How do you feel about "No Instructions, No Rules" going forward?

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.

**Slayer-Fan123**

jeff white wrote:
Karol wrote:

I so hope this was a joke, because I laughed durning classes.

Dude. You should not be reading dakka in class.

Eh, sometimes I read at work if I have a small amount of down time. Nothing wrong with a destresser. That said I don't really get destressed here sooooo...

**Karol**

jeff white wrote:
Karol wrote:

I so hope this was a joke, because I laughed durning classes.

Dude. You should not be reading dakka in class.

I don't like polish literature. It is boring, and I don't understand it most of the time.

"Forcing mixed loadouts is necessary to tone down the lethality of the game!" isn't really any more rational than "They hate us, and want to ruin the game!". The one gives GW too much credit, the other doesn't give GW enough credit.

The thing is, they are neither do it for all factions, nor even do it for all units within one faction. Because DG has some really killy powerful units, they are just units most DG players probably didn't own, if they started in 8th ed.

Post 2021/01/28 17:57:06 Subject: How do you feel about "No Instructions, No Rules" going forward?
Time for an unpopular point of view (which seems to be my specialty on Dakka).

Many are the comments in threads of all stripes about the lethality of the game. And perhaps one of the reasons for that is that it was possible to design a squad with enough identical weapons to vaporize a knight in one turn, or decimate large infantry squads in one turn.

Forcing a unit to diversify it's load out minimizes this effect. On the plus side though, it would help ensure that every unit has the capacity to deal with anything, rather than "This is a pure antitank unit that is useless against infantry."

A unit with one meltagun, one plasma, one flamer and one heavy weapon isn't good vs any target. Plus there are options like the new blender drone, that are super killy and good vs practicaly everything, plus has good synergy with DG contagion rules. It is just making specific units , which people bought before, worse just to make them worse. I would get the change if GW decided that all DG termis are to run around with combi flamers, and max one melta or plasma. But not one of each. That is just design that makes a DG player want to take a unit which is good instead.

so you tell me GK got a kit in 5e but their loadout changed in 5th, 7th and 8th

I am not sure about prior edition other then 8th. but In 8th you wanted only falchions on your models, and in 9th you want everything, but not falchions on your models. Also I know that in older rules GK could take termintors with storm shields and hammers, but now they no longer can do that.

**Jidmah**

NinthMusketeer wrote:
Jidmah wrote:
NinthMusketeer wrote:
kodos wrote:
NinthMusketeer wrote:
Forcing that change out of the blue on a unit that has had it's current kit for years is a far cry from that.

and still happened before

those things change usually with a new Codex, not with a new kit
most people just don't recognise those changes as the majority also gets new models with the new Codex or the rules change in a way that the old layout is crap anyway and people don't want to keep it

but forcing the change with a new Codex without giving people a new kit or making the new loadout better happens with each new Edition
but now it happens with a more popular army on a basic unit
Can you provide some examples? There were attempts made above but none of them are analogous to what happened with DG.

Nice handwaving. If anything, DG got off easy.
The other examples were not the same thing. That is it, there is no hand waving. The GK one is closest, but it is still just one weapon option out of many in the kit and the second change was simply reversing the first one. I explained very clearly the different situations before, if you are unwilling or unable to comprehend them I can accept that, but it frustrates me that you would accuse my point of being invalid to cover.

I just provided seven separate examples of instances where ork models were invalidated for no other reason but matching the exact contents of a box set/character blister more closely, and the only response to that is "noooo, it's not the same" without any further explanation.

That is, by it's very definition, hand-waving an argument.

**AnomanderRake**

Karol wrote:
...

so you tell me GK got a kit in 5e but their loadout changed in 5th, 7th and 8th

I am not sure about prior edition other then 8th. but In 8th you wanted only falchions on your models, and in 9th you want everything, but not falchions on your models. Also I know that in older rules GK could take termintors with storm shields and hammers, but now they no longer can do that.

Legal loadouts didn't change. Good loadouts changed a lot. SS/hammers on GK Terminators hasn't existed since 2e, before there was any wargear standardization of any kind.

**jeff white**

If you don’t understand then you really should not be reading dakka during class.

