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.

But if they molded more fancy, tiny details into the panels they’d have a little more room for more one or two more weapon options, something I could get behind. Maybe I’m getting old but good Lord some of the tiny pieces you clip off sprues these days are just aggravating. Have you seen the gems on Custodes’ shields or the shield generators on AT scale Reavers? I’ve been lucky not to lose any.

 captain collius wrote:

That said I get those of us who are frustrated by GWs insistence on making models that can legitimately make a loadout my personal example is the Tau commander who for some reason has one airbursting frag launcher and cyclic ion blaster. So I have to buy 3-4 to make one commander. It's annoying.

And GW gets upset when 3rd party companies make bits to fill that demand. Unfortunately instead of producing a superior product, they basically start writing rules to exactly match what's available in their kits which is both uncreative and more restrictive.

This is really sappy, sentimental and dumb, but I hope this thread at least results in Castozor trying his hand at trying out a few simple kitbashes and exploring that side of the hobby. It's really fun! Especially with orks!

 Crimson wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

You don't need 9 heads to make the default loadout for the damn unit is the difference.

Whilst that kit's design is far from ideal, your dismissal of the purely aesthetic options is really missing what's actually the point of this hobby to many. Yearlier you even complained about trophy racks on Chaos Terminators! That is one of their signature features! Building aesthetically evocative models and being able to customise their appearance is pretty much the main draw of Warhammer and that should never be sacrificed for any other goal.

The trophy racks aren't necessary for gameplay. THAT is the definition of something that can go on a upgrade sprue like they've been doing for the Marine Chapters. So no it IS a valid complaint.

Alkaline_Hound wrote:
One thing that people need to realise, is that playing tactical marines as devastators with bolters is proxying, as devastators have different legs. The usual reply to this is to say that this obviously is fine, but why is it obviously fine to run tacticals as devastators, and not fine to run guardsmen as space marines, if one for example wants to represent a regiment of elite guard. This to me seems like a matter of taste, and forcing your taste on others is not nice.

Also, if keeping track of units like deathwatch is difficult, then an easy solution is to color code each squad and give each individual member a number on their shoulderpad so that they can be identified.

Essentially, you're dismissing several of the fundamental reasons that people play wargames, or 40K. You don't have those same interests or value those same things, so you're somehow offended by other people having different standards or practices to you.

There is a very common "Game at all costs" mentality which is something many gamers do not bother with. If I value the aesthetic, lore, and appearance of an army - that's my prerogative. That is what is primarily important to me, and important that I provide such to my opponent as a courtesy. I'm an adult with limited free time, and I've been in the wargaming hobby (not the GW "hobby", there is no such thing) for 25+ years. If I'm going to spend time wargaming, I'd like to play at a level that I enjoy. I don't "need" to game. I don't need shortcuts. I don't need to meta-game to win, etc. I want an attractive enjoyable game with painted armies - accurately equipped, with a cool scenario on a beautiful table.

40K as a ruleset is pretty poor...so I'm not interested in just playing it for the rules. I don't need to proxy stuff. I own two fully painted armies (both bought relatively cheap and painted quickly and efficiently). These armies include numerous sub-par weapons and equipment. I'm not so desperate to win that I have to proxy better options for a game. I can just cope with the sub-par weapons. That's fine. If I'm that anxious about it, I can modify or re-build some models.

We're on the internet where anything beyond a race to the bottom is always viewed as elitist or "wrong", even if it's something that doesn't impact the other party. If you want to game and you have half-assembled, or heavily proxied models, unpainted, or want to play on a table covered with cans and styrofoam, I'll pass. That's not some slight on you. That is not a game environment I'm interested in bothering with. I did that when I was 12-15. I'm past that stage now. I'm not desperately trying to put a game together at all costs.

I'm not going to apologize because certain things appeal to me and other things don't.

There is no opinion I will have that is ever going to stop you from playing 40K. That's on you.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

You don't need 9 heads to make the default loadout for the damn unit is the difference.

