking over the existing rules, and deciding the White Scars tactic rule best embodies the style of their army. The name is just a label. It could just be Chapter Tactic 4, but that would probably be far less memorable.

There's a need to reign in some of the DIY fluff and focus on a narrative for a bit simply because the existing world has been pretty well mined. You can only exterminate so many cults and exterminatus so many worlds before planetary destruction becomes mundane, so there's the need to reshape the conflict. I think in a few years we'll probably see a new status quo emerge that gives players some new stories to tell.

Hum I'm not sure. I do get what you're saying with the general move towards clear defined factions and away from DIY stuff. The general reduction in wargear and customisation available to generic HQ choices is one indicator I've noticed.

It's always been a bit of a 'bend these rules to fit your idea' when you're creating your own dudes though. Whether that's increased or decreased recently I'm not sure...

I think it is falling more in keeping some measure of focus in the overall "narrative" that is 40k.
It is a big universe and all manner of stuff can happen but you need some kind of key players to talk about before it all seems like a bunch of random groups with no emotional investment.
It seems appropriate that you pick an army type you like and then focus a bit more of some element of that group that creates further interest.
Tau always seemed to get butchered in melee but you can play a faction that seems to like it... it is all there to give some measure of choice.

It completely makes sense when you look at the variety of culture and people in real life, if you had a populated universe you could imagine the variety would go up exponentially.
GW is focusing on the various armies, I think they are not overly concerned with the special snowflake armies.

I think you would get an idea the day they only sell models with the army symbols hard molded into them with no generic ones.

It's exactly the same as it has always been. You have the official rules and then you paint your guys different and explain the fluff in your head as to why those rules apply but for different reasons.

When you wanted a special home brew SM chapter in the past you just picked a pre existing chapter, repainted them, and renamed the characters. Do that now. The only difference here is now everyone else has chapters too.

 Lance845 wrote:
It's exactly the same as it has always been. You have the official rules and then you paint your guys different and explain the fluff in your head as to why those rules apply but for different reasons.

When you wanted a special home brew SM chapter in the past you just picked a pre existing chapter, repainted them, and renamed the characters. Do that now. The only difference here is now everyone else has chapters too.

Nearly exactly the same. Much harder to get characterisation since the 'no model, no rules' debacle.

Want an Autarch with a power spear? Can't have it.
Want an Archon on a jetbike? Can't have it.

There's lots more examples, but it's little things like this that stand in the way of making your dudes the way you want them in a way that hasn't in previous editions.

 Ynneadwraith wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
It's exactly the same as it has always been. You have the official rules and then you paint your guys different and explain the fluff in your head as to why those rules apply but for different reasons.

When you wanted a special home brew SM chapter in the past you just picked a pre existing chapter, repainted them, and renamed the characters. Do that now. The only difference here is now everyone else has chapters too.

Nearly exactly the same. Much harder to get characterisation since the 'no model, no rules' debacle.

Want an Autarch with a power spear? Can't have it.
Want an Archon on a jetbike? Can't have it.

There's lots more examples, but it's little things like this that stand in the way of making your dudes the way you want them in a way that hasn't in previous editions.

Every edition has had armies gain and loose options and units. Necrons have lost far more than anyone over the last 3 editions in terms of ways to equip their characters. It is what it is. Which is what it has always been.

 Lance845 wrote:


Every edition has had armies gain and loose options and units. Necrons have lost far more than anyone over the last 3 editions in terms of ways to equip their characters. It is what it is. Which is what it has always been.

The point is more that while the farmyard has been widened, the fences have grown taller. The rules undoubtedly accommodate more diversity in lists, the suggestion is being made that you no longer have to think outside of the box for armies. Before faction rules, all units had the same rules so what distinguished them was the painting and fluff you made up. Now that it comes built into the rules firstly players, especially not new ones, won't have the same drive to look elsewhere for ideas. Secondly when you do actually make up say, a chapter of unknown origin that loves to destroy enemy entrenchments, they'll be using Imperial Fists rules, so when you play all you'll think/feel/say will be about the Imperial fists.

It's not by any means a line in the sand, but it is a definite edge away from player control over their army's fluff and playstyle.

 Lance845 wrote:

 Ynneadwraith wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
It's exactly the same as it has always been. You have the official rules and then you paint your guys different and explain the fluff in your head as to why those rules apply but for different reasons.

