Switch Theme:

Does anyone find kit restrictions fun?  [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 gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




Karol wrote:

I generally don't understand sarcasm. But I will say it like this. It does seem extremly lucky, that without knowladge of the game, you converted exactly the version of the gun which is the most optimal.


Nothing to do with luck karol. And I don't appreciate the inference you're projecting of me.

Back then, buried power fists was what really did the damage for melee armies like space wolves (google 3rd Ed rhino rush). Plasmas were fine but certsinly not 'optimal' - they had a 1/6 chance of killing your dude. Meltas were arguably better in the context of the army at the time- they killed tanks good, melted marines just as much and had no overheat!

In the sw kit at the time (iirc the 'get started' box then cost me 80 euros and had 3 bikes, a rhino, blood claws and grey hunters).

From the kit I had power weapons, power fists, plasma pistols and a meltagun (I think). Along with plenty bolters, bolt pistols, and ccws. I wasn't bothered about flamers. I wanted options for a couple of plasma guns to go with my meltas and based on what was available, built them from the bits to hand. Turns out back in third, quite a lot of people did this as well (found out later!)

Karol wrote:

But they were your second army, so I assume by then you were 20 plus. I still don't get the whole argument. I am not saying someone can't like to convert or paint their models. I just think that the chance a teen starting the game is not going to start it with conversions projects etc and if they do something it i stuff like, veteran intercessors sgts with thunder hammers are the most optimal load out, there for I need to find a way to make 3-6 thunder hammer for my dudes. I am talking about the avarge player here.


Rubbish.

Tau were my second army. Wolves were my first and I was collecting them when I was sixteen/seventeen. Myself and my folks thought having a non-screen hobby would be a good idea for my senior secondary school years with all the exam pressures. In other words I was your age, and at the time I was converting stuff I was in the hobby less time than you and weirdly, complained less.

Like I said I converted a wolf lord out of the grey hunter kit as well.

Karol wrote:


It is 6 additional months to how much it takes to get the army to 2k, that is the problem. If the "army has to be painted" is an enforced rule. And yeah it costs money and time, no problem if it is money and time spend on something you want to do. But if it is money and time spend, because others make you do it, so they and not you, have more fun, on top of that their armies are already painted. On top of that having the army painted lowers it resell value. Most people don't last more then an edition, having a painted or rather a covered with paint models, makes the cash you get back from selling the army smaller. And I don't play unpainted, my army was 100% painted, save for one rhino and one dreadnought, the day I bought it.


(1)2k games aren't everything.
(2) it doesn't take 6 months. With contrast you can have your squad done in an evening.
(3) you're never going to 'win' when it comes to selling older stuff, whether its painted or not.

Karol wrote:

Most people don't enjoy the hobby long term. They want to have as much fun as possible playing the game. Stuff like painting etc are additional stuff a lot of people don't care much about. The "healthy" approach to the hobby looks like a mechanism to self explain an investment of time and money in to something, by adding a value to the activity.


It's not about self explaining or faux justification. It's taking pride in an activity and doing it well.

And To be fair, Youre ind of making my point for me. those people don't enjoy your hobby long term yet they only focus on the game? Id consider there could be a correlation, eh? You know - On the crummy game that for thirty years has been common knowledge that it is the weakest part of the hobby? And then they leave. Maybe if they'd invested some exp in painting/reading/modelling etc instead of dumping it all into 'the game', they wouldn't be leaving. Or they'd find something else to enjoy within the hobby, instead of dismissing it our of hand as 'something additional to do'

To be fair, the hobby isn't for everyone and that's OK too. But I maintain that if you want to get the most out of the hobby for the longest time, it helps enormously not to ignore sizeable chunks of it, especially big chunks like painting and modelling g.

Karol wrote:

So if forcing someone to play the game, if they just want to paint or convert sounds stupid. Then forcing people who want to play the game to do things they don't want to do, is stupid too.


No one forcing anyone. People are recommending it and encouraging it. Especially coming from a position of twenty years experience. 'I don't want to do it' covers a lot of ground from outside perspectives ranging from 'yep, that'd fair' to 'fine, but not doing it is really shooting yourself in the foot'.

Karol wrote:

Having rules for oneself is, having rules for oneself. I don't care if someone plays with unpainted or only with painted models. But forcing others to do what you want, because you want to immerse yourself in to something that doesn't exist sounds like something I take medicin for.


Grow up kid. Ascribing some kind of mental illness to people who want to immerse themselves in a fiction is disgusting and an extremely low blow to take. how dare you.

