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.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
They don't want to have any competition, so they can't have options they don't make the models for.

*looks around the industry*

Anyone know how to de-ostrich the biggest company in the market?

Honestly I feel the opposite; I think they needed to take a hardline stance against allowing old things, and deal with the blowback. People would get pissed they couldn't use their old 2nd edition models, but oh well IMHO for the good of the game it should never have been "Codex trumps Index but you can still use Index options", at least not in Matched Play. For Narrative sure, ask your opponent if it's okay/do what you want, but not for Matched.

Wayniac wrote:
Honestly I feel the opposite; I think they needed to take a hardline stance against allowing old things, and deal with the blowback. People would get pissed they couldn't use their old 2nd edition models, but oh well IMHO for the good of the game it should never have been "Codex trumps Index but you can still use Index options", at least not in Matched Play. For Narrative sure, ask your opponent if it's okay/do what you want, but not for Matched.

Why disallow options when there\s better solution than that or current. Just have the damn options in the codex in the first play where they belong.

tneva82 wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
Honestly I feel the opposite; I think they needed to take a hardline stance against allowing old things, and deal with the blowback. People would get pissed they couldn't use their old 2nd edition models, but oh well IMHO for the good of the game it should never have been "Codex trumps Index but you can still use Index options", at least not in Matched Play. For Narrative sure, ask your opponent if it's okay/do what you want, but not for Matched.

Why disallow options when there\s better solution than that or current. Just have the damn options in the codex in the first play where they belong.

That's the other, better option, yes. I think what Wayniac's saying is more along the lines of "pick one approach and stick to it", which I agree with. The current approach is "we don't provide rules for models we don't make" with an extra caveat added that actually makes it annoying for new players because that's not a 100% accurate reflection of the state of the rules. GW seem to want to have their cake and eat it when a more consistent approach one way or the other would have been much better.

Slipspace wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
Honestly I feel the opposite; I think they needed to take a hardline stance against allowing old things, and deal with the blowback. People would get pissed they couldn't use their old 2nd edition models, but oh well IMHO for the good of the game it should never have been "Codex trumps Index but you can still use Index options", at least not in Matched Play. For Narrative sure, ask your opponent if it's okay/do what you want, but not for Matched.

Why disallow options when there\s better solution than that or current. Just have the damn options in the codex in the first play where they belong.

That's the other, better option, yes. I think what Wayniac's saying is more along the lines of "pick one approach and stick to it", which I agree with. The current approach is "we don't provide rules for models we don't make" with an extra caveat added that actually makes it annoying for new players because that's not a 100% accurate reflection of the state of the rules. GW seem to want to have their cake and eat it when a more consistent approach one way or the other would have been much better.

They were taking that stance until the community backlash, they never intended for the index to carry on past the codex, but the community made such a big fuss of it they changed to this middle ground, when the last codex drops you can bet they will abandon the index again.

I will justify GW the day they come out and justify their decision to drop a whole freaking army like the Tomb Kings. This was the single biggest middle finger towards their fans. Not one legacy unit, not one old metal model, a whole army selection vanished. Especially when it had lots of new sculpts and some of the most beautiful models they ever made. And in an instant, gone. Screw the guy who spent 400-500 on a huge TK army, he can shove it right up his brutt. When they explain this decision to me, then I will give them slack for their sloppy writing and terrible lack of playtesting or any kind of balancing whatsoever.

 WindstormSCR wrote:


There isn't a polite response to this, because you are exactly wanting to over long time collectors that play in casual metas that are still influenced by tournament decisions. You stated exactly that.

Try this: pick one of the most characterful units in your army. Now pretend it just disappeared because a new box was released with far less options and no legacy support. Fun, isn't it?

stop trying to ruin the little bit of hobby spirit left in this lawyer-driven IP rights debacle

You're entitled to feel that way. I have tons of models I don't use any more. There's plenty of hobby left (not my work).

 Desubot wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

And there is not really any evidence they'll sunset the datasheets... i mean they released codexes with no models already.

Oh?

i guess normal lieutenants. any other? edit: wait nvm there are lieutenants though they dont sell it

Grey Knight chaplain
Grand master nemesis dreadknight

to name a couple

I KIND of think they should keep the old datasheets for units that have not been updated to the codex. Their points don't get updated. They miss out on a lot of the new toys. Etc etc...

But the wargear needs to fething go. The GreyKnight dread vs the SM dread is the best example of this. Each codex has different wargear options. But it's a meaningless gesture because the index just gives them all back.

 Lance845 wrote:
I KIND of think they should keep the old datasheets for units that have not been updated to the codex. Their points don't get updated. They miss out on a lot of the new toys. Etc etc...

