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.

Obviously we're talking within the context of 40k. Fantasy is an entirely different discussion.

What if I get my brand new codex and then decided, Wow I prefer the Index over the codex.
I'll agree with getting rid of the index army lists/data sheets as soon as GW gets rid of points costs and goes strictly to power Levels.

 Marmatag wrote:
Obviously we're talking within the context of 40k. Fantasy is an entirely different discussion.

Maybe, but at the same time even just talking about armies that haven't been removed(Bretonnians and Tomb Kings)--there are still armies that lost stuff that was even released barely an edition before.

Still doesn't change my point though. Index is just open for people to abuse. They need to go.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 warhead01 wrote:
What if I get my brand new codex and then decided, Wow I prefer the Index over the codex.
I'll agree with getting rid of the index army lists/data sheets as soon as GW gets rid of points costs and goes strictly to power Levels.

Then find someone who thinks like you.

If we're going to talk about Fantasy, I'm going to talk about my Dogs of War.

As far as the Datasheet FAQ goes, it's literally the only way for my foot guard to take a brigade, since my only non legacy options for fast attacks are tanks or walkers. Now I totally get GW wants me to get out there and buy me some tanks, and it's totally in their interest to make my existing rough riders illegal to force me to do so. But it's really not that great from my perspective as a player, and will put me off participating further in the hobby. Let's say they released a new replacement for the Leman Russ. [We'll call it, 'The Leman Russ Primaris!'] and stopped stocking the old models, before re-releasing the guard codex as a new guard codex with no leman russ anymore. How thrilled would you be? Much less the people with whole armoured companies.

It was bad enough when they introduced doctines,- WARRIOR WEAPONS. Now all your guardsmen can have laspistols and close combat weapons. Enjoy converting that!
Next edition - Oh yeah, those three hundred guardsmen you converted? Yeah. Sorry. Thanks for playing GW Roulette, though!


And yes, there are plenty of datasheets and weapons options with no model, and plenty of currently produced models that come with bits that don't feature on a datasheet, plenty of datasheets that allow options not included in the kit.

If we're going to go down this route, feel sorry for the Sisters players? 'A Seraphim squad consists of ten seraphim, 2 armed with flamer pistols, and a Seraphim Superior with Plasma Pistol and Power Sword - No Options.' That's where this things end up. Remember, there are no SOB models with Inferno Pistols at all.

Also this ridicious nonsense in the space marine codex where Honour Guard come in squads of two, because they once sold those two ultramarine honour guard as a pair. Not even squads of 2-10 mind you. Just two.
Or the [Censored] options for the Company Champion vs Chapter Champion, where the company champion is objectively far better, but they both have zero options because they're based on that one kit that one time.

Don't even get me started on dudes on bikes, or dudes with jetpacks.

But you sell model X.
Yep!
You sell Jetpacks.
Yep!
And you had rules for X with Jetpack.
Yep!
And you still sell X and Jetpacks.
Yep!
And they're in the fluff.
Yep!
But now we can't stick a Jetpack on X anymore.
Nope! Thanks for playing!

So there are 2 camps.

One that wants to have everything....all their toys and bells and whistles, old skool, conversion korner, all of it.

The other side wants as fair as you can, know what is what, keep it clean and simple.

Both want to have a game that is fulfilling.

The former may end up with some abuse, but it is the easiest to implement.

the later says to keep it limited...but in a game with something like 1000+ different unit combinations already....there will NEVER be a game designer that can balance all that...LIKE EVER! So you will always have some unit that is out of control.

The only way to get the later results that they are clamouring for is to limit the tournament scene to really just a handful of units for each faction, each unit type, each army, etc.

IF you think you can get it down to fair and square.....which I doubt....
It is not fair that one faction may have 20+ elites but another one had 2. Or one has 5 troop choices but another has 1.
So I think the goal the later wants is really something they will never realize...even if GW gives them their wish.

 Lance845 wrote:

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.

If there's no rules it's kinda hard to use the model.

Competive players needs to stop infesting game by declaring Their Way Is The Only Way.

You can play competive while having rules for options.

You can't play models if there aren't rules for them.

One way allows both sides to play. One way excludes others. Game needs to support both. And if designers are competent they can. If it's too hard for current designers replace the game designers for somebody who has bothered to at least read game design ABC.

