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.

Andykp wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

Andykp wrote:
No not really. Read the rest of my post. I explain why I think you are moaning and I’ll spell it out her again.
1. You are complaining that units have lost options - they have not. Index options are legal.
2. You are complaining that factions have lost units - they have not, they are still legal to use.
3 you are demanding that GW continue to spend time and money updating rules for models they no longer make, which would a) discourage people buying newer models and b) prop up third party companies cashing in on their IP. U are criticising a company for not shooting its self in the foot.
4. You are basing all your moaning on the fact that you b believe these units won’t be legal soon. Ignoring that they may be replaced with better versions with new rules. (Look at the warboss on the trike).
5. U are arguing that you cannot use your creativity to enjoy a wargaming hobby by saying you couldn’t even ask people to use home made rules/models. that’s just daft.

See not a straw man in sight. I do intend to build a gargant but the bit about the rules was just me being flippant to demonstrate how silly yours and others position was. Not arguing for the sake of it, arguing because I believe you are wrong and misrepresenting the facts.

Yeah and they all rest upon you trying to suggest that you cannot worry about something that is going to happen lol

point 3 is also just wrong, they still sell the models that have no rules, so yeah we should expect them to make new rules for them and no one is demanding them of anything.

Point 4 is just laughable, I don't even have to rebuke that; as is point 5.

You are the silly one, you are acting like a clown with the points you have made. 'We can do whatever we want, because we have that special thing called imagination, therefore there are no issues with 40k.
You don't like that Burna Boyz only have D3 hits, why not make them 100 hits, because we have the imagination to do so' lol Suggesting that we demand that GW make rules for models that don't exist, rather than models that have existed and have models is a strawman.

Have gamesworkshop stated that index rules are going to scrapped anytime soon? I haven’t heard anything but am happy to be shown the statement where they say this. If they haven’t then all your moaning is based on speculation.

Point 4 is about the fact that they haven’t made a warboss on a bike model ever, the rules were there. Forgeworld did one. Now instead you have the wartrike filling the same role and having a subtle nod to the nobbikes of the good old days (first edition). New rules and pretty new model. Who is to say that warboss in mega armour or big mek on a bike of some sort isn’t in the offing. Also the old forgeworld model and your own conversions are still legal.

So even with out imagination you can still use a warboss on a bike. Or mega armour. So what are you so upset about? The prospect that you might not be able to? In the future? Maybe? That’s where imagination and creativity come in then. If you can’t use something and you want to then you can make up rules. I have done just that for my boar boyz. Much prefer that to counts as. Would I prefer GW to write the rules, maybe, they are better at it than me.

What models do they sell that have no rules?

As for burna boyz I might try some house rules for them but it wouldn’t be to make them super amazing, it would be a collaborative thing with my friends, as it should be. But I’m quite happy to use them as they are too.

You and others on here are saying that you can’t use this model or that option and it isn’t true today. So think me a clown if you like mate, I’m happy to stand behind my arguments and happy to play my index units, and as long as my opponent is happy to use our house rules then I will have squats and boar boyz and all sorts of lovely things on the table. Now I’m going to look for models on the gw site that don’t have rules, I’m intrigued to see what they are.

Repeating your ridiculous argument doesn't make it any less ridiculous.

happy_inquisitor wrote:

Seems to me that is just a limitation you place on yourself. My conversions are pretty elaborate and see regular play. They had no issue with them at Warhammer World, although they did ask me to do a reference sheet for opponents so I mocked up something in Ordo Xenos style. Those conversions all end up with codex-standard rules and equipment, although for the most part they start out as a bunch of very different stuff in my bits box.

You seem to be making contradictory statements here. You're saying that I should make some really elaborate conversions . . . so long as I stick to the handful of dull, samey options my codex allows.

Do you really not see anything incongruous about this?

happy_inquisitor wrote:

Not a single unique item/relic available in the whole codex? My son plays DE and I am pretty sure there are quite a few.

We're including Relics as well are we? It seems we're really reaching to try and pretend that DE HQs have options.

But, yes, there are indeed relics. Mostly just more sodding weapons (because DE characters aren't allowed worthwhile weapons except as Relics, but that's a rant for another time).

