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 is definitely not for balance reasons because you can actually stack MORE special weapons on a 10-man Plague Marine squad then you ever could before. It's just squads between 6-9 man that are borked.

Karol wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
Will be really interesting to see what they do to GK melee. All the weapons cost the same according to the points document. Right now, you can equip the whole squad with whatever you want, and I wager that basically 100% of everyone's existing squads are armed with identical weapons. There will be a massive outcry if all those squads (except the ones with swords, I guess, which literally nobody has because they were the worst option) get invalidated by some weird plague marine style hodgepodge.

GK boxs come with enough falchions, although no one sane takes those, halabards, swords etc for everyone in the squads. There is only one hammer in the box and one staff. the first is not a problem, because in general they were run at 1 per squad, if run at all. The staffs are going to be a problem though, because a ton of people were running four of them.

Purgators, paladins and purfires are going to be a LOT less efficient, if they are going to be limited to what is in the box, Because mixing psycanons, incinerators and psi lancers would require some drastic rules rewrites to make such a combination valid.

I don't have a sprue in front of me to confirm, but GW has the sprues posted on their website, and it jives with my memory, which is that in a 10-man box you get:

10 swords
6 halberds
12 falchions, but they are paired, so 6 total pairs
2 hammers
2 staves

 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.

Hate on tournament players you say?

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
CSM termies are definitely the unit to watch.

No, CSM period are the thing to watch. Our basic infantry kit lacks enough bolters or chainswords for a full unit, as well as several currently available heavy weapons, and LOTS of options currently available for the Aspiring Champion. The only melee weapon with multiple copies in the terminator kit is power fists, and the combi-weapon bits are incomplete. Havocs only have two of each weapon except the chaincannon of which they only have one, and the kit doesn't even have a bolter for the Aspiring Champion. And Chosen don't even have models. This could get messy.

Yeah, I was going to start building out my CSM army when they released the DG book. Put that on hold right and fast. Actually, I put everything on hold right then and there basically. I'm waiting to see how the various codexes shake out so I can avoid illegal builds or having to rebuild my stuff, etc. Its infuriating that there seems to be zero consistency thus far in how they've applied these rules, etc. so I can't even guess at what will be impacted and what won't be. I'll be honest though, I'm right terrified that CSM units will be forced to take mixed bolter and pistol/chainsword units instead of being able to standardize to one or another. I like standardization for the sake of simplicity, having the ability to tool up a unit with a bunch of different pieces of kit does nothing for me.

 Sim-Life wrote:

I will concede they have the best quality plastic. But I don't think many people care what material their models are made of.

You must be new here. People care about this a *lot*.

I woulnd't even agree on the best plastic anymore. Certainly not for a lot of factions.

GW absolutely does have the best plastics, its not even close. Wyrd and Kingdom Death, etc. make some really nice sculpts but the assembly of those kits is a nightmare, with things like having to attach individual fingers to hands, or goatees/noses onto faces, etc. GW has turned mold engineering into an art form and figured out how to sculpt incredibly detailed minis that are still generally easy to assemble and reliant on what are generally fairly large and robust parts. Even the most difficult to assemble GW kits are still head and shoulders above the hell I've gone through trying to assemble Malifaux or KD plastics.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Don't forget the setup time, and the maintenance; 3D printers are as reliable as their 2D counterparts.
And at the end of the day, er, week, er, month, er... Eventually, you'll have an army that cost less money for less quality!

Thats pretty generous to 3d printers, 2d printers are far more reliable and less frustrating to troubleshoot in my experience.

PenitentJake wrote:
Funny that all the people bitching about the lack of a million and one equipment options are the same people bitching about how having lots of factions and models is bloat.
"I want a list of 30 loadouts per unit, but if we could reduce the game to five factions and one kit for each battlefield role, THAT would reduce bloat, cuz I'm chasing the meta and I'm only gonna use 3 copies of the best unit for each battlefield role anyways cuz WINNING. Lulz"
Pick a side: you either want options or you don't.

If you pay attention you'll also notice the people who complain most about GWs monopose plastic kits are also the same people who are first to turn to largely monopose 3D printable minis as their way of "sticking it to GW" for not catering to their whims.

