The Toyification of Orks (and all of 40k?)

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.

**Stormonu**

Can’t see why a Wild West themed chapter wouldn’t fly in 40K now or any previous version - I’ve seen chapters done up as Imperial Snowtroopers, a Gretchen Revolution Guard Army and several other cosmetically altered themed armies. If you’re talking about rules, I don’t think there would be any more possible/impossible with 8E vs. older editions.

I still see custom kitbashes being shown in the likes of White Dwarf, but everyone seems to be pushing matched play so much I rarely see off-the-wall stuff being used at public games; certainly not at tournaments. And sadly, that’s more a fault of the gamer community than GW - unless GW is pushing conformity at their own stores as well.

Of course, I’m one who really doesn’t see an issue with being able to just buy the minis stock and assemble them as-is. I’m fine with a unit having only 2-4 options for build out and prefer the limited options available to Primaris vs. “everything and the kitchen sink” that’s available to marines. The latter just promotes decision paralysis and most folks seem to only select “the best” options that whiddles choices down to 1-2 options anyway.

**skchsan**

Vankraken wrote:
GW dumbed the game way down from 7th and is minimizing the amount of conversion work and rulebook reading required when assembling your models for the game (see the minimal amount of options for primaris aka the beginner army). Its not so much dumbing down for kids so much as simplifying things down for a more casual audience who don't research optimal builds or want to figure out how to kitbash a librarian on a bike. Honestly how can you look at 8th edition and think that its not extremely streamlined to the point of being a bare bones rule set. Its to reduce barrier to entry but unfortunately GW also gutted so much complexity that it ends up being just dumbed down when compared to past editions.

Right. It's one thing to minimizing the amount of conversion required to represent a certain model - it's completely a different beast when conversion is being discouraged outright by not providing updated rules.

Let's face it - GW is NEVER going to get the rules down to a T where not a single in-house rule is required to play it. If that's the case, better to push MORE mini ranges than restricting it with rules.

Having rules but no model leads to the CH debacle. Having cool models but no rules will work for everyone.

**Grimtuff**

JohnHwangDD wrote:
Vankraken wrote:
GW dumbed the game way down from 7th and is minimizing the amount of conversion work and rulebook reading required when assembling your models for the game (see the minimal amount of options for primaris aka the beginner army). Its not so much dumbing down for kids so much as simplifying things down for a more casual audience who don't research optimal builds or want to figure out how to kitbash a librarian on a bike. Honestly how can you look at 8th edition and think that its not extremely streamlined to the point of being a bare bones rule set. Its to reduce barrier to entry but unfortunately GW also gutted so much complexity that it ends up being just dumbed down when compared to past editions.

That's a crock. 8th is still far more complex than 3rd.

Complex=/=complicated.

Something can be both simple and complex.

**Daedalus81**

Armies where every marine was armed with a bolt pistol and hockey stick. They all had ice skates on and the rhinos all had zambonie devices on them.
I've seen Iron Warriors where every model is highly converted and kitbashed. Where almost everyone has a servo arm or a mechanical limb.

There is no incentive to do this any more. I longed for years to make an Old West themed space marine army. Revolvers and shotguns. Helmets that had a hint of cowboy hat aesthetic. Holsters on everyone. Ponchos instead of capes. Spurs on their boots. Red bandanas and a Sheriffs star as the chapter symbol. But there is no point following that pursuit any more. Maybe a kill team but it will never live up to the dream. No army/chapter would fit the theme.

There was no incentive to do that back then, either. Those units didn't get special rules for having ice skates. People make cool looking armies, because it's fun. Absolutely none of that possibility is gone.

**Peregrine**

DeffDred wrote:
There is no incentive to do this any more.

Why not? It's not like GW had rules for giving your space marines hockey sticks in any previous edition, you did it because the models look cool. Have they somehow stopped looking cool in 2019?

**JohnHwangDD**

I don't get it - does nobody play "count as"? Are people so bereft of imagination that they cannot do that, having spent all of their energy on the modeling and painting effort? Do they demand that a Civil War-themed Chess Set have special rules because the Kings are Generals Lee and Grant? WTF is wrong with people? Does GW need to spoon feed you your armies?

**Dashofpepper**

OP, without having read 4 pages of comments:

I suggest you send this in an e-mail to GW with the widest distribution you can achieve in order to attempt to spur a conversation, even if amongst themselves.