However, even if I pretend that relics are the same as wargear, it still doesn't actually help with the problem I brought up.

happy_inquisitor wrote:

Also he just uses all sorts of different models as a base so that one Archon does not have to look like another. He sticks to pointy-eared jerks because he likes them but if he pulls in the odd fantasy mini and kitbashes it up for 40K that is par for the course.

Good for him.

happy_inquisitor wrote:

I am not sure I see your point here. Are you saying that none of the HQ choice in your chosen codex are remotely interesting or fun?

When it comes to rules, that is exactly what I'm saying.

happy_inquisitor wrote:
If so why are you choosing to play that codex?

Because, shocking as this revalation may be, I bought into Dark Eldar when they were fun and interesting. Back when our HQs were actually allowed options. And before about half the units in the codex was deleted from existence.

As for why I continue to play, because I like the models and the playstyle. And I'm also stupid enough to think that, one day, GW might allow someone to write the book who doesn't have a screwdriver lodged in his skull.

happy_inquisitor wrote:
Pick a unit that is fun to play

ERROR: VALUE: "FUN DARK ELDAR HQ" NOT FOUND.

happy_inquisitor wrote:
find an interesting and fun way to model it. Fun all round.

And once again you have baffled me. You keep contradicting yourself again and again. Am I supposed to be modelling a ""fun"" DE HQ based solely on the options it actually has, or am I supposed to just be converting a model to serve as an HQ, based on the aesthetics I actually enjoy?

Because, as I keep explaining, the two are not the same and will not produce the same results.

I mean, would it help if I gave some examples to try and explain my point?

 vipoid wrote:

happy_inquisitor wrote:

Seems to me that is just a limitation you place on yourself. My conversions are pretty elaborate and see regular play. They had no issue with them at Warhammer World, although they did ask me to do a reference sheet for opponents so I mocked up something in Ordo Xenos style. Those conversions all end up with codex-standard rules and equipment, although for the most part they start out as a bunch of very different stuff in my bits box.

You seem to be making contradictory statements here. You're saying that I should make some really elaborate conversions . . . so long as I stick to the handful of dully, samey options my codex allows.

Do you really not see anything incongruous about this?

Exactly. I've got back into 40k with Death Guard and the HQ options are really found wanting. I already posted ITT (I think) of my LoC with a massive bell that would be far more appropriate to be armed with a Thunder Hammer but is stuck with precisely two options. I converted two Chaos Lords on Palanquins. Both of these sit in the cabinet as they're index only so cannot even take DG options (No Balesword for you!). I feel like I've reached my limit in what I can convert for them and still be somewhat game legal. I've got loads of ideas floating around and can't really use them as the codex lacks the options.

I've got Plague furnace bits I want to put on a DP maybe. I just feel I can't as there is no option that looks like that. I was brought up on WYSIWYG and it's still ingrained.

Reading through this (and being an Ork player/collector since 3rd edition), I am really struck by the question of "Why doesn't GW just overtly have a tournament mode?"

The Looted Wagons in Chapter Approved, for example, only have Power level, and no points values, which arguably means that they can't be used in matched play (although I have never understood why you can't match power levels instead of points, but I digress).

Why not just provide power levels for older models, weapons variants, wargear variants, etc., but not points values---and overtly tell people that 'tournament play' (or whatever you want to call it)will use points values?

This would mean that 'tournaments' would use a smaller selection of basically current models, and basically current rules, that newer players would be familiar with, and power-level play (whatever you wanted to call it) could include loads of older models, different wargear combinations, and other cool things (experimental rules for models, etc.)

Magic tournaments do something like this all the time. Tournaments are restricted to certain sets of releases, while other tournaments allow older cards, and it doesn't seem to bother anyone.

I can certainly understand GW wanting to keep the game accessible and understandable to new players, and not presenting them with options that they can't easily purchase definitely fits in that plan, but putting out power level rules for legacy models and legacy wargear/weapons/options would keep those things playable for gamers, while keeping them distinct from the 'core game'.

Sure, it would prevent us from using some of our models in certain tournaments (whatever you want to call points-based ones), but it would enable you to use them in any sorts of game which used power levels, whether those were a tournament variant or something else, all without requiring some sort of negotiation with your opponents at the game, as power levels and rules would be codified, just without points values).


