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.

Last I checked, Tempestus Scions have a relic which replaces a boltgun... but Scions can't take boltguns, despite them being available to regular Guard infantry sergeants, because there isn't one in the Scion kit. I find NMNR quite annoying.

 alextroy wrote:
One of the issues is there is no happy medium that GW can choose. On on hand, people are unhappy because they can’t do easy kitbashes/conversions because the rules don’t support them. On the other hand, please lose their because there is only one chaincannon in the Havock kit and there are not enough chainswords in the Chaos Terminator box to are the whole squad. I can’t imagine an easier conversion in all of 40K than making a random melee weapon are into a chainsword, but people complain about that whenever a ‘what is in the kit’ discussion happens.

Those seem like two related but different things to me. What people generally lament with NMNR is the loss of options that could be used to characterize an army, are present on older versions of a model (a bunch of my Stormtrooper sergeants have boltguns), or are thematically fitting and logical but not supported in the rules. These aren't things that the units outright need, but give them potential secondary roles (eg Drukhari Archons with Blasters) or just add character.

What you're describing with Havocs is when a kit doesn't allow a simple, basic loadout, requiring either significant conversion, buying an excessive number of kits (4!), or buying bits. The rules strongly encourage you to have consistent loadouts, but the kit doesn't allow it. That's frustrating.

The happy medium as I see it is needing to buy no more than two of the same kit to get a consistent, basic loadout, but not including bits for some of the more atypical weapon options. GSC Neophytes are a good example and not something I see people complain about- they come with enough shotguns and autoguns to equip the whole squad with one or the other, and they include one of each special and heavy weapon (you can take up to two of each). Buy two boxes and you can double up whichever specials/heavies you want in each squad, and both squads can be wholly equipped with whichever primary you want.

 catbarf wrote:
Last I checked, Tempestus Scions have a relic which replaces a boltgun... but Scions can't take boltguns, despite them being available to regular Guard infantry sergeants, because there isn't one in the Scion kit. I find NMNR quite annoying.

Isn't that for a Commissar, who can take a Bolter?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 catbarf wrote:
Last I checked, Tempestus Scions have a relic which replaces a boltgun... but Scions can't take boltguns, despite them being available to regular Guard infantry sergeants, because there isn't one in the Scion kit. I find NMNR quite annoying.

Isn't that for a Commissar, who can take a Bolter?

It was regiment-specific, so couldn't be taken by Commissars. Although it looks like it got FAQ'd into a bolt pistol, so now at least it's usable.

 catbarf wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
One of the issues is there is no happy medium that GW can choose. On on hand, people are unhappy because they can’t do easy kitbashes/conversions because the rules don’t support them. On the other hand, please lose their because there is only one chaincannon in the Havock kit and there are not enough chainswords in the Chaos Terminator box to are the whole squad. I can’t imagine an easier conversion in all of 40K than making a random melee weapon are into a chainsword, but people complain about that whenever a ‘what is in the kit’ discussion happens.

Those seem like two related but different things to me. What people generally lament with NMNR is the loss of options that could be used to characterize an army, are present on older versions of a model (a bunch of my Stormtrooper sergeants have boltguns), or are thematically fitting and logical but not supported in the rules. These aren't things that the units outright need, but give them potential secondary roles (eg Drukhari Archons with Blasters) or just add character.

This is a really good point, and I'm glad you made the distinction, catbarf. It is best practice to have a unit specialize and have a consistent loadout. If a unit comes pre-equipped with chainaxe and combi-plasma, you had better have five chain-axes and five combi-plasmas. Otherwise, just say "this unit comes pre-equipped with one chainaxe, one combi-plasma, one pair of lightning claws, two multi-meltas, one power-sword," etc. etc. I don't think the increased granularity with power-weapon options was particularly useful - my unit of pewter terminators went from having all the same power weapons to suddenly a power maul, a power axe, a power sword, etc. etc.

