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.

Frequent balance changes are good and many gamers are already used to them. Old timers need to get used to reading the patch notes and catch up with the rest of the world.

Problem isn't patch notes themselves but how hard it is to access the overall information of the game with how GW currently distributes all their rules. If you can't use Wahapedia but only GW sources it is bad enough that people would quit the game over it.

If they had an online resource like Wahapedia that was their primary way of presenting the rules than it wouldn't be too bad with updates that were more regular even if they were rule/profile changes and not just point costs. But until GW gives up on their current Codex model to drive sales and hype, frequent rule changes is a bad idea. And even then you dont want too many changes since most people have less opportunity to play this game than computer games. So you dont want it changing too fast even if its easy to get the updates.

Just use Wahapedia then.

 vict0988 wrote:


I'm sorry but I wouldn't play 2k pts against you if you're having to reference every single rule and stat you use.

Who says im referencing every single stat and rule and constantly playing with my head in a book? Poor projection. Nah, my reading comprehension and my memory are both actually pretty good. And let's not forget - this was at the 'writing a list' stage so pre-game
But cute try at attacking me!

 vict0988 wrote:

Maybe you need a teaching game? I'm quite good at those, just read the core rules and your army rules and we'll have plenty of time to look up stats when we play 500 pts

Again, very cute projection but misplaced. But keep tilting at those windmills sunshine, you’re good at it.

 vict0988 wrote:


I don't read the Doomsday Ark datasheet every 3 months to check whether it has had any changes, that'd be silly. What's the chance that I'd actually notice it got CORE by looking at the datasheet? I read the datasheet when I first got hands on the codex and then maybe a couple of additional times and that's it, any future changes don't get filed into my knowledge of what a Doomsday Ark is but in my errata knowledge about Necrons. The number of times I have needed the Doomsday Ark datasheet has been extremely tiny and usually because I'd be looking for one specific thing, so again, I wouldn't see that it'd gotten CORE.

I don’t think its silly at all. Why wouldn't you notice CORE by checking the data sheet? Surely you don't just glance at the points costs and turn the pages? I mean, if you’re into the tournament circuit, it makes sense to know the other codices/datasheets as well as your own, and to have an understanding of the state of the game. ‘know your enemy’ and all that. When I did tournaments (admittedly, a while ago), that was just the done thing.

 vict0988 wrote:


Terminators were bad in 5th though, either I am forgetting something or they were even worse in 4th. I don't know what unit you're talking about that went from being imbalanced and then became balanced because of a rules change. Giving Firstborn an extra wound did not make them balanced, it just changed the feel of the faction. It made them more balanced than they were previously because the 9th edition pts values were a PL psy-op made by the knife-ear podcast /sarcasm.

Clearly you are. My memory is definitely better than yours then if you can’t remember assault terminators. Assault terminators became a thing back in 5th precisely because of gear changes. 3+ inv storm shields and thunder hammers completely changed the game for them – they were really good. They became a go-to unit for a lot of very good reasons. Again, perfect example of buffing a unit with stat/rule/gear changes and not 'but points only!'.

 vict0988 wrote:


I advocate for annual pts updates, the thing I am arguing against is giving Gretchin +1 S in January, +1 BS in April and then -1 BS in June and Dense Cover for nearby Orks in Orktober. Just change their pts once to 4,5 or 3,5 and wait a year to see how it pans out. For example, I think Gretchin should be T2, but I'd rather GW wait until 10th to change Gretchin to T2 because it'd just be another errata to remember and another thing that makes the physical codexes unreliable which is unfair to paying costumers even if they get a free app code with their physical codex.

Good thing im not advocating ‘constantly messing around arbitrarily with the profiles’ then, though I do appreciate the strawman. What I am advocating for is considering rule changes/stat changes etc is just as viable way of fixing an under/overpowered unit than just changing points. Again, ^points to plenty examples in 40k and plenty other games where this was done^.

Constantly messing around is exactly the issue, because the balance dataslate is done specifically as a reaction to the gt circuit. It's absolute nonsense to see this quarter marines are given armor of contempt, then next these units get core for necrons, then after that because AoC is too good it's just dropped (without anything saying that, just not listed as a rule anymore without a word) and some other necron stuff loses core but gets +1 T or whatever.

The major issue is GW wants to do frequent patches like a MOBA or other videogames but don't understand how to write them. Each dataslate should have a summary page, if nothing else just saying these armies have had changes, at best actually done like real patch notes so it's easier to actually find what's new rather than look at it and then notice oh they updated the list of core models and XYZ isn't on it anymore so it lost it.