And GK is a great army to collect. GW rules are for the birds. I have a mix of imp guard, stormtroopers, sisters, OG marines, inquisition, and I will always think of them as the same “army” as they are allies, really. If I needed 2000points then I would need to use two or three of them. If someone wanted a game of 5th at 1000 using different units from different armies, I would encourage it especially if it would help to “forge the narrative” about that person’s collection. After, she or he might decide to add ogryn or transports, who knows, but this is what moves us to grow our “armies” or at least some of us when we do not buy spam armies for a meta, all at once. If you wanted to use shields and hammers, I would see no problem with it.

**the_scotsman**

Forcing units that can take multiple weapons to now take a single one of each weapon will simply make those units basically always inferior to competing units that don't have to make that choice.

I can take a trip lance ravager.

In what universe is a 1 haywire 1 DL 1 blaster 1 Heat Lance scourge unit going to be competitive with that?

**kodos**

NinthMusketeer wrote:

Nice handwaving. If anything, DG got off easy.

The other examples were not the same thing. That is it, there is no hand waving. The GK one is closest, but it is still just one weapon option out of many in the kit and the second change was simply reversing the first one. I explained very clearly the different situations before, if you are unwilling or unable to comprehend them I can accept that, but it frustrates me that you would accuse my point of being invalid to cover.

**VladimirHerzog**

the_scotsman wrote:
Forcing units that can take multiple weapons to now take a single one of each weapon will simply make those units basically always inferior to competing units that don't have to make that choice.

I can take a trip lance ravager.

In what universe is a 1 haywire 1 DL 1 blaster 1 Heat Lance scourge unit going to be competitive with that?

"JusT AdJUsT ThE PoInTs"!!!!

But yeah, scourges are already bad, changing their options to match the box would just make them terrible. Its all about them right now. If they do get their loadout changed, we'll know that GW has a new approach mid-edition once again.

Doesnt matter to me, i'll keep my single weapon profile squads even if GW tells me i can't. I'm not gonna mess around with 1 combiflamer, 1 combiplas, 1 combimelta and 2 combibolters on my blightlords.

**the_scotsman**

VladimirHerzog wrote:
the_scotsman wrote:
Forcing units that can take multiple weapons to now take a single one of each weapon will simply make those units basically always inferior to competing units that don't have to make that choice.

I can take a trip lance ravager.

In what universe is a 1 haywire 1 DL 1 blaster 1 Heat Lance scourge unit going to be competitive with that?

"JusT AdJUsT ThE PoInTs"!!!!

But yeah, scourges are already bad, changing their options to match the box would just make them terrible. Its all about them right now. If they do get their loadout changed, we'll know that GW has a new approach mid-edition once again.

Doesnt matter to me, i'll keep my single weapon profile squads even if GW tells me i can't. I'm not gonna mess around with 1 combiflamer, 1 combiplas, 1 combimelta and 2 combibolters on my blightlords.

If the points were made such that that scourge unit and that ravager were identically efficient, I would still choose to use the trip lance ravager because the sequence would be

-roll 3 dice
-roll the hits
-my opponent saves
-roll damage

and the attack sequence for the scourges woudl be that X4.

**Ice_can**

That is something I think GW doesn't realise makes a difference to player's. Like seriously who actually doesn't die a little everytime someone tries to remeber all the random weapons on a repulsor. Also that they spend 10 minuits shooting 1 vehicals weapons.

It's also super convenient that this is happening just as marines go to being the new aspect warriors with every model equipped with a specialist weapon.

**NinthMusketeer**

NinthMusketeer wrote:
There is a difference between being *required* to convert a unit, being required to convert certain options for a unit, and needing to convert certain loadouts for a unit.

For large portions of Warhammer history there were units with rules and no model at all. X on a bike/mount was pretty common. A lot of what third parties sold was stuff like that. This is being required to convert to play a unit, and it is well gone. There have also been units, usually characters, with options that required converting. A certain weapon or piece of visual wargear that was not included in the kit and generally needed to be taken from another unit. This is also gone.

Finally, there is needing to convert certain loadouts. The blightlord terminator kit comes with one of each option, but to have a unit with multiples of that option kitbashing/converting is required. Buying a bunch of kits also works but is varying degrees of impractical depending on the unit. However, this is only for someone who wants to up how many of an option they have within a unit. No converting is required to use any of the options, at all. Saying such is extremely disingenuous at best. Now maybe spamming a certain option is really good, but that can and does change with points/weapon profile updates or even just shifting meta. If a unit is not viable without spamming a certain option that is a balance problem and not even addressed by limiting the options.