When you wanted a special home brew SM chapter in the past you just picked a pre existing chapter, repainted them, and renamed the characters. Do that now. The only difference here is now everyone else has chapters too.

Nearly exactly the same. Much harder to get characterisation since the 'no model, no rules' debacle.

Want an Autarch with a power spear? Can't have it.
Want an Archon on a jetbike? Can't have it.

There's lots more examples, but it's little things like this that stand in the way of making your dudes the way you want them in a way that hasn't in previous editions.

Every edition has had armies gain and loose options and units. Necrons have lost far more than anyone over the last 3 editions in terms of ways to equip their characters. It is what it is. Which is what it has always been.

While thats true you can't seriously try and argue that as a whole HQ choices (and really most units) havent lost far more equipment than previous editions.
The trend seems to be in dumbing down and redesigning the way you build armies, which imho is a good thing given the clusterfeth that previous editions had become.
It seems too that a lot of armies lost special characters that didnt have models, which is I think what part of this topic is about.
So yes, I do believe that GW is pushing non DIY armies more than ever before, and while we can still get around that its definitely harder to make a truly unique army now. As I said though, its sort of a necessity since GW is going in the direction of restructuring rules and dumbing down the game.

 thetallestgiraffe wrote:

Secondly when you do actually make up say, a chapter of unknown origin that loves to destroy enemy entrenchments, they'll be using Imperial Fists rules, so when you play all you'll think/feel/say will be about the Imperial fists.

It's not by any means a line in the sand, but it is a definite edge away from player control over their army's fluff and playstyle.

It's funny that you used the SM example. SM have had chapter tactics doing exactly that for like... 5 editions now. It's only everyone else that is now doing what SM have been doing forever.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jollydevil wrote:

While thats true you can't seriously try and argue that as a whole HQ choices (and really most units) havent lost far more equipment than previous editions.
The trend seems to be in dumbing down and redesigning the way you build armies, which imho is a good thing given the clusterfeth that previous editions had become.
It seems too that a lot of armies lost special characters that didnt have models, which is I think what part of this topic is about.
So yes, I do believe that GW is pushing non DIY armies more than ever before, and while we can still get around that its definitely harder to make a truly unique army now. As I said though, its sort of a necessity since GW is going in the direction of restructuring rules and dumbing down the game.

DIY armies have always been more of an exercise of the DIYer. You ALWAYS had to work within the confines of the rules of the edition. I don't think 8th is any different from any other edition in THAT respect. 8th has trimmed a lot of the fat. Sometimes excessively. But it's to get 8th as a rule set on track with their singular vision for 8th (which includes selling models in print). You still have the index datasheet for models that don't make it to the codex. You still have a FAQ telling you to use index options over codex with your opponents permission for your home brew games with your whatever-you-want armies. You have narrative play as an official thing, which hasn't existed in a very long time if ever.

Just because you feel like the new rules of 8th require less imaginations because there are so many rules options (chapter tactics for all) or less options (wargear) doesn't mean you are not able to inject exactly as much imagination as you can muster into whatever DIY army you choose to make.

 Lance845 wrote:

 thetallestgiraffe wrote:

Secondly when you do actually make up say, a chapter of unknown origin that loves to destroy enemy entrenchments, they'll be using Imperial Fists rules, so when you play all you'll think/feel/say will be about the Imperial fists.

It's not by any means a line in the sand, but it is a definite edge away from player control over their army's fluff and playstyle.

It's funny that you used the SM example. SM have had chapter tactics doing exactly that for like... 5 editions now. It's only everyone else that is now doing what SM have been doing forever.

Actually, not quite so much.

Chapter Tactics have only existed from 6th onwards - in 5th, there was no difference between armies in game beyond what units you took. In fact, I could take Calgar, Lysander AND Vulkan all in one detachment at the time, because they weren't locked into a chapter. All you did was say "well, Vulkan's helping the Ultramarines in this battle" or "This isn't Vulkan! This is Ultramarine Captain Kulvan!"

