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.

It’s clearly a business choice by GW and won’t be an issue with new releases that are designed with this model in mind it’s when it’s applied retrospectively it invalidates peoples load outs and limits choice and character. I will be going from having 3 specialised squads each with a purpose and background to three identical squads of vanguard. All the same generic mush.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
The reality is that it's tourney player feedback, which unfortunately the Big Names in Tourney Play had a direct line that the rest of us don't. They wouldn't stop whining about how bits sellers wanted so much for the "good" options(read: plasma calivers). Most people(especially those who played Skitarii not soup/Convocation) had no issue with multiple boxes. Especially since Skitarii were in the Start Collecting.

I absolutely love how you think this happened because tournament players whined to GW about 3rd party bitz sellers.

It's basically the perfect excuse for you, because you get to do 3 things you love doing:

1. Hate on tournament players for are all cheating WAACs!
2. Hate on 3rd party bitz sellers for taking money away from poor widdle defenceless GW.
3. Blame anyone but GW for the whole mess.

Incredible. Just incredible.

Aye, it's also really wierd considering that tournament players are the most likely players to just ignore the cost of extra bits / stomach them for the sake of competitiveness.

And this is squarly and solidly only on GW's shoulder, which wouldn't have that issue in the first place if they were slightly less greedy and supply boxes of units with all their options (atleast once)... which would at worst ammount to 1 additional sprue for a 50 CHF kit on average f.e. for CSM which lo and behold would also enable the box to be atleast built in a manner as to equip all the models in it with normal options....

 BrookM wrote:
That's annoying, I quite like my current Ranger squad with three Arquebus equipped models.

Same...but it looks like we might still be able to do a 10 man with 2x specials as they show it a few times in the book. I've put in a submission to the FAQ email about it as the wording is...interesting.

It talks about 9 or fewer models and then you can take 1 of any.
Then there are 3 separate tags "For every 10 models in the unit", allowing you to take 1 of each.

The gun appears to be a regular heavy weapon now, minus the move or fire rule, if rumours are true.

Indeed, it no longer has the Move or Fire rule. It does have the "ignore Look Out, Sir!" rule and unmodified Wound rolls of 6 cause a Mortal Wound of most sniper type weapons though.

I don’t see any ambiguity in the options. 10 models or more one of each special per ten men. Less than ten, one special.

Well, for me this does actually add to the impression of 9th edition as the tournament edition. Don't care about the hobby, just build what's in the Box, don't Kitbash, splash some color on there and if your rules aren't the best take the next best army and repeat.
I like many things about 9th edition but somehow these restrictions make me consider switching to some miniature agnostic system.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
The reality is that it's tourney player feedback, which unfortunately the Big Names in Tourney Play had a direct line that the rest of us don't. They wouldn't stop whining about how bits sellers wanted so much for the "good" options(read: plasma calivers). Most people(especially those who played Skitarii not soup/Convocation) had no issue with multiple boxes. Especially since Skitarii were in the Start Collecting.

I absolutely love how you think this happened because tournament players whined to GW about 3rd party bitz sellers.

It's basically the perfect excuse for you, because you get to do 3 things you love doing:

1. Hate on tournament players for are all cheating WAACs!
2. Hate on 3rd party bitz sellers for taking money away from poor widdle defenceless GW.
3. Blame anyone but GW for the whole mess.

Incredible. Just incredible.

Aye, it's also really wierd considering that tournament players are the most likely players to just ignore the cost of extra bits / stomach them for the sake of competitiveness.

And this is squarly on solidly only on GW's shoulder, which wouldn't have that issue in the first place if they were slightly less greedy and supply boxes of units with all their options (atleast once)... which would at worst ammount to 1 additional sprue for a 50 CHF kit on average f.e. for CSM which lo and behold would also enable the box to be atleast built in a manner as to equip all the models in it with normal options....

Interesting fun fact; when Gundestock Thunderers were released they had at least 5 different special weapons that all had wildly different shot profiles and range bandings (like flamethrower vs long range artillery different) including a 36" cannon, an unheard of range at the time. Add on a character that could boost the number of shots per gun by up to 6 and the unit was in very high demand. The problem though, was the box they came in had 1 of each special despite the unit being able to equip a special on every single model in the squad. Most meta lists at that time called for AT LEAST 10 boxes of thunderers in order to get full squads of at least the best 2 guns.

Both GW AND AoS's casual playerbase had NO IDEA this would be how people would build these units. I remember vividly an episode of Signals from the frontline where they had a guest from AoS's large narrative community on the show when they were doing an overview of the original kharadron book.