But the wargear needs to fething go. The GreyKnight dread vs the SM dread is the best example of this. Each codex has different wargear options. But it's a meaningless gesture because the index just gives them all back.

The wargear is the point. GW wasn't originally going to support legacy models, but the massive outcry from casual players and collectors (probably the first time such a reaction has ever happened from them) made GW realize they up.

Hopefully they follow this realization by putting the options back on the next printing.

 Marmatag wrote:

 Desubot wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

And there is not really any evidence they'll sunset the datasheets... i mean they released codexes with no models already.

Oh?

i guess normal lieutenants. any other? edit: wait nvm there are lieutenants though they dont sell it

Grey Knight chaplain

Just used the standard Chaplain model, same as the Techmarine.

Grand master nemesis dreadknight

Again, basically used the standard Dreadknight model.

to name a couple

And yet we didn't see anything like that for other books since, at least not that I can think of. Tau players would have been freaking ecstatic for sub-Commander/Commander options in Ghostkeels or Broadsides alongside the other suits(Coldstar, Enforcer, and the XV8[Still not sure why we needed this one...]).

Guard saw Ogryn Bodyguard, but that basically just encourages someone buying an Ogryn box and building Nork Deddog and being able to field something.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wayniac wrote:
Honestly I feel the opposite; I think they needed to take a hardline stance against allowing old things, and deal with the blowback. People would get pissed they couldn't use their old 2nd edition models, but oh well IMHO for the good of the game it should never have been "Codex trumps Index but you can still use Index options", at least not in Matched Play. For Narrative sure, ask your opponent if it's okay/do what you want, but not for Matched.

This is where I'm at. Narrative/Open Play--whatever. Power costs basically stayed the same.

If it doesn't have updated points, it can't be played. We've seen this in AoS where some Legacy units(Glade Riders for example) just plain ol' don't get points.

The Talonmaster comes to mind. I do not think you can make it from any kit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sammael in the speeder doesn't have a model either, does it?

Autarch with Starglaive is another, since the Starglaive didn't even exist before 8th.

It was a very good move of GW to put the old option back into the game. For years Plague champions where allowed to use all kinds of power- and Kombiweapons and just because GW was too lazy to sculp something else than a power fist for the new sets all long-time players should throw out their minis? No thanks.
It's a shame the daemonic steeds didn't make it into the codizes, but at least we can use them through the index (aside from Nurgle herold for whatever reason...)
It would have been better to include all options in the codizes as well, but keeping them playable at least is okay for me.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

 Desubot wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

And there is not really any evidence they'll sunset the datasheets... i mean they released codexes with no models already.

Oh?

i guess normal lieutenants. any other? edit: wait nvm there are lieutenants though they dont sell it

Grey Knight chaplain

Just used the standard Chaplain model, same as the Techmarine.

Grand master nemesis dreadknight

Again, basically used the standard Dreadknight model.

The point is these models do not exist despite having datasheets. Just because you can do a reasonable counts-as doesn't make the statement untrue.

 WindstormSCR wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
I KIND of think they should keep the old datasheets for units that have not been updated to the codex. Their points don't get updated. They miss out on a lot of the new toys. Etc etc...

But the wargear needs to fething go. The GreyKnight dread vs the SM dread is the best example of this. Each codex has different wargear options. But it's a meaningless gesture because the index just gives them all back.

The wargear is the point. GW wasn't originally going to support legacy models, but the massive outcry from casual players and collectors (probably the first time such a reaction has ever happened from them) made GW realize they up.

Hopefully they follow this realization by putting the options back on the next printing.

The "Casual Players" and "Collectors" are full of gak.

The rules for the game need to support making the best game possible. And that means trimming the fat and making the the choices more meaningful. We currently have a worse game because of the legacy model rules all so some people can look at their old toy soldiers and go "But I can still play with you".

 Marmatag wrote:

The point is these models do not exist despite having datasheets. Just because you can do a reasonable counts-as doesn't make the statement untrue.

So because there's no model labeled Dark Angels Librarian, them being able to take the generic one is a "reasonable counts-as"?

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
It was a very good move of GW to put the old option back into the game. For years Plague champions where allowed to use all kinds of power- and Kombiweapons and just because GW was too lazy to sculp something else than a power fist for the new sets all long-time players should throw out their minis? No thanks.
It's a shame the daemonic steeds didn't make it into the codizes, but at least we can use them through the index (aside from Nurgle herold for whatever reason...)
It would have been better to include all options in the codizes as well, but keeping them playable at least is okay for me.

It's your assumption that you need to throw it away because it doesn't have the right weapon any more.

There is no rule in the rule book that says that.

Thats your choice. It's literally all on you.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

The point is these models do not exist despite having datasheets. Just because you can do a reasonable counts-as doesn't make the statement untrue.