Whilst that kit's design is far from ideal, your dismissal of the purely aesthetic options is really missing what's actually the point of this hobby to many. Yearlier you even complained about trophy racks on Chaos Terminators! That is one of their signature features! Building aesthetically evocative models and being able to customise their appearance is pretty much the main draw of Warhammer and that should never be sacrificed for any other goal.

The trophy racks aren't necessary for gameplay. THAT is the definition of something that can go on a upgrade sprue like they've been doing for the Marine Chapters. So no it IS a valid complaint.

Are you... um... seriously trying to make the argument that anything that doesn't impact gameplay should not be in a kit at the expense of MOAR WEA[PONS?

Cos...uh... I can think of a FEW problems with that reasoning...

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

The trophy racks aren't necessary for gameplay. THAT is the definition of something that can go on a upgrade sprue like they've been doing for the Marine Chapters. So no it IS a valid complaint.

Those extra weapons are not required for the gameplay either, you can build a perfectly legal squad with the contents of the box. And if you don't care about aesthetics, you can play using those bottlecaps and save your money.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

You don't need 9 heads to make the default loadout for the damn unit is the difference.

Whilst that kit's design is far from ideal, your dismissal of the purely aesthetic options is really missing what's actually the point of this hobby to many. Yearlier you even complained about trophy racks on Chaos Terminators! That is one of their signature features! Building aesthetically evocative models and being able to customise their appearance is pretty much the main draw of Warhammer and that should never be sacrificed for any other goal.

The trophy racks aren't necessary for gameplay. THAT is the definition of something that can go on a upgrade sprue like they've been doing for the Marine Chapters. So no it IS a valid complaint.

Shoulder pads aren't necessary for gameplay. Arms that aren't holding weapons aren't necessary for gameplay. Heads aren't necessary for gameplay.

nataliereed1984 wrote:This is really sappy, sentimental and dumb, but I hope this thread at least results in Castozor trying his hand at trying out a few simple kitbashes and exploring that side of the hobby. It's really fun! Especially with orks!

Yes, he should make a WIP thread.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
The trophy racks aren't necessary for gameplay. THAT is the definition of something that can go on a upgrade sprue like they've been doing for the Marine Chapters. So no it IS a valid complaint.

Actually pretty fair complaint. There probably wouldn't be 3rd party companies making trophy racks but not giving us enough weapons certainly provided a market for 3rd party or 3d printed guns. See: Adeptus Titanicus.

What you see is what you get is a cancerous gatekeeping rule. Very few people have such an encyclopedic knowledge of the game as to know what every weapon in every army should look like, meaning knowing what something is equipped with is a silly notion anyway.
As to modeling individual guns, if I take the care to build, paint and base a model, I have no desire to rip off its gun arm and replace it because the latest FAQ decided to change the optimal load out, nor do I want to run a sub-par build. The only thing which requires me to chose to do one of those things is what you see is what you get. Sure, you can magnetize, but that is also time consuming, doesn't work in all modeling situations and ignores the fact that easy-to-build models (like the Shadow Spear CSM) exist and GW doesn't provide a full kit to build the optimal squad in a box (nor do they sell reasonably priced bits).
Honestly, it's a guideline that keeps a lot of people out of tourneys because they don't want the annoyance of butchering their models to conform to it.

I generally have everything WYSIWYG down to the paint job. Probably the biggest exception is my Reivers which I purposely left off the grav chutes. I don't like the look of grav chutes and on a long enough timeline at least couple would get broken. I am not that fussed about it since I don't use them (the grav chutes, I always run Reivers when playing Primaris) in Kill Team, and by the time they hit the table rules they are used for (deep strike) has occurred. I just tend to describe the Reviers, as I am reaching to get ready to place them on the table, "screaming out of the sky on burning grav chutes consumed on entry, the remaining molten stubs are quickly ejected upon landing as the Reivers proceed on foot" and the game continues.

