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.

 Jidmah wrote:

 Argive wrote:
I think most people bought it for the field manual.
The mission pack is still decent I'll grant but still..

I don't think anyone bought it for the field manual, points are easily found in battlescribe and on other parts of the internets. The main advantage is having a small rulebook with ring binding and the improved missions/secondaries.

I imagine quite a few people bought it to get the updated points values, as you needed those even if you weren't planning on entering a tournament to use the scenarios - despite what the people on Dakka think, not everyone is a pirate.

I know it was on my "to buy" list for the points, but at a low priority as I have no idea when I'll be able to get a game in. Of course, with the recent points PDF, I now only need to pick it up if I want the scenarios - or I find it in a sale somewhere.

you can expect to see another CA before we get out of the pandemic

 kodos wrote:
you can expect to see another CA before we get out of the pandemic

Of that, I have no doubt. It'll be interesting to see when in 2021 they release one, though, even if just as a scenario pack - mid-to-late summer, to line up with the debut of 9th, or Nov/Dec time, as they were in 8th.

I am going to wait and see with Mortarion before judging. Eldar Flyer spam was annoying because they could stack -1 to hits(and deny shooting altogether for some armies), something Mortarion can't do. Shield Drones were annoying since they took damage you were trying to do to a unit away from that unit and onto themselves so you could never bracket the actual target, whereas you will always be getting something through with Mortarion when you damage him(he can never reduce damage below 1). Even with the Leviathans they were nasty long range whereas Mortarion really needs to get up close and personal to do anything and everyone and the next table can target him due to his size. So I disagree that Mortarion is non-interactive. He is hardy as hell, but when you are engaging with him you will always be doing something to him.

He will be powerful, but whether he is this insta-win unit remains to be seen. Maybe I am just a bit more optimistic as we are a bit more used to center piece powerful units in AoS.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dysartes wrote:

 kodos wrote:
you can expect to see another CA before we get out of the pandemic

Of that, I have no doubt. It'll be interesting to see when in 2021 they release one, though, even if just as a scenario pack - mid-to-late summer, to line up with the debut of 9th, or Nov/Dec time, as they were in 8th.

I get the feeling they are moving CA into the same slot as GHB(basically summer). I imagine having CA in December probably didn't help selling units when people were waiting for point adjustments and summer is often a new edition release window so why not have the CA at the same time to have everything synchronized.

 Jidmah wrote:

 Argive wrote:
I think most people bought it for the field manual.
The mission pack is still decent I'll grant but still..

I don't think anyone bought it for the field manual, points are easily found in battlescribe and on other parts of the internets. The main advantage is having a small rulebook with ring binding and the improved missions/secondaries.

Yeah, if I'd know the first CA was going to have everything out of the main book that actually matters to play the game I'd have thought harder about buying Indominus.

 Dysartes wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

 Argive wrote:
I think most people bought it for the field manual.
The mission pack is still decent I'll grant but still..

I don't think anyone bought it for the field manual, points are easily found in battlescribe and on other parts of the internets. The main advantage is having a small rulebook with ring binding and the improved missions/secondaries.

I imagine quite a few people bought it to get the updated points values, as you needed those even if you weren't planning on entering a tournament to use the scenarios - despite what the people on Dakka think, not everyone is a pirate.

I know it was on my "to buy" list for the points, but at a low priority as I have no idea when I'll be able to get a game in. Of course, with the recent points PDF, I now only need to pick it up if I want the scenarios - or I find it in a sale somewhere.

In a group of almost 20 players, I'm literally the only one to buy one, and I did so because it was a cheaper and smaller version of the BRB. Next to no one is still building lists without software support, and all that software has points included.
My main reason to flip through the book (and it's predecessor) was for looking up points during discussions. It's by far the most useless thing GW printed, and providing it online for free was a great move.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Eldarsif wrote:
I am going to wait and see with Mortarion before judging. Eldar Flyer spam was annoying because they could stack -1 to hits(and deny shooting altogether for some armies), something Mortarion can't do. Shield Drones were annoying since they took damage you were trying to do to a unit away from that unit and onto themselves so you could never bracket the actual target, whereas you will always be getting something through with Mortarion when you damage him(he can never reduce damage below 1). Even with the Leviathans they were nasty long range whereas Mortarion really needs to get up close and personal to do anything and everyone and the next table can target him due to his size. So I disagree that Mortarion is non-interactive. He is hardy as hell, but when you are engaging with him you will always be doing something to him.