So because there's no model labeled Dark Angels Librarian, them being able to take the generic one is a "reasonable counts-as"?

There was at one point in time:

Agree with OP - tourney circuits should plan to (at a specified date in the future) ban Index rules for models which have a codex entry.

It's the shenanigans of "oh in the index this model could take this equipment so I am using the index datasheet" that's the issue.

In non-ITC/ETC tournament play, the current flow chart stuff is fine.

Picking a datasheet that has been replaced because you prefer the old one is pretty low, IMO.

 daedalus wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

The point is these models do not exist despite having datasheets. Just because you can do a reasonable counts-as doesn't make the statement untrue.

So because there's no model labeled Dark Angels Librarian, them being able to take the generic one is a "reasonable counts-as"?

There was at one point in time:

Spoiler:

I'm aware; but he was never branded or sold individually as a "Dark Angels Librarian"--he was just a Librarian model that came with Dark Vengeance, a Dark Angels themed starter set.

It goes towards the point that "generic items exist and you should recognize they are generic for a reason".

 Lance845 wrote:

And that means trimming the fat and making the the choices more meaningful.

Like they have in 8th edition where:

Guard might as well only have one special weapon, two heavy weapons, and one melee weapon, because they're painfully and immediately superior to every other weapon in their class?
Marines have one special weapon, one heavy weapon, and one melee weapon for the same reason?
Grey Knights have one special weapon and one melee weapon for the same reason?

Ooh, lets go Primaris. Who's used that auto bolt rifle? *crickets* What about any of the hellblaster weapons other than the 30" one, because I've never once seen a person on the forums talking about them?

Yeah, I wish you were right, I want you to be right, but I'm not seeing it. This game is candyland. It always has been, but removing options makes it more true, not less.

 Lance845 wrote:

 WindstormSCR wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
I KIND of think they should keep the old datasheets for units that have not been updated to the codex. Their points don't get updated. They miss out on a lot of the new toys. Etc etc...

But the wargear needs to fething go. The GreyKnight dread vs the SM dread is the best example of this. Each codex has different wargear options. But it's a meaningless gesture because the index just gives them all back.

The wargear is the point. GW wasn't originally going to support legacy models, but the massive outcry from casual players and collectors (probably the first time such a reaction has ever happened from them) made GW realize they up.

Hopefully they follow this realization by putting the options back on the next printing.

The "Casual Players" and "Collectors" are full of gak.

The rules for the game need to support making the best game possible. And that means trimming the fat and making the the choices more meaningful. We currently have a worse game because of the legacy model rules all so some people can look at their old toy soldiers and go "But I can still play with you".

The «competitive players» are full of gak.

The models need support and to be made the best of the world, with plenty of characterful and varied options and bitz. And that means a fat ruleset and making more choices. We currently have a worse 40k because some people want to play chess with the minis and go «But I know better I am COMPETITVE

Cool so we get to be magic now where sets of models rotate out and essentially become paperweights. Excellent, what a great idea. I love painting a model up that was an OFFICIAL GW MODEL, sold to me by GW, and then being told by some random person I can't use it even though even GW says it's ok.

If it was just for tournaments, sure, whatever. But it won't be. We all know pickup games use whatever the tour is run in most areas. So if tournies start banning these models most areas will. It's bad enough GW axes units in codexes as is, the last thing I want to see is GW finally throw us a bone just for the players to screw it up.

I'm pretty cool with most stuff but I won't budge on this. Tournies have been dealing with busted gak since day 1, they can live with this one. And I'm guard, I'm pretty well off with this even if it went through. What about other codexes that would lose significant options and models with this change? You're essentially telling them to get bent.

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
Cool so we get to be magic now where sets of models rotate out and essentially become paperweights. Excellent, what a great idea. I love painting a model up that was an OFFICIAL GW MODEL, sold to me by GW, and then being told by some random person I can't use it even though even GW says it's ok.

If it was just for tournaments, sure, whatever. But it won't be. We all know pickup games use whatever the tour is run in most areas. So if tournies start banning these models most areas will. It's bad enough GW axes units in codexes as is, the last thing I want to see is GW finally throw us a bone just for the players to screw it up.

I'm pretty cool with most stuff but I won't budge on this. Tournies have been dealing with busted gak since day 1, they can live with this one. And I'm guard, I'm pretty well off with this even if it went through. What about other codexes that would lose significant options and models with this change? You're essentially telling them to get bent.

It literally only matters if you are only playing in tournaments

there are a LOT of people running around playing commander, legacy, vintage and the likes.

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
Cool so we get to be magic now where sets of models rotate out and essentially become paperweights. Excellent, what a great idea. I love painting a model up that was an OFFICIAL GW MODEL, sold to me by GW, and then being told by some random person I can't use it even though even GW says it's ok.