I totally get the frustration. I have Warboss on Bike, Mek on Bike, Doc on Bike, all sorts of Ork variations that were legal at one point and have dropped off the map. It's frustrating in particular because some of the combinations are very clearly X with Y, when X can't take Y any longer, but Z can still take Y. At that point, the previously legal model becomes more of a confusion for others than a fun conversion.

catbarf wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
You do realize more options makes WYSIWYG much more arduous right?

More options doesn't make WYSIWYG arduous- fewer options in combination with wargear-specific rules makes WYSIWYG arduous. If power swords and power axes are treated differently under the rules, but I only have the option to take a power sword, then a model with a power axe is non-WYSIWYG.

If I have the option to freely take a chainsword, power sword, power axe, lightning claws, etc, then I can count the power axe as a power axe and it's WYSIWYG.

If all of those weapons are genericized to 'Close Combat Weapon', then I can count the power axe as a CCW and it's WYSIWYG.

I'd be perfectly happy if GW went in either direction, it's the current halfway point that's awkward.

It does make it more arduous unless:
1.) You don’t care about performance on the table top. If axes are better than swords, then you won’t want to conver cool swords etc if that matters to you.
2.) All possible option you might want actually have rules. If you have power axes, swords, etc. But want to model a guy with a power whip or something the extra rules are still an annoyance.

I will concede we’re we are now is pretty bad, but less options makes conversions easier than more options does.

 Grimtuff wrote:

 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.

This guy. Not particularly usable as either IMO.

This (from a few pages back) is a good example of a reasonable frustration. This model clearly has a KFF. The KFF is a current option, but not on a model without Mega-Armor. Players know what KFFs look like, and they know what Mega-Armor looks like. Using this official GW model as a count-as (let's say the KFF also counts-as Mega-Armor) is confusing.

Rather than being confusing, or banning the model from any sort of non-negotiated, pick-up gaming, why not have a Power Level for this option? It won't show up in 'Points Tournaments', but it becomes an accurately modeled, reasonable option for any power level game.

Alternatively, why not just keep the rules for that model in the codex?

GW could even add a Conversion Guide in the codex, if they felt so inclined, showing players how to convert an appropriate HQ out of parts from other kits.

This way:
- Anyone who owns that model (or who finds it on ebay or such down the line) is happy.
- Anyone who enjoys kitbashing is happy.
- Any new players who want to try their hand at kitbashing have a guide to follow.
- GW gets to sell more kits to make those models.
- New players who don't want to kitbash can just use the 'ready-made' HQs instead.

Del, just calling my argument ridiculous and giving absolutely no counter argument or any points to back up your position is a bit weak really. It’s almost like you have no valid counter.

I agree on the tournament mode for 40k. I’ve been saying that since 8th came in.

As for the mek with the kff, why not just use the index rules?

Andykp wrote:


As for the mek with the kff, why not just use the index rules?

I know you disagree here, but you want an answer so whatever...

I believe the Index model rules are on borrowed time. Right now, I'm not getting a lot of games of 8th in (not due to a lack of trying, but I digress...) and have to take what I can get. The safe route for that is codex. In this hobby in PUGs you meet a whole host of people who have crazy concepts about what is "legal" or not in 40k. I've lived through special characters, FW, WD lists and everything in between. I'd rather not go through the rigmarole of whether someone thinks part of my list is not legal and just get on with the game.

If I'm playing a game against a regular opponent (hey Grimtuff, remember them?) then I'll use Index units as we all know where we stand with games.

Well that’s very sad that the hobby has gone that way. GW are really trying to encourage the more casual way of approaching the hobby. Narrative books, campaign generating rules, character creations tools and the urban conflict box. Gamesworkshop couldn’t make it more clear what rules to use for old models and that they are all still legal in all three game styles. It strikes me that they have a reasonable business reason for not updating these rules but are making every effort to make it clear they are currently still legal. In an ideal world it would be different but they have business to run. They have improved since earlier editions where models and whole factions were invalidated over night.

The way the player base seems to behave nowadays , online and apparently in gaming groups, makes me wonder how any new players are attracted to the hobby.

