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.

 Zid wrote:
Soon i hope.

I would like if they provided data sheets for those obscure options people actualky use (chaos bikers), while tossing out options that no one uses (chaos lords on mounts).

Then provide guidence on using those obscure models as something else, i.e. khorne lords on juggernauts count as bloodcrushers.

But here's the problem with that:
If I converted a Chaos Lord on a Jugger, he is and should be able to be used as a Chaos Lord on a Jugger.
If I do not play Daemons, why should I be forced to use an inferior datasheet to represent my hard work?

And I mean "inferior" in the regard to Bloodcrushers not being a valid option for my army leader like a Chaos Lord was modeled to be.

I'm ok with GW not printing rules for the model in the Codex because it doesn't have a current model in production.
I'm ok with GW stopping the printing of the Index that the rules do exist.
I'm ok with having to tote around a copy of the Designers Commentary and my Index to show I can use those rules.
I'm ok with GW putting out a free PDF with any Index-only units and options once the Indexes stop being printed.
I'm ok with you not using any Index rules for your army. It's your army, not mine.

I am NOT ok with GW saying those rules, that were only valid for less than 2 years, are now illegal.
I am NOT ok with someone saying they shouldn't be legal purely on the basis that they are inconvenienced by their existence. I will provide the rules, I am not expecting you to.
I am NOT ok with Index-only options being relegated to Open play only, unless Open play magically becomes the common standard mode (it never will)
No one should be ok with these either.

It should be the player's choice, because that player investing the time, money and effort to make that model with those options.
If it is a bit more effort to keep up with those rules, that's ok. But again, it should be the player's choice to do so, not their opponents choice.
If an option is clearly OP, than both players should discuss it pre-game with all things, but seeing that like 95% of Index-only options are hardly OP, it shouldn't be an issue.

-

It should be the player's choice, because that player investing the time, money and effort to make that model with those options.

But this is what is exactly happening. Some players and tourneys(ETC apparently) don't want to use index so they exclude those things. That does not forbid you from using index units with players and tourneys who accept them. Freedom of choice is what GW gave us, at least for now.

 Eldarsif wrote:

It should be the player's choice, because that player investing the time, money and effort to make that model with those options.

But this is what is exactly happening. Some players and tourneys(ETC apparently) don't want to use index so they exclude those things. That does not forbid you from using index units with players and tourneys who accept them. Freedom of choice is what GW gave us, at least for now.

Indeed, from any "official" rules standpoint.
What I fear is that organized events like ETC and other Tourneys will continue to exclude these options.
Like it or not, organized events DO have an affect on casual play. There is enough overlap of players that use the rules for organized play even in casual games that eventually, Index-only options will be like FW: you'll have to ask your opponent.
At that point, most players (likely including myself) will just give up and stop taking those options.

-

The larger tournaments rulepacks tend to also affect casual play. If something is banned at Adepticon or the ETC or LVO, often you will see it banned in casual play too because a lot of people use casual play as their testing ground for their tournament play, and that often leaks into ALL casual play in a store.

Which is why when tournaments ban things or change things, some people get up in arms... because it affects their local meta as well.

auticus wrote:
The larger tournaments rulepacks tend to also affect casual play. If something is banned at Adepticon or the ETC or LVO, often you will see it banned in casual play too because a lot of people use casual play as their testing ground for their tournament play, and that often leaks into ALL casual play in a store.

Which is why when tournaments ban things or change things, some people get up in arms... because it affects their local meta as well.

Exactly.
So when someone says "you can still play X in casual games, it's only organized play that X is banned", I find that statement to be outright false.
We all still have to play by the "social standards". So if GW bans something in Matched play, it effectively bans it in all play since Matched play is the "social standard"
Bike Librarians, Twin-Autocannon Dreads, the vast majority of Autarch options, and a myriad of other options have been valid options in the past, including the start of this very edition. They should remain valid because enough players have those options.

If 9E drops and "officially" removes them, that's fine because it will also come with many other changes. But they were valid options in this edition and should remain so.

-

Then your gripe is with Tournament holders, not GW. GW isn't banning anything, tourneys are.

Also, the quickest way to get an index unit banned is to try to exploit it. I saw an Ork thread earlier where someone thought they'd found a shenanigan where an index option could be used to their advantage with the new codex options. Nobody is balancing that so if people find a way to exploit it Indices will be banned. Nobody can expect GW to balance units they don't even make and people might not have.

Which kinda brings me to an old post in this thread. If they(GW) wanted to phase out older units without hassle could easily make these units legal and forever, but just up their price enough to make them that much less attractive(which they've kinda done to quite a few units). People would complain about the ridiculous point costs(which happens to a lot of units so these particular complaints would be lost in a sea) but the blowback would be much less.

 Eldarsif wrote:
Then your gripe is with Tournament holders, not GW. GW isn't banning anything, tourneys are.

