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.

Multiple times being on the top 3 is not competitive?
What is then? only if you win every game you play?


Most of whats written here are non-issues. they don't have a point, or aspire to anything-they are mere complaints for the sake of complaining.

99% of conversions are EASY to find a match for in the rules, at least if you didn't purposely tried to do something that just isn't like anything in the rules-even if you don't look at indices.
Most "index only" units, in the case index gets banned at some point, can be easily matched with a codex unit.
Yes, even looted wagons. for the love of me I don't know why they put them in WD when the various wagons and trukks are decent representations of pretty much looted anything.

Now, the matching of a conversion to the rules wont always be PERFECT (especially when you got some outlandish conversion), but it will be plausible. you don't need everything to be snowflex in the rules, they are a simplification anyway.

Lets take the ork converted veichile for an example shall we?
Can you get me even ONE example of anything scaled as a "regular" (as in non-superheavy) 40k veichle that can't be represented good enough with one of the codex entries?
Because for the love of god you got 5 "light racers" and 3 more "heavy tank" variants in codex alone. one of them has GOT to fit.


TL;DR, I call bs on any claim that any kind of conversion you ever made, or planned to make, has been rendered not-usable.
It might not be usable as what you intended if you forgo the index (who is still very much legal), but its usable as something else at the very worst.
Double that on any actual model (squats aside)

Was thinking most of the old ork battlewagons don't really fit within the codex options, e.g. the Gobsmasha, which would be faster than a Leman Russ, smaller than a battle wagon and with a single stonking great gun.

pretty easy as a looted Vindicator though

the "heavy tank" in the codex is lumbered with paying for transport capacity a "tank" doesn't need for one thing and the "light" options are all far too light for an armoured vehicle role

 BoomWolf wrote:
Multiple times being on the top 3 is not competitive?
What is then? only if you win every game you play?

3x 3rd places for an army that can be the perfect anti meta and was the most recent codex, so not much experience against orks on the table and no list building with orks in mind, doesn't look that amazing. Once people acquire more experience against orks, they would probably go down in the rankings.

 BoomWolf wrote:

Most of whats written here are non-issues. they don't have a point, or aspire to anything-they are mere complaints for the sake of complaining.

I complain that our characters lost pretty much every possible option in the ork codex in the name of No Model No Rule, when other armies, especially imperium ones, didn't. Why are warbosses now forced to be footsloggers and with the only weapons that the 2 official monopose kits come when SM HQs can have a jump packs and every sort of weapons, included some that are not part of their kit? SW wolf lord on thunderwolf is a resin model with shield and axe and yet the unit can be equipped with a good variety of options, all availbe only by kitbashing or by converting a regular TWC model.

Orks lost tons of options between the index and the codex, other armies didn't. That's the complaint.

Here's a good example of why I like less diverse wargear. I assembled a Plague Marine w/Flail of Contagion. I want two; the kit only comes with one (typical GW). I didn't have any ball and chain bits available, so what I did was cut off the mace head of the bubotic mace, cut off the cleaver head on the great plague cleaver, and kitbash together a "Morningstar of Corruption". It looks visually different to the great cleaver, and while it doesn't look like a flail it looks like a similar type of weapon. As long as I don't use it as anything else (and I wouldn't, the great plague cleaver is not good), I doubt there'd be any issue.

Can you get me even ONE example of anything scaled as a "regular" (as in non-superheavy) 40k veichle that can't be represented good enough with one of the codex entries?

Aren't all bike HQs orcs have index only , And the ones in the codex are footslogging or the horrible new trike one?

Orks lost tons of options between the index and the codex, other armies didn't. That's the complaint.

The Drukhari would like to have a word with you.

In Commoragh.

In their torture chamber.

Otherwise known as ‘the conversation pit’?

 Eldarsif wrote:

Orks lost tons of options between the index and the codex, other armies didn't. That's the complaint.

The Drukhari would like to have a word with you.

In Commoragh.

In their torture chamber.

What did drukhari lose between index and codex? Just the blaster for the archon basically and the trueborn, while the succubus even gained some new options.

Andykp wrote:
There’s no lack of options in 40k now. U can make what ever you want. It’s the easiest edition to make up your own rules for and worth power levels pricing them has never been easier either. The problem is the player base has become too up tight about rules and balance and all that rubbish. Do what you like and play people who do the same. You’ll have fun and less angst.