He will be powerful, but whether he is this insta-win unit remains to be seen. Maybe I am just a bit more optimistic as we are a bit more used to center piece powerful units in AoS.

I agree. People were crying how Thrakka was unkillable and breaking the game, then people complained about the invincible Void Dragon, now they are complaining about Mortarion. When a melee threat doesn't just lay down and die if they apply all their guns to it, people just lose their minds.

Void Dragon can also spam the old mortal wounds at range, making it particularly troublesome. Not to mention Living Metal healing a wound each turn, and some chance of greater healing by wrecking a vehicle.

The healing is the main issue, as if you can only reliably damage me in one phase, I’m getting no less than a third back each turn - and if you were particularly unlucky, I can undo all the damage inflicted.

Which is a similar issue. I played against some of those 3 C'tan lists that all only take 3 damage a phase and heal one.

Are they particularly OP? Probably not. Arguably, they aren't even close to the best Necron list as far as overall tournament winnings go.

But it reduces the game of 40K to essentially a pre-game math/spread-sheet exercise on dice allocation on whether you can get it done or not. And if the answer for your army to that simple "math problem" is no, you're out of luck. And even if the answer is yes, it's dumb as feth.

 kodos wrote:
you can expect to see another CA before we get out of the pandemic

Yep.

But 2020 gave plenty of gaming already during that time.

So I've had a bit more time to digest the rules and whilst I'm excited to try out some new lists, and it looks like Death Guard are, at least for the time being, going to be strongly competitive there's some really wonky things in this new codex I just don't understand the design choices.

There's so many counter-intuitive restrictions on what units get what special rules. I mean, I can understand the reason for introducing <core> but there are some really weird overlaps in the book. Some things are core, some things are bubonic astartes, some things get contagions, some things get disgustingly resilient and these overlap in inconsistent ways that I think is gonna be a nightmare to keep track of!

A predator gets Inexorable Advance but not disgustingly resilient . A MBH gets DR but not IA. A Daemon Prince gets both. A Defiler doesn't get either. A Helbrute is Core but doesn't get DR, every other Core unit does get DR.

Maybe I'm making it a bigger issue than it is but I just find it so overly complex.

I don't understand why, after the last two years of our vehicles not getting a Legion Trait, it finally looked like it was now a blanket rule but in reality they've added in vehicles but arbitrarily not included Daemon Engines.

And that just makes our new Legion Trait so utterly perplexing. Of the three parts we have:
1.Count as not moving. The only heavy weapons available to DG infantry autohit anyway! So as far as I can tell all this grants for DG infantry is that they get Bolter Discipline regardless of whether they moved (bare in mind they used to rapid fire at 18" anyway including plasma and all terminators get it at 24")
So in reality it gives Plague Marines the extra bolter shot between 18-24" regardless of whether they moved.

2.No penalty for vehicles firing heavy in melee. The only vehicle units that get this are Helbrutes, Predators and Land Raiders - none of the Daemon Engines who would be more open to getting into melee. Helbrutes, yes it's a nice buff on an overall improved unit, but who takes Preds & LRs at all let alone in a DG army?

3.The infantry ignoring movement penalties is fine.

So really an entire 2/3 of our Legion Trait lets PMs get Bolter Discipline despite moving and Helbrutes, Preds and LRs shoot in combat without penalty. I'm inclined to think why did they bother?

I mean, I get that this is a trait for a single army codex. The loyalist Chapter Tactics are there to try to make the different chapters feel different and I guess you can give DG a weak legion trait but then up the power level on the datasheets or elsewhere in the rules to balance everything but this isn't about the power level of the army.

If the army is largely made up of exclusive units, why not just let rules cover everything and fix the datasheets or points to balance and then you don't have to remember what is getting what? Would it have been so OP to let Daemon Engines shoot in combat unimpaired? Just bump them all up 10pts or something to cover it?

