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.

ok, time to be a devils advocate.
ive thought many times about GW actively getting rid of unit upgrade options and almost anything new that comes out barely has any way to customize besides unit size.

i play orks, i love my options, and those have been slowly stripped away with the new codex and anything new we got has single build load outs. and while im not a fan of this there are some benefits i cant deny.

there are 2 reasons for GW to go this route.

1st: counts as/conversions. now it never seems GW ever encourages any conversions unless its buried in a small section in a whitedwarf and only made from things that came from GW (a far cry from the old days of converting a deodorant stick into a landspeeder). but getting rid of options consequently actually helps with those who have an urge to convert. when that armiger helverin only has one minor wpn that is an option then you can just get the same base and convert a gundam with a giant Gatling gun to stand there instead and be clear what the one small wpn is so your opponent knows its a stubber or a meltagun. otherwise as long its clear that that gundum acts as a helverin then wysiwyg is not as important as it used to be. this is a minor benefit but one i think many dont consider. its nice to go crazy with imagination when i make a gorkanaut, because when my opponent knows its a gorkanaut then he only needs to know the basic loadout instead of trying to figure out what all upgrades i have hidden on the thing.

2nd: it makes balancing easier. now i know GW is still pretty bad at balancing the game (man, how the stompa is still so overpriced is still beyond me), but they have shown a desire to balance the game despite how bad they may be at it. in previous editions when units had 10 to 50+ ways of kitting them out it was very difficult to consider balance without bringing out massive math charts that rocket scientists would've slaved over to make work. with the shift to very simple units it helps with balance and even competition. when you know that player has brought a gorkanaut then you know what that unit is and you can quickly figure a strategy against it. for GW to balance with these type of units its easy to just change the pts values, especially if the wpns on the unit are unique. if a unit has access to even just 5 wpn options that is shared between the whole army then its severely difficult to balance (you end up unable to repoint wpns and have to repoint units around that wpn). a good example i can think of this concept outside 40k is titanfall1/2. in titanfall 1 mechs were very custimizable but that had negative implications on balance, but in titanfall 2 they streamlined all the mechs and made them specific in their roles (and while there were many not happy about the loss of mech customization options it did make the game more balanced and easier to balance). again, i am not saying GW is good at balancing, but im putting the argument forward that this helps them accomplish better balance.

this is just my thought vomit. what do you guys think? are these reasons good enough to slowly get rid of upgrade options, or is there no excuse for this?
i know ive complained about loss of options before, but even i can ignore my rage to see some logic behind this stuff.

Sensible argument, may even work for armies with either a lot of specialised units or a great veriaty in their models.

For factions with fewer options this would be rather hard to deal with, considering how GW designs rules.

For example there are 3 GK heavy weapons, right now all 3 are bad. But the psilancer is better then the other. If GW suddenly turned 3 weapons in to 1 weapon, then it had to have good rules, because there would be no other units to draw upon as a GK player. Also the merge of units would turn a GK army from an army with technically 5 units in to a 2 units army. This means one would always be superior, which wouldn't make the people who play the other type very happy. Now am all for removal of dead options, but a codex has to first be given good options, before GW starts removing and streamlining stuff.

Karol wrote:

to be fair, there are factions that have very few options at there inception. imperial knights at their start had one model, and like 3 or so ways to play it (overtime though the army has gotten more options).

i guess what we have seen so far from GW is that if its an existing unit they keep the current wpn options on it if they come in the kit. if its not in the kit then that unit looses that ugrade option, while anything new seems to be hardpressed into single build units. this isnt a clear rules becasue there are exceptions to it, but it seems GW is going that way. i dont think you GK termies will loose the wpns unless its not actually on the kit.

Another benefit to consider might be streamlining of play. Makes it much quicker to roll for an entire unit when all models have the same armaments, rather than each model having a different weapon.

Rant inbound.

No, there is no excuse for it.