That really only applies to like minded people though. You can't really go to a store and say this is how I play.

 BoomWolf wrote:
99% of conversions are EASY to find a match for in the rules

I guess I can count my lasgun sergeants as having laspistol+chainsword, and count my chainsword commissar as having a power sword.

So then some of my models that don't have chainswords are counting as having chainswords, and some of the models that do have chainswords are counting as not having chainswords, which is the absolute worst kind of WYSIWYG violation and a headache to remember. I don't like when people do that to me, I certainly don't want to do it to them.

And what do we do with Rough Riders when the Index disappears?

40K, especially in any kind of organized play (not even cutthroat tournaments), has been geared towards WYSIWYG for so long that the idea of 'convert whatever, it doesn't have to look anything like its on-paper stats' represents a fundamentally incompatible approach to the game. Games that want you to be able to heavily convert your models tend to genericize the options (eg 'close combat weapon' rather than chainswords, power swords, power axes, lightning claws, etc all with unique stats), and then provide numerous options. 40K has highly specific weapon profiles, and then limits codex choices to only specific ones. As a game system, it's just not geared to that style of customization.

Wayniac wrote:
Here's a good example of why I like less diverse wargear. I assembled a Plague Marine w/Flail of Contagion. I want two; the kit only comes with one (typical GW). I didn't have any ball and chain bits available, so what I did was cut off the mace head of the bubotic mace, cut off the cleaver head on the great plague cleaver, and kitbash together a "Morningstar of Corruption". It looks visually different to the great cleaver, and while it doesn't look like a flail it looks like a similar type of weapon. As long as I don't use it as anything else (and I wouldn't, the great plague cleaver is not good), I doubt there'd be any issue.

That's totally different. Converting a special weapon because a kit didn't come with enough is fine. You can tell your opponent at the start of the game 'hey, this thing that doesn't look like anything else in the army and doesn't have any official stats is counting as this other thing'. That's easy to remember, there's no ambiguity- you've even stated that you wouldn't use it as anything else. You've made it clear that your conversion 'is' a FoC, so it's still WYSIWYG.

Telling your opponent at the start of the game 'hey, this X is counting as X on these models, but it's counting as Y on these models, and these models that have Y modeled are actually counting it as Z, and...' is another thing entirely. Now when your opponent looks at a model they have no way to tell what it has without asking and then remembering for that specific model. That's basically what some of us with legacy models have to do.

 Blackie wrote:

 Eldarsif wrote:

Orks lost tons of options between the index and the codex, other armies didn't. That's the complaint.

The Drukhari would like to have a word with you.

In Commoragh.

In their torture chamber.

What did drukhari lose between index and codex? Just the blaster for the archon basically and the trueborn, while the succubus even gained some new options.

Drukhari have been losing since 5th edition. We lost all of our special HQ. We lost our HQ, Vect, blasters, Bloodbrides, Trueborn, and so on. "No model, no rule" has been the motto of Drukhari codexes for years now. You could say I have become Inured to Suffering.

To be fair you also gained options in the Ork codex with quite a few new units(so many cars and a trike). I think the net gain is currently better for the Orks than Drukhari since the only new options for Drukhari have been the Ossefactor and the Void Raven if I remember correctly, then an update for the 3 main HQ(less options) and I guess Ur-Ghul if you count BSF . Orks got 5 new buggies, a trike, special terrain, Orka/Gorkanaut, Flash Gitz, as well as properly expanded kits in mega armor, mek gunz, wazbom blastajet. New beautiful models with the Ork Painboy, Ork Mek, and Big Mek. Seriously, compare the model and options orks have gotten new in the same timeframe as Drukhari have been losing options. Night and day, night and day.

Miniature and unit-wise Ork players have been spoiled. That is a fact. It is one of the reasons I have a small Ork army, they get beautiful new models on a frequent basis which I am always tempted to buy.

