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.

Do you think models should get 40k rules even when they no longer "exist" in that era?

This isn't a wish listing thing, as much as a philosophical scrutiny of how GW presently approaches rules.

GW's rationale for what doesn't get 40k rules is rather inconsistent. Sometimes its a period appropriate choice, sometimes a balance important one, and other times they seem to give rules just because they see $$... This is to say the theoretical harmony of "balance" - in universe "representation" are already conceded. No clearer is that concession in GW establishing the 3 ways of playing. That's before you consider GW has already published a few set of game type limited rules in Chapter Approved...

I think if GW has taken the "only units with models get rules" position they should go further and give "all models get rules". Agree or disagree?

Between Matched Play, Narrative Play, and Open Play it strikes me that there is ample room for rules that represent something in the games system even if they aren't period appropriate in the universe or imbalanced, by limiting those rules to or restricting them from specific ways of playing. Or maybe just as another whole new "way to play."

Examples:
Horus Luprical which has a FW model, why can't we have rules for him that let us pit him against the M42: Robute, Magnus, etc... or against C'tan or Eldar Avatars or 'Nids... Obviously it isn't appropriate for certain types of games, but why not?

"Movie Marines" which were a thing way back in 4th or 5th ed, which was a rules set that represented the overpowered Space Marines that live up to cinematic capabilities... Rules like that, why not?

During the Fall of Cadia because of the Trazyn's shenanigans there were Ultramarine Legionaries present... but no way to represent that.

Other FW stuff... whether its Mechanicum, Solar Auxilia, or some marine models... besides period appropriateness and "balance", is there some reason they shouldn't have 40k rules - particularly when they can be restricted from types of play?

Necromunda gangs could easily be seen pressed into service as PDF... shouldn't they have 40k rules?

No I think GW has added too many things they shouldn't have as it is.

I think all of that is perfect for narrative and open play. But you should just make up the rules as your group. A mate of mine is representing with left overs from a dying chapter fighting along side primaris marines and using the movie marine style to play them. Each one we have agreed will have the stat line of a lieutenant and can be equipped with whatever looks cool. It’s a modelling project that will be represented in the game. But I don’t think GW newsagent to make these rules for us.

I think everything is represented or should be in 40K.

Heresy Era and even Grand Crusade armor still exists and is in use. Knights predating the imperium exist and are still in use.

Add in that the Warp screws around with time, and distant things from the past shows up unexpectedly..

All of it should be represented somewhere in the millions of worlds galaxy wide.

I be happy with 8th ed rules for everything that GW makes or had made - including WFB/AOS and vice versa.....#

Biggest want is the beautiful Mechancius FW units to have 8th ed rules !!

 Mr Morden wrote:
I be happy with 8th ed rules for everything that GW makes or had made - including WFB/AOS and vice versa.....#

Biggest want is the beautiful Mechancius FW units to have 8th ed rules !!

Space marines have something, anything in 30k?

Have a "Relic Version!"

Mechanicum, the guys whose entire fluff revolves around the preservation of technology at all costs?

"that stuffs just for 30k lololol"

the_scotsman wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:
I be happy with 8th ed rules for everything that GW makes or had made - including WFB/AOS and vice versa.....#

Biggest want is the beautiful Mechancius FW units to have 8th ed rules !!

Space marines have something, anything in 30k?

Have a "Relic Version!"

Mechanicum, the guys whose entire fluff revolves around the preservation of technology at all costs?

"that stuffs just for 30k lololol"

To be fair they are TERRIBLE at preserving technology.

pm713 wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:
I be happy with 8th ed rules for everything that GW makes or had made - including WFB/AOS and vice versa.....#

Biggest want is the beautiful Mechancius FW units to have 8th ed rules !!

Space marines have something, anything in 30k?

Have a "Relic Version!"

Mechanicum, the guys whose entire fluff revolves around the preservation of technology at all costs?

"that stuffs just for 30k lololol"

To be fair they are TERRIBLE at preserving technology.