As for my opponent, I would rather they have a painted army than WYSIWYG. That tends to not happen that much already. So I am not that ruffled by a few count as/proxies. I will admit just like faction paint, I would prefer them to use what they have over what they think is best that they need to proxy. I still have a bunch of Chaos Termincide terminators with combi-melta and powerfists that I use as modeled and they are always Black Legion and have not yet been fielded with Abbaddon. So absolute best list is something I usually don't have anyways. And I my opponent thinks somehow my list is way stronger I am always willing to take things out. But if they feel the need to proxy I usually don't mind.

nataliereed1984 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

You don't need 9 heads to make the default loadout for the damn unit is the difference.

Whilst that kit's design is far from ideal, your dismissal of the purely aesthetic options is really missing what's actually the point of this hobby to many. Yearlier you even complained about trophy racks on Chaos Terminators! That is one of their signature features! Building aesthetically evocative models and being able to customise their appearance is pretty much the main draw of Warhammer and that should never be sacrificed for any other goal.

The trophy racks aren't necessary for gameplay. THAT is the definition of something that can go on a upgrade sprue like they've been doing for the Marine Chapters. So no it IS a valid complaint.

Are you... um... seriously trying to make the argument that anything that doesn't impact gameplay should not be in a kit at the expense of MOAR WEA[PONS?

Cos...uh... I can think of a FEW problems with that reasoning...

You think there's a problem that it's reasonable to point out the kit can't create the default loadout of the unit itself? Any decorative bitz don't need to take up space on the main sprue, and I'm sorry you don't like hearing that, but I'm pretty sure you won't miss that loincloth in your Tactical Marine box in exchange for a Grav Cannon or Multi-Melta. Ya know, stuff you can actually use!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

The trophy racks aren't necessary for gameplay. THAT is the definition of something that can go on a upgrade sprue like they've been doing for the Marine Chapters. So no it IS a valid complaint.

Those extra weapons are not required for the gameplay either, you can build a perfectly legal squad with the contents of the box. And if you don't care about aesthetics, you can play using those bottlecaps and save your money.

Way to miss the argument. I'm betting you didn't even bother so check how much space your precious trophy racks take up too.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

The trophy racks aren't necessary for gameplay. THAT is the definition of something that can go on a upgrade sprue like they've been doing for the Marine Chapters. So no it IS a valid complaint.

Those extra weapons are not required for the gameplay either, you can build a perfectly legal squad with the contents of the box. And if you don't care about aesthetics, you can play using those bottlecaps and save your money.

They are if you want to upgrade the unit with them. You don't purchase trophy racks as an upgrade.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Fajita Fan wrote:

nataliereed1984 wrote:This is really sappy, sentimental and dumb, but I hope this thread at least results in Castozor trying his hand at trying out a few simple kitbashes and exploring that side of the hobby. It's really fun! Especially with orks!

Yes, he should make a WIP thread.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
The trophy racks aren't necessary for gameplay. THAT is the definition of something that can go on a upgrade sprue like they've been doing for the Marine Chapters. So no it IS a valid complaint.

Actually pretty fair complaint. There probably wouldn't be 3rd party companies making trophy racks but not giving us enough weapons certainly provided a market for 3rd party or 3d printed guns. See: Adeptus Titanicus.

If you've noticed, the most popular bitz sellers sell weapons and weapon proxies. Wonder why that is?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 cole1114 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

You don't need 9 heads to make the default loadout for the damn unit is the difference.

Whilst that kit's design is far from ideal, your dismissal of the purely aesthetic options is really missing what's actually the point of this hobby to many. Yearlier you even complained about trophy racks on Chaos Terminators! That is one of their signature features! Building aesthetically evocative models and being able to customise their appearance is pretty much the main draw of Warhammer and that should never be sacrificed for any other goal.

The trophy racks aren't necessary for gameplay. THAT is the definition of something that can go on a upgrade sprue like they've been doing for the Marine Chapters. So no it IS a valid complaint.

Shoulder pads aren't necessary for gameplay. Arms that aren't holding weapons aren't necessary for gameplay. Heads aren't necessary for gameplay.

