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.

 Paradigm wrote:
The 'all FW is OP' argument falls down when you consider this, and yet there are still people apparently refusing to play against the units that, three months ago, they wouldn't have batted an eyelid at. It's crazy.

Well, the argument isn't "all FW is OP" (except from ignorant people), it's more "FW tends to be unbalanced". There's some units that outright suck from FW and just a casual glance at their rules shows how much they suck.

But yeah, I do agree that disallowing a Colossus is a bit of a dick move given that it still exists in current publications. Of course I think it was a bit of a dick move for GW to remove it from the codex in the first place.

KommissarKarl wrote:

 Paradigm wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
The Colossus is NOT a great example because the rules for it in the out of date publication are the same as the rules in a current publication.

This, as I said before, is the one that really confuses the hell out of me. There are apparently people who are refusing to play Colossi on the basis that 'it's Forgeworld' (which, to be honest, is a bad reason in my opinion to refuse something), despite the rules being absolutely identical. How stupid do you have to be to appreciate that if the rules are the same, just in a different book, the unit is the same. The 'all FW is OP' argument falls down when you consider this, and yet there are still people apparently refusing to play against the units that, three months ago, they wouldn't have batted an eyelid at. It's crazy.

There is such a thing as common sense you know. I doubt any reasonable person would refuse if you said "I know the rules for this aren't in the codex any more but they're in an Imperial Armour book with identical statline and points cost, is that alright?", regardless of the group's stance about Forgeworld.

I appreciate that, I was just commenting on how I've seen a couple of posts in the last few weeks about groups who have refused on exactly those grounds. Of course reasonable people would accept it, but apparently there are some people who just aren't.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Paradigm wrote:
The 'all FW is OP' argument falls down when you consider this, and yet there are still people apparently refusing to play against the units that, three months ago, they wouldn't have batted an eyelid at. It's crazy.

Well, the argument isn't "all FW is OP" (except from ignorant people), it's more "FW tends to be unbalanced". There's some units that outright suck from FW and just a casual glance at their rules shows how much they suck.
.

Which I think is also a little bit ridiculous, when you consider that nothing FW makes could even touch Screamerstar or Triptides. When you have such mentally OP combos in codex, refusing FW on grounds of power seems a little odd, and it's an idea that should really be moved away from.

But that's a tangent...

 Paradigm wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Paradigm wrote:
The 'all FW is OP' argument falls down when you consider this, and yet there are still people apparently refusing to play against the units that, three months ago, they wouldn't have batted an eyelid at. It's crazy.

Well, the argument isn't "all FW is OP" (except from ignorant people), it's more "FW tends to be unbalanced". There's some units that outright suck from FW and just a casual glance at their rules shows how much they suck.
.

Which I think is also a little bit ridiculous, when you consider that nothing FW makes could even touch Screamerstar or Triptides. When you have such mentally OP combos in codex, refusing FW on grounds of power seems a little odd, and it's an idea that should really be moved away from.

But that's a tangent...

Well in my opinion there are one or two over-powered combos in codexes...but there's a slew of Forgeworld OP cheese-ness. You can drop nuggets like that into conversation if you want but most people are aware that there are a lot of OP Forgeworld units, and that certain people in gaming group have a habit of "paying to win" by buying OP nonsense that no one else can afford and insisting that other people in the gaming group line up to be beaten by it. There is nothing "odd" about this and trying to stamp it out just makes you seem like that guy who has tried to pay his way to victory. Not saying that you are, but it makes you come across that way.

 Paradigm wrote:
I appreciate that, I was just commenting on how I've seen a couple of posts in the last few weeks about groups who have refused on exactly those grounds. Of course reasonable people would accept it, but apparently there are some people who just aren't.

We're not talking about reasonable people, we're talking about GW/40k fans, it's a completely different subspecies of human that tends to not conform to the typical rules of what makes reasonable people

AllSeeingSkink wrote:I'm not really sure why I'd have to. Just because GW/FW are sometimes lazy in their updating doesn't mean I automatically have to accept all out of date rules.

Again, what made the rules out of date? Everything else depends on the rules being obsolete despite not having something that replaces them. Just because all of the current rules for something aren't in the same book doesn't mean they're not current.

And it does fatally weaken that one fallacious argument that people make for FW. It works like...