A further point is that characters often come pre-equipped with pretty terrible options. Special pistols are not particularly useful. Having three or four pre-arranged weapon options reduces the opportunity for you to make "your guys"; it's like selecting from a few character options in a video game.

 alextroy wrote:
One of the issues is there is no happy medium that GW can choose. On on hand, people are unhappy because they can’t do easy kitbashes/conversions because the rules don’t support them. On the other hand, please lose their because there is only one chaincannon in the Havock kit and there are not enough chainswords in the Chaos Terminator box to are the whole squad. I can’t imagine an easier conversion in all of 40K than making a random melee weapon are into a chainsword, but people complain about that whenever a ‘what is in the kit’ discussion happens.

And don't forget the third faction, people who will with a straight face say "why am I paying for all these bitz I won't use, GW should only put 1 option in the box"

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
One of the issues is there is no happy medium that GW can choose. On on hand, people are unhappy because they can’t do easy kitbashes/conversions because the rules don’t support them. On the other hand, please lose their because there is only one chaincannon in the Havock kit and there are not enough chainswords in the Chaos Terminator box to are the whole squad. I can’t imagine an easier conversion in all of 40K than making a random melee weapon are into a chainsword, but people complain about that whenever a ‘what is in the kit’ discussion happens.

And don't forget the third faction, people who will with a straight face say "why am I paying for all these bitz I won't use, GW should only put 1 option in the box"

Well I usually see that applied towards dual kits, where the extra bitz are half of a completely different (and often comparatively underpowered) unit, rather than an upgrade sprue that has all the wargear options.

Happy medium? How about designing sprues so that all the bodies were on one and all the wargear options on another. 10 marines come with a sprue of 10 bolters, a sprue of 10 chainswords and bolt pistols, and a sprue of each special weapon. For something like Devestators or Havocs, sell the bodies separately (at reduced cost!) from the wargear completely; have online bundles (Havocs with 4 missile launchers and champion upgrade sprue; havocs with four lascannons and champion upgrade sprue; etc. etc.).

Half the "weird" stuff GW does is to reduce SKUs and shelf space. 80% of the range is already Direct Only because stores can't carry that much stock. Wanting individual guns is pure madness.

Fair enough; I suppose I was wishing out loud. Certainly there must be necessary compromises for concerns of physical space, shipping costs, and similar.

 Nevelon wrote:
He can have a powerfist, but only if he takes a plasma pistol with it. .

Or if he's a Dark Angel.

 Don Qui Hotep wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
One of the issues is there is no happy medium that GW can choose. On on hand, people are unhappy because they can’t do easy kitbashes/conversions because the rules don’t support them. On the other hand, please lose their because there is only one chaincannon in the Havock kit and there are not enough chainswords in the Chaos Terminator box to are the whole squad. I can’t imagine an easier conversion in all of 40K than making a random melee weapon are into a chainsword, but people complain about that whenever a ‘what is in the kit’ discussion happens.

And don't forget the third faction, people who will with a straight face say "why am I paying for all these bitz I won't use, GW should only put 1 option in the box"

Well I usually see that applied towards dual kits, where the extra bitz are half of a completely different (and often comparatively underpowered) unit, rather than an upgrade sprue that has all the wargear options.

Happy medium? How about designing sprues so that all the bodies were on one and all the wargear options on another. 10 marines come with a sprue of 10 bolters, a sprue of 10 chainswords and bolt pistols, and a sprue of each special weapon. For something like Devestators or Havocs, sell the bodies separately (at reduced cost!) from the wargear completely; have online bundles (Havocs with 4 missile launchers and champion upgrade sprue; havocs with four lascannons and champion upgrade sprue; etc. etc.).