I am not a competitive player. I play very casual. I mostly try to avoid even playing actual 40k without a host of house rules because it's just not as engaging and fun as it should be.

But I AM a game designer by hobby and have a BA in game design. When I say they need to trim the fat it's not because I am looking for a cut throat competitive game. It's because I am looking for a clean fun game.

There is a thing in game design called options bloat. Consider a shooter video game with 3 dozen guns in it. Now certain guns are going to rise to the top in different situations. The rocket launcher has few shots but devastating damage. The carbine is super accurate at a decent range. etc etc.. But in most situations most of the guns are just going to be not as good and thus kind of crap. How much does it cost to design, code, build the graphical assets, etc etc... for about 20 guns that will be shot once and never used again.

40k is bloated with options. Already you can pick out units and look at their wargear and say "no reason to ever take these because you have these" both in unit options and wargear. This excess of options doesn't make for interesting choices or interesting game play.

feth the old models. Build a good game. That means trim out the fat, make the options that you do have really good and interesting choices. Again, both units and wargear.

I don't agree with GWs "we don't have a model so we didn't make rules". It gutted a lot of the interesting options from a lot of armies with no army being hit worse then the necrons. And yet even though interesting options left there is STILL bloat with redundant or simply inferior options that just don't have a place in any competent (not competitive, competent) list. But even worse then cutting all those options is allowing all the bloat to stay. The game is stuck not being able to move forward because it has this base line of fat that is allowed by this FAQ that can now never go away. A codex can be released with amazing internal and external balance all on it's own. It could be perfectly designed with no flaws within itself. Except here comes the index to add all it's bull gak.

As long as the index bloat is allowed the game can never really move forward and be balanced. And just saying "Just make everything good" is nonsense because some armies (looking at you most of the imperium) have so many damn options that a good chunk of them just have no actual place and it makes the armies with access to all this crap unfocused. It needs to be cut back.

So since you want to remove my ability to take biker lords and sorcerors as well as those on daemonic steeds what are you gonna replace them with? Since you seem to want to remove flavourful options

Champion of Slaanesh wrote:
So since you want to remove my ability to take biker lords and sorcerors as well as those on daemonic steeds what are you gonna replace them with? Since you seem to want to remove flavourful options

Nothing.

You should get what you get for the current edition of the game. GW should be balancing the army in it's codex. You get your codex. If the codex isn't balanced then you should be writing to GW to fix the codex. Fluff has nothing to do with crunch and it's not a 1 for 1 trade of loose an option gain an option. Before last year when the index came out you would have just gotten a new codex and if the units wern't in there then you didn't have the unit any more. Suck it up.

 Lance845 wrote:

Champion of Slaanesh wrote:
So since you want to remove my ability to take biker lords and sorcerors as well as those on daemonic steeds what are you gonna replace them with? Since you seem to want to remove flavourful options

Nothing.

You should get what you get for the current edition of the game. GW should be balancing the army in it's codex. You get your codex. If the codex isn't balanced then you should be writing to GW to fix the codex. Fluff has nothing to do with crunch and it's not a 1 for 1 trade of loose an option gain an option. Before last year when the index came out you would have just gotten a new codex and if the units wern't in there then you didn't have the unit any more. Suck it up.

Suck it up? Consider he has removed every single flavourful option to chaos. Made marks useless and the icons next to useless for the most part

Champion of Slaanesh wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

Champion of Slaanesh wrote:
So since you want to remove my ability to take biker lords and sorcerors as well as those on daemonic steeds what are you gonna replace them with? Since you seem to want to remove flavourful options

Nothing.

You should get what you get for the current edition of the game. GW should be balancing the army in it's codex. You get your codex. If the codex isn't balanced then you should be writing to GW to fix the codex. Fluff has nothing to do with crunch and it's not a 1 for 1 trade of loose an option gain an option. Before last year when the index came out you would have just gotten a new codex and if the units wern't in there then you didn't have the unit any more. Suck it up.

Suck it up? Consider he has removed every single flavourful option to chaos. Made marks useless and the icons next to useless for the most part

"Flavorful" is a dumb argument for game balance. Slaanesh needs help. yes. You know who needs it more? Grey Knights. You know who lost more? Necrons. You know whos book still has a lot of viable options? Codex: Chaos Deamons. The game isn't balanced. Bloating the game and making it impossible to balance by keeping the indexes relevant hurts more then your one subfaction of a single codex.