People immerse themselves in fictional stories told via, movies, video games, plays, radio shows, hell even campfire stories when none of the above even existed and have done since the dawn of time. Having the right props helps enormously.

No one's being forced. 'Valuing' a painted army for the immersion is perfectly acceptable and has nothing to do with mental illness. Stating your preference, encouraging and recommending is not 'forcing', especially when peiple are not happy with their hobby and are looking for advise. Not wanting to play against it - again, fine. People are allowed to say 'no' too.

But taking it back to the original point, as someone who has been in the hobby for longer that you've been alive, maybe consider my experience and perspective, eh? 'The game' is a mess and always has been. 'The game' isn't what draws me. Long term, if this is a hobby you want to stick with, it helps enormously to invest in the other aspects it covers as well or otherwise you're just punishing yourself.

Karol wrote:

also rules are the only thing that makes the world semi bearable, it is non regular and chaotic enough.


There is a place for rules, sure. And there are times the rules need to be chucked. There is a reason people cheer on rogues who flaunted the rules, like Nottinghams other hero, Robin hood for example.

And rules aren't always right or fair. Sometimes they are oppressive, immoral and/or wrong. In fact I'd argue plenty bad things exist because people follow the rules precisely and without question, instead of standing against them where they dont make sense, are broken or are toxic and problematic. But this is not the thread for that.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2022/05/17 11:24:57


greatest band in the universe: machine supremacy

"Punch your fist in the air and hold your Gameboy aloft like the warrior you are" 
   
Made in gb
Gore-Drenched Khorne Chaos Lord




The entire premise of the thread is misleading, it's not about whether it's "fun" to have out of box builds, it's more whether it's a good idea for newer players or for people who just want to buy and use what comes on the box. Arguably it may help with balance if you cap the number of option X that a unit has.

It's not a case of "fun", it's started as a whine that someone doesn't like something.
   
Made in it
Waaagh! Ork Warboss




Italy

Dudeface wrote:
The entire premise of the thread is misleading, it's not about whether it's "fun" to have out of box builds, it's more whether it's a good idea for newer players or for people who just want to buy and use what comes on the box. Arguably it may help with balance if you cap the number of option X that a unit has.

It's not a case of "fun", it's started as a whine that someone doesn't like something.


Yes, exactly this. It's more about being practical than fun.

On one hand players can cover all the options out of a single box, but on the other hand such restrictions might slow down the game. For example take the wyches unit: for every 10 models the unit can have up to three girls equipped with either a shardnet/impaler, a pair of razorflails and a pair of hydra gauntles, each with a different profile that must be rolled separately even if their attacks go towards the same target. With up to 3 of the same melee weapon every 10 models such squad can't be assembled out of the box but the fight phase would be much faster and easier to resolve instead.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/05/17 10:44:40


 
   
Made in gb
Barpharanges







 Blackie wrote:
Dudeface wrote:
The entire premise of the thread is misleading, it's not about whether it's "fun" to have out of box builds, it's more whether it's a good idea for newer players or for people who just want to buy and use what comes on the box. Arguably it may help with balance if you cap the number of option X that a unit has.

It's not a case of "fun", it's started as a whine that someone doesn't like something.


Yes, exactly this. It's more about being practical than fun.


It is practical for future customers - not past ones. There is a logic to why GW this - GW is a company and it exists to make money. It has no moral or ethical reasoning to support old customers (I remember when I went to a job interview, the staff told us that the worst time of their careers had been when they were told to be openly hostile to the old guard, who brought little money in).

People can talk about good businesses and bad ones - I personally think they're almost all bad - besides tiny cottage industry companies who live and die by internet word of mouth and often have a direct presence in forums. GW doesn't have to worry about that (which is why 'vote with your wallet' is a staggeringly stupid response, and one only robotically regurgitated).

There were a multitude of options for fixing the problem; selling weapon packs or sprues individually (something GW can, has, and still does), including additional weapons or sprues in the boxes to fill out the missing options (which GW can and does still do - see the new T'au and CSM kits which got updated additional sprues), generalising unit weapon profiles (so units actual options don't matter), or cut out options not in the boxes.

GW, being GW, picked the last option - the option which is 'best' for new players* (best in the sense new players do not 'have to'** convert, trade, or buy additional pieces), and worst for existing players - who are punished hugely and disproportionally.

