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 spend loads of time building lists. It was fun to give champions of units different options to make them distinct. I recently bought the Death Guard Codex and I haven't really been intrigued by the list building. Every unit is packaged in a neat little package ready to go with little options. And also with no longer listing points in unit options its really cumbersome.

I don't know why GW want to downplay the list building. Between calling 85% of all weapons plague something and no options this codex feels very underwhelming.

And this isn't even taking into consideration the poor background. The Death Guard don't feel like a military organization in a futuristic setting at all. Yes its fiction I know, but what makes good fiction is the merge of elements from reality to make it believable plus extraordinary circumstances to make it special. Then you have best of both worlds. GW has such a good IP but they are slowly killing it, because they have neither. Its not believable or extraordinary.

I remember when i was a child 20 years ago and Warhammer was a complicated mess. It didn't bother me. That's what lured me into the game. Anyone else share this notion?

Since I like to play my army WYSYG, I plan on making index cards for each of my units with the points cost already added up on the card.

That way, when I go to build a list I just flip through the index cards, pulling out units I want to take and adding up the total from there.

kaotkbliss wrote:
Since I like to play my army WYSYG, I plan on making index cards for each of my units with the points cost already added up on the card.

That way, when I go to build a list I just flip through the index cards, pulling out units I want to take and adding up the total from there.

As annoying as it is to only have points in the back, I think the lack of variety is what's so distressing. I miss 3rd and 4th edition options which made it feel like you could really build your own characters.

FudgeDumper wrote:
I used to spend loads of time building lists. It was fun to give champions of units different options to make them distinct. I recently bought the Death Guard Codex and I haven't really been intrigued by the list building. Every unit is packaged in a neat little package ready to go with little options. And also with no longer listing points in unit options its really cumbersome.

I don't know why GW want to downplay the list building. Between calling 85% of all weapons plague something and no options this codex feels very underwhelming.

And this isn't even taking into consideration the poor background. The Death Guard don't feel like a military organization in a futuristic setting at all. Yes its fiction I know, but what makes good fiction is the merge of elements from reality to make it believable plus extraordinary circumstances to make it special. Then you have best of both worlds. GW has such a good IP but they are slowly killing it, because they have neither. Its not believable or extraordinary.

I remember when i was a child 20 years ago and Warhammer was a complicated mess. It didn't bother me. That's what lured me into the game. Anyone else share this notion?

Very much agreed. I've almost given up on the game. I was excited by the Primaris Marines as I thought they'd be a new, fancier version of a Tactical Squad. Nope. No real weapon options. No special weapons or heavy weapons peppered in.

I had the same feeling when 3rd came out. My original minis for 40k were so jacked up because squads weren't limited to how many can take what pistols or melee weapons.

I'd have a squad where 1 had a plasma pistol, another had a hand flamer, another had a power axe, etc.

Then 3rd came along and the limitations began. At first I hated it and felt everything had been dumbed down and the uniqueness of each model taken away. But looking back now, I realize how often I forgot to use many of those weapons because there was just too many in a single unit.

I think it really depends on your army. I have loads of options for my Tyranids (and more incomeing next week). I think part of the theme GW is taking with it's newer armies/codexes is making things more simple for little jimmy but for me between All the tyranid goodness genestealer cults and linking up with Guard as well I have a ton of options.

malcontent999 wrote:

kaotkbliss wrote:
Since I like to play my army WYSYG, I plan on making index cards for each of my units with the points cost already added up on the card.

That way, when I go to build a list I just flip through the index cards, pulling out units I want to take and adding up the total from there.

As annoying as it is to only have points in the back, I think the lack of variety is what's so distressing. I miss 3rd and 4th edition options which made it feel like you could really build your own characters.

While I agree that the loss of options really hurts in this aspect, I am still enjoying list building my self. I just wish I could legally give my choosen the unique weapon load outs I used to under 3rd/4th rules. To do so know they're all chaos lords and that gets stupid expensive real quick. Making those custom characters back in the day was a ton of fun. It's what made my chaos warband different from my friends.