However, there is something to be said about being able to build any version of a unit from its kit and ideally every kit would come with enough options to do that. But it is impractical. A devestator kit with 5 of every weapon option would result in ridiculous amounts of wasted sprue space, for example, and that will always be true. I find the approach of limiting units strictly to the numbers in the box to be a flawed solution, but when it comes to the launch of new kits it is what it is. What it not cool is changing an existing unit from the previous paradigm to the new one, and invalidating a ton of people's existing collections when they do.

Things change over time and options are invalidated, people get that. There will be grumbling but it is what it is. When there is a new kit. Forcing that change out of the blue on a unit that has had it's current kit for years is a far cry from that.

Quoting myself from the previous page.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

H.B.M.C. wrote:
It's not the same thing.

The Killa Kan rules don't say "One model per three must have a Big Shoota, one model per three must have a Rokkit Launcher and one model per three must have a Skorcha".

Also quoting a more straightforward response to be extra clear.

**Jidmah**

I guess if you define it narrowly enough, it surely feels like a completely unprecedented change.

However, GW curbing options because the aren't in the box is the same GW curbing options because the aren't in the box.

Kanz no longer being able to take additional ranged arms from a second kanz box is the same as blightlords no longer being able to take combi-weapons from a second blightlords box. Same goes for the dread which is now forced into two klaws only. Except DG players got off easy because the kitbashed blightlords or plague marines can still be fielded as a blightlord, while the dual rokkit kan or the quad klaw dread needs to be broken apart.

All of the changes I listed were forced out of the blue on a unit that has had their respective kit for year.

If you think those ork changes are within reason, you have absolutely no right to complain about any of the DG changes, because the only two models actually invalidated are the winged daemon prince with spitter and the icon bearer with dual knives.

**NinthMusketeer**

First off, if it cannot be assembled using just it's kit that is notably different as the model is now a conversion option which cannot be assembled with the official instructions.

Compare to, say, a 5-man plague marine unit. The kit assembles one model with X weapon, but the rules say that a 5-man squad can take two of the same special weapon. That person can buy another kit, assemble both following official instructions, then achieve the 2-per-5 by swapping two models between units. The combination can be fielded without converting, and only ever using the official instructions.

Is that a really dumb distinction? I certainly think so, but I am also quite sure GW thinks it is an important distinction. That's something players are generally aware of, so there was a certain line within which players felt safe--that being they were only using loadouts that could be made using nothing outside official instructions, even if it did require multiples of the same kit. GW crossed that line with DG, making it such that even non-converting customization is restricted.

**kodos**

NinthMusketeer wrote:
so there was a certain line within which players felt safe--that being they were only using loadouts that could be made using nothing outside official instructions, even if it did require multiples of the same kit

now there is a picture
so people thought they are safe from changes if they don't convert their models but still mix models from different boxes?

well, looking at my Wolves, if you really thought that people must be new to GW because building as in the instructions and than swap models from other boxes in, was as safe in the past as was a full conversion with 3rd party bits for units that had no model at all

so people really believed GW won't act like GW and are now angry because GW did exactly what GW is always doing

**Jidmah**

It might be because you are not familiar with the kits, but all kan arms fit in either socket with no more "converting" required but gluing them in.
Same for the dread, the type of close close combat weapon is decided by clicking a different ball-jointed saw/klaw/drill into a socket. You create quad-klaw dreads by taking two klaws from one dread and putting them on another in addition to the two klaws it already has.

If we are talking about just swapping models, nothing prevents you from just un-swapping them. If we are talking about people putting into effort into getting extra bits to build certain load-outs, all ork examples apply.

**Blackie**

PenitentJake wrote:

Many are the comments in threads of all stripes about the lethality of the game. And perhaps one of the reasons for that is that it was possible to design a squad with enough identical weapons to vaporize a knight in one turn, or decimate large infantry squads in one turn.

Forcing a unit to diversify it's load out minimizes this effect. On the plus side though, it would help ensure that every unit has the capacity to deal with anything, rather than "This is a pure antitank unit that is useless against infantry."

On the flip sides it also increased dice rolling and time spent to resolve all different attacks separately. Reducing dice rolling is a complaint as popular as asking to reduce lethality. I'm not even that sure what amount of lethality is actually reduced this way.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jidmah wrote:

Kanz no longer being able to take additional ranged arms from a second kanz box is the same as blightlords no longer being able to take combi-weapons from a second blightlords box.