All that rationale is fine, but that is about justifying it "in universe". Part of my point is GW shouldn't need in universe justification to give models rules. Rules and models exist outside the setting and while the capabilities of the rules are guided by the setting the game system itself doesn't conform to lore. As a system, its focus can be a slightly wider scope than just the immediate setting... thus rules that conform to that system can also draw from a wider scope than just the immediate setting.

 aka_mythos wrote:

pm713 wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:
I be happy with 8th ed rules for everything that GW makes or had made - including WFB/AOS and vice versa.....#

Biggest want is the beautiful Mechancius FW units to have 8th ed rules !!

Space marines have something, anything in 30k?

Have a "Relic Version!"

Mechanicum, the guys whose entire fluff revolves around the preservation of technology at all costs?

"that stuffs just for 30k lololol"

To be fair they are TERRIBLE at preserving technology.

All that rationale is fine, but that is about justifying it "in universe". Part of my point is GW shouldn't need in universe justification to give models rules. Rules and models exist outside the setting and while the capabilities of the rules are guided by the setting the game system itself doesn't conform to lore. As a system, its focus can be a slightly wider scope than just the immediate setting... thus rules that conform to that system can also draw from a wider scope than just the immediate setting.

I completely disagree. They should need a justification to make new model rules otherwise you end with with ridiculous situations like Tau going from the one faction that preferred tactics to big death machines to Tau big death machines. Just making whatever models they like purely because they can just ends in GW gradually trashing their own setting.
Adding new models and such is fine but they should only be things that either exist already like Wulfen were or something that can be justified adding like Wraithblades.

I'm a Warhammer Fantasy player so I'm totally used to have characters from different history periods fighting betwen themselves like Grom the Paunch vs Karl Franz.

Actually that was always something that I found strange in 40k.

A timeline that has like 9k years to work with (because 30k is for 30k) and you can only use on the tabletop whats ACTUALLY ALIVE?

With a couple of small exceptions like Tycho and Aun'va after the Damocles campaing.
Nearly no rules for historical armies, army lists, characters, units, etc...

 Galas wrote:
I'm a Warhammer Fantasy player so I'm totally used to have characters from different history periods fighting betwen themselves like Grom the Paunch vs Karl Franz.

Actually that was always something that I found strange in 40k.

A timeline that has like 9k years to work with (because 30k is for 30k) and you can only use on the tabletop whats ACTUALLY ALIVE?

With a couple of small exceptions like Tycho and Aun'va after the Damocles campaing.
Nearly no rules for historical armies, army lists, characters, units, etc...

Because there's very little history in those 9k years. The 40k timeline roughly goes from the Heresy to the present. It's a giant empty space.

I think it should depend on the "unit" in question. It's a big galaxy afterall. If a Man of Iron can still be kickin' around in 40k, I'm sure there is justification for other things

But also, this:

pm713 wrote:
No I think GW has added too many things they shouldn't have as it is.

-

They should give all AoS /WHF orc models rules to make them playable as Snakebites / feral Orks. At last years Warhammer fest they said stuff like that could get rules in WD.

If GW thinks they can sustain the production and make money, they'll find a way - this is unfortunately the obvious driver of all of their model decisions.

pm713 wrote:

All that rationale is fine, but that is about justifying it "in universe". Part of my point is GW shouldn't need in universe justification to give models rules. Rules and models exist outside the setting and while the capabilities of the rules are guided by the setting the game system itself doesn't conform to lore. As a system, its focus can be a slightly wider scope than just the immediate setting... thus rules that conform to that system can also draw from a wider scope than just the immediate setting.

I completely disagree. They should need a justification to make new model rules otherwise you end with with ridiculous situations like Tau going from the one faction that preferred tactics to big death machines to Tau big death machines. Just making whatever models they like purely because they can just ends in GW gradually trashing their own setting.
Adding new models and such is fine but they should only be things that either exist already like Wulfen were or something that can be justified adding like Wraithblades.

In earlier editions, my understanding was that 40k covered games from the scouring right up to 40,999. That seems to have changed in recent years. It's why characters like Lord Solar Macharius existed in rules even though they were from the past. It's why you had special characters like tigurius, but also had a generic chief librarian. Or why the Deathwing master was a generic entry rather than being Belial specifically.

I wish it would go back to that.

It seems that the creative side for rules/models has been taken away fro the players. Obviously you could come up with any model & adapt or adopt a random data sheet. But good luck finding people to play against.