What we see here is a direct result of GW being a large corporate entity. When it began, the head honchos and designers were all passionate gamers themselves, immersed in the DIY culture of early wargaming where it was sort of expected that you had to put some extraneous effort into your hobby. Conversions were encouraged and sort of a norm, since there wasn't that rigid canon in thinking. Decades later, rules and models are developed further by a very different set of people, who have long languished under the Kirby administration of no-fun-allowed, and heaps of hobbyists have thrown them letters where they've ranted on and on how it is the peak of stupidity that not all boxes contain all the options and so forth. Add the Chapterhouse mess in there and you get to the current situation: GW wants to push THE HOBBY (which THEY sell, with THEIR models), you get hyperspesific gobbledygook names for units since they can be trademarked (without actually being effective in curbing 3rd party markets so hey ho, more brain damage for the consumer), model studio comes up with things that the rules writers have to accomodate with instead of going the other way round ("here's a cool thing that totally doesn't fit with the current range, come up with something") and the rules team probably has a standing order to limit themselves to what comes in the box for reasons above.

In the ideal world, you'd have a harmonious symbiosis between rules writers and model designers, GW would understand that everything they've done post-Chapterhouse is flailing at the windmills and we'd get more passionate people in the game dev department to balance out some brainfarts. We'd also get more honesty in marketing, more interesting tactica articles to read and be all better people for it. This is sadly not entirely the world we live in, even if Rountree era we currently live in is enormously better than the previous decade of horrid Kirbyness.

No, there are no good excuses for limiting options gamewise in the manner it's currently done. All traces back to anti-consumerist hogwash and loud, lazy people shouting their inane woes at GW about how they'd have to get more than one box to cheese out the most effective wombocombos for their unpainted curbstomp army.

 Sherrypie wrote:

What we see here is a direct result of GW being a large corporate entity. When it began, the head honchos and designers were all passionate gamers themselves, immersed in the DIY culture of early wargaming where it was sort of expected that you had to put some extraneous effort into your hobby. Conversions were encouraged and sort of a norm, since there wasn't that rigid canon in thinking.

...

No, there are no good excuses for limiting options gamewise in the manner it's currently done. All traces back to anti-consumerist hogwash and loud, lazy people shouting their inane woes at GW about how they'd have to get more than one box to cheese out the most effective wombocombos for their unpainted curbstomp army.

Which is all well and good for the retiree community here and dakka, but some of us simply don't have the time to do these things anymore if we want to ever play the game if I have to figure what I can't get in kits, model the remaining parts or track them down online, and then do the custom fitting, for a relatively common unit. I was thinking of doing chaos for a while, then I looked up how much work havocs would be. I'm fine with only tossing things together out of the box at this point. Conversions are a fun thing I'll do once my bits box is a bit fuller or I have some random crap sitting around, but I sure don't have time to convert basic units to fit my needs.

Not a defense of monopose or no options, but give me kits like the Genestealer Cult Neophyte and Acolyte kits and I'm a happy man. Aside from when I try and make a cult icon and a leader armed with autoguns or shotguns out of the same kit. Anything I want to build, it's right on the sprue waiting for me.

I'm almost glad GSC didn't get any love for so long, they had to be completely rebuilt and I'm loving the results other than the monoposed leaders.

I'm trying to balance work, family and plastic crack, I don't have that much time to convert things so I gravitate towards kits that are actually complete. It's the only way I can fit this into my life.

YeOldSaltPotato wrote:


Which is all well and good for the retiree community here and dakka, but some of us simply don't have the time to do these things anymore if we want to ever play the game if I have to figure what I can't get in kits, model the remaining parts or track them down online, and then do the custom fitting, for a relatively common unit.

"Retiree community"? Oh the hyperbole...

Everything you see now is a result of GW's asinine policies post-Chapterhouse, all thanks to a ranting lunatic who had no understanding of IP law nor what his company actually owned (no, Alan you can't own geometric shapes.). Conversions are an indelible part of this hobby, no matter how much GW tries to stamp them out. You don't even need to "custom fit" stuff- Oh those Havocs? Their bodies are compatible with any SM arms, including Devastators. This is where GW's strength lay- compatibility between kits; yet they move away from this for no good reason, the most egregious offenders being the new DG.