Dakka is a good outlet, but these is the sort of feedback you need to provide GW to express that you are frustrated with what they are doing. THEY MIGHT CHANGE. If you don't let them know there is a problem, they can't begin to fix it.

**Grimtuff**

JohnHwangDD wrote:
I don't get it - does nobody play "count as"?

Nope. I play count-as all the time, it's easily one of my favourite aspects of modelling. Although with lack of options the ability of this only stretches so far.

To use an example I've used before-

Spoiler:

Here's a Lord of Contagion. His giant bell counts as a Plaguereaper. Now there's only so much I can do with counts-as here as the LoC has precisely two weapon options and at the end of the day he still has the same weapon as the one you find in Dark Imperium that loads of other DG players everywhere are using. I like my models to be unique. I don't like knowing there is someone else in the world with a mini exactly like mine. If I had more options to play with I could say that that is a Thunder Hammer (far more appropriate IMO) or a Power Maul, but I'm stuck with whatever GW gives us.

**Desubot**

Wait so is this a modeling issue or a rules issue because it sounds like people just want more weapons and options and gribbles rather than the inability to kitbash or convert options that already exist or counts as.

how snowflaky do you need every model to get?

most units get some flavor of special weapons and melee upgrades like the sarge, most heros get all sorts of basic options and relics too.

or should everyone be like that old inquisitor codex with 200 options which only 2-3 were ever always taken.

**HoundsofDemos**

Desubot wrote:
Wait so is this a modeling issue or a rules issue because it sounds like people just want more weapons and options and gribbles rather than the inability to kitbash or convert options that already exist or counts as.

how snowflaky do you need every model to get?

most units get some flavor of special weapons and melee upgrades like the sarge, most heros get all sorts of basic options and relics too.

or should everyone be like that old inquisitor codex with 200 options which only 2-3 were ever always taken.

For me it's both. Look at how many options both modeling wise and rules wise a tactical squad has. Then go look at the primaris kits, so much flavor and possibilities stripped away and now it takes considerably more time and effort to make my guys look different or unique. I loved the old inquisition book cause it had so many bonkers options and fun units. Now we have knights and clam pack characters that are a pain to modify compared to modular kits.

**Grimtuff**

Desubot wrote:
Wait so is this a modeling issue or a rules issue because it sounds like people just want more weapons and options and gribbles rather than the inability to kitbash or convert options that already exist or counts as.

how snowflaky do you need every model to get?

most units get some flavor of special weapons and melee upgrades like the sarge, most heros get all sorts of basic options and relics too.

or should everyone be like that old inquisitor codex with 200 options which only 2-3 were ever always taken.

I really don't want to sound like I'm gatekeeping here, but it will probably sound like that. With that preface out of the way...

I take it you've never played Orks or Chaos. For me- these are the standout "tinkerer" armies and for years have had a wealth of conversion potential and options to go wild with modelling. It is something you cannot really understand until you have played one of these armies, Orks especially. The current codex sets a dangerous precedent for what was the army that was THE converter's army. They've been swept up in GW's mass homogenization. Everything (even the board and scenery) is GW branded. Everything can be bought of the shelf. If it cannot be it is cut. Simple as.

Gone are the days of buying random kits, bits of plasticard and other modelling bits and making your own ramshackle Ork trukks. You can still do this, nothing is stopping you but the creativity is stymied by a lack of options. There are only so many Boomshock Dakkawagons (or whatever they're called) you can convert before you run out of creative space and start stepping on your own toes.

It just feels.... bland. You're playing Orks (or Chaos) YOU are the Mek (or dark mechanicus) in charge yet it's like "Here's your blueprints. Stick to the instructions please".

**Luciferian**

The new Primaris kits are assembled in exactly the same way, with exactly the same number of combinations, as the tactical squads. They just don't have as many special weapon options. Again, unless you're significantly converting the pose of a space marine model it's not going to look different or unique; it's going to be in one of the same five poses every other space marine model of that type is going to be in with a different pair of arms.

**Grimtuff**

Luciferian wrote:
The new Primaris kits are assembled in exactly the same way, with exactly the same number of combinations, as the tactical squads. They just don't have as many special weapon options. Again, unless you're significantly converting the pose of a space marine model it's not going to look different or unique; it's going to be in one of the same five poses every other space marine model of that type is going to be in with a different pair of arms.

