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.

So maybe thinking of running an event but don't want the crazy meta of 8th. Thinking of ways to balance army selection to create truly balanced forces across books and wanna get some ideas?

Was thinking:
- No duplicate detachements
- No duplicate units other than troops
- Must take a batallion with 4 troops in it at maximum stength
- No single models over 300pts

sound good? what are your ideas

 Latro_ wrote:
So maybe thinking of running an event but don't want the crazy meta of 8th. Thinking of ways to balance army selection to create truly balanced forces across books and wanna get some ideas?

Unfortunately, restrictions like this have been tried in various forms in various editions (0-1 restrictions, minimum Troops requirements, etc), mostly all they do is cut the legs out from some of the weakest lists (especially themed lists) and develop a new meta, rather than actually fixing anything, there's a reason they've gone away.

Was thinking:
- No duplicate detachements

Ok, I'm not sure it's going to help anything but I don't know that it'll break anything terribly either, probably a wash.

- No duplicate units other than troops

Alas, I think you're going to cripple several armies like this. Many just don't have multiple units that can adequately fill certain roles. Likewise, depending on how you word it, with things like Squadrons, there are units that take only one slot but act as distinct units from thereon, how do you handle that? How do you handle something like the Leman Russ, where in addition to Squadron concerns, do you count *any* Leman Russ as the same unit, or each type of armament? What about Dedicated Transports? Many Themed lists are going to be made unfieldable by something like this.

- Must take a batallion with 4 troops in it at maximum stength

Ahh...this is going to go poorly with different armies. IG can dump 190pts to fill this restriction and put the rest with cool stuff, but armies like Space Marines or especially Grey Knights are going to *really* feel a pinch there. Do you *really* intend for a CSM player to have to take minimum 120 Cultists or Daemons, or 80 Chaos Marines (max squad size is 20) before they can put anything else down?

- No single models over 300pts

Just ban the specific models you have a problem with, don't tell people they can't bring Land Raiders This also won't catch Bobby-G who's a bigger problem than most 300+pt models. If you don't want people bringing really big stuff, just say no Titanic models.

No PL higher than 32 (even if using points), I would say require a detachment to be filled out completely before you can add another detachment (I think GW should implement this one themselves)

Wayniac wrote:
No PL higher than 32 (even if using points), I would say require a detachment to be filled out completely before you can add another detachment (I think GW should implement this one themselves)

Still screws over, say, Chaos Marines kinda hard, while leaving IG sitting pretty.

 Latro_ wrote:

- No duplicate units other than troops
- Must take a batallion with 4 troops in it at maximum stength
- No single models over 300pts

[cries in robot]

Yeah se options are really going to cripple a lot of builds that are otherwise fine.

If you want to shake it up and make it fun and viable for the most armies, you need different options to meet your wants that won't unnecessarily hurt other armies. Stuff like "No units can make up more than 25% of your total points" or "No Lord of Wars". Maybe even "No Forgeworld units."

You may want to add in specific house rules. Things like cover save changes to your liking, "all indirect fire with no LOS has a -1 to hit modifier", or "Characters may not be the target of a shooting attack unless they are 1) the closest unit to the shooting unit OR 2) not within 6" of another unit friendly to the character's army who is not also a Character." Maybe something like "A natural hit roll of 6 will always hit, regardless of modifiers" to give some of the lower tier units a better chance since so many modifiers are out there now.

It all depends what the overall goal is. Are you looking at just making people have wacky builds or are you trying to deviate from the current meta by eliminating the units that are most cost effective and auto-includes?

Nice idea. I'm a returning player from the first year or so of 5th edition and all the "competitive" lists i have seen make me cringe in pain...

