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.

Overall I agree with the arguments that the few restrictions were annoying, not needed, and lead to cookie cuter lists. I also agree it is frustrating and confusing why they didn’t make everything get DR and IA (which is the worst legion/chapter trait in the game).

Also, I know there has been lots of talk about how good mortarian is. I agree he is very resilient, but wow his damage output has really fallen off. In many instances his damage output fall well behind that of a Redemptor dreadnaught which costs almost 1/3 points. On average he will only kill 2 assault terminators or blade guard veterans each turn (before he gets bracketed). Throw in an apothecary and Mortarian can be tied up almost the entire game with a unit of 10. Overall he is still strong, but I think people are expecting his 8th Ed damage output with blades of putrefaction, not realizing his damage output has been exchanged for his durability.

Truth to be said, restrictions usually have the effect of increasing diversity.

During the history of 8th, lists would have been very similar if the rule of three didn't exist, or if you could take multiple copies of the same named char.

Restrictions help to prevent a single good choice from becoming prevalent. It is a "damage control" approach. You assume that in a game of this size, with this impossibly huge amount of choices, you can't really balance them all perfectly and so put rules like the rule of three in place to make sure that even if one option would rule them all, at least it cannot actually rule all of it and must leave a share for the other ones.

Game wise, I'm fine with these kind of restrictions, they make the game more interesting and I would like to actually see more of them.

Hobby wise, they suck. Plain and simple. You can't simply change the loadout on a painted model. Even if you have the will to modify it and repaint it, many times you no longer have those bits. Maybe that you no longer even have the colors which you used to paint it the first time, they could even be out of production.

That said, I don't understand why these kind of threads are appearing only now. The PM squad wasn't surely the first to be gutted and box sized. For example, have you ever took a look at the canoness loadouts?

Take a look at that datasheet and tell me that you didn't see this coming.

You quite simply didn't see that as an issue with the SoB book because some of their kits just came with naturally light choices. I'd say as well if units lost options, many players who picked them up were brand new at the time of relaunch. The vets of the army as well wouldn't bother worrying about slight lack of options due to getting such a wealth of new kits and a new actual codex once more.

Now any SoB old time player can correct me here if I'm wrong.

So, no we wouldn't just assume it would happen as the 7 man two special of the same kind set up has been legal for well over a decade at least as far as I remember for DG.

As for BL, they didn't take away space wolves being able to take tons of varied upgrades on their terminators so why would people just assume it would be taken away for them now ? Nothing was said or hinted at that they would make such strange rulings.

I am currently of the belief that these unit/kit limitations will only be applicable to non-Heavy slots. Which is why I am not that worried about Havoc, Devs, and Retributors.

However, GW being GW I will have to wait until other codexes to see where GW is heading with this.

I wonder where this outcry was when they axed all the options from Codex: Orks that weren't in the corresponding kits, despite the kits being designed to be interchangeable. GW has been doing this for years, it's just the first time it has reached a marine faction.

I'm no less surprised about my winged Daemon Prince with spitter being illegal than I was about my warboss on warbike losing his attack squig and kombi-skorcha.

I think the blightlord terminator's combi weapon limitation is the real big change, though. The plague marine role is mostly the same, even with the new restrictions - you can still make melee oriented units and fire support units (even though it's true you'll have to recruit 10 of them to have 3 plasmas instead of 2), with basically a similar effect as before.

I feel like the blightlords role isn't the same, though.

 AngryAngel80 wrote:
You quite simply didn't see that as an issue with the SoB book because some of their kits just came with naturally light choices. I'd say as well if units lost options, many players who picked them up were brand new at the time of relaunch. The vets of the army as well wouldn't bother worrying about slight lack of options due to getting such a wealth of new kits and a new actual codex once more.

Now any SoB old time player can correct me here if I'm wrong.

Most the lost options were concerning characters and unit champions, so it was still annoying for those of us who had the miniatures but we could live with it.

Adding a heavy bolter to the new Immolator and Exorcist was way more annoying in comparison, since the old versions were not WYSIWYG anymore...;and they clearly were more expensive than a mere unit of Plague Marines or Blightlord Terminators.

Sarouan wrote:
I think the blightlord terminator's combi weapon limitation is the real big change, though. The plague marine role is mostly the same, even with the new restrictions - you can still make melee oriented units and fire support units (even though it's true you'll have to recruit 10 of them to have 3 plasmas instead of 2), with basically a similar effect as before.

That's true I guess, and I understand it sucks a lot if you have a load of old chaos terminators like Grimtuff described. But this isn't new either. In 7th edition kanz lost the ability to run double melee or ranged weapons, in 8th they lost the ability to take KMB and I'm sure in 9th they will be going to being able to take only one of each weapon per 3 - despite the dread and the kanz being designed in a way to swap bits between them, up to the point where lower melee arms and skorchas are the exact same bits.