It does feel like there is a bit of a creative shackle being placed on 40k. Its just a feeling I get. Maybe thats because I see the models more as a gamer sees pieces than a kid sees toys and endless possibilities... I think GW doesnt encourage experimenting and converting as much as they used to. My old Tyranids 3ed (4ed?) Codex had tonnes of tips for converting, painting basing etc. Bit of fluff and then the codex entries giving a lot of options and a lot of showcasing cool stuff.

My 8ed eldar one has generic pictures matching the GW store page and tonnes of fluff thats been fonted up to take up more pages by the looks of it. The codex entries offer very little options or creative stimulation.

Ideally, everything would have rules, because they're "your dudes," and you should mostly always be able to use them. Should there be some restrictions for matched play? Of course! Matched play by its nature requires restrictions to facilitate it being matched. Narrative play? Anything should be allowed if you and your opponent can agree on a suitable narrative, and open play goes without saying. None of this means I expect rules for all of the models Games Workshop produce. Remember, they're still just a big corporation, and they'll only produce something they believe will make them profit. The unfortunate truth is that when we hand over our hard earned, the only things we're entitled to are the plastic in the boxes and the pages between the book covers. It's entirely reasonable to have expectations that these things work beyond the date we purchased them, but sadly, we don't have that entitlement. Are Games Workshop always right in their assumptions of what investment will provide the biggest returns? Absolutely not, but I should imagine that they have a pretty good idea.

 Argive wrote:
It seems that the creative side for rules/models has been taken away fro the players. Obviously you could come up with any model & adapt or adopt a random data sheet. But good luck finding people to play against.

It does feel like there is a bit of a creative shackle being placed on 40k. Its just a feeling I get. Maybe thats because I see the models more as a gamer sees pieces than a kid sees toys and endless possibilities... I think GW doesnt encourage experimenting and converting as much as they used to. My old Tyranids 3ed (4ed?) Codex had tonnes of tips for converting, painting basing etc. Bit of fluff and then the codex entries giving a lot of options and a lot of showcasing cool stuff.

My 8ed eldar one has generic pictures matching the GW store page and tonnes of fluff thats been fonted up to take up more pages by the looks of it. The codex entries offer very little options or creative stimulation.

That's all down to the demands of the player base. if you look at GW's social media output, they're all in favour of converting, and are quite open in suggesting "make up your own rules" for things not currently covered by an official document; an answer usually scorned by the people commenting.

Personally I just wish that whomever made the 40k rules would help out with their forgeworld counterpart. The rules for many forgeworld units are either too busted to be considered usable or so overpowered that they are broken. Looking at you Storm Leviathans and C-beam Contemptors...

And I would deff like to see 40k rules for some of the AdM vehicles. You can't tell me Space Marines can keep 'relics' going for 10k years but the ones who built these 'relics' and revere them as manifestations of their god can't maintain their own vehicles...

 AndrewGPaul wrote:

 Argive wrote:
It seems that the creative side for rules/models has been taken away fro the players. Obviously you could come up with any model & adapt or adopt a random data sheet. But good luck finding people to play against.

It does feel like there is a bit of a creative shackle being placed on 40k. Its just a feeling I get. Maybe thats because I see the models more as a gamer sees pieces than a kid sees toys and endless possibilities... I think GW doesnt encourage experimenting and converting as much as they used to. My old Tyranids 3ed (4ed?) Codex had tonnes of tips for converting, painting basing etc. Bit of fluff and then the codex entries giving a lot of options and a lot of showcasing cool stuff.

My 8ed eldar one has generic pictures matching the GW store page and tonnes of fluff thats been fonted up to take up more pages by the looks of it. The codex entries offer very little options or creative stimulation.

That's all down to the demands of the player base. if you look at GW's social media output, they're all in favour of converting, and are quite open in suggesting "make up your own rules" for things not currently covered by an official document; an answer usually scorned by the people commenting.

This reminds of about a conversation in the book Fahrenheit 451 where the protagonist learns why fire fighters now burn books. His boss explains that it wasn't the government that wanted this initially as most seem to think it would be, but the general population that wanted to get rid of the books that made them feel bad or forced them to think. It was the government that merely followed the will of the people.

