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.
Voss wrote: This is _just_ to sell more boxes, and it shows in the disregard for existing collections and the background of the army. The only plan here is to invalidate models to sell more models.
It isn't like a meta shift, where people have the agency to decide if they want to chase the 'optimal' loadout, or make do with what they have. This forces a change where people with perfectly reasonable (and even fluffy!) squads have to go buy more if they want to field legal squads. (Or chop and rebuild models that really aren't designed for chopping and rebuilding)
Really? They sell more boxes by ensuring you can't use weapon combinations the box doesn't support? Funny how the reasoning has flipped from the bad old days (aka before the Codex was revealed) when people said GW allowed weapon combinations the box didn't support to sell more boxes.
Gotta run with whatever reasoning is convenient for the moment.
Nope. I just bear no responsibility for someone trying to cast a hypothetical third party's reasoning as mine or somehow universal.
tl;dr: don't criticize arguments for not adhering to beliefs they never supported or shared.
Efficiency is the highest virtue.
2021/01/19 00:57:41
Subject: As of the new Death Guard codex, GW has taken No Model = No Rules to its extreme conclusion
If you're not having any effect with your shots you're likely making bad choices on the table. Also, you probably shouldn't build a PM unit with all the fixings anyway just due to the points cost. In fact, this is exactly what this type of change targets, you can get your toys on the table if you spend a premium in points but you can't take the most efficient load out at minimum unit sizes. How is this not a win for game balance if it continues as a trend?
no, if youre not having any effect with your shots in the situation that they presented its because only shooting D6 flamer shots at a horde will have significantly less effect than shooting 5d6.
If youre shooting a melta shot at a tank, its got a lot less chance to do anything than 5 shots.
Lets also ignore the fact that all the combis have different rangebands so you need to somehow position a single unit in range of multiple different one just to be able to use all your weapons.
2021/01/19 01:05:32
Subject: As of the new Death Guard codex, GW has taken No Model = No Rules to its extreme conclusion
Argive wrote: If somebody wanted to build a dedicated large blob CC themed DG army and equipped them with knives, bubonic axes and flails they could.. If they wanted a blobby shooty squad they could.
Now they HAVE to do what's in the box.. As you say 90% of other games do this. So why pay 90% more for that GW premium cheddar if it tastes like other cheddar?
Because GW cheddar will never taste like other cheddar. The quality difference between GW sculpts and the field is still vast and no other game in the genre has the same themes and depths of lore as 40k. You may not like the change but the ability to equip a single model with a specific weapon isn't the main draw of 40k.
"Like you know that squad there ? Well they don't all have the same weapon oh no no no.. they all come with different one in the box you see... Let me declare all of these 5 models at different targets and resolve and roll all of these separately one at a time and cause no effect rather than roll 5 dice at once at one target coz that's good game design"
If you're not having any effect with your shots you're likely making bad choices on the table. Also, you probably shouldn't build a PM unit with all the fixings anyway just due to the points cost. In fact, this is exactly what this type of change targets, you can get your toys on the table if you spend a premium in points but you can't take the most efficient load out at minimum unit sizes. How is this not a win for game balance if it continues as a trend?
It seems you just like the contrarian stance because it gets your kicks..
I will bite and say It certainly has been the main draw and appeal for a lot of people. YMMV of course. It has been for me.
Quality you say? You mean like the quality of 20 year old resin failcast kits? yeah. great... quality. I'm not going to argue the merits of GW sculpt ascetics vs completion. Of course modern GW plastics are top notch(and also ludacrisly top nothc££). But how much better than other offering is the overall product? YMMV..
If aesthetics are the only deciding factor and the game and army plays bland as feth then its not going to keep people interested IMO..
I think this is a problematic trend and needs to stop. For two reasons:
1. It means that armies with boxes/ units that can specialise will have an advantage over those that have a mish mash of options in their boxes.
2. The conclusion of this trend is that eventually all the options will be so limited every army of faction x will be exactly the same 100% of the time when you play them.
How many times are you going to want to play against the same list?
How many people will get bored if they face space marines 70% of the time in pick up games, and its the same list 90% every time?
I think its terrible design to limit options and punish people for taking time to be creative and convert / leave no opportunity to convert.
You are welcome to disagree.