 Jidmah wrote:
I wonder where this outcry was when they axed all the options from Codex: Orks that weren't in the corresponding kits, despite the kits being designed to be interchangeable. GW has been doing this for years, it's just the first time it has reached a marine faction.

I'm no less surprised about my winged Daemon Prince with spitter being illegal than I was about my warboss on warbike losing his attack squig and kombi-skorcha.

I actually have some good friends who love Orks, play them, have them and I did say I don't like the removal of Ork options here and IRL. Just because some said to suck it up doesn't mean that was ever me who told someone that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sarouan wrote:
I think the blightlord terminator's combi weapon limitation is the real big change, though. The plague marine role is mostly the same, even with the new restrictions - you can still make melee oriented units and fire support units (even though it's true you'll have to recruit 10 of them to have 3 plasmas instead of 2), with basically a similar effect as before.

I feel like the blightlords role isn't the same, though.

 AngryAngel80 wrote:
You quite simply didn't see that as an issue with the SoB book because some of their kits just came with naturally light choices. I'd say as well if units lost options, many players who picked them up were brand new at the time of relaunch. The vets of the army as well wouldn't bother worrying about slight lack of options due to getting such a wealth of new kits and a new actual codex once more.

Now any SoB old time player can correct me here if I'm wrong.

Most the lost options were concerning characters and unit champions, so it was still annoying for those of us who had the miniatures but we could live with it.

Adding a heavy bolter to the new Immolator and Exorcist was way more annoying in comparison, since the old versions were not WYSIWYG anymore...;and they clearly were more expensive than a mere unit of Plague Marines or Blightlord Terminators.

I do hear you about the heavy bolter and exorcist thing. For our group we just let the one SoB player we have run the units and assume the HB is there. Makes it a bit easier than say " Just assume this other plasma is a blight launcher " One is somewhat easy to the remember the other way invalidates the model. I don't really like either thing however.

Thank you for the reply to let me know of the changes to load out items for SoB, I appreciate the feed back.

Quite a few posters bemoaning their ruined collection in this thread did so, though.

And where did I ever say having units invalidated would ever be something good ? I don't think I've ever said that was ok and it is always annoying. Squating of models, units or even whole armies is wrong, no matter who it happens to.

Why are you assuming I addressed you directly? I didn't

I'm just seeing this thread run in circles for over ten pages on units losing options, like it had never happened before.

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.

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.

Hi, sorry if I'm being thick, but I registered to ask this because everyone seemed to agree with this but I don't understand it. The codex says that vehicles with the <plague company> keyword get IA and MBH has both the <plague company> and the vehicle keyword, so I assumed they got Inexorable Advance? Can you explain why this wouldn't be the case? Just asking because I'm pretty new to Death Guard and want to get things right.

 Jidmah wrote:
I wonder where this outcry was when they axed all the options from Codex: Orks that weren't in the corresponding kits, despite the kits being designed to be interchangeable. GW has been doing this for years, it's just the first time it has reached a marine faction.

we had this with Marines too (Wolve Scouts have the same Box since 5th while their possible equipment changed with every Codex), it was just that people still believed that Nu-GW is different and it won't happen with a new Codex designed by Nu-GW (so no old leftover copyright/chapterhouse problems as an excuse why it must be done)

but Nu-GW is just old-GW with a PR department, rules development and codex design is still the same

So for the marines, the limits are no more than the total of weapons in the kit, is that what we are saying?
So one Plague launcher in the kit, can’t take two together unless over ten in the unit?

Bishbot wrote:
Hi, sorry if I'm being thick, but I registered to ask this because everyone seemed to agree with this but I don't understand it. The codex says that vehicles with the <plague company> keyword get IA and MBH has both the <plague company> and the vehicle keyword, so I assumed they got Inexorable Advance? Can you explain why this wouldn't be the case? Just asking because I'm pretty new to Death Guard and want to get things right.

Exact quote:
"Bubonic Astartes in Death Guard detachments gain the Inexorable Advance ability."

All daemon engines lack the Bubonic Astartes keyword.

 Jidmah wrote:

Bishbot wrote:
Hi, sorry if I'm being thick, but I registered to ask this because everyone seemed to agree with this but I don't understand it. The codex says that vehicles with the <plague company> keyword get IA and MBH has both the <plague company> and the vehicle keyword, so I assumed they got Inexorable Advance? Can you explain why this wouldn't be the case? Just asking because I'm pretty new to Death Guard and want to get things right.

Exact quote:
"Bubonic Astartes in Death Guard detachments gain the Inexorable Advance ability."

All daemon engines lack the Bubonic Astartes keyword.

Ah, got it, thanks. Not sure how I missed it several times.