It's not a hard thing to do. If they were to switch to doing that and then instead of going the republishing codexes route constantly, It will be way better. The sad part is the happy perfect opportunity to do it with 10th edition but they're not going to because they want to keep the outdated codex model. What they should do is have the indexes be the baseline for the entirety of the addition and instead of going back to redoing everyone's codexes they should just publish the sort of supplement the books like they've been doing where each book can have a focus on several factions and that's when they introduce the latest model or any additional rules or just decide hey we're going to do an update to this data sheet.

This really doesn't seem to be hard concept for anyone other than GW.

Wayniac wrote:
Constantly messing around is exactly the issue, because the balance dataslate is done specifically as a reaction to the gt circuit. It's absolute nonsense to see this quarter marines are given armor of contempt, then next these units get core for necrons, then after that because AoC is too good it's just dropped (without anything saying that, just not listed as a rule anymore without a word) and some other necron stuff loses core but gets +1 T or whatever.

The major issue is GW wants to do frequent patches like a MOBA or other videogames but don't understand how to write them. Each dataslate should have a summary page, if nothing else just saying these armies have had changes, at best actually done like real patch notes so it's easier to actually find what's new rather than look at it and then notice oh they updated the list of core models and XYZ isn't on it anymore so it lost it.

It's not a hard thing to do. If they were to switch to doing that and then instead of going the republishing codexes route constantly, It will be way better. The sad part is the happy perfect opportunity to do it with 10th edition but they're not going to because they want to keep the outdated codex model. What they should do is have the indexes be the baseline for the entirety of the addition and instead of going back to redoing everyone's codexes they should just publish the sort of supplement the books like they've been doing where each book can have a focus on several factions and that's when they introduce the latest model or any additional rules or just decide hey we're going to do an update to this data sheet.

This really doesn't seem to be hard concept for anyone other than GW.

It's also an issue about QA. Age of empires 3 patches in regards to balance all 6 months unless something is seriously broken / unintended. With a monthlong betatest period.
GW doesn't do either. And a lot of the issues could've been just avoided by having a communicating and controlling aspect in the rulesteam itself, preferably one that also plays as many forces as possible.

Deadnight wrote:
cute try at attacking me!

I regret making you feel that way.

 vict0988 wrote:


I don't read the Doomsday Ark datasheet every 3 months to check whether it has had any changes, that'd be silly. What's the chance that I'd actually notice it got CORE by looking at the datasheet? I read the datasheet when I first got hands on the codex and then maybe a couple of additional times and that's it, any future changes don't get filed into my knowledge of what a Doomsday Ark is but in my errata knowledge about Necrons. The number of times I have needed the Doomsday Ark datasheet has been extremely tiny and usually because I'd be looking for one specific thing, so again, I wouldn't see that it'd gotten CORE.

I don’t think its silly at all. Why wouldn't you notice CORE by checking the data sheet? Surely you don't just glance at the points costs and turn the pages? I mean, if you’re into the tournament circuit, it makes sense to know the other codices/datasheets as well as your own, and to have an understanding of the state of the game. ‘know your enemy’ and all that. When I did tournaments (admittedly, a while ago), that was just the done thing.

I think we remember and write lists differently. I don't remember checking a stat or ability when writing a list ever. I read the codex. I write one or more lists. The first time I use a unit I will read its datasheet and any associated Stratagems. For 9th edition Necrons that's been a couple of years. From that point on I will not read the datasheet again unless I need to reference something I forgot.

 vict0988 wrote:


Terminators were bad in 5th though, either I am forgetting something or they were even worse in 4th. I don't know what unit you're talking about that went from being imbalanced and then became balanced because of a rules change. Giving Firstborn an extra wound did not make them balanced, it just changed the feel of the faction. It made them more balanced than they were previously because the 9th edition pts values were a PL psy-op made by the knife-ear podcast /sarcasm.

Clearly you are. My memory is definitely better than yours then if you can’t remember assault terminators. Assault terminators became a thing back in 5th precisely because of gear changes. 3+ inv storm shields and thunder hammers completely changed the game for them – they were really good. They became a go-to unit for a lot of very good reasons. Again, perfect example of buffing a unit with stat/rule/gear changes and not 'but points only!'.