Sorry for the rant but it's just frustrating that such a great book feels hampered by such awkward and arbitrary choices and alongside the detachment restrictions and weapon loadout restrictions just takes the edge off for me to be honest. Hopefully when I start getting games under my belt this will all start to make sense!

Those are very interesting observations, it'll be a nightmare to explain that to my opponents. They had already a hard time to remember which units got T5 and FNP in 7th, or why there were things in 8th that got no DG bonus. Once I get my Codex I'll try to see if there's any logic behind this.

Some very good observations there A303.

Abaddon303 wrote:
A predator gets Inexorable Advance but not disgustingly resilient . A MBH gets DR but not IA. A Daemon Prince gets both. A Defiler doesn't get either. A Helbrute is Core but doesn't get DR, every other Core unit does get DR.

Hellbrutes get the Monstrous Resilience which is the same effect as DR. Not sure why they didn't just give it DR instead. Perhaps there is a Stratagem combo they didn't want to be usable?

 mokoshkana wrote:

Abaddon303 wrote:
A predator gets Inexorable Advance but not disgustingly resilient . A MBH gets DR but not IA. A Daemon Prince gets both. A Defiler doesn't get either. A Helbrute is Core but doesn't get DR, every other Core unit does get DR.

Hellbrutes get the Monstrous Resilience which is the same effect as DR. Not sure why they didn't just give it DR instead. Perhaps there is a Stratagem combo they didn't want to be usable?

If they had given it DR instead it is guaranteed there would be no end of complaints that all other Dreads get natural -1 Damage.

I think if you look at the units and the rules in question it`s actually quite logical.
Look at the vehicles:

If it has a Death Guard only model and thus is clearly a "Death Guard" and not a generic Chaos model, it gets DR. (Crawler, Blight-Hauler, Bloat-Drone)

If it is a model thats considered an Astartes or one driving it and nothing daemonic, it gets the "Chapter Trait", in this case meaning Inexorable Advance. (Rhino, Land Raider, Predator, Helbrute) Don`t forget, the Helbrute still has a Heretic Astartes inside, even if it might be most far gone concerning optics.

If it is a daemon engine, it also has the daemonic 5++, the daemon keyword and does not profit from IA - which makes also sense fluff-wise. (Blight-Hauler, Bloat-Drone, Crawler, Defiler) They all are daemons bound to the machine and don`t have Astartes inside. A fact a have repeatedly surprised people with that thought Crawlers had a human / astartes crew.
So this one is absolutely fine as well.

About things being Core - well it`s Marines, Terminators and Cybots and with that the most "common / regular" stuff. Basicly this brings the DG just in line with the other armies.
A change i really like overall for 40k and think the right units got core in the Death guard Codex.

Same goes for Bubonic Astartes, which is just a new word for "true" legion units, so everything that is not a cultist, poxwalker, chaos spawn or Daemon Engine.
My guess is, GW is trying to limit soup buffs and will rename abilities, psychic powers and other stuff that triggered on Heretic Astartes with legion specific keywords.
Thousand Sons will get Dusty Astartes for Rubrics, Scarabs and Sorcerers, EC will get Lustful Astartes and WE Angry Astartes etc.


So overall i can`t agree, i think GW did the right choice here. If they had just given all the rules to all the units we would have a diskussion here now, why that decision was unfluffy.
But yeah, on first glance it might look inconsistant and complicated, and maybe confuse at the beginning, but it`s just a matter of time.

About the weapons loadouts, it is what it is. Whatever the exact reasons are for GW (Chapterhouse, beginner friendly sprues without the need for kitbashing, rules adjustment), we gotta deal with it. You still can use that stuff in open play or beer and bretzel games. Hell, occosionally i field my KFF Big Mek on bike just because i love my conversion and nobody cares.
Sure i love kitbashing and i understand when folks are angry if they can`t field their 20 double knife Plague Marines and 10 Plasma Terminators anyone, but hey, some builds kinda had it coming sooner or later.
In some cases loadouts become obsolete, in other cases whole units. (Conscripts, Brimstones, Grots anyone?)