You'd hear the complaints all the time about other systems about lack of options and how "Every Warjack looks the same. There's no custom bits", yet we always had good ol' uncle GW back there, knowing that their huge back catalogues and retro-compatibility of their kits was on of their biggest guns, even when these systems came snapping at their heels in the dark days of 6th and 7th ed. they could hold on due to the strength of that and the background, both of which went hand in hand and countless conversions over the decades were inspired by things in 40k's fluff.

Yet, now we've taken a step sideways. To go back to the example I gave- The Death Guard. I converted up 10 Blightlord Termies using the actual kit and the Blightking one- The difference is like night and day. The former is monopose to the extreme with no options for any variant torsos so if you get 2 or more boxes you'll have the pretty distinctive fly guy in every unit. The latter, however; despite only having 5 bodies to choose from has loads and loads of weapon options, variant torso pieces (so you won't have the same model twice), extra bits everywhere- so much so I'm still using bits of them (unlike the Blightlords which only had a handful of bits left over) on other projects here and there.
Yet with the DG, oh there's no Nurgle Chaos Lord/Sorcerer/Possessed minis- so now it infects (pun intended) the rules. All of which inexplicably do not have DR nor T5 simply due to all of the above because GW thinks it's making it's game idiot proof but all it's doing IME is breeding more idiots.

It depends.

Kits need to have a reasonable array of the options. Of course they do. Long gone are the days of the 2nd Edition Devastator Squad (2x HB, 1x Missile Launcher, 1x Lascannon). Yet I accept sprue space is finite, even though GW are doing a much better job these days of packing on the bitz.

I just wish they'd do weapon sprues as separate 'add on' kits.]

But much like Kirioth on Youtube (give the guy a listen. He's pretty level headed, and even if you don't agree with him, he sets out his stall pretty well), I don't agree that GW have killed off conversions.

Compare to 2nd Ed, when most kits were metal and monopose. Those were sods to convert, but still doable. Yes, there's been a step backwards in the flexibility of the kits. But that just means converting is a wee bit harder - not impossible. Nor is it being actively discouraged by GW. At all.

I played warmachine/horses from mk1 through most of mk2. I have no issues whatsoever with the reduction of loadout options in units.

Taking Bikes and Jump packs away from HQs ist just dumb.

And there's not really a "lack of options" in the newer kits. Look at the Plague Marines, that box is a total mess, that was also translated into rules. You can carry the Mace only when you carry an axe as well - which ruleswize is the dumbest thing you could do. Why is that the rule? Because there's one monopose in the box for a mini that has these weapons. And all the arms are made to only fit a single torso, so without converting you can't actually make a useful unit. And I say that as a total fluff player.
There is no good thing in lack of options, in fact the amount of options was one of the main reasons I started 40K. My first system was lotr and it's still the best of GWs systems and its miniatures were far ahead of their time, BUT hardly any unit had additional bits and most were monopose. So of course nobody built two times the same Ork, everyone converted, but with monopose minis that only goes so far. My lotr bit box is filled with 4 shields, two bows and some swords after 14 years of collecting.
I don't own any Primaris, but if they're not as posable as the classic Space Marines that's a big fail.

geargutz wrote:

Karol wrote:

to be fair, there are factions that have very few options at there inception. imperial knights at their start had one model, and like 3 or so ways to play it (overtime though the army has gotten more options).

i guess what we have seen so far from GW is that if its an existing unit they keep the current wpn options on it if they come in the kit. if its not in the kit then that unit looses that ugrade option, while anything new seems to be hardpressed into single build units. this isnt a clear rules becasue there are exceptions to it, but it seems GW is going that way. i dont think you GK termies will loose the wpns unless its not actually on the kit.

well that is true. But imagine the knight codex as a gallant only book with just one set of weapons, and they stayed that way. The rules would have to be very good to keep up with other factions. Am not saying it is impossible. If a gallant suddenly started running around table costing 250pts, even if knights had no stratagams and warlord traits, they would be a force to be feared.