So yes. Suck it up.

I have a feeling warhammer legends is where these options are going to be at. And they won't be in matched play.

Tough right now it's only AoS really think that's how they are going to move forward.

Lance, go play chess and leave 40K alone. 40K has always been fluff and flavour first sort of game and so should it remain. I am all for balance as long as it doesn't mean homogenisarion and removal of options, but recently some people have just been advocating gutting the game for the sake of balance. feth that gak!

 Crimson wrote:
40K has always been fluff and flavour first sort of game and so should it remain.

And that is why 40k is a bad game, and will continue to be a bad game: GW allows "fluff", as defined by particular (and often extremely obsessive and narrow in their definitions of "fluff") players, to take priority over good design. Apparently it's "fluffy" that some old model from 1980 has to continue to have rules forever, leaving an absurdly bloated mess of rules and extremely limited ability to deal with things that shouldn't be in the game. We're seeing that with soup, it's stupid design that's bad for balance and bad for theme, but now that it exists people are going to whine and cry if GW ever takes it away and we're probably stuck with it for the rest of 40k's existence.

Not that "fluff" is really an excuse here. Not every detail of the fluff has to be represented by the rules. For example, you don't need different rules for power axes/swords/etc to have fluff about your character using an axe vs. a sword. You just use the same generic power weapon rules and build your model with whichever thing you think looks coolest.

I am all for balance as long as it doesn't mean homogenisarion and removal of options

Removal of options often avoids homogenization, because it allows you to focus on making a limited set of options that are distinct and interesting instead of being burdened with a bloated mess of rules where 90% of the content is pointless.

 Peregrine wrote:
Removal of options often avoids homogenization, because it allows you to focus on making a limited set of options that are distinct and interesting instead of being burdened with a bloated mess of rules where 90% of the content is pointless.

In my opinion, this is essentially accepting poor quality material.

"Yeah, we could've put in 90 more options, but we only put in 10 because it's easier."

"But I wanted my 100 options!"

"No, it's easier to balance only 10 options. And as we all know, taking the easy way out is how things should always be done."

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
"But I wanted my 100 options!"

But why do you need 100 options? Past a certain point you get into diminishing returns where few of those options make any meaningful difference, and you're just adding options for the sake of bragging about how many options you have.

Maybe the indexes were a bad idea. They were poorly written but considering I didn't get a missile launcher arm with my venerable dread box but that remains a codex legal option there isn't even a no model no rules argument to be made. Hell there's no multi melta included in the kit either but that is a codex option as well.

Maybe if GW knew the actual options of their kits/units the codexes would have been written better but I think the index flow-chart is more in response to sloppy writing in the codex/index than support for legacy models.

Hypothetically I agree that there needs to be fewer more meaningful options. I also agree that some equipment + codex options are unbalanced and need to be streamlined. I don't think that the unbalanced justification applies to all index options though (jump pack sang priest, characters on bikes)

I have no idea why these options were removed from the codexes (can't be no model no rules, see venerable dread example above) and it doesn't seem like balance issues. I really think it was just bad QC. Other options, autarchs with non-los weapons that can target characters seem like they present balance issues.

If GW were honest about why the options were removed from the codex I think it would take the sting out of losing options (that is blatantly unbalanced, we don't want librarians on bikes? auto-cannons are too good for dreads? we forgot they could do that...) but to just remove options mid-edition for no reason at all seems to be a slap in the face to customers who purchased product in good faith that the rug wouldn't be pulled out from under them in less than a couple months...

 Peregrine wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
"But I wanted my 100 options!"

But why do you need 100 options? Past a certain point you get into diminishing returns where few of those options make any meaningful difference, and you're just adding options for the sake of bragging about how many options you have.

Because some players (read: people who develop fluff for their armies) prefer to run Vanquisher tanks instead of Annihilator tanks for "Reasons".

The annihilator is the better Leman Russ for tank hunting and could easily replace the Vanquisher entry in the codex without competitive players even noticing. But why? If there are 4 people in the world that use Vanquishers over Annihilators, then you should keep the Vanquisher. Heck, you could even add something else (The Leman Russ Defoliator ), as long as it's balanced.