It wasn't the poses that was the strength there. It was the modularity. Now, Primaris still have this but the problem is there is only a single type of power armour for them.

Taticals? You could put literally any other SM head on them for an insane amount of options. Wanna put a womble head on one guy and a Ven dread head on another despite them having the same torso? Go ahead, they're now both unique-looking. In time, maybe the Primaris range will catch up but for now they all just look cookie cutter due to having the same helmets.

**Luciferian**

You can also put any other SM head on a Primaris, just sayin'.

**Desubot**

HoundsofDemos wrote:
Desubot wrote:
Wait so is this a modeling issue or a rules issue because it sounds like people just want more weapons and options and gribbles rather than the inability to kitbash or convert options that already exist or counts as.

how snowflaky do you need every model to get?

most units get some flavor of special weapons and melee upgrades like the sarge, most heros get all sorts of basic options and relics too.

or should everyone be like that old inquisitor codex with 200 options which only 2-3 were ever always taken.

For me it's both. Look at how many options both modeling wise and rules wise a tactical squad has. Then go look at the primaris kits, so much flavor and possibilities stripped away and now it takes considerably more time and effort to make my guys look different or unique. I loved the old inquisition book cause it had so many bonkers options and fun units. Now we have knights and clam pack characters that are a pain to modify compared to modular kits.

tac squads modeling wise you have plenty of options with positioning and gun choices but how many of them are you actually going to use. i dont think you are going to glue your marine legs backwards even if you can because of the ball joints. and many of the positions look wonky af if not done right. really most weapons and arm configs only have a few options to leg and head positions. weapons... well going by this forums why ever bother taking anything but the plasma.

personally i think knights are garbage that shouldn't of been added. clam pack characters are fine as one offs if you feel you need to be extra special then its still absolutely possible to kit bash all sorts of stuff. the pain has never changed its been a part of the hobby forever and it was never easy to get good results.

**Racerguy180**

Grimtuff wrote:
Luciferian wrote:
The new Primaris kits are assembled in exactly the same way, with exactly the same number of combinations, as the tactical squads. They just don't have as many special weapon options. Again, unless you're significantly converting the pose of a space marine model it's not going to look different or unique; it's going to be in one of the same five poses every other space marine model of that type is going to be in with a different pair of arms.

It wasn't the poses that was the strength there. It was the modularity. Now, Primaris still have this but the problem is there is only a single type of power armour for them.

Taticals? You could put literally any other SM head on them for an insane amount of options. Wanna put a womble head on one guy and a Ven dread head on another despite them having the same torso? Go ahead, they're now both unique-looking. In time, maybe the Primaris range will catch up but for now they all just look cookie cutter due to having the same helmets.

I love putting "regular" heads on primaris and vice versa. As long as you're not trying to kitbash RTB-01s with them it's all good. My hellblasters and reivers are kitbashed with "regular" and look great. My aggressors have Crux terminatus and farkle from other terminator kits. I've even used spare primaris weapons on "regular" marines (mk8 marine w hellblaster assault plas) and I think looks good.

I will agree with the overall assessment on "homogenization"/"toyification" of Warhammer. GW is doing everything they can to bring new blood into the games and if making stuff easier and lowering skill level required for entry should be a good thing. Problem is, it's kinda reducing the hobby aspect to an almost negligible level. Unfortunately I love the models more than anything else. if they look great, I'm happy but if all of them start to look cookie cutter (1) it's boring as hell to paint (2) looks lame on tabletop.

This seems to be the "magicthegatheringication" of Warhammer and nothing good can come of it. It's less and less about time/effort/love & more about new hotness and rock/paper/scissors.

But all is not lost, as long as GW wants to make the hobby a portion(however small)of their target market we should still have great kits that are easier to convert(supported by rules or not).

**Delvarus Centurion**

DaRealJDB wrote:
Hey Dakkadakka team,

I need to vent. If you like to avoid negativity, it would be best to avoid this thread. Ultimately though, this is a cry for help. I am reaching into the online world to express something that has been on my mind since I got the new Ork Codex, and have not yet seen expressed elsewhere online. I feel compelled to put this out there and see what other Warbosses think and hopefully bring closure, or at least a new perspective to my mind.

