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.

I used to play WHFB Dwarfs, and when AoS came around we were told all armies and models would have rules and be playable in AoS. While this was true to an extent, the lack of updated rules doesn't really make them competitive. Instead of updating dwarfs as a coherent faction they got fireslayers and now the steampunk dudes. The old hammerers, thunderers, ironbreakers, etc are still playable.. they HAVE rules, but they're already lagging and probably likely to continue lagging or just dropped entirely in the future.

So now it appears 40k is going down the same path. What armies do people think are going to get broken apart (imo, craftworld eldar by the looks of it) or left behind and what armies will stay intact and kept fresh?

I havent played GW games since the early days of AoS and I'm very hesitant to spend thousands of dollars and hours on a faction that is going to be forgotten in the future. I want to throw my money into GW's mouth but they make it difficult for me to trust them.

I said this in another thread;

 LordofHats wrote:


I think that it's clear they're going to adopt something of the AoS style "Faction" releases rather than traditional army books, but I don't think they're going to go through and rename everything. The Mass renaming of AoS is a rather blatant response to the Chapter House Studios debacle, where it became obvious that GW can't copy right generic concepts like "Space Marines" (notice the last SM dex was named Adeptus Astartes: Space Marines, not just Space Marines). The mass redesign of Fantasy into AoS complete with its silly spellings and more "fantastic" artwork is to me an obvious bid by GW to better protect their IP by making it more unique. They can't copyright drawves, but they can copyright "Fyreslayers."

There's less need for that with 40k, especially if the traditional armies get cut up and spread out into distinct supplement style releases.

What happened in AoS stemmed in large part from Fantasy Battle being too derivative/difficult to copyright. So GW broke up the factions, renamed and redesigned everything, and went on from there. 40k doesn't have that same problem.

In the new edition I think you can look for more of what has been released over the past year with stuff like Wrath of Magnus and Traitor Legions. Rather than Codex: Chaos Space Marines, you get "Death Guard" and instead of Codex: Space Marines you get "Gillmarines" or whatever. It won't be army support as much as faction support for a given set of models. If you look back you can see the transition over the past 2 years where they've been switching more and more to more specific terms and names for the IP.

so... do you think its safe to buy and paint a bunch of minis of a classic faction like ultramarines this summer, with the intent of tournament play in the future?

ninepaces wrote:
so... do you think its safe to buy and paint a bunch of minis of a classic faction like ultramarines this summer, with the intent of tournament play in the future?

I doubt the Ultramarines are going anywhere.

I question whether or not GW plans to update the entire SM range of models though. I wouldn't be surprised in the rumored new marines turned out to be the first in model range update (with accompanying lore to explain the older models still existing en masse) because the Space Marine base kits aren't bad, but they're also not new and as the biggest bread winners in GW's stock a range replacement wouldn't shock me at this point. Additionally I wouldn't start anything new because what the balance is going to look like is just guess work. I'm waiting myself to see what comes, and how affordable it may be on my budget.

 LordofHats wrote:

ninepaces wrote:
so... do you think its safe to buy and paint a bunch of minis of a classic faction like ultramarines this summer, with the intent of tournament play in the future?

I doubt the Ultramarines are going anywhere.

I question whether or not GW plans to update the entire SM range of models though. I wouldn't be surprised in the rumored new marines turned out to be the first in model range update (with accompanying lore to explain the older models still existing en masse) because the Space Marine base kits aren't bad, but they're also not new and as the biggest bread winners in GW's stock a range replacement wouldn't shock me at this point. Additionally I wouldn't start anything new because what the balance is going to look like is just guess work. I'm waiting myself to see what comes, and how affordable it may be on my budget.

I'd not assmble anything (because no one knows how the new meta will shake out, grav for example could be Gak and the new meta could be... heavy bolters or something) but if you're buying used and painting up then ultramarines is a safe bet to paint.

BrianDavion wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

ninepaces wrote:
so... do you think its safe to buy and paint a bunch of minis of a classic faction like ultramarines this summer, with the intent of tournament play in the future?

I doubt the Ultramarines are going anywhere.

I question whether or not GW plans to update the entire SM range of models though. I wouldn't be surprised in the rumored new marines turned out to be the first in model range update (with accompanying lore to explain the older models still existing en masse) because the Space Marine base kits aren't bad, but they're also not new and as the biggest bread winners in GW's stock a range replacement wouldn't shock me at this point. Additionally I wouldn't start anything new because what the balance is going to look like is just guess work. I'm waiting myself to see what comes, and how affordable it may be on my budget.

I'd not assmble anything (because no one knows how the new meta will shake out, grav for example could be Gak and the new meta could be... heavy bolters or something) but if you're buying used and painting up then ultramarines is a safe bet to paint.

Or build things because they are cool

 davou wrote:


Or build things because they are cool

This is also valid.

I don't think anything will be left behind to be honest.

thanks. I hope so. I got burned so bad with my dwarfs... 12 years ago when I started the collection I would have never thought the company with the "White Dwarf" as the title of their main magazine would drop one of its iconic fantasy races.

I might do Orks... no way they go anywhere and probably not getting redone anytime soon. And if they are redone the current range will do just fine. Mixing big and slightly bigger orks probably is much more feasible than mismatching marines.

I love GW but I hate this guesswork sh*t that has to be done before you start an army. I've been playing kings of war since fantasy died and from an organizational standpoint its an absolute joy... can use models from any company, all armies have up-to-date rules (except one in development) and can be found between the main rulebook + an expansion book, and rule changes occur once a year and are very minor. There's no fear of getting dropped or of erratic meta shifts. Its just a shame it simply doesnt have the player base and exposure AoS does.

ninepaces wrote:
thanks. I hope so. I got burned so bad with my dwarfs... 12 years ago when I started the collection I would have never thought the company with the "White Dwarf" as the title of their main magazine would drop one of its iconic fantasy races.

I might do Orks... no way they go anywhere and probably not getting redone anytime soon. And if they are redone the current range will do just fine. Mixing big and slightly bigger orks probably is much more feasible than mismatching marines.

I love GW but I hate this guesswork sh*t that has to be done before you start an army. I've been playing kings of war since fantasy died and from an organizational standpoint its an absolute joy... can use models from any company, all armies have up-to-date rules (except one in development) and can be found between the main rulebook + an expansion book, and rule changes occur once a year and are very minor. There's no fear of getting dropped or of erratic meta shifts. Its just a shame it simply doesnt have the player base and exposure AoS does.

I wouldn't mind orks of differing sizes, depending on how they look. It fits in with the fluff.

I've got some really old (Rogue Trader era?) orks that can be made to look decent next to new orks by replacing their arms and sometimes their heads. Then again, the Gorkamorka era orks from the vehicles don't look right at all.