I think you have a lot of good points too, until you get to the 'they had it coming' argument coupled with invalid examples. With all due respect, I don't think you understand the issue there. Which is fine, but if one doesn't understand why people are upset I think many would appreciate asking until one does or just not engaging in that particular line of conversation.

Sidenote: No, people can't use their invalidated loadouts in open play. It requires a house rule, which for many communities is a massive can of worms. And it is info needed when building a list, so for pickup games people are reduced to asking 'hey, can we use this house rule?' and if the other person says no, well sucky day.

It will be interesting if this happens to other armies, especially marines, to see how opinions change. Hopefully we'll never know.

You`re right, it hits the meta chasers as well as someone who is just enjoying his hobby - which i should have differentiate more.
Maybe i`m a bit tired of all the (partly) toxic discussions that that often swap over so many good discussions. (Plus i was on the "no model = no rules" thread on another tab and got kinda mixed up.)

Sidenote: No, people can't use their invalidated loadouts in open play. It requires a house rule, which for many communities is a massive can of worms. And it is info needed when building a list, so for pickup games people are reduced to asking 'hey, can we use this house rule?' and if the other person says no, well sucky day.

Are people really playing open play pick up games? Honest question, as i have a large gaming club and a few buddies to play. Had my last pickup game about 8 years ago.
In my mind open play is something people who play regularly but not competetive do and would not care too much about stuff like legends loadout.
We play matched play 99% of the time but sometimes use such loadouts for fun, so i kinda thought this would be even more common in open play.

For example 10 Plague Marines with double knifes are something i would have no problem with playying against, especially with Blades of Putrefication gone it`s not that bad anymore.

It will be interesting if this happens to other armies, especially marines, to see how opinions change. Hopefully we'll never know.

You mean the new keywords relevant for soup stuff or the invalidation of options not in boxes?

Invalidation of options. Most of the focus in on how this affects the new PM and BLT kits but the reality is that they have changed a weapon allocation standard that has been around for decades. And done it in something with clear, direct analogues to loyalist firstborn, who were not affected. It creates a strange and extremely frustrating situation where it feels like loyalist marines get to break the rules and get free stuff because poster boys. There was a lot of resentment towards loyalist marines already and this is not going to help. Will be interesting to see going forward.

Could end up being something they only do with DG and decide that doing it with other armies is not so great an idea. Which would be a sigh of relief for many but also really frustrating for DG.

In regards to pick up games the point is that the old loadouts people have been running for years now require a house rule to use. Not bringing in a legends dataslate but actually needing to change the RAW. And they can't access the counts-as solution that actually retired models get.

 Grotrebel wrote:

So overall i can`t agree, i think GW did the right choice here. If they had just given all the rules to all the units we would have a diskussion here now, why that decision was unfluffy.

I don't think anybody would have complained about Daemon engines getting the legion trait. Maybe a musing on the fact, like cultists getting access to veterans of the long war but I can't imagine anybody being upset about it.

I don't think these restrictions were made for fluff reasons. There's no fluff to say that death guard vehicles are particularly accurate at shooting enemies that are assaulting them but daemon engines aren't...

But has this not already kinda started with Legends?
There were lots of models but loadout options as well that got removed if they did not have a current model / option.

And they implemented that in later releases after Legends got introduced.


Sure it`s another jump to remove stuff like 4 LasCa Havocs loadout (if they continue this with other armies as well), but on the other hand it helps a lot as well. People getting into the hobby and not having to buy weapons for 4 bucks each on bitz shops because the the one option i want to spam is just there once - same goes for veterans or tournament players.
Sure there are options like kitbashing, 3D printing and other manufacturers, but i remember when i got into the hobby it was so much overwhelming stuff, that i glued to my models what looked cool / what i had and found out later if i had kitbashed that or have had those special parts i could have made that mob into a killer unit.
1 in five lootas was a mek because that was the sprue - i actually bought 4 boxes at some point so i could finally play 15 lootas without Mek like the others. If i had the knowledge / money i would have had 25% more dakka with them.

With this consistency you can just buy a box and go building + this might actually help the game itself.
Mixed squads that won`t do 100% of their damage because i need to take a fist and a banner - why not?
One of the main points people point out is 9th is still too killy.