AngryAngel80 wrote: I don't know, when I see awesome rules, I'm like " Baby, your rules looking so fine. Maybe I gotta add you to my first strike battalion eh ? "
alextroy wrote:Or they could just leave the datasheet the way it is since it is more limiting than the actual kit is, except for the lack of Combi-Weapon bits for every model (4 Combi-Weapon, with 2 of each type).
alextroy wrote: Or they could just leave the datasheet the way it is since it is more limiting than the actual kit is...
A literal falsehood.
"Any Space Marine Veteran may replace his special issue boltgun with a weapon from the Combi-Weapons list."
That's "more limiting than the actual kit" is it? The ability to take anything in any amount and combination is more limiting than the kit, which has 2 of each type?
You must be from an alternate reality.
Do you always criticize in bad faith or am I special? I literally mentioned Combi-Weapons in my response, but you had to cut that out to attempt to make a point.
Well to be fair, since that's the most important part, your point kinda reads like: "Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?"
2021/01/19 01:17:21
Subject: As of the new Death Guard codex, GW has taken No Model = No Rules to its extreme conclusion
Win in game balance lol, as if anyone was every quaking in their boots at the sight of PM. They are an expensive unit and a special weapon or 2 more for small squads does diddly doo for overall balance. Your regular PM is an expensive 21 point pillow fisted statblock. Though to shift yes, but for those points you get basically 0 offensive power unless you get them some (even more expensive) special weapons. Also riddle me this, if somehow taking these weapons for a 9-man squad is too overbearing why can I suddenly double up on them when I add just 1 extra dude?
2021/01/19 01:17:57
Subject: As of the new Death Guard codex, GW has taken No Model = No Rules to its extreme conclusion
If you're not having any effect with your shots you're likely making bad choices on the table. Also, you probably shouldn't build a PM unit with all the fixings anyway just due to the points cost. In fact, this is exactly what this type of change targets, you can get your toys on the table if you spend a premium in points but you can't take the most efficient load out at minimum unit sizes. How is this not a win for game balance if it continues as a trend?
no, if youre not having any effect with your shots in the situation that they presented its because only shooting D6 flamer shots at a horde will have significantly less effect than shooting 5d6. If youre shooting a melta shot at a tank, its got a lot less chance to do anything than 5 shots.
Lets also ignore the fact that all the combis have different rangebands so you need to somehow position a single unit in range of multiple different one just to be able to use all your weapons.
If we apply this rule to retributors/ havocs/ devastators/ other units that have specific one of each options, How often will you see them on the table? Why would you field a unit that has all different ranges and should target all different things (Just coz because thats what you get in the box) vs a unit taht has a clear purpose and that's good at its intended job instead?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/01/19 01:19:33
AngryAngel80 wrote: I don't know, when I see awesome rules, I'm like " Baby, your rules looking so fine. Maybe I gotta add you to my first strike battalion eh ? "
NinthMusketeer wrote: People have models they paid for, assembled, painted and played with in a 100% legal, 100% supported manner and now those units are against the rules. No, they were not all optimizing the best possible loadout; most of them were not, because tournament meta is only a small fraction of the player base. To punish optimization like that the method is to change points anyways, such that the options are more balanced. Note that relatively few complain when their min-maxed unit's weapon options become poor due to a point change.
I do not see how someone can look at this and not understand why it is upsetting to people. I can assume it happens when they themselves are not affected, but even then it takes a bare minimum of thought to imagine the circumstance. The only way someone does not understand the legitimacy of the complaint is if they do not want to understand.
Put simply: if someone does not get it, that is their failing.
I understand why this is upsetting, but times change. Taking your logic to conclusion means that once something is introduced it can never be removed. That ends up with a system that is untenable in a matter of time.
As others have touched on, weapons/models being removed has nothing to do with this. All the options are still there. It is the allocation that has changed to make the equipment loadout illegal.
If a unit loses a weapon option, no one has a problem with that weapon being used counts-as for a similar weapon that is still available. Even tournaments are happy to allow this as long as it is made clear. Ditto for models. That cannot be done here, specifically because no single option was actually removed.
VladimirHerzog wrote: no, if youre not having any effect with your shots in the situation that they presented its because only shooting D6 flamer shots at a horde will have significantly less effect than shooting 5d6.
If youre shooting a melta shot at a tank, its got a lot less chance to do anything than 5 shots.
So bring another unit to bear on the same target and shoot them again or use the other tools in your kit to defeat the for. It isn't as if DG are lacking in anti-tank or anti-horde right now.