* IMO generalising options would've been far better for 'new players' - not only is much, much more simple, but it would save a huge amount of time in assembling kits, make balancing easier, and basically remove all these worries; I understand it would've annoyed people, rightfully so, but it would've been far better than what we got!
** Of course, they never had to in the first place - they only had to if they wanted effective units - which of course reveals how poor GWs writing and box organisation is

This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2022/05/17 11:45:12


The biggest indicator someone is a loser is them complaining about 3d printers or piracy.  
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

Oh yeah. I see this and it just screams "practicality":

Spoiler:



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

 
   
Made in de
Contagious Dreadnought of Nurgle





 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Oh yeah. I see this and it just screams "practicality":

Spoiler:





This is the single worst thing about 9th edition. If, 5 years from now, people talk about what was bad in 9th it won't be strats or balance or vehicle rules that are badly remembered, it will be this crap. At least for me it will be, because all of the other complaints don't bother me or have been worse in prior edition.
   
Made in us
Ollanius Pius - Savior of the Emperor






Gathering the Informations.

 Dysartes wrote:

Hecaton wrote:
The lack of ability to make, say, 3 skitarii squads - 1 with 4 plasma calivers, 1 with 4 arc rifles, and 1 with 4 TUA, is a problem and just makes playing the game more cumbersome.

Quick question ont he Skitarii thing - I know they went up to a 20-strong squad this time around, for some reason, but what was the special weapon ratio before - was it 2/10 total?

2 of any (duplicates allowed) at under 10 models; 10 bumped you up to 3 (again: duplicates allowed).
Couldn't take both Data-Tether+Omnispex, had to choose one.

Frankly, it's weird that they didn't just lean into the skid and lock Arquebus to the Rangers and Calivers to Vanguard. It would have gone a long way towards giving each unit a real role again.
   
Made in de
Contagious Dreadnought of Nurgle





 blood reaper wrote:

** Of course, they never had to in the first place - they only had to if they wanted effective units - which of course reveals how poor GWs writing and box organisation is


QFT. This is the most important part and makes the whole discussion unnecessary. If you didn't want to convert you never had to, there's not a single old box that couldn't be played with just what was in there (unlike today where you can't build a basic squad out of the CSM or new Boyz kit ironically).
Nothing has been gained with these restrictions but a lot was lost.
   
Made in gb
Barpharanges







Sgt. Cortez wrote:
 blood reaper wrote:

** Of course, they never had to in the first place - they only had to if they wanted effective units - which of course reveals how poor GWs writing and box organisation is


QFT. This is the most important part and makes the whole discussion unnecessary. If you didn't want to convert you never had to, there's not a single old box that couldn't be played with just what was in there (unlike today where you can't build a basic squad out of the CSM or new Boyz kit ironically).
Nothing has been gained with these restrictions but a lot was lost.


One of the common topics in these conversation is the scorning of players who went and built more effective units - either by converting the additional weapons, buying them, trading them, and possibly in some rare cases, buying multiple boxes.*

If you do this, you're a try hard, WAAC, meta/power chaser, etc. It is an 'illegitimate' way to play (wanting good units). So many people will be forced to admit their issue was not the fact kits were limited, but that people built effective or optimal units, which in their minds should simply never be permitted.


*I do not know any cases of people doing this myself

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/05/17 13:46:30


The biggest indicator someone is a loser is them complaining about 3d printers or piracy.  
   
Made in us
Ultramarine Chaplain with Hate to Spare






EviscerationPlague wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:
EviscerationPlague wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:
The only odd gear issue Firstborn have is the bizzare Sternguard-sergeants-may-not-take-a-Thunder-Hammer, even though Vanguard, Assault, Tactical, Devastator and even SCOUT Squad Sergeants can take them.

It was obviously a balance decision. Sternguard would be broken if you could take Thunder Hammers on their Sergeants.
With only a single attack more than a Tac squad I can hardly see how it broke the bank. . . especially when Vanguard and Assault Terminators are running around.

You didn't see posts here defending these unit entries with the excuse of balance?
Genuinely I don't know what this is about. Is it sarcasm?

And They Shall Not Fit Through Doors!!!

Tyranid Army Progress -- With Classic Warriors!:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/743240.page#9671598 
   
Made in it
Waaagh! Ork Warboss




Italy

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Oh yeah. I see this and it just screams "practicality":

Spoiler:




Being able to cover every possible option just out of the box is practical. Practical in terms of listbuilding, I've already said that multiple profiles slow down the game.

