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.

Dudeface wrote:

I said it earlier in this thread but nobody wins. The only reason this is an issue at all is people complained before about needing multiples, the solution is cut options or make bigger kits which inevitably cost more. None of those options will be welcomed by the community at large.

Those are certainly options. Not the only ones, though. Upgrade sprues of weapons, like they used to do back in 2nd ed or now in Necromunda, would be another easy option. Or just making better use of sprue space, in many cases.

Lets face it, if the heavy ordnance batteries were a box of 3 with 1 of each weapon in, which the rules reflected. That's a brand new unit with no historical precedence and people would 100% complain about it being dead on arrival. Likewise if they made them in a box of either 1 or 3 with all options in people would complain at the cost of a full unit.

It's a fallacy to conclude anything other than making boxes bigger with every option with rules for any combination at no extra monetary cost will please people.

I mean, yes, no choice is going to please everyone. That doesn't mean the current path is automatically the best, or the one that pleases the most people.

Lord Zarkov wrote:

Individual infantry taking more hits from explosions because they’ve got no mates is silly, but large things like vehicles and monsters (and to a lesser extent things like battle suits, cavalry, nid warriors, etc) absolutely should take more hits per model because they are bigger and therefore exposed to more of the blast.

That's not how armour works, though.

If an explosion happens outside of an armoured vehicle, then it's unlikely to accomplish a whole lot. Generally, you're looking for a direct hit so that the shell will penetrate the vehicle and damage the interior and/or the occupants.

You can argue that this is the purpose of S vs T and armour saves, sure. But the point is that vehicles shouldn't suffer extra hits because they're 'more exposed to the blast', because exposure to the blast isn't what does the damage.

Lord Zarkov wrote:
Individual infantry taking more hits from explosions because they’ve got no mates is silly, but large things like vehicles and monsters (and to a lesser extent things like battle suits, cavalry, nid warriors, etc) absolutely should take more hits per model because they are bigger and therefore exposed to more of the blast.

Eh. Tank WANTS the blast be spread in larger area of it. The smaller part of tank the explosion focuses the better it is for chances to penetrate...

One the fact of multiple of the same special weapons. Most armys needs 2 or more troops.
so you can make a squad with two melta guns,
so if i want to make a 2 troops with meltaguns, i need to buy 4 boxes. so gw hurt itself. Now its not an option anny more so i will buy only two boxes. in the past gw even sold special weapons seperate.

 AtoMaki wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Nothing's stopping them from just not putting these asinine sprue-based restrictions into the rules in the first place.

The original point is that if they don't do that then people will bitch about the options being too costly to make from the items on the in-box sprues. That's legit. But I'm saying that we can have our cookie and eat it too if the box content becomes less (and thus boxes become cheaper) and the players can simply combo together their buys however they want rather than getting forced to pay for stuff they don't want.

The cost of boxes has nothing to do with how many plasma guns are in it. No one at GW is looking at a sprue and thinking "I could add an extra one of each option, but that would [somehow] put the price up by £2. Is it worth it?". Pricing is entirely done on "what is the maximum we could charge for this?" with a side helping of "what do our similar kits sell for?". And to be fair to them, they are very good at it.

These no multiple rules just depress me. I just did a lot of work getting some old metal armies into shape and now they're illegal.

I just don't want to do this anymore.

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
These no multiple rules just depress me. I just did a lot of work getting some old metal armies into shape and now they're illegal.

I just don't want to do this anymore.

I feel your pain. I might luck out though. I have three command squads, one with plasmas, one with Meltas, and one with Grenade launchers. If I rotate things around a bit I can have one of each in the squad, and perhaps swap out the other three for flamers in in the infantry units.

 AtoMaki wrote:
The original point is that if they don't do that then people will bitch about the options being too costly to make from the items on the in-box sprues. That's legit.

I don't think it is. We got by for a very long time with that being just part of the game. This is a recent change, and a conscious decision to do this crap. It was never a problem before - certainly not a real one.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 AtoMaki wrote:
The original point is that if they don't do that then people will bitch about the options being too costly to make from the items on the in-box sprues. That's legit.

I don't think it is. We got by for a very long time with that being just part of the game.

And as far as I'm aware people were been bitching about it for all that time.

 AtoMaki wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 AtoMaki wrote:
The original point is that if they don't do that then people will bitch about the options being too costly to make from the items on the in-box sprues. That's legit.

I don't think it is. We got by for a very long time with that being just part of the game.

And as far as I'm aware people were been bitching about it for all that time.

People didn't really start bitching about it until GW cracked down on sites that sold bits and made it harder to acquire extras.