I see that is not that GW wants players to not tweek their games and more, at least online, the players themselves. I honestly think GW creates their games with the intention that players are going to alter them a little bit. As the same time, they know there is a very vocal (minority/majority I don't know) that will complain if points and something like matched played didn't exist. I get the impression GW didn't want to add points as they know it far it is incredibly difficult (more work than profitable for sure) balance 40k. I think GW considers Power Levels to be pretty clever to getting armies a decent target size between two players that can be further refined before the game. Part of me also thinks that the sparse terrain rules was done as long time players could just add previous edition terrain rules to their tables as they like while not overly complicating the game for new players which it seems a lot of focus was placed in 8th. I even appreciate this lack of codified terrain rules as it generates discussion with my opponent to see they would be amendable to adding some custom ones (read: terrain rules from older editions), or at very least, make sure we are both on the same page to how the table terrain will work. But those were called empty points that helped nobody.

I have seen time and again that people think there is this big divide between tabletop rpgs and wargames. I don't understand it myself considering D&D evolved from a wargame into a rpg and Warhammer largely evolved from a rpg into a wargame. I have seen rpgs played as cutthroat as the most WAAC wargame and wargames played with the emphasis on story as much as any traditional (read: non-narrative driven rpgs like FATE) rpg. I see the divide between the two as something less than the reality of the games and more in the preception of the players who play them.

 Mr Morden wrote:
I be happy with 8th ed rules for everything that GW makes or had made - including WFB/AOS and vice versa.....#

Biggest want is the beautiful Mechancius FW units to have 8th ed rules !!

I remember Rogue Trader had rules for soldiers with bows and arrows - I can imaging beseiged agri or feudal worlds having little more than pitchforks sometimes.

Not sure if I want this or not. Looking at Syll'Esske, I really wish 40k rules weren't available so I could use it as a much better looking Slaaneshi Daemon Prince for my EC. Regular noise marines are ugly finecast garbage, but kakophoni make amazing "counts-as" conversions since they look better and don't have 40k rules. On the flip side, phoenix terminators don't have any real rules they can use to represent a power spear so a way to use 30k relics for traitor legions would be awesome. I'm sure every army with 30k only models is in the same boat. The endless spells could be a cool gimmick to make summoning actually matter for chaos armies and would be a way an interesting way to set apart the servants of the chaos gods besides a daemon cheerleading section.

TarkinLarson wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:
I be happy with 8th ed rules for everything that GW makes or had made - including WFB/AOS and vice versa.....#

Biggest want is the beautiful Mechancius FW units to have 8th ed rules !!

I remember Rogue Trader had rules for soldiers with bows and arrows - I can imaging beseiged agri or feudal worlds having little more than pitchforks sometimes.

Las locks are a thing in current fluff, I have run narrative games with fuedal and gunpowder based weapons.

 DominayTrix wrote:
Not sure if I want this or not. Looking at Syll'Esske, I really wish 40k rules weren't available so I could use it as a much better looking Slaaneshi Daemon Prince for my EC. Regular noise marines are ugly finecast garbage, but kakophoni make amazing "counts-as" conversions since they look better and don't have 40k rules. On the flip side, phoenix terminators don't have any real rules they can use to represent a power spear so a way to use 30k relics for traitor legions would be awesome. I'm sure every army with 30k only models is in the same boat. The endless spells could be a cool gimmick to make summoning actually matter for chaos armies and would be a way an interesting way to set apart the servants of the chaos gods besides a daemon cheerleading section.

There is quite a bit of 'I don't know' and 'either way'... but its why its important that all these extras would be segregated to a particular way of playing, whether its "open play only" or something uniquely their own... there exists in the system a way to mitigate everything having rules by lowering the consequences for the units not being quite right or balanced.

Not every model actually needs unique rules, and even then most of the Legion-specific units are actually really small tweaks on existing unit options. Take a few common-sense unit variants (loyalist melee Tacticals, Chaos Cataphractii, Breachers, power-armour Recon squads...) and everything else is just taking wargear that already exists and has a price and applying it to a different unit (ex. the rules for volkite blasters, conversion beamers, power axes, and Cataphractii Terminators already exist; put them together and you've got something to do with your Lernean Terminator models).