I don't know if makes sense, but i would like a return to the "good old days" of 3rd to 5th in terms of restrictions and army composition, like:

- To be considered "battle-forged" an army must have at least 2 faction keywords in common for all its units (So yes, in my opinion those abominations of "soup-list" should never had been possible)
- Only 1 detachment per army
- No Lords of War allowed (those were originally FW models for showcase and then a few years later, apocalypse. The current state where you can field 3 imperial knights or 3 baneblades or things like that makes me bleed my eyes, and i think is not good at all...)
- Only 1 flyer allowed per army (most of these are very powerful and 40k was always about the ground war)
- Supreme command detachment not allowed (to avoid powerful HQ aura and powers spam)
- Cannot take more than 3 units of the same entry (to avoid classic "6 x 5 tactical marines las-plas" and still let some armies fulfill a batallion)
- Imperial assasins is one and only one regardless of its class (that is, only 1 eversor OR 1 vindicare OR 1 culexus OR 1 callidus, as it was originally like that if i'm not wrong)
- If you want to use FW rules for your models, you have to have the actual FW model to do so (so, less chance to unscrupulous players to "convert" something and use as the FW broken unit of choice)
- No FW army lists allowed

And as a bonus, i would add: no named characters allowed. Those were originally "only with your oponent's permission", so in a "competitive event" it would not be the place for them...

Well, that's how i would tweak the game to be more fun and playable, but GW only want to sell more expensive models so i guess we will have more flyers, lords of wars and primarchs...

I think you're going to see a lot of TO's going to certain types of restrictions based around detachments. It'd be quite easy to simply decide that your army must consist of Battalion detachments only, etc. I'm too lazy to think up some of my own, but I would not be surprised to see more of this in the future.

This may be ridiculously silly, but are there 'leagues' with handicaps? The total amount of points you can field scales inversely with your win percentage, or whatever?

 Warpspy wrote:
- To be considered "battle-forged" an army must have at least 2 faction keywords in common for all its units (So yes, in my opinion those abominations of "soup-list" should never had been possible)
- Only 1 detachment per army
- Imperial assasins is one and only one regardless of its class (that is, only 1 eversor OR 1 vindicare OR 1 culexus OR 1 callidus, as it was originally like that if i'm not wrong)

You do realize these three restrictions together means you can't take an Assassin at all since standard tournament rule is your army must be Battle-Forged?

 Warpspy wrote:
Nice idea. I'm a returning player from the first year or so of 5th edition and all the "competitive" lists i have seen make me cringe in pain...

I don't know if makes sense, but i would like a return to the "good old days" of 3rd to 5th in terms of restrictions and army composition, like:

- To be considered "battle-forged" an army must have at least 2 faction keywords in common for all its units (So yes, in my opinion those abominations of "soup-list" should never had been possible)
- Only 1 detachment per army
- No Lords of War allowed (those were originally FW models for showcase and then a few years later, apocalypse. The current state where you can field 3 imperial knights or 3 baneblades or things like that makes me bleed my eyes, and i think is not good at all...)
- Only 1 flyer allowed per army (most of these are very powerful and 40k was always about the ground war)
- Supreme command detachment not allowed (to avoid powerful HQ aura and powers spam)
- Cannot take more than 3 units of the same entry (to avoid classic "6 x 5 tactical marines las-plas" and still let some armies fulfill a batallion)
- Imperial assasins is one and only one regardless of its class (that is, only 1 eversor OR 1 vindicare OR 1 culexus OR 1 callidus, as it was originally like that if i'm not wrong)
- If you want to use FW rules for your models, you have to have the actual FW model to do so (so, less chance to unscrupulous players to "convert" something and use as the FW broken unit of choice)
- No FW army lists allowed

And as a bonus, i would add: no named characters allowed. Those were originally "only with your oponent's permission", so in a "competitive event" it would not be the place for them...

Well, that's how i would tweak the game to be more fun and playable, but GW only want to sell more expensive models so i guess we will have more flyers, lords of wars and primarchs...

1 Detachment means Supreme Command is out unless you have ridiculously expensive HQs.
No more than three of the same cripples some armies, barely hurts others. What do Harlequins do?
Imperial Assassins can't be taken at all in this, since it's a max of one Detachment and one Assassin that have to share at least two keywords... So...
No FW unless you have the actual model is okay, I guess... But what if the conversion is actually really cool and took a lot of effort?
And why no FW army lists? They're no more broken than GW is.