Not by adding new kits (barring the ynnari guys) but adding already existing kits that weren't part of the faction before.

I'm not saying this is a good thing, I despise soups, but that's how GW see 40k since 5 years at least.

That may very well be true, and I am both excited and afraid for when that becomes more solidified. Brave new world and all that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Andykp wrote:
Well that’s very sad that the hobby has gone that way. GW are really trying to encourage the more casual way of approaching the hobby. Narrative books, campaign generating rules, character creations tools and the urban conflict box. Gamesworkshop couldn’t make it more clear what rules to use for old models and that they are all still legal in all three game styles. It strikes me that they have a reasonable business reason for not updating these rules but are making every effort to make it clear they are currently still legal. In an ideal world it would be different but they have business to run. They have improved since earlier editions where models and whole factions were invalidated over night.

The way the player base seems to behave nowadays , online and apparently in gaming groups, makes me wonder how any new players are attracted to the hobby.

I am personally of the opinion that GW is trying to become more tourney friendly/focused which is why they want more focused role units and so on. Big matches, online streaming, and all that. Much like digital games it is all about E/T-Sports these days.

Andykp wrote:
Del, just calling my argument ridiculous and giving absolutely no counter argument or any points to back up your position is a bit weak really. It’s almost like you have no valid counter.

I agree on the tournament mode for 40k. I’ve been saying that since 8th came in.

As for the mek with the kff, why not just use the index rules?

There is no point in arguing with you that's why. If you can't see how ridiculous you are being then I'm not going to bother. Trying to explain and justify your argument to everyone else just proves it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Andykp wrote:
Well that’s very sad that the hobby has gone that way. GW are really trying to encourage the more casual way of approaching the hobby. Narrative books, campaign generating rules, character creations tools and the urban conflict box. Gamesworkshop couldn’t make it more clear what rules to use for old models and that they are all still legal in all three game styles. It strikes me that they have a reasonable business reason for not updating these rules but are making every effort to make it clear they are currently still legal. In an ideal world it would be different but they have business to run. They have improved since earlier editions where models and whole factions were invalidated over night.

The way the player base seems to behave nowadays , online and apparently in gaming groups, makes me wonder how any new players are attracted to the hobby.

GW made it very clear that old marines aren't going anywhere and then Calgar became Primaris. When people started saying that if current characters become Primaris they'll do away with old marines, then GW didn't say another word for years about current marines going Primaris, then out of nowhere Calgar becomes Primaris. They are a company, they will do and say whatever makes them money.

point 3 is also just wrong, they still sell the models that have no rules, so yeah we should expect them to make new rules for them and no one is demanding them of anything.

I am curious which models these are. If they are truly selling models on the Games Workshop website that have no corresponding unit entry then that is a strange oversight on GW's part.

On a semi-related/unrelated note(and no connectionwith the quote above). I am still perplexed that GW has never properly assembled a kit for the Deffkoptas that came in the 5th edition starter. Really liked those kits and sad to see them relegated to some Revell line at best.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

They are a company, they will do and say whatever makes them money.

That goes without saying. It is the nature of the capitalist machine.

Andykp wrote:
Well that’s very sad that the hobby has gone that way. GW are really trying to encourage the more casual way of approaching the hobby. Narrative books, campaign generating rules, character creations tools and the urban conflict box. Gamesworkshop couldn’t make it more clear what rules to use for old models and that they are all still legal in all three game styles. It strikes me that they have a reasonable business reason for not updating these rules but are making every effort to make it clear they are currently still legal. In an ideal world it would be different but they have business to run. They have improved since earlier editions where models and whole factions were invalidated over night.

The way the player base seems to behave nowadays , online and apparently in gaming groups, makes me wonder how any new players are attracted to the hobby.

The thing is what GW wants to give people isn't what people may want from the game. Just look at the Starwars frenchise, bigger then w40k, am sure The Mouse wanted it to sell ton of tickets, toys and collectables. I have no doubt that non at the studios wanted to sabotage the movies or make the fans feel bad, and not spend money. But what they gave people, starting with cuting of the extended universe and culminating in Solo and Last Jedi, had an opposite effect on the fandom.