From what I understand GK lost a ton of stuff going from 7th to 8th. No more speciall ammo, no more twin weapon dreadnoughts, no psyker crew for vehicles. As the weapons upgrades go, in the case of GK termintor or not, they are made so bad, that it is not worth to replace a stormbolter with them, as your losing the melee weapon if you take them on power armored dudes. Flamers are just as bad, but pricier, as other factions. Psycannons are super guns that kill greater demons that have few shots and d1. The MW guns are the best, but they struggle to go through invs and armor, with all the re-rolls, cover.

I again think that lowering the number of options is not a bad idea. I agree it is good. I doubt many eldars would cry if scorpions and banshees turned in to one good melee unit. It just that the lowering of number of options does not work the same way for all armies. Just look at BAs, they had scouts and Captins. Now captins are not working anymore, and so is the army.

I have long felt one of the biggest issues with 40k is how bloated the game has become from units being added and options that they offer. A variety of options looks great on paper but makes things even harder to balance (good designers would struggle with the breadth of 40k as it is now, let alone GW's style of designer).

 Sherrypie wrote:
Rant inbound.

I don't think they are lazy. It does seem to me that they have a different take on different projects. I don't know who writes the eldar rules, I don't care if he plays them or not, but the dude clearly has a vision, to a point when building one eldar codex, he is thinking about Inari or other eldar books that can ally with it. That is actually great for eldar players, as their books, from what I have been told, were never bad, they are always at least good. I don't think there is any other faction that has such support from GW. On the other hand there are books that look like index copy past, with clone stratagems and warlords traids and a few relics slaped on. And even if those armies somehow do end up with something good book, those are often unwanted or untested interactions between models and GW has to fix them.

Maybe they just don't have enough people at the studio, hard to write something cool about a factions you don't care, specialy when your also overworked.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

Compare to 2nd Ed, when most kits were metal and monopose. Those were sods to convert, but still doable. Yes, there's been a step backwards in the flexibility of the kits. But that just means converting is a wee bit harder - not impossible. Nor is it being actively discouraged by GW. At all.

Of course converting isn't impossible. It never is, that is a non-statement as long as humans have hands and a will to do things (or longer, depending on when we reach transhumanist singularity ).

But it is discouraged on the larger scale without outright saying it. Units lose options not depending on their intended purpose in battle but on what can be crammed in their kits equates to active discouragement, as does pushing spesific new units instead of expanding existing ones, which is a straight move to encourage people to buy the new kits with their limited poses. Rules dictate large parts of the hobby and restricting those to what you have in the one-n-done kit is a homogenizing move as is GW's advertising policy of never displaying anything they don't push out of their factories nowadays. A decade ago WD was full of interesting scratchbuild articles, terrain tutorials and miniatures with recycled trash in them. Now it's mostly the same few buildings, horribly plastic woods and other soulless bits in every picture. That shoots them directly in their own foot in regards to their traditional strenght, which was indeed the straight compatibility between kits and the ease of making your stuff yours.

Personally I have more philosophical than practical problems with the situation. I am very much skilled and motivated enough to convert everything I have, but I just die a bit inside everytime I see GW trying to fall backwards with yet another egregious example of making a kit with no options, no parts that are designed for compatibility and rules that are outright dim in their application of "no model no rules". Like Death Guard's Codex with their copy paste T4 characters.

*sigh of depression* It's lucky to live with a group that is willing to houserule things in all sorts of wonky directions.

 Grimtuff wrote:

"Retiree community"? Oh the hyperbole...

Yes, how dare I make light of the time involved. My point is kits without unit options in them take a load of time.

You don't even need to "custom fit" stuff- Oh those Havocs? Their bodies are compatible with any SM arms, including Devastators.