Me: Why is FW legal?

You: Because the rules are printed by GW for the purpose of being used in a game of 40k.

Me: Old codices were also printed by GW for the purpose of being used in a game of 40k.

You: Yes, but [reasons].

Me: So you're saying that being printed by GW for the purpose of being used in a game of 40k isn't enough to make rules legal?

You: Yes.

Me: So why is FW legal?

You: Because it was printed by GW for the purpose of being used in... oh... wait, you're right. Furthermore, I find you physically attractive. Let me buy you a pizza.

Wait so your argument is basically "if you consider FW legal, then anything written by GW at any point is also legal, because FW was written by GW"?

I really don't see the argument here. A new version of a Codex invalidates the previous version of a Codex; if a unit was in the old book and not in the new, then it no longer exists as a choice (unless it's added in later via a supplement/dataslate/etc.) If there isn't a new version of a book, use the most recent version available while substituting new rules for old were applicable (or FAQ if it iexists). If something is so outdated that it has been obsoleted, then you can't use it without some major house-ruling (honestly cannot think of anything that fits this criteria).

Forgeworld supplements are technically legal within reason (not sure if say a 3rd edition book would necessarily be viable in 7th edition, if it had no updates), but allowing them doesn't allow you to pull something that was in an old codex and removed in a new one (barring house rule/opponent agreement) just because "Well if X is allowed, then Y should be allowed because it's the most current version of rules for that particular model" which seems to be the argument here.

WayneTheGame wrote: something that was in an old codex and removed in a new one

Exactly. Not updated isn't the same as removed.

GM came out with the 2014 Malibu and it didn't make my 2003 Malibu disappear out of the parking lot. It's just no longer the newest model. They also came out with a 2014 Cruze, but that doesn't mean anything that applies to the Cruze also applies to my Malibu.

WayneTheGame wrote: A new version of a Codex invalidates the previous version of a Codex; if a unit was in the old book and not in the new, then it no longer exists as a choice

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. It's an argument from ignorance fallacy.

The only way that you can say "If it's not in the most recent printing of my codex, it's not legal" is if everything that's not in the most recent printing of your codex isn't legal. Is FW printed in your codex? No. Is WD printed in your codex? No. There's an awful lot of content that isn't printed in your codex, and none of it gets to count if you take this line of reasoning.

Which is fine, of course, but you've got to be honest about it, and apply things consistently.

How do you integrate "similar but not the same" units? Such as Hardened Veterans (as elites choices) from the 3.5 edition Guard codex?

And what about old wargear options? If I want an honorifica imperialis techpriest from the 3.5 codex, can I take it?

After all, the wargear being removed from a newer codex doesn't mean it's gone, by your logic.

I get what you're arguing, even if I disagree with the principle. Personally (assuming I still played of course) I'd have no problem letting somebody use Marbo or whatever in their army, if it was something that they had before but was cut for whatever reason, but I think what your saying basically showcases that GW doesn't think properly about rules, and/or just goes to show the whole "Have to talk with your opponent first" argument which isn't everyone's cup of tea.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
How do you integrate "similar but not the same" units? Such as Hardened Veterans (as elites choices) from the 3.5 edition Guard codex?

And what about old wargear options? If I want an honorifica imperialis techpriest from the 3.5 codex, can I take it?

After all, the wargear being removed from a newer codex doesn't mean it's gone, by your logic.

And this is where it gets hairy, because if you go by the logic of "If it's removed from the new book, it's not gone" then you open up the floodgates; Chaos could technically use the Legion tactics from 3.5 following that train of thought. Forgeworld is legal because GW says its legal, basically, while something that was in the 5th edition book and removed from the 6th edition book is not legal because GW says it's not legal (but see previous comment about house rules). But going to an old version of a codex and pulling out a unit that was removed in a later version of the codex is a gray area, and in my view it would depend on what, on the type of game, or the like. Campaign game where you are playing Catachans and want to use Marbo for a special mission deep behind enemy lines? Hell yes, go for it. Competitive type of game where you want to bust out something from 3.5? Not so much...

Cause it gets screwed up quick lol.

I tryed to avoid 8th or what ever edition fantasy is on now but after all my ogres started to feet stomp and it was added to their points. It made them alot worse then they should be.