Also, don't throw every option onto a single PM or DST unit, that's a terrible plan.
2021/01/19 01:40:54
Subject: As of the new Death Guard codex, GW has taken No Model = No Rules to its extreme conclusion
yukishiro1 wrote: Well to be fair, since that's the most important part, your point kinda reads like: "Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?"
Precisely.
When you say the current rules are more restrictive than my example, something that is objectively false, what further arguments do I need to make?
If we apply this rule to retributors/ havocs/ devastators/ other units that have specific one of each options, How often will you see them on the table? Why would you field a unit that has all different ranges and should target all different things (Just coz because thats what you get in the box) vs a unit taht has a clear purpose and that's good at its intended job instead?
I would never take a unit with a random mix of weapon that want to shoot at different target. the most variety i can take is the Leader having a different weapon.
If this is how its going to be going forward. i shudder to think of my 10 man skitarii squad with : 1 arquebuse, 1 plasma, 1 arc rifle.
So bring another unit to bear on the same target and shoot them again or use the other tools in your kit to defeat the for. It isn't as if DG are lacking in anti-tank or anti-horde right now.
Also, don't throw every option onto a single PM or DST unit, that's a terrible plan.
yeah, i better make all my plague marine squad a mediocre unfocused thing instead of having clear jobs for each of them.
If you really think that running a squad with a mish mash of weapons is better than with focused weapons, i really don't know what to say except for :
40k isnt real life, maybe you should play the game to see why people are complaining.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/01/19 01:45:46
Voss wrote: This is _just_ to sell more boxes, and it shows in the disregard for existing collections and the background of the army. The only plan here is to invalidate models to sell more models.
It isn't like a meta shift, where people have the agency to decide if they want to chase the 'optimal' loadout, or make do with what they have. This forces a change where people with perfectly reasonable (and even fluffy!) squads have to go buy more if they want to field legal squads. (Or chop and rebuild models that really aren't designed for chopping and rebuilding)
Really? They sell more boxes by ensuring you can't use weapon combinations the box doesn't support? Funny how the reasoning has flipped from the bad old days (aka before the Codex was revealed) when people said GW allowed weapon combinations the box didn't support to sell more boxes.
I'm not sure what you're trying to argue here.
Yes, this is trying to sell more boxes.
If you were an existing DG player with two 7 man squads (one with two blight launchers, one with 2 plasmaguns), that isn't legal anymore.
So GW's hope is that you'll go in and buy another box so you can field the now legal 10 man squads with 2 blight launchers (and various others bits), and etc. Its going beyond meta-chasing optimization (always optional) into 'But thou must...' territory.
The new rules _do_ support the old weapon combinations (and more besides) _IF_ you buy another box. Or two boxes (or more, depending on what you're existing collection is like).
If other people ever made the 'reasoning is flipped' argument, it wasn't me, so I don't care.
Actually, if you just don't take the extra Blight Launcher and Plasma, you've got a legal 5 man squad. Sure, you end up with extra models that you cannot legally use, but they didn't invalidate your squad like they did to people who min/max'd Blightlord Terminators. You just have new restrictions that end up preventing you from using those extra special weapons without adding more generic PM.
I have two custom Daemon Prince's which got hosed by this Codex.I added wings to a heavily customized DP of Nurgle (I replaced his legs with the bottom section of a plague drone), and that model cannot use its Plaguespitter anymore as it has wings. It sucks, but such is life.If I really want to use the Plaguespitter, I just won't pay for the wings and use it as a proxy foot variant.
Or, instead of just accepting it, since you're a paying customer, you can email them saying this is ridiculous. The amount of laying back and just accepting it is awful for a consumer to do.
I paid for that model and I used it for an entire edition. I got a bunch of use out of it as it was, and now I have to pivot. GW did not sell me a kit last week, and then turn around this week and say "Nope, you cannot use that." I'm sure I'll be attacked as some sort of apologist, but I don't really care that much. Small incremental changes like this are rough, but it is better than waiting for something like the end times to happen which invalidates an entire game because they let things get past the point of no return.
That's literally the worst attitude you could have since it affects the future in ways you're not thinking about, whether it's your own army or the army of someone else.
And just as I don't see the whole picture from my vantage point, neither does anyone on any side. The future is not determined, and we are all arm chair QBing the decision GW makes from the outside. I am fine with them changing rules to ensure that what comes in a kit is the way a unit can be equipped. It actually makes it easier in the long run to plan for fewer diverse options when preparing to face an army. Granted, this should be applied holistically across the board (i.e. Loyalists, Harlequins, etc).