Jarms48 wrote:
It makes me think that when Guard gets released we're either going to see Veterans and Special Weapon Squads removed, or something silly like:
Special Weapon Squad:
- 3 Guardsmen must be upgraded with the following: 1 Sniper Rifle, 1 Grenade Launcher, 1 Flamer, 1 Plasma Gun, or 1 Melta Gun.
Veteran Squad:
- 3 Veterans may be upgraded with the following: 1 Sniper Rifle, 1 Grenade Launcher, 1 Flamer, 1 Plasma Gun, or 1 Melta Gun.
Scions will be similar something like:
- 2 Scions may be upgraded with 1 Grenade Launcher, 1 Flamer, 1 Plasma Gun, 1 Melta Gun, or 1 Hotshot Volley Gun.
- If this unit numbers 10 models 2 additional Scions may be upgraded with 1 Grenade Launcher, 1 Flamer, 1 Plasma Gun, 1 Melta Gun, or 1 Hotshot Volley Gun.
It's so stupid, but this really seems to be the route GW are going down. If they do this, it's going to kill a lot of Guard options.

The only saving grace (for me) in all of this is that I built out so many extra special weapon troopers for my Scions that this wouldn't impact me in the slightest, other than preventing me from running my preferred builds of standardized weapons.

There needs to be more love for Open Play in the community. The more I think about it, the more it makes sense, and allows you to tweak 40K to follow your tastes better.

Advocating Open Play doesn't have to mean you throw the baby out with the bathwater. Make small tweaks, and suggest them to your opponent. Allow him/her some leeway for some tweaks if they feel the same.

In this case, I'd try something like "I want to suggest we Open Play this battle, using MTched play rules as usual but allowing me to change the wording on this datasheet to read 'For every 5 models/.. Do you accept? And if you do, is there something you want to change?"

Our group is currently using Open Play to change the "max modifier cap +1/-1" rule into the form "max modifier cap +1/-2".

 tauist wrote:
There needs to be more love for Open Play in the community. The more I think about it, the more it makes sense, and allows you to tweak 40K to follow your tastes better.

Advocating Open Play doesn't have to mean you throw the baby out with the bathwater. Make small tweaks, and suggest them to your opponent. Allow him/her some leeway for some tweaks if they feel the same.

This is one of those situations where the convenience of Matched Play outweighs most other options.

 tauist wrote:
There needs to be more love for Open Play in the community. The more I think about it, the more it makes sense, and allows you to tweak 40K to follow your tastes better...

If you want to play a game you can tweak to your tastes 9th is a pretty terrible starting point. The whole thing is founded on killing off options/customizability to make tournament players gripe less.

PenitentJake wrote:
First up, thanks for taking the time to reply- I said I was maybe going to get some distance from the thread and negativity, but I feel like if I did that, it would be disrespect for the time you put into your response to me. Having recognized my own tonal issues from the second to last post, I'll try to keep a cooler head. I suspect we'll end up having to agree to disagree, but that's always okay if we still manage to be decent to each other.

I get it, to some extent. It's very easy to forget that this is all about overpriced plastic spacemen sometimes; I know my post history has more than its share of unnecessarily furious vomit. So thank you for taking my increasingly exaggerated drivel so well.

I'll give a full response to the various points in a bit - it was long! - but the portion of my work that consists of actual work calls, so it'll have to wait a little longer.

And back to you brother Kasen; this particular quote more than anything is what made me come back to this damned thread for one. more. post. Because this is the nice segue into agreeing to disagree, and this quote was pretty damned classy given my wall of text loquaciousness and highly opinionated and over-wrought arguments to try and convince everyone that Crusade really, genuinely is closer to the spirit of what this game was in Rogue Trader days than any of the math hammer crap that has happened since.

Thanks for being civil in times of disagreement. Hope I pulled it of in this post too.

One of the hallmarks of a good scientist (Albeit one of the reasons science sometimes has trouble convincing the public) is the acknowledgement that it is possible to be wrong. Philosophically that can extend to a lot of things, including opinions on rules for overpriced plastic spacemen or what to do about bad ones.