There is nothing wrong in GW designers like of narrative games, as long as it is not forced on the majority of people who seem to not be interested in playing without points, and with rules more loose then a 7year olds front teeth. Mr Johnson can play his historicals, design open and narrative rule sets. He seems to like those things. But he should remember that the way he likes to play w40k, is not the way people like to play w40k. I also agree with you, partily, about the new player problem. The rule set and its quality are at the core of it. Sure there maybe some small minority of painters, who will buy this or that models to paint. But they do not buy whole armies, specially when they start. And it is hard to get new players in to w40k. It is not even the premium cost of w40k armies, comparing to other games. w40k is popular enough to be the first pick of new players anyway. The problem is the initial expiriance a new player gets. Unless a vet makes a list for him, or he copies one from the net, the new player is in for a cassino run, with really money being at stacke. Some armies have a ton of trap choices, some whole armies are trap choices. Others come with so many ifs to have fun games, you can play them in very specific local metas .
Armies should all be good, and all be worth playings, and if not all then most units should be something a faction player wants to buy, if off faction players want to buy them too it should be a bonus. The game shouldn't be start with IG+castellan then fill rest with army of your choice, if your imperial. Builds and armies that cost 600$+ shouldn't be killed off with single FAQs or errata, specially when GW themselfs sifoned people in to picking up those choices in the first place. Switch of edition, am ok with, there should be a big hakes up. But stuff like first making a jump pack codex and then nerfint it in to the ground a few months later, and mostly because of synergies with later books, should not be happening. this is not a company that works out of someones basement. And the w40k armies aren't 80$ games.

 Eldarsif wrote:

point 3 is also just wrong, they still sell the models that have no rules, so yeah we should expect them to make new rules for them and no one is demanding them of anything.

I am curious which models these are. If they are truly selling models on the Games Workshop website that have no corresponding unit entry then that is a strange oversight on GW's part.

On a semi-related/unrelated note(and no connectionwith the quote above). I am still perplexed that GW has never properly assembled a kit for the Deffkoptas that came in the 5th edition starter. Really liked those kits and sad to see them relegated to some Revell line at best.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

They are a company, they will do and say whatever makes them money.

That goes without saying. It is the nature of the capitalist machine.

I thought it went without saying, but...

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

 Eldarsif wrote:

point 3 is also just wrong, they still sell the models that have no rules, so yeah we should expect them to make new rules for them and no one is demanding them of anything.

I am curious which models these are. If they are truly selling models on the Games Workshop website that have no corresponding unit entry then that is a strange oversight on GW's part.

On a semi-related/unrelated note(and no connectionwith the quote above). I am still perplexed that GW has never properly assembled a kit for the Deffkoptas that came in the 5th edition starter. Really liked those kits and sad to see them relegated to some Revell line at best.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

They are a company, they will do and say whatever makes them money.

That goes without saying. It is the nature of the capitalist machine.

I thought it went without saying, but...

Still not showing us these models with no rules?

As for the newbies first experience of the game being bad because they can’t bring a competitive list, if the existing players are power gaming against a new player trying it out it’s not the rules that’s the problem. It’s the existing player base. I still believe the competitive seven is highly toxic for the game and have seen nothing to dissuade me from that opinion. But it’s easy fixed by separating the two different games. That way both sides would benefit.

GW is trying to appeal to both camps of "casual" vs "competitive" with the rules.
They need to control the overall "kit" used in a unit to come up with a reasonable points value to make some passing effort to limit the capabilities of the unit for competitive play.
We are seeing the looted wagons in Chapter Approved so that the converting and casual crowd can still field Ork crazy inventions and let all the add-ons fall under the power level points.
My friend is a die-hard Ork player and we figured out a point value for looted vehicles to keep it "fair" and kept playing.

Just do not expect to play a pickup game using points and expect to use a looted vehicle.

I understand the draw of Orks for customization, you still can, it just needs to have weapons number the allotted amount despite their inability to count.

Ever since the Chapterhouse legal matter GW has religiously followed the rule of "No model, no rules." the main fear being that the law is behind whomever has a physical product so it can be a scary thing if a knock-off model company gets a model out first.