Reece made a comment about how great thunderers were but also noted how it sucked you had to buy at least 5 boxes to outfit a whole squad. The narrative guy said something along the lines of 'well yeah, that would suck but nobody's actually gonna do that soo...' and both Reece and Franky side-eyed him for a second and were like 'bro...that's the ONLY thing people are gonna do.'

This cascaded into an emergency patch in that years general's handbook that rewrote the warscroll so that the unit had to take one of each gun. Which not only invalidated the majority of people's builds but also lead to the unit being totally dead in the water. Even in their new book they're still not great.

So yeah, always remember that changes GW make are just as likely to be due to ignorance as greed.

If this was a consistent, across the entire edition thing I could kinda understand it. There's something to be said for being able to build the game unit out of the box (though as people point out, it'd be trivial for GW to throw an extra sprue or so into their boxes to allow for all options to be fielded out of the box anyway).

But when it's inconsistently applied I really don't understand this. Some factions have this extremely restrictive style of unit and others are in the older, more loose style? Within the same edition?

Do people still respect the designers at GW?

ERJAK wrote:

Spoiler:

Interesting fun fact; when Gundestock Thunderers were released they had at least 5 different special weapons that all had wildly different shot profiles and range bandings (like flamethrower vs long range artillery different) including a 36" cannon, an unheard of range at the time. Add on a character that could boost the number of shots per gun by up to 6 and the unit was in very high demand. The problem though, was the box they came in had 1 of each special despite the unit being able to equip a special on every single model in the squad. Most meta lists at that time called for AT LEAST 10 boxes of thunderers in order to get full squads of at least the best 2 guns.

Both GW AND AoS's casual playerbase had NO IDEA this would be how people would build these units. I remember vividly an episode of Signals from the frontline where they had a guest from AoS's large narrative community on the show when they were doing an overview of the original kharadron book.

Reece made a comment about how great thunderers were but also noted how it sucked you had to buy at least 5 boxes to outfit a whole squad. The narrative guy said something along the lines of 'well yeah, that would suck but nobody's actually gonna do that soo...' and both Reece and Franky side-eyed him for a second and were like 'bro...that's the ONLY thing people are gonna do.'

This cascaded into an emergency patch in that years general's handbook that rewrote the warscroll so that the unit had to take one of each gun. Which not only invalidated the majority of people's builds but also lead to the unit being totally dead in the water. Even in their new book they're still not great.

So yeah, always remember that changes GW make are just as likely to be due to ignorance as greed.

Same thing happened with Idoneth's Namarti Thralls and the Icon Bearers. It debuted as "models in this unit can be...", granting +1A and immunity to battleshock for the unit.

Naturally, there were people wanting to buy the Icons specifically to abuse that.

It's neither consistent nor common senseical.

Also that Icon thingy, honestly that's diffrent then expecting equal mainline equipment, but still plenty fun...

 Kanluwen wrote:

ERJAK wrote:

Spoiler:

Interesting fun fact; when Gundestock Thunderers were released they had at least 5 different special weapons that all had wildly different shot profiles and range bandings (like flamethrower vs long range artillery different) including a 36" cannon, an unheard of range at the time. Add on a character that could boost the number of shots per gun by up to 6 and the unit was in very high demand. The problem though, was the box they came in had 1 of each special despite the unit being able to equip a special on every single model in the squad. Most meta lists at that time called for AT LEAST 10 boxes of thunderers in order to get full squads of at least the best 2 guns.

Both GW AND AoS's casual playerbase had NO IDEA this would be how people would build these units. I remember vividly an episode of Signals from the frontline where they had a guest from AoS's large narrative community on the show when they were doing an overview of the original kharadron book.

Reece made a comment about how great thunderers were but also noted how it sucked you had to buy at least 5 boxes to outfit a whole squad. The narrative guy said something along the lines of 'well yeah, that would suck but nobody's actually gonna do that soo...' and both Reece and Franky side-eyed him for a second and were like 'bro...that's the ONLY thing people are gonna do.'

This cascaded into an emergency patch in that years general's handbook that rewrote the warscroll so that the unit had to take one of each gun. Which not only invalidated the majority of people's builds but also lead to the unit being totally dead in the water. Even in their new book they're still not great.

So yeah, always remember that changes GW make are just as likely to be due to ignorance as greed.