Sure, if I want to use loyalist bits, but I thought were talking conversions here? Of course I'm also now either buying multiple kits to get a single unit, and/or home brewing spikey bits to make my marines chaosy rather than different color loyalists. Not even going to bother trying with the weapons as I know I don't have the time or skill to make them interesting, may manage to scratch the imperial logos off. All of which involves modeling entirely because there are not kits for any of it.

Give me a complete kit and I'm happy. Don't stick newer players with swaths of crap they can't actually build without mashing together ancient kits. I just wish GW didn't feel the need to completely redesign things so old players will buy new stuff. Plenty of us new folks would buy updated, complete, kits for units.

It's not discouraged though. At all.

Having less need to convert is not the same thing as discouraging it. At all.

GW show off their terrain because they now actually sell terrain. So if you've got a product to shift, why would you devote pages in your own magazine to how to make it on a tiny budget? They also want the Hobby to appear as open as it can. Seen something in WD or the shop window? Excellent chance you can drop in or visit the website and buy it there and then.

Have you seen the terrain developers Twitter? Where he shows off the cunningness of the terrain's design? If not, it's totally worth checking out. Kitbashing ahoy!

Karol wrote:

 Sherrypie wrote:
Rant inbound.

I don't think they are lazy.

I wasn't referring to the designers being lazy, but those customers who have for years shouted "GW is dumb as these kits don't have all the options". Sprue size is always an issue in 3D reality, but GW has adopted a policy that silences that crowd while pruning their game from interesting directions that could foster creativity in those so inclined. That, I feel, is detrimental for the hobby.

Wayniac wrote:
I have long felt one of the biggest issues with 40k is how bloated the game has become from units being added and options that they offer. A variety of options looks great on paper but makes things even harder to balance (good designers would struggle with the breadth of 40k as it is now, let alone GW's style of designer).

Yep.

Basically the sensible way to approach things is: Create few units for an army but have each have countless options, or have many units and fewer options. Having both just means balancing becomes a horror show.

Now, I have enjoyed making conversions in the past, but in the end there are just ton of options that nobody would ever use, even if they were pointed better. The reason being that many options just don't vibe with the army in question or are so circumstantial that it is easier to bet on the option you are most likely going to use most of the time. Take for example Scatter Lasers vs Shuriken Cannons on a Wave Serpent. The only reason you might make Scatter Lasers attractive again is to either make them lower points than Shuriken Cannons or you start adding shenanigans/special abilities like they had in 6th. If that were to happen then Shuriken Cannons would be less appealing. Too many weapons are too close to being similar to be easily balanced so you can pick one or the other and too many options in the game share the same problem.

In the end I think WH40k has a fantastic illusion of having options, but when you want to play and don't want to feel like your models are useless that illusion fades away like the morning dew at sunrise.

 Eldarsif wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
I have long felt one of the biggest issues with 40k is how bloated the game has become from units being added and options that they offer. A variety of options looks great on paper but makes things even harder to balance (good designers would struggle with the breadth of 40k as it is now, let alone GW's style of designer).

Yep.

Basically the sensible way to approach things is: Create few units for an army but have each have countless options, or have many units and fewer options. Having both just means balancing becomes a horror show.

Now, I have enjoyed making conversions in the past, but in the end there are just ton of options that nobody would ever use, even if they were pointed better. The reason being that many options just don't vibe with the army in question or are so circumstantial that it is easier to bet on the option you are most likely going to use most of the time. Take for example Scatter Lasers vs Shuriken Cannons on a Wave Serpent. The only reason you might make Scatter Lasers attractive again is to either make them lower points than Shuriken Cannons or you start adding shenanigans/special abilities like they had in 6th. If that were to happen then Shuriken Cannons would be less appealing. Too many weapons are too close to being similar to be easily balanced so you can pick one or the other and too many options in the game share the same problem.

In the end I think WH40k has a fantastic illusion of having options, but when you want to play and don't want to feel like your models are useless that illusion fades away like the morning dew at sunrise.