 Talizvar wrote:


Ever since the Chapterhouse legal matter GW has religiously followed the rule of "No model, no rules." the main fear being that the law is behind whomever has a physical product so it can be a scary thing if a knock-off model company gets a model out first.

If that was true, that No Model No rule was religiously followed by GW I wouldn't be pissed at all. Instead we get SM HQs with all sort of weapons and loadout that are available only by kitbashing, and rhinos with the option of taking 2 storm bolters while the kit just come with one. So why SM are entitled to customize their army even with bitz that are not included in the original kits and orks can't? Why HQs with jump packs still exist while biker ones don't?

Cause SM fans can scream louder as there are more of them and most of those options have had some kind of official representation in the past (we know what a jumppack and a bike look like.

Also GW is bad at following a single direction completely to it's end.

Orks are bad mmmmkaayyyy

https://www.reddit.com/r/WarhammerCompetitive/comments/afvlws/last_chance_open_hammer_in_the_new_year_results/

We got hard done to mmmkayyyyyyyy

 Silentz wrote:
Orks are bad mmmmkaayyyy

https://www.reddit.com/r/WarhammerCompetitive/comments/afvlws/last_chance_open_hammer_in_the_new_year_results/

We got hard done to mmmkayyyyyyyy

2nd and 3rd place? Literally unplayable.

Andykp wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

 Eldarsif wrote:

point 3 is also just wrong, they still sell the models that have no rules, so yeah we should expect them to make new rules for them and no one is demanding them of anything.

I am curious which models these are. If they are truly selling models on the Games Workshop website that have no corresponding unit entry then that is a strange oversight on GW's part.

On a semi-related/unrelated note(and no connectionwith the quote above). I am still perplexed that GW has never properly assembled a kit for the Deffkoptas that came in the 5th edition starter. Really liked those kits and sad to see them relegated to some Revell line at best.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

They are a company, they will do and say whatever makes them money.

That goes without saying. It is the nature of the capitalist machine.

I thought it went without saying, but...

Still not showing us these models with no rules?

As for the newbies first experience of the game being bad because they can’t bring a competitive list, if the existing players are power gaming against a new player trying it out it’s not the rules that’s the problem. It’s the existing player base. I still believe the competitive seven is highly toxic for the game and have seen nothing to dissuade me from that opinion. But it’s easy fixed by separating the two different games. That way both sides would benefit.

I don't need to. They left them out of the codex, I'm not trying to be a dick here, but I mean honestly, you seriously can't be that obtuse, I think you are just being stubborn and clinging on to 'we still have the index, they could keep the index forever' to justify your argument. Listen to what you are saying.

 Eldarsif wrote:

 Silentz wrote:
Orks are bad mmmmkaayyyy

https://www.reddit.com/r/WarhammerCompetitive/comments/afvlws/last_chance_open_hammer_in_the_new_year_results/

We got hard done to mmmkayyyyyyyy

2nd and 3rd place? Literally unplayable.

Uhh... both of those lists are relying on HQ's only present in the index sooo... awkward... yeah...

 vipoid wrote:


We're including Relics as well are we? It seems we're really reaching to try and pretend that DE HQs have options.

Succubi do

Glaive is ok.
Blood Glaive is really good.
Shardnet and Impailer is good
Hydra Guantlets or Razorflails can be built into a pretty good Succubus depending on WL trait, cult, drug, etc.

Archons not really. Basically "do you have 17 points to add a BS 2 blaster?"

My only real complaint with DE is that their transports don't fit a squad + a character. Having to take an extra transport or two just for characters is lame.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
No model no rule usually doesn't apply to options. Only models themselves(granted it's still not 100% followed).

Units I can think of that have options not in the kit:

Archon
Succubus
Haemonculus
Farseer
Warlock
Autarch
All Space Marine HQs except named characters
Crisis Commanders
Ethereals

Basically every monopose character ever made and some of the non monopose ones

Non Characters
Crisis Suits
Hell, all Tau suits
All Eldar vehicles
Most Guard vehicles
etc

Just what I can think of off the top of my head. There are tons of units that don't come with bits for all their options and that doesn't stop them from being in the codex.