I'll take 'brother' as high praise. You're clearly passionate about all this, but decidedly not uncivil.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 CEO Kasen wrote:
and one-turn no-soup superbonus that gives you +2" to your Ballsack range in the Kumquat doctrine.

This gave me a good chuckle.

The "three ways to play" bit is a bit of a laugh when the vast majority of the community will only ever play one of those three ways. Pushing Crusade might open up narrative play a bit more but theres a still sizeable number of players who will reject any such game because it doesn't help them prep for their next tournament.

 tauist wrote:
There needs to be more love for Open Play in the community. The more I think about it, the more it makes sense, and allows you to tweak 40K to follow your tastes better.

Advocating Open Play doesn't have to mean you throw the baby out with the bathwater. Make small tweaks, and suggest them to your opponent. Allow him/her some leeway for some tweaks if they feel the same.

In this case, I'd try something like "I want to suggest we Open Play this battle, using MTched play rules as usual but allowing me to change the wording on this datasheet to read 'For every 5 models/.. Do you accept? And if you do, is there something you want to change?"

Our group is currently using Open Play to change the "max modifier cap +1/-1" rule into the form "max modifier cap +1/-2".

Open play serves no purpose. If you want to tweak things, you just can. There's literally no point to rules and restrictions for a concept like open play.

Narrative can at least have campaigns and other complicated subsystem hung off it. Its legitimately extra work to do that stuff, and I don't begrudge some guideposts to keep things reasonable.
But matched works just fine as a default.
Open just... doesn't do anything, or achieve any goals. Its magic tea party, and a company writing rules for it is inherently defeating the purpose in the first place.

Voss wrote:
Open just... doesn't do anything, or achieve any goals. Its magic tea party, and a company writing rules for it is inherently defeating the purpose in the first place.

Open is for the kids who just can't quite cobble full armies together and they just want to have fun. It just isn't a mode that you will see used in an organized setting.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 CEO Kasen wrote:
and one-turn no-soup superbonus that gives you +2" to your Ballsack range in the Kumquat doctrine.

This gave me a good chuckle.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AngryAngel80 wrote:
The fact people think GW are doing this because they finally really care about balance is maybe the saddest joke of all.

I'm not convinced it is for balance, but it is closer to that possibility than some sales plot to undercut 3rd parties, force people to buy more, etc. I find that to be less rational.

I don't at all see how trying to sell more product for a company that sells that product is not rational. That is perhaps the most rational answer for them. If they wanted to make this game balanced at this point it could be, they don't want that, or don't know how to do it, they want to sell things however that is assured as it is literally what they do.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Voss wrote:
Open just... doesn't do anything, or achieve any goals. Its magic tea party, and a company writing rules for it is inherently defeating the purpose in the first place.

Open is for the kids who just can't quite cobble full armies together and they just want to have fun. It just isn't a mode that you will see used in an organized setting.

Open was the brilliant only way to play AoS on its launch. What an amazing time to be alive and see a company basically make their play rules be " Don't let your dreams be dreams, just do it !!!! " When they do stuff so far removed from a good idea it has to make you doubt anything else they do as someone passed that off as a great idea, an idea which proved to be far from.

 tauist wrote:
There needs to be more love for Open Play in the community. The more I think about it, the more it makes sense, and allows you to tweak 40K to follow your tastes better.

Advocating Open Play doesn't have to mean you throw the baby out with the bathwater. Make small tweaks, and suggest them to your opponent. Allow him/her some leeway for some tweaks if they feel the same.

In this case, I'd try something like "I want to suggest we Open Play this battle, using MTched play rules as usual but allowing me to change the wording on this datasheet to read 'For every 5 models/.. Do you accept? And if you do, is there something you want to change?"

Our group is currently using Open Play to change the "max modifier cap +1/-1" rule into the form "max modifier cap +1/-2".

That is great for you guys, and I mean that honestly. My venomthropes are certainly jealous. But unfortunately for the vast majority asking to use open play might as well be asking the weather to change. It just won't happen regardless of how nice it would be.

