Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Yea I just don't think the actual application of these differences were as stark as you suggest. It mattered more for a Tyrant than it did for Warriors.

Thats because you're arguing over specifics when everyine else is speaking in broad terms. Something that happens when a person is trying to deflect or derail and argument because they don't have a good counter-argument.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Yea I just don't think the actual application of these differences were as stark as you suggest. It mattered more for a Tyrant than it did for Warriors.

Alright, so for funsies let's compare Tyrant options.

Scything Talons- 7 attacks, S7, AP-3, D2
Bonesword+Lash Whip- 5 attacks re-rolling 1s, S10, AP-4, D3

And that's it, they're just weapons. Once again, the BS+LW combo gets an ability (re-rolling 1s) that rather undercuts the advantage of STs, and is otherwise just better. The STs have an exactly 20% advantage against chaff, and the BS+LW is tremendously better against everything else. Against MEQs the BS+LW is 30% better and against heavier things it's not even close, so unless you take Hive Tyrants to kill Guardsmen there's no actual choice here. If you want a melee build you have to take one of each, and if you want a ranged weapon the correct choice is to swap out the Talons.

In 4th Ed, giving a Tyrant Scything Talons gave it bonus attacks (a significant ability for a model with only 3 attacks base), while the Lash Whip reduced enemy attacks in base contact, and Boneswords gave you permanent Catalyst and let you make a psychic test to extend Catalyst to all units within 6". So you had STs for increasing the Tyrant's raw killing power, and BS+LW for increasing its durability and extending that durability increase to nearby friendlies. Two completely different options with completely different purposes and no overlap.

So, like... what's your point? The broad observation that weapons have been homogenized is invalid because you don't think it really mattered for Warriors?

I got back into 40k earlier last year. Before then I'd been collecting a bunch of warmachine but... warmachine isn't in a good state so.

Back then one of the major advantages I considered 40k having was 'the models are extremely modular, you can build almost any configuration you want'.
But I got into miniature painting with 40k in 5th and things were pretty modular back then.

Anyway the biggest issue for me is the prices. Next year I'm buying a 3d printer and will probably get into some other gameline. (OPR or something else). GW has always been ludicrously expensive but it's gone from ludicrous to impossible.
I can afford to finish up my Eldar collection and there's a couple of out of print models I want I'll scour trough online auctions and suchlike for, but I have a full time job, a lot of disposable income and I can't justify the costs anymore.

Games Workshop made a statement some years back that they considered themselves a 'primarily a seller of miniatures'.
I don't think this is true anymore.
I think they're more an Intellectual Property Seller.
People don't stay in 40k because they love the miniatures can't find any better better ones or because they love the systems and can't find any better systems. That might help but the primary reason people stay with 40k is because they love the setting.

Since I logged in anyway, I'd like to toss in 2 cents about expectations versus history.

Briefly, take CSM.

Pewter.

Basic CSMs in plastic, 2 bodies.

CSM assault weapon sprue with plastic arms (powerfist, plasma pistol, power sword, power axe) to make any pewter body a champion.

Blisters selling 1 heavy+1 bolter pewter or 2 CSM pewters with bolters.

First CSM plastic kit. 2nd Ed champ sprue discontinued. 1 of each assault weapon but only heavy bolter in kit. Obvious companion kit to 1 CSM+1 hvy weapon CSM blisters. Only power sword and fist because power weapons were streamlined.

Recut of same kit with better detailing. I forget if it went 10 men at the time, think it was still 8, but still only heavy bolter. Released alongside plastic-pewter Havoc hybrid kit. Again, kitbashing required. Blisters discontinued around this time.

Newest iteration of kit. Now it's legacy contents. 10 men, though.

New players entering the system, though, don't see the system of it. "Why dies this kit not have everything I'd need?" Well, because if you buy these three kits, you'll have everything you need for all options for a basic army. But that's not how new, post 2010 companies operate- even if it is how 1990 companies operated.

I forget which weapon it was, but one of the kits- I think CSM terminators- had something like 2 axes in the old kit and three in the new. Means with one of each kit, briefly available together, you could mono-equip a squad. Move obviously to move old stock.

New weapon- gravcannon? One per Dev box, though Tacs and Devs could both use. Chaincannon? Same. Just sales tactics.

