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.

You know that it is not what people want. There are two type of good units in w40k right now, stuff that is ultra cheap and stuff that piles on good rules. Most armies mix both of those.

How about all factions get to do that. Tac marines don't have to be 5pts to be good. They need good rules to make people want to use them. Through stratagems, through chapter specific rules, through special or normal characters interactions, it doesn't matter which of those or through mix of those. As long as it is done. Right now a space marine army just takes the cheapest stuff, and undercosted stuff like Gulliman.

What if assault space marines had a rule set, that made people actually want them in assault, or use at all. How about tacs not being overcosted scouts.


How about a NDK in GK army actually has a role other then being an obligatory support choice. GW can clearly do stuff like that, they made a ton of units with fun rule sets. It is just that some armies have 10+ of such units and other have maybe 1-2. You can't have a good enviroment to play, when armies like that have to play against each other.

Karol wrote:
So why can't all armies be super? They clearly can do armies with very powerful options and builds. Why not give to all factions? Sales would go up, balance would be closer, because when everything is OP, nothing really is. Players happy, bank account happy. Changes would be easier to implement, because with everything "OP" people would be more willing to experiment. Soup wouldn't be needed, because varity and sales could be achived by having multiple options from a single book. The problems we have now of the how to nerf the ravellan with IG, without killing IG or Knights mono lists, would be gone.

Ok, if we were to discuss how to balance the game better in a way that will affect sales positively, rather than making all ARMIES balanced, GW needs to better internally balance each codex so that there are more than 1 viable (and by viable, I mean at least semi-competitive) lists & army composition per faction.

To better explain this - think of WoW/MMO's and the different specs per class - each spec has its moments, ups and downs, come the patches and expansions. Some are more viable than the other, but sooner or later the different build becomes more viable than the former.

What does this achieve? Typically, when we set out in this hobby journey we call 40k, we typically pick a faction we like. Then, we pick out the most powerful units in the said faction and build a legal army around it. Now, what would happen if there are more than just handful of powerful units and these powerful units require different kinds of supporting elements to really make them shine?

We are more or less highly invested into a single faction (up until it reaches a critical point) - why not make the codex in a way that you can actually buy ALL the available models for that faction AND get to play with them competitively at one time or another? Say for example, what if power armor horde + pred squad + vindicator combo was actually a hard counter to the Loyal 32 & Castellan? What if the codex is so internally balanced that you actually can tweak your primary army to the meta instead of dishing out another 2 grand for a whole new army because it's the meta winning army?

"What if assault space marines had a rule set, that made people actually want them in assault, or use at all. "
Assault Marines with Jetpacks have traditionally had a great foil in Striking Scorpions. Roughly the same PPM. Roughly the same punch. ASM flew around the map while Scorpions infiltrated.

Scorpoin's Infiltrate is now garbage, and a direct downgrade from ASM + Jetpacks. However, aside from that, they're still roughly comparable.

Scorps are 11ppm. ASM + JPs are 15ppm.

The problem with ASM is that GW is apparently not even trying to fix them. There are various answers as to why (I'm of the opinion it's because Primaris is squatting non-Primaris marines).

 skchsan wrote:
Ok, if we were to discuss how to balance the game better in a way that will affect sales positively, rather than making all ARMIES balanced, GW needs to better internally balance each codex so that there are more than 1 viable (and by viable, I mean at least semi-competitive) lists & army composition per faction.

To better explain this - think of WoW/MMO's and the different specs per class - each spec has its moments, ups and downs, come the patches and expansions. Some are more viable than the other, but sooner or later the different build becomes more viable than the former.

What does this achieve? Typically, when we set out in this hobby journey we call 40k, we typically pick a faction we like. Then, we pick out the most powerful units in the said faction and build a legal army around it. Now, what would happen if there are more than just handful of powerful units and these powerful units require different kinds of supporting elements to really make them shine?