Of course thats how i would do it... I'm only thinking and writing on the fly, so didn't had in account Harlequins and etc.

Imperial assasins should be 1 per army, regardless of its class. If GW would do their rules properly, one would not see things like those "culexus temple and friends" lists... So i guess you can say that as long as your army is from any faction from the IMPERIUM, you can take one imperial assasin. That's how it used to work in 3rd edition (i think) and there were no such things as multiple factions armies.

Same with the rest of your comments, you can make exceptions of some rules for some armies, or "shoehorn" them to each army. For example, codex SM and codex CSM armies can only have 2 units of the same type (it's an example, i don't know if these are the most spam abusing armies), rest of the armies 3 and Harlequins have not that restriction etc, etc...

Those were only some ideas to make the game a better experience and more in line with the fluff... I would not play against some of the "competitive lists" i have seen in this forum, more a mini-epic40k than real W40k, surely i'm not the only one to think like that, but that's another topic i think.

I don't think any sweeping changes like this are going to make the game balanced, but they'll certainly create some variety.

I don't think restrictions should be so harsh that many players can't make legal lists though, or attendance is going to drop.
For example, four Troops units at maximum unit size? Yeah, I have 4000+ points, and I can't do that, not enough models.

As long as the restrictions are workable for a large enough portion of the players, it could be a fun and different experience for everyone, maybe with some unexpected results too.

 Warpspy wrote:
Nice idea. I'm a returning player from the first year or so of 5th edition and all the "competitive" lists i have seen make me cringe in pain...

I don't know if makes sense, but i would like a return to the "good old days" of 3rd to 5th in terms of restrictions and army composition, like:

- To be considered "battle-forged" an army must have at least 2 faction keywords in common for all its units (So yes, in my opinion those abominations of "soup-list" should never had been possible)
- Only 1 detachment per army
- No Lords of War allowed (those were originally FW models for showcase and then a few years later, apocalypse. The current state where you can field 3 imperial knights or 3 baneblades or things like that makes me bleed my eyes, and i think is not good at all...)
- Only 1 flyer allowed per army (most of these are very powerful and 40k was always about the ground war)
- Supreme command detachment not allowed (to avoid powerful HQ aura and powers spam)
- Cannot take more than 3 units of the same entry (to avoid classic "6 x 5 tactical marines las-plas" and still let some armies fulfill a batallion)
- Imperial assasins is one and only one regardless of its class (that is, only 1 eversor OR 1 vindicare OR 1 culexus OR 1 callidus, as it was originally like that if i'm not wrong)
- If you want to use FW rules for your models, you have to have the actual FW model to do so (so, less chance to unscrupulous players to "convert" something and use as the FW broken unit of choice)
- No FW army lists allowed

And as a bonus, i would add: no named characters allowed. Those were originally "only with your oponent's permission", so in a "competitive event" it would not be the place for them...

Well, that's how i would tweak the game to be more fun and playable, but GW only want to sell more expensive models so i guess we will have more flyers, lords of wars and primarchs...

Your proposed rules would literally strip away everything I find fun about the game and leave me no reason to ever touch 40k again. Just to give the flip side opinion.

As to the OP, these won't work unless you REALLY want Grey Knights spending a minimum of 840 points on just troops (no HQ even), Custodes spending 1,000 and several other armies getting entirely handicapped.

 Warpspy wrote:

- No FW army lists allowed

Not sure why you'd throw this in, it's not like any of them are particularly great aside from Malefic Lords in R&H (which is about to get nuked into the ground anyway). DKoK certainly aren't overrunning tournaments

No duplicate units other than troops

I play admech. That would mean only 1 dunecrawler, which is the only serious anti-air and anti-tank unit. The only other option is ironstriders with lascannons for anti-tank, which means a good chunk of the list would be fixed. Add in fixed 4 troops, and you've basically written the list for us.