Spoletta wrote:
Truth to be said, restrictions usually have the effect of increasing diversity.

During the history of 8th, lists would have been very similar if the rule of three didn't exist, or if you could take multiple copies of the same named char.

Restrictions help to prevent a single good choice from becoming prevalent. It is a "damage control" approach. You assume that in a game of this size, with this impossibly huge amount of choices, you can't really balance them all perfectly and so put rules like the rule of three in place to make sure that even if one option would rule them all, at least it cannot actually rule all of it and must leave a share for the other ones.

Game wise, I'm fine with these kind of restrictions, they make the game more interesting and I would like to actually see more of them.

Hobby wise, they suck. Plain and simple. You can't simply change the loadout on a painted model. Even if you have the will to modify it and repaint it, many times you no longer have those bits. Maybe that you no longer even have the colors which you used to paint it the first time, they could even be out of production.

That said, I don't understand why these kind of threads are appearing only now. The PM squad wasn't surely the first to be gutted and box sized. For example, have you ever took a look at the canoness loadouts?

Take a look at that datasheet and tell me that you didn't see this coming.

Some restrictions are good (rule of three), but forcing everyone to take a plague caster with no other HQ options isn’t going to increase diversity it will have the opposite result. Restrictions on the weapon load outs are just odd, because it had nothing to do with balance. It now makes me have to roll a million on different weapon types and slows the game. I’m hoping that adding the “lord of the death” guard to demon prices was an error (Which I think it was). Not sure why the even create the demon prince restriction otherwise. Just removing that restriction would be good.

A solution to the PM squad miss match of loads different weapons would be keeping them with no extra gear and build from there if you wish...

So a squad of 5 or 10 with only the default gear... should be an option if you want loads of squads that have same weapon type.

The multipart kit though only has:
"These models feature a wide range of weapons and heads, many of which are designed to fit a specific model – there are 8 boltguns, 4 plague knives, 2 bubotic axes, a blight launcher, a plasma gun, a meltagun, a plaguebelcher, a heavy plaguespewer (with backpack), a mace of contagion, a great plague cleaver, a plague flail, a plasma pistol and a bolt pistol. There are 2 weapon options available for the unit Champion: a specific plaguesword and power fist, and there are a total of 16 bare and helmeted heads. 2 specific arms are included for a model holding a blight grenade, with one hand pulling the pin."

A bit short on knives But if you buy 3 kits you will for sure have all that you need.

Joking aside its easy conversion with some knives being attached to the legs and back packs etc. And more grenades on hands.

Haven't seen the leaks yet, but before everything sells out, can someone tell me which character models seem like must-haves? My wife has a Morty and 3x Dark Imperium sets she has been painting, but we don't really own any of the HQ/Elite heroes.

Conquest never made it over there did it?

 Jidmah wrote:
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.

But my uncle who works for Nintendo and also happens to be the greatest 40k player in the world said... That Ghaz thread was comedy gold!

NewTruthNeomaxim wrote:
Haven't seen the leaks yet, but before everything sells out, can someone tell me which character models seem like must-haves? My wife has a Morty and 3x Dark Imperium sets she has been painting, but we don't really own any of the HQ/Elite heroes.

Well she already has 3 plaguecasters and 3 Lord of Contagion so is pretty well set up for HQ.
To be honest with what she has to paint up I would leave off any more HQs for now. Then expand by getting the new Lord of Virulence and a Daemon Priince.
Be aware though that you can only have 1 lord or DP of ANY kind.

Elites I would say Plague Surgeon and Tallyman looking VERY good. I'm a personal fan of the Bioligus Putrifier myself too

 alextroy wrote:
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.

Fixed, thank you for the correction!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Spoletta wrote:
Truth to be said, restrictions usually have the effect of increasing diversity.

During the history of 8th, lists would have been very similar if the rule of three didn't exist, or if you could take multiple copies of the same named char.

Restrictions help to prevent a single good choice from becoming prevalent. It is a "damage control" approach. You assume that in a game of this size, with this impossibly huge amount of choices, you can't really balance them all perfectly and so put rules like the rule of three in place to make sure that even if one option would rule them all, at least it cannot actually rule all of it and must leave a share for the other ones.

Game wise, I'm fine with these kind of restrictions, they make the game more interesting and I would like to actually see more of them.

Hobby wise, they suck. Plain and simple. You can't simply change the loadout on a painted model. Even if you have the will to modify it and repaint it, many times you no longer have those bits. Maybe that you no longer even have the colors which you used to paint it the first time, they could even be out of production.

That said, I don't understand why these kind of threads are appearing only now. The PM squad wasn't surely the first to be gutted and box sized. For example, have you ever took a look at the canoness loadouts?