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jollydevil wrote:

While thats true you can't seriously try and argue that as a whole HQ choices (and really most units) havent lost far more equipment than previous editions.
The trend seems to be in dumbing down and redesigning the way you build armies, which imho is a good thing given the clusterfeth that previous editions had become.
It seems too that a lot of armies lost special characters that didnt have models, which is I think what part of this topic is about.
So yes, I do believe that GW is pushing non DIY armies more than ever before, and while we can still get around that its definitely harder to make a truly unique army now. As I said though, its sort of a necessity since GW is going in the direction of restructuring rules and dumbing down the game.

DIY armies have always been more of an exercise of the DIYer. You ALWAYS had to work within the confines of the rules of the edition. I don't think 8th is any different from any other edition in THAT respect. 8th has trimmed a lot of the fat. Sometimes excessively. But it's to get 8th as a rule set on track with their singular vision for 8th (which includes selling models in print). You still have the index datasheet for models that don't make it to the codex. You still have a FAQ telling you to use index options over codex with your opponents permission for your home brew games with your whatever-you-want armies. You have narrative play as an official thing, which hasn't existed in a very long time if ever.

Just because you feel like the new rules of 8th require less imaginations because there are so many rules options (chapter tactics for all) or less options (wargear) doesn't mean you are not able to inject exactly as much imagination as you can muster into whatever DIY army you choose to make.

8th absolutely has more customisation on the macro level. With detachments being more forgiving, you can more or less take armies of whatever models you want, and with the <Faction> keywords, even the same list can play completely differently (take, for example, a Cadian Leman Russ Spearhead vs a Tallarn Leman Russ Spearhead - the Cadians will stay still and use their rerolls, whereas the Tallarn will be moving fast and redeploying).

However, I do think that customisation in the micro level is lacking - HQs and certain units (AM Veterans, Inquisition Acolytes) are stripped down a bit too much. I can see why they do it with HQs, with them being increasingly monobuild. I can't say I'm a fan of that, especially if someone cares a lot about their commander over their army.

Yes, the index exists, but will it after 8th?

8th just started. I expect we have at least 2 more years of 8th. Probably more with how invested GW seems to be in updating and FAQing the thing.

Whether or not the indexes will exist in 9th is irrelevant.

DIY armies have been given less attention with time. You'd really have to go back to 3ed-4ed for the time when they where really foccused on. Back then most armies built their special rules through various doctrines and point values to give the player their own chapter/regiment/craftworld/hive fleet/warband. This foccus changed the most in 5th ed where greater emphasis was placed on special characters. The doctrines where moved to be character specific instead of the former doctrine point systems. Choices of wargear and upfrades for sergeants/squads/HQ choices also got heavily limited as to compared to before. Chapter approved was also removed sometime during 5th, which removed specific lists like the kroot and snakebites.

Gw has slightly been increasing this lately with suggestions on how to model unique armies, which is nice.

There's a combination of factors, but I believe this to be the case, and I also see it as a bad thing.

The most obvious thing to note is that GW has begun to push their narrative forward with a focus on specific characters (who happen to turn up everywhere in the Galaxy...), as opposed to the previous situation where 40k was a setting, and not a narrative in itself.

Second, while the move to plastic has made it easier to work with models for the sake of converting your own heroes, GW's doubled back on converting by making the models themselves much more mono-posed, while simultaneously removing wargear options and units not given specific releases (that awkward moment when your Inquisitor loses all the wargear that they've had access to for 20+ years...).

Next up, in addition to GW's massive culling of unrepresented models, there's also been a push towards making named characters both extremely potent as well as specialized, to the point where some factions entire presence on the table can be predicated upon a single character.

So while I'm free to act like 40k is still the extremely vast and open sandbox of a setting that it is, I'm still left in a situation where I find myself converting my own "not-named character" models, as that's really the only way to play some armies or represent certain character archetypes that used to be available for me to create on my own terms and specifications. GW's current direction is very clear, and very single minded. It's a push away from personalized armies and developing cool narratives for your own touch to be felt in an army.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

However, I do think that customisation in the micro level is lacking - HQs and certain units (AM Veterans, Inquisition Acolytes) are stripped down a bit too much. I can see why they do it with HQs, with them being increasingly monobuild. I can't say I'm a fan of that, especially if someone cares a lot about their commander over their army.

Yes, the index exists, but will it after 8th?