Technically they aren't (unless TLOS comes back for aiming in which case heads are necessary), but if you have any more stupid arguments I'd love to hear them.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

nataliereed1984 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

You don't need 9 heads to make the default loadout for the damn unit is the difference.

Whilst that kit's design is far from ideal, your dismissal of the purely aesthetic options is really missing what's actually the point of this hobby to many. Yearlier you even complained about trophy racks on Chaos Terminators! That is one of their signature features! Building aesthetically evocative models and being able to customise their appearance is pretty much the main draw of Warhammer and that should never be sacrificed for any other goal.

The trophy racks aren't necessary for gameplay. THAT is the definition of something that can go on a upgrade sprue like they've been doing for the Marine Chapters. So no it IS a valid complaint.

Are you... um... seriously trying to make the argument that anything that doesn't impact gameplay should not be in a kit at the expense of MOAR WEA[PONS?

Cos...uh... I can think of a FEW problems with that reasoning...

You think there's a problem that it's reasonable to point out the kit can't create the default loadout of the unit itself? Any decorative bitz don't need to take up space on the main sprue, and I'm sorry you don't like hearing that, but I'm pretty sure you won't miss that loincloth in your Tactical Marine box in exchange for a Grav Cannon or Multi-Melta. Ya know, stuff you can actually use!

I would have absolutely ZERO interest in playing a tabletop miniatures game that consisted of nothing but stiff, bare bones models stripped down to the most basic appearance just to make room for extra weapon options.

There's reasons we all enjoy 40k in lieu of other games, and they mostly have nothing whatsoever to do with strategy, gameplay, or weapon loadouts.

It's also really really REALLY worth remembering that a huge portion of hobbyists don't actually play the game and just enjoy collecting, building, and painting the models, and that that is a perfectly legitimate way to enjoy it. Being all "get rid of the trophy racks and loincloths for extra grav guns we can ACTUALLY USE" is just wanting those fans to be badly screwed over just so that you aren't mildly inconvenienced.

 Castozor wrote:

 Fajita Fan wrote:

The Internet doesn’t convey tone or subtlety. I can promise you as one former Mek Boss to a future one whatever effort or materials you put into converting your Ork models for WYSIWYG would only be appreciated and you’ll find your skills will grow. No other Ork player will look down on you for some kustomizin’.

And if you’re ever in the DC area PM me and you can have my FW biker warboss. Not a joke.

You having said that I do apologize for my tone. But no i'm bad at converting and very cross the box doesn't have all the proper options. I do see your point though, but I'm agin not very comfortable with kitbashing and I'd rather not ruin my expensive models.

Edit @Natalie: yes I'm sure I picked the right army but I'm in this hobby for the game. As mentioned upthread I'd totally play with beer caps and lego models if I could get away with it. Orks for me are fluff wise just so great and have so many ways to build an army I fell in love with them, I want to improve my kitbashing eventually but my skills just aren't up to snuff just yet.

The dread big shootas are designed to fit kans with 0 conversion work.

If you want an out the box solution try a mixed weapons group of kans. Or trading bits with other collectors.

nataliereed1984 wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
It's not hard if you don't suck with money.

Typical elitist lack of respect for those of us who suck with money.

I think you may be the best of us...

 solkan wrote:
Corvus Belli doesn't actually produce all of the unit and weapon combinations that their game specifies. So they have an official policy that if a model-combination doesn't exist, you're allowed to proxy. In order to make that proxying feasible, there are various people who have taken to 3D-printing little signs to indicate things likes 'Heavy machine gun', or 'Profile X'.

Granted, it's an actual skirmish game, so normally only ten to twenty models on each side.

Infinity also only has about an average of 3 weapon options per unit. Not to mention, a lot of the weapons look very similar. You know the difference between a HMG and a Molotok? Me neither. Also, Nomads' Red Fury/Spitfire looks more like a shotgun to me.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Way to miss the argument. I'm betting you didn't even bother so check how much space your precious trophy racks take up too.

They take the amount of space that is needed for them to be included, and as they're an essential part of Chaos Terminator aesthetic, not having them there is not an option. It is you who is missing the point. And not only of this discussion, but the whole hobby.

