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.

 SHUPPET wrote:

If I painted up something like this

Spoiler:

and you told me "LOL JUST PAINT ONE OF THE SHOULDER PADS BLUE BRO", I think the sound of my facepalm would be audible from China.

I wouldn't tell you anything of the sort, because I don't give a monkey's (and because you're not my brother and I'm not some idiot fratboy). You were the one who specified that different detachments should be distinguishable (with an un-cited claim to authority, too). Also, what does a Horus Heresy miniature have to do with 40k? If you want to field the same Legion as two separate detachments, then that's an acceptable* level of visual distinctiveness, and one that doesn't look out of place. It's also not "permanent"; there's nothing too odd-looking if you were to simply field all those troops in a single detachment at another time.

* It should be, because it's really the only obvious difference between, say, Raven Guard and Black Templars.

1.) it was an example of a paint scheme. Hence why I said if I painted up SOMETHING, LIKE THIS. I picked my favorite EC color scheme and applied. But it's irrelevant, as 30k models are very legal to play in 40k.

2.) If you don't give a "monkeys", why are you posting in the first place? That's all that needs to be said. It's not an answer to the issue, you posted here as though you had one and it's been dispelled. "I don't give a monkeys" is just another way of saying "I was wrong and now I'm going to act as though I don't care".

3.) I cited my claim to authority as GW and ITC's ruleset. Did you mean unsourced? It's not my job to educate on you on basic policy for ruleset, if you are going to weigh in on that discussion that's the minimum amount of knowledge you should obtain for yourself before dictating to others about how it works.

Formerly Wu wrote:What's the upside for GW in this situation?
-Some customers might make purchases they'd otherwise hold off on.
-Hobbyists with long term plans would be happy.

The downsides would be:
- Some folks hold off on purchases they otherwise would have picked up. You lose both impulse purchases and the impetus to build out new armies from small pieces.
-Lose customer enthusiasm over long lead times.
-If something changes in development or production, they're opening themselves up to accusations of breaking promises or actively misleading customers.

This.

Delvarus Centurion wrote:
Yeah but anyone with any sense would fall into the 'impulse' buying etc. There are far more people I would wager like my who won't buy stuff unless they know it will be in the codex. As for the changes in development, I can see that as being a big problem, but If they said 'look we are probably going to add these to the codex' I can live with that if they are being honest and they had to change the development, I could live with that and probably find away to proxy the havoc's.

Saying that something isn't going to be in the codex basically kills sales of that thing though.
Also, knowing when a big release that you will be interested in is coming makes one more sparing. It gives you another reason to resist impulses and a reason to hold off. If someone can have their purchase planned out ahead of time then they're less likely to impulse buy other stuff till then.
For me at least.

 SHUPPET wrote:
1.) it was an example of a paint scheme. Hence why I said if I painted up SOMETHING, LIKE THIS. I picked my favorite EC color scheme and applied. But it's irrelevant, as 30k models are very legal to play in 40k.

2.) If you don't give a "monkeys", why are you posting in the first place? That's all that needs to be said. It's not an answer to the issue, you posted here as though you had one and it's been dispelled. "I don't give a monkeys" is just another way of saying "I was wrong and now I'm going to act as though I don't care".

3.) I cited my claim to authority as GW and ITC's ruleset. Did you mean unsourced? It's not my job to educate on you on basic policy for ruleset, if you are going to weigh in on that discussion that's the minimum amount of knowledge you should obtain for yourself before dictating to others about how it works.

You claim that the rules require that models in different detachments be visually distinct. I don't recall any such rule in the rulebook, and you didn't cite one. Now, I agree that it's a common house rule in tournaments, and a good idea, but that's not quite the same thing.

The original point to which I responded was that I can buy an army right now and play it as Emperor's Children. If they subsequently get a Codex to themselves and some of the units I own are not in that Codex, then I can continue to field those units as a detachment using the Codex: Chaos Space Marines datasheets, so I've not lost out in any way. The restrictions you wanrt to place in my way are irrelvant to me and probably to the majority of other people. Will it be a problem at an ITC event? probably, but since that's got nothing to do with me, I dismiss it as a concern. This isn't a discussion just about competitive events, after all.

The comment about shoulder pads is specifically in the context of post-Heresy Emperor's Children - the sort of colours used by Slaaneshi warbands would mean to me that having units with large areas of blue, yellow, green, etc would be perfectly appropriate, and so that's how I would choose to obviously distinguish a second detachment (if the fact that it's made up entirely of models that aren't allowed in an Emperor's Children detachment isn't enough). "I don't give a monkey's" about strict visual deliniation of different detachments because i trust my friends to keep me right about the differences (and vice versa), that's all.

Back to the original topic, which I've inadvertently derailed.

No matter what the information window is, there'll always be a point where someone could buy something, only to find out the next day that it's going away (unlikely) or being replaced by a new model or there's a new unit available that they might have wanted instead. Whether this point is a week before the release or six months before doesn't change much. If you're always thinking "should I wait for something new", you'll never get anything. I just buy the models I like when I want them. If something new comes out, then perhaps I'll get that too, but it doesn't invalidate what I've already got.

 AndrewGPaul wrote:

 Sir Heckington wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:


There is absolutely nothing stopping you buying Havocs (or any other CSM unit) now and IF they are removed from EC just ally them in as another detachment. This feels like a load of whinging for nothing to be honest.

You can do this, but then they aren't EC, you have to bring them as something else.

Idk, it's why it's always been silly to me that they lose so much and Gw doesn't tell us.

If I paint them as Emperor's Children, then they're Emperor's Children. I define what my army is, not the rules.

 AndrewGPaul wrote:

You claim that the rules require that models in different detachments be visually distinct. I don't recall any such rule in the rulebook, and you didn't cite one. Now, I agree that it's a common house rule in tournaments, and a good idea, but that's not quite the same thing.

The original point to which I responded was that I can buy an army right now and play it as Emperor's Children. If they subsequently get a Codex to themselves and some of the units I own are not in that Codex, then I can continue to field those units as a detachment using the Codex: Chaos Space Marines datasheets, so I've not lost out in any way

Absolutely. Paint Color != Rules. You can always use your "base" faction rules with our little toy soldiers. In addition, Count-as is a real thing and if your opponent or TO freaks over that, then you learned something important and dodged a bullet there. Hell the number of Night Lords as BA count-as I've run into over the years alone should attest to that. Now this all is completely orthogonal to the argument IF havocs should have been excluded in a hypothetical Dex but that's not what is being discussed.