 Latro_ wrote:
- No duplicate detachements

This idea is plausible in and of itself depending on the Points Limit (for example, it's definitely achievable in 2,000 Points and under), but I'm not sure it balances anything.

 Latro_ wrote:
- No duplicate units other than troops

So if I'm understanding this correctly, I can't take more than one Devastator Squad or more than one Dreadnought or more than one Land Raider. This will likely cause more problems than it's worth and probably discourage players from participating since it seems to severely restrict lists. Not to mention it also takes away the ability to use some Strategems like the Linebreaker Bombardment Strategem since you can't ever take 3x Vindicators.

 Latro_ wrote:
- Must take a batallion with 4 troops in it at maximum strength

I get the 4x Troops, but why Maximum strength? Also - When you combine this with the above restriction, you can never fully utilise the Battalion Detachment in terms of using all of the FOC Slots... ever.

 Latro_ wrote:
- No single models over 300pts

I like the principle, but I'm not entirely sure about it because it may exclude a few high-points units that are not as powerful enough to warrant prohibition. None come to mind off the top of my head, but it is a concern nonetheless.


I think your intentions are good, but these ideas are not really the way to go about what I think you're trying to do.

Wow the Lord of War hate is strong.

Just an FYI, the first current LoW in 28mm Warhammer 40k was the Baneblade from Inquisitor 16 in like, 1993.

So... yea. Not originally Forge World anything (it didn't exist yet).

The only reason they asked Forge World to make them was their plastic technology couldn't create the big kits.

 Latro_ wrote:
So maybe thinking of running an event but don't want the crazy meta of 8th. Thinking of ways to balance army selection to create truly balanced forces across books and wanna get some ideas?

Was thinking:
- No duplicate detachements
- No duplicate units other than troops
- Must take a batallion with 4 troops in it at maximum stength
- No single models over 300pts

sound good? what are your ideas

If your objective is to make armies with a plentiful supply of strong units even better while making armies that are struggling with a lot of subpar units even worse then congratulations.

You've also made mechanised armies impossible (since more than one rhino is obviously OP).

4 max size rubric squads is almost 2k points on its own, lol.

I think all people here are criticizing the OP but not giving alternative ideas and opinions. This is in the first post, what he asked:

 Latro_ wrote:
sound good? what are your ideas

Audustum wrote:Your proposed rules would literally strip away everything I find fun about the game and leave me no reason to ever touch 40k again. Just to give the flip side opinion.

Cannot see why is that so.

That's literally how it was back in 3rd, 4th and first half of 5th editions if i'm not mistaken (well except for the anti-spamming restrictions). Did you play the game then? Did you find it fun?

I did, i stopped to play for non related life reasons... And when i have returned, there are many things that i don't recognize as 40k. In my group we are playing for the moment with one detachment, one faction army and no LoW and no special characters and is nice, but i would refuse to play to someone who brings to play 3 baneblades or imperial knights or mix all the imperial factions together or those kind of nastiness i see in the army lists subforum... I would like and hope that GW would back to the restrictions i mentioned and ban LoW out of the normal games and would end the possibilitie of making those mixed "soup lists".

I love the people that are like "I don't recognize 40k any more, what with all these Lords of War (that have been in the game since second edition) and these soup lists (that have been in the game since Rogue Trader)."

I mean it's just not the same as it was back before it existed!

EDIT:

As for alternative proposals: Play the game as is! That's my alternative proposal.

I agree with the suggestions to simply play the game as is. The reality is that yes, there are problems and imbalances in the core rules, but these changes will simply introduce different, not fewer imbalances and problems.

As much as dakka and the Internets in general like to think they are better at game design than GW, the reality is that they are not (and neither am I). The task of balancing a game as.large and diverse as 40k is impossible. Enjoy 40k for what it is - embrace that diversity and accept the faults that are inherent in that design and you'll be happier in my opinion.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, and as far as having a different meta.goes, changing the missions is much better for a TO than changing army composition rules. I'd focus on new and different missions and victory conditions if you want a new meta.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I love the people that are like "I don't recognize 40k any more, what with all these Lords of War (that have been in the game since second edition) and these soup lists (that have been in the game since Rogue Trader)."