Yeah, pretty much. Which is why I find it laughable when you see people talking about how "diverse" the game is now. Having 5 armies all using the same type of army isn't diversity, it's the illusion of diversity so you can pat yourself on the back and feel good while nothing is happening.

YeOldSaltPotato wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

You don't even need to "custom fit" stuff- Oh those Havocs? Their bodies are compatible with any SM arms, including Devastators.

Sure, if I want to use loyalist bits, but I thought were talking conversions here? Of course I'm also now either buying multiple kits to get a single unit, and/or home brewing spikey bits to make my marines chaosy rather than different color loyalists. Not even going to bother trying with the weapons as I know I don't have the time or skill to make them interesting, may manage to scratch the imperial logos off. All of which involves modelling entirely because there are not kits for any of it.

So putting the arms of one kit on another is not a conversion now is it? It's gak like this that perpetuates the myth that converting stuff is difficult. Those aforementioned Devastator arms (which can either be acquired from other players, bits sites or just buying the whole kit. Trust me. You WILL make use of it eventually) can simply be slotted onto the CSM torso (retro-compatibility, remember?) no fuss. Then you can adorn them to your heart's content with gargoyles and/or spikes that you'll inevitably have left over from the vehicle kits.

This is still converting stuff. Yes- To go back to this specific example it's GW's fault for leaving CSM's out in the dark for so long, there's no excuse for that- but when stupidly simple solutions are presented to you, you just sound like a luddite. None of this requires any major extra time. You're simply sticking part A on instead of part B. Why does this take extra time exactly?

As someone who is WYSIWYG fanatic, I'm getting more comfortable with the new no bitz no rules system. Granted, I do hmm a lot of conversions and enjoy doing so, but it costs me a lot more money to find the right bitz to do so.

It also makes Power Level more viable. I find my new 8th edition armies ( new death guard, primaris, nurgle daemons) are a lot more fun to build lists for and play than my old 6th edition, 7th edition models that have been repurposed or Indexed.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Having less need to convert is not the same thing as discouraging it. At all.

You’re confusing the freedom to convert with a need to convert.

There has never been a need to convert. You buy a box, you build it, you put it on the table and you play with it. Concerting is not a prerequisite to playing with a kit you’ve bought. If you read about an option for a unit, then you may have to convert to make the model, but that’s not a need; you’re choosing to go with a non-standard option which has some extra work involved.

I’m concerned about just what the lowest common denominator is if the reason for removing the option to convert is to prevent people becoming confused about what to do because there isn’t a Chaplain on Bike Box. Having options doesn’t hurt people who don’t choose to use them, but removing options does hurt those who like them. A toga is a more complicated costume to wear than a bedsheet ghost; a costume shop having the toga on the shelf doesn’t hurt the person who just wants to stick with the ghost.

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
Taking Bikes and Jump packs away from HQs ist just dumb.

This is the real problem. There are a mix of meaningful and non meaningful choices. For Space Marine characters, the meaningful choices are usually heavy vs light weapon, shield or ranged weapon, big or small melee weapon and then movement options (foot, jetpack, bike). That's actually quite a bit, so you run into problems when you try to have the kind of actual diversity old marine characters get. You can have a power sword, axe or maul, a chainfist, power fist or thunder hammer, a storm shield, bolter, combi bolter (a bunch of types), storm bolter, bolt pistol, plasma pistol etc. Most of those will be traps. I'm ok with reducing that complexity as long as they keep meaningful options around.

It’s simplicity at the cost of depth which is basically the theme of 8th edition. Unfortunately the whole “no model no rules” stuff is moreso rooted in their failings in the chapterhouse lawsuit and now are letting IP protectionism dictate the rules they publish. Garbage like not having rules for a Mega Armored Warboss (an iconic loadout for an Ork Warboss as seen in 2 out of 3 Dawn of War games, Space Marine, countless art works, etc) in the codex because they can’t be bothered to make a non ghazz MA boss model is the cost we have to pay because of GW’s busniness choices. Honestly the whole “reducing rules bloat” and “easier to balance” argument are secondary concerns to GW.