Orks got a good few new units

that are designed to run in groups

and are all monopose


even if the rules had no real options the ability to make the kits build cosmetically different models would have worked well, heck most ork vehicles could easily be done with one (medium sized) box marked "Ork Vehicles" that had a lot of parts in, and set instructions to make a range of basic vehicles with a lot of optional bits.

even the humble deff dread, which doesn't have many actual options beyond the arms has a stack of parts to make multiples of the same model all different

leopard wrote:

even if the rules had no real options the ability to make the kits build cosmetically different models would have worked well, heck most ork vehicles could easily be done with one (medium sized) box marked "Ork Vehicles" that had a lot of parts in, and set instructions to make a range of basic vehicles with a lot of optional bits.

The new buggies are incredibly dynamic. Asking for a kit of that type would have been prohibitively expensive and instead of this thread it would be one about how nuts it is for GW to charge something like $80 instead of $45.

Absolutely nothing stops you from making your own buggies.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
The new buggies are incredibly dynamic.

How can models with no options at all be "dynamic?"

 JimOnMars wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
The new buggies are incredibly dynamic.

How can models with no options at all be "dynamic?"

Also and someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I remember reading that the orks drivers and passengers are not compatible with existing ork kits? If that's true, that is another pointless nut kick to players via GW.

catbarf wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
You can convert because you like the aesthetics

But what if I like the aesthetics, and also want to play under the WYSIWYG expectation in tournaments and other more formal events?

It seems like I basically have two choices- build GW's kits as instructed with minimal room for creativity or deviating from inexplicable impositions (why can't my commissar have a chainsword? why is it my Sergeants can't take lasguns, but can take boltguns? etc), or do as I wish and then resign myself to not being able to play in tournaments, and needing to explain to every player 'okay, so this unit is actually armed with X, and this unit counts as Y, and...' Even if they're not a stickler for WYSIWYG, it's annoying for everyone involved to have to remember what wargear isn't what it looks like.

That's really not a satisfying answer, and I don't buy that it's a terrible thing for new players to have options in the codex that the kit doesn't come with. If you're suggesting that the player will be happy with X options in the codex and X options in the kit, then there's really no reason they should be unhappy with X+Y options in the codex and X in the kit. They can simply ignore the Y options that they don't want to build.

I especially think that citing the potential frustration from not being able to build a codex option is a poor justification when GW does that anyways. Many kits don't come with nearly enough weapon options to equip the whole squad. If I want two five-man squads of Skitarii Rangers with Transuranic Arquebuses, I need to buy a minimum of four times my desired number of models to get enough arquebuses. Sure, if I'm using any Rangers or Vanguard with other weapons I might have spares- but if spare parts from other kits are fair game, what's wrong with letting the Ork players use wargear from one kit on another, and providing that option in the codex?

You do realize more options makes WYSIWYG much more arduous right? Think back to when power weapons was just a universal header before the sword was different from the axe etc. in that situation you could pick the cool looking weapon without having to worry about it’s in game effect. Now you are forced to use specific options due to specific rules. Same with the chain sword. When it was just a CCW it did not matter if you wanted to use a different weapon, now it does matter. As for your Sargent options, boot pistols can just be las pistols because boot pistol is not an option, as long as you are consistent. The more unique rules you have the more wargear matters. If every guardsman could only have one type of gear you could model it any way you wanted, because there would be no confusion. As soon as rules exist your aesthetic choices now matter.

 JimOnMars wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
The new buggies are incredibly dynamic.

How can models with no options at all be "dynamic?"

(of a process or system) characterized by constant change, activity, or progress.

As in a model that has a lot of motion or a lot going on.

Are we really squabbling over weapon swaps for buggies? Ok guys - you can put an extra big shoota on this model now! Amazing - it's a whole new kit now!

 BoomWolf wrote:

99% of conversions are EASY to find a match for in the rules

I've got a DE model converted to have Scourge wings that I'd like to use as an HQ.

Which DE HQ would you suggest using to represent a model with wings?

I can understand being perturbed by the lack of wargear options trending in recent codices, but can you seriously expect GW to make rules for literally anything you can conceive of kitbashing or converting?

 Luciferian wrote:
I can understand being perturbed by the lack of wargear options trending in recent codices, but can you seriously expect GW to make rules for literally anything you can conceive of kitbashing or converting?

My apologies. I forgot that no other HQs in the game have wings/bikes/jetbikes/jump packs.

And indeed, why should a supposedly fast army - one with jetbike, winged, and skyboard units - have even a single HQ that isn't stuck footslogging?

As usual, it's just me being completely unreasonable.