Kanz also lost the possibility of being equipped with a KMB because it's not in the box. Now I may understand removing the option of giving them two ranged weapons or two CC arms because someone can argue that the unit could be designed to have both shooting and CC output anyway, but removing the KMB (just like the additional klaws for dreads) definitely falls in the same pool of killing options just because the kit doesn't come with them. Ironically I magnetized all my 6 KMB from the dreads kits to be possible loadouts for the Kanz (and not compatible with dreads anymore) as they were a decent option in past editions but completely useless for dreads; now they're illegal on Kanz and one of the best options for dreads

.

**H.B.M.C.**

kodos wrote:
now there is a picture
so people thought they are safe from changes if they don't convert their models but still mix models from different boxes?

Yes. Because it's been that way for literal decades.

The most simple example is the Devastator squad.

There were three that GW sold originally:

1. Generic - Heavy Bolter x2, Lascannon x1, Missile Launcher x1
2. Blood Angel - Heavy Bolter x1, Lascannon x1, Missile Launcher x1, Plasma Cannon x1
3. Long Fang - Heavy Bolter x1, Lascannon x1, Missile Launcher x2

Multi-Melta Marines were like hen's teeth, and if you found one in a blister it was great. Ditto for Devastator Marines with Plasma Cannons in blisters. I only ever found one. If you wanted 4 of the same gun, you had to buy either multiple boxes, or hunt for specific blisters.

Then GW went to plastic/metal hybrids, and the Dev squad was one each of HB, LC, ML and Plasma Cannon. Wanted more weapons? Buy more boxes or find 'em in blisters. Then when GW switched to all plastic, and things got a bit better with included duplicates of each gun type, and some only had 1 of any gun type. Now the current Devastator kit has, I believe, 2 of everything (including the new Grav weapon). I know people who have parts ordered the heavy weapons they were missing, or simply bought multiple kits.

I doubt there's a single one of them who thought "Man, I really believe GW is going to limit a Dev Squad's heavy weapons to 2 of each specific type per squad because that's all that comes in the current kit!". And I'll bet all the money in my pockets against all the money in your pockets that no Death Guard player ever thought the same thing up until a week or so ago.

kodos wrote:
so people really believed GW won't act like GW and are now angry because GW did exactly what GW is always doing

Because, despite Jidmah's (frankly terrible) examples, GW haven't done something like this before, and people are (correctly) afraid of this bull gak being applied to other armies.

We've seen pics of upcoming AdMech re-boxes today. How do you think Ad-Mech players will feel when they go from 0-3 special weapons in a unit of 10 to one transuranic arquebus, one arc rifle and one plasma caliver per squad, because that's all the box has?

**Galas**

This crap started in Age of Sigmar with Kharadron and Stormfiends and is very sad to see it applied in 40k.

**kodos**

H.B.M.C. wrote:

kodos wrote:
so people really believed GW won't act like GW and are now angry because GW did exactly what GW is always doing
Because, despite Jidmah's (frankly terrible) examples, GW haven't done something like this before, and people are (correctly) afraid of this bull gak being applied to other armies.

and what is with Wolve Scouts?

Original Models were with Pistol+Knife and Pistol+Power Axe, Pistol+Power Sword and Melter

first Wolve themed plastic ones came with Melter, Power Sword, Power Axe, Bolter, Bolt Pistol, Plasma Pistol, Knife Chainsword, Rocket Launcher, Heavy Bolter (the regular Scout Box with the old SW uprade frame)

the new SW box added Plasma Pistols
and now, we the list onyl allows Bolter, Bolt Pistol+Knife and 1 Special Weapon instead of the heavy weapon

so everyone that thought that just because there is an official model or the bits in the box allow to build it witout doing any conversions, was already proven wrong
but they just don't cared because a niche unit a niche army going backing from
"use the Scouts bits that come with the regular Space Wolves Pack" to "only use what is in the Scout Box"
was nothing to worry about and those who liked Scouts should get along because SW are going to be strong anyway

DG are not the first one, just that most people don't care but there are more people playing DG now because it was a budget army in 8th

**NinthMusketeer**

*sigh* look at the response to this. It is OBVIOUS this is different than one came before. At this point I believe you and Jidmah simply will not understand because you do not want to. It seems to me that you would rather delegitimize the feelings of people upset by this than accept that GW crossed a new line. I cannot fathom why, beyond reasons that would be impolite to articulate.