Something even more practical would be merge and consolidate most of the weapons. Drukhari special melee weapons for example could just have a single profile, same for all those plague marines close combat weapons, etc... They're all very samey anyway.

Someone of course would become mad, screaming: "They're taking our options away!!!!" .

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/05/17 15:12:15


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Insectum7 wrote:
EviscerationPlague wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:
EviscerationPlague wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:
The only odd gear issue Firstborn have is the bizzare Sternguard-sergeants-may-not-take-a-Thunder-Hammer, even though Vanguard, Assault, Tactical, Devastator and even SCOUT Squad Sergeants can take them.

It was obviously a balance decision. Sternguard would be broken if you could take Thunder Hammers on their Sergeants.
With only a single attack more than a Tac squad I can hardly see how it broke the bank. . . especially when Vanguard and Assault Terminators are running around.

You didn't see posts here defending these unit entries with the excuse of balance?
Genuinely I don't know what this is about. Is it sarcasm?

My first post about it being broken was sarcasm. People using the defense of balance is not sarcasm.
   
Made in gb
Barpharanges







 Blackie wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Oh yeah. I see this and it just screams "practicality":

Spoiler:




Being able to cover every possible option just out of the box is practical. Practical in terms of listbuilding, I've already said that multiple profiles slow down the game.

Something even more practical would be merge and consolidate most of the weapons. Drukhari special melee weapons for example could just have a single profile, same for all those plague marines close combat weapons, etc... They're all very samey anyway.

Someone of course would become mad, screaming: "They're taking our options away!!!!" .


People would be annoyed, and I think that would be fair, but at the same time nothing would be invalidated. I think ultimately that is the best solution.

The biggest indicator someone is a loser is them complaining about 3d printers or piracy.  
   
Made in gb
Gore-Drenched Khorne Chaos Lord




 blood reaper wrote:
 Blackie wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Oh yeah. I see this and it just screams "practicality":

Spoiler:




Being able to cover every possible option just out of the box is practical. Practical in terms of listbuilding, I've already said that multiple profiles slow down the game.

Something even more practical would be merge and consolidate most of the weapons. Drukhari special melee weapons for example could just have a single profile, same for all those plague marines close combat weapons, etc... They're all very samey anyway.

Someone of course would become mad, screaming: "They're taking our options away!!!!" .


People would be annoyed, and I think that would be fair, but at the same time nothing would be invalidated. I think ultimately that is the best solution.


I think we all would agree on that one, the only question is how far do they go, using skitarii as an example, if they don't merge the special weapons down to "special weapon" but instead keep them as unique guns, someone is still going to be upset their old unit is invalidated by the cap on special weapons. Same as with the fusion pistol unit on troupes, its a change people saw coming a mile off and personally I'm on board with it as a none-harelquin collector, because it'd help me get into the army if I did, but it's of little solace to those with the units.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/05/17 16:03:46


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Blackie wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Oh yeah. I see this and it just screams "practicality":

Spoiler:




Being able to cover every possible option just out of the box is practical.

When was that not covered to begin with?
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Springfield, VA

The customer: "put enough of every weapon in the box to cover every option!"
GW: "the customer wants every option in the box! Quick, slash options and rewrite unit entries!"
   
Made in us
Insect-Infested Nurgle Chaos Lord






 blood reaper wrote:
 Blackie wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Oh yeah. I see this and it just screams "practicality":

Spoiler:




Being able to cover every possible option just out of the box is practical. Practical in terms of listbuilding, I've already said that multiple profiles slow down the game.

Something even more practical would be merge and consolidate most of the weapons. Drukhari special melee weapons for example could just have a single profile, same for all those plague marines close combat weapons, etc... They're all very samey anyway.

Someone of course would become mad, screaming: "They're taking our options away!!!!" .


People would be annoyed, and I think that would be fair, but at the same time nothing would be invalidated. I think ultimately that is the best solution.


They already did it with the Dark Eldar back in the day. Wych weapons were all distinct different types, just like they are now, and when the DE got their 3.5 codex (the one with "second edition" printed on the cover), Wych weapons all got consolidated into a single profile that just provided some spicy bonuses for the Wyches.

Frankly, I'd welcome it with open arms. It stifles conversion opportunities when before a power weapon was a power weapon no matter what form it took for example, now if you want to adhere to WYSIWYG, then your hands are tied a bit.


Games Workshop Delenda Est.

Users on ignore- 53.

If you break apart my or anyone else's posts line by line I will not read them. 
   