Even things that don't really exist have common-sense parallels; for the aforementioned Phoenix Power Spears, for instance, their 30k statline is just a Guardian Spear and if you were to give an 8e Guardian Spear slightly worse AP (+1S/AP-2/Dd3) it's just a force axe, which we know is 10pts...

You always have to be careful when bringing entirely new units into the universe and retconning them as having been around for ages. Firstly because they can easily just perform the exact same role as an existing unit, just better in every way. Which completely invalidates the old unit and poses a lore problem of why did the other one even exist in the first place?

Secondly you can really mess with the theme and feel of an army. Maybe one guy who had too much control decided to run with his own vision but the majority of existing players feel like its a betrayal of the original theme (yes, I'm talking about the Necron 5th edition update)

Overall I think GW handles this badly and FW do an ok job.

Cynista wrote:
You always have to be careful when bringing entirely new units into the universe and retconning them as having been around for ages. Firstly because they can easily just perform the exact same role as an existing unit, just better in every way. Which completely invalidates the old unit and poses a lore problem of why did the other one even exist in the first place?

Secondly you can really mess with the theme and feel of an army. Maybe one guy who had too much control decided to run with his own vision but the majority of existing players feel like its a betrayal of the original theme (yes, I'm talking about the Necron 5th edition update)

Overall I think GW handles this badly and FW do an ok job.

A perfect case in point is the Riptide. Not only does it go against the previous doctrine of Tau warfare, it also was flat out inferior to the previous tools for the job it was meant to do.

The fluff said it was introduced as an anti-armour and anti-Titan weapon, first deployed at the Battle of Mu'gulath Bay. The problem is, it was flat out inferior at that task it was supposedly designed for when compared to the Hammerhead, which was what the fluff previously said was doing what the Riptide was now doing.

It took GW taking away all of the Tau vehicles flavour (namely them being a compromise between the manoeuvrability of the Eldar skimmers and the toughness of the IG tanks) and making them massively undercosted to make them seem like they fit that role.

What you guys are talking about is why an important element to what I'm saying is that these rules are only possible because the game now has a mechanism for official rules being siloed from the more conventional rules, in the lowest stakes version of the game. This is like the same way a number of FW units have been restricted to open or narrative play.

There is literally no 30k model that couldn't be justified in 40k.

The Adeptus Mechanicus is all about preserving ancient technology – the idea that they just irretrievably and completely lost their entire Heresy-era range of models down the line is clearly absurd, especially considering all the hover-tech and other stuff currently being pumped out by Cawl. It's a flimsy excuse, because the immediate fix is "oh, they found it again".

The same goes for the Loyalist Legions, each of which clearly retains some ancient technology as Relics in their armouries. And in most cases, these models are already represented that way!

Chaos Legions are somewhat trickier, just because they've often changed a great deal or seen their gear become tainted down the millenia – but the overwhelming majority of those models are still entirely serviceable as modern units or gear, especially since so many of them are upgrade packs anyway. In some cases they'd need rules/concept tweaks to represent the modern fluff, but there's no reason modern Night Lords couldn't have chainglaives, modern Alpha Legion couldn't have Headhunters, modern Iron Warriors couldn't bring out a spare Iron Circle robot or two, and modern Thousand Sons couldn't have Rubric Khenetai, just as Death Guard retained their Deathshroud Terminators. When World Eaters inevitably get their own Codex, I will eat my hat if they don't get "modern" Red Butcher Terminators.

The only genuinely questionable 30k models for modern games are named characters – the Loyalists have all died, and the Traitors are almost all mutants or daemons by this point. To which I can only respond that this is a setting where time travel, resurrection, and clones are a thing. Magistus Amon died some time after the Heresy, but he works just fine as a Thousand Sons character for games "set" in that fuzzy intervening period, or if Tzeentch just brought him back to life for giggles. Eidolon's model works just as well for modern Emperor's Children armies as past ones – even if he's mutated massively, his vanity and Slaaneshi illusions could disguise that. Most of the traitor Primarchs are Daemon Princes, but they could easily manifest in a more mortal form. Alpharius is dead, sure, but I Am Alpharius – why stop me from using one of his identical children in a modern game?

I can only conclude that it's just a weird lopsided desire not to cross IP streams between HH and 8e.