**jeff white**

Once more, why do we continue to care what GW tells us to do? Lots of ways to get past this. How about a Dakka approved rules thread? When GW makes these changes, we ask for suggestions and run a poll, yada... peeps can read and adapt these Dakkabrewed rules as they see fit. In this case, a simple poll might reveal that no one wants to.honor this change, so anyone going for a pick up game might expect that others will agree, and if not then counts as is possible, as is playing different units or with someone else.

**Lord Damocles**

jeff white wrote:
Once more, why do we continue to care what GW tells us to do?

Because GW are charging us for the rules.

Because the vast majority of randos you meet won't be following your house rules.

Because I don't want to have to confusingly counts-as a bunch of my dudes.

**Daedalus81**

H.B.M.C. wrote:
Because, despite Jidmah's (frankly terrible) examples, GW haven't done something like this before, and people are (correctly) afraid of this bull gak being applied to other armies.

We've seen pics of upcoming AdMech re-boxes today. How do you think Ad-Mech players will feel when they go from 0-3 special weapons in a unit of 10 to one transuranic arquebus, one arc rifle and one plasma caliver per squad, because that's all the box has?

The entirety of the Havoc special weapon selection was wiped out. You used to be able to get 10 guys and 4 plasma guns. We didn't have this many pages of complaints, because it seemed no one really cared.

**Lord Damocles**

Daedalus81 wrote:
H.B.M.C. wrote:
Because, despite Jidmah's (frankly terrible) examples, GW haven't done something like this before, and people are (correctly) afraid of this bull gak being applied to other armies.

We've seen pics of upcoming AdMech re-boxes today. How do you think Ad-Mech players will feel when they go from 0-3 special weapons in a unit of 10 to one transuranic arquebus, one arc rifle and one plasma caliver per squad, because that's all the box has?

The entirety of the Havoc special weapon selection was wiped out. You used to be able to get 10 guys and 4 plasma guns. We didn't have this many pages of complaints, because it seemed no one really cared.

Again, different problem.

**kodos**

NinthMusketeer wrote:
*sigh* look at the response to this. It is OBVIOUS this is different than one came before. At this point I believe you and Jidmah simply will not understand because you do not want to. It seems to me that you would rather delegitimize the feelings of people upset by this than accept that GW crossed a new line. I cannot fathom why, beyond reasons that would be impolite to articulate.

yes, I don't understand the difference between the 2 problems

GW changed DG units from make options as you like by taking bits from other boxes, to build exactly as on the instructions
and you also said that you just needed to by 2 boxes and exchange the models to get a unit with a different loadout, so no conversion needed

and you say GW crossed a new line with DG, while I see no difference to the line crossed with other units at the end of 8th/ start of 9th

what exactly is the difference between your illegal DG unit and my illegal Sout unit
we both did no conversion but used the parts provided with the box or several of the same boxes (in my case as I bought the old combat box, all parts I used were in the same box and build according to instructions)

and my problem was that actually no one cared about it and I was told to stop and get along as SW are stronger now and Scouts were already bad anyway
and now that a not-niche unit is hit the same, it is something new and people have the right to be upset

yes, I really don't understand the difference here between 2 units made illegal by GW by changing the option of the unit to "only what's in 1 box"

**Slayer-Fan123**

Daedalus81 wrote:
H.B.M.C. wrote:
Because, despite Jidmah's (frankly terrible) examples, GW haven't done something like this before, and people are (correctly) afraid of this bull gak being applied to other armies.

We've seen pics of upcoming AdMech re-boxes today. How do you think Ad-Mech players will feel when they go from 0-3 special weapons in a unit of 10 to one transuranic arquebus, one arc rifle and one plasma caliver per squad, because that's all the box has?

The entirety of the Havoc special weapon selection was wiped out. You used to be able to get 10 guys and 4 plasma guns. We didn't have this many pages of complaints, because it seemed no one really cared.

The old Havoc entry was absolutely a snore fest that was uncreative and had to be redone, as well as being a far cry from what happened to Plague Marines and Blight Lords.

**Voss**

kodos wrote:
H.B.M.C. wrote:

kodos wrote:
so people really believed GW won't act like GW and are now angry because GW did exactly what GW is always doing
Because, despite Jidmah's (frankly terrible) examples, GW haven't done something like this before, and people are (correctly) afraid of this bull gak being applied to other armies.

and what is with Wolve Scouts?