BTW footstomp is trash and makes no sense.

Unit1126PLL wrote:After all, the wargear being removed from a newer codex doesn't mean it's gone, by your logic.

Sure, but if no unit has access to it then it doesn't matter.

And hardened veterans did get an update. Twice. Just changed FOC slots is all, among other changes.

WayneTheGame wrote: I think what your saying basically showcases that GW doesn't think properly about rules

You don't agree with an argument, and so it's GW's fault?

Is forgeworld not legal because GW writes rules that appear confusing?

 Ailaros wrote:
You don't agree with an argument, and so it's GW's fault?

Yes, it is. Generally there's established guides for what is and isn't legal, and new > old. The very fact there's an argument to be made that you can use units from an old version of a book, because those units don't have new versions and therefore are still "current", indicates a problem with clear rules. The fact that you try to cite that if FW is legal, and FW isn't in a codex, ergo other things not in a Codex must be legal if FW is legal, is a problem with the rules not being specific about what is and isn't allowed.

Forgeworld is legal because GW says it's legal. However, arguing that if Forgeworld is legal then other things from other books not in the Codex must also be legal (because FW is not in the codex), and then using that argument to try and state that a unit from say 5th edition can still be fielded in 7th when said unit was removed from the 7th edition version of the codex, is because GW writes rules that are confusing and gives little or no guideline what is considered "current" or not.

You're essentially trying to use legalese and lawyer-speak to prove that if A is legal because it's in another book that's allowed, then B must also be legal despite NOT being in any current book, because if it was illegal due to not being in the book then A would be illegal for the same reason.

 Ailaros wrote:

Unit1126PLL wrote:After all, the wargear being removed from a newer codex doesn't mean it's gone, by your logic.

Sure, but if no unit has access to it then it doesn't matter.

And hardened veterans did get an update. Twice. Just changed FOC slots is all, among other changes.

WayneTheGame wrote: I think what your saying basically showcases that GW doesn't think properly about rules

You don't agree with an argument, and so it's GW's fault?

Is forgeworld not legal because GW writes rules that appear confusing?

How do you tell a unit has access to it? The 3.5 Codex says Techpriests can get the Honorifica, and there's an entry for Techpriests in the AM codex. By your logic, since the rules for obtaining the Honorifica were never updated, then they were never changed, so the unit called "Techpriest Enginseer" can still get it.

And I don't see "Hardened Veterans" anywhere in the AM or 5th edition IG codices.

I see old rules for units no longer in the newest version as illegal. That said I have no problems playing against some "illegal units" myself.
Id be much more comfortable playing against wazzdakka gutsmek than some homebrewed unit my mate made himself during a weekend of heavy drinking.

I dont think I would have many objections playing against most people on this thread (ok, I didnt read the whole thread, so I might be wrong) But I would of course take it for granted that I was asked before game start.

Where do you draw the line though? 3ed and later? or could I bring Zodgrod Wortsnagga the famed runtherd and his supa runts from 2nd ed to a game?

 Ailaros wrote:
Again, what made the rules out of date?

*blah blah*

You: Yes, but [reasons].

*blah blah*

I feel like you didn't read my reasons at all. Here is is again:

They are not in a current publication.

Say what you want about FW and most recent rules being "current". But they are not in a publication that GW or FW currently sells, therefore, IMO, they are not current rules.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Ailaros wrote:
Again, what made the rules out of date?

*blah blah*

You: Yes, but [reasons].

*blah blah*

I feel like you didn't read my reasons at all. Here is is again:

They are not in a current publication.

Say what you want about FW and most recent rules being "current". But they are not in a publication that GW or FW currently sells, therefore, IMO, they are not current rules.

Well, someone said it before I could get to it.

Glossing over an entire section with just "reasons" is a good way to make your own fallacious argument.

Which fallacy?

I don't know how I can make this more clear. Current publication and current rules set are not synonyms. It is possible to have a current publication that does not contain 100% of the current rules, and it's possible to have the most current rules in a place other than the most recent publication.

I really don't get why this is so confusing.

I guess I can only try another example. Look at the bible. The bible has the old testament. Then some people came by after, more recently, and wrote the new testament. Some of the things in the new testament revised and updated some of the material in the old testament, but it didn't cover everything.