We are more or less highly invested into a single faction (up until it reaches a critical point) - why not make the codex in a way that you can actually buy ALL the available models for that faction AND get to play with them competitively at one time or another? Say for example, what if power armor horde + pred squad + vindicator combo was actually a hard counter to the Loyal 32 & Castellan? What if the codex is so internally balanced that you actually can tweak your primary army to the meta instead of dishing out another 2 grand for a whole new army because it's the meta winning army?

but MMO fixs are not the as w40k fixs. If a patch for WoW comes out, I don't have to pay to download it. The fixs are there and all I have to do now is relearn how to play. With w40k the fixs seem to go down more like mobile games. spend money on patch, spend money on new good stuff, old stuff doesn't work.

IMO GW does not know how to make a balanced game, maybe it is not even possible. And if that is the case, then how about instead of making stuff like OP eldar and nerfed GK in the same edition, just make armies which are fun to play. Lot of things can be said about eldar players, but it doesn't look as if they are not having fun playing their faction. On the other side I am told, that my faction has to stay bad, because it was good for a few months, when I wasn't playing the game and because GW doesn't have new model lines for my faction, so they have to get crap rules. I should have to care what army my opponent plays, no one should. They should get a fun army to play. Now this doesn't mean all armies should have to be on the same tier. From what I hear SW seem to be a fun army to play. they aren't tournament world breakers, but they seem to be fun. I would like something like that for all factions. And not an unrealistic idea of my opponent buying a separate army just to play against me.

Plus it is insulting that your opponent has to let you play, because if he tries to play for real he just rolls over your army. Most people over 6 years notice that when their parents let them win, it stops being fun.

Karol wrote:

 skchsan wrote:
Ok, if we were to discuss how to balance the game better in a way that will affect sales positively, rather than making all ARMIES balanced, GW needs to better internally balance each codex so that there are more than 1 viable (and by viable, I mean at least semi-competitive) lists & army composition per faction.

To better explain this - think of WoW/MMO's and the different specs per class - each spec has its moments, ups and downs, come the patches and expansions. Some are more viable than the other, but sooner or later the different build becomes more viable than the former.

What does this achieve? Typically, when we set out in this hobby journey we call 40k, we typically pick a faction we like. Then, we pick out the most powerful units in the said faction and build a legal army around it. Now, what would happen if there are more than just handful of powerful units and these powerful units require different kinds of supporting elements to really make them shine?

We are more or less highly invested into a single faction (up until it reaches a critical point) - why not make the codex in a way that you can actually buy ALL the available models for that faction AND get to play with them competitively at one time or another? Say for example, what if power armor horde + pred squad + vindicator combo was actually a hard counter to the Loyal 32 & Castellan? What if the codex is so internally balanced that you actually can tweak your primary army to the meta instead of dishing out another 2 grand for a whole new army because it's the meta winning army?

but MMO fixs are not the as w40k fixs. If a patch for WoW comes out, I don't have to pay to download it. The fixs are there and all I have to do now is relearn how to play. With w40k the fixs seem to go down more like mobile games. spend money on patch, spend money on new good stuff, old stuff doesn't work.

IMO GW does not know how to make a balanced game, maybe it is not even possible. And if that is the case, then how about instead of making stuff like OP eldar and nerfed GK in the same edition, just make armies which are fun to play. Lot of things can be said about eldar players, but it doesn't look as if they are not having fun playing their faction. On the other side I am told, that my faction has to stay bad, because it was good for a few months, when I wasn't playing the game and because GW doesn't have new model lines for my faction, so they have to get crap rules. I should have to care what army my opponent plays, no one should. They should get a fun army to play. Now this doesn't mean all armies should have to be on the same tier. From what I hear SW seem to be a fun army to play. they aren't tournament world breakers, but they seem to be fun. I would like something like that for all factions. And not an unrealistic idea of my opponent buying a separate army just to play against me.

Plus it is insulting that your opponent has to let you play, because if he tries to play for real he just rolls over your army. Most people over 6 years notice that when their parents let them win, it stops being fun.

I've noticed you've been getting rather emotional in your recent posts across Gen. Discussion. The 8th ed is essentially what would equate to a expansion and not simply a patch fix. You DO need to pay to play the new expansion.

