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.

BrianDavion wrote:

Hecaton wrote:

 Togusa wrote:
Do you expect every thing mentioned somewhere in a codex, book or article to get rules? There is only so much design space, and as I've said before you guys need to chill out. We're a month into a new edition with no codexes, the collapse of multiple governmental systems, a pandemic, and trade fights with the one country that supplies most of the world with things. We have literally seen new models in the pipe line for all of the armies mentioned here and once things even out (hopefully soon) you'll get releases. Besides, it's not as if we can even play the damned game at the moment anyways. Chill, out.

They're actively taking things away from factions that aren't their chosen standard bearers, though, so it's not just the supply chain situation.

you act like Marines didn't lose a ton of biker HQs eaither. grow the feth up, and stop acting like Xenos are the only people who lose stuff to legends.

Except Orks have already lost a ton of iconic classic models that are almost required for the army to even function properly. It's one thing for a unit to not make the cut in a brand new codex, but to delete an an entry on a whim via FAQ is absolutely absurd. Orks are already a DOA army in 9th and this just adds insult to injury.

I play SM, and I know that for every datasheet I lose, there will be 10 more added within months or two. Orks will wait years to get 1-2 datasheet replacements if they ever get them at all.

redboi wrote:

Except Orks have already lost a ton of iconic classic models that are almost required for the army to even function properly. It's one thing for a unit to not make the cut in a brand new codex, but to delete an an entry on a whim via FAQ is absolutely absurd. Orks are already a DOA army in 9th and this just adds insult to injury.

I play SM, and I know that for every datasheet I lose, there will be 10 more added within months or two. Orks will wait years to get 1-2 datasheet replacements if they ever get them at all.

To be fair though this removal happened long time ago. There's not been actual official datasheet to use biker warboss since legends came out. It's been dead option in official rules since then.

BrianDavion wrote:

Hecaton wrote:

 Togusa wrote:
Do you expect every thing mentioned somewhere in a codex, book or article to get rules? There is only so much design space, and as I've said before you guys need to chill out. We're a month into a new edition with no codexes, the collapse of multiple governmental systems, a pandemic, and trade fights with the one country that supplies most of the world with things. We have literally seen new models in the pipe line for all of the armies mentioned here and once things even out (hopefully soon) you'll get releases. Besides, it's not as if we can even play the damned game at the moment anyways. Chill, out.

They're actively taking things away from factions that aren't their chosen standard bearers, though, so it's not just the supply chain situation.

you act like Marines didn't lose a ton of biker HQs eaither. grow the feth up, and stop acting like Xenos are the only people who lose stuff to legends.

The difference is that Space Marines get replacements/additions on a regular basis whereas xenos are lucky to get 1 replacement for every 2-3 models lost.

And lets not forget that those replacements tend to be weaker or side-grades to the units they replace, while marine replacements are always all-upside compared to their predecessors.

 Jidmah wrote:
And lets not forget that those replacements tend to be weaker or side-grades to the units they replace, while marine replacements are always all-upside compared to their predecessors.

well, yes but no?
Considering initially Intercissors and other primaris reminded more of a failure of biles experiments then actual marines...


still i feel this is accurate:

Not a single primaris unit has any drawback at all besides costs compared to the unit they are replacing.

Points get adjusted twice a year, a terrible datasheet on a xenos unit will never be fixed until the unit runs OOP.

I'd also like to point out that GW also killed the wartrike with this FAQ, leaving the only viable way to run orks - a vehicle list - without a HQ that has any synergy with it.

 Jidmah wrote:
Not a single primaris unit has any drawback at all besides costs compared to the unit they are replacing.

Points get adjusted twice a year, a terrible datasheet on a xenos unit will never be fixed until the unit runs OOP.

I'd also like to point out that GW also killed the wartrike with this FAQ, leaving the only viable way to run orks - a vehicle list - without a HQ that has any synergy with it.

He i never stated that much i just pointed out that even though primaris were intended as tacs +1 they were not good enough.

But i agree on the datasheet stuff. Terrible datasheets seldom get improved, if anything they most of the time can expect to get worse.

Man o Man I see the same thing every new edition!

I started in 3rd and I see the same tired complaining each and every edition change and FAQ.............

"My army is dead, GW sucks!" "All they care about is space marines who win everything and spit on Xenos!"

Jesus guys, can you at least alter the complaints a little?

Each edition armies take a hit and each edition Space Marines are up first. They get more than others......if you don't have much sense about how business works even at the most basic level then explaining that Space Marines are the biggest earner for GW won't help.

 Jidmah wrote:
Not a single primaris unit has any drawback at all besides costs compared to the unit they are replacing.