Hey Peregrine, you convinced me! We should avoid unnecessary rules and option bloat. So I have changed my mind and I will now totally support banning Forge World!

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Because some players (read: people who develop fluff for their armies) prefer to run Vanquisher tanks instead of Annihilator tanks for "Reasons".

And you can still have them. You just represent your LR Annihilator with a single long-barreled cannon instead of the lascannons. Fluff does not require that every aspect of your fluff be given its own special snowflake rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:
Hey Peregrine, you convinced me! We should avoid unnecessary rules and option bloat. So I have changed my mind and I will now totally support banning Forge World!

And by that same reasoning we should ban everything that isn't IG, removing all those unnecessary options. Or you could not make silly arguments like yours.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Because some players (read: people who develop fluff for their armies) prefer to run Vanquisher tanks instead of Annihilator tanks for "Reasons".

And you can still have them. You just represent your LR Annihilator with a single long-barreled cannon instead of the lascannons. Fluff does not require that every aspect of your fluff be given its own special snowflake rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:
Hey Peregrine, you convinced me! We should avoid unnecessary rules and option bloat. So I have changed my mind and I will now totally support banning Forge World!

And by that same reasoning we should ban everything that isn't IG, removing all those unnecessary options. Or you could not make silly arguments like yours.

Jesus Christ, how can a person so completely lack awareness! You can just apply your own answer to Unit1126PLL to your own desire to use FW units. They can be just counts-as main studio units without snowflake rules. You're utterly blind to the blatant hypocrisy of your position.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Because some players (read: people who develop fluff for their armies) prefer to run Vanquisher tanks instead of Annihilator tanks for "Reasons".

And you can still have them. You just represent your LR Annihilator with a single long-barreled cannon instead of the lascannons. Fluff does not require that every aspect of your fluff be given its own special snowflake rules.

You want to use Imperial Guardsmen? Just represent your Space Marines with a lasgun and flak armour instead of the boltgun and power armour. Fluff does not require that every aspect of your fluff be given its own special snowflake rules.

Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Removal of options often avoids homogenization, because it allows you to focus on making a limited set of options that are distinct and interesting instead of being burdened with a bloated mess of rules where 90% of the content is pointless.

In my opinion, this is essentially accepting poor quality material.

"Yeah, we could've put in 90 more options, but we only put in 10 because it's easier."

"But I wanted my 100 options!"

"No, it's easier to balance only 10 options. And as we all know, taking the easy way out is how things should always be done."

This is an answer born of ignorance.

The games mechanics only support so much variation by it's very nature. There are only 12 meaningful strength levels (1-11 and 20), 6 AP, etc etc...

Eventually either each option is just starting to be a copy of itself or every armies options are so similar that they loose all flavor. It's not a matter of it being EASIER (though it also is) it's a matter of it being better and more interesting.

Crimson wrote:Lance, go play chess and leave 40K alone. 40K has always been fluff and flavour first sort of game and so should it remain. I am all for balance as long as it doesn't mean homogenisarion and removal of options, but recently some people have just been advocating gutting the game for the sake of balance. feth that gak!

I didn't say gut the game. I am saying refine it. Dig into it's core and bring out the best version of itself.

Fluff and flavor are the only things keeping this game afloat at the moment - it's not the quality of rules or gameplay, its nostalgia. Pure and simple.

That said, fluff shouldn't take priority to designing rules/gameplay for an army - however, it should be integrated as much as possible.

As far as old units being rendered "useless"; well, counts-as, and conversions go a long way, as long as the model and the unit it's representing play similarly (Biker Lord <-> Lord on Beast).

I'd rather have more balance than more unit choices - that said, GW couldn't balance this game even if... well, even if anything; they're notoriously terrible at balancing in general - see the misc 8th edition codecii/chapter approveds - that said, they're trying; so I'll give them credit.

Maybe one day we'll have a more balanced game - in the meantime, just try to have fun.

 Crimson wrote:
Jesus Christ, how can a person so completely lack awareness! You can just apply your own answer to Unit1126PLL to your own desire to use FW units. They can be just counts-as main studio units without snowflake rules. You're utterly blind to the blatant hypocrisy of your position.