This is how I feel about it. Especially with something like Guard. The AM Codex should be an exercise in what the Imperium can make and do with the manpower and industrial might it has, from Feral-World melee-troops all the way up to Carapace-Armored Scions. I should be able to field Guardsmen with just about anything available - I should be able to have Conscripts with no armor save, or 6+ or 5+ or however I please - so long as I pay the points. Within certain constraints, of course - I wouldn't fathom Guardsmen all using Bolters. Even beyond just equipment, you should be able to dictate they hit on 6+ or 5+ or 4+, higher or lower leadership, better or worse hand-to-hand ability, etc.

The Imperium is a vast place.

Closest I think we got to this was the 3.5e/4e "Penal Legion" quad, which you could kit up just about however you liked. Mine were in Carapace Armor and carried bolters :p

M.

They are killing it. For example, have you wanted your primaris captain to to be a proficient axe-wielder? What about the good ol- chainsword and bolt pistol combo?
Nope, but you can have a power sword...
Like, wtf GW?
This company is such a mess

123ply wrote:
They are killing it. For example, have you wanted your primaris captain to to be a proficient axe-wielder? What about the good ol- chainsword and bolt pistol combo?
Nope, but you can have a power sword...
Like, wtf GW?
This company is such a mess

However, on the flipside, there's now an actual difference between a Cadian and a Catachan, and even different craftworlds/Hive Fleets/Forge Worlds.

Would both the army customisation and the unit customisation together be good? Absolutely. But to say that GW have thrown EVERYTHING out is simply untrue. They've simply changed their focus from the units to the army as a whole, for better or worse - and considering 40k has become increasingly larger in scale, this move to the army-wide focus is telling.

123ply wrote:
They are killing it. For example, have you wanted your primaris captain to to be a proficient axe-wielder? What about the good ol- chainsword and bolt pistol combo?
Nope, but you can have a power sword...
Like, wtf GW?
This company is such a mess

glue a chainsword or power axe to his hand and says its a counts as power sword for rules. Now you have your head canon and your following the rules.

Also it seems the reduced customizability is purely Primaris Marines, not a general thing. my over all feeling is, given the limited cutomizability as well as the number of easy build options for them (if one takes the recent upcoming models info seriously, nearly the entire Primaris range will have an easy build option) I suspect that funcom intends primaris marines to be their new "newbie army" and if so limited customization options makes some sense.

BrianDavion wrote:
Also it seems the reduced customizability is purely Primaris Marines, not a general thing. my over all feeling is, given the limited cutomizability as well as the number of easy build options for them (if one takes the recent upcoming models info seriously, nearly the entire Primaris range will have an easy build option) I suspect that funcom intends primaris marines to be their new "newbie army" and if so limited customization options makes some sense.

Nah reduced customisation is a thing across the board for HQs. It's massively evident for eldar HQs (both craftworld and dark eldar).

It's basically just SM (and maybe Ork) HQs that retain any semblance of the customisation they had a couple of editions ago.

So yeah, macro there's more customisation afforded via genuine rules difference between sub-factions (although less stuff is tailored specifically towards homebrews like the old Renegades and Heretics lists, and the sadly departed but kickass FW Corsairs list).

Micro level there's less unless you want to make a regular Marine Chapter Master...

To be fair cutting down on the micro customising helps a lot with improving the games balance; both internally to a codex and between codex. I think it also cuts down on waste elements; ergo those choices that might look cool but which you'd never actually want to take because there are simply outright better choices.

I'd rather have less customising, but have what you have be valid to use; than have a thousand and one options of which only a tiny portion are practical to take (which is also a serious barrier to new players who are more likely to make poorer choices until they get to grips with the game).


Also from our and GW's point of view cutting down on micro helps them bulk out armies with more purchase choices. Look at Tyranids who early on had a carnifex for their heavy support and it did pretty much everything. Every single heavy support role was basically just a carny with different weapon options.

Now they've got a slew of new (and great looking) models that fit into those specialist roles. Now granted they've found a way to keep the carny varied whilst also keeping the specialists viable. But you can't have too many carny type units in an army before adding new things is hard.


Model wise as well I think GW wants to focus its marketing on building up subfactions within each army. They've done great with Space Marines over the years with that tactic so it makes sense that they are starting to roll it out for other factions as well. Especially as many armies are now quite large. They've mostly got a full range of models to suit every situation so once GW has winnowed out the last of the finecast they've got far fewer choices on ways to add new models to existing armies.