I am pretty sure you are wrong about Assault Terminators being good, my buddy's Space Wolf Terminators weren't tearing things apart and I remember something about Deathwing Terminators gathering dust. Finding proof is hard so I'll just accept your version of events for the sake of argument and note that I have a terrible memory so it is most likely you know better. That doesn't change that adding OP gear to Terminators is not a good way to fix Terminators because all the people with regular Terminators have to shelve or scrap their Terminators.

 vict0988 wrote:


I advocate for annual pts updates, the thing I am arguing against is giving Gretchin +1 S in January, +1 BS in April and then -1 BS in June and Dense Cover for nearby Orks in Orktober. Just change their pts once to 4,5 or 3,5 and wait a year to see how it pans out. For example, I think Gretchin should be T2, but I'd rather GW wait until 10th to change Gretchin to T2 because it'd just be another errata to remember and another thing that makes the physical codexes unreliable which is unfair to paying costumers even if they get a free app code with their physical codex.

Good thing im not advocating ‘constantly messing around arbitrarily with the profiles’ then, though I do appreciate the strawman. What I am advocating for is considering rule changes/stat changes etc is just as viable way of fixing an under/overpowered unit than just changing points. Again, ^points to plenty examples in 40k and plenty other games where this was done^.

If you're going to "fix" balance 4 times a year and you first and foremost use rules to do that, then you are going to make arbitrary rules changes and then Youtubers will come up with poor excuses for why the change had to be made, when in reality Gretchin didn't need a point of Toughness, they needed a fair cost and they still need a fair cost after getting a point of Toughness because the likelihood of hitting balance on the head with rules is insanely hard. I don't know what 40k examples you're talking about, I can point to a game where it works, League of Legends, a game without points where characters get minute adjustments and then ALL the data is gathered and analyzed to make further adjustments or to undo any mistakes that have been made. Phreak has been doing a long-running series about the LOL patches and he recently became a developer for LOL so his patch videos have gotten even more interesting. But when I haven't played a character in a while I have no idea when I can engage or when I should withdraw because the numbers will determine whether the engagement goes well and my experience will be outdated because of updated numbers. I can play a champion 20 times in a week and get up to speed with my favourite League of Legends characters, almost nobody gets a significant amount of 40k in, changing rules for 40k is a much worse fit for that reason.

Wayniac wrote:
Constantly messing around is exactly the issue, because the balance dataslate is done specifically as a reaction to the gt circuit. It's absolute nonsense to see this quarter marines are given armor of contempt, then next these units get core for necrons, then after that because AoC is too good it's just dropped (without anything saying that, just not listed as a rule anymore without a word) and some other necron stuff loses core but gets +1 T or whatever.

The major issue is GW wants to do frequent patches like a MOBA or other videogames but don't understand how to write them. Each dataslate should have a summary page, if nothing else just saying these armies have had changes, at best actually done like real patch notes so it's easier to actually find what's new rather than look at it and then notice oh they updated the list of core models and XYZ isn't on it anymore so it lost it.

It's not a hard thing to do. If they were to switch to doing that and then instead of going the republishing codexes route constantly, It will be way better. The sad part is the happy perfect opportunity to do it with 10th edition but they're not going to because they want to keep the outdated codex model. What they should do is have the indexes be the baseline for the entirety of the addition and instead of going back to redoing everyone's codexes they should just publish the sort of supplement the books like they've been doing where each book can have a focus on several factions and that's when they introduce the latest model or any additional rules or just decide hey we're going to do an update to this data sheet.

This really doesn't seem to be hard concept for anyone other than GW.

Yearly rules updates for appropriate dataslates would be fine with me assuming no codexes were being invalidated. Does Warmachine have codexes? If it's all digital that changes things IMHO.

Last I knew warmachine had codex like books in mk2 that had everything current and did books every few months to advance the story that added additional units for everyone, not just one faction. Think like how the psychic awakening books gave updates to a few factions in each book (which were then added to the app too), that system instead of the codex system as well as psychic awakening (that is, imagine if the psychic awakening style book replaced codexes).

I honestly can't remember how mk3 worked since I bought everything on the app (like $100 for lifetime access and updates to everything that would ever come out so I never had to buy the book unless I wanted the lore,it would automatically be put into the app) when it launched.

There's no reason other than GW planning to do GW stuff why 10th couldn't have the indexes stay permanently and then they release supplements that deal with say 4-5 factions every few months, adding new units and if necessary updating rules and datasheets (with the same being updated in the app). Instead I guarantee the index will be removed when a codex comes out and it'll be spread out with each faction getting one again, then the last year before 11th edition will be these hybrid books

 vict0988 wrote:


I regret making you feel that way.

Be a better person and just don’t talk down to people in the first place bud.