I'm sorry but that is not true.

In 3rd edition you had your rulebook, and then you had your codex. In your codex you had a selection of units and you had a Force organization chart that allowed you to field the unit in the codex fulfilling the FOC. Per those rules you cannot mix and match units from different codex. There were units you can take if you had an imperial faction, like the assasins or the inquisitors, but that's it. You cannot had "soup lists" like the current rules allow you to do. I honestly don't know in Rogue Trader or 2nd edition, but I know that in 3rd, 4th and 5th edition you could make an army list only from one codex and you could not mix or have "allies" from more codex. Is not true to say that soup lists were a thing. It simply not.

Same with lord of wars. In the 3rd edition rulebook there are no rules for the so called "superheavies", at all. Or in the codex (at least the ones i have read). There were no rules for them in the "ordinary" rules. There were no rules for using the models, nor rules for the models themselves (maybe you can say that they were for the metal Thunderhawk or the first baneblade in some obscure WD, but that didn't make to any main publication for the game...).

All those things were from Epic. In a huge scale battle like epic ones, that was fine to have superheavies, titans, primachs and everything... There were rules for them in the FW books, that's true, but FW was a "with permission only" thing, the rules were not as "official" as the main GW ones... That's why Apocalypse was a thing some years later, to give "official" rules to the superheavies models that FW made. And then, it was *only* for "Apocalypse", special event games to deploy all the minatures collection of several people and bring with them huge models. That was nice and fun. When you have those same models and rules shoehorned in the actual "normal" game, is when it start to be displeasing... It's a really bad decision to sell more and more expensive models on GW's part. As i said, i don't want to play a "scaled-up epic 40k", i want a proper 40k without having to buy and field baneblades, knights or primarchs...

The point is that even though superheavies existed before, they were not a "mainstream" game thing, they were marginally used only by some people in some events or special games. The competitive lists of back then had not any superheavy or primarch or things like those. I played some tournaments and read a lot of forums back then and there were not superheavies nor mix and matching lists at all.

So please, don't say things like they were a main thing of the game when they were not. That is a new thing from today's game and today's GW.

Wait wait wait - I own a copy of this book, and lo and behold, it has 3rd Edition rules for superheavies in it.

I also own 3rd Edition Witchhunters and Daemonhunters, that allowed you to mix and match Sisters, Space Marines, Grey Knights, and Imperial Guard into one FOC.

And who gets to decide if something was "mainstream"?

I got into the game playing Armoured Company with a Baneblade in it, and have played a Baneblade in all of my lists since 2000 or so. Never had trouble until just recently, really, starting ~6th edition is when people started having trouble with Baneblades, ironically when the Lord of War force organization chart selection showed up. Maybe they should have left them to take up 3 Heavy Support slots like they did when people didn't have a problem with them.

And who are you to decide what the "main game" is? If something isn't covered in the main rules, is it not in the game? You just banned all the codices. If it's in the main rules + codex, then you just banned some of the stuff that made 3rd edition great: Armoured Company, Index Astartes, Kroot Mercenaries, the Campaign books like Armageddon and Eye of Terror...

don't pretend superheavies are new. Maybe you never saw them, but new and common are different words that mean different things.

I think the problem is, if you asked someone to tone it down and take a balanced list they'd totally know how to do it...

i guess fact is there just isnt a way to come up with a global set of rules to 'enforce' this.

 Latro_ wrote:
I think the problem is, if you asked someone to tone it down and take a balanced list they'd totally know how to do it...

i guess fact is there just isnt a way to come up with a global set of rules to 'enforce' this.