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
These no multiple rules just depress me. I just did a lot of work getting some old metal armies into shape and now they're illegal.

I just don't want to do this anymore.

but this is way we all like 40k, it never gets boring and you always get the chance to play something new
/s

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
These no multiple rules just depress me. I just did a lot of work getting some old metal armies into shape and now they're illegal.

I just don't want to do this anymore.

I bought 3 boxes of Krieg Vets to double up special weapons. Fortunately I won't be hit as hard by the change in rules, but still...

M.

 cuda1179 wrote:

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
These no multiple rules just depress me. I just did a lot of work getting some old metal armies into shape and now they're illegal.

I just don't want to do this anymore.

I feel your pain. I might luck out though. I have three command squads, one with plasmas, one with Meltas, and one with Grenade launchers. If I rotate things around a bit I can have one of each in the squad, and perhaps swap out the other three for flamers in in the infantry units.

Part of my project was getting unit markings on everyone...



And all these armies have been OOP for years. Sitting on my table is the LAST squad of Mordians. Vets of course. With 3 GLs (which I will count as plasma because @#$% it they never made Mordian plasma) and a lascannon. Now I don't want to look at them.

I mean I've not played since 2017 or 18 but a group was just starting up in Cairo. And for me part of the fun was making legal units. I also did a lot of converting when I saw that my Cadian Scions could now take 4 special weapons.

Yeah GW don't owe me $%^& it and this is on me but making me unhappy and unwilling put up with stuff makes me buy less and in the long run is a bad practice.

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
These no multiple rules just depress me. I just did a lot of work getting some old metal armies into shape and now they're illegal.

I just don't want to do this anymore.

I feel your pain. I might luck out though. I have three command squads, one with plasmas, one with Meltas, and one with Grenade launchers. If I rotate things around a bit I can have one of each in the squad, and perhaps swap out the other three for flamers in in the infantry units.

Part of my project was getting unit markings on everyone...



And all these armies have been OOP for years. Sitting on my table is the LAST squad of Mordians. Vets of course. With 3 GLs (which I will count as plasma because @#$% it they never made Mordian plasma) and a lascannon. Now I don't want to look at them.

I mean I've not played since 2017 or 18 but a group was just starting up in Cairo. And for me part of the fun was making legal units. I also did a lot of converting when I saw that my Cadian Scions could now take 4 special weapons.

Yeah GW don't owe me $%^& it and this is on me but making me unhappy and unwilling put up with stuff makes me buy less and in the long run is a bad practice.

I am with you- have been building Steel Legion with special weapons squads in each platoon. Going to be badly affected it seems.

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
These no multiple rules just depress me. I just did a lot of work getting some old metal armies into shape and now they're illegal.

I just don't want to do this anymore.

I feel your pain. I might luck out though. I have three command squads, one with plasmas, one with Meltas, and one with Grenade launchers. If I rotate things around a bit I can have one of each in the squad, and perhaps swap out the other three for flamers in in the infantry units.

Part of my project was getting unit markings on everyone...



And all these armies have been OOP for years. Sitting on my table is the LAST squad of Mordians. Vets of course. With 3 GLs (which I will count as plasma because @#$% it they never made Mordian plasma) and a lascannon. Now I don't want to look at them.

I mean I've not played since 2017 or 18 but a group was just starting up in Cairo. And for me part of the fun was making legal units. I also did a lot of converting when I saw that my Cadian Scions could now take 4 special weapons.

Yeah GW don't owe me $%^& it and this is on me but making me unhappy and unwilling put up with stuff makes me buy less and in the long run is a bad practice.

That makes me sad :(

I'm with you, Kid. Not sure I really care about getting any of my various Guard armies up to snuff legal with the new book anymore. Not sure any of them will ever leave their cases or displays again.

With the added bonus that whatever the codex brings to the table it will be probably outdated in less than a year.

M.

I turned my 40 lasgun steel legion troops into dkok conscripts. And o use the special/heavy weapons/officers as dkok. I painted them all in the same standard. They are more used as extra plasma gunners or lascannons or rocket launchers which dkok never got and they look well enough to fit into the same now much larger dkok army. Conscripts sounds like they may be done so I’ll figure out if I can use those lasguns steel legion models this edition. It doesn’t really bother me I bought those models when I was a kid 30 years ago.

They do this all the time. I'm surprised people haven't noticed. I haven't played a tabletop game in over twenty years and I can see, just from reading stuff online, that they frequently update what can and can't be taken in an army (or, alternatively, changing what is good, ie what you'll want to take and not take, this being effectively the same thing as what you can/can't take for many people).