The fact that “ most” don’t use open play isn’t a reason to deride it. In most of these threads it’s those that play some kind of open play who are less bothered or upset by changes. After starting this thread my mates told me to just ignore the restrictions, we play narrative games but with very open rules, lots of home brew rules and made up stuff. I’m now happier.

Just because you don’t play a way that makes people happier doesn’t mean those who do should stop so we can all be as miserable as you. Learn from the side of the community who are happy using the rules as a framework to craft their own games. We convert and scratch build units and whole army’s, I love making datasheets for home brew units and we have games in a setting where every game counts to a narrative and we get to have fun and use all our favourite models. If everyone was a bit more “open” then we would all be a bit more chilled.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 tauist wrote:
There needs to be more love for Open Play in the community. The more I think about it, the more it makes sense, and allows you to tweak 40K to follow your tastes better.

Advocating Open Play doesn't have to mean you throw the baby out with the bathwater. Make small tweaks, and suggest them to your opponent. Allow him/her some leeway for some tweaks if they feel the same.

In this case, I'd try something like "I want to suggest we Open Play this battle, using MTched play rules as usual but allowing me to change the wording on this datasheet to read 'For every 5 models/.. Do you accept? And if you do, is there something you want to change?"

Our group is currently using Open Play to change the "max modifier cap +1/-1" rule into the form "max modifier cap +1/-2".

That is great for you guys, and I mean that honestly. My venomthropes are certainly jealous. But unfortunately for the vast majority asking to use open play might as well be asking the weather to change. It just won't happen regardless of how nice it would be.

Asking to play open play would go over about as well as saying " Hey guys, let's instead of playing warhammer we all just paint some happy trees, and some happy clouds, that'd be swell for our afternoon. " I mean it's good if people will do it but I doubt I'd ever get someone to, even friends.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Andykp wrote:
The fact that “ most” don’t use open play isn’t a reason to deride it. In most of these threads it’s those that play some kind of open play who are less bothered or upset by changes. After starting this thread my mates told me to just ignore the restrictions, we play narrative games but with very open rules, lots of home brew rules and made up stuff. I’m now happier.

Just because you don’t play a way that makes people happier doesn’t mean those who do should stop so we can all be as miserable as you. Learn from the side of the community who are happy using the rules as a framework to craft their own games. We convert and scratch build units and whole army’s, I love making datasheets for home brew units and we have games in a setting where every game counts to a narrative and we get to have fun and use all our favourite models. If everyone was a bit more “open” then we would all be a bit more chilled.

I don't think anyone, at least not most, are deriding it. Not even myself, it's just not an option anyone would accept around most of us. People being more open would be great, but I doubt that will happen any time soon.

Andykp 798654 11138489 wrote:
Just because you don’t play a way that makes people happier doesn’t mean those who do should stop so we can all be as miserable as you. Learn from the side of the community who are happy using the rules as a framework to craft their own games. We convert and scratch build units and whole army’s, I love making datasheets for home brew units and we have games in a setting where every game counts to a narrative and we get to have fun and use all our favourite models. If everyone was a bit more “open” then we would all be a bit more chilled.

You know that just doesn't work, things done under different metas, and more important in different countries don't translate that well to other places. Someone from UK can say that there is no problems with finding a community to play, because stores and clubs are everywhere. At the same time someone from Asia will tell you that they have 3 stores in the entire country, so if they don't have a community they like, they can't just switch or find other people to play. People in the US can tell others to find other games to play, if someone doesn't like w40k or GW games in general, but it doesn't help for all those places where w40k is more or less the only game played. It took me 3 years to understand what is the problem people have with FW armies like Krieg or Chaos Renegades, with them talking how expensive it is all the time, while to me Krieg cost less then a normal IG army as long as you don't want too many drills and tanks. But I live in a place where a good chunk of all armies are recast.

The "open" argument may work for you, and that is great. But I can tell you that at certain income to army cost ratios, people become very unchill about stuff like w40k, specially when the norm is not to have 4-5 armies. You can't imagine how unchill people become when after 2 years of collecting people try to tell them that to play, they are now suppose to not use 2/3 of their army. And I have actually seen it in real life , when two brussels kids tried to play at our old store.