I completely agree. I remember the days of my old Heroic Senior Officers from the 3.5 IG codex that had more than twice as much wargear (if you include weapons) as their base points cost. It was glorious.

Lol yep. I remember my chaos choosen squad of 5 men who cost 200+ points themselves, all with jump packs, each with a different cc or ranged weapon load out. It was glorious!

No Model, No Rules. GW threw their toys out the pram and we all have to love with it.

Here is to hoping chapter approved gives us "experimental rules" for making our own "custom" charecters at some point, even if only allowed in friendly games I would be happy.

Hell I would be happy if dark apostles had the jump pack option.

While I don't have much dog in the fight because I play Eldar, arguably one of the armies with the least amount of "building"...ever, I can understand some people not enjoying the new direction GW is going. I don't see how this really stops you from doing your own thing in a friendly game setting - but that's a different discussion.

Death Guard will be the way new armies are sold. This is very likely the direction all GW armies will go as they get revamped. Unique and stupidly named things (legal issues be damned) which will be relatively monopose and will have X, Y, Z as weapons and that's it.

I think the end goal is very much for beginning gamers to buy a box...assemble it...use the rules in the box for those exact weapons - build the monopose minis (unable to mistakenly build the kits "wrong") and play them. It's far easier on GW to do this. Means that selling the product is easier - rules will have a bit less conflict, etc.

The replacement for list-building fans (I've never really been one) will now be list building combined with army traits and stratagems (and psychic powers). That's the list building you'll be doing now, instead of which sword or pistol you give your lord.

I found that even though there were tons of options in the past that the same options were being spammed for years regardless.... so I don't see any difference between having fake options that no one is going to take, or fewer options... when the end result seems to be the same thing: spamming the best thing over and over again.

 auticus wrote:
I found that even though there were tons of options in the past that the same options were being spammed for years regardless.... so I don't see any difference between having fake options that no one is going to take, or fewer options... when the end result seems to be the same thing: spamming the best thing over and over again.

Eh, I was the guy back then that took bad options for the giggles and surprise. I remember back in 4th ed going to a local tournament and showing up with dark eldar back when our only codex was that pamphlet that came out when 3rd first hit. I won easy not because that codex was op (God was it not op vs other chaos options) but because at that point no one else in the tournament had ever PLAYED against dark eldar, some didn't even realize they were a thing.

I only was able to pull that trick once though lol. Still, when my opponent fired his long fangs at my empty raider and ignored my 3 talos moving up the board because he was used to dealing with Falcons..... Pure bliss lol.

I digress. There are still ways to list build for cool effects. I am building a death guard army with mortarion atm but using Nagash, replaying pox walkers with skeleton warriors, and using other fantasy units (modified) as other stand in stuff. It's not a competitive army (heh, my only ranged comes from he'll turkeys and Forge fiends) but it's interesting and will look awesome on the board.

Go ahead hive mind, try and deal with these things for your hive fleet. It will be Aliens vs Army of Darkness!

 auticus wrote:
I found that even though there were tons of options in the past that the same options were being spammed for years regardless.... so I don't see any difference between having fake options that no one is going to take, or fewer options... when the end result seems to be the same thing: spamming the best thing over and over again.

That's always kind of been the core problem with game. It's cool to have guys with unique weapons and such, but the game is played at a scale where one guy with a special gun isn't going to answer whatever it is that gun is good against. Rather than have a bunch of dudes with unique weapons to handle a lot of different problems, your army becomes the best general option copy/pasted as many times as possible. In many ways, the game doesn't really diversify beyond 400-500 points. You kind of build that list and play 4-5 copies of it. A lot of it comes down to the game having a place for swarms of troops and the durability of vehicles, but not quite sure where to put stuff like Elites and Fast Attack in between.

 auticus wrote:
I found that even though there were tons of options in the past that the same options were being spammed for years regardless.... so I don't see any difference between having fake options that no one is going to take, or fewer options... when the end result seems to be the same thing: spamming the best thing over and over again.