Edit:

I'm also seeing a lot of people saying "I spent years kitbashing X unit and now it's index only and will probably get removed"

I understand that feeling, and would feel it somewhat myself if I was in that situation too. However if you have a really old army and you just want to keep playing your really old models then GW doesnt' care about you at all. They care about selling new models. New models to new players and new models to old players. They're going to phase out some old models, esp ones that were only metal or had no GW model, and sell new ones to everyone. That's why the war trike exists. GW doesn't make an official bike, they don't have one copyrighted, and basically everyone who played orks for a long time built their own. Of course they're going to phase out something they don't sell a model for and make a new, copyrightable model that fills a similar role instead of finally releasing a less-copyrightable model for something 90% of old ork players made their own a decade ago.

There's no money in catering to the models people already have. It sucks for everyone with index only stuff but it's the way the game is going to be because it's good business. The profit they made this past year proves they know what they're doing.

My responses in Red.

cmspano wrote:

Succubi do

Glaive is ok. It's literally an inferior Power Fist.
Blood Glaive is really good. Frankly, I find it depressing that a Dark Eldar melee HQ is forced to take an artefact just to get an actual Power Fist.
Shardnet and Impailer is good It's situational but can be useful.
Hydra Guantlets or Razorflails can be built into a pretty good Succubus depending on WL trait, cult, drug, etc. Hydra Gauntlets can. Not sure about Razorflails.

Archons not really. Basically "do you have 17 points to add a BS 2 blaster?" Which is also an Index option, so who knows how long that will be around.

My only real complaint with DE is that their transports don't fit a squad + a character. Having to take an extra transport or two just for characters is lame.

My complaint is that every non-weapon piece of wargear has been removed. The Soul Trap is basically gone (no, I don't count the stratagem because you can't model a stratagem), the option to choose between a Shadowfield and a Clone Field is gone. And, of course, the option to give them a Skyboard or Jetbike is long gone.

I had forgotten that the Archon blaster was index only. So yeh that sucks.

Glaives/Blood Glaive - Wyches aren't supposed to be hard hitters. They're infantry killers and attrition fighters. They force infantry to stay in melee with them, hold them with a net, and clean them up while surviving with their 4++ save. I wouldn't expect a Succubus to have a thunder hammer.

Shardnet and Impailer for a Succubus is a decent character hunter. Hold them them with the net and a 3++ save and stick them with a D2 weapon. Not amazing but not bad.

Razorflails I think can be ok if you build a specific Succ for it. The WL trait that gets exploding hits, STR boosts, etc. It's definitely not a good general weapon for a Succ.

I don't really miss the old codex options like soul trap. They were kind of neat but I don't really care. I play DE for a really fast transport army with good firepower. The 2 wyches and 2 archons I take are, to me, a tax for a double battalion. They're hard to get into transports and are a little underwhelming. They have their uses but delivery can be a pain.

Still not showing us these models with no rules?

So, because I am such a nice person I decided to see if Delvarus was correct and after going through all the Ork models on the GW website they all have corresponding units in the codex. At best one could argue that Grukk's Boss Mob does not exist, but that was never a core unit in the line so I would not really count that as a strike against GW.

In short, my guess is that Delvarus is complaining that FW models do not have entries in the Ork Codex, but the problem there is that FW models have rarely - if ever - been part of Codexes.

 Eldarsif wrote:

Still not showing us these models with no rules?

So, because I am such a nice person I decided to see if Delvarus was correct and after going through all the Ork models on the GW website they all have corresponding units in the codex. At best one could argue that Grukk's Boss Mob does not exist, but that was never a core unit in the line so I would not really count that as a strike against GW.

In short, my guess is that Delvarus is complaining that FW models do not have entries in the Ork Codex, but the problem there is that FW models have rarely - if ever - been part of Codexes.

No it doesn't have anything to do with FW and I never said that or even once mentioned FW. Ork mega armour warbosses have no rules, the mega nobz kit has options to make a warboss, no mega armour now,but I assumed you'd be including converting so regardless of models we previously kitbashed models, which was what GW intended and now have no rules, its just as bad without having to have actual models. They have advertised converting they have given tutorials on how to kit bash etc. its just as bad. There are options that have made us convert or spend money on making and they are no longer there and are completely useless now, like Iron priests on TWC. Plus GW are going to strip down the game and make it just like every other boring game out there in the market. If you don't think that is a problem, them giving us options that have to be converted and taking them away rendering the things you bought useless, just for the failed attempt of bringing in new consumers, then you are being just as obtuse. They've done enough streamlining, the way they are going the game will be just as boring as GW competitors that can't compete with them.