I won't rebut further as I'm afraid you're spiraling this post into an extension of your banter from other posts.

You don't have to pay for Battlescribe, which includes all the CA changes.

 Kcalehc wrote:
Nothing requires your Tempestor Prime to wear the coat

GW disagrees with you:

"You have the option to build a Tempestor Prime who has a great coat with a servo skull on the shoulder and a knife clutched in his right hand."

It's perfectly clear that the Tempestor Prime is supposed to be wearing the greatcoat. Otherwise he's just a regular Tempestor Sergeant.

(To be clear, I wouldn't personally enforce this because I've never given a damn about WISIWIG. But if you are playing strict WISIWIG, then you either give the model its great coat, or else don't use a Tempestor Prime at all.)

Well it is a... great coat.

 vipoid wrote:

 Kcalehc wrote:
Nothing requires your Tempestor Prime to wear the coat

GW disagrees with you:

"You have the option to build a Tempestor Prime who has a great coat with a servo skull on the shoulder and a knife clutched in his right hand."

It's perfectly clear that the Tempestor Prime is supposed to be wearing the greatcoat. Otherwise he's just a regular Tempestor Sergeant.

(To be clear, I wouldn't personally enforce this because I've never given a damn about WISIWIG. But if you are playing strict WISIWIG, then you either give the model its great coat, or else don't use a Tempestor Prime at all.)

A product description is not a rule.

 vipoid wrote:

 Kcalehc wrote:
Nothing requires your Tempestor Prime to wear the coat

GW disagrees with you:

"You have the option to build a Tempestor Prime who has a great coat with a servo skull on the shoulder and a knife clutched in his right hand."

It's perfectly clear that the Tempestor Prime is supposed to be wearing the greatcoat. Otherwise he's just a regular Tempestor Sergeant.

(To be clear, I wouldn't personally enforce this because I've never given a damn about WISIWIG. But if you are playing strict WISIWIG, then you either give the model its great coat, or else don't use a Tempestor Prime at all.)

If you're playing any form of WYSIWYG you're already in House Rule territory so anything goes.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 Kcalehc wrote:
Nothing requires your Tempestor Prime to wear the coat

GW disagrees with you:

"You have the option to build a Tempestor Prime who has a great coat with a servo skull on the shoulder and a knife clutched in his right hand."

It's perfectly clear that the Tempestor Prime is supposed to be wearing the greatcoat. Otherwise he's just a regular Tempestor Sergeant.

(To be clear, I wouldn't personally enforce this because I've never given a damn about WISIWIG. But if you are playing strict WISIWIG, then you either give the model its great coat, or else don't use a Tempestor Prime at all.)

If you're playing any form of WYSIWYG you're already in House Rule territory so anything goes.

Product description is a recommended usage of the provided sprues. It is no way in any form WYSIWYG description of the unit. By the extension of your argument, then conscipts dont exist in the game as there are no product description on how to represent them.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
If you're playing any form of WYSIWYG you're already in House Rule territory so anything goes.

I think this was mentioned in another thread. It seems there's no longer a requirement in the rulebook to abide by WYSIWYG . . . which makes it even more bizarre that GW is enforcing a 'no model, no rules' policy.

It seems rather incongruous, to say the least.

 NoiseMarine with Tinnitus wrote:
Asdrubael Vect would like a word.

“Vect, now in CP form!”

 vipoid wrote:

I think this was mentioned in another thread. It seems there's no longer a requirement in the rulebook to abide by WYSIWYG . . . which makes it even more bizarre that GW is enforcing a 'no model, no rules' policy.

It seems rather incongruous, to say the least.

There never was a requirement in the rulebook to abide by WYSIWYG.

In some past editions, some codexes had a rule stating that upgrades chosen from the armoury for characters needed to be represented on the model, but that's as close as 40K has ever come to having WYSIWYG as an actual, printed rule. WYSIWYG has always been a gaming convention intended to make the game easier to follow, rather than an actual rule.

 Excommunicatus wrote:

You don't have to pay for Battlescribe, which includes all the CA changes.