The situation is not the same in any way. Banning FW units is about which word is on the cover of the book, not whether those options add anything to the game. Removing the LR Vanquisher and using the model to represent a LR Annihilator is about removing an utterly terrible option that nobody is ever going to take over a unit that is far superior in the same role, cutting out the redundant rules that add nothing to the game. The reasons for removal are entirely different, and applying one to the other is nonsense.

 Lance845 wrote:
Dig into it's core and bring out the best version of itself.

We obviously disagree on what 'best' means in this context...

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
You want to use Imperial Guardsmen? Just represent your Space Marines with a lasgun and flak armour instead of the boltgun and power armour. Fluff does not require that every aspect of your fluff be given its own special snowflake rules.

That is not the same and you know it. Guardsmen and space marines are very different units conceptually, occupy different design space, and are genuinely different options in a typical metagame. The LR Vanquisher and Annihilator are not different units in any of those ways. They're two units with 100% overlap, except one of them is just plain better in every way. If you set aside the need to have every aspect of your fluff get its own separate rules then there is no situation where you would ever take the Vanquisher. If you re-named the units "Leman Russ Anti-tank" and gave them a single set of rules nothing of value would be lost.

 Crimson wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
Dig into it's core and bring out the best version of itself.

We obviously disagree on what 'best' means in this context...

Agreed. I want a game with interesting choices. You want to paint plastic soldiers and put them on a table because it looks like the stories you read and the game be damned.

Everyone basically agrees that 40k is at the very least not a great game and is only kind of carried on by nostalgia, the quality of the models, and fluff.

The difference is YOU think thats a reason to go all in on the fluff and abandon the game to what it currently is and I think that it's a reason to start building a foundation stronger than a pillar of sand by making a better game.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
You want to use Imperial Guardsmen? Just represent your Space Marines with a lasgun and flak armour instead of the boltgun and power armour. Fluff does not require that every aspect of your fluff be given its own special snowflake rules.

That is not the same and you know it. Guardsmen and space marines are very different units conceptually, occupy different design space, and are genuinely different options in a typical metagame. The LR Vanquisher and Annihilator are not different units in any of those ways. They're two units with 100% overlap, except one of them is just plain better in every way. If you set aside the need to have every aspect of your fluff get its own separate rules then there is no situation where you would ever take the Vanquisher. If you re-named the units "Leman Russ Anti-tank" and gave them a single set of rules nothing of value would be lost.

Vanquishers and Annihilators are as different as Guardsmen and Marines depending on your point of view.

Guardsmen are "just basic dudes" in the same way Marines are. Conceptually, they're both the same, basic doods. Any other difference between them is purely relegated to the fluff (e.g. Marines wear power armour and Guardsmen don't is a fluff point, and has no bearing on the basic conceptualization of "this is a basic dude").

If the Leman Russ Annihilator and the Leman Russ Vanquisher literally overlap 100%, then the problem is that the Vanquisher is ill-designed, not that it exists at all.

Make the vanquisher a gambler, e.g. you have to hit, wound, and pass the save, but it does something monstrous like 3d6 damage or something, and make the Annihilator a more reliable tank, and boom, two similar vehicles with different roles: one that responds very well to buffs (Vanquisher) and one that is more reliable if left alone (Annihilator).

 Peregrine wrote:

The situation is not the same in any way. Banning FW units is about which word is on the cover of the book, not whether those options add anything to the game. Removing the LR Vanquisher and using the model to represent a LR Annihilator is about removing an utterly terrible option that nobody is ever going to take over a unit that is far superior in the same role, cutting out the redundant rules that add nothing to the game. The reasons for removal are entirely different, and applying one to the other is nonsense.

But some of those Index options are not terrible, so why should those be removed? Oh, I guess it was the name on the cover of the book! (Not to mention that there are loads of terrible FW units.)

Furthermore, an answer to an option being terrible in not to remove, it is to improve it!

Your argument was that options should not exist merely for fluff reasons, they should serve a function in the game. You seem to utterly fail to understand the modus operandi of the Forge World. Do you really think they sit down and think what the game needs in gameplay sense and then proceed to design a model for that fulfils that role? Of course they don'! The whole fething subdivision exist exactly for the purpose to you oppose: to design cool looking gak, often based on some vague and almost forgotten fluff reference, and then splat some half-assed rules on them, completely irrespective of whether such unit was 'needed' in the gameplay sense.