And spare me this not-apology. You don’t know me, and no one appreciates folks projecting lies and mistruths about them (especially me) that are bordering on personal attacks. You passive/aggressively attacked me, claimed you wouldn’t play a proper game with me because you project (wrongly) I have zero reading comprehension/memory and would spend all my time with my head in a book reading rules, then are patronising enough to say you’ll do a ‘teaching game’ with me because its all I can handle apparently. Park it. I know doublespeak when i see it.

 vict0988 wrote:


I think we remember and write lists differently. I don't remember checking a stat or ability when writing a list ever. I read the codex. I write one or more lists. The first time I use a unit I will read its datasheet and any associated Stratagems. For 9th edition Necrons that's been a couple of years. From that point on I will not read the datasheet again unless I need to reference something I forgot.

Id check the datasheets. Especially when there’s been an update. No point otherwise. Know your enemy.

 vict0988 wrote:


I am pretty sure you are wrong about Assault Terminators being good, my buddy's Space Wolf Terminators weren't tearing things apart and I remember something about Deathwing Terminators gathering dust. Finding proof is hard so I'll just accept your version of events for the sake of argument and note that I have a terrible memory so it is most likely you know better. That doesn't change that adding OP gear to Terminators is not a good way to fix Terminators because all the people with regular Terminators have to shelve or scrap their Terminators.

We’re not talking about space wolf terminators. Separate codex. Space Wolves back then were about ‘long fang (and grey hunter) spam’ and Space Wolves and terminators were always weird. We’re talking codex: space marines.

And a hard disagree. ‘fixing x doesn’t fix y, therefore it’s a terrible idea’ misses the point. We’re talking about X. Giving better gear to assault terminators made assault terminators a better, more viable choice, which was the intent. And it succeeded. Making the then-rubbish assault terminators cheaper would not have had anything like the same effect.

 vict0988 wrote:


If you're going to "fix" balance 4 times a year and you first and foremost use rules to do that, then you are going to make arbitrary rules changes and then Youtubers will come up with poor excuses for why the change had to be made, when in reality Gretchin didn't need a point of Toughness, they needed a fair cost and they still need a fair cost after getting a point of Toughness because the likelihood of hitting balance on the head with rules is insanely hard. I don't know what 40k examples you're talking about, I can point to a game where it works, League of Legends, a game without points where characters get minute adjustments and then ALL the data is gathered and analyzed to make further adjustments or to undo any mistakes that have been made.

You try to dismiss the value of wmh but it's OK to bring in lol? I mean, fine but be careful about comparing TTGs and video games directly. Things aren't always directly comparable between ttgs and computer games.

Saying you dont know what 40k examples im.talking about is inaccurate - ive pointed to several 40k examples. And warmachine examples.

I mean, in warmachine, warcasters didn’t have a points cost either. Why is it that ‘minute adjustments’ and ‘all the data’ here for LoL is fine, but when I point they did this in WMH, it’s a bad thing and cant be used?

And I never said rules ‘exclusively’ so yet again, stop projecting. Nor am I talking about ‘arbitrary’ rules changes. Im talking about ‘appropriate’ changes, if its felt these would provide suitable fixes to a problem unit (better invul for TH+CC termies, IG vets getting BS4, toning down gaspy or haley’s feat, change of spells/animus etc). And its very, very dangerous to change ‘everything’ in a single errata every time– which is my reasing here - corrext me if i am incorrext, please. This is bad design – you’ll just upend the game every time. Id much prefer smaller, targeted fixes and tweak from there – its better design. You can ALSO consider points in the mix but getting them right ‘on the head’ is also ‘insanely hard’. Too often points adjustments as the main lever is just a race to the bottom as in ‘everything gets cheaper’ which just has a knock-on effect on everything else. making fire warriors cheaper didn’t fix their issues, for example. It just made people want cheaper Guardsmen which made people want cheaper xyz. and again, I re-state my issue was your stance that only points changes should ever be made in errata.

 vict0988 wrote:


Yearly rules updates for appropriate dataslates would be fine with me assuming no codexes were being invalidated. Does Warmachine have codexes? If it's all digital that changes things IMHO.

I'd accept this. And evolve codex design (unlikey - its too much of a cash cow). Preferably every 6 months. Basically warmachine's approach.

Back in Mk2 they had the ‘forces of war:FACTION’ books at the very start which were a collation of all the units/solos/jacks and casters for that faction. Following that, there were yearly expansion books where every faction simultaneously got new stuff. Later There was also the App. More importantly though, you didn’t need to lug around all the books for the info – every unit had a card packaged with the box listing its stats, rules, spells, feats etc. open information game – check the card, and its all there. Basically, you’d just need a small folder (or an elastic band) holding your cards and you’re good to go with all the info you need to play your game quite literally in your hand.