And for the record, I think this attitude is vastly worse than mine:
NinthMusketeer wrote: People have models they paid for, assembled, painted and played with in a 100% legal, 100% supported manner and now those units are against the rules. No, they were not all optimizing the best possible loadout; most of them were not, because tournament meta is only a small fraction of the player base. To punish optimization like that the method is to change points anyways, such that the options are more balanced. Note that relatively few complain when their min-maxed unit's weapon options become poor due to a point change.
I do not see how someone can look at this and not understand why it is upsetting to people. I can assume it happens when they themselves are not affected, but even then it takes a bare minimum of thought to imagine the circumstance. The only way someone does not understand the legitimacy of the complaint is if they do not want to understand.
Put simply: if someone does not get it, that is their failing.
I understand why this is upsetting, but times change. Taking your logic to conclusion means that once something is introduced it can never be removed. That ends up with a system that is untenable in a matter of time.
As others have touched on, weapons/models being removed has nothing to do with this. All the options are still there. It is the allocation that has changed to make the equipment loadout illegal.
If a unit loses a weapon option, no one has a problem with that weapon being used counts-as for a similar weapon that is still available. Even tournaments are happy to allow this as long as it is made clear. Ditto for models. That cannot be done here, specifically because no single option was actually removed.
Right, and the allocation being removed sucks for those who have to change models or buy additional ones to get compliant, but I am all for it, provided it gets applied across the board to ALL armies. Perhaps GW decided to go in this direction after the SM codex? We've seen clear cases of paradigm shifts in AoS from one grouping of codices to another. If this is a one off, then the anger is going to be much easier to understand.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/01/19 01:53:13
We mortals are but shadows and dust...
6k
:harlequin: 2k
2k
2k
2021/01/19 02:12:53
Subject: As of the new Death Guard codex, GW has taken No Model = No Rules to its extreme conclusion
Right, and the allocation being removed sucks for those who have to change models or buy additional ones to get compliant, but I am all for it, provided it gets applied across the board to ALL armies. Perhaps GW decided to go in this direction after the SM codex? We've seen clear cases of paradigm shifts in AoS from one grouping of codices to another. If this is a one off, then the anger is going to be much easier to understand.
It doesn't matter either way. Necrons are largely unaffected by this sort of thing (their baseline units have traditionally been 'this gun only' or 'option A or option B'
So they either:
a) purposefully didn't target loyalist marines with this 'paradigm shift' (so the 'across the board to all armies' is already out the door)
b) only specifically targeted death guard (which is a crappy move)
and/or
c) pulled a 'paradigm shift' on the _third_ codex of the new edition (the various supplements follow the parent book).
The latter is just _weird_ especially given that it was supposed to come out closer to the first two books (meaning it was written and finalized much closer to the other two books). Close enough that the various writers could have had a fething conversation about it during the planning sessions. I'm willing to accept paradigm shifts two years later when staff roles have been moved around or new blood has come in. Less than six months into edition? Shove off.
Given that the next codex is Dark Eldar, this isn't a good thing, given that they've been given a lovely case of /invalid models/ before.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/01/19 02:16:30
Efficiency is the highest virtue.
2021/01/19 02:16:15
Subject: As of the new Death Guard codex, GW has taken No Model = No Rules to its extreme conclusion
VladimirHerzog wrote: yeah, i better make all my plague marine squad a mediocre unfocused thing instead of having clear jobs for each of them.
Da fuq... I literally said don't take one of everything... As in keep them lean and mean and only take weapons that make them better at whatever role you need them to fill.
2021/01/19 02:32:48
Subject: Re:As of the new Death Guard codex, GW has taken No Model = No Rules to its extreme conclusion
That's not what a slippery slope argument is. And until a week ago, no one would have imagined the changes to the Death Guard this thread is about.
Why isn't it? Something bad happens ergo something bad will continue to happen. An anecdote doesn't predict future results.
We are in fact sitting here talking about "no model = no rules" when the DG codex literally has a "Death Guard Chaos Lord" for which no model exists and no kit exists for the weapons available to that model.