Made in us
Deadshot Weapon Moderati




I kinda like how it kicks min-maxers in the teeth, but part of the game is hanging around in dark parking lots late at night to score some prime, rare bits. I'm torn.
   
Made in us
Ancient Venerable Dreadnought




San Jose, CA

Blackie wrote:
Spoiler:
Dudeface wrote:
The entire premise of the thread is misleading, it's not about whether it's "fun" to have out of box builds, it's more whether it's a good idea for newer players or for people who just want to buy and use what comes on the box. Arguably it may help with balance if you cap the number of option X that a unit has.

It's not a case of "fun", it's started as a whine that someone doesn't like something.


Yes, exactly this. It's more about being practical than fun.

On one hand players can cover all the options out of a single box, but on the other hand such restrictions might slow down the game. For example take the wyches unit: for every 10 models the unit can have up to three girls equipped with either a shardnet/impaler, a pair of razorflails and a pair of hydra gauntles, each with a different profile that must be rolled separately even if their attacks go towards the same target. With up to 3 of the same melee weapon every 10 models such squad can't be assembled out of the box but the fight phase would be much faster and easier to resolve instead.

Different colored dice exist and that's how I break down my attacks irrespective of profiles. So slowing the game down angle is obtuse.

There are plenty of valid reasons both for and against GW's reasoning.

Not advocating for/against the restrictions and I don't really care/wouldn't apply them myself. I have plenty of "INVALID" squads that I use consistently. Pay points for it and we'll generally not give a gak. Hell I was called a cheater on here for giving an Assault Intercessor Sgt a TH at the beginning of 9th...
   
Made in it
Waaagh! Ork Warboss




Italy

EviscerationPlague wrote:
 Blackie wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Oh yeah. I see this and it just screams "practicality":

Spoiler:




Being able to cover every possible option just out of the box is practical.

When was that not covered to begin with?


Take the wyches: until 8th it was possible to give 3 of the same special melee weapons to the 10 man squad. The box only comes with one of each though. So it wasn't possible to cover all the options out of the box. Now it is.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Racerguy180 wrote:

Different colored dice exist and that's how I break down my attacks irrespective of profiles. So slowing the game down angle is obtuse.



If both players have to roll colored dice (attacks and save) that's something that slows down the game. I do it in Necromunda, when I have to roll for pistol + close combat attack in melee, and there is a difference between that case or rolling all dice for the same weapon. It might not be extremely significant sometimes, but if it becomes super common and if does involve 40k level volume of dice (a squad of wyches has tons of attacks and up to 5 different weapons' profiles in combat) then it might become pretty significant.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/05/17 17:56:38


 
   
Made in us
Ultramarine Chaplain with Hate to Spare






EviscerationPlague wrote:

My first post about it being broken was sarcasm. People using the defense of balance is not sarcasm.
Got it. I'm catching up now


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
The customer: "put enough of every weapon in the box to cover every option!"
GW: "the customer wants every option in the box! Quick, slash options and rewrite unit entries!"

Ouch. That one stings a bit

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/05/17 18:10:50


And They Shall Not Fit Through Doors!!!

Tyranid Army Progress -- With Classic Warriors!:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/743240.page#9671598 
   
Made in ca
Excellent Exalted Champion of Chaos






Grim Forgotten Nihilist Forest.

Like squad loadouts and what you get in the box? Yeah...I used to think the old Havoc and Noise Marine kit was the worst for that. I think one of the things that I don't like about Primaris is also the lack of...Diversity in equipment loadout.

I've sold so many armies. :(
Aeldari 3kpts
Slaves to Darkness.3k
Word Bearers 2500k
Daemons of Chaos

 
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

Or maybe just have the rules for the different weapons and let people arm their units how they like, rather than creating artificial restrictions (like we have now) or consolidated generic weapons (like we're about to get for Chaos). I know, radical idea. Only something we've had in the game for longer than most people have been playing.

Like with GW's new board sizes, this change has nothing to do with game balance or even the oft-touted ease of use for new players (as stated, there's nothing "easy" about those unit entries). It's just about bits and sales and killing the 3rd party market.


This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/05/18 00:08:40


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

 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Dudeface wrote:
The entire premise of the thread is misleading, it's not about whether it's "fun" to have out of box builds, it's more whether it's a good idea for newer players or for people who just want to buy and use what comes on the box. Arguably it may help with balance if you cap the number of option X that a unit has.

It's not a case of "fun", it's started as a whine that someone doesn't like something.