Does that mean everything in the old testament is null and void because it wasn't updated in the new testament? Jesus didn't explicitly say "don't covet your neighbor's stuff", so does that mean that one of the ten commandments isn't valid anymore?

No. The older stuff that wasn't updated is still the most current stuff. Just because the most current version of all the pieces were written over hundreds of years, and because some parts got re-written doesn't mean the stuff that's old is also necessarily obsolete.

 Ailaros wrote:
blah blah blah reasons

But it's not a current publication.

See, I can do it too....













....but I won't.

 Ailaros wrote:
and it's possible to have the most current rules in a place other than the most recent publication.

I really don't get why this is so confusing.

At the end of the day, we can draw lines where we want. All I'm pointing out is your argument is false in that just because we accept other lines in the sand we must also accept the "most recent rules are acceptable" which is a completely different line in the sand. If that's not where you draw your line in the sand, fine, but don't pretend accepting X, Y and Z is the same as accepting older rules.

Yes, it's possible to have the most current rules in a place other than the most recent publication... BUT, if it's not in a publication that GW/FW currently sell for a game system they are still actively updating, then I consider the rule obsolete.

I really don't get why this is so confusing for you.

Look at the bible.

Seriously? We're using the bible as a comparison to GW's rules?

Ok, lets roll with it. I walk in to a christian book shop, pick up a recent printing of the bible, one that is currently being printed. Oh, look at that, it still has an Old Testament.

The book of Psalms is not obsolete, I can go buy a bible printed today and it will have the book of Psalms in it.

Marbo is obsolete. I can not go in to any of GW's outlets and buy a book they are currently still printing and selling and find Marbo in it.

The Colossus is obsolete in GW rules but not obsolete in FW rules. I can go online and buy a brand new copy of the book sold by FW themselves that contain the rules.


EDIT: And please, lets drop the bible analogy. It's so pathetically distant that it's not worth it. After posting it I'm sorry I even wasted my time with it.

Isn't this all besides the point? 7th ed. changed the dynamic by killing pick up games. There are no set standards of play anymore. Unless you play with a club which has established a set standard of expectations. Each game requires a social contract to be agreed upon by both players before you can even make an army to play with. So whether you can use an obsolete/outdated rules really comes down to the opinion of each individual opponent.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:Yes, it's possible to have the most current rules in a place other than the most recent publication... BUT, if it's not in a publication that GW/FW currently sell... I can go buy a bible printed today.

So, your argument is based entirely on which distributor you can purchase your book from?

If GW has a book on sale from its website, everything contained therewithin is fine, but if you buy a codex from eBay, it isn't? If Zondervan stopped publishing the bible, it's contents would become obsolete?

Why does this matter AT ALL to the actual contents of the books themselves?

 Ailaros wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:Yes, it's possible to have the most current rules in a place other than the most recent publication... BUT, if it's not in a publication that GW/FW currently sell... I can go buy a bible printed today.

So, your argument is based entirely on which distributor you can purchase your book from?

If GW has a book on sale from its website, everything contained therewithin is fine, but if you buy a codex from eBay, it isn't?

Why do you do this, ignore almost all the content of what I've said and pick on one sentence? Either address the whole of my reasoning or just stop it please, it's annoying.

Yes, given GW wrote the rules and published them, I view them as the defining distributor as to whether or not a publication is current.

To go back to your E-type analogy. The 1975 E-type is the most recent E-type Jaguar. However, the 1975 E-type is not a current Jaguar.

5th edition Marbo rules are the most recent Marbo rules. However, GW (ya know, the people who write the rules) don't have Marbo in any of their current publications, thus I view his rules as not being current rules, even if they are the most recent. The most recent rules for Durfast of Mordrak are from 2nd edition, I certainly don't consider the rules to be current though.

If you want to consider the most recent rules for whatever as being the current rules for whatever, fine, that's up to you. Just don't act like we HAVE to accept your interpretation of "current rules" just because we accept FW or whatever else we want to accept. They are all entirely different lines drawn in the sand, not the same blurry line, they are distinctly different lines.

If Zondervan stopped publishing the bible, it's contents would become obsolete?

Oh please, I'm sorry I ever entertained your absurd bible analogy, the concept of comparing GW rules to the bible is so fething crazy on so many levels I should never have gratified it in the beginning.