Indeed it is, sorry if that wasn't clear earlier.
But GW can help make these options "more" legal by either continuing to support Index options as they have been doing, or to release a free PDF with them once they want to stop printing the Indexes.
But what I don't want them to do is label these options "Open play only" as that would pretty much be the same as making them illegal outright.

At the end of the day, my personal interest in this is Twin-Autocannon Dreads as I have one modeled as such, but I only play that at home, so it wouldn't matter outside of those games.
But I also use Autarchs. They've always been my favorite Eldar HQ, specifically on a bikes and specifically because they are so customizable. The Codex removed almost all their options.
Without the Index options I can't use a Reaper Launcher, which makes the Autarch the ONLY unit that can benefit from both Saim-Hann attributes.
I also cannot use Banshee mask, which is vital to getting the Autarch into melee without Overwatch.

Both are powerful options, but hardly make a showing at Tourneys because Farseers and Warlocks are better cheese. The index options allows me personally to use the HQ I want to use and still be good. Otherwise, I'll just take a Farseer on bike, or 2 Warlocks like everyone else, which is boring.
My opponents tend to appreciate the variety, which should be encouraged, not banned

-

 Eldarsif wrote:

Which kinda brings me to an old post in this thread. If they(GW) wanted to phase out older units without hassle could easily make these units legal and forever, but just up their price enough to make them that much less attractive(which they've kinda done to quite a few units). People would complain about the ridiculous point costs(which happens to a lot of units so these particular complaints would be lost in a sea) but the blowback would be much less.

Since points aren't used except in Matched Play, narrative and open games wouldn't suffer for it since the PL remains the same. That's pretty much what they did with Titans. The points costs are prohibitive for Matched Play, but in their natural home in Apocalypse games they're as playable as ever.

 Eldarsif wrote:

It should be the player's choice, because that player investing the time, money and effort to make that model with those options.

But this is what is exactly happening. Some players and tourneys(ETC apparently) don't want to use index so they exclude those things. That does not forbid you from using index units with players and tourneys who accept them. Freedom of choice is what GW gave us, at least for now.

Tournaments forcing you to not use an official publication for rules is NOT the equivalent of giving us options. That's taking them away for literally no good reason.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Eldarsif wrote:

It should be the player's choice, because that player investing the time, money and effort to make that model with those options.

But this is what is exactly happening. Some players and tourneys(ETC apparently) don't want to use index so they exclude those things. That does not forbid you from using index units with players and tourneys who accept them. Freedom of choice is what GW gave us, at least for now.

Tournaments forcing you to not use an official publication for rules is NOT the equivalent of giving us options. That's taking them away for literally no good reason.

I wouldn't say no "good" reason. TOs have to make restrictions to make tourneys fair. But I agree the decision to remove legal options isn't the best one.
They need to stick with more broad restrictions that affect everyone, rather than just remove options wholesale.

Or on the opposite, make the restrictions so incredibly severe that they don't "trickle down" to casual play.
Removing allies, for example, is such a big nerf to some factions, that it wouldn't be something that casual play would enforce.
And if player want to test their Tourney list, what better way then to face an army that doesn't have the same restrictions as you impose on yourself?
If you can only take a single Faction and beat any army that can cherry pick, isn't that a good indicator that you have the skill for a tourney?

-

 Galef wrote:

Or on the opposite, make the restrictions so incredibly severe that they don't "trickle down" to casual play.

I think this is brilliant. The only criticism one could move is that for many the "true casual" play does not exist and everything is a preparation to tournaments.
Not that I care about the latter

Just to clarify as i just checked the etc rules pack and they banned indexes that have been replaced by codex's it doesn't call out index imperial armour as they are not replaced by the codex.
It's also not the index they have banned persay it just that they decided to not follow the stepping into a new edition FAQ anymore. Which makes sence as GW had already invalidate that with a ruling they made in the T'au Codex FAQ.

Ice_can wrote:
Just to clarify as i just checked the etc rules pack and they banned indexes that have been replaced by codex's it doesn't call out index imperial armour as they are not replaced by the codex.
It's also not the index they have banned persay it just that they decided to not follow the stepping into a new edition FAQ anymore. Which makes sence as GW had already invalidate that with a ruling they made in the T'au Codex FAQ.

So wait, they've banned the Indexes, but do they ignore the Designers Commentary allowing index options that did not get update? That's a big difference.

-

What tournament organisers do is entirely up to them. I think the Indexes are here for another year or two. At that point I think it would be cool for them to have a free online resource collecting Data slates for OOP models and unis.

 Hollow wrote:
What tournament organisers do is entirely up to them.