Original Models were with Pistol+Knife and Pistol+Power Axe, Pistol+Power Sword and Melter

first Wolve themed plastic ones came with Melter, Power Sword, Power Axe, Bolter, Bolt Pistol, Plasma Pistol, Knife Chainsword, Rocket Launcher, Heavy Bolter (the regular Scout Box with the old SW uprade frame)

the new SW box added Plasma Pistols
and now, we the list onyl allows Bolter, Bolt Pistol+Knife and 1 Special Weapon instead of the heavy weapon

so everyone that thought that just because there is an official model or the bits in the box allow to build it witout doing any conversions, was already proven wrong
but they just don't cared because a niche unit a niche army going backing from
"use the Scouts bits that come with the regular Space Wolves Pack" to "only use what is in the Scout Box"
was nothing to worry about and those who liked Scouts should get along because SW are going to be strong anyway

DG are not the first one, just that most people don't care but there are more people playing DG now because it was a budget army in 8th

Er, you might want to look at the Scout datasheet again.
It has a bunch of 'If Space Woofs' entries.
It gets full access to the special weapons list instead of HB or ML if SW
In addition, one model can have power axe, power sword or plasma pistol, again, if SW
The only thing that's missing from the 8e codex is the Sgt (pack leader) can't sneak in a storm shield anymore. Other than that, they didn't lose squat. Which is exactly the kind of thing that's hacking people off. New paradigm doesn't apply to loyalist marines.

**jeff white**

Lord Damocles wrote:
jeff white wrote:
Once more, why do we continue to care what GW tells us to do?

Because GW are charging us for the rules.

Because the vast majority of randos you meet won't be following your house rules.

Because I don't want to have to confusingly counts-as a bunch of my dudes.

Why do you pay them for bad rules made only to increase their profits at your expense?

Randos? Wtf? You game at a nightclub for NPCs?

Nobody wants counts as... which is why we should ignore GW on this and all future bs manipulations.

Wallstreetbets is a community of small investors making big changes by acting together. GW should be similarly vulnerable.

**kodos**

Voss wrote:
kodos wrote:

Er, you might want to look at the Scout datasheet again.
It has a bunch of 'If Space Woofs' entries.
It gets full access to the special weapons list instead of HB or ML if SW
In addition, one model can have power axe, power sword or plasma pistol, again, if SW
The only thing that's missing from the 8e codex is the Sgt (pack leader) can't sneak in a storm shield anymore. Other than that, they didn't lose squat. Which is exactly the kind of thing that's hacking people off. New paradigm doesn't apply to loyalist marines.

yep, so the 1 Melter, 2 Power Swords (1 from the unit, 1 from the leader), 1 Plasmapistol 7 model unit that was legal over several editions is illegal now
you also can look at the DG Datasheet, all those options are still there, just not interchangeable as they once were

but I see, Scouts did not lose anything as I just need to remove those 2 models and have a legal 5 model unit now, the same that DG players can do as well

**Voss**

Voss wrote:
kodos wrote:

Er, you might want to look at the Scout datasheet again.
It has a bunch of 'If Space Woofs' entries.
It gets full access to the special weapons list instead of HB or ML if SW
In addition, one model can have power axe, power sword or plasma pistol, again, if SW
The only thing that's missing from the 8e codex is the Sgt (pack leader) can't sneak in a storm shield anymore. Other than that, they didn't lose squat. Which is exactly the kind of thing that's hacking people off. New paradigm doesn't apply to loyalist marines.

yep, so the 1 Melter, 2 Power Swords (1 from the unit, 1 from the leader), 1 Plasmapistol 7 model unit that was legal over several editions is illegal now
you also can look at the DG Datasheet, all those options are still there, just not interchangeable as they once were

but I see, Scouts did not lose anything as I just need to remove those 2 models and have a legal 5 model unit now, the same that DG players can do as well

2 models? Should be just one.

Sergeant can have any weapon from the melee list- that's fine.
1 model can have a special weapon- thats fine.
1 model can have a power sword, axe, or plasma pistol. So yes, you're out one option here, except.... that was true in the 8e codex as well. _One_ scout could take a power sword, axe OR a plasma pistol.
Same for the index version. No idea what it was like in 7th, and don't care enough to dig out older books, but the 8e and 9e version are nigh identical, except the storm shield.