Points get adjusted twice a year, a terrible datasheet on a xenos unit will never be fixed until the unit runs OOP.

I'd also like to point out that GW also killed the wartrike with this FAQ, leaving the only viable way to run orks - a vehicle list - without a HQ that has any synergy with it.

Which FAQ did what to the wartrike?

 Da-Rock wrote:
Man o Man I see the same thing every new edition!

I started in 3rd and I see the same tired complaining each and every edition change and FAQ.............

"My army is dead, GW sucks!" "All they care about is space marines who win everything and spit on Xenos!"

Jesus guys, can you at least alter the complaints a little?

Each edition armies take a hit and each edition Space Marines are up first. They get more than others......if you don't have much sense about how business works even at the most basic level then explaining that Space Marines are the biggest earner for GW won't help.

If GW repeats the same mistakes every edition, why would you expect people to react differently? If you treat people the same way, you'll get the same reaction. Blaming them for continuing to react negatively to negative treatment is missing the point. The problem is the negative treatment. As long as GW continues to lavish disproportionate attention on Space Marines, adding kit after kit while removing kits from Xenos factions for no apparent reason, you'll continue to get the (perfectly justified) complaints about it.

Not one person in this thread has come up with any reason for why the Warboss on Warbike got squatted. That should be telling. Not even the pro-GW contingent at Dakka can defend this one. So why would you attack people for complaining about something nobody can justify?

I think people have also forgotten that Marines spent half of 8e as a mid tier at best army. With some chapters even lower.

There was a big chunk of Eldar and Chaos dominance.

yukishiro1 wrote:

Not one person in this thread has come up with any reason for why the Warboss on Warbike got squatted. That should be telling. Not even the pro-GW contingent at Dakka can defend this one. So why would you attack people for complaining about something nobody can justify?

The why seems obvious? GW doesn't make one.
If they do a new one, it will wind up in the next ork codex.


@Stux- yep. And previous editions as well. The idea that marines are always, consistently superior is... less than a year old, actually.
Many of the complaints wouldn't be here if the 2.0 codex (and repeated PA updates) hadn't happened. People just have marines on the brain from the last year.

But they still got kit after kit release during that time. That's the point. It isn't about power levels, it's about the amount of attention they get.

Space Marines get tons of new kits every year, Xenos lose kits inexplicably for no discernible reason. It's reasonable for people to complain about that.

Voss wrote:
The why seems obvious? GW doesn't make one.
If they do a new one, it will wind up in the next ork codex.

As has been posted more than once in this thread, GW does, in fact, make one. Not from Citadel, mind, but from Forge World. Still, it's being sold as much as the Valdor (which didn't get squatted from 9th) is.

Voss wrote:
The why seems obvious? GW doesn't make one.
If they do a new one, it will wind up in the next ork codex.

FW isn't GW? Then why didn't they squat the whole FW line?

yukishiro1 wrote:

Voss wrote:
The why seems obvious? GW doesn't make one.
If they do a new one, it will wind up in the next ork codex.

FW isn't GW? Then why didn't they squat the whole FW line?

40k would be a better game if they squatted the whole Citadel line instead.

 Stux wrote:
I think people have also forgotten that Marines spent half of 8e as a mid tier at best army. With some chapters even lower.

There was a big chunk of Eldar and Chaos dominance.

Yes. Space Marines were only the top army for the first 2-3 months and the last ~year of a slightly more than two year long edition of 40k.

How TERRIBLE. how AWFUL for them.

yukishiro1 wrote:

Voss wrote:
The why seems obvious? GW doesn't make one.
If they do a new one, it will wind up in the next ork codex.

FW isn't GW? Then why didn't they squat the whole FW line?

No idea. Perhaps they should have.
In 30-odd years of playing Warhammer I've encountered FW models actually on the table... once? (The giant, because he liked the FW one better). Another guy talked about using a Necron pylon, but never did.
It makes no difference to me.

Voss wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:

Voss wrote:
The why seems obvious? GW doesn't make one.
If they do a new one, it will wind up in the next ork codex.

FW isn't GW? Then why didn't they squat the whole FW line?

No idea. Perhaps they should have.
In 30-odd years of playing Warhammer I've encountered FW models actually on the table... once? (The giant, because he liked the FW one better). Another guy talked about using a Necron pylon, but never did.
It makes no difference to me.

Ah, yes, the old "I am personally unaffected, therefore (I will imply that) they should squat them." How gregarious! How thoughtful! How charitable and kind! I am sure you always think about the point of view of other people (for example the ones who do play with Forge World lists or models) when making decisions.

Voss wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:

Voss wrote:
The why seems obvious? GW doesn't make one.
If they do a new one, it will wind up in the next ork codex.