They are if you want to upgrade the unit with them. You don't purchase trophy racks as an upgrade.

Indeed. So trophy racks are always needed whereas the extra weapons are only needed if you make a choice to take them. And no one forces you to make such a choice.

drakerocket wrote:
What you see is what you get is a cancerous gatekeeping rule. Very few people have such an encyclopedic knowledge of the game as to know what every weapon in every army should look like, meaning knowing what something is equipped with is a silly notion anyway.
As to modeling individual guns, if I take the care to build, paint and base a model, I have no desire to rip off its gun arm and replace it because the latest FAQ decided to change the optimal load out, nor do I want to run a sub-par build. The only thing which requires me to chose to do one of those things is what you see is what you get. Sure, you can magnetize, but that is also time consuming, doesn't work in all modeling situations and ignores the fact that easy-to-build models (like the Shadow Spear CSM) exist and GW doesn't provide a full kit to build the optimal squad in a box (nor do they sell reasonably priced bits).
Honestly, it's a guideline that keeps a lot of people out of tourneys because they don't want the annoyance of butchering their models to conform to it.

A few pages back I asked a question of people who proxy: if you tell me a unit is armed with plasmas and two hours later I deep strike right next to models that look like they’re armed with bolters or grenade launchers are you going to remind me they’re actually supposed to be plasmas? Is it my responsibility to keep track of what’s representing what in your meta-optimized-list-of-the-week?

 Fajita Fan wrote:

drakerocket wrote:
What you see is what you get is a cancerous gatekeeping rule. Very few people have such an encyclopedic knowledge of the game as to know what every weapon in every army should look like, meaning knowing what something is equipped with is a silly notion anyway.
As to modeling individual guns, if I take the care to build, paint and base a model, I have no desire to rip off its gun arm and replace it because the latest FAQ decided to change the optimal load out, nor do I want to run a sub-par build. The only thing which requires me to chose to do one of those things is what you see is what you get. Sure, you can magnetize, but that is also time consuming, doesn't work in all modeling situations and ignores the fact that easy-to-build models (like the Shadow Spear CSM) exist and GW doesn't provide a full kit to build the optimal squad in a box (nor do they sell reasonably priced bits).
Honestly, it's a guideline that keeps a lot of people out of tourneys because they don't want the annoyance of butchering their models to conform to it.

A few pages back I asked a question of people who proxy: if you tell me a unit is armed with plasmas and two hours later I deep strike right next to models that look like they’re armed with bolters or grenade launchers are you going to remind me they’re actually supposed to be plasmas? Is it my responsibility to keep track of what’s representing what in your meta-optimized-list-of-the-week?

And that is pretty reasonable to expect them to remind you since they are proxying. I have no problem with the occasional proxy for things like MIA models and when someone wants to test a unit out before they buy it to see if it fits well in their army. I expect in a friendly game that people will remind each other about rules to avoid gotcha scenarios, had a friend who was going to deep strike right next to my infantry and I reminded him that if they were within 12 I did have a stratagem that would let me shoot his models.

TBH in the discussion about chaos terminator thropy racks, theres something called optimization and space economization.

By an in-industry standard, that kit is horrible. Having a "Minor" (I know thropy racks are an iconic part of chaos terminators , just like the horned helmets, but in the grand scheme of things they are a minimal part of the miniature, not the WHOLE) characteristic ocuppy so much space in detriment of everything else, is at a technical level, a very bad job.

They should have added an extra sprue in the kit but they take the cheap and lazy way to do the kit. And thats why is one of the "worst" kits, if not the worst, of that release. Not on aesthetic, but at a pure technical level. Is one of the worst terminator kits GW has ever done.

Only Deathsroud terminators are worse, seconded by Blood Angel Terminators. In the other hand you have kits like Grey Knight Terminators (The best terminator kit ever produced by GW with EVERY weapon option and even extra bits for customization)

Would anyone honestly be opposed to GW offering a full price (50/USD) box of weapon sprus? It's got 4 of each special weapon, and 4 of each melee weapon. Bam. Done. Too easy. They would FLY OFF THE SHELVES.