So, tell me - how is advocating for people to use Battlescribe rather than buying the book different from advocating for piracy, something which I'm fairly sure Dakka's rules (or moderation practises, at least) prohibit?

(Apologies, t'Internet had a hiccup, hence the double post).

 Dysartes wrote:

 Excommunicatus wrote:

You don't have to pay for Battlescribe, which includes all the CA changes.

So, tell me - how is advocating for people to use Battlescribe rather than buying the book different from advocating for piracy, something which I'm fairly sure Dakka's rules (or moderation practises, at least) prohibit?

(Apologies, t'Internet had a hiccup, hence the double post).

I dont think Battlescribe counts as piracy. It's just a summary of some books contents, not the full books.

Gitdakka wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

 Excommunicatus wrote:

You don't have to pay for Battlescribe, which includes all the CA changes.

So, tell me - how is advocating for people to use Battlescribe rather than buying the book different from advocating for piracy, something which I'm fairly sure Dakka's rules (or moderation practises, at least) prohibit?

(Apologies, t'Internet had a hiccup, hence the double post).

I dont think Battlescribe counts as piracy. It's just a summary of some books contents, not the full books.

It's one of those grey areas I guess. The sort where you could internet argue about it forever without getting any closer to the truth. If GW ever wants to release their own Battlescribe style product, I guess we'll see some cease and desists come out. Until then I doubt they really care.

 insaniak wrote:
In some past editions, some codexes had a rule stating that upgrades chosen from the armoury for characters needed to be represented on the model, but that's as close as 40K has ever come to having WYSIWYG as an actual, printed rule. WYSIWYG has always been a gaming convention intended to make the game easier to follow, rather than an actual rule.

Nah. 4th edition SM codex outright told you on a trait granting preferred enemy SR: "go buy box of these and sprinkle bits on your SM as trophies, embellishments etc to make it clear against whom the SR works". That wasn't even wargear, just SR. If they did the same thing today, usual types would shout something about marketing ploys, cashgrabs, squatting, etc etc

Chrysis wrote:
My annoyance is when it's applied inconsistently. Aspiring Sorcerers in Rubric Marine squads can take a force sword or force staff, despite there being no force sword (or any sword) on the sprues.

See here:



GW decided to not invalidate the previous AS model, from before current plastics. I'd say this is a good thing.

 Marmatag wrote:
Wolf Priests do not have a kit and have rules.

https://www.games-workshop.com/resources/catalog/product/920x950/99120101156_SpaceMarineHeroes03.jpg
https://www.games-workshop.com/resources/catalog/product/920x950/99120101144_BetrayalofCalthHeroes03.jpg

 Marmatag wrote:
Wolf Guard Battle Leaders are the same way. Essentially just a captain with different rules, but still does not have a kit.

https://www.games-workshop.com/en-FI/Space-Marine-Commander-2015
https://miniset.net/files/set/gw-60120101008-3.jpg

Here, not just one, but two plastic choices each, just wolfwolfify with spare bits and you're done.

A lot of complains in this thread are valid, but I like how people then go and ignore multiple plastic, easily converted choices (three times that if we include resin) that are virtually the same thing they want, just because one word on the box is different

 Irbis wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
In some past editions, some codexes had a rule stating that upgrades chosen from the armoury for characters needed to be represented on the model, but that's as close as 40K has ever come to having WYSIWYG as an actual, printed rule. WYSIWYG has always been a gaming convention intended to make the game easier to follow, rather than an actual rule.

Nah. 4th edition SM codex outright told you on a trait granting preferred enemy SR: "go buy box of these and sprinkle bits on your SM as trophies, embellishments etc to make it clear against whom the SR works". That wasn't even wargear, just SR. If they did the same thing today, usual types would shout something about marketing ploys, cashgrabs, squatting, etc etc

One example of a special rule from a single codex 4 editions ago calling for a rule to be represented on the model doesn't actually disprove my point that WYSIWYG was never a game-wide rule.