As far as I see the issues are as follows:
-- It sucks for people who lovingly built models they can't use
-- It is perfectly fine to demand from GW to reverse this decision
-- GW is fully within its right to change unit datasheets as needed to balance the game; whether some or all of this is truly a balance issue is undetermined
2021/01/19 02:47:35
Subject: Re:As of the new Death Guard codex, GW has taken No Model = No Rules to its extreme conclusion
That's not what a slippery slope argument is. And until a week ago, no one would have imagined the changes to the Death Guard this thread is about.
Why isn't it? Something bad happens ergo something bad will continue to happen. An anecdote doesn't predict future results.
We are in fact sitting here talking about "no model = no rules" when the DG codex literally has a "Death Guard Chaos Lord" for which no model exists and no kit exists for the weapons available to that model.
As far as I see the issues are as follows:
-- It sucks for people who lovingly built models they can't use
-- It is perfectly fine to demand from GW to reverse this decision
-- GW is fully within its right to change unit datasheets as needed to balance the game; whether some or all of this is truly a balance issue is undetermined
The reason we got the Death Guard Lord and Death Guard Possessed was because people fought to get them appropriate stats, instead of laying back and accepting whatever GW throws at them like you're choosing to do since it doesn't affect you.
CaptainStabby wrote: If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote: BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote: Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote: ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
Voss wrote: This is _just_ to sell more boxes, and it shows in the disregard for existing collections and the background of the army. The only plan here is to invalidate models to sell more models.
It isn't like a meta shift, where people have the agency to decide if they want to chase the 'optimal' loadout, or make do with what they have. This forces a change where people with perfectly reasonable (and even fluffy!) squads have to go buy more if they want to field legal squads. (Or chop and rebuild models that really aren't designed for chopping and rebuilding)
Really? They sell more boxes by ensuring you can't use weapon combinations the box doesn't support? Funny how the reasoning has flipped from the bad old days (aka before the Codex was revealed) when people said GW allowed weapon combinations the box didn't support to sell more boxes.
I'm not sure what you're trying to argue here.
Yes, this is trying to sell more boxes.
If you were an existing DG player with two 7 man squads (one with two blight launchers, one with 2 plasmaguns), that isn't legal anymore.
So GW's hope is that you'll go in and buy another box so you can field the now legal 10 man squads with 2 blight launchers (and various others bits), and etc. Its going beyond meta-chasing optimization (always optional) into 'But thou must...' territory.
The new rules _do_ support the old weapon combinations (and more besides) _IF_ you buy another box. Or two boxes (or more, depending on what you're existing collection is like).
If other people ever made the 'reasoning is flipped' argument, it wasn't me, so I don't care.
Actually, if you just don't take the extra Blight Launcher and Plasma, you've got a legal 5 man squad. Sure, you end up with extra models that you cannot legally use, but they didn't invalidate your squad like they did to people who min/max'd Blightlord Terminators. You just have new restrictions that end up preventing you from using those extra special weapons without adding more generic PM.
I have two custom Daemon Prince's which got hosed by this Codex.I added wings to a heavily customized DP of Nurgle (I replaced his legs with the bottom section of a plague drone), and that model cannot use its Plaguespitter anymore as it has wings. It sucks, but such is life.If I really want to use the Plaguespitter, I just won't pay for the wings and use it as a proxy foot variant.
Or, instead of just accepting it, since you're a paying customer, you can email them saying this is ridiculous. The amount of laying back and just accepting it is awful for a consumer to do.
I paid for that model and I used it for an entire edition. I got a bunch of use out of it as it was, and now I have to pivot. GW did not sell me a kit last week, and then turn around this week and say "Nope, you cannot use that." I'm sure I'll be attacked as some sort of apologist, but I don't really care that much. Small incremental changes like this are rough, but it is better than waiting for something like the end times to happen which invalidates an entire game because they let things get past the point of no return.
That's literally the worst attitude you could have since it affects the future in ways you're not thinking about, whether it's your own army or the army of someone else.
And just as I don't see the whole picture from my vantage point, neither does anyone on any side. The future is not determined, and we are all arm chair QBing the decision GW makes from the outside. I am fine with them changing rules to ensure that what comes in a kit is the way a unit can be equipped. It actually makes it easier in the long run to plan for fewer diverse options when preparing to face an army. Granted, this should be applied holistically across the board (i.e. Loyalists, Harlequins, etc).
And for the record, I think this attitude is vastly worse than mine:
Brutus_Apex wrote: I don't respect the viewpoint of, oh well too bad, carry on.