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

 Eldarsif wrote:

Still not showing us these models with no rules?

So, because I am such a nice person I decided to see if Delvarus was correct and after going through all the Ork models on the GW website they all have corresponding units in the codex. At best one could argue that Grukk's Boss Mob does not exist, but that was never a core unit in the line so I would not really count that as a strike against GW.

In short, my guess is that Delvarus is complaining that FW models do not have entries in the Ork Codex, but the problem there is that FW models have rarely - if ever - been part of Codexes.

No it doesn't have anything to do with FW and I never said that or even once mentioned FW. There are options that have made us convert or spend money on making and they are no longer there and are completely useless now, like Iron priests on TWC. If you don't think that is a problem, them giving us options that have to be converted and taking them away rendering the things you bought useless, just for the failed attempt of bringing in new consumers, then you are being just as obtuse. They've done enough streamlining, the way they are going the game will be just as boring as GW competitors that can't compete with them.

Nothing about obtuse, just confused about our posts. At one point you said there are models on the GW website that are now not in the codex(I assumed the Ork codex). If you are referring to another codex and model then I would be happy to know which models those are.

If you are talking about models(actual models that had a 1-to-1 correspondence in the codices) that are no longer available - but used to be up until recently - then I state - as I have done repeatedly especially in regards to the Mek with the KFF - then I sympathize. However, it would have been best if that had been stated clearly in previous posts so we could have avoided any unnecessary banter. Now, you might accuse me - as well as others - of being obtuse, but at some point you have to realize that quite a few people are not reading your intent clearly which does imply that perhaps you could have approached your posts a bit differently. I do not say this to provoke, but to establish that this discourse could have been improved considerably with better intent and/or proper answers to people's questions.

So if I am to read you properly - and feel free to correct me - but your biggest issue is unit entry options that have disappeared and not actual models that had unit entries?

 Eldarsif wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

 Eldarsif wrote:

Still not showing us these models with no rules?

So, because I am such a nice person I decided to see if Delvarus was correct and after going through all the Ork models on the GW website they all have corresponding units in the codex. At best one could argue that Grukk's Boss Mob does not exist, but that was never a core unit in the line so I would not really count that as a strike against GW.

In short, my guess is that Delvarus is complaining that FW models do not have entries in the Ork Codex, but the problem there is that FW models have rarely - if ever - been part of Codexes.

No it doesn't have anything to do with FW and I never said that or even once mentioned FW. There are options that have made us convert or spend money on making and they are no longer there and are completely useless now, like Iron priests on TWC. If you don't think that is a problem, them giving us options that have to be converted and taking them away rendering the things you bought useless, just for the failed attempt of bringing in new consumers, then you are being just as obtuse. They've done enough streamlining, the way they are going the game will be just as boring as GW competitors that can't compete with them.

Nothing about obtuse, just confused about our posts. At one point you said there are models on the GW website that are now not in the codex(I assumed the Ork codex). If you are referring to another codex and model then I would be happy to know which models those are.

If you are talking about models(actual models that had a 1-to-1 correspondence in the codices) that are no longer available - but used to be up until recently - then I state - as I have done repeatedly especially in regards to the Mek with the KFF - then I sympathize. However, it would have been best if that had been stated clearly in previous posts so we could have avoided any unnecessary banter. Now, you might accuse me - as well as others - of being obtuse, but at some point you have to realize that quite a few people are not reading your intent clearly which does imply that perhaps you could have approached your posts a bit differently. I do not say this to provoke, but to establish that this discourse could have been improved considerably with better intent and/or proper answers to people's questions.

So if I am to read you properly - and feel free to correct me - but your biggest issue is unit entry options that have disappeared and not actual models that had unit entries?

I could have been clearer just ignore point 3 as there is confusing if you are only talking about the codex's, but my main point is that 'there is a problem' and anyone saying there isn't is being obtuse but seeing that you agree that there is still a problem than I take that back.