I was recently flicking through my 4th ed Imperial Guard codex for nostalgia's sake, and happened to notice the Rough rider entry. It had so many more options than I remembered.

You could outfit the squad with:
Laspistol + close combat weapon
Lasgun + CCW
Shotgun + CCW
Hunting lance + laspistol or CCW
There was also the option for two special weapons and a vox. The sergeant could access various weapon options.

Most of these never had specific models (I think there were only ever Attilan and Tallarn riders outside FW), but they encouraged interesting conversions. Now we don't even have rough riders because they discontinued the Attilan ones.

It does make me sad, because whilst I could homebrew some for open play, new players won't even know this is part of the background. So I think removing these kinds of loadout options makes the game and hobby less exciting.

 Valkyrie wrote:
This is irking me more when you consider no Marine units actually received these changes. Devs, Company Veterans, Vanguard Vets, all free to take whatever they want.

They have to convince people to buy all those backstocked Firstborn kits somehow.

 AngryAngel80 wrote:

I don't at all see how trying to sell more product for a company that sells that product is not rational. That is perhaps the most rational answer for them. If they wanted to make this game balanced at this point it could be, they don't want that, or don't know how to do it, they want to sell things however that is assured as it is literally what they do.

Yes, but this is not that, in my opinion.

Lots of talk about finding people who like to play the way you like to play. I'm curious if other folks experience matches my own:

I always liked having small forces for multiple armies because I've found that my friends who say they have no interest in playing really mean they have no interest in BUYING. I've turned so many people on to this game over the past 32 years by supplying them with an army I'd have trouble counting them all.

It was one of the things I LOVED about 8th- Kill Team and BSF: they all facilitate this style of collecting. It was great to have 3 small Imp forces knowing you could soup'em up to hit a high point game against someone who did have their own army. Ninth is taming it down a bit; souping is still possible, but it has way more disadvantages than 8th did. Where 9th supports this style of collecting is its support for small games.

I think if you're having trouble talking someone into trying the game, you need to check your approach. Are you showing off a beautifully painted 2k point army that it took you 3 years to purchase, assemble and paint, telling your friend those details, and then asking if they are interested in doing the same thing?

Instead, if you're sitting around bored with a friend and you throw together a 25 PL force and offer to let your friend use another of your 25 PL forces (and give them the choice of which one they want to use), I think you'll have a lot more success creating your own circle. I've got 25 PL lists and models for Sisters, Drukhari, GSC, CSM, DW and Daemons on deck at all times. Rarely have a hard time talking a newb into a game.

Of course, I associate primarily with nerds, because I generally find non-nerds to be just too boring to sustain a friendship, so your experience may be different. But if you insist that the only way to play is a WYSIWYG, 2k, fully optimized, face melting, meta chasing army, it doesn't surprise me at all that you may have trouble talking a friend into taking a risk by trying something out of their comfort zone.

Incidentally, I think Space Hulk was GW's best ever gateway drug to 40k- it's the one that got me.

Andykp wrote:
The fact that “ most” don’t use open play isn’t a reason to deride it. In most of these threads it’s those that play some kind of open play who are less bothered or upset by changes. After starting this thread my mates told me to just ignore the restrictions, we play narrative games but with very open rules, lots of home brew rules and made up stuff. I’m now happier.

Just because you don’t play a way that makes people happier doesn’t mean those who do should stop so we can all be as miserable as you. Learn from the side of the community who are happy using the rules as a framework to craft their own games. We convert and scratch build units and whole army’s, I love making datasheets for home brew units and we have games in a setting where every game counts to a narrative and we get to have fun and use all our favourite models. If everyone was a bit more “open” then we would all be a bit more chilled.

I entirely agree, and was not being sarcastic or critical. Much to the contrary I was seeking to display a degree of envy.

Andykp wrote:
The fact that “ most” don’t use open play isn’t a reason to deride it. In most of these threads it’s those that play some kind of open play who are less bothered or upset by changes. After starting this thread my mates told me to just ignore the restrictions, we play narrative games but with very open rules, lots of home brew rules and made up stuff. I’m now happier.