I don't think anybody would have complained about Daemon engines getting the legion trait. Maybe a musing on the fact, like cultists getting access to veterans of the long war but I can't imagine anybody being upset about it.

I don't think these restrictions were made for fluff reasons. There's no fluff to say that death guard vehicles are particularly accurate at shooting enemies that are assaulting them but daemon engines aren't...

Yeah that veterans example is worse for sure.
Well Astartes have some kind of training and are Veterans in a long war after all (hehe), while daemon engines are bound aganst their will trying every second to escape and being forced to to their thing.
Makes kinda sense to me they don`t profit from the trait / rules like for example Land Raiders do fluff wise.

But yeah, game wise it would not have had been a big problem to give them the same rules.

 Grotrebel wrote:
But has this not already kinda started with Legends?
There were lots of models but loadout options as well that got removed if they did not have a current model / option.

And they implemented that in later releases after Legends got introduced.


Sure it`s another jump to remove stuff like 4 LasCa Havocs loadout (if they continue this with other armies as well), but on the other hand it helps a lot as well. People getting into the hobby and not having to buy weapons for 4 bucks each on bitz shops because the the one option i want to spam is just there once - same goes for veterans or tournament players.
Sure there are options like kitbashing, 3D printing and other manufacturers, but i remember when i got into the hobby it was so much overwhelming stuff, that i glued to my models what looked cool / what i had and found out later if i had kitbashed that or have had those special parts i could have made that mob into a killer unit.
1 in five lootas was a mek because that was the sprue - i actually bought 4 boxes at some point so i could finally play 15 lootas without Mek like the others. If i had the knowledge / money i would have had 25% more dakka with them.

With this consistency you can just buy a box and go building + this might actually help the game itself.
Mixed squads that won`t do 100% of their damage because i need to take a fist and a banner - why not?
One of the main points people point out is 9th is still too killy.

Do you not think that eventually we will get to the point where every single factions units will be exactly the same no matter who builds the army ? Isn't it kind of boring if everything is the same ?

 Argive wrote:

Do you not think that eventually we will get to the point where every single factions units will be exactly the same no matter who builds the army ? Isn't it kind of boring if everything is the same ?

I think there is plenty of variety left.
Just look at that PM squad, those 7 dudes still have access to over 10 different weapons and including relic upgrades and champion options you can get 20 different equipped models.
If you want you can play a squad of 10 with each one being equipped different.
Before you would have spammed 10 dual blades PM's and spammed granades and used blades for 40+ mortal wounds a turn.
Now DG players are discussing what weapons to mix in their CC squad with taking 3-5 different ones being actually a valid option.
I call this a win.

Depends on the kit of course, if there are 5 models with 4 options each once it's not that cool, but honestly I'd rather have this than seeing 1 or two options being spammed all over.
Not sure which boxes have this exact kind of load out though. Havocs and some aeldari unit?

And if I look at competitive lists, lots of them are already kind of boring with a lot of the same.
But yeah, to have the army armory back would be nice.

If GW would release kits with the amount of options like the PM with the same restriction of the same weapon once per 5 models I would actually like that. You still have specialist units like lootas, hellblasters or firedragons that use 1 weapon exklusive.

 Grotrebel wrote:

If GW would release kits with the amount of options like the PM with the same restriction of the same weapon once per 5 models I would actually like that. You still have specialist units like lootas, hellblasters or firedragons that use 1 weapon exklusive.

Take another gander at the Lootas(& Burnas) box. This new approach has terrible implications there.
Specifically that 1 of every 5 models MUST be a spanner (w. kustom blasta/big shoota or rokkit launcha) and you've got to pay points for one for every fifth model in the unit while removing 3 deffguns from a squad of 15.

 Grotrebel wrote:

 Argive wrote:

Do you not think that eventually we will get to the point where every single factions units will be exactly the same no matter who builds the army ? Isn't it kind of boring if everything is the same ?

I think there is plenty of variety left.
Just look at that PM squad, those 7 dudes still have access to over 10 different weapons and including relic upgrades and champion options you can get 20 different equipped models.
If you want you can play a squad of 10 with each one being equipped different.
Before you would have spammed 10 dual blades PM's and spammed granades and used blades for 40+ mortal wounds a turn.
Now DG players are discussing what weapons to mix in their CC squad with taking 3-5 different ones being actually a valid option.
I call this a win.