The new Ork codex is the worst Ork codex I have ever read. I go back to 2nd edition and I'm not using hyperbole. It is completely discouraging, and it takes the wind out of my sails.

Let me explain. I'm not talking about the play-ability of the army, it's tactical viability, or it's position in the metagame. Frankly, I've never been a great enough tactician for that to matter to me so much. There are other posters who can chew this fat and make that call. For myself, I just want to play a fun game, win or lose. So long as I don't feel like I'm playing non-stop rock paper scissors, I'll have a good time.

What bothers me about this new book is complete neglect for the notion that many (most?) Ork Warbosses are also Mekaniaks at heart. What made Orks unique is that their army books have always been about potential. You could open the book, look at a datasheet, statline, or piece of wargear, and wonder "Wouldn't it be awesome IF _______...?"

Ork miniatures, as far back as 2nd edition, have always been about utility. Any kit bought by an Ork player, is to a certain degree, just a starting point. Even if you aren't scratch building or kitbashing, non-essential bits from nearly any kit can find a home on a miniature from another kit. Not only does it look cool, but those changes could be reflected in the rules. Battlewagons don't come with Rokkits? No problem, we'll figure it out. Deffcoptas don't come with any CCW? No problem, I got a fing for dat somewhere...

At first I thought this problem existed only with the new vehicles. Those are some sexy minis, I'm sure we all agree. They are the mini's we've spent 20 years waiting for. But my heart broke when I read the rules for them: They are no longer Ork vehicles. No options.

This is really disappointing given the emphasis GW has put on the narrative aspect of the game in the past few years. What exactly is the narrative behind the Boomdakka Snazzwagon specifically having burna bottles? Or the only specifically the Boosta Blasta having a burna exhaust? I know these questions might seem silly, but these items, as just one of many examples littered throughout the codex expose a fundamental shift in the creative process at GW. I suspected this notion upon the release the Gorka and Morkanaughts, and I remember having this thought as well when I first saw IG's Taurox, and the revelation that it's weapons are the "Taurox Battle Cannon/gattling gun/missile launcher" rather than, well, ya know, perfectly fine weapons that already exist in the wh40k canon.

I would like to clarify that I'm not just an old git on a porch complaining about new things. I've been at this for 20 years. It's been nothing but new things. Size creep has made dreadnaughts look like kans and Nobs look like boyz. Flyers showed up. Psychic phases have come and gone and come and gone. Hell, between 2nd and 3rd, my whole army became aesthetically obsolete. These are at best, exciting developments for the game, at worst, a minor annoyance. This thread is about a much bigger problem.

What is the fundamental shift in the creative process? Miniatures come first, rules second.

There's no other explanation I can think of. Maybe GW is trying to bolster sales. I have no idea. But this frustrates me immensely. Frustrates me to the degree that I'm having a hard time getting the words out, so here's the less nimble part of my rant;

It looks like somebody made some beautiful minis, and then somebody else, who has zero understanding of the mindset of many established ork players, went "Oh wow! Those are great! It'll be SO COOL to make hyper specific rules for all those cool little touches you put on the model! It'll be SO FLUFFY" and zero thought or consideration was put into leaving at least some space for the creative potential of the gamers at home.

This is what I am calling the Toyification of Orks.

If you think I'm being unreasonable, let me ask you this: Why does virtually every nob have weapon options except the Kommando Nob, which is armed with a PK? If you don't know the answer, here it is: The Kommando Nob model is a pose-specific miniature with a PK. Every other Nob mini has joints/options. It is completely unmotivated as far as story or gameplay are concerned. Why would this default wargear be written into the rules?

This approach to wh40k is anti-conversion and anti-creativity.

A miniature with no assembly options can be a beautiful thing. There is nothing inherently better or worse about it than your standard core kits. To see it reflected in the rules for a non-named character? How can I not be insulted by this? I'm not asking this rhetorically, if you can tell me how you wrap your brain around it, please tell me so I can shake this headache.

This new book effectively spits in the face of the most inspiring part of the hobby for me: Imagining something, creating it, and then putting to test on the battlefield. Our minis are an extension of ourselves. This hobby is a very personal and even vulnerable experience. Who doesn't love the rush of fielding a freshly-dried squad on the tabletop for the first time? Maybe it'll smash the enemy HQ? Maybe it'll be flattened by artillery on turn 1. That feeling of excitement is the feeling of being emotionally engaged. The new Ork Codex doesn't not seem to get this.