That’s basically what forge world does. I would have taken a chassis of a unit, like space marine, and sold the basic tac squad body and legs. Then sell sprues of tac squad kits (bolters and backpack and heads) and dev kits (sprues of 4 homogenous but maybe differently sculpted heavy weapons, back pack and heads for more shoots looking marines) and Assault marine upgrade kits, along with a champion/seargent/lieutenant/banner kit that comes with alternate chest swaps, purity seals, heads, combiweapons, banner...) and a vet kit that comes with special weapons, combiweapons, Storm bolters, purity seals... etc etc. Keep a centralized kit but sell upgrade kits to turn that one kit into several, rather than a specific kit for every occasion then some...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Obviously things that are too specialized like termis can’t do that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also totally wouldn’t try that with something that is supposed to look very different from the original template, like plague marines. *shivers at the abomination. That is the noise marine upgrade pack*

I miss the rules without models. I can get them cutting full-on units that did not have models but there were a lot of options that feel like glaring holes in the army. I can't put my HoN on a Palanquin anymore, SM Captains cannot go on bikes, Warboses cannot have Mega Armor, and countless more. These were miniatures people were commonly converting out of GW models, and if there were third party miniatures involved they were often upgrade parts for GW models. It feels like everyone has lost by their removal, especially the players. At the very LEAST they could have grandfathered in options that previously existed.

Space marines still have captains on bike... chaos doesn’t have their bike lord...

I loathe the stifling of creative freedom. In general, the cool thing would be to have general rules for different types of units that could then be modelled by the customers as specifically as they please, instead of shoving out everything that isn't already represented by hyperspecific Adjective NounVerber models. Ruleswriters should write lists and factions with gameplay in mind, keeping each faction distinct with strengths and weaknesses, putting up categories to which models can then be slotted in as they come. Most of those should just come through upgrade lists (say, CSM Raptors as base and Warp Talons as an upgrade for them). Proper lists, with lots of options and funky combinations to make your armies actually Your Dudes.

Same applies to the relation between models and art. Artists should interpret the background as they wish (under the studio leader's general vision), from which the sculptors and hobbyists could then take inspiration from, not the other way round.

Basically, bring everything to the style and level of CSM 3.5 and let the players benefit from the huge range of bits and bobs GW produces. Throw wild concepts out there.

Convert everything, if you can. Have fun and revel in the fact that this is your art, this is your game, no-one on Earth has exactly the same as what you have done.

macluvin wrote:
Space marines still have captains on bike... chaos doesn’t have their bike lord...

I think this is another issue in that the NMNR policy is not enforced equally. GKs are allowed to convert models to create a unit that wouldn't otherwise exist, but this option isn't extended to other armies who could easily convert HQs to have wings/bikes/jetbikes/jump packs or the like, using other kits in the same range.

Why is converting fine for one army but not others?

On top of that, you have the further issue that not all armies get the same treatment with regard to models. At the end of 5th, DE and Necrons both had 5 characters each that lacked models. So what was the result? Necrons were given 5 new character models and got to keep each of their characters, whilst DE were given 0 new character models and had all of them removed from the codex.

 Sherrypie wrote:
I loathe the stifling of creative freedom. In general, the cool thing would be to have general rules for different types of units that could then be modelled by the customers as specifically as they please, instead of shoving out everything that isn't already represented by hyperspecific Adjective NounVerber models. Ruleswriters should write lists and factions with gameplay in mind, keeping each faction distinct with strengths and weaknesses, putting up categories to which models can then be slotted in as they come. Most of those should just come through upgrade lists (say, CSM Raptors as base and Warp Talons as an upgrade for them). Proper lists, with lots of options and funky combinations to make your armies actually Your Dudes.

Same applies to the relation between models and art. Artists should interpret the background as they wish (under the studio leader's general vision), from which the sculptors and hobbyists could then take inspiration from, not the other way round.

Basically, bring everything to the style and level of CSM 3.5 and let the players benefit from the huge range of bits and bobs GW produces. Throw wild concepts out there.