Depends on the kit of course, if there are 5 models with 4 options each once it's not that cool, but honestly I'd rather have this than seeing 1 or two options being spammed all over.
Not sure which boxes have this exact kind of load out though. Havocs and some aeldari unit?

And if I look at competitive lists, lots of them are already kind of boring with a lot of the same.
But yeah, to have the army armory back would be nice.

If GW would release kits with the amount of options like the PM with the same restriction of the same weapon once per 5 models I would actually like that. You still have specialist units like lootas, hellblasters or firedragons that use 1 weapon exklusive.

I disagree. I was up against plenty of DG MSU squads and verity of vehicles characters, deamons all sorts... I played vs DG regularly.
You just wont see any of those units on the table now.

That's kind of the point, who cares if you can have each dude with a different weapon if only one of them is good but just taking one isn't enough to make it worth while.. People don't take units that are all mish mash for a reason.

Out of what's left that's decent, how many of those options are going to be blatantly optimal? As soon as one loadout becomes obviously optimal... It will be the only loadout you will see or you just will see another unit instead.

You think GW will make kit options balanced at??
The same GW where it usually gives you 3 options of which one is auto take and the other are just plain bad?
What about factions whose core units happen to have really gak box contents?

If all of your factions vehicles suck and the other source of heavy support was a heavy weapons team which now has to take all sort of crap weapons you don't want you will just go for the only things thats left that's decent..

Internal codex balance is already abysmal for most factions (unless you have 100+ data sheets)
Any more limitation will just push that internal balance even further out of whack...

I'm surprised people cant see how this trend is going to go and how they could possibly have any trust in GW to make options balanced..

Nah Eldar have already been gutted of options. We don't get to have any.
Which is why you only saw Eldar flyers for 3 years... Bad internal balance due to bad kits and options is why you see spamming. Not too many options...

In fairness, GW have managed to produce a pretty balanced codex with DG. I guess that's part of my frustration that now that all the options in the book have their merits, my choices are now arbitrarily restricted.

I have a plague marine I built and painted with the cleaver just because it looked cool. I've never used him in a game but the new codex has actually made me consider him to be a viable choice along with every other PM loadout. So it's extra galling to have my choices restricted again.

I think fortunately due to the nature of 9th edition, PM squads are actually one of the best places units to be viable as a mixed loadout unit. I don't feel so inclined to load one up to sit at the back and another to charge forwards in a rhino etc.

I do think they will work with a variety of weapons sprinkled throughout without being fully optimised for a role, but the fact I have less control over what I give to my squads makes my list building feel a little less interactive which just feels kinda anti-hobby if that makes...

You don't think blight lord spam + pox walkers/ PM (with flail and bligh launcher)+ surgeon is now just auto take part of the army?

What about any of the vehicles?
Recon I'm going to come up against PBC / MBH ?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Abaddon303 wrote:


I do think they will work with a variety of weapons sprinkled throughout without being fully optimised for a role, but the fact I have less control over what I give to my squads makes my list building feel a little less interactive which just feels kinda anti-hobby if that makes...

It makes perfect sense.
Once Internal balance settles and you have less options choices will be made for you. which is just bad.

Why did people only see eldar planes for a whole dition?
Options taken away and crappy internal balance.

What has actually changed with the Plague Marine loadouts in their entry?
Is there a screenshot of it somewhere easy.

People who wanted to build loadouts using only what was in the kit were 100% able to do that before. Nothing, I repeat, nothing has changed for those players. Every single thing that they supposedly 'gain' from this change is something they already had.

Players who did not convert/bits swap couldn't build certain loadouts? Well either they don't lose anything for not doing that because such loadouts were bad, OR the players who were doing that have lost a desirable option. It is one or the other.

Certain loadouts were more powerful and gave a disadvantage to other builds? Change the points! Otherwise the problem remains that someone who comes in new and builds a mix is handicapping themselves and nothing has changed, save the min-maxxers don't have to work as hard. And the overwhelming majority of people who were not trying to optimize for gaming the meta are punished for playing exactly how GW and the rules told them to.