If they "just" added an extra sprue, it would increase the manufacturing costs, box size, warehouse space, and shipping costs, all of which would have to result in a more expensive kit, that they undoubtedly determined would be beyond what the average person is willing to pay for five infantry.

It never ceases to amaze me how often people on the internet assume that people who's entire careers are devoted to understanding highly complicated and intricate issues and carefully balancing different needs should "just" do the suggestion they casually thought up in five minutes, at their computer, with zero experience and training, as though it just never occurred to those guys who's whole jobs are about thinking about this stuff and finding optimal solutions.

*siiiiiigh*

The Deathwing kit was pretty good IIRC.

Testing new combos, your own basement, and new players aren’t what WYSIWYG is for, it’s for the spirit of a good experience in a neutral setting among strangers playing a game. Obfuscation is not part of mini war gaming unless it’s built into a unit’s design and points cost (Skaven assassins, Night Goblin Fanatics) and having things clear to your opponent is simply an extension of having your list available to your opponent or shaking hands afterwards.

I’m not rich but this is kinda my only hobby after I gave up wanting hot rods (now there’s a money pit!!), I’m about the most humble and least WAAC kind of player out there and but I believe in sportsmanship. WYSIWYG is simply part of gaming (not just GW) and it existed when only half a model had to be GW parts. WYSIWYG existed when there were special characters or models that didn’t have official sculpts - how could it be a standard to simply get you to buy more stuff that didn’t actually exist?

We might all feel we’re totally justified playing a game with strangers in a neutral setting however we want and anyone who disagrees is a rich, elitist, try hard, WAAC jerk. There’a plenty of things that we probably all wouldn’t want in an opponent in that setting:
Rude
Not paying attention
Smelly
Doesn’t bring army or rulebooks
Ignores FAQs it updates
Doesn’t bring any or enough tools (dice, tape measure)
Spreads out their food or books on the table
Creative premeasuring
Measuring move distances front to back of models for extra movement
Creative rolling
“Misremembering” rules until called out
Nudging models
Expecting others to abide by your house rules
Etc, etc, etc

“Play your way” is great in your own house, heck we had to proxy a ton of stuff and house rule things when we started in a friend’s basement. Going to a neutral setting and expecting others to play your way isn’t necessarily great though.

We can make a ton of straw men about WYSIWYG from how it fosters cheating on one side to “this is all I can afford” on the other. I’d be more than happy to play a struggling gamer who’s fun to play and makes sure I’m aware of their proxies. I don’t want to play someone with a beautiful army who’s a pain in the ass.

 Fajita Fan wrote:


We might all feel we’re totally justified playing a game with strangers in a neutral setting however we want and anyone who disagrees is a rich, elitist, try hard, WAAC jerk. There’a plenty of things that we probably all wouldn’t want in an opponent in that setting:

Rude
Smelly

Typical elitist lack of respect for us rude and smelly people.

nataliereed1984 wrote:
If they "just" added an extra sprue, it would increase the manufacturing costs, box size, warehouse space, and shipping costs, all of which would have to result in a more expensive kit, that they undoubtedly determined would be beyond what the average person is willing to pay for five infantry.

It never ceases to amaze me how often people on the internet assume that people who's entire careers are devoted to understanding highly complicated and intricate issues and carefully balancing different needs should "just" do the suggestion they casually thought up in five minutes, at their computer, with zero experience and training, as though it just never occurred to those guys who's whole jobs are about thinking about this stuff and finding optimal solutions.

*siiiiiigh*

You assume all corporation decissions are always made by the guys that know about and not the guys that have the money to pay and many times ignore the guys that know about the stuff.

By your metric, no corporation would ever made a mistake, or be wrong or right in different ocassions because the "experts" would always reach the correct conclusions. And the reality is that GW is clearly prone to do many mistakes or just to be inconsistent in their politics and decissions.