That's really the issue, there's too much variation in armies to apply any sort of global standard rules that will curb abuse. What's abusive in an Eldar army doesn't necessarily translate over to Space Marines and almost certainly has no bearing on what can make an IG army broken, which in turn doesn't share the same balance concerns as something like Grey Knights or Daemons. Everyone can generally eyeball what a balanced list for each of these factions is, but there's just not one standard that can be applied to all of them unfortunately.

Yeah, nah. I have to disagree with both OP and Warpspy's ideas on this one. Warpspy's even more due to the sheer refusal to accept what the game has become, and their shortsighted approach to it.

 Warpspy wrote:
- To be considered "battle-forged" an army must have at least 2 faction keywords in common for all its units (So yes, in my opinion those abominations of "soup-list" should never had been possible)

So Custodes, Sister of Silence, Assassins, Knights and Ynnari can't be taken then.

Great job.

Weren't people able to take Inquisitors, Assassins, Deathwatch Kill Teams, Knights and such in 5th? You know, as an addition to their armies? This soup that you hate has been around for a long time.

- Only 1 detachment per army

So mono-lists? Hurts some, doesn't affect others. I imagine it's just a happy coincidence that none of your armies are affected by this.

- No Lords of War allowed (those were originally FW models for showcase and then a few years later, apocalypse. The current state where you can field 3 imperial knights or 3 baneblades or things like that makes me bleed my eyes, and i think is not good at all...)

You could field Baneblades in 3rd quite easily.
In fact, 3 Knight lists are quite UNDERPOWERED in this edition, due to lack of firepower. If this is a list about balance, removing all LOW is not the right approach. I mean, since when was the Knight Gallant OP?

- Only 1 flyer allowed per army (most of these are very powerful and 40k was always about the ground war)

40k also used to be more like D&D (in Rogue Trader), squad level combat, rather than army level (2nd ed), and also about Armoured Warfare (Spearhead in 5th). This isn't for balance - this is for you to dictate how others should play the game.

- Supreme command detachment not allowed (to avoid powerful HQ aura and powers spam)

Actually, under the 1 detachment rule, Supreme Command Detachments would be pretty much useless for buffing. You'd have a single deathstar of HQs and that would be about it - not too different from 5th, 6th or 7th.

- Cannot take more than 3 units of the same entry (to avoid classic "6 x 5 tactical marines las-plas" and still let some armies fulfill a batallion)

So Harlequins can't take anything more than a Battalion? Custodes?

- Imperial assasins is one and only one regardless of its class (that is, only 1 eversor OR 1 vindicare OR 1 culexus OR 1 callidus, as it was originally like that if i'm not wrong)

Not in 5th. Plus, you can't even take Assassins by your restrictions, due to lacking two keywords.

- If you want to use FW rules for your models, you have to have the actual FW model to do so (so, less chance to unscrupulous players to "convert" something and use as the FW broken unit of choice)

And this doesn't apply to normal GW stuff? Why not? So you think it's okay for me to convert my own Guilliman or Stormraven, but converting my own Sabre turret is a no-go?

- No FW army lists allowed

These existed in 5th. What's wrong with them, aside from typical FW intolerance? Seriously, show me a FW army that's more broken than AM as it is?

And as a bonus, i would add: no named characters allowed. Those were originally "only with your oponent's permission", so in a "competitive event" it would not be the place for them...

Also existed in 5th, without the "permission needed" part. Not so much of a "good old days" then?

Your list isn't for "balance". It's to send 40k back to 5th edition, and not only that, to delete the parts you don't personally like. LOW existed then. Soup existed then. Assassins existed then. FW has existed long before then. You're pretending like it shouldn't exist, and calling it balance.

- If you want to use FW rules for your models, you have to have the actual FW model to do so (so, less chance to unscrupulous players to "convert" something and use as the FW broken unit of choice)

Not going to get into the rest of the stuff posted, but this just seems like you're doing your best to enforce pay-to-win with this. Converted minis are generally pretty cool in my opinion.