Players who want to keep running PM or DG termies with the equipment mechanics they've had for the last 20+ years cannot do that. At all. Not in legends, not in open play, not for counts-as. They need to alter the RAW to use their units.

And finally, anyone who supports this as a good change by extension is supporting equivalent changes for other armies. Havocs should be 2 per 5 on each weapon because that's what's in the kit, GSC infantry can only use exactly the numbers in the kit, scourges, guardsmen, termagants, lootas/burnas, a massive number of space marine units, and many more. Tell the players of those armies that such a change is a 'good idea' and see how they react.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
People who wanted to build loadouts using only what was in the kit were 100% able to do that before. Nothing, I repeat, nothing has changed for those players. Every single thing that they supposedly 'gain' from this change is something they already had.

Players who did not convert/bits swap couldn't build certain loadouts? Well either they don't lose anything for not doing that because such loadouts were bad, OR the players who were doing that have lost a desirable option. It is one or the other.

Certain loadouts were more powerful and gave a disadvantage to other builds? Change the points! Otherwise the problem remains that someone who comes in new and builds a mix is handicapping themselves and nothing has changed, save the min-maxxers don't have to work as hard. And the overwhelming majority of people who were not trying to optimize for gaming the meta are punished for playing exactly how GW and the rules told them to.

Players who want to keep running PM or DG termies with the equipment mechanics they've had for the last 20+ years cannot do that. At all. Not in legends, not in open play, not for counts-as. They need to alter the RAW to use their units.

And finally, anyone who supports this as a good chance by extension is supporting equivalent changes for other armies. Havocs should 1 per 5 on each weapon because that's what's in the kit, GSSC infantry can only use exactly the numbers in the kit, scourges, guardsmen, termagants, lootas/burns, a massive number of space marine units, and many more. Tell the players of those armies that such a change is a 'good idea' and see how they react.

This is 100% accurate. The options as in the core box were legal already they simply made loadouts that had been legal for decades not able to be taken, for no real reason I can see outside punish people who spent time to convert, money to buy, or just old squad set ups from previous editions where blight weapons didn't yet exist. This wasn't about balance as no one was running in fear from the offensive output of plague marines back when you could take 5 man dual plasma squads since way back. It's fine if someone doesn't care, or begrudges people their happiness just because they think it's " bad wrong fun but at least be honest with why you support this decision. This obviously isn't addressed to who I quoted. It's just many people are seem to love to say " Hey, happened to me, suck it up " or " Just the way it goes, enjoy it. " which end up both unhelpful and add nothing. Though at this point what can be added the decision doesn't make anything either more balanced or more fun.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
People who wanted to build loadouts using only what was in the kit were 100% able to do that before. Nothing, I repeat, nothing has changed for those players. Every single thing that they supposedly 'gain' from this change is something they already had.

Players who did not convert/bits swap couldn't build certain loadouts? Well either they don't lose anything for not doing that because such loadouts were bad, OR the players who were doing that have lost a desirable option. It is one or the other.

Certain loadouts were more powerful and gave a disadvantage to other builds? Change the points! Otherwise the problem remains that someone who comes in new and builds a mix is handicapping themselves and nothing has changed, save the min-maxxers don't have to work as hard. And the overwhelming majority of people who were not trying to optimize for gaming the meta are punished for playing exactly how GW and the rules told them to.

Players who want to keep running PM or DG termies with the equipment mechanics they've had for the last 20+ years cannot do that. At all. Not in legends, not in open play, not for counts-as. They need to alter the RAW to use their units.

And finally, anyone who supports this as a good chance by extension is supporting equivalent changes for other armies. Havocs should 1 per 5 on each weapon because that's what's in the kit, GSSC infantry can only use exactly the numbers in the kit, scourges, guardsmen, termagants, lootas/burns, a massive number of space marine units, and many more. Tell the players of those armies that such a change is a 'good idea' and see how they react.

Your argument would be more convincing if you got your facts right. The Havoc kit contains 2 of each heavy weapon expect for the single chaincannon.