My impression too from thouse few 7th codex i have read. Too many pointless wargear or weapon options for even the basic troop.

imo, by limiting gear and weapons you give other units a valid reason to be included. a 2000p army of any race should not contain 2-3 units on a copy paste pattern, but rather 5-7 completely different units.

But is less options really more kid friendly? I'm thinking the kids who are going to like playing war games are going to like it no matter if its complicated or not, and kids who are into sports et.z will never like it no matter how easy it is.

Seems like GW is just lazy and take the easy way out. They have the most experience in this field of all companies on the market, they have IPs with limitless potential, and this is what they come up with?

The only positive thing they have going for them is the detail on the models. Art has become ridiculous Photoshop hackjobs (seriously, what happened to the artists who had a clue what proportions and composition meant?) and the fluff has become equally one dimensional, and then the rules are also bad.

How can such a giant fall so short? Its as if BMW would start selling box cars.


PS: To remove options because they are never used is not an excuse to remove them. With ingenuity and patience all options could be made viable. GW reminds me of a child, who when faced with an obstacle just ignores it and forget it instead of trying to solve the problem.

The options in the back are so that next year they can release index2 with updated points.

The lack of "options" is for the young blood that dont understand that they can in fact cut miniatures up and put different things on in different ways. so a box will have excatly what you need.. except dev squads. you need two boxes if you want a full 4 man squad with the same guns.

personally i dont mind as ultimately everyone just min maxes those options anyway.

I personally enjoy not having a ton of options per unit but having some.

The problem with having a ton of options is that everyone will just migrate to whatever the "best" option is and all the others become obsolete anyways. What's the point of having 18 different weapon options if people are going to use 2 or 3 regardless? Having a couple options still gives you a loadout specific for a job, but not extra stuff people will just whine and complain about not being good enough.

Hoodwink wrote:
I personally enjoy not having a ton of options per unit but having some.

The problem with having a ton of options is that everyone will just migrate to whatever the "best" option is and all the others become obsolete anyways. What's the point of having 18 different weapon options if people are going to use 2 or 3 regardless? Having a couple options still gives you a loadout specific for a job, but not extra stuff people will just whine and complain about not being good enough.

By this logic, what's the point of GW releasing new model lines if only one unit is any good? Final destination.

 MagicJuggler wrote:

Hoodwink wrote:
I personally enjoy not having a ton of options per unit but having some.

The problem with having a ton of options is that everyone will just migrate to whatever the "best" option is and all the others become obsolete anyways. What's the point of having 18 different weapon options if people are going to use 2 or 3 regardless? Having a couple options still gives you a loadout specific for a job, but not extra stuff people will just whine and complain about not being good enough.

By this logic, what's the point of GW releasing new model lines if only one unit is any good? Final destination.

You know what I like? Reductio ad absurdum.

Wanting to have different options with different roles is fine.

not wanting to have redundant options such that one will almost always cancel out the other directly competing options (See: Leman Russ Battlecannon, Demolisher, Vanquisher, Eradicator) is also fine.

 auticus wrote:
I found that even though there were tons of options in the past that the same options were being spammed for years regardless.... so I don't see any difference between having fake options that no one is going to take, or fewer options... when the end result seems to be the same thing: spamming the best thing over and over again.

I mean this is fundamentally accurate. The illusion of choice helps no one, and it also makes the game harder to balance over time.

My personal stance would be: let's fix some OP stuff, get the game balanced, get all the codexes out, and then talk about expanding it. You need a solid jumping off point or it's more of the same.

I enjoy list building a whole lot, but I'm also getting tired of it, but for probably different reasons. I never gave Superiors/Sergeants/Pack Leaders unique loadouts, and I try to never assign a piece of wargear that I don't intend to use. As a rule, Superiors/Sergeant generally get a weapon that is as close as possible to what the rest of their squad has, or have no additional points spent on them if there's nothing I really want in their inventory. Similar for HQ's, really. I like to keep units efficient.