Why does this matter AT ALL to the actual contents of the books themselves?

It doesn't matter to the content of the books at all, I never said it did. You can play old rules if you want, I often play entire games that are no longer published. But when I play a pick up game of 40k, a game GW are still updating, I expect to play it with the current rules, and in my mind the current rules are the rules GW is currently publishing and selling. Rules in older publications have been rendered obsolete by the fact GW, the people who write the rules, have rendered them obsolete by omitting them from their current publications.

Would that mean SOB get their drop pods back?

 Ailaros wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:Yes, it's possible to have the most current rules in a place other than the most recent publication... BUT, if it's not in a publication that GW/FW currently sell... I can go buy a bible printed today.

So, your argument is based entirely on which distributor you can purchase your book from?

If GW has a book on sale from its website, everything contained therewithin is fine, but if you buy a codex from eBay, it isn't? If Zondervan stopped publishing the bible, it's contents would become obsolete?

Why does this matter AT ALL to the actual contents of the books themselves?

I'm still waiting to see if a Techpriest Enginseer can get an Honorifica Imperialis, or officers can get Medallion Crimson (which ironically would not work in 5th edition but does in Codex:AM)

So I kinda like this idea that the OP is talking about. I think I will go through my old ork codex and chop them up with the units that have been removed, paste them on new sheets an put them in full page binder sleeves. I was going to do the same with the forgeworld update. I'll have my friends that I play with look it over and if they let me when ever I play with that group I'll consider the whole thing free game.

Codex:Freeboota!


I understand that for tourney and pick ups with other people I will use just the current rules and suppliments.

DaKrumpa wrote:
So I kinda like this idea that the OP is talking about. I think I will go through my old ork codex and chop them up with the units that have been removed, paste them on new sheets an put them in full page binder sleeves. I was going to do the same with the forgeworld update. I'll have my friends that I play with look it over and if they let me when ever I play with that group I'll consider the whole thing free game.

Codex:Freeboota!


I understand that for tourney and pick ups with other people I will use just the current rules and suppliments.

That's what I was thinking too. Or the old Armored Company from Chapter Approved, complete with regimental doctrines

From my point of view (and we just celebrated Independence Day on Friday), there are not that many things left out of new codex and I just copy the stat page
from the old one and tape it inside the back cover. Wazdakka is mentioned in the new 'dex, so he's still 'recognized', as Cyphur is mentioned in the DA codex.
( I have to keep re-taping Cyphur as he keeps getting left out. He's a third edition warrior in a 7th edition universe.
Being a game, I would clear it with my opponent and if the characteristics work differently (plus or minus), with the current rule book, then that's what's going
on in the galaxy at that point in time. Might be some weird solar flare influencing things... I also play Cyphur through my DA codex because I don't think he got
swayed by Chaos as is rumored. Rather he is hooked up with a splinter revolutionary group some might say. But that's just my opinion.
I don't sweat GW not being 100% perfect. I just help them out with my roll of tape.
And as far as tournament situations, I just ask if they mind me running a codex character, same as the FW guys do. I don't play too many, so no big deal.
What surprises me in the forums is that nobody ever bitches about the freakin' dice. They are the problem!

 ciaotym wrote:
From my point of view (and we just celebrated Independence Day on Friday), there are not that many things left out of new codex and I just copy the stat page
from the old one and tape it inside the back cover. Wazdakka is mentioned in the new 'dex, so he's still 'recognized', as Cyphur is mentioned in the DA codex.
( I have to keep re-taping Cyphur as he keeps getting left out. He's a third edition warrior in a 7th edition universe.
Being a game, I would clear it with my opponent and if the characteristics work differently (plus or minus), with the current rule book, then that's what's going
on in the galaxy at that point in time. Might be some weird solar flare influencing things... I also play Cyphur through my DA codex because I don't think he got
swayed by Chaos as is rumored. Rather he is hooked up with a splinter revolutionary group some might say. But that's just my opinion.
I don't sweat GW not being 100% perfect. I just help them out with my roll of tape.
And as far as tournament situations, I just ask if they mind me running a codex character, same as the FW guys do. I don't play too many, so no big deal.
What surprises me in the forums is that nobody ever bitches about the freakin' dice. They are the problem!