Cutting down on special character choices and instead introducing more specialist characters is a way they can expand their range without bloating armies.

Increasing popularity of subfactions and then releasing subfaction specific models is yet another way to increase army diversity without wholesale breaking armies. If Kraken Tyranids could take a new form of Hormagaunt unique to it then Tyraind players have a new model to buy; meanwhile it doesn't invalidate the old Hormagaunt as its still usable in other fleets.



I feel this is the way GW is going to head because, like it or not, they are a model making company and most gamers like new things for their armies.
Resculpts are, of course, always another avenue, but resculpts often won't generate massive new sales from existing customers who already have working models. If you've got your ork hoard or your tyranid swarm of gaunts you're unlikely to rush out and rebuy all those models even if GW puts out a stella new sculpt.

 Lance845 wrote:

123ply wrote:
They are killing it. For example, have you wanted your primaris captain to to be a proficient axe-wielder? What about the good ol- chainsword and bolt pistol combo?
Nope, but you can have a power sword...
Like, wtf GW?
This company is such a mess

glue a chainsword or power axe to his hand and says its a counts as power sword for rules. Now you have your head canon and your following the rules.

A kludge that patches over the lack of flexibility in current rules compared to older editions.

I understand the need to bend fluff and wysiwyg to represent your custom models, but having to pretend a chainsword is a power sword because inexplicably your Primaris Captain doesn't know how to use one...

Some level of rules-bending is to be expected, but access to basic wargear that's widespread in your army should be a basic requirement for an HQ/General type choice.

The old Autarch (and to some extent the new one, but slightly less) was the gold standard for that. Basic HQ statline,and access to a wide variety of goodies from the basic Aspect Warriors wargear options in combinations not available in the rest of the army, including options for jetpacks, bikes, and some other funky wargear no-one else gets.

That's the bare minimum for what each of the 'DIY' HQ options should offer, from Archons to Warbosses to Hive Tyrants to IG Generals. Since the whole 'no model, no rules' kneejerk panic that's what's been lacking to prompt the un-DIY-friendly feeling as far as I can tell.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Overread wrote:

Spoiler:

To be fair cutting down on the micro customising helps a lot with improving the games balance; both internally to a codex and between codex. I think it also cuts down on waste elements; ergo those choices that might look cool but which you'd never actually want to take because there are simply outright better choices.

I'd rather have less customising, but have what you have be valid to use; than have a thousand and one options of which only a tiny portion are practical to take (which is also a serious barrier to new players who are more likely to make poorer choices until they get to grips with the game).


Also from our and GW's point of view cutting down on micro helps them bulk out armies with more purchase choices. Look at Tyranids who early on had a carnifex for their heavy support and it did pretty much everything. Every single heavy support role was basically just a carny with different weapon options.

Now they've got a slew of new (and great looking) models that fit into those specialist roles. Now granted they've found a way to keep the carny varied whilst also keeping the specialists viable. But you can't have too many carny type units in an army before adding new things is hard.


Model wise as well I think GW wants to focus its marketing on building up subfactions within each army. They've done great with Space Marines over the years with that tactic so it makes sense that they are starting to roll it out for other factions as well. Especially as many armies are now quite large. They've mostly got a full range of models to suit every situation so once GW has winnowed out the last of the finecast they've got far fewer choices on ways to add new models to existing armies.

Cutting down on special character choices and instead introducing more specialist characters is a way they can expand their range without bloating armies.

Increasing popularity of subfactions and then releasing subfaction specific models is yet another way to increase army diversity without wholesale breaking armies. If Kraken Tyranids could take a new form of Hormagaunt unique to it then Tyraind players have a new model to buy; meanwhile it doesn't invalidate the old Hormagaunt as its still usable in other fleets.



I feel this is the way GW is going to head because, like it or not, they are a model making company and most gamers like new things for their armies.
Resculpts are, of course, always another avenue, but resculpts often won't generate massive new sales from existing customers who already have working models. If you've got your ork hoard or your tyranid swarm of gaunts you're unlikely to rush out and rebuy all those models even if GW puts out a stella new sculpt.

Hum, I understand the arguments of easier balance and friendliness for people who are starting out.

That should all be fixable with relative points costing between options though, although that is more work and adds potential for error.