I know an extra sprue would be more expensive for GW. Thats why they chose to made the kit on the cheap, and thats why is at a technical level a inferior kit compared with other terminator ones.

Of COURSE corporations make mistakes. I just think there's an arrogance to saying professionals in a field you do not share and do not fully understand the issues of should "just" do solution X, as though you understand the job better than they do and the incredibly basic suggestion you came up with was never considered by them. They're not perfect, but they're also not completely braindead either. Of course they considered the question of how many sprues they could reasonably fit in the box. And then they made a decision about it, and what exactly to put on those sprues, to balance: sales, pricing, size, storage, shipping, aesthetic appeal of the model, and weapon options. They decided on a specific compromise. There's no simple solution they can "just" do to magically make the kit better. There's too many competing needs.

We have established that wysiwyg is not necessary to keep track of each model, as there are other methods to do it, and also using different datasheets for identical models is in general accepted, like for example with conscripts and relic options for HQ units. Also the distinction of what is acceptable proxying and what isn't is wholly arbitrary because nobody has justified why tactical marines can be used as a proxy for devastators but why guardsmen cannot be used as proxies for tactical marines, since in both cases just telling your opponent is all the clarity that is needed. Therefore trying to enforce wysiwyg on other people is done purely because of one's personal tastes. I don't see how that is different from refusing to play someone just because you don't like their paint scheme, and I don't see how that is acceptable behaviour.

 Galas wrote:

nataliereed1984 wrote:
If they "just" added an extra sprue, it would increase the manufacturing costs, box size, warehouse space, and shipping costs, all of which would have to result in a more expensive kit, that they undoubtedly determined would be beyond what the average person is willing to pay for five infantry.

It never ceases to amaze me how often people on the internet assume that people who's entire careers are devoted to understanding highly complicated and intricate issues and carefully balancing different needs should "just" do the suggestion they casually thought up in five minutes, at their computer, with zero experience and training, as though it just never occurred to those guys who's whole jobs are about thinking about this stuff and finding optimal solutions.

*siiiiiigh*

You assume all corporation decissions are always made by the guys that know about and not the guys that have the money to pay and many times ignore the guys that know about the stuff.

By your metric, no corporation would ever made a mistake, or be wrong or right in different ocassions because the "experts" would always reach the correct conclusions. And the reality is that GW is clearly prone to do many mistakes or just to be inconsistent in their politics and decissions.

I know an extra sprue would be more expensive for GW. Thats why they chose to made the kit on the cheap, and thats why is at a technical level a inferior kit compared with other terminator ones.

Then there are factors such as when the sprue was originally created. New techniques and materials have come around since many of these "bad kits" were introduced, and who knows when they will bother organizing to make a new one. Sometimes, their biggest task is just recreating what was available on the old one and introduce any new Wargear that they will be providing. Let's face it, even the Terminator trophy rack takes up less space than a Heavy Flamer or a Reaper Autocannon, so they really aren't that comparable (though 5 racks vs one Autocannon does apply).

Alkaline_Hound wrote:
I don't see how that is different from refusing to play someone just because you don't like their paint scheme, and I don't see how that is acceptable behaviour.

You can refuse to play anyone you want for any reason you want.

Of course at a competitive event that might cost you winning the event or even placing in the event. Similarly if you refuse to play anyone at your local group you, well, won't be playing many games.

Playing a game is always a case of finding a middleground between you and the other people taking part and enjoying the game as a group; even if you are competing against them.

Guardsmen have different base sizes, and height, so that actually affects gameplay. If I were to say this cotton ball on a 24mm base counts as Mortarian, it would be an obvious advantage. I can see the weapon proxy argument, but I think it's a stretch to say guardsmen should count as SMs.

As to the "basic" fix argument, the point of my suggestion was that this issue is easily solved by the power of the wallet. Now, GW is only motivated by the power of the wallet. They are not in this to make sure the good guy wins in the fluff or that the lore is consistent. They aren't in this even to ensure you have a good time. They are only in this to serve the basic function of any company. To make profit.