Eldar have been specialists pretty much since the aspect warriors came out with only a few options for the exarches and some hq options.
As long as the units themselves are good the standardisation of wargear needn't be a bad thing. It seems that the primaris line is going down a similar route with units functioning in a specialist role with less customisation.

 vipoid wrote:

 Luciferian wrote:
I can understand being perturbed by the lack of wargear options trending in recent codices, but can you seriously expect GW to make rules for literally anything you can conceive of kitbashing or converting?

My apologies. I forgot that no other HQs in the game have wings/bikes/jetbikes/jump packs.

And indeed, why should a supposedly fast army - one with jetbike, winged, and skyboard units - have even a single HQ that isn't stuck footslogging?

As usual, it's just me being completely unreasonable.

To be honest, yeah you are being unreasonable. Building a model for which there are no rules and then complaining that there are no rules for your model is just silly. So is expecting that every type of wargear option available to every faction or unit type should be available to any unit just because you think it should be. The fact that there are other factions with flying HQ models doesn't really mean that your faction is owed one as well.

 Luciferian wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 Luciferian wrote:
I can understand being perturbed by the lack of wargear options trending in recent codices, but can you seriously expect GW to make rules for literally anything you can conceive of kitbashing or converting?

My apologies. I forgot that no other HQs in the game have wings/bikes/jetbikes/jump packs.

And indeed, why should a supposedly fast army - one with jetbike, winged, and skyboard units - have even a single HQ that isn't stuck footslogging?

As usual, it's just me being completely unreasonable.

To be honest, yeah you are being unreasonable. Building a model for which there are no rules and then complaining that there are no rules for your model is just silly. So is expecting that every type of wargear option available to every faction or unit type should be available to any unit just because you think it should be. The fact that there are other factions with flying HQ models doesn't really mean that your faction is owed one as well.

Ignoring the fact that Archons could originally take both Hellion Skyboards and Jetbikes in previous codexes...

That hypothetical model could have been made years ago with the wings counting as either. Now it can't be used as anything without some creative counts-as by souping in an Autarch or something.

HoundsofDemos wrote:


Also and someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I remember reading that the orks drivers and passengers are not compatible with existing ork kits? If that's true, that is another pointless nut kick to players via GW.

The writing on the wall for this was the when the Savage Orc kit was released. Unlike every other Ork/Orc kits out there is was not compatible with anything other than itself.

 Luciferian wrote:
Building a model for which there are no rules and then complaining that there are no rules for your model is just silly.

But this is the whole point - what's the point in converting at all when options are so narrow and limited that there's classically nothing fun or interesting you can do?

 Luciferian wrote:
So is expecting that every type of wargear option available to every faction or unit type should be available to any unit just because you think it should be. The fact that there are other factions with flying HQ models doesn't really mean that your faction is owed one as well.

So we're just ignoring the fact that (as Grimtuff pointed out) DE *did* have HQs with Skyboards and Jetbikes. It's just that those were removed, along with about 90% of the past codices.

Let me know when Marines, Eldar etc. lose every Bike and Jump Pack option for every single HQ in their army, with any and all Biker/Jump Pack special characters being removed altogether, and we'll discuss fairness.

 Luciferian wrote:
I can understand being perturbed by the lack of wargear options trending in recent codices, but can you seriously expect GW to make rules for literally anything you can conceive of kitbashing or converting?

Of course not.

We are not asking GW to "make" rules.

We wish they would stop unmaking them.

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

Andykp wrote:
There’s no lack of options in 40k now. U can make what ever you want. It’s the easiest edition to make up your own rules for and worth power levels pricing them has never been easier either. The problem is the player base has become too up tight about rules and balance and all that rubbish. Do what you like and play people who do the same. You’ll have fun and less angst.

That really only applies to like minded people though. You can't really go to a store and say this is how I play.

Of course I can. U can walk into the store, say “look I’ve made some conversions with made up rules who fancies trying them out.” Nothing at all to stop you asking. That’s how you get to know about like minded people. It’s called social interaction. Not only that the rules will become better and the conversions will follow, before you know it you’re a group of like minded adults playing games and designing a whole imaginary world with history culture and personalities and having childish fun drawing maps and naming people and places. IT ALL ATARTS WITH A QUESTION.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JimOnMars wrote:

 Luciferian wrote:
I can understand being perturbed by the lack of wargear options trending in recent codices, but can you seriously expect GW to make rules for literally anything you can conceive of kitbashing or converting?