Sure, but as we've discussed, if several organized events are doing the same things, these "standards" often trickle down to casual play and become part of the assumed norm.
Eventually, models and options will become unacceptable even for casual play unless GW continues to support them. So, yes, I have my fingers crossed for a PDF or FAQ allowing some options, but I am not holding my breath.
What is most likely going to happen is that GW will stop printing the Indexes, but still have the Designer's Commentary available.

So players that have the Index will continue to be able to use the rules, but it will be akin to when GW released rules in White Dwarf. Only players with that copy of the WD would be able to use the rules, and eventually only if their opponent was ok with it

-

Remember when special characters were hugely broken and no one allowed them in games?

There always has been and always will be things that have the potential to be excluded. I didn't get to use Abaddon for 3 editions, but that didn't make me regret owning and painting the model.

 Galef wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
Just to clarify as i just checked the etc rules pack and they banned indexes that have been replaced by codex's it doesn't call out index imperial armour as they are not replaced by the codex.
It's also not the index they have banned persay it just that they decided to not follow the stepping into a new edition FAQ anymore. Which makes sence as GW had already invalidate that with a ruling they made in the T'au Codex FAQ.

So wait, they've banned the Indexes, but do they ignore the Designers Commentary allowing index options that did not get update? That's a big difference.

-

They flat banned Forgeworld actually
"Once a codex has been released, all index datasheet options are void."
Damn those ETC people are no fun.

I agree with that approach, myself. I've got 5 Las plas razors and 3 jump priests, too. All are on the chopping block.

Oh welp, I suppose rip my brother's bike army. He didn't need those bike librarians anyway. Or those bike veterans.
Nope, can't have any of those.

Martel732 wrote:
I agree with that approach, myself. I've got 5 Las plas razors and 3 jump priests, too. All are on the chopping block.

I get that the indexes going, as that was legacy support. But to just flat ban forgeworld period that seems uncalled for given GW's point increases.
Also I would like to br able yo play my SoS in a event once they get some non index rules and hopefully some CP and strategums.

Forge world has no one at the wheel anymore for these models. GW cant balance the models they make, and fw has all kinds of crazy mechanics like grav flux. I have a painted deredeo, but I can see the argument that its not fair because it probably got zero playtesting.

 Galef wrote:

 Zid wrote:
Soon i hope.

I would like if they provided data sheets for those obscure options people actualky use (chaos bikers), while tossing out options that no one uses (chaos lords on mounts).

Then provide guidence on using those obscure models as something else, i.e. khorne lords on juggernauts count as bloodcrushers.

But here's the problem with that:
If I converted a Chaos Lord on a Jugger, he is and should be able to be used as a Chaos Lord on a Jugger.
If I do not play Daemons, why should I be forced to use an inferior datasheet to represent my hard work?

And I mean "inferior" in the regard to Bloodcrushers not being a valid option for my army leader like a Chaos Lord was modeled to be.

I'm ok with GW not printing rules for the model in the Codex because it doesn't have a current model in production.
I'm ok with GW stopping the printing of the Index that the rules do exist.
I'm ok with having to tote around a copy of the Designers Commentary and my Index to show I can use those rules.
I'm ok with GW putting out a free PDF with any Index-only units and options once the Indexes stop being printed.
I'm ok with you not using any Index rules for your army. It's your army, not mine.

I am NOT ok with GW saying those rules, that were only valid for less than 2 years, are now illegal.
I am NOT ok with someone saying they shouldn't be legal purely on the basis that they are inconvenienced by their existence. I will provide the rules, I am not expecting you to.
I am NOT ok with Index-only options being relegated to Open play only, unless Open play magically becomes the common standard mode (it never will)
No one should be ok with these either.

It should be the player's choice, because that player investing the time, money and effort to make that model with those options.
If it is a bit more effort to keep up with those rules, that's ok. But again, it should be the player's choice to do so, not their opponents choice.
If an option is clearly OP, than both players should discuss it pre-game with all things, but seeing that like 95% of Index-only options are hardly OP, it shouldn't be an issue.

-

The thing is no index options are OP, but what people are sick of is the constant referencing for options because people are attempting to game the system; i.e. still trying to use index demon princes in Death Guard battalions as death guard, but taking warptime.

However, I see your point. Really the issue could be solved simply by adding options as wargear like in the old times.

Lets take the Chaos Lord as example:
1) Add wargear options "Bike" "Chaos God Mount"
2) Add a block for each piece of gear: "A model on a Bike gets +1W, +1T. As well, change its move characteristic to 14". When this model advances it advances 6" instead of rolling."
3) "A model mounted on a Chaos God Mount recieves the following benefits: If mounted on a Steed of Slanesh it gains Mark of Slanesh, Movement changes to 12", +1T, +1W, and it may Charge after advancing. If mounted on a Palequin of Nurgle it gains the Mark of Nurgle, Movement changes to 7", +2T, +1W, and it gains the Disgustingly Resilient ability. If mounted on a Bloodcrusher of Khorne it gains the Mark of Khorne, Movement Changes to 9", +1T, +1W, and this model may reroll charge distances and gains +1 Str and Attack when it charges, heroicly intervenes, or is charged. If mounted on a Disc of Tzeentch it gains the Mark of Tzeentch, Movement Changes to 11", +1T, +1W, may reroll a single dice roll this model makes each battle round, and it gains the Flying keyword. A model mounted on a Chaos God Mount cannot choose any other mark other than the one given by the mount it rides."