A lot of complains in this thread are valid, but I like how people then go and ignore multiple plastic, easily converted choices (three times that if we include resin) that are virtually the same thing they want, just because one word on the box is different

You've also missed the point that was being made here - the complaint isn't that the models aren't obtainable, it's that GW are oddly inconsistent with what they have kept and what they have discarded.

 Irbis wrote:

Chrysis wrote:
My annoyance is when it's applied inconsistently. Aspiring Sorcerers in Rubric Marine squads can take a force sword or force staff, despite there being no force sword (or any sword) on the sprues.

See here:



GW decided to not invalidate the previous AS model, from before current plastics. I'd say this is a good thing.

Supporting the models that aren't currently for sale is supposed to be the job of the Index books. The codex gives options the current models don't support for Rubrics, but don't do the same for Sehkmet terminators. Similarly with Familiars, only available to Terminator Sorcerers. They're inconsistent in their "No model, no rules" application, and that's annoying.

 Dysartes wrote:

 Excommunicatus wrote:

You don't have to pay for Battlescribe, which includes all the CA changes.

So, tell me - how is advocating for people to use Battlescribe rather than buying the book different from advocating for piracy, something which I'm fairly sure Dakka's rules (or moderation practises, at least) prohibit?

(Apologies, t'Internet had a hiccup, hence the double post).

The answer is that you're wrong. It isn't against the rules on Dakka to advocate piracy, it's against the rules to ENABLE piracy, by linking to piracy sites, giving contact info or tutorials on how to reach pirates, etc.

I can sit here all day long and talk about how great recasts are and how much better they are then official GW sculpts. No one cares, this site is not a Games Workshop shill.

Mentioning that Battlescribe is free and has updated points values is not advocating for it in any event.

It is a recitation of facts.

 BlaxicanX wrote:
The answer is that you're wrong. It isn't against the rules on Dakka to advocate piracy, it's against the rules to ENABLE piracy, by linking to piracy sites, giving contact info or tutorials on how to reach pirates, etc.

Meh, we're not really keen on advocating it, either. No, we're not here to shill for GW, but we're also here to encourage and enable the hobby, and piracy, whatever people may think of it personally, is not something that is ultimately good for the community, so 'normalising' it by allowing people to endorse it isn't really a great idea.

We're not going to bother stomping on every piracy-related aside, but we'll redirect or shut down discussion that starts to focus too heavily on it.

 Dysartes wrote:

So, tell me - how is advocating for people to use Battlescribe rather than buying the book different from advocating for piracy,.

The difference is that GW have so far at least allowed Battlescribe to do what they do, while piracy is most definitely on their naughty list.

Chrysis wrote:
Supporting the models that aren't currently for sale is supposed to be the job of the Index books. The codex gives options the current models don't support for Rubrics, but don't do the same for Sehkmet terminators. Similarly with Familiars, only available to Terminator Sorcerers. They're inconsistent in their "No model, no rules" application, and that's annoying.

A ) this future-proofs the book in case they want to make another Made to Order run. Who would buy models with no rules? Also, this is a big help to players with existing armies, not invalidating their old stuff at a stroke. How is that a bad thing, again? They don't do the same to Sehkmet because that unit didn't exist before, if you ask why they can take power sword it's probably because old mini came with both staff and sword. Ditto for, familiar it's only available in TS HQ because that's where you can find its mini.

B) they are in fact, perfectly consistent. It's 'what we make, or what we can potentially make (models one gen older). Say, a lot of oddities in DW squads loadout can be easily explained when you look at the bits coming in 4 tactical marine squads currently in the production. Sure, limits are dumb and irritating (particularly on Primaris...) but I never found them inconsistent, in fact most of the time they are too consistent with boxes and could use some loosening up...

 insaniak wrote:

A lot of complains in this thread are valid, but I like how people then go and ignore multiple plastic, easily converted choices (three times that if we include resin) that are virtually the same thing they want, just because one word on the box is different

You've also missed the point that was being made here - the complaint isn't that the models aren't obtainable, it's that GW are oddly inconsistent with what they have kept and what they have discarded.