They digitalised it more during Mk3 where all the cards were no longer physical but were downloadable as they were using public playtest data feedback to balance out the game (CIT or something?) and it was easier to manage errata and updates. Also, the warroom App which did all that electronically.

Mk4 is a totally different thing – it’s a reboot of the game (more or less all the old stuff is legacied at this point). And its mainly via the app as far as I can tell.

I'm not trying to convince you that changing stats and abilities can balance the game by using LOL as an example, you're trying to convince me that the balancing a board game with physical rulebooks that rules changes are the best way to balance the game. You have absolutely said that about a bajillion times, I acknowledge you have not left out points, but you have definitely not said that stat and ability changes should be a rarely implemented measure which I believe is appropriate for 40k as it exists today. If you read your own post you can even read that YOU asked for my gaming experience, so obviously I am going to bring up a game where stats and abilities are changed to balance the game to what I believe to be great effect, showing that on some level I can see where you're coming from, but now you insult me for bringing it up.

I am offended you called my apology a non-apology. You don't have to accept my apology but spitting on it is more rude than I have been, unless I missed the Orkmoticon that is showing that you're saying something in jest as I did.

You did say rule changes were just as legit as pts changes and I did not say exclusively, I said first and foremost as you claimed Warmachine did with its balancing efforts, something I hope 40k does not do and am arguing against. 40k already uses Errata far too frequently for no good reason and achieves nothing with it.

Space Marines did not get an extra wound with an Errata, that was done in a codex, I imagine the same thing was true with Assault Terminators and stormshields whatever happened to them, that was before my time though as I only grudgingly played 5th. So you're left with a grand total of 0 examples of individual unit errata you like. I can point you to a sea of units which were changed in a codex and were not balanced at release and one of the only two examples you give of great stat changes that really improved things also came with a points change and I don't want to go dig through 4th edition codexes to see if the same is true for the other 40k example you came up with. Do you think 2W Tacticals would have been fine at 14 pts? Tacticals getting an extra wound was not about balancing them, it was about changing how they felt to use and play against. So you're left with one tenuous example of a stat change that improved balance, I can only call you a fabricator of falsehoods when you say you have provided several examples.

 vict0988 wrote:
I'm not trying to convince you that changing stats and abilities can balance the game by using LOL as an example, you're trying to convince me that the balancing a board game with physical rulebooks that rules changes are the best way to balance the game. You have absolutely said that about a bajillion times, I acknowledge you have not left out points, but you have definitely not said that stat and ability changes should be a rarely implemented measure which I believe is appropriate for 40k as it exists today. If you read your own post you can even read that YOU asked for my gaming experience, so obviously I am going to bring up a game where stats and abilities are changed to balance the game to what I believe to be great effect, showing that on some level I can see where you're coming from, but now you insult me for bringing it up.

I appreciated it but as i say be careful about direct comparisons with ttgs and computer games. It's better to compare ttgs to other ttgs. When I asked what games you played, that's that I was referring to- i should have been clearer. For me, I often see Starcraft as an oft-mentioned solidly balanced game. Absolutely fair- love me my Starcraft (campaign!). But it has extra layers ttgs don't have - for example, thr concept of 'time'. You have units than have their place in early game, mid game and end game. Ttgs have no real direct analogies- you pay the points and go. Also of note is its easier/less time consuming to collect data from computer games than it is for ttgs.

And it wasn't an insult. Pp treated wmh updates quite similarly to how you present the lol changes. But as per your first post, you dismissed its value entirely. Which I think is short sighted. For what it's worth I apologise if I wasn't clear or made my points poorly - it wasn't my intention


Tbf these days most of my computer gaming is games like life is strange.

 vict0988 wrote:
I'm not trying to convince you

I am offended you called my apology a non-apology. You don't have to accept my apology but spitting on it is more rude than I have been, unless I missed the Orkmoticon that is showing that you're saying something in jest as I did.

.

Its what it is. Which is not an apology. 'I'm sorry you feel that way' is generally regarded as a classic cop-out and denial of any personal reapinsibility or acknowledgement of error/fault on the part of the speaker. Its saying hypothetical-you did nothing wrong (you know, for whatever was said), nor do hypothetical-you take it back or retract it, but really just puts all the weight of their words onto ther person essentially for taking it the wrong way. And it also doesn't retract the original offensive statement. Politicians use it all the time. They can point to what they claim is an apology, whilst quietly signalling to their own people they still believe it and its really just a clever sleight of hand/mouth.
Its the same vein as a bully saying 'it was only a joke'. No, it probably wasn't.