So let's tell the truth. Kits not having options was a sales strategy- to sell multiples or companion kits. There were always complaints. Why listen now? See, when they restrict you to the kit, they can pretend its faurness, but existing kit options weren't designed in any way for the squad the player wanted. But if everyone only builds the box as-is, the reason for the community resisting power level goes away. Personally, I see their insistence that it's for "new players" a PR lie. Kit contents aren't balanced for game role. But a Legionaire squad with heavy bolter for free and no other heavy option is superior to one without, so people will "why not" build it. Now you know the exact capabilities of that squad and can now PL cost on a squad level.

BrainFireBob wrote:

New weapon- gravcannon? One per Dev box, though Tacs and Devs could both use. Chaincannon? Same. Just sales tactics.

Dev box has 2 Grav Cannons along with 2 of every other heavy weapon option. Chaos got screwed with getting just one chaincannon. Dev kit awesome. Havoc kit suck.

 Insectum7 wrote:

BrainFireBob wrote:

New weapon- gravcannon? One per Dev box, though Tacs and Devs could both use. Chaincannon? Same. Just sales tactics.

Dev box has 2 Grav Cannons along with 2 of every other heavy weapon option. Chaos got screwed with getting just one chaincannon. Dev kit awesome. Havoc kit suck.

Lot of years, lot of kits. Two is not 4, and it's desirable in a uni-squad.

Is there a resource anywhere online of historic GW kits? It'd help with some of these discussions. The 8 man plastics alongside the 2 man blisters being a prime example

BrainFireBob wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

BrainFireBob wrote:

New weapon- gravcannon? One per Dev box, though Tacs and Devs could both use. Chaincannon? Same. Just sales tactics.

Dev box has 2 Grav Cannons along with 2 of every other heavy weapon option. Chaos got screwed with getting just one chaincannon. Dev kit awesome. Havoc kit suck.

Lot of years, lot of kits. Two is not 4, and it's desirable in a uni-squad.

Is there a resource anywhere online of historic GW kits? It'd help with some of these discussions. The 8 man plastics alongside the 2 man blisters being a prime example

http://www.solegends.com/citadel/index.htm

Collection of old catalogs.

Dev kit didn’t always have 2 of each. Previous iteration only had a single MM and ML, two of the rest. The ML wasn’t a big deal, as we got tons of them in tac squads, but it made it hard to melta up.

BrainFireBob wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

BrainFireBob wrote:

New weapon- gravcannon? One per Dev box, though Tacs and Devs could both use. Chaincannon? Same. Just sales tactics.

Dev box has 2 Grav Cannons along with 2 of every other heavy weapon option. Chaos got screwed with getting just one chaincannon. Dev kit awesome. Havoc kit suck.

Lot of years, lot of kits. Two is not 4, and it's desirable in a uni-squad.

I would never expect them to include four of every heavy weapon. The Dev kit is a downright luxurious kit imo.

 Insectum7 wrote:

BrainFireBob wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

BrainFireBob wrote:

New weapon- gravcannon? One per Dev box, though Tacs and Devs could both use. Chaincannon? Same. Just sales tactics.

Dev box has 2 Grav Cannons along with 2 of every other heavy weapon option. Chaos got screwed with getting just one chaincannon. Dev kit awesome. Havoc kit suck.

Lot of years, lot of kits. Two is not 4, and it's desirable in a uni-squad.

I would never expect them to include four of every heavy weapon. The Dev kit is a downright luxurious kit imo.

We need upgrade kits like for HH.

Those aren't bad, but would have been better if they weren't bundled with different weapons. Pack of just Plasma guns, or whatever.

Hecaton 805087 11378587 wrote:

We need upgrade kits like for HH.

That can end with people needing to buy 2 boxs to just get one unit. Especialy if GW knows what it is doing and never having more then 1 top option per box.

Upgrade Sprues?

If GW does them it is going to be 3-4 box. With best melee weapon in one box, best "special" weapon in another and the best heavy one in the third. And if they are really cheeky, they could put support gear or something like SS, assuming they were good, in the fourth. And suddenly to gear out 4-5 squads in your army, you don't just buy two boxs of infantry but also 4 boxs of kits for them.

At which point you just buy third party to get a complete sprue of whatever you want.