Nah, it's a case of fun and playability. If it's not fun, if it doesn't create a better game experience, then why is it a thing?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Nomeny wrote:
I kinda like how it kicks min-maxers in the teeth, but part of the game is hanging around in dark parking lots late at night to score some prime, rare bits. I'm torn.


How about how it kicks people who like to convert in the teeth?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/05/18 02:17:24


 
   
Made in us
Daemonic Dreadnought





Eye of Terror

Nothing fun about kit restrictions. The game has been simplified enough as it is. If you are going to put in the effort to make something that goes beyond, you should be allowed to.

Does it make a big difference? Not so much. Sure, I will miss Plasma Termicide squads, but it's not the end of the world.

   
Made in us
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle






Sgt. Cortez wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Oh yeah. I see this and it just screams "practicality":

Spoiler:





This is the single worst thing about 9th edition. If, 5 years from now, people talk about what was bad in 9th it won't be strats or balance or vehicle rules that are badly remembered, it will be this crap. At least for me it will be, because all of the other complaints don't bother me or have been worse in prior edition.
Same for me. For me this is worse than stratagem oversaturation and blatant power creep in terms of killing fun.

Road to Renown! It's like classic Path to Glory, but repaired, remastered, expanded! https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/778170.page

I chose an avatar I feel best represents the quality of my post history.

I try to view Warhammer as more of a toolbox with examples than fully complete games. 
   
Made in us
Confessor Of Sins





Tacoma, WA, USA

Insectum7 wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
The customer: "put enough of every weapon in the box to cover every option!"
GW: "the customer wants every option in the box! Quick, slash options and rewrite unit entries!"

Ouch. That one stings a bit
Be careful what you wish for. You must might get it.

The big problem is that as GW kits have evolved, the model have become more dynamic and detailed. This makes providing many options, either in the kit or via an option box, unworkable (assuming you expect the kit to go together as instructed without modification).

They can get away with this in Horus Heresy that are old-school Marine models with a drop in gun. However, I think they were luck to cram as many options into the Plague Marine box as they did once you include all the boltguns along with the special and melee weapons.

Is it a perfect solution? No.

Does it mean your kit is all you need to build you unit? Pretty often yes.

Does it support more real-world units where a variety of weapons is actually the norm? In theory if the points cost ever made taking a variety of weapons actually viable. But that is a whole different discussion.
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

 alextroy wrote:
Be careful what you wish for. You must might get it.
That already happened after the Chapterhouse debacle.

 alextroy wrote:
The big problem is that as GW kits have evolved, the model have become more dynamic and detailed. This makes providing many options, either in the kit or via an option box, unworkable (assuming you expect the kit to go together as instructed without modification).
Weird. People keep telling me that nothing's changed with GW minis and that they're just as option-rich as they used to be...

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

 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Springfield, VA

The issue with taking a variety of weapons in 40k is there aren't really roles anymore.

Grenade launcher: kinda killy
Flamer: kinda killy
Meltagun: killy but for tanks
Plasma Gun: killy but for everything else, and sometimes tanks.

This goes pretty much for every army you'd see across the table from you, so it's no wonder the only real competition is between melta and plasma.

If the roles were more like:
Grenade Launcher: utility (smoke rounds to obscure friendly forces, flares to help friendly forces aim, etc)
Flamer: engineering (ignores all terrain when fired, including Obscuring. Firing a flamethrower at where you expect the enemy to be even if you can't see him is obvious)
Meltagun: anti-tank
Plasma Gun: anti-infantry

Then you would be on to something. But 40k doesn't have mechanics for that stuff mostly.
   
Made in us
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle






 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Or maybe just have the rules for the different weapons and let people arm their units how they like, rather than creating artificial restrictions (like we have now) or consolidated generic weapons (like we're about to get for Chaos). I know, radical idea. Only something we've had in the game for longer than most people have been playing.

Like with GW's new board sizes, this change has nothing to do with game balance or even the oft-touted ease of use for new players (as stated, there's nothing "easy" about those unit entries). It's just about bits and sales and killing the 3rd party market.


I have strong suspicions that FLG/ITC had something to do with the board size change. The idea may not have started with them, but I doubt they gave unbiased feedback, so to say.

Road to Renown! It's like classic Path to Glory, but repaired, remastered, expanded! https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/778170.page

I chose an avatar I feel best represents the quality of my post history.

I try to view Warhammer as more of a toolbox with examples than fully complete games. 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: