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.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Let's compare to the old one.



First line is basically the same, but the weapon is different
Second is the same
Third is the same
Fourth has been split - instead of two models with any option you get one BL and one spewer
-- Then there is a clause to allow two in ten models
-- The remainder of the fourth line was limited to one model with the remaining 3 options, but limiting it as well to 10 models
Fifth line has been nerfed to 1-in-5 four double plague knife
Sixth and Seventh have been split to prevent overpacking in 5 mans like above
Eighth has been limited to a boltgun model

So what actually changed was the bannerman, access to plague knives, and the amount of weapons you can pack into a 5 man.

Considering the new rules this was necessary. It isn't significantly different than it was before and people are out of their minds, because they've probably never even looked at the old datasheet.

3 Plasmaguns in a 10 man with +1 to hit and exploding unmod 6s from a Tallyman. Flail and knife now push 6 attacks each so preventing stacking them on top of strats they have like no wasted damage might be kind of foolish. Considering they run 3A unconditionally like marines on top of all their other rules makes setting this unit up correctly crucial.

So...chill out, yea?

1. There's literally almost twice the text on the new entry
2. Everything you described was a nerf to 5-9 man squads, especially the players that liked 7 man squads for Nurgle fluff reasons.

Stop the garbage justification please.

Yeah, I am sure they would express equal support for the change if their own miniature collection was similarly affected /s.

Wayniac wrote:
I have no problem with this whatsoever. serves you right for looking to spam whatever was determined to be the most effective.

I have long been of the opinion that the unit should only allow what comes in the box so you only need to buy one box to create a unit none of this crap buying multiple boxes or trying to hunt for bits or recast or 3D print that doesn't extra pieces that you need to equip them all the same.

Good riddance

Imagine thinking spamming PM was ever the "most effective" way to play DG. Spoiler alert, the only people playing PM before knew it was a handicap but at least by maxing special weapons you weren't handicapping yourself too much. But nah lets nerf them because GW logic.

All that just reads to me to be changing what was 2 in any unit size to 1 per 5, but otherwise identical in terms of what you can take.

It doesn't look like options were removed.

If they were going to do this to loyalists, wouldn't they have done it with the new codex and the current devastator kit? I'm really hoping for a day 1 errata/faq.

I think it's good thing in general that unit's wargear options match one-to-one what can be built from the box. Modellers can still do their thing but it puts everyone at the same level regardless of size of their bits box or modelling experience as there is no need proxy, buy, recast or print additional bits if you want to field a certain loadout. People have been crying for years that there are not enough parts in the box to build all possible loadouts. Now there is.

Of course, this approach does come with problems too. Having multiple weapon profiles within the same unit slows down the game. There are so many different wargear options nowadays and sculptors are allowed to come up with even new ones. Does there really need to be separate rules for plague sword, axe, mace and knife or half a dozen primaris boltguns that look identical?

Old system used to limit special and heavy weapons to number of models that could have any listed weapon, but from what I have understood Plague Marine wargear options are written so that you can't build an illegal loadout if you follow the instructions - which is also good for new players.

Then there are problematic kits such as CSM Terminators. Someone really dropped the ball here. A kit that doesn't contain enough parts to build a default wargear for its models shouldn't exist. New player that doesn't have spare parts is forced to build mixed wargear unit regardless of what is written in the codex.

However, the most glaring issue as a whole is if all armies don't follow the same rules or design philosophy. It gives the impression that either the designers don't know what they want 40k to be or that they are in competent. Most likely both.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
All that just reads to me to be changing what was 2 in any unit size to 1 per 5, but otherwise identical in terms of what you can take.

It doesn't look like options were removed.

Several were. Icon of despair fellow used to be functional with two knives. Now the bolter is mandatory.
Quite a few special weapons were fine for 5 (or 7) man squads, now they're not. spewers, belchers, blight launchers, meltaguns, plasmaguns could all be fielded 2 each for 5 man squads. None of those can be fielded twice except at 10 models (important note: the box is 7 models). Same with maces & axes, cleaver or flail, you could have two (of each choice) at any squad size, now its only 10.

Everything about this is designed to be 'for each squad of plague marines, buy a second box'


On the terminators its worse, since a lot of legal weapon options aren't recoverable at all, unless you're spreading into 3 times the number of terminators. If someone had a 10 man combi-plasma unit, they now need 5 units of 10 terminators to legally field them

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

1. There's literally almost twice the text on the new entry

k?

Everything you described was a nerf to 5-9 man squads

And?

2. especially the players that liked 7 man squads for Nurgle fluff reasons.

Stop the garbage justification please.

Hah. Show me a person who cares about fluff that is concerned about this. I have never seen a 7 man unit at a tournament nor will I ever.

Stop with the faux outrage, please.

Wayniac wrote:
Tough, they have to suffer to minimize spamming. It's sad, but the fluff player will most likely have less of a raging fit than the competitive one.

This is bs in the face of factions that spam the same weapons (Primaris Marines). It comes off as pure spite towards CSM players on your part.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

1. There's literally almost twice the text on the new entry

k?

Everything you described was a nerf to 5-9 man squads

And?

2. especially the players that liked 7 man squads for Nurgle fluff reasons.

Stop the garbage justification please.

Hah. Show me a person who cares about fluff that is concerned about this. I have never seen a 7 man unit at a tournament nor will I ever.

Stop with the faux outrage, please.

i'm mad at the precedent it sets. And yes, it means that the full flamer blightlords i was planning on building once i started the army are no longer valid.

They still are...if you don't play with donkey-caves.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

1. There's literally almost twice the text on the new entry

k?

Everything you described was a nerf to 5-9 man squads

And?

2. especially the players that liked 7 man squads for Nurgle fluff reasons.

Stop the garbage justification please.

Hah. Show me a person who cares about fluff that is concerned about this. I have never seen a 7 man unit at a tournament nor will I ever.

Stop with the faux outrage, please.

Plague Marines have been able to take 3 plasma per squad, even minimum size, since the 4th edition codex, Nurgle marked Chaos Terminators, now called Blightlords, have been able to take full combi-weapons squads for the same amount of time. This invalidates anyones squads from then until now. This basically says "Buy the new kit!", if you want legal units. Invalidating peoples models that they've had for years isn't cool, and definitely not customer friendly.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

i'm mad at the precedent it sets. And yes, it means that the full flamer blightlords i was planning on building once i started the army are no longer valid.

I mean we had a huge thread on how awful GW for not supplying models with all the options in the kit (which has rarely been a thing for units with a lot of options).

They design kits and then write rules.

I think people should rightfully tell GW to change the rules if that is what they feel, but assigning intent or precedent is premature or unfounded.

Watch this happen to Havocs (no more than 1 Reaper Chaincannon and 2 of any other HW type per squad), or Scions (one Volley gun per squad!) or Retributors (no more than 2 of any HW in the unit), and Scourges (only one of each heavy weapon type per unit!) and so on and so forth. And then, miraculously, Marines escape this nonsense.

Wayniac wrote:
Imaging being so riled up that you can't minmax and metagame everything for once.

Imagine being so anti-WAAC that you don't understand the core concept of the topic being discussed.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
...Plague Marines have been able to take 3 plasma per squad, even minimum size, since the 4th edition codex, Nurgle marked Chaos Terminators, now called Blightlords, have been able to take full combi-weapons squads for the same amount of time...

Two plasma per squad, even at minimum squad size, in the 3rd, 4th, and 6th books. Unless you're counting the sergeant's combi-weapon?

 Daedalus81 wrote:

I mean we had a huge thread on how awful GW for not supplying models with all the options in the kit (which has rarely been a thing for units with a lot of options).

They design kits and then write rules.

If that's true why did this appear in the 6th book of 9th? Can Sternguard take 2 of each Combi weapon in each group of 5? Devs get 2 of each Heavy per 5?

 Eldarain wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

I mean we had a huge thread on how awful GW for not supplying models with all the options in the kit (which has rarely been a thing for units with a lot of options).

They design kits and then write rules.

If that's true why did this appear in the 6th book of 9th? Can Sternguard take 2 of each Combi weapon in each group of 5? Devs get 2 of each Heavy per 5?

Because SG come with 8 combis in the kit instead of one along with 2 heavies, 3 specials, and 2 pistols. Devs similarly have a ton of options. That makes it way more plausible to get what you need. Blightlords are ridiculously mono-pose and cutting those models to get combis on to them while very hobby-centric is not for novice players or the feint of heart.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

i'm mad at the precedent it sets. And yes, it means that the full flamer blightlords i was planning on building once i started the army are no longer valid.

I mean we had a huge thread on how awful GW for not supplying models with all the options in the kit (which has rarely been a thing for units with a lot of options).

They design kits and then write rules.

I think people should rightfully tell GW to change the rules if that is what they feel, but assigning intent or precedent is premature or unfounded.

yeah, and people were asking for the exact opposite of what GW did. We wanted the kits to have all the weapons options, not the options to be stripped out.

Imma quote Ninth from the other DG thread because it really gets across what some people in this thread are clearly missing:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
It is not hard to understand why people are upset, the concept and reasoning is not complex, it takes little thought to realize 'oh hey, that does suck for those affected in such a way' and while such may be the standard of the internet it remains disappointing to see the number of people unwilling to put even a minimal amount of thought into the matter.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Because SG come with 8 combis in the kit instead of one along with 2 heavies, 3 specials, and 2 pistols. Devs similarly have a ton of options. That makes it way more plausible to get what you need. Blightlords are ridiculously mono-pose and cutting those models to get combis on to them while very hobby-centric is not for novice players or the feint of heart.

And if Sternguard were suddenly limited to 2 Combi-Meltas, 2 Combi-Flamers, 2 Combi-Plasmas and 2 Combi-Gravs per squad, rather than whatever combination of those people wanted, what would you say then? 'Cause that's the equivalent.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

yeah, and people were asking for the exact opposite of what GW did. We wanted the kits to have all the weapons options, not the options to be stripped out.

Yea, man. I get it. You should be able to do that if you're crazy enough to tackle that project and GW might yet change its mind. But I do think it might be unfair to those without the same means to accomplish those conversions.

The horse left the barn a while ago with the mono-pose stuff. It seems to me that DG got the shaft in that regard, because a lot of other new kits haven't had that same treatment. GW may have had to push stylized out kits fast for the release of 8th.

I do not look forward to CSM Terminators and chain axes ( the lack of monopose may save them - we'll see soon enough I suppose ).

AnomanderRake wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
...Plague Marines have been able to take 3 plasma per squad, even minimum size, since the 4th edition codex, Nurgle marked Chaos Terminators, now called Blightlords, have been able to take full combi-weapons squads for the same amount of time...

Two plasma per squad, even at minimum squad size, in the 3rd, 4th, and 6th books. Unless you're counting the sergeant's combi-weapon?

Yes, I'm counting the Aspiring Champion's combi-weapon, that's why I didn't count 3.5, as only combi-meltas and combi-flamers were available.

Daedalus81 wrote:

 Eldarain wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

I mean we had a huge thread on how awful GW for not supplying models with all the options in the kit (which has rarely been a thing for units with a lot of options).

They design kits and then write rules.

If that's true why did this appear in the 6th book of 9th? Can Sternguard take 2 of each Combi weapon in each group of 5? Devs get 2 of each Heavy per 5?

Because SG come with 8 combis in the kit instead of one along with 2 heavies, 3 specials, and 2 pistols. Devs similarly have a ton of options. That makes it way more plausible to get what you need. Blightlords are ridiculously mono-pose and cutting those models to get combis on to them while very hobby-centric is not for novice players or the feint of heart.

A quick look at the Blightlords sprues on the GW website shows five combi-weapon arms, with the typical 2 halves combi-weapon design, so I don't see cutting being a requirement, just the requisite bits, same as devastators etc. If I'm incorrect about that then correct me.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

yeah, and people were asking for the exact opposite of what GW did. We wanted the kits to have all the weapons options, not the options to be stripped out.

Yea, man. I get it. You should be able to do that if you're crazy enough to tackle that project and GW might yet change its mind. But I do think it might be unfair to those without the same means to accomplish those conversions.

The horse left the barn a while ago with the mono-pose stuff. It seems to me that DG got the shaft in that regard, because a lot of other new kits haven't had that same treatment. GW may have had to push stylized out kits fast for the release of 8th.

I do not look forward to CSM Terminators and chain axes ( the lack of monopose may save them - we'll see soon enough I suppose ).

It MIGHT BE unfair to the brand new player with no bits box and no local community when they have just started.

It DEFINITELY IS unfair to everyone who built a legal unit but did not save the extra bits just in case GW did something unprecedented. Oh, and also magnatized/knew to magnetize from day one.

Less sympathy for the theoretical but not existent in the face of the actual screw job real people are actually facing would be real courtesy.

I say that as someone whose DG are fine.

I think that I'll hold off on building my Chaos terminators until the new CSM codex comes out.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
This is terrible GW made a terrible decision and everyone needs to Email them telling them so.

What's their email for this kinda thing?

Because I wholeheartedly agree.

Custserv@gwplc.com

Uk.custserv@gwplc.com for uk.

Nope. Feedback on the rules goes to 40kfaq@gwplc.com

Except this isn’t about rules, it’s about company policy and the dangerous precedent it sets. It might pertain to rules, but that is the tangential issue of what this change represents, so customer service.

I would still say that the Rules team would be in a better place to give this feedback to the corporate bigwigs (or whomever is responsible) and would be more likely to lend their support as well.

There's nothing stopping anyone from emailing them both.

I dropped them an email even though I'm not DG but have many DG player friends who have decided to no longer 40k for the time being as they would have to break up a bunch of modeld etc.
Its simply dick move to single out DG like that.

I am not looking forward to only be forced to take 8 storm guardians with 2 fusion etc..

It would be one thing if it had been this way from the beginning. It's a massive middle finger to existing players, however, to make what used to be legal loadouts illegal.

It honestly floors me that some people here are saying it's no big deal that they've just made many peoples' collections illegal to field. What are they supposed to do? Apparently, either hack their lovingly crafted models apart, or buy new models entirely. Answers I'm sure GW likes because they involve buying more GW-branded plastic, but not that any hobbyist should ever think are adequate.

Crap like this is why I magnetize literally every model that has any alternate option. I even magnetized my Rubrics, which felt stupid at the time but frankly, now, seems like it was a really good decision. But that's not something you should be able to expect, given how unfriendly GW makes their stuff to magnetization. They clearly don't want you to do it, they want you to just go buy new sets of models every time they decide to change what they're allowed to be equipped with.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

yeah, and people were asking for the exact opposite of what GW did. We wanted the kits to have all the weapons options, not the options to be stripped out.

Yea, man. I get it. You should be able to do that if you're crazy enough to tackle that project and GW might yet change its mind. But I do think it might be unfair to those without the same means to accomplish those conversions.

The horse left the barn a while ago with the mono-pose stuff. It seems to me that DG got the shaft in that regard, because a lot of other new kits haven't had that same treatment. GW may have had to push stylized out kits fast for the release of 8th.

I do not look forward to CSM Terminators and chain axes ( the lack of monopose may save them - we'll see soon enough I suppose ).

You did not answer the most relevant question:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
And if Sternguard were suddenly limited to 2 Combi-Meltas, 2 Combi-Flamers, 2 Combi-Plasmas and 2 Combi-Gravs per squad, rather than whatever combination of those people wanted, what would you say then? 'Cause that's the equivalent.

I feel for the Death Guard players here, I truly do. It's not about weapon spam; it's about aesthetics and customization. These same complaints would likely still be happening if they weren't "overpowered".

My Dark Eldar Trueborn were all lovingly converted with Shard Carbines to go with my Duke Sliscus conversion... only to be invalidated within one codex. My friends let me count them as Splinter Rifles, at least.

"The most playtested edition of 40k, ever!"

 posermcbogus wrote:
"The most playtested edition of 40k, ever!"

The sad thing is, it isn't a playtesting issue. It isn't really even a rules issue. Its a sales decision to move more boxes. Ironically, of kits that are out of stock and have been out of stock for months.
But regardless, buy more to bring your units in line with what's allowed (not even what's good, or in response to a meta shift or the usual optional new codex optimization decisions, but what's allowed at all). Buy more to unlock the ability to field things that aren't DG marines. Buy more to unlock even more special weapons, even if they aren't the ones you want to use.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

1. There's literally almost twice the text on the new entry

k?

Everything you described was a nerf to 5-9 man squads

And?

2. especially the players that liked 7 man squads for Nurgle fluff reasons.

Stop the garbage justification please.

Hah. Show me a person who cares about fluff that is concerned about this. I have never seen a 7 man unit at a tournament nor will I ever.

Stop with the faux outrage, please.

Right here, I am concerned of the fluff, liked running my squads with 2 plasma or melta at 7 man and I have a problem with this. Especially when as pointed out it forces more models, just to get the same special weapons and no I don't like blight launchers and didn't want to field them.