Because GW has demonstrated that it is not willing to offer a product that can compete in terms of customer experience, even when it is entirely within its power to do so.

If a company goes out of its way to make its products worse in order to try and extract more money from consumers, then DO NOT GIVE THAT COMPANY YOUR MONEY.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
At which point you just buy third party to get a complete sprue of whatever you want.

Because GW has demonstrated that it is not willing to offer a product that can compete in terms of customer experience, even when it is entirely within its power to do so.

If a company goes out of its way to make its products worse in order to try and extract more money from consumers, then DO NOT GIVE THAT COMPANY YOUR MONEY.

I'll stop giving GW $ when they stop making models I like. It's that simple. They don't seem inclined to stop doing that though....

Yeah, gw gets money for models I like. Their rules are worthless, so that's what I pay for them....

I trust you don't play the game then. After all you wouldn't play with worthless rules right? As if you play them by definition they have value and thus not worthless.

You can play an army or units which are bad for many reasons. starting from not being able to update your army to the current edition or codex, through someone not liking the good stuff or not being able to buy the models needed, and ending with stuff more rooted in the psyche of a person. You can even find the army worthless, specialy if you can't sell it back for the minimal price you find acceptable.

tneva82 wrote:
I trust you don't play the game then. After all you wouldn't play with worthless rules right? As if you play them by definition they have value and thus not worthless.

I agree with you here, it's like people go "god this game is so bad, the rules aren't worth paying for, but goddamn I play twice a week and attend 4 big tournaments a year to play it"

Dudeface wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
I trust you don't play the game then. After all you wouldn't play with worthless rules right? As if you play them by definition they have value and thus not worthless.

I agree with you here, it's like people go "god this game is so bad, the rules aren't worth paying for, but goddamn I play twice a week and attend 4 big tournaments a year to play it"

Well it's the people who play competitively who are often knowledgable enough about the system to know just how bad it is.

 Insectum7 wrote:

BrainFireBob wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

BrainFireBob wrote:

New weapon- gravcannon? One per Dev box, though Tacs and Devs could both use. Chaincannon? Same. Just sales tactics.

Dev box has 2 Grav Cannons along with 2 of every other heavy weapon option. Chaos got screwed with getting just one chaincannon. Dev kit awesome. Havoc kit suck.

Lot of years, lot of kits. Two is not 4, and it's desirable in a uni-squad.

I would never expect them to include four of every heavy weapon. The Dev kit is a downright luxurious kit imo.

2 per is a great compromise; two boxes makes two units with four of the same (albeit different between units) weapon while the champion has special champion stuff. Alternatively making separate upgrade kits like HH is getting is also a great option. Failing that 1-per sucks a bit but between bits swapping and conversions we can make do.

What doesn't work? The crap they are pulling now. It is the worst of many options.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

BrainFireBob wrote:
So let's tell the truth. Kits not having options was a sales strategy- to sell multiples or companion kits.

Providing a product customers genuinely enjoy makes them genuinely want to buy it. Sure that is technically a sales strategy but it is also the default for any entertainment product.

If they made a box with flamers and rocket launchers, not many people would be enjoying the buying of them. Kits are popular based on how useful the stuff in them list. A kit with bad stuff has to have some very specific powerful option you can't get anywhere else to be considered worth buying.

A GK patrol box for example, post the AoC changes, is a good option to buy. Maybe even twice. If the same box had a dreadnought and Crow in it instead of the librarian, no one would be buying it, save for people who REALLY want Crow and can't get him from split boxs.

tneva82 wrote:I trust you don't play the game then. After all you wouldn't play with worthless rules right? As if you play them by definition they have value and thus not worthless.

I play plenty & like the game(with modifications), its just I choose to pay GW what their rules are worth...which is $€¥¥ zip zip zero. Models on the other hand GW gets a good chunk of change from me.

Racerguy180 wrote:

tneva82 wrote:I trust you don't play the game then. After all you wouldn't play with worthless rules right? As if you play them by definition they have value and thus not worthless.

I play plenty & like the game(with modifications), its just I choose to pay GW what their rules are worth...which is zero. Models on the other hand GW gets a good chunk of change from me.

So what does it take for you to pay? For it to be a solid 8/10? If you play the game plenty you clearly find plenty of value in their setting and rules.