JWBS wrote:
They do this all the time. I'm surprised people haven't noticed. I haven't played a tabletop game in over twenty years and I can see, just from reading stuff online, that they frequently update what can and can't be taken in an army (or, alternatively, changing what is good, ie what you'll want to take and not take, this being effectively the same thing as what you can/can't take for many people).

Guard have largely, in my opinion by virtue of the fact that they just didn't seem to care about the army, been immune to these big shifts. Units have been dropped and a few options here and there...but mostly they've been untouched since the shift from Doctrines in 3.5/4E to Cruddace's first book in 5th or 6th(genuinely can't remember?).

We had Scions added, Bullgryns added, and a few other additions but mostly everything has stayed in a state of constantly just "it's there".
It's meant that there has been a kind of in-built "hahaha, I'm untouchable!" feeling.

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
These no multiple rules just depress me. I just did a lot of work getting some old metal armies into shape and now they're illegal.

I just don't want to do this anymore.

This is how I feel about it. It's just deflating. It's honestly made me look harder at One Page Rules since they feel much more accomodating.

 AtoMaki wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 AtoMaki wrote:
The original point is that if they don't do that then people will bitch about the options being too costly to make from the items on the in-box sprues. That's legit.

I don't think it is. We got by for a very long time with that being just part of the game.

And as far as I'm aware people were been bitching about it for all that time.

They did, they have and most certainly will continue to do so. It was almost a dead certain complaint for every release that the boxes didn't have enough of evey option, it's just a dead certain complaint now that some units have box loadouts. I know H.B.M.C. is right about the fact the material cost and thought process for them adding in an extra sprue is minimal, but let's face it, they'll add cost on for an extra sprue no latter how you dress it up.

They aren't even being consistent with the rules. If they were being consisten't infantry squads would not be allowed to take heavy weapons, as those are not in the box. I mean for ages there weren't even all the special weapons in the Cadian box.

This isn't the first time we've had this happen though. Remember when veterans went from Troops to elites? I had a 50 converted veterans 5 squads. Each of the squad was dedicated to one of the special weapons with an associated heavy weapon. Usually one with either the same strenght or range.

Then the veterans were limited to being only 3 per army as they were now elites and the rule of three. Then they got turned into special weapons squads.

My recently finished feudal guard army was built around 3 platoons. Each platoon had a command squad (with the vox, medic, standard) and a heavy weapons squad and a special weapons squad. Each platoon also had a veteran squad, a conscript squad and three infantry squads. Bummer.

I'm also going to have to say goodbye to my converted Wyrdvane psykers as it seems that squad is going away.

At least one good thing though it seems the new command squad has the character keyword (although I hope they have something that stops a squad from giving up many victory points for assisinate) and the master of ordinance etc are now upgrades to the squad so that should relieve the pressure on the elites slots.

I'm glad we got the rough riders back, as I also had built 30 of them in the past (two of the squads using Kislev models). I'm just worried that rough riders don't have special weapons, as I've got 6 special weapon flamer rough riders.

Dirk Reinecke wrote:
Remember when veterans went from Troops to elites?

I even remember when they went from Elites to Troops . Good ole' times. Burning Dire Avengers out of a bunker with my Hellhound. Scoring 'Vehicle Annihilated' on a Land Raider filled with a kitted-out SM Veteran Squad (they all had Terminator Honour... ouch). Some 80 guardsmen being locked in a melee of block-shaped formations as both me and the other IG player duked it out with Close Quarters Drill. Good stuff ( ).

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
These no multiple rules just depress me. I just did a lot of work getting some old metal armies into shape and now they're illegal.

I just don't want to do this anymore.

That's the really sad thing about this. The people GW is hurting are the ones who are most invested in the army, the e-sport tournament players don't care one bit and will just buy whatever models give the best win rate and then move on to the next army once guard are no longer the newest overpowered thing. It's the people who have been in the hobby for decades, have put countless hours into lovingly converting and painting whole armies, who are getting pushed out and told they don't matter. And how long can 40k last with only the e-sport crowd to keep it alive?

 vipoid wrote:

Lord Zarkov wrote:

Individual infantry taking more hits from explosions because they’ve got no mates is silly, but large things like vehicles and monsters (and to a lesser extent things like battle suits, cavalry, nid warriors, etc) absolutely should take more hits per model because they are bigger and therefore exposed to more of the blast.

That's not how armour works, though.

If an explosion happens outside of an armoured vehicle, then it's unlikely to accomplish a whole lot. Generally, you're looking for a direct hit so that the shell will penetrate the vehicle and damage the interior and/or the occupants.