Same thing happened with Idoneth's Namarti Thralls and the Icon Bearers. It debuted as "models in this unit can be...", granting +1A and immunity to battleshock for the unit.

Naturally, there were people wanting to buy the Icons specifically to abuse that.

Phrased more appropriately, there were people who read the rules and intended to maximize the units efficiency based on what was written.

The only abuse in these cases is GW's abuse of the phrase 'I'm sure it'll be fine!' internally.

 Da Boss wrote:

But when it's inconsistently applied I really don't understand this. Some factions have this extremely restrictive style of unit and others are in the older, more loose style? Within the same edition?

It is relatively consistent, Troops, HQs and Elites are more likely to be restricted by this, while Fast Attack and Heavy Support are less likely to be. E.G Wyches were restricted while Scourges were untouched.

 Da Boss wrote:
If this was a consistent, across the entire edition thing I could kinda understand it. There's something to be said for being able to build the game unit out of the box (though as people point out, it'd be trivial for GW to throw an extra sprue or so into their boxes to allow for all options to be fielded out of the box anyway).

But when it's inconsistently applied I really don't understand this. Some factions have this extremely restrictive style of unit and others are in the older, more loose style? Within the same edition?

I can understand why for Skitarii units. It basically became nothing but Plasma Calivers.

I'm expecting Scions to get a similar treatment.

 Da Boss wrote:

Do people still respect the designers at GW?

yes because people are going to say that GW has no other option than updating each faction on by a time with the Codex release and therefore this imbalance is something natural until most got their new book

and there is no way GW could avoid this or handle the situation differently, it is not possible

ERJAK wrote:

Phrased more appropriately, there were people who read the rules and intended to maximize the units efficiency based on what was written.

The only abuse in these cases is GW's abuse of the phrase 'I'm sure it'll be fine!' internally.

These are the same people who spend an ungodly amount of time complaining about the language being so restrictive now.

So no, it's them choosing to abuse open language.

Sgt. Cortez wrote:Well, for me this does actually add to the impression of 9th edition as the tournament edition. Don't care about the hobby, just build what's in the Box, don't Kitbash, splash some color on there and if your rules aren't the best take the next best army and repeat.
I like many things about 9th edition but somehow these restrictions make me consider switching to some miniature agnostic system.

Yup 9th = Tourneyhammer

Luckily this will not effect my skitarii, I don't play matched so no skin off my back.
It is stupid, but GW gon be stupid.
If yall want to continue to care about what GW does, fine.
Come join us filthy casuals where we don't care what dumb restrictions GW places on stuff.

Racerguy180 wrote:

Sgt. Cortez wrote:Well, for me this does actually add to the impression of 9th edition as the tournament edition. Don't care about the hobby, just build what's in the Box, don't Kitbash, splash some color on there and if your rules aren't the best take the next best army and repeat.
I like many things about 9th edition but somehow these restrictions make me consider switching to some miniature agnostic system.

Yup 9th = Tourneyhammer

Luckily this will not effect my skitarii, I don't play matched so no skin off my back.
It is stupid, but GW gon be stupid.
If yall want to continue to care about what GW does, fine.
Come join us filthy casuals where we don't care what dumb restrictions GW places on stuff.

So do you just... Completely ignore the Codecs?

Because that's not a matched play rule. It's not a tournament pack rule. It's the literal Codex entry for Skitarii.

And as a player (with the agreement from person I'm playing with) I can choose to not play with those specific rules. Not that hard to do if you play with like minded people.

We've been playing with 2w CSM this whole edition. Goes against codex
The other 2 Aech players locally agree that the restrictions are stupid, so we won't be using them.

You'd be surprised what you can do if you ask....unless you play with donkey-caves, then you're SOL.

Racerguy180 wrote:

Yup 9th = Tourneyhammer

How about "9th Matched = Tourneyhammer" ?

Since 9th is also Crusade, which is about as far away from tournament play as you're gonna get.

Can’t wait till they do this to harlequins and my 30 fusion pistol bois!

As a player, I wouldn't mind my opponent not sticking to weapon restrictions... unless it is a very blatant WAAC like the best weapon option being spammed all over the unit.

 Tyran wrote:
As a player, I wouldn't mind my opponent not sticking to weapon restrictions... unless it is a very blatant WAAC like the best weapon option being spammed all over the unit.

What do you consider above and below that line? Can you give some examples?

 JNAProductions wrote:
What do you consider above and below that line? Can you give some examples?