Maybe you're not aware or didn't realise how horrendously loaded the phrase is. If that's the case, that's fine but be aware of it in future. 'It was not my intent to come across aa patronising' or 'I didn't mean to imply you can't play a full game' is an apology and acknowledgement that things were phrased very poorly.

 vict0988 wrote:


You did say rule changes were just as legit as pts changes and I did not say exclusively, I said first and foremost as you claimed Warmachine did with its balancing efforts, something I hope 40k does not do and am arguing against. 40k already uses Errata far too frequently for no good reason and achieves nothing with it.

How much of that though is gw just doing it poorly instead of a problem with the errata system. Again, ^points to warmachine^ as a more effectively managed game. Errata absolutely have a valuable role to play- I think, if anything, you are too.exposed to just one company's use of them and havent experienced other games using it better. Correct me if I am wrong?

Errata too often is a problem - the game is constantly in flux and never settles. Ultimately people walk. Too rare and problems manifest and the game stagnates.2-3 balance updates a year is a pretty good compromise imo.

 vict0988 wrote:

Space Marines did not get an extra wound with an Errata, that was done in a codex, I imagine the same thing was true with Assault Terminators and stormshields whatever happened to them, that was before my time though as I o

nly grudgingly played 5th. So you're left with a grand total of 0 examples of individual unit errata you like. I can point you to a sea of units which were changed in a codex and were not balanced at release and one of the only two examples you give of great stat changes that really improved things also came with a points change and I don't want to go dig through 4th edition codexes to see if the same is true for the other 40k example you came up with. Do you think 2W Tacticals would have been fine at 14 pts? Tacticals getting an extra wound was not about balancing them, it was about changing how they felt to use and play against. So you're left with one tenuous example of a stat change that improved balance, I can only call you a fabricator of falsehoods when you say you have provided several examples.

Ah, OK I get you now and see where you are coming from. Fair points all. I think I am guilty of misplacing updates via codices and Errata when it comes to 40k. In defense I will.point out again how they did the abulity/feat/spell/stat adjustments in wmh to pretty good effect. It was my main game for ten years, i guess i am just far more famuliar with it. Back then when i played 40k very seriously 3rd to 4th/5th)was mainly codex changes, hell.for a while back then gw didn't even do chapter approved. It was a very different era back then.


.

 vict0988 wrote:

I don't think GW are in the habit of releasing broken datasheets

You're incorrect. Remember when Howling Banshees couldn't even stand up to tactical marines in melee? So basically nobody took them? No, sometimes datasheets need to be fixed to make them useful.

in my opinion, the game has gone down hill for 2 reasons.

1. greed
2. the tournament circuit.

Greed
in the old days GW encouraged creativity in the hobby in the form of conversions, home made vehicle rules, and scratch built terrain tutorials. they don't do that any more.

Tournament Circuit
As the game was back in the days of old, it was poorly balanced, and there was quite a bit of randomness, but things were more fun imho and more fluffy. BA pulling random dudes from random squads to join the DC was cool. over charged engines were cool. potentially having to move towards the nearest enemy model was fluffy.
but not a single portion of any of that is something that could feasibly be accounted for by a BA player in a highly competitive tournament scene, and a few bad roles could gut your hard hitters, or lure a unit out into the open rather than moving into cover or sitting put.

johnpjones1775 wrote:
in my opinion, the game has gone down hill for 2 reasons.

1. greed
2. the tournament circuit.

Greed
in the old days GW encouraged creativity in the hobby in the form of conversions, home made vehicle rules, and scratch built terrain tutorials. they don't do that any more.

Tournament Circuit
As the game was back in the days of old, it was poorly balanced, and there was quite a bit of randomness, but things were more fun imho and more fluffy. BA pulling random dudes from random squads to join the DC was cool. over charged engines were cool. potentially having to move towards the nearest enemy model was fluffy.
but not a single portion of any of that is something that could feasibly be accounted for by a BA player in a highly competitive tournament scene, and a few bad roles could gut your hard hitters, or lure a unit out into the open rather than moving into cover or sitting put.

And your opinion is wrong.

Your opinion that Blood Angels players deserved to have an army that sucked and that took away their control is a bad one.

johnpjones1775 wrote:
in my opinion, the game has gone down hill for 2 reasons.