If you just don't want to keep shelling out for books that's one thing, just be honest about it.

Dudeface wrote:

Racerguy180 wrote:

tneva82 wrote:I trust you don't play the game then. After all you wouldn't play with worthless rules right? As if you play them by definition they have value and thus not worthless.

I play plenty & like the game(with modifications), its just I choose to pay GW what their rules are worth...which is zero. Models on the other hand GW gets a good chunk of change from me.

So what does it take for you to pay? For it to be a solid 8/10? If you play the game plenty you clearly find plenty of value in their setting and rules.

If you just don't want to keep shelling out for books that's one thing, just be honest about it.

Or there's no other games in the area. You keep forgetting how hard it is to get a group going for literally any other game.

Dudeface wrote:

Racerguy180 wrote:

tneva82 wrote:I trust you don't play the game then. After all you wouldn't play with worthless rules right? As if you play them by definition they have value and thus not worthless.

I play plenty & like the game(with modifications), its just I choose to pay GW what their rules are worth...which is zero. Models on the other hand GW gets a good chunk of change from me.

So what does it take for you to pay? For it to be a solid 8/10? If you play the game plenty you clearly find plenty of value in their setting and rules.

If you just don't want to keep shelling out for books that's one thing, just be honest about it.

When the rules change faster than one can plan/model/paint a list, the rules ceased to have value to me.

The rules are a vehicle for the models to represent something on the tabletop. When the rules don't really reflect (what we feel) how gak should work, they cease to have to have value to me. When a unit requires a strat+doctrine+stance+whatever to work, that unit doesn't work.

I play specifically to enjoy my very well painted miniatures in a way that is interactive(post painting), tells a story, & visually spectacular. The game is the thing I like the least about 40k, but I still like to play 40k. There are plenty of better GAMES out there(esp Titanicus) both GW and otherwise.

tneva82 wrote:
I trust you don't play the game then. After all you wouldn't play with worthless rules right? As if you play them by definition they have value and thus not worthless.

The rules might not be worthless but they certainly aren't worth the MSRP (including whatever discount one can find)....



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dudeface wrote:

Racerguy180 wrote:

tneva82 wrote:I trust you don't play the game then. After all you wouldn't play with worthless rules right? As if you play them by definition they have value and thus not worthless.

I play plenty & like the game(with modifications), its just I choose to pay GW what their rules are worth...which is zero. Models on the other hand GW gets a good chunk of change from me.

So what does it take for you to pay? For it to be a solid 8/10? If you play the game plenty you clearly find plenty of value in their setting and rules.

A tip jar function on their site so I can give them something for the rules I do use.

Racerguy180 wrote:
When the rules change faster than one can plan/model/paint a list, the rules ceased to have value to me.

Racer nailed it in one.

The rules change too quickly for the printed books to have any worth. The Tyranid Codex was already outdated before I got my first game in. In a week (or fortnight's) time it will be even further outdated.

Why should anyone put up with that given the ludicrous price GW charges for their books?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Racerguy180 wrote:
When the rules change faster than one can plan/model/paint a list, the rules ceased to have value to me.

Racer nailed it in one.

The rules change too quickly for the printed books to have any worth. The Tyranid Codex was already outdated before I got my first game in. In a week (or fortnight's) time it will be even further outdated.

Why should anyone put up with that given the ludicrous price GW charges for their books?

Until the rules are more than transient, GW will get zero $ from me for their waste of paper. Before anyone says something about 100% digital being updated constantly. IT SHOULDNT NEED TO BE UPDATED CONSTANTLY in the first place. I've held off on the Liber Astartes for AOD cuz I fear it'll be subject to the same bs and day 1/10/100 FAQ/Errata.

There is another issue as well in that many of the balance-patches have actually invalidated entire builds.

For example, various models (Tau Commanders, Hive Tyrants, Fliers etc.) have had arbitrary limits placed upon them.

Similarly, there's stuff like Ynnari - which went from a subfaction available to each of the Eldar factions to one which demanded every army be dominated by specifically Craftworld units.

These sorts of things makes me disinclined to buy (or convert) new models, as they can (and have) end up being redundant or outright unusable because of rule changes like these. Indeed, even a build that is perfectly valid when a codex drops can be unusable within a few weeks.