How did I miss the point? I just find the complains 'GW stifles my creativity' kind of sad/silly when they are instantly followed with 'GW doesn't make my special snowflake army black armored SM *insert super specific name* officer box, why they kept its rules when they only sell only 99% identical black armored SM *insert slightly different name* officer box? They should have squatted it instead!'

All they kept so far I find perfectly consistent, even if it's annoying, if anything, the rule writers try to actually help players by keeping anything they can if there is even remotely similar plastic mini in range. I really don't why people argue keeping SW wolf priest and BA sanguinary priest is somehow ""inconsistent"" when both are just slightly renamed chaplain and apothecary on the tabletop, and both armies actually have tons of bits to make them out of generic SM models in 10 second conversion. What do people want, GW making every single HQ of every single SM army filling its stores with nothing but nearly identical SM plastics to somehow be 'consistent'? Especially now, when we have all these forced, unfunny lieutenant memes?

 Irbis wrote:

How did I miss the point? I just find the complains 'GW stifles my creativity' kind of sad/silly when they are instantly followed with 'GW doesn't make my special snowflake army black armored SM *insert super specific name* officer box, why they kept its rules when they only sell only 99% identical black armored SM *insert slightly different name* officer box? They should have squatted it instead!'

Yes, that's how you missed the point. The above wasn't what people were saying.

I really don't why people argue keeping SW wolf priest and BA sanguinary priest is somehow ""inconsistent"" when both are just slightly renamed chaplain and apothecary on the tabletop, and both armies actually have tons of bits to make them out of generic SM models in 10 second conversion.

The inconsistency is that other units that are similarly easy to convert (biker Librarians, for example) were dropped.

What do people want, GW making every single HQ of every single SM army filling its stores with nothing but nearly identical SM plastics to somehow be 'consistent'?

Well, yes, GW having a model for every unit entry would be the ideal. Conversions should be something that people do because they want something different, not because there is no other option.

And that's precisely what they've supposedly been working towards. Hence the units being dropped due to having no model, and the ensuing discussion about their inconsistent approach where some no-model options have been dropped and others kept, with no discernible pattern to these choices.

And with no specific rules against non-WYSIWYG policy from GW end, it doesn't make sense for them to enforce such policy when you can 'legally' proxy them in.

Something I find more obnoxious than "No model, no rule" is the practice of releasing new kits with no weapon options. I'm not sure if this is the result of trying to get too fancy with their poses or not leaving space on their sprues or what, but there's no reason why new Ork tanks should all be completely monopose and inflexible. I can kind of understand it with the various new "Buggies" because each kit is effectively just a variant weapon loadout of the others, (which I'm still annoyed about,) but for something like the Wartrike to be locked into one weapon and one set of extremely specific guns is just... Not orky.

Single-option models are, I suspect, the future. With the 'default' for GW switching from points to power levels, expect future releases to be similarly optionless, as this is easier to balance. They'll likely move to more of a Warmachine-style setup, where you have a lot of different units with no- or minimal options instead of fewer units with lots of options - as we saw with the buggy releases for Orks, and the first Primaris unit releases.

 insaniak wrote:
Single-option models are, I suspect, the future. With the 'default' for GW switching from points to power levels, expect future releases to be similarly optionless, as this is easier to balance. They'll likely move to more of a Warmachine-style setup, where you have a lot of different units with no- or minimal options instead of fewer units with lots of options - as we saw with the buggy releases for Orks, and the first Primaris unit releases.

Wouldn't be surprised. Being easier to balance isn't the only advantage, but my guess is that it reduces production time as well as they don't have to worry about compatibility with different weapon loadaouts for every model.

Waaaghpower wrote:
but for something like the Wartrike to be locked into one weapon and one set of extremely specific guns is just... Not orky.

Why not? Why do you need the rules bloat of having tons of options, most of them worse than the 1-2 viable options that anyone ever takes? IMO it's a pretty good thing as long as those single-option units are balanced well, and it even opens up more freedom for conversions because you don't have to worry about WYSIWYG as much.