Wow, a lot of anger in your post. Don't know why are you so angry with my message. Let me comment some things you said about my previous post, if you don't mind:

- The "soup" has not "been around" like in this edition. In this edition you can basically combine Eldar + Dark eldar + Harlequins in one list, or "All the bests imperium", or all nonsense of chaos thrown together. That were completely unthinkable things. You cannot compare having one option of another unit for your imperial army or the specific codex to the current state... In the past editions you have "Codex Daemonhunters" "Codex witchhunters" and some units. That's it. In the codex daemon hunters, you have the choice of including Imperial guard OR space marines as allies, and then, if you use Grey knights you cannot use space marines. Or you could use the daemon hunters as allies of imperial armies. 0-1 HQ, 0-1 Elite, 0-2 troops and 0-1 fast attack. Explain to me how this can be the same as including one primarch, imperial guard, space marines, assasins and knights in the same army without any restriction as is in this edition?

- There was no "knights". That was from Epic. There were not "knights" rules or models for 40k... In general, in the 3rd edition rulebook there were no rules for superheavies. Again, the FW rules were not a "common" thing and their models were not used. "You could field Baneblades in 3rd quite easily." Maybe, but i never see a baneblade in real thing until GW released the plastic one years later... I went to official GW tournaments back then and the FW rules were not allowed. In all the time i spent back then in Internet and forums i didn't see people actively using or owning FW models. I think it may be a countries thing. Here in Spain, it was like i'm saying.
I say this to Unit1126PLL as well. There were rules, there were models, but they were marginal and minoritary at best. Here in Spain and to my limited knowledge, those were not used at all... Its not the same to have the rules in a super expensive and rare book (and written in a foreign language) as to have the rules in the main rulebook in you own language. And definetely it's not the same to have to buy a ultra-expensive and difficult resin kit from a UK company and to buy a plastic kit from the corner store.

- Again, the same can be said for flyers. There were rules (expensive, rare and marginal rules) to use the FW planes and fighters. There were not rules for flyers in 40k. The first one was the Valkyrie and when it was launched i unfortunately had to stop playing and lost track of all this.

- I have in front of me the "Codex: daemonhunters" and it says that you can only take 1 assasin regardless of its type. As i said before, a workaround of this restriction is that you can say that "any army with the IMPERIUM keyword can take one assasin, only one regardless of its type" or something along those lines...

- For FW rules, it's too easy to use the rules downloading them and then do a quick cheap conversion to use the last broken combo (malefic lords for example). So, in my opinion, at least if you want to take advantage of those rules, buy the miniatures. Is not the same with GW miniatures because FW rules are even less playtested or balanced. In the beginning the FW rules were a nice add-on to their background and art books, the reason to buy their books were not the rules, but all the other things. The same can be said with the actual FW models, the main reason to buy them back then was because of their quality and nice look and not for their rules. And back then the rules for their models were pretty bad so only people who really liked the miniatures as a modelling and collecting project would buy them. Nowadays it seems that the most broken rules are the FW ones and suddenly all the most nasty lists make extensive use of FW models.


In your last line you say that all those things "existed":

"LOW existed then" -> I explained this before. Is not the same. They were in expensive, rare and marginal FW books with poor rules, not in the main rulebook and as primary competitive options. Nobody used them back then, because all these difficulties and because it was not allowed (or known) everywhere.
"Soup existed then" -> Codex Demonhunters and Codex witchhunters =/= Current status of "Roboute and some imperial friends", "all eldar Flavours" and "chaos for chaos sake"
"Assassins existed then" -> Of course, i never said that they did not existed. . They were 0-1 as explained. Problem with assasins in this edition is that they never were more than 1 per army except today.

Maybe you can say they "existed", but they were not the equivalent or the same as the current situation for a large margin. Is like saying that in Ancient Greece democracy "existed", it did exist but only wealthy male with citizen status could vote, so the bulk of the population didn't vote at all... That is not democracy as we understand it today. This is the same, you can claim that all those existed, but they were not a problem and they were not in the same shape as we find them today.