The burna-exhaust, nosedrill, spikes, etc etc, should exist and upgrades available to many vehicles. The BoostaBlasta/Snazzwagon should just be able to take whatever weapon on top. I could go on, but you get the idea. As players and hobbyists, we need to craft the story, models, and tactics that are unique to us.

For what it's worth, I don't blame GW for this. For all I know this is a reverse Batman situation: the Orks I need, not the orks I deserve. If Orks were going the way of the Squats, and and this is the result of GW trying to save them, fine so be it. Maybe Ork players don't care as much as I do about walking the line between what they can build vs what they can field? For all I know this has been going on for other factions over the past few years and I just never noticed because I don't analyze the kits vs the codex vs canon to the degree that I do for Orks. What I do know is that I've been hurt, for lack of better phrasing. Like when that one friend drops a revealing comment and you know no amount of re-phrasing can take it back. The trust has been broken, the damage has been done.

Moving forward:
- Keep making the models I want to make.
- Magnetize zoggin everything from here out.
- Laugh and shrug when my opponent is as baffled as I am why the Battelwagon with two clearly big guns on it only has one big gun, and the Painboy holding a choppa is hitting with a Powerklaw.
- Hope that GW figures out why Ork players choose Orks OR come to terms with the notion that a sandbox approach to miniatures' relationships with rules is not sustainable for GW in the long run.

GW are trying to streamline the game, that's why Primaris have pretty much 0 options, you'll just have to get used to it I'm afraid. Space marines have been hit far worse, no longer the utilitarian elite army, the best option our sgt.s have are chainswords, forget powerfists etc. GW have gone too far with the streamlining in my opinion. I mean a slow can learn 8th edition rules, its getting ridiculous now, GW couldn't test the waters at least, they are just diving straight in and who are they kidding, they can't get new players with the cost of their mini's. The main fans are people who have been playing since rouge, 2nd, 3rd etc. Kids can't afford this hobby and they aren't going to get adults to suddenly pick it up.

**Daedalus81**

Grimtuff wrote:
Desubot wrote:
Wait so is this a modeling issue or a rules issue because it sounds like people just want more weapons and options and gribbles rather than the inability to kitbash or convert options that already exist or counts as.

how snowflaky do you need every model to get?

most units get some flavor of special weapons and melee upgrades like the sarge, most heros get all sorts of basic options and relics too.

or should everyone be like that old inquisitor codex with 200 options which only 2-3 were ever always taken.

I really don't want to sound like I'm gatekeeping here, but it will probably sound like that. With that preface out of the way...

I take it you've never played Orks or Chaos. For me- these are the standout "tinkerer" armies and for years have had a wealth of conversion potential and options to go wild with modelling. It is something you cannot really understand until you have played one of these armies, Orks especially. The current codex sets a dangerous precedent for what was the army that was THE converter's army. They've been swept up in GW's mass homogenization. Everything (even the board and scenery) is GW branded. Everything can be bought of the shelf. If it cannot be it is cut. Simple as.

Gone are the days of buying random kits, bits of plasticard and other modelling bits and making your own ramshackle Ork trukks. You can still do this, nothing is stopping you but the creativity is stymied by a lack of options. There are only so many Boomshock Dakkawagons (or whatever they're called) you can convert before you run out of creative space and start stepping on your own toes.

It just feels.... bland. You're playing Orks (or Chaos) YOU are the Mek (or dark mechanicus) in charge yet it's like "Here's your blueprints. Stick to the instructions please".

There's a wealth of variety in the Ork book. Just because you got 3 datasheets for wagons doesn't actually mean you can't make varied wagons anymore. The fact that there are stock buggies doesn't mean the buggies don't have variety overall.

And absolutely none of any of the rules stops you from cutting up any of these kits and making your own stand-in versions of them. There are tons of youtube videos on how to cut up trukks to make multiple mek gunz.

So don't make a "Boomshock Dakkawagon". Make a scrapjet, or a rukkatrukk, or a dragsta, or a boosta blasta.