If it was just for tournaments, sure, whatever. But it won't be. We all know pickup games use whatever the tour is run in most areas. So if tournies start banning these models most areas will. It's bad enough GW axes units in codexes as is, the last thing I want to see is GW finally throw us a bone just for the players to screw it up.

I'm pretty cool with most stuff but I won't budge on this. Tournies have been dealing with busted gak since day 1, they can live with this one. And I'm guard, I'm pretty well off with this even if it went through. What about other codexes that would lose significant options and models with this change? You're essentially telling them to get bent.

I've been told to "get over it" for years with regards to Sergeants and Officers losing access to Hellguns/Lasguns.

Everyone else can take a turn at "getting bent" in my book.

 godardc wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

 WindstormSCR wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
I KIND of think they should keep the old datasheets for units that have not been updated to the codex. Their points don't get updated. They miss out on a lot of the new toys. Etc etc...

But the wargear needs to fething go. The GreyKnight dread vs the SM dread is the best example of this. Each codex has different wargear options. But it's a meaningless gesture because the index just gives them all back.

The wargear is the point. GW wasn't originally going to support legacy models, but the massive outcry from casual players and collectors (probably the first time such a reaction has ever happened from them) made GW realize they up.

Hopefully they follow this realization by putting the options back on the next printing.

The "Casual Players" and "Collectors" are full of gak.

The rules for the game need to support making the best game possible. And that means trimming the fat and making the the choices more meaningful. We currently have a worse game because of the legacy model rules all so some people can look at their old toy soldiers and go "But I can still play with you".

The «competitive players» are full of gak.

The models need support and to be made the best of the world, with plenty of characterful and varied options and bitz. And that means a fat ruleset and making more choices. We currently have a worse 40k because some people want to play chess with the minis and go «But I know better I am COMPETITVE

Tournaments and all this kind of things should stay away from 40k and not interfere with the hobby of thousand of people because they don't like how they play their game.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 daedalus wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

The point is these models do not exist despite having datasheets. Just because you can do a reasonable counts-as doesn't make the statement untrue.

So because there's no model labeled Dark Angels Librarian, them being able to take the generic one is a "reasonable counts-as"?

There was at one point in time:

Spoiler:

I'm aware; but he was never branded or sold individually as a "Dark Angels Librarian"--he was just a Librarian model that came with Dark Vengeance, a Dark Angels themed starter set.

It goes towards the point that "generic items exist and you should recognize they are generic for a reason".

Sure - but it doesn't change the fact that some models do not exist. I used that one as an example. There is no twin-devourer model for a Hive Tyrant. This is another example, and it's in the codex. There is no twin-assault cannon model.

The point is there is no precedent of GW sunsetting things simply because there is no model package for the datasheet. Do you disagree?

 Lance845 wrote:

 WindstormSCR wrote:
[quote=Lance845 753236 9888425 46a64f5c13f01f49371cac4a72af393f.jpg

The "Casual Players" and "Collectors" are full of gak.

The rules for the game need to support making the best game possible. And that means trimming the fat and making the the choices more meaningful. We currently have a worse game because of the legacy model rules all so some people can look at their old toy soldiers and go "But I can still play with you".

The rules need to be a framework to use the models I have in a fun game, nothing more, nothing less. If some players want to play with their die hard lists, they can do so, but rules are abused in torunaments anyway, an autocannon on a dreadnought doesn't make it worse. I don't see how the game suffers from "legacy rules", if you ask me we need more of those, give the Archon some wings or a jetbike!

 Marmatag wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 daedalus wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

The point is these models do not exist despite having datasheets. Just because you can do a reasonable counts-as doesn't make the statement untrue.

So because there's no model labeled Dark Angels Librarian, them being able to take the generic one is a "reasonable counts-as"?

There was at one point in time:

Spoiler:

I'm aware; but he was never branded or sold individually as a "Dark Angels Librarian"--he was just a Librarian model that came with Dark Vengeance, a Dark Angels themed starter set.

It goes towards the point that "generic items exist and you should recognize they are generic for a reason".

Sure - but it doesn't change the fact that some models do not exist. I used that one as an example. There is no twin-devourer model for a Hive Tyrant. This is another example, and it's in the codex. There is no twin-assault cannon model.

Twin-Assault Cannon for what? Razorbacks?


They also used to suggest you buy the Land Raider Crusader upgrade. A model totally existed for that, same as the Vendetta did.

The point is there is no precedent of GW sunsetting things simply because there is no model package for the datasheet. Do you disagree?

I do. Huge swathes of the fantasy line have effectively been "sunsetted" because there's no model package for them anymore.