No, you don't get to have the opinion of "that sucks for you because it doesn't affect me".
You should all be supporting those who are losing out, not being actively against them.
Because it may be me left out in the cold today, but if you don't stand up for what is right now, it will be you tomorrow.
That is just a nonsensical opinion, to which you are entitled. Good luck and God speed!
low IQ take right there.
Folks are so emotional they are resulting to personal attacks (and on the internet too!?!?!?). Irrational thoughts lead to irrational reactions.
Well look at the garbage attitude you're presenting. TONS of unit loadouts for Plague Marines numbered 5-9 have been GUTTED and the new one doesn't make a lot of sense. For example, anything but two Plasma Guns and a Blight Launcher you can't do. Meanwhile you sit there gloating "too bad". Not to mention people with Nurgle Terminators lost a gak ton of options as well. You really think people would give you sympathy to your army when it eventually happens? Absolutely not, nor are people going to treat you with the respect you somehow think you're entitled to.
AKA your crocodile tears are just that, so don't cry about people being mean on the internet.
CaptainStabby wrote: If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote: BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote: Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote: ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
2021/01/19 02:58:26
Subject: As of the new Death Guard codex, GW has taken No Model = No Rules to its extreme conclusion
Castozor wrote: Oh look Daedalus defending Chaos nerfs again, don't you have some posts defending Eradicators to make somewhere else?
It's like you don't actually read things and you're just a robot that says the same thing over and over. Good job!
My reading is just fine, your post history speaks for itself bud. All I see you do is defending a change that DID NOT apply for regular marines but that you are perfectly fine with defending for DG.
2021/01/19 03:18:46
Subject: Re:As of the new Death Guard codex, GW has taken No Model = No Rules to its extreme conclusion
The reason we got the Death Guard Lord and Death Guard Possessed was because people fought to get them appropriate stats, instead of laying back and accepting whatever GW throws at them like you're choosing to do since it doesn't affect you.
Ah, well, I guess we better revoke those Death Guard units, because we don't want to just accept what GW is throwing at us. I mean the Lord has one less wound and attack than the SM Captain. Are we just going to sit here and accept that?
But you'll sit here and try to use that as a cudgel and then spin around and argue the other side of GW's - to paraphrase - malice for PM & BL. The logic is astounding.
Castozor wrote: Oh look Daedalus defending Chaos nerfs again, don't you have some posts defending Eradicators to make somewhere else?
It's like you don't actually read things and you're just a robot that says the same thing over and over. Good job!
My reading is just fine, your post history speaks for itself bud. All I see you do is defending a change that DID NOT apply for regular marines but that you are perfectly fine with defending for DG.
Oh. I meant reading comprehension. Sorry about that.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2021/01/19 03:21:08
2021/01/19 03:40:23
Subject: As of the new Death Guard codex, GW has taken No Model = No Rules to its extreme conclusion
Every few months I like to go through my ignore list and remove any names for which I cannot immediately & clearly recall why they are there. Most of the time I am glad I did.
The reason we got the Death Guard Lord and Death Guard Possessed was because people fought to get them appropriate stats, instead of laying back and accepting whatever GW throws at them like you're choosing to do since it doesn't affect you.
Ah, well, I guess we better revoke those Death Guard units, because we don't want to just accept what GW is throwing at us. I mean the Lord has one less wound and attack than the SM Captain. Are we just going to sit here and accept that?
But you'll sit here and try to use that as a cudgel and then spin around and argue the other side of GW's - to paraphrase - malice for PM & BL. The logic is astounding.
Castozor wrote: Oh look Daedalus defending Chaos nerfs again, don't you have some posts defending Eradicators to make somewhere else?
It's like you don't actually read things and you're just a robot that says the same thing over and over. Good job!
My reading is just fine, your post history speaks for itself bud. All I see you do is defending a change that DID NOT apply for regular marines but that you are perfectly fine with defending for DG.
Oh. I meant reading comprehension. Sorry about that.
CSM players shouldn't accept the crummy stats they're given, actually. So you're kinda proving my point instead of being being white knight you want to be.