FW isn't GW? Then why didn't they squat the whole FW line?

No idea. Perhaps they should have.

Right, so we're back to "nobody can come up with a reason why this model got squatted." Thanks for clearing that up.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Voss wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:

Voss wrote:
The why seems obvious? GW doesn't make one.
If they do a new one, it will wind up in the next ork codex.

FW isn't GW? Then why didn't they squat the whole FW line?

No idea. Perhaps they should have.
In 30-odd years of playing Warhammer I've encountered FW models actually on the table... once? (The giant, because he liked the FW one better). Another guy talked about using a Necron pylon, but never did.
It makes no difference to me.

Ah, yes, the old "I am personally unaffected, therefore (I will imply that) they should squat them." How gregarious! How thoughtful! How charitable and kind! I am sure you always think about the point of view of other people (for example the ones who do play with Forge World lists or models) when making decisions.

Not even once. That was, in fact, my point.
Because generally the 'other people' I've played with in 30+ years don't play with FW models. I, personally, have more FW stuff than any person I've ever met at a game.

yukishiro1 wrote:

Right, so we're back to "nobody can come up with a reason why this model got squatted." Thanks for clearing that up.

You are welcome. When GW makes a warboss biker kit, you'll see rules again. Its really that simple.

Is there a model for the SM captain on a bike? I don't see one, but it still looks like we get to keep it.

Well, that's rude. You should definitely try to think of other people's wants and needs as well when you do things. I think I learned that when I was like, 7.

 UncleJetMints wrote:
Is there a model for the DM captain on a bike? I don't see one, but it still looks like we get to keep it.

Yeah it's weird, that's never had a model at all.

Voss wrote:
You are welcome. When GW makes a warboss biker kit, you'll see rules again. Its really that simple.

GW DOES make a warboss biker kit.

They literally do.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Well, that's rude. You should definitely try to think of other people's wants and needs as well when you do things. I think I learned that when I was like, 7.

I do. You're missing my point. I'm perfectly fine with people playing with FW models. But they choose not to, so it does not matter. I'm not being 'rude,' I'm describing the consistent reality of my experience _with_ other people. In real life, at actual game tables.
FW does not come up, except as a proxy, once.

Voss wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Well, that's rude. You should definitely try to think of other people's wants and needs as well when you do things. I think I learned that when I was like, 7.

I do. You're missing my point. I'm perfectly fine with people playing with FW models. But they choose not to, so it does not matter. I'm not being 'rude,' I'm describing the consistent reality of my experience _with_ other people. In real life, at actual game tables.
FW does not come up, except as a proxy, once.

But then you used that as a supporting argument for an implied normative statement about squatting FW ('perhaps they should'). There is a big difference between stating what you see, and then stating what you see and using it to describe a normative value without considering what other people see.

Voss wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
Not a single primaris unit has any drawback at all besides costs compared to the unit they are replacing.

Points get adjusted twice a year, a terrible datasheet on a xenos unit will never be fixed until the unit runs OOP.

I'd also like to point out that GW also killed the wartrike with this FAQ, leaving the only viable way to run orks - a vehicle list - without a HQ that has any synergy with it.

Which FAQ did what to the wartrike?

Look out sir. Basically there’s no longer a realistic way of protecting the War trike from shooting as it was almost always going to be 8-9 wound buggies.

So it’s basically a dead model after you start moving, or you hide it and it gets no value.

the_scotsman wrote:

 Stux wrote:
I think people have also forgotten that Marines spent half of 8e as a mid tier at best army. With some chapters even lower.

There was a big chunk of Eldar and Chaos dominance.

Yes. Space Marines were only the top army for the first 2-3 months and the last ~year of a slightly more than two year long edition of 40k.

How TERRIBLE. how AWFUL for them.

It was a 3 year edition. So less than half by your reckoning.

I didnt say it was terrible. Just that the pendulum swings, and people have very short memories.

tulun wrote:

Voss wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
Not a single primaris unit has any drawback at all besides costs compared to the unit they are replacing.

Points get adjusted twice a year, a terrible datasheet on a xenos unit will never be fixed until the unit runs OOP.

I'd also like to point out that GW also killed the wartrike with this FAQ, leaving the only viable way to run orks - a vehicle list - without a HQ that has any synergy with it.

Which FAQ did what to the wartrike?

Look out sir. Basically there’s no longer a realistic way of protecting the War trike from shooting as it was almost always going to be 8-9 wound buggies.

So it’s basically a dead model after you start moving, or you hide it and it gets no value.

Couldn't that be fixed by giving it a rule like the one that allows Old One Eye to get protection from a carnifex? "This model cannot be targeted if it's within 3 of a friendly model with the VEHICLE keyword". Something like that?