Then give an applicable points adjustment for each piece of wargear based on power, so a Bike would probably be around 20 points, Mounts would probably be Slanesh 16/Nurgle 17/Khorne 20/Tzeentch 25 (just based off the rules I put above). It wouldn't be hard to add Bikes as warpgear options to things like Space Marines, Veterans, Apothecaries, etc. at a flat points cost per model really.

Yeah, that would be good too.
My issue isn't models/units that can't be used anymore, but options that are actually in the Codex, but no longer on a unit's wargear options.
Warptime is not in the DG Codex, so it makes sense for a DG DP to not get it.

Banshee masks and Reaper launchers, however, are in the CWE Codex, with updated rules and points. Autarchs should still be able to take those

But I certainly like your idea for Daemonic Mounts and Jump packs. Just add them as options via PDF vs having their own datasheet

-

GW does not add the lines for Bikes and whatnot because is afraid of being "Chapterhoused" again.
It's really that simple.

 Kaiyanwang wrote:
GW does not add the lines for Bikes and whatnot because is afraid of being "Chapterhoused" again.
It's really that simple.

They've released more minis in the last 2 years than in the last 20 prior to that (at least it feels that way). There's no reason for them to not just release all these minis will all their options that have been available for years.
Most of the options lost have been on HQs, so if wouldn't be hard to just release more claimpacks

-

 Galef wrote:

 Kaiyanwang wrote:
GW does not add the lines for Bikes and whatnot because is afraid of being "Chapterhoused" again.
It's really that simple.

They've released more minis in the last 2 years than in the last 20 prior to that (at least it feels that way). There's no reason for them to not just release all these minis will all their options that have been available for years.
Most of the options lost have been on HQs, so if wouldn't be hard to just release more claimpacks

-

Oh, I am all for it. But their investments in this regard are schizophrenic. New factions, 8 Primaris Lieutenants (for the next Codex: Lieutenants, I guess), and factions that lose HQs.

Ice_can wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I agree with that approach, myself. I've got 5 Las plas razors and 3 jump priests, too. All are on the chopping block.

I get that the indexes going, as that was legacy support. But to just flat ban forgeworld period that seems uncalled for given GW's point increases.
Also I would like to br able yo play my SoS in a event once they get some non index rules and hopefully some CP and strategums.

Well MY laz-plaz razorbacks are 2e GW. Old rhino hull, metal turret.

ccs wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I agree with that approach, myself. I've got 5 Las plas razors and 3 jump priests, too. All are on the chopping block.

I get that the indexes going, as that was legacy support. But to just flat ban forgeworld period that seems uncalled for given GW's point increases.
Also I would like to br able yo play my SoS in a event once they get some non index rules and hopefully some CP and strategums.

Well MY laz-plaz razorbacks are 2e GW. Old rhino hull, metal turret.

Yeah the good old days when models where models and dreadnaught plus a sock was the ultimate anti TFG weapon.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
Forge world has no one at the wheel anymore for these models. GW cant balance the models they make, and fw has all kinds of crazy mechanics like grav flux. I have a painted deredeo, but I can see the argument that its not fair because it probably got zero playtesting.

I actually think they were playtested against thr guard and craftworld codex's as they are fairly balanced against them even with all the codex chapter buffs to them.
Heck a large amount of the FW guard units are actually weaker than the codex guard units.

ccs wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I agree with that approach, myself. I've got 5 Las plas razors and 3 jump priests, too. All are on the chopping block.

I get that the indexes going, as that was legacy support. But to just flat ban forgeworld period that seems uncalled for given GW's point increases.
Also I would like to br able yo play my SoS in a event once they get some non index rules and hopefully some CP and strategums.

Well MY laz-plaz razorbacks are 2e GW. Old rhino hull, metal turret.

So are mine. They still need to go.

Martel732 wrote:
They still need to go.

Why? I legitimately do not understand this viewpoint. Why do older options HAVE to go away. What is the detriment to the overall game if a handful of players want to tote around extra rules for their old models? Or even let players convert them once they get deeper into the hobby?

I mean, if the point is to cut out options so that the game is more streamlined, the better solution is to ban all Codices and only use Indexes. The whole game in 5 books, well 6 counting the BRB. 8E didn't start getting complicated until the Codices started mucking things up.
I like the Codices, but I also liked that brief golden time in which I owned all the Space Marine rules in a single book

-