CaptainStabby wrote: If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote: BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote: Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote: ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Well look at the garbage attitude you're presenting. TONS of unit loadouts for Plague Marines numbered 5-9 have been GUTTED and the new one doesn't make a lot of sense. For example, anything but two Plasma Guns and a Blight Launcher you can't do. Meanwhile you sit there gloating "too bad". Not to mention people with Nurgle Terminators lost a gak ton of options as well. You really think people would give you sympathy to your army when it eventually happens? Absolutely not, nor are people going to treat you with the respect you somehow think you're entitled to.
AKA your crocodile tears are just that, so don't cry about people being mean on the internet.
Seriously? How am I gloating? And that is an honest question. Where did I say DG deserved this and Loyalists didn't?
I play DG. I have over 4.5k points worth of HEAVILY converted DG. I've invested a lot of money into them, but I am sorry if I don't throw a tantrum because changes are occurring. I'm going to adapt and move along. If GW decides to reverse course on this, then awesome.
We mortals are but shadows and dust...
6k
:harlequin: 2k
2k
2k
2021/01/19 04:37:25
Subject: As of the new Death Guard codex, GW has taken No Model = No Rules to its extreme conclusion
Then do something about it rather than complaining. Have all your friends email GW and if enuff players do it....ya might change the world.
Or vote with your wallets and don't buy the books/models. If you don't like what a codex offers, why the feth would you buy it? In a world where gak is leaked before its released, how in good conscience can you continue to buy the codex if the changes are sooooo egregious? Sounds dumb. When GW said to just use Squats as guard, ya know what I did, I didn't buy.
Damn straight if the chaos codex has stuff in it I don't like, it'll save me money, same for Sororities, Admech, Marines, Deldar.
But then you'll complain that you can't use the stuff you do like in it, and ya know the best part of 40k....no one is holding a bolter to your head forcing you to use the stuff you dont.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/01/19 04:38:36
2021/01/19 05:06:55
Subject: As of the new Death Guard codex, GW has taken No Model = No Rules to its extreme conclusion
yukishiro1 wrote: Well to be fair, since that's the most important part, your point kinda reads like: "Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?"
Precisely.
When you say the current rules are more restrictive than my example, something that is objectively false, what further arguments do I need to make?
You need to be correct. Outside of the Combi-weapons, the current rules are significantly more restrictive than your example. Even inside of Combi-weapons, two copies of the kit will support 4 of the same combi-weapon and 8 total combi-weapons.
You are free to disagree with me, but not by truncating my sentence to make it look like I didn't acknowledge the inability of the kit to provide full unit coverage of the same combi-weapon. That is discussing in bad faith.
Right, and the allocation being removed sucks for those who have to change models or buy additional ones to get compliant, but I am all for it, provided it gets applied across the board to ALL armies. Perhaps GW decided to go in this direction after the SM codex? We've seen clear cases of paradigm shifts in AoS from one grouping of codices to another. If this is a one off, then the anger is going to be much easier to understand.
It doesn't matter either way. Necrons are largely unaffected by this sort of thing (their baseline units have traditionally been 'this gun only' or 'option A or option B'
So they either:
a) purposefully didn't target loyalist marines with this 'paradigm shift' (so the 'across the board to all armies' is already out the door)
b) only specifically targeted death guard (which is a crappy move)
and/or
c) pulled a 'paradigm shift' on the _third_ codex of the new edition (the various supplements follow the parent book).
The latter is just _weird_ especially given that it was supposed to come out closer to the first two books (meaning it was written and finalized much closer to the other two books). Close enough that the various writers could have had a fething conversation about it during the planning sessions. I'm willing to accept paradigm shifts two years later when staff roles have been moved around or new blood has come in. Less than six months into edition? Shove off.
Given that the next codex is Dark Eldar, this isn't a good thing, given that they've been given a lovely case of /invalid models/ before.
I think it is this:
d) applied the 'new paradigm' to the Primaris units (allowing upgrades for upgrade kits and intentional crossover bits) while leaving the Firstborn Marine units with the upgrade options from the past due to their modular nature... and a healthy fear of the consumers who have 20 year old First Born Marine armies
The unit options in Codex Adepta Sororitas very much follow the paradigm of what's in the kit, upgrade kits, and designed cross-over bits.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/01/19 05:15:57
2021/01/19 05:43:39
Subject: As of the new Death Guard codex, GW has taken No Model = No Rules to its extreme conclusion
d) applied the 'new paradigm' to the Primaris units (allowing upgrades for upgrade kits and intentional crossover bits) while leaving the Firstborn Marine units with the upgrade options from the past due to their modular nature... and a healthy fear of the consumers who have 20 year old First Born Marine armies
How so? Primaris units are more like necrons- they either lack for options, or their rifles can be built of 10 of any variant. (or for the other squads eliminators & inceptors get all of either weapon, incursors/infiltrators get all their guns, etc)
That definitely isn't the same paradigm.