Take a look at that datasheet and tell me that you didn't see this coming.

The outcry would not be the same if the change came when the new kit launched. It would still have sucked, but not as much. Instead they gave people three years to get situated with the new kit before pulling the rug out from under them.

Also, restrictions to prevent spamming the best option are a ridiculously inefficient fix as compared to simply raising the points on that option. Broad rules applied across the whole game, like rule of three, serve as a good catch all for imbalances that will inevitably exist but this is completely different. An equivalent would be saying ANY squad can only have 1 instance of a given special weapon per 5 models.

 Jidmah wrote:
Why are you assuming I addressed you directly? I didn't

I'm just seeing this thread run in circles for over ten pages on units losing options, like it had never happened before.

Just because something bad happens, doesn't ever make it correct. Just because crap things are allowed doesn't ever mean we shouldn't protest against it. Just because something crap has happened, even if it happens over and over doesn't ever mean people shouldn't bring up when its wrong and why it is wrong and make it known that is wrong. Justifying poor treatment based on precedent does nothing but try and justify gak ideas and treatment.

Just because you, or others were poor done over and others said suck it up, doesn't mean that was the right response or even the right attitude. I've had to eat these decisions, as have we all but at some point you have to draw a line in the sand, this is it for me. Especially when it could strike down just as hard, again, on Dark Eldar which really they've been hammered enough with loss of options, as have orks, as have pretty much every player who dares to play for longer than one codex release.

 Jidmah wrote:
Quite a few posters bemoaning their ruined collection in this thread did so, though.

I was Bemoaning the fact that we lost a option that was still in the kit, the bits are there, they are clearing wanting people to only build kit exaclty like they are in the directions and thats it. Also with this change and the change to the rules it doesn't make sense that they added a second Icon which is clearly meant to be taken with a squad kitted for CC, but then you can only take it if you take a boltgun armed guy which would not be what you want to take in a unit kit for CC. Which mean even in a fluffy game no will will take the icon, because why would I take it and lose one of4-5 Melee weaposmns I could take instead for a unit I have build to specifically get in my oppene8face

TlDR: the problem is mix messages with rules, and GW going beyond what is in the kit are the options, but "we only want you to build this unit this way"

 AngryAngel80 wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
Why are you assuming I addressed you directly? I didn't

I'm just seeing this thread run in circles for over ten pages on units losing options, like it had never happened before.

Just because something bad happens, doesn't ever make it correct. Just because crap things are allowed doesn't ever mean we shouldn't protest against it. Just because something crap has happened, even if it happens over and over doesn't ever mean people shouldn't bring up when its wrong and why it is wrong and make it known that is wrong. Justifying poor treatment based on precedent does nothing but try and justify gak ideas and treatment.

Just because you, or others were poor done over and others said suck it up, doesn't mean that was the right response or even the right attitude. I've had to eat these decisions, as have we all but at some point you have to draw a line in the sand, this is it for me. Especially when it could strike down just as hard, again, on Dark Eldar which really they've been hammered enough with loss of options, as have orks, as have pretty much every player who dares to play for longer than one codex release.

Yes I understand, and I said so multiple times. Both my DG and my orks are affected by this company policy. I still see no point in this discussion, especially not for 10 pages, drowning out everything more interesting than "BREAKING NEWS: GW keeps operating the same way they did for a decade!".

Well perhaps its because people are tired of that same old behavior ? At some point even the most relaxed soul decides to speak out. That is all that is and was going on. If people want to discuss other things, and they have no one has stopped them, that is great. At this point though this whole thread has probably run its course. We've heard most of the rumors and news so little is still rumor and more just lamentable or cherished fact now.

Happy the codex is stronger, not happy for this change in set ups and will hope it dies with this book and doesn't blight other armies past this one.

 AngryAngel80 wrote:
Well perhaps its because people are tired of that same old behavior ? At some point even the most relaxed soul decides to speak out. That is all that is and was going on. If people want to discuss other things, and they have no one has stopped them, that is great. At this point though this whole thread has probably run its course. We've heard most of the rumors and news so little is still rumor and more just lamentable or cherished fact now.

Happy the codex is stronger, not happy for this change in set ups and will hope it dies with this book and doesn't blight other armies past this one.

Then email them saying you won't buy the codex until they fix that atrocity.

I don't play DG (the one army I don't collect), but I totally feel the pain. My IG army had commissars with storm bolters, Ogryn with 2 close combat weapons, and Griffon mortars.

 cuda1179 wrote:
I don't play DG (the one army I don't collect), but I totally feel the pain. My IG army had commissars with storm bolters, Ogryn with 2 close combat weapons, and Griffon mortars.

And I will always fight for IG as well. Even on Kan's behalf I have complained about Infantry officers not having the option for a Lasgun. It's ridiculous.