My buddy cut up Roboute and turned him into Ghaz. He took Centurions and made them MANZ. Literally nothing stops you.

**Desubot**

Grimtuff wrote:
Desubot wrote:
Wait so is this a modeling issue or a rules issue because it sounds like people just want more weapons and options and gribbles rather than the inability to kitbash or convert options that already exist or counts as.

how snowflaky do you need every model to get?

most units get some flavor of special weapons and melee upgrades like the sarge, most heros get all sorts of basic options and relics too.

or should everyone be like that old inquisitor codex with 200 options which only 2-3 were ever always taken.

I really don't want to sound like I'm gatekeeping here, but it will probably sound like that. With that preface out of the way...

I take it you've never played Orks or Chaos. For me- these are the standout "tinkerer" armies and for years have had a wealth of conversion potential and options to go wild with modelling. It is something you cannot really understand until you have played one of these armies, Orks especially. The current codex sets a dangerous precedent for what was the army that was THE converter's army. They've been swept up in GW's mass homogenization. Everything (even the board and scenery) is GW branded. Everything can be bought of the shelf. If it cannot be it is cut. Simple as.

Gone are the days of buying random kits, bits of plasticard and other modelling bits and making your own ramshackle Ork trukks. You can still do this, nothing is stopping you but the creativity is stymied by a lack of options. There are only so many Boomshock Dakkawagons (or whatever they're called) you can convert before you run out of creative space and start stepping on your own toes.

It just feels.... bland. You're playing Orks (or Chaos) YOU are the Mek (or dark mechanicus) in charge yet it's like "Here's your blueprints. Stick to the instructions please".

. Welllllll I guess I only have like one picture up but did a heavily kit bashes slannesh csm army. Still working on the crabfiler using a heldrake as a carapace. Also a heavily kit bashed mutiant necromunda army that was inspired by very amazing converters here. Also working on a ork kill team which I can’t wait. Using blood bowl guys for better scale edit oh god phone posting is horrible

**Blackie**

Daedalus81 wrote:

There's a wealth of variety in the Ork book. Just because you got 3 datasheets for wagons doesn't actually mean you can't make varied wagons anymore. The fact that there are stock buggies doesn't mean the buggies don't have variety overall.

And absolutely none of any of the rules stops you from cutting up any of these kits and making your own stand-in versions of them. There are tons of youtube videos on how to cut up trukks to make multiple mek gunz.

So don't make a "Boomshock Dakkawagon". Make a scrapjet, or a rukkatrukk, or a dragsta, or a boosta blasta.

My buddy cut up Roboute and turned him into Ghaz. He took Centurions and made them MANZ. Literally nothing stops you.

All those converting possibilities you listed are about models that are fully WYSIWYG, which is not the matter here. What about loadouts and combinations that were included at index times and now completely forgotten in the new codex? Sure we can convert a weirdboy, manz or ghaz from other models, but what about players that own biker characters, or big meks with KFF? Transports with rokkits? Kanz with KMB? Kommandos with special weapons? It's always possible to scratch built a vehicle, like a trukk, but then it must be a fixed loadout because the new GW trend is to remove options. So all trukks with big shootas, no possible variations. Good thing I magnetized all my scratch built stuff.

That's the issue. We're going towards an ork army with half the possible combinations, which is bad. SM didn't lose pretty much anything, their TACs and other dudes still have everything and there's no proof that regular marines are going to disappear in 9th edition.

**Peregrine**

Why does a big mek model with a KFF require special snowflake rules to exist? Just play it as a big mek that has a cool glowy thing attached.

**Blackie**

Peregrine wrote:
Why does a big mek model with a KFF require special snowflake rules to exist? Just play it as a big mek that has a cool glowy thing attached.

At the moment the ork codex only has two types of big mek: the one with SAG and the one in megarmor. Now a footslogging dude with KFF is too different to be one of those without calling a full proxy, as the dude clearly doesn't have any big gun or heavy armor on him, and the footslogging big mek with KFF was an official monopose model and an extremely popular unit on the table, not something done by crazy kitbashing.

It's like removing all the main weapons from leman russes because GW changed their stats into: tanks with only sponsons, no more big gun on turret. Of course you can still play your outdated models with the cannons, just field them as a tanks with 2 heavy bolters. How would you take that?