Of course not.

We are not asking GW to "make" rules.

We wish they would stop unmaking them.

With the index’s I can’t think of any models I’ve “lost” from my armies. Perfectly legally with out house rules or anything.

 vipoid wrote:
Let me know when Marines, Eldar etc. lose every Bike and Jump Pack option for every single HQ in their army, with any and all Biker/Jump Pack special characters being removed altogether, and we'll discuss fairness.

The Eldar lost a ton of wargear options going from 2E to 3E.

Andykp wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JimOnMars wrote:

 Luciferian wrote:
I can understand being perturbed by the lack of wargear options trending in recent codices, but can you seriously expect GW to make rules for literally anything you can conceive of kitbashing or converting?

Of course not.

We are not asking GW to "make" rules.

We wish they would stop unmaking them.

With the index’s I can’t think of any models I’ve “lost” from my armies. Perfectly legally with out house rules or anything.

Orks lost a ton of units from Index to Codex.

Ignoring the fact that Archons could originally take both Hellion Skyboards and Jetbikes in previous codexes...

That hypothetical model could have been made years ago with the wings counting as either. Now it can't be used as anything without some creative counts-as by souping in an Autarch or something.

Technically those special archons could be just used as sergeants in Hellion, Scourge, or Reaver units.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Let me know when Marines, Eldar etc. lose every Bike and Jump Pack option for every single HQ in their army, with any and all Biker/Jump Pack special characters being removed altogether, and we'll discuss fairness.

Many factions have been losing units just like Orks. Drukhari have been losing the longest. Just recently - from index to codex - eldar lost their warp spider pack as well as quite a few weapon options. People also used to run Farseers on Vypers for good fun. Many of these factions even lost options that technically existed as resin models(Couple of Autarch models, the old Archon, Vect, etc).

The difference between the Aeldari losing units and Ork losing units is that GW does everything to make up for the loss of the Ork units by providing a slew of new units that then have a few of their own options. This is why I have no qualms about mentioning that Orks are spoiled compared to many other factions.

Anybody remember that Harry Potter meme where the kid says "39? But last year I got 40!"? At this rate this meme for Orks will be: "40? But last year I got 35!"

So if there is any compassion in my Commorite heart it would only be for those options that had a good, servicable resin model such as the Mek with KFF(plus I liked the model, resin and all). I am not a fan of good models being retired without being replaced with a new one.

 JimOnMars wrote:

We are not asking GW to "make" rules.

We wish they would stop unmaking them.

So much this.

Andykp wrote:
With the index’s I can’t think of any models I’ve “lost” from my armies. Perfectly legally with out house rules or anything.

Lucky you.

 Eldarsif wrote:


Technically those special archons could be just used as sergeants in Hellion, Scourge, or Reaver units.

But this goes back to the point I made before. What's the point?

Why should I bother converting a model when the only thing I can use it as is a crappy sergeant? And, in the case of Scourges, a sergeant so worthless that he's always singled out as the first squad member to die.

 Eldarsif wrote:

Many factions have been losing units just like Orks. Drukhari have been losing the longest. Just recently - from index to codex - eldar lost their warp spider pack as well as quite a few weapon options.

Indeed.

That said, at least most of these "lost" options still exist in the index. Dark Eldar don't even have that luxury when it comes to Jetbikes and Skyboards.

 Eldarsif wrote:

The difference between the Aeldari losing units and Ork losing units is that GW does everything to make up for the loss of the Ork units by providing a slew of new units that then have a few of their own options. This is why I have no qualms about mentioning that Orks are spoiled compared to many other factions.

Honestly, whilst I'd argue that Dark Eldar have lost a lot more, I still very much sympathise with Ork players.

I dislike the homogenisation of units - especially commanders - and I feel bad for any faction that gets this treatment. And Orks perhaps suffer more than most, as their army is (or was) practically themed around kit-bashing.

What's more, whilst Orks have (arguably) been fortunate in that they at least got new models, I don't hold it against them. After all, if there's one faction that could do with not receiving new models for a time, it's not Orks but the sodding Imperium.