1. greed
2. the tournament circuit.

Greed
in the old days GW encouraged creativity in the hobby in the form of conversions, home made vehicle rules, and scratch built terrain tutorials. they don't do that any more.

Eh I don't see it as greed. I just see it as GW produces WAY WAY WAY more than they ever did in the past. They don't need a "how to make a deodorant can into a tank" article because they've got tanks.
They've got tanks to sell and they'd rather sell you the tanks because that puts their food on the table. It's less greed and just the fact that GW makes their income from selling you stuff.

Most other firms are the very same. Those firms that start putting out terrain start making articles about how to use their terrain more and more and make generic articles less and less. Those firms that pick up a paint line or brush sponsor - they start talking about those way more than others.

It's just 100% bog standard normal practice. I'd only consider it a problem if GW were in a vacuum. They aren't and the internet and hobby magazines and more internet are so mind bogglingly full of how to make your own stuff; freaking heck you can get a 3D printer now and print your own stuff. The floodgates are blown open for hobby crafting. It's never been easier to learn, pick up skills or do. If you want to learn it you can and there are some fantastic books and articles out there now which put things like GW's classic terrain book to shame.

Also GW have made it more optional, which is a good thing. I recall back in 4th and 5th GW were throwing out new unique heroes and models everywhere and not supporting them with models. If you wanted them it wasn't an option to convert is was mandatory. Not everyone has those skills or wants to develop them to a decent level as part of their hobby; mandating them or leaving them without wasn't a good thing.

johnpjones1775 wrote:

Tournament Circuit
As the game was back in the days of old, it was poorly balanced, and there was quite a bit of randomness, but things were more fun imho and more fluffy. BA pulling random dudes from random squads to join the DC was cool. over charged engines were cool. potentially having to move towards the nearest enemy model was fluffy.
but not a single portion of any of that is something that could feasibly be accounted for by a BA player in a highly competitive tournament scene, and a few bad roles could gut your hard hitters, or lure a unit out into the open rather than moving into cover or sitting put.

Wild crazy things happening because of fluffy reasons can be fun
It's not so much fun though when those wild crazy things mean you lose a game regularly because of those super swingy dice rolls that means that you, the player, have so little input in the game at critical moments that you might as well have tossed a coin for who won.
Heck even a win can feel hollow or undeserved when you win because you got a double turn in AoS and wiped your opponent off the table before they could do anything.

Fluffy stuff can only take a game so far, but if the core is wildly imbalanced in favour of one force over the other; and/or there are huge swings where a win turns into a loss not because of minor dice rolls, but huge swings. Then those things remove the player from the equation and make for a bitter game experience for the loser.

Yes winning is not everything, but continual losing and/or inability to learn, plan, adapt and improve (because the loss was just a super swingy dice roll); can build frustration and disappointment.



Again the only downsides to GW building a game engine for a tournament scene is if GW are attempting to manipulate the tournament scene down specific army/build paths with a view to encouraging impulse buying of new armies by simply shaking up the meta randomly. That is 100% bad, but its not just bad for casual, its bad for competitive too*


*you make one build the best of the best and sure the tournament players will go for it; with secondhand models that puts 0 money on the table for GW. Meanwhile casual players gripe and moan and a few change, but most don't.

 Overread wrote:

johnpjones1775 wrote:
in my opinion, the game has gone down hill for 2 reasons.

1. greed
2. the tournament circuit.

Greed
in the old days GW encouraged creativity in the hobby in the form of conversions, home made vehicle rules, and scratch built terrain tutorials. they don't do that any more.

Eh I don't see it as greed. I just see it as GW produces WAY WAY WAY more than they ever did in the past. They don't need a "how to make a deodorant can into a tank" article because they've got tanks.
They've got tanks to sell and they'd rather sell you the tanks because that puts their food on the table. It's less greed and just the fact that GW makes their income from selling you stuff.

Most other firms are the very same. Those firms that start putting out terrain start making articles about how to use their terrain more and more and make generic articles less and less. Those firms that pick up a paint line or brush sponsor - they start talking about those way more than others.

It's just 100% bog standard normal practice. I'd only consider it a problem if GW were in a vacuum. They aren't and the internet and hobby magazines and more internet are so mind bogglingly full of how to make your own stuff; freaking heck you can get a 3D printer now and print your own stuff. The floodgates are blown open for hobby crafting. It's never been easier to learn, pick up skills or do. If you want to learn it you can and there are some fantastic books and articles out there now which put things like GW's classic terrain book to shame.