**mdeceiver79**

JohnHwangDD wrote:
Quasistellar wrote:
Rose tinted glasses.

/Thread

Metal is clearly worse for conversion. And more rules doesn't make for better models. Just play count as

I have noticed a trend with GW seemingly "going back" to mono-pose models with no real customisation options in their plastic range (though some excellent packs with lots of options do exist). Granted that was expected with metal models but I feel they've gone from:

Mostly hard to customise metal models -> lots of metal some easy to customise plastic -> some metal lots of easy to customise plastic -> less and less metal models mostly easy to customise plastic -> lots of customisable plastic models but an increasing number of hard to customise monopose models with no customisation options (in rules as well as on model)

I mostly stick around for modelling and I do like the quality of the models but I did prefer getting a model and having a bunch of weapons for the bits box. With the new deathguard minis and nearly all new character models, without extensive cutting work and greenstuffing (like metal model style work), you aren't going to be able to customise much beyond a headswap.

Also I liked the customisation (in rules) remember when you could customise your guard and marines, pay a little extra and give them carapace armour or a camo cloak? Remember before that when you could design your own vehicle rules? or before that when you could loadout your characters with a wide array of esoteric wargear, power armour for guardsmen veteran sergeants. It felt like you could give your army real character.

I feel this is visible most in killteam, kill team is supposed be special, well equipped with attention to detail, most killteam model rules are "normal guy from the codex with a special ability rule" a guard killteam looks like a normal imperial guard squad, literally. Why not offer up increased complexity in the rules (buying extra gear and options) at marked up point cost so it can't be abused in minmaxing, it would encourage modellers to make their stuff more unique - answer is they won't do that because of the legal case mentioned a few times in the thread.

**Peregrine**

Blackie wrote:
At the moment the ork codex only has two types of big mek: the one with SAG and the one in megarmor. Now a footslogging dude with KFF is too different to be one of those without calling a full proxy, as the dude clearly doesn't have any big gun or heavy armor on him, and the footslogging big mek with KFF was an official monopose model and an extremely popular unit on the table, not something done by crazy kitbashing.

I did not know that part. Is the model really so lacking in armor that it wouldn't be at all reasonable for the heavy armor version? There is no generic big mek that has the option to take neither upgrade? If that's the case then yeah, it's a rules failure and GW needs to either reintroduce a mek option that makes the KFF model a reasonable representation of something or consolidate all big mek rules into a single unit so it doesn't matter which of the three models you use. You can't have a situation where two of the three have separate rules but the third is WYSIWYG for neither of them.

**Eldarsif**

To be fair, I do understand the Big Mek KFF problem a bit. It was a popular model(hell, I own two. Fun model to paint.) and there are some models that GW has removed that could still exist and could have continued to exist such as the old Autarch.

However, I disagree with this notion that you can't kitbash or create anything anymore. A friend of mine creates beautiful Ork alternatives from various bits and plasticards and are perfectly viable in the game(Battlewagon, Warboss on trike). Creativity has zero to do with snowflake rules and all about what you want to do with your army. If you really need a special rule for your kitbash then it is more about you feeling that your unit is special than creativity.

I mean, I have a squad or two of Emperor's Children where I've used Drukhari bits to give them a bit more finesse(glory to Slaanesh). I see no need to require that they get Power from Pain or something unique because of it. Their presence and uniqueness of appearance on the table is all I need.

**Silentz**

Blackie wrote:

It's like removing all the main weapons from leman russes because GW changed their stats into: tanks with only sponsons, no more big gun on turret. Of course you can still play your outdated models with the cannons, just field them as a tanks with 2 heavy bolters. How would you take that?

This will never happen.

What might happen is that the model designers create a NEW leman russ which only has sponsons, no more big gun on the turret. If that happened then YES the rules writers would change their stats to reflect that.

The workflow is:
- The models concept is created by a small design team including people such as Jez Goodwin
- The models are individually designed in CAD by specialist model designers
- The model designs (probably as a CAD render, perhaps even as a 3d printed mockup) get passed to the rules team
- The rules team look at the models alongside the design team's commentary and say "ok what does this model look like it does/has/can do?" or "this is the new scout/assault type model... they have a skull face which is scary! Let's give them a rule to reduce leadership maybe?"

They do not design rules first. We know this for a fact they say it all the time in interviews etc.