Personally, I don't give a hoot if a Reaper Launcher is marginally more points-efficient than a Fusion Gun. I'm not a min-maxing power gamer. I'd like my options to make a slightly less razor-edged efficient HQ so I can have my power-axe-wielding Autarch-Executioner please.

Especially if I'm going to be attaching him to a squad of Incubi or something where a less points-efficient Power Axe might be more suited to the targets I'm throwing them at.

User-friendliness of exhaustive options lists is definitely a valid point though as it can be pretty baffling.

Perhaps an exhaustive wargear list, with a few example builds to ease newcomers into it...

There are two different arguments going on, it seems?

1. there are fewer options to customise the equipment on models than there used to be - true, although I'm not sure if that restricts modelling options. For example, other than chainswords, there's no limit on what a "close combat weapon" looks like. I know a guy who had Tactical and even Devastator Marines waving chainswords because in whichever edition he built the army for, it made no difference - a single CCW had no in-game effect. A couple of editions on and that's illegal.

2. There's less scope for inventing your own characters. Not true at all. You're still as free to make up your own characters as you ever were. Having special rules =/= character.

 Ynneadwraith wrote:


Hum, I understand the arguments of easier balance and friendliness for people who are starting out.

That should all be fixable with relative points costing between options though, although that is more work and adds potential for error.

Personally, I don't give a hoot if a Reaper Launcher is marginally more points-efficient than a Fusion Gun. I'm not a min-maxing power gamer. I'd like my options to make a slightly less razor-edged efficient HQ so I can have my power-axe-wielding Autarch-Executioner please.

Especially if I'm going to be attaching him to a squad of Incubi or something where a less points-efficient Power Axe might be more suited to the targets I'm throwing them at.

User-friendliness of exhaustive options lists is definitely a valid point though as it can be pretty baffling.

Perhaps an exhaustive wargear list, with a few example builds to ease newcomers into it...

The thing is extensive wargear doesn't make for a better game.
In fact pretty much all of GW's major competition has fixed post fixed weapon and almost no wargear games. Where there is choice its often more revolving around different units rather than different upgrades for a unit. Take Warmachine, you could slice their warcasters down to a handful for each faction if each one could pick from a dozen abilities; instead they've tied specific abilities to specific characters. It increase the depth of the games lore as you add more characters and gives the developer more potential models to cast up and sell and the gamer more to buy. Plus each one is unique rather than the same core body with a different arm choice.


As for points efficiency its not even about min-maxing but about providing a balanced playing field. That in itself starts to reduce the impact of min-maxing a list and means that what's being made and sold is what people want to buy. If you can balance things well then you reward good list building; but also don't result in a situation where the power level divide between good and min/max is vast. That makes for a much more fun local gaming situation as the "net list" doesn't always win based on just being super-powered. Instead it puts more on the player skill of using the army.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

123ply wrote:
They are killing it. For example, have you wanted your primaris captain to to be a proficient axe-wielder? What about the good ol- chainsword and bolt pistol combo?
Nope, but you can have a power sword...
Like, wtf GW?
This company is such a mess

However, on the flipside, there's now an actual difference between a Cadian and a Catachan, and even different craftworlds/Hive Fleets/Forge Worlds.

Would both the army customisation and the unit customisation together be good? Absolutely. But to say that GW have thrown EVERYTHING out is simply untrue. They've simply changed their focus from the units to the army as a whole, for better or worse - and considering 40k has become increasingly larger in scale, this move to the army-wide focus is telling.

So they have removed flexibility in how customers can 'legally' customize a miniature, but expanded the variety of rules that can be used on the same miniature? In other words, the customization is "there" for players but not so much for people who enjoy modeling or even just physically representing a flavor other than vanilla?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
So, GW is a modeling company...and that's why they've reduced their wonderful modeling options to cater to the crowd of gamers who care more about rules balance in a game that everyone agrees will never be balanced.? Kill the desirability of a product to your best customers to please your most fickle maybe-customers?

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

123ply wrote:
They are killing it. For example, have you wanted your primaris captain to to be a proficient axe-wielder? What about the good ol- chainsword and bolt pistol combo?
Nope, but you can have a power sword...
Like, wtf GW?
This company is such a mess

However, on the flipside, there's now an actual difference between a Cadian and a Catachan, and even different craftworlds/Hive Fleets/Forge Worlds.