_That_ would have been what people have already pointed out- weird restrictions on sternguard, terminators and devastators based on exactly what's in the box, and you suddenly can't take things if the squad size is 'wrong'
The unit options in Codex Adepta Sororitas very much follow the paradigm of what's in the kit, upgrade kits, and designed cross-over bits.
'Designed cross-over bits' aren't involved with DG. Everything plague marines can equip comes from the plague marine box, everything the terminators can equip comes from the DG terminator box. The terminators especially aren't compatible with other kits, especially 'normal' chaos terminators- they don't use those CC weapons, and their ranged options are now more restricted.
Sisters have the same loadout as always, as far as I know. They didn't lose things for their units, and the battle sister box has _extra_ weapons in it (to accommodate dominions).
Their weirdest thing they got was the canoness in the limited box that didn't match the codex restrictions. Sisters are pretty much the perfect opposite of the situation here.
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2021/01/19 05:50:20
Efficiency is the highest virtue.
2021/01/19 05:51:26
Subject: As of the new Death Guard codex, GW has taken No Model = No Rules to its extreme conclusion
Then do something about it rather than complaining. Have all your friends email GW and if enuff players do it....ya might change the world.
Or vote with your wallets and don't buy the books/models. If you don't like what a codex offers, why the feth would you buy it? In a world where gak is leaked before its released, how in good conscience can you continue to buy the codex if the changes are sooooo egregious? Sounds dumb. When GW said to just use Squats as guard, ya know what I did, I didn't buy.
Damn straight if the chaos codex has stuff in it I don't like, it'll save me money, same for Sororities, Admech, Marines, Deldar.
But then you'll complain that you can't use the stuff you do like in it, and ya know the best part of 40k....no one is holding a bolter to your head forcing you to use the stuff you dont.
I'm voting with my wallet AND sending emails, as many others have done here. The least you could do is support the cause and stop this from happening to future codices.
CaptainStabby wrote: If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote: BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote: Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote: ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
2021/01/19 05:55:44
Subject: As of the new Death Guard codex, GW has taken No Model = No Rules to its extreme conclusion
It's just not a problem in a friendly environment.
Except that's based on a verbal agreement. If half the people in a group of 8 don't agree....what happens?
Or instead on relying us, the players and consumers, to fix these problems, we make it known to GW they're causing a problem. Ya know, instead of saying "not my problem" and not doing anything. Every post defending this move is ludicrous, period, and I won't stand for it.
CaptainStabby wrote: If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote: BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote: Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote: ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Well look at the garbage attitude you're presenting. TONS of unit loadouts for Plague Marines numbered 5-9 have been GUTTED and the new one doesn't make a lot of sense. For example, anything but two Plasma Guns and a Blight Launcher you can't do. Meanwhile you sit there gloating "too bad". Not to mention people with Nurgle Terminators lost a gak ton of options as well. You really think people would give you sympathy to your army when it eventually happens? Absolutely not, nor are people going to treat you with the respect you somehow think you're entitled to.
AKA your crocodile tears are just that, so don't cry about people being mean on the internet.
Seriously? How am I gloating? And that is an honest question. Where did I say DG deserved this and Loyalists didn't?
I play DG. I have over 4.5k points worth of HEAVILY converted DG. I've invested a lot of money into them, but I am sorry if I don't throw a tantrum because changes are occurring. I'm going to adapt and move along. If GW decides to reverse course on this, then awesome.
So you suffer from battered woman syndrome, sorry to hear buddy. Not all of thus are just going to mutely accept terrible design because c'est la vie, these new rules are terrible and there is no reason we shouldn't be able to discuss them here and on other places. If it annoys you that much just stop reading.
Never said it couldn’t be discussed. Very classy to make light of domestic abuse. Keep taking swings at me because you’re having a tantrum.
We mortals are but shadows and dust...
6k
:harlequin: 2k
2k
2k
Eldar- 4436 pts
Do you always criticize in bad faith or am I special? I literally mentioned Combi-Weapons in my response, but you had to cut that out to attempt to make a point. 
6k
2k
2k 