I get where you are coming from, but there are current rules for cypher...

I don't think Genestealer cults got updated from 2nd Ed. I'll have them please. And I'll ally some squats. I'll sprinkle a couple of Wargear Cards through my ranks. A Vortex Grenade, some Blind Grenades, Polymorphine (oh my, a Patriarch with polymorphine). I don't think Strategy Cards got an update since Dark Millennium so I'll cross my fingers for Virus Outbreak.

Rogue Trader had rules for making your own stat lines. They've not been superseded, but you don't need to pay for Movement these days. Or, you could use the latest rules for the Movement stat and make a unit with M10. It would mean you could walk 10" or run/charge 20". That would fit right into my stealer cult!

Coming from 3rd and 4th Edition with a Genestealer heavy list, back with Ymgarl Stealers and the entire group not needing Synapse and Broodlord being Synapse themselves, this hits a bit of a sore point with me. Now a Stealer is dull, drab and effectively useless at any upgrade level other than 'rending'. No feeder tentacles, no extended carapace, no weapon biomorphs and the special units of Ymgarls, with their own stat-line, aren't included now. Frankly, I say just deal with it. Sure I have 40+ models that I MIGHT take 7 from, but oh well. That's the nature of the game. It changes and I'll hope for a Genestealer Cult supplement like Iyanden and Crimson Slaughter have, but until then I'll just tailor lists with what is in the current codex. I understand it's not easy making a unit next to worthless, or even an army in the case of Penal legions, but nothing says that you can't put them on the table as a normal Imperial Guard list without whatever made them great and move from there and learn a new way to play the game. I'm seeing so many folks set in their ways bring up issues, but learning a new way to play isn't the worst thing in the world. Just take the new rules, look back on Special Character models and maybe drop them into Sergeant slots without their personal bonus.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:Why do you do this, ignore almost all the content of what I've said and pick on one sentence? Either address the whole of my reasoning

I am addressing the whole of your reasoning.

For you, the definition of "current" requires someone to be actively publishing it, right? Actively selling and distributing an E-Type Jag, for example. If nobody is selling it, it's not current, right? If this is true, then what you are saying is that the rules, the content itself, is affected by if it is being sold or distributed or not. The rules become different (for example, not current) if they're not on sale.

If rules that are not current are not valid, that means that something only has value or not based on if you can buy a new copy or not. This is a basic extrapolation.

Now, let's apply your argument generally, using analogies and examples. If I have a 2003 Honda Civic, and it comes with an owner's manual, and Honda stops making, selling, and distributing the 2003 Civic then, by your own argument, the owner's manual for my car becomes invalid just because Honda built a different car. By your own argument, nothing in an old math textbook is correct once they come out with a new textbook. Nothing in the Bible is useful or applicable or anything the moment nobody can buy a copy anymore.

What you're saying is that the rules themselves, or that the ideas themselves only exist in valid form based on the happenstance of economics. Truth is literally the byproduct of what is bought and sold.

And you can define "current" and thus "valid" this way if you want, but it strikes me as very, very bizarre.

And, of course, you run into everything else I've been saying. How do you avoid the argument form ignorance fallacy, or the argument from authority fallacy? There is a lot of reasoning that you're skipping over by using your own definition of words.

Unit1126PLL wrote:I'm still waiting to see if a Techpriest Enginseer can get an Honorifica Imperialis, or officers can get Medallion Crimson (which ironically would not work in 5th edition but does in Codex:AM)

I'd still argue that techpriests and veterans have, in fact, been updated (if an update can change its characteristics in the form of statlines, wargear, or FOC slot, why not name?), but even if you don't, I don't really see the problem.

Older stuff, especially much older stuff, isn't going to work as well with the rules, and odds are good that they're going to be more expensive or worse than their more contemporary equivalents. Hardened veterans is a good example of this. They're more expensive, and they're not superscoring. The compare unfavorably to contemporary veterans and the new stormies.

Of course, it's possible to find something that was cut at the height of cheesiness, I won't deny the possibility. But cheesiness is sort of its own separate issue. After all, even stuff in newly-published rules and codices is also cheesy as well. You're not disrupting a perfectly balanced system, and you're not, strictly speaking, bringing anything new to the game either.