I've always enjoyed creating lists, because that's where a lot of the strategy is. I have to predict what my potential opposition will be fielding and how they're going to use their units, create a plan of my own to best them, and then actually select and outfit units to optimally fulfill those objective. And then I take it to the table, and I get to see what worked and what didn't, what units of my own fell short of expectation and what unis overperformed, how the enemy actually played and how I need to adjust to defeat them next time. I still enjoy it, but as a whole I feel less engaged, almost as if my list has neared peak efficiency. One of my favorite moments was in 7e, with my IG, the first time I decided to branch out and bring Coteaz attached to a 50-man plasmagun/lascannon squad, and used that instead of Conscripts for my denial zone. "I've Been Expecting You" triggered on an incoming Riptide, and it was vaporized, and the look on my opponent's face was glorious. I felt like I had accomplished something, as it were. Lately, writing and revising my list has become a matter of tightening weaknesses and improving hypothetical efficiency by fractions of a percent.

 FrozenDwarf wrote:

 auticus wrote:
I found that even though there were tons of options in the past that the same options were being spammed for years regardless.... so I don't see any difference between having fake options that no one is going to take, or fewer options... when the end result seems to be the same thing: spamming the best thing over and over again.

My impression too from thouse few 7th codex i have read. Too many pointless wargear or weapon options for even the basic troop.

imo, by limiting gear and weapons you give other units a valid reason to be included. a 2000p army of any race should not contain 2-3 units on a copy paste pattern, but rather 5-7 completely different units.

I'd argue. Armies that have fewer units repeated more often are generally more fun to play against, because it's indicative of the list being built proactively to press it's own strategy as opposed to being built reactively, with sufficient diversity to cover all it's bases against whatever the enemy can bring. This isn't always the case, but it's a trend.

I think, as a whole, a army should consist of a few heavily repeated units driving the core proactive element of the list, with a few more auxiliary units brought in small numbers to provide a reactive diversity.

 MagicJuggler wrote:

Hoodwink wrote:
I personally enjoy not having a ton of options per unit but having some.

The problem with having a ton of options is that everyone will just migrate to whatever the "best" option is and all the others become obsolete anyways. What's the point of having 18 different weapon options if people are going to use 2 or 3 regardless? Having a couple options still gives you a loadout specific for a job, but not extra stuff people will just whine and complain about not being good enough.

By this logic, what's the point of GW releasing new model lines if only one unit is any good? Final destination.

Yeah, at the end of the day, one needs to add variety to make the game more diverse and fun. Yeah, not everything is gonna be as competitive as the OP stuff, but as Magic Juggler said, even "ultra balanced" games are just like that at the high end competitive level. Theres a reason why Fox is the most used character in Smash Bros Brawl tournaments, with a 78% I believe of usage.

But that doesn't mean in casual play you can't use the rest of the characters and have fun and a balanced game.

I'm torn, on one hand the new IG codex stripped away a ton of wargear options for our units. Many lost a wide variety of equipment and there are a few weapons that were removed entirely.

However, I feel like my actual army has never been this flexible and capable of variation since 5th. The very same units can change radically in purpose and use just by what regiment trait they use now, and you can see some pretty crazy differences in how a list plays even if you just change the regiment title but leave the overall list unchanged. I've had a blast writing up lists for the various regiment types, and even trying to mix and match units in combined regiments to see what works best with the other.

Personally I feel we should've kept all our options and gotten this, but its not nearly as bad as it could've been. Regiment traits should have been linked to the type of army, not homeworld, but there's not really anything stopping you from saying your cadians are say Tallarn or whatever. I don't really like when people talk about how an army should have a "variety of units" or "spam a select few". This is 40k, each army has a different schtick. Something like an ork mob may have a wide variety or units or it may be a dedicated speed freaks klan. An Imperial Guard force may consist only of infantry, or it could be a highly varied combined arms force, etc. It seems weird to try and blame the overabundance/lack of options on that, when ultimately each army is different.

the_scotsman wrote:

 MagicJuggler wrote:

Hoodwink wrote:
I personally enjoy not having a ton of options per unit but having some.

The problem with having a ton of options is that everyone will just migrate to whatever the "best" option is and all the others become obsolete anyways. What's the point of having 18 different weapon options if people are going to use 2 or 3 regardless? Having a couple options still gives you a loadout specific for a job, but not extra stuff people will just whine and complain about not being good enough.