To be honest, I'm going to quote Potter Steward*: I know it when I see it.
*When referring to obscenity in Jacobellis v. Ohio.

yeah lets ignore everything what the Codex say until I say no, than the opponent has to do exactly whats in the Codex

by the time we start ignoring Codex rules and make up our own version of 40k, what is the reason to keep playing it?

One of the trends I hate most with GW, and they are just pushing it to the furthest extreme. Ridiculously foolish design choice that makes Warhammer less fun while also managing to simultaneously crap on the legacy of what WH has been AND on the personal customization aspect that it is pushing in the modern day. My sympathy to AdMech players.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Racerguy180 wrote:
And as a player (with the agreement from person I'm playing with) I can choose to not play with those specific rules. Not that hard to do if you play with like minded people.

We've been playing with 2w CSM this whole edition. Goes against codex
The other 2 Aech players locally agree that the restrictions are stupid, so we won't be using them.

You'd be surprised what you can do if you ask....unless you play with donkey-caves, then you're SOL.

Unfortunately many communities are not as accommodating as yours, nor in a position to be :(

GW does it again.

I dont play AdMech but I will be sending them hate mail just like I did when they made my DG army illegal.

 kodos wrote:
yeah lets ignore everything what the Codex say until I say no, than the opponent has to do exactly whats in the Codex

by the time we start ignoring Codex rules and make up our own version of 40k, what is the reason to keep playing it?

Well, I would say that it does depend what is the relationship you have with your opponent. Are they a friend or a stranger? someone you play regularly, once in a while or chances are you will never play against them again? Do you interact with them outside the game? Are your games more the narrative sort or the competitive sort?

Because if that person is someone you trust, that you play to have fun with more than just winning, then the rules become more the guidelines of a sandbox, they become malleable.

But if there is no such relationship, then the interaction has to be defined and regulated by the rules, and for that they have to be rigid.

Racerguy180 wrote:

Sgt. Cortez wrote:Well, for me this does actually add to the impression of 9th edition as the tournament edition. Don't care about the hobby, just build what's in the Box, don't Kitbash, splash some color on there and if your rules aren't the best take the next best army and repeat.
I like many things about 9th edition but somehow these restrictions make me consider switching to some miniature agnostic system.

Yup 9th = Tourneyhammer

Luckily this will not effect my skitarii, I don't play matched so no skin off my back.
It is stupid, but GW gon be stupid.
If yall want to continue to care about what GW does, fine.
Come join us filthy casuals where we don't care what dumb restrictions GW places on stuff.

Just the dumb restrictions YOU put on stuff.

I'm gonna guess, just based off of what I've seen that you limit: no unpainted, no special characters, you get salty over specific units or combos and ban them after losses and you banned superheavies for a really, really long time before you realized there was no such thing as a superheavy in 8th or 9th.

I've never banned anything.

I play against morty & magnus all the time, play(with &) against Knights often. I've never refused a game against someone based upon their list contents. While I have refused to play against specific people that list has exactly 2 people on it & neither of them play anymore.

Even though I don't play with unpainted minis, I have zero issue playing against them. If I had a choice between 2 players and one had fully painted, I would prefer to play them.

Luckily we play in a permissive and thematic group, so these stupid little problems that "by the book" players have, flat out aren't for us.

If I were to expect anyone outside of our group to accept any of these addendum, then I would be wrong to think so.

My biggest problem with this crap is the fact that it looks like gak on the table and it slows down the game.

Why can't I fit my units with specialized wargear? If some choice is OP then balance them all. But having a squad with a anti tank weapon and a flamer and a sniper rifle and a grenade launcher is horrible.

They killed the Thunderers warscroll in aos with this and they are bringing it to 40k.

I don't know what to expect with Tau. If they do this to Crisis Suits they basically kill the army.

 Galas wrote:
My biggest problem with this crap is the fact that it looks like gak on the table and it slows down the game.

Why can't I fit my units with specialized wargear? If some choice is OP then balance them all. But having a squad with a anti tank weapon and a flamer and a sniper rifle and a grenade launcher is horrible.

They killed the Thunderers warscroll in aos with this and they are bringing it to 40k.

I don't know what to expect with Tau. If they do this to Crisis Suits they basically kill the army.

But that doesn't remove 3rd party bits sellers, which we seem to have an massive issue with... Except most of us were perfectly fine before to buy multiple gw boxes and would do so again if the prices weren't so steep...
Gw's loss tho, they have been chasing that particular booogiemen since chapterhouse ..

EDIT.

I for one look forward to the Chaos terminator entry.