**Blackie**

Peregrine wrote:
Blackie wrote:
At the moment the ork codex only has two types of big mek: the one with SAG and the one in megarmor. Now a footslogging dude with KFF is too different to be one of those without calling a full proxy, as the dude clearly doesn't have any big gun or heavy armor on him, and the footslogging big mek with KFF was an official monopose model and an extremely popular unit on the table, not something done by crazy kitbashing.

I did not know that part. Is the model really so lacking in armor that it wouldn't be at all reasonable for the heavy armor version? There is no generic big mek that has the option to take neither upgrade? If that's the case then yeah, it's a rules failure and GW needs to either reintroduce a mek option that makes the KFF model a reasonable representation of something or consolidate all big mek rules into a single unit so it doesn't matter which of the three models you use. You can't have a situation where two of the three have separate rules but the third is WYSIWYG for neither of them.

The original model was just an ork with a KFF so a t-shirt save looking dude. The megarmor is the equivalent of the terminator armour.

We came from having a single profile of the big mek that was just stock (slugga and choppa) and can be upgraded with many options like:

- Bike
- Megarmor
- KFF
- SAG
- Melee special weapons (killsaws, power klaws....)
- Ranged special weapons (kombi weapons, kustom mega blastas....)

and some of them that could also be mixed up like Bike+KFF or megarmor+KFF or Bike+killsaw+KFF etc into two different datasheets with basically fixed loadout:

Big mek with SAG, no other options than a grot oiler.
Big mek in megarmor with pk and kustom shoota, with some options available: kombi weapons and either a tellyport blasta or KFF.

All the biker combinations, and the majority of the footslogging ones, completely squatted.

In the age of WYSIWYG not a rule anymore at least older models will always be legal, but this new attitude towards removing options is kinda annoying. The difference between playing with only the ork codex and with index+codex is huge as there are tons of useful (or even just fun to play) combinations in the latter.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Silentz wrote:
Blackie wrote:

It's like removing all the main weapons from leman russes because GW changed their stats into: tanks with only sponsons, no more big gun on turret. Of course you can still play your outdated models with the cannons, just field them as a tanks with 2 heavy bolters. How would you take that?

This will never happen.

What might happen is that the model designers create a NEW leman russ which only has sponsons, no more big gun on the turret. If that happened then YES the rules writers would change their stats to reflect that.

The workflow is:
- The models concept is created by a small design team including people such as Jez Goodwin
- The models are individually designed in CAD by specialist model designers
- The model designs (probably as a CAD render, perhaps even as a 3d printed mockup) get passed to the rules team
- The rules team look at the models alongside the design team's commentary and say "ok what does this model look like it does/has/can do?" or "this is the new scout/assault type model... they have a skull face which is scary! Let's give them a rule to reduce leadership maybe?"

They do not design rules first. We know this for a fact they say it all the time in interviews etc.

Yes that's what I'm saying. 9th edition AM with a new Tanks profile and model: no more big guns on the turrets but just heavy bolters or weapons that are currently equipped on sponsons or completely new weapons that look 100% different from the classic ones. Now proxy that battle cannon into a lascannon, as the model is still original GW and WYSIWYG not a rule anymore. That's basically what happened to the ork buggies, not the big meks but the concept is the same one. Combinations that were legal and popular, now illegal. Like BWs with rokkits, also quite common and an option available since their first datasheet back in 3rd edition, but apparently now they can't have them anymore for some reasons.

**AndrewGPaul**

I'd say that the mek's force field is enough to count as heavy armour, and go from there.

**AdmiralHalsey**

AndrewGPaul wrote:
I'd say that the mek's force field is enough to count as heavy armour, and go from there.

It doesn't matter if _You_ feel that way though. It has to be whoever you're playing against on that particular day or whatever the TO says. Nothing worse than going to an event and being told your 'Counts as' models can't count.

And we're not even touching stuff like my rough riders. What'll happen to them post Index? They certainly wern't exactly cheap models, we're looking at £10+ per horse. What exactly am I going to 'Counts as' a Guardsman on a horse as? A Scout Sentinel?

**Blackie**

AndrewGPaul wrote:
I'd say that the mek's force field is enough to count as heavy armour, and go from there.

What about the kustom shoota and the power klaw that also comes with the megarmor?

What about biker characters?