Would both the army customisation and the unit customisation together be good? Absolutely. But to say that GW have thrown EVERYTHING out is simply untrue. They've simply changed their focus from the units to the army as a whole, for better or worse - and considering 40k has become increasingly larger in scale, this move to the army-wide focus is telling.

So they have removed flexibility in how customers can 'legally' customize a miniature, but expanded the variety of rules that can be used on the same miniature? In other words, the customization is "there" for players but not so much for people who enjoy modeling or even just physically representing a flavor other than vanilla?

Well, you could look at it this way:

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.
However, you could customise your single-model heroes and some units with wargear and equipment to make them more personalised - giving a variety of flair, but only to a handful of things.

Now, the army, even despite taking a mirror-match, can play drastically differently, due to <Faction> keywords, creating ACTUAL flavour, where there was none. However, this comes at the price of many units being locked into options (however, that's not flavourless - just one type of flavour).

You can technically model something however you want. As long as it looks passable (and let's be fair, if I see a Guilliman model wielding a hammer and painted in Salamander colours, so long as it uses the rules for Guilliman and <Ultramarine> doctrine, I know it's Guilliman), then there's no issue. Sure, take a Primaris Captain with an axe. As long as it uses the in-game rules for swords, no issue with me.

You can customise any model to a degree, but that's never changed. What you CAN'T change is the in-game effect, but GW is a modelling company first and foremost, according to themselves.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
So, GW is a modeling company...and that's why they've reduced their wonderful modeling options to cater to the crowd of gamers who care more about rules balance in a game that everyone agrees will never be balanced.? Kill the desirability of a product to your best customers to please your most fickle maybe-customers?

Were they the best customers?

By creating monobuilds, they force people who already have large collections to go and get more. And again, monobuilds are easy to showcase, easier to build from what I can tell, and are more accessible to a younger playerbase (which seems to be what GW is aiming for.)

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.

 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?

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

123ply wrote:
They are killing it. For example, have you wanted your primaris captain to to be a proficient axe-wielder? What about the good ol- chainsword and bolt pistol combo?
Nope, but you can have a power sword...
Like, wtf GW?
This company is such a mess

However, on the flipside, there's now an actual difference between a Cadian and a Catachan, and even different craftworlds/Hive Fleets/Forge Worlds.

Would both the army customisation and the unit customisation together be good? Absolutely. But to say that GW have thrown EVERYTHING out is simply untrue. They've simply changed their focus from the units to the army as a whole, for better or worse - and considering 40k has become increasingly larger in scale, this move to the army-wide focus is telling.

So they have removed flexibility in how customers can 'legally' customize a miniature, but expanded the variety of rules that can be used on the same miniature? In other words, the customization is "there" for players but not so much for people who enjoy modeling or even just physically representing a flavor other than vanilla?

Well, you could look at it this way:

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.
However, you could customise your single-model heroes and some units with wargear and equipment to make them more personalised - giving a variety of flair, but only to a handful of things.

Now, the army, even despite taking a mirror-match, can play drastically differently, due to <Faction> keywords, creating ACTUAL flavour, where there was none. However, this comes at the price of many units being locked into options (however, that's not flavourless - just one type of flavour).

You can technically model something however you want. As long as it looks passable (and let's be fair, if I see a Guilliman model wielding a hammer and painted in Salamander colours, so long as it uses the rules for Guilliman and <Ultramarine> doctrine, I know it's Guilliman), then there's no issue. Sure, take a Primaris Captain with an axe. As long as it uses the in-game rules for swords, no issue with me.

You can customise any model to a degree, but that's never changed. What you CAN'T change is the in-game effect, but GW is a modelling company first and foremost, according to themselves.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
So, GW is a modeling company...and that's why they've reduced their wonderful modeling options to cater to the crowd of gamers who care more about rules balance in a game that everyone agrees will never be balanced.? Kill the desirability of a product to your best customers to please your most fickle maybe-customers?

Were they the best customers?

By creating monobuilds, they force people who already have large collections to go and get more. And again, monobuilds are easy to showcase, easier to build from what I can tell, and are more accessible to a younger playerbase (which seems to be what GW is aiming for.)

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.

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.


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.