By this logic, what's the point of GW releasing new model lines if only one unit is any good? Final destination.

You know what I like? Reductio ad absurdum.

Wanting to have different options with different roles is fine.

not wanting to have redundant options such that one will almost always cancel out the other directly competing options (See: Leman Russ Battlecannon, Demolisher, Vanquisher, Eradicator) is also fine.

Yeah, if only the game didn't flatten the to-wound chart, flatten saving throws and marginalize plasma, AOEs, or anything that makea the tanks distinct...

 MagicJuggler wrote:

Hoodwink wrote:
I personally enjoy not having a ton of options per unit but having some.

The problem with having a ton of options is that everyone will just migrate to whatever the "best" option is and all the others become obsolete anyways. What's the point of having 18 different weapon options if people are going to use 2 or 3 regardless? Having a couple options still gives you a loadout specific for a job, but not extra stuff people will just whine and complain about not being good enough.

By this logic, what's the point of GW releasing new model lines if only one unit is any good? Final destination.

Because the entire reason to not have 1000 options per unit is so units have a specific gap in the army to fill and don't do everything. Otherwise, you get units that do everything and push out other units, making less diverse armies. By reducing the amount of variables, you make the game easier to balance and force people to diversify their list in order to cover all bases. When you can take one unit and give them anti-tank, anti-infantry, long range, number of shots, or any other type of variance, you create a situation where that unit is better than other units that don't have all those options which is what brings the unit spam. Inevitably there are units that will be considered "better" than other units but reducing the ability to make them better by gear is one step in diversifying the playfield.

Hoodwink wrote:

 MagicJuggler wrote:

Hoodwink wrote:
I personally enjoy not having a ton of options per unit but having some.

The problem with having a ton of options is that everyone will just migrate to whatever the "best" option is and all the others become obsolete anyways. What's the point of having 18 different weapon options if people are going to use 2 or 3 regardless? Having a couple options still gives you a loadout specific for a job, but not extra stuff people will just whine and complain about not being good enough.

By this logic, what's the point of GW releasing new model lines if only one unit is any good? Final destination.

Because the entire reason to not have 1000 options per unit is so units have a specific gap in the army to fill and don't do everything. Otherwise, you get units that do everything and push out other units, making less diverse armies. By reducing the amount of variables, you make the game easier to balance and force people to diversify their list in order to cover all bases. When you can take one unit and give them anti-tank, anti-infantry, long range, number of shots, or any other type of variance, you create a situation where that unit is better than other units that don't have all those options which is what brings the unit spam. Inevitably there are units that will be considered "better" than other units but reducing the ability to make them better by gear is one step in diversifying the playfield.

So wait, you're saying reducing options makes for more diversity?

If you can make a unit that is great at everything at an affordable cost, this is because the points are off, not because diversity is the problem. Honestly, I can't believe I've ever read such a set of statements here on Dakka.

I don't know, with the current release of tyrnaid coming out there looks to be some amazing different and diverse options that hive fleets and their hive tyrant hq's will be able to get. Maybe it's just a case of individuals are out, army modification is in with a sprinkle of custom hq?

I consider myself an experienced hobbyist, however I cannot say I particularly enjoy scrounging for bitz and scratchbuilding whatever option is the best in every which codex iteration.

Say I'd want to equip 10 Sternguard with combi-weapons. Sure there are a few in the kit, but getting to 10 takes some work. And them add the fact that there are 4 different combi-weapons it gets old really fast.

Or in the case of the old dakkafex or flyrant I believe there didn't exist a devourer for whichever side so that had to be converted. Not a big deal for someone proficient with greenstuff or modeling but can be a bit daunting for anyone just starting the hobby.

I'm all for options and diversity but instead of making people come up with bitz that don't exist I hope they included more options in the box to begin with. So that said I'm not super keen on monopose single-option models either...

Playing SW myself I still feel I have enough options to work with while building my lists. However I have a creeping fear that some of that diversity will be gone come codex-day, whenever that is.