Convert everything, if you can. Have fun and revel in the fact that this is your art, this is your game, no-one on Earth has exactly the same as what you have done.

I wholeheartedly agree with this. Reading comments in 40K FB groups though I get the feeling many members of the community would be overwhelmed by that approach. There seem to be a lot of people that only want to build what's in the box and never look outside of GW. And then there's me who's like: Dude, did you really buy the same ork boys box 10 times when you can get alternatives from at least 5 sources (one of them even being GW themselves with AoS)?

You know what really stifles creative freedom?

So called true line of sight. An abstract LOS allows for conversions free if 'modelling for advantage'.

 Hellebore wrote:
You know what really stifles creative freedom?

So called true line of sight. An abstract LOS allows for conversions free if 'modelling for advantage'.

Well yeah. TLOS is a joke and probably the laziest way to handle that.

And yet, with the NMNR they are doing in 40k,
in AOS they are going the complete opposite route with the Anvil of Apotheosis character builder. Intended only for casual play, mind you, but a character builder nonetheless.

Forthewolftime wrote:
And yet, with the NMNR they are doing in 40k,
in AOS they are going the complete opposite route with the Anvil of Apotheosis character builder. Intended only for casual play, mind you, but a character builder nonetheless.

But that's a single thing that will last 1 year tops. Outside that, NMNR applies far more heavyhandedly to AoS than it does to 40k. I'm not sure there is even one upgrade option in the whole game that doesn't come in the box, to the point that even model count is hard locked to what comes in the box or multiples of the box.

 lord_blackfang wrote:

Forthewolftime wrote:
And yet, with the NMNR they are doing in 40k,
in AOS they are going the complete opposite route with the Anvil of Apotheosis character builder. Intended only for casual play, mind you, but a character builder nonetheless.

But that's a single thing that will last 1 year tops. Outside that, NMNR applies far more heavyhandedly to AoS than it does to 40k. I'm not sure there is even one upgrade option in the whole game that doesn't come in the box, to the point that even model count is hard locked to what comes in the box or multiples of the box.

Didn't GW mess up the rules and load outs on the scout primaris Lt? The one with the gun and no melee options has the jump pack to get closer, while the one that buffs reavers and is melee centric has to slog from his deployment.

So NMNR sometimes has its fun moments too.

Yep, it's the thematic opposite of drive me closer so I can hit them with my sword. I have a jump pack so I can fly away faster while shooting my enemy.

 Sherrypie wrote:
I loathe the stifling of creative freedom. In general, the cool thing would be to have general rules for different types of units that could then be modelled by the customers as specifically as they please, instead of shoving out everything that isn't already represented by hyperspecific Adjective NounVerber models. Ruleswriters should write lists and factions with gameplay in mind, keeping each faction distinct with strengths and weaknesses, putting up categories to which models can then be slotted in as they come. Most of those should just come through upgrade lists (say, CSM Raptors as base and Warp Talons as an upgrade for them). Proper lists, with lots of options and funky combinations to make your armies actually Your Dudes.

Same applies to the relation between models and art. Artists should interpret the background as they wish (under the studio leader's general vision), from which the sculptors and hobbyists could then take inspiration from, not the other way round.

Basically, bring everything to the style and level of CSM 3.5 and let the players benefit from the huge range of bits and bobs GW produces. Throw wild concepts out there.

Convert everything, if you can. Have fun and revel in the fact that this is your art, this is your game, no-one on Earth has exactly the same as what you have done.

Another great example would be Codex: Eye of Terror. All those Lost and Damned armies made out of everything on the cutting room floor. "You're asking how you make a Big Mutant? Ehm... does it fit on a 40 mm base? Then go for it!"

Yes, Eye of Terror is another piece that has a fond place on my shelf. Succint to the point with rules, terse and evocative with its fiction. Make mutants and zombies, get your whiteshields out, scratch yourself a whole 13th company of werewolves. That is how a good rules pamphlet does it.