Just because you don’t play a way that makes people happier doesn’t mean those who do should stop so we can all be as miserable as you. Learn from the side of the community who are happy using the rules as a framework to craft their own games. We convert and scratch build units and whole army’s, I love making datasheets for home brew units and we have games in a setting where every game counts to a narrative and we get to have fun and use all our favourite models. If everyone was a bit more “open” then we would all be a bit more chilled.

I'm not trying to tell you you're wrong for enjoying Open Play. I'm trying to tell you that if I, personally, am going to let the tyranny of officialdom go I don't see why I have to nail myself to the 9e core rules at all when I could use my homemade Necromunda-Kill Team hybrid or my patched 7th/30k-xenos project (linked in my signature if anyone thinks either of those sounds exciting).

Andykp wrote:The fact that “ most” don’t use open play isn’t a reason to deride it. In most of these threads it’s those that play some kind of open play who are less bothered or upset by changes. After starting this thread my mates told me to just ignore the restrictions, we play narrative games but with very open rules, lots of home brew rules and made up stuff. I’m now happier.

Just because you don’t play a way that makes people happier doesn’t mean those who do should stop so we can all be as miserable as you. Learn from the side of the community who are happy using the rules as a framework to craft their own games. We convert and scratch build units and whole army’s, I love making datasheets for home brew units and we have games in a setting where every game counts to a narrative and we get to have fun and use all our favourite models. If everyone was a bit more “open” then we would all be a bit more chilled.

This is how the game should be for each individual. If you have "friends" that won't work around some of the stupid bs 40k has become/always been...hint, they're not.

Honestly I feel bad for players who only can play in an environment that is counter to how they WANT to play.
If I played in Karol's (or other insert worst possible) meta, I wouldnt!

It must suck to not be able to play the way you would enjoy. I just think much of the community needs to be more open minded about it. Me too, I have never been to a tournament or played one and don’t see the pleasure but I imagine if someone persuaded me too I would actually have a nice time. But I’d most likely annoy my opponents but forgetting most the rules. I am part of a small group who play with same way with the same ideas but we don’t play often. I imagine if you wanted to play a few times a week you need to be less picky about who you play against.

40k is an absolute spoiling husk of a game at this point. I am glad to see that effectively no one defends this choice (since let's be honest, they'd have to be a whale or a complete consoomer) but unfortunately GW seems fully committed to it.

Clearly there has been some design direction regarding streamlining the options, but its been done in such a haphazard way, often at cross purposes, that its hard to tell what they are trying to achieve with this.

One of any weapon doesn't work too well using the newer rules. Using the older rules, sure one flamer or melta or whatever can make an impact if you set it up right. They seemed to realize that and "fixed" the landspeeders so that they might actually be able to kill something with their one Multimelta. And many other newer/revamped guns have become more reliable. Then they go in the opposite direction with the infantry.

People say Marines weren't hit with this, but they were IMO. Other than Intercessors, the Primaris just don't have many options, or have specific packages of options (nu-speeder/nu-predator). Intercessors didn't have much for options either until those upgrade packs came out. Other than the baby marine stuff getting grandfathered in, the difference is the marines just get new units where the whole squad has plasma guns, heavy bolters, etc and the other armies options are limited and then replaced with nothing.

I've got 3 Skitari squads in the pile of shame and would have made 3 squads each with 3 of the same gun, and use them in different ways. Now I'd end to give them no special guns and use them all in the same way, as they are still pretty good with their small arms. For the Plague Marines, I am forced to use a clumsy eclectic loadout because bolters combined with their expense are not enough to get it done.

I wish I knew what they were trying to accomplish with this, if they even know. Seeing the Scourges get a pass makes me feel a little better about my CSM future, but between this and the new points changes (or lack thereof) I'm very nervous about the Tau. Suits with only one of a given gun and drones that cost the same as Primaris Marines seem like a real possibility.

 Slowroll wrote:
Clearly there has been some design direction regarding streamlining the options, but its been done in such a haphazard way, often at cross purposes, that its hard to tell what they are trying to achieve with this...

They want to make you buy new minis because the loadouts on the stuff you used last edition are no longer legal. Obviously.