You can argue that this is the purpose of S vs T and armour saves, sure. But the point is that vehicles shouldn't suffer extra hits because they're 'more exposed to the blast', because exposure to the blast isn't what does the damage.

That really is what S vs T is for rather than hits, and not every vehicle is a tank.

There’s an argument to be made that a direct hit should have more impact than frag (like WFB’s double S under the hole), but objectively a larger object will have a larger area hit by a blast. Edit: though depending on the weapon the former is not necessarily true. AP rounds are designed very differently to area effect rounds. The former don’t always go bang (see discarding sabot rounds) and the latter are often deliberately designed to go off away from the surface (e.g. especially in anti air weapons or to cause spalling in a tank).

A frag missile going off outside a tank should really not do a lot, but that’s why it’s S4 vs a tank’s T a lot (or a literally invulnerable AV pre 8th). But how much of the vehicle is caught in the blast will still determine how much debris hits it (represented by the random roll), whether you’re talking about a tank where it just means more paint is scratched or something like a Vyper or Ork Trukk where it would make a massive difference whether it’s just clipped or is hit across its full silhouette.

Similarly for a monster, how much of it is in the blast will affect how much of its body is damaged (even if the injury is superficial, which high T represents).

And that’s before you get to a battle cannon that can level buildings which will make a mess of lighter vehicles and on a tank, even without a direct hit can trash things like tracks and wheels and pose a significant spalling risk to the crew (and how much of it is covered will affect how much is at risk).

Let alone something like a D-cannon which dumps a spherical volume into the warp and therefore the damage capacity will really matter on how much of something gets hit.

Aecus Decimus wrote:
That's the really sad thing about this. The people GW is hurting are the ones who are most invested in the army, the e-sport tournament players don't care one bit and will just buy whatever models give the best win rate and then move on to the next army once guard are no longer the newest overpowered thing. It's the people who have been in the hobby for decades, have put countless hours into lovingly converting and painting whole armies, who are getting pushed out and told they don't matter. And how long can 40k last with only the e-sport crowd to keep it alive?

Blaming comp players isn't fair, nor is it accurate to suggest that GW is entirely catering to the comp scene in products. The rules absolutely reflect a change to a more rigid ruleset compared to the flexibility of the past but the rules are not what makes GW its money, the models are. Comp players aren't even the biggest player group, those who just game in a club or with friends far outnumber those who attend tournaments with these environments also being the starting point for many comp players in the first place and will often be their local gaming scene. Even then, people who just buy the models to build and paint outnumber everyone else on top.
The rules team for 40k isn't good but it's not the fault of comp players, it's just bad decisions by the higher-ups in the company.

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
These no multiple rules just depress me. I just did a lot of work getting some old metal armies into shape and now they're illegal.

I just don't want to do this anymore.

I feel you, man - the Great Legendsing at the start of 9th and the haphazard, flailing point/rule changes for IG the first half of 9e put me in the same spot. Not sure if this is doable for you, but I ended up deciding to just make a force I wanted to make, rules be damned - it's been rather freeing not having to worry about whether I'm going to have points for pintle stubbers next week or not, but I have a fair bit of leeway there due to not having a group to play with. Hopefully you can find a middle ground with your new group (oldhammer, houserules, etc), or at least find some peace finishing the army before putting it on the shelf.

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
These no multiple rules just depress me. I just did a lot of work getting some old metal armies into shape and now they're illegal.

I just don't want to do this anymore.

I feel your pain. I might luck out though. I have three command squads, one with plasmas, one with Meltas, and one with Grenade launchers. If I rotate things around a bit I can have one of each in the squad, and perhaps swap out the other three for flamers in in the infantry units.

Part of my project was getting unit markings on everyone...



And all these armies have been OOP for years. Sitting on my table is the LAST squad of Mordians. Vets of course. With 3 GLs (which I will count as plasma because @#$% it they never made Mordian plasma) and a lascannon. Now I don't want to look at them.

I mean I've not played since 2017 or 18 but a group was just starting up in Cairo. And for me part of the fun was making legal units. I also did a lot of converting when I saw that my Cadian Scions could now take 4 special weapons.

Yeah GW don't owe me $%^& it and this is on me but making me unhappy and unwilling put up with stuff makes me buy less and in the long run is a bad practice.

I don't suppose the group would be up for doing One Page Rules or Oldhammer? If you can find an accommodating group you can still use the models as you want to rather than whatever the new thing is. I know that is my preference, but it is admittedly harder to find anybody to play with who doesn't want the current edition.

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
These no multiple rules just depress me. I just did a lot of work getting some old metal armies into shape and now they're illegal.

I just don't want to do this anymore.

Me too.