Also GW have made it more optional, which is a good thing. I recall back in 4th and 5th GW were throwing out new unique heroes and models everywhere and not supporting them with models. If you wanted them it wasn't an option to convert is was mandatory. Not everyone has those skills or wants to develop them to a decent level as part of their hobby; mandating them or leaving them without wasn't a good thing.

johnpjones1775 wrote:

Tournament Circuit
As the game was back in the days of old, it was poorly balanced, and there was quite a bit of randomness, but things were more fun imho and more fluffy. BA pulling random dudes from random squads to join the DC was cool. over charged engines were cool. potentially having to move towards the nearest enemy model was fluffy.
but not a single portion of any of that is something that could feasibly be accounted for by a BA player in a highly competitive tournament scene, and a few bad roles could gut your hard hitters, or lure a unit out into the open rather than moving into cover or sitting put.

Wild crazy things happening because of fluffy reasons can be fun
It's not so much fun though when those wild crazy things mean you lose a game regularly because of those super swingy dice rolls that means that you, the player, have so little input in the game at critical moments that you might as well have tossed a coin for who won.
Heck even a win can feel hollow or undeserved when you win because you got a double turn in AoS and wiped your opponent off the table before they could do anything.

Fluffy stuff can only take a game so far, but if the core is wildly imbalanced in favour of one force over the other; and/or there are huge swings where a win turns into a loss not because of minor dice rolls, but huge swings. Then those things remove the player from the equation and make for a bitter game experience for the loser.

Yes winning is not everything, but continual losing and/or inability to learn, plan, adapt and improve (because the loss was just a super swingy dice roll); can build frustration and disappointment.



Again the only downsides to GW building a game engine for a tournament scene is if GW are attempting to manipulate the tournament scene down specific army/build paths with a view to encouraging impulse buying of new armies by simply shaking up the meta randomly. That is 100% bad, but its not just bad for casual, its bad for competitive too*


*you make one build the best of the best and sure the tournament players will go for it; with secondhand models that puts 0 money on the table for GW. Meanwhile casual players gripe and moan and a few change, but most don't.

they had plenty of tanks available in 3rd and 4th edition, but they still had the vehicle creation rules.

the terrain kits are soulless imho when compared to the stuff they taught you how to make.

i think those mechanics are fun, but not perfect, however we'll never see a similar mechanic in the game again most likely.

it only feels bad to lose if you go into the game with a mind set of winning vs just throwing dice and moving plastic soldiers around.

Hecaton wrote:

johnpjones1775 wrote:
in my opinion, the game has gone down hill for 2 reasons.

1. greed
2. the tournament circuit.

Greed
in the old days GW encouraged creativity in the hobby in the form of conversions, home made vehicle rules, and scratch built terrain tutorials. they don't do that any more.

Tournament Circuit
As the game was back in the days of old, it was poorly balanced, and there was quite a bit of randomness, but things were more fun imho and more fluffy. BA pulling random dudes from random squads to join the DC was cool. over charged engines were cool. potentially having to move towards the nearest enemy model was fluffy.
but not a single portion of any of that is something that could feasibly be accounted for by a BA player in a highly competitive tournament scene, and a few bad roles could gut your hard hitters, or lure a unit out into the open rather than moving into cover or sitting put.

And your opinion is wrong.

Your opinion that Blood Angels players deserved to have an army that sucked and that took away their control is a bad one.

BA in no way sucked. Yours is the excuse given by bad Blood Angel players. And bad Ork players as well (they used to have some really random stuff in various editions of 40k & WHFB)

ccs wrote:

Hecaton wrote:

johnpjones1775 wrote:
in my opinion, the game has gone down hill for 2 reasons.

1. greed
2. the tournament circuit.

Greed
in the old days GW encouraged creativity in the hobby in the form of conversions, home made vehicle rules, and scratch built terrain tutorials. they don't do that any more.

Tournament Circuit
As the game was back in the days of old, it was poorly balanced, and there was quite a bit of randomness, but things were more fun imho and more fluffy. BA pulling random dudes from random squads to join the DC was cool. over charged engines were cool. potentially having to move towards the nearest enemy model was fluffy.
but not a single portion of any of that is something that could feasibly be accounted for by a BA player in a highly competitive tournament scene, and a few bad roles could gut your hard hitters, or lure a unit out into the open rather than moving into cover or sitting put.

And your opinion is wrong.

Your opinion that Blood Angels players deserved to have an army that sucked and that took away their control is a bad one.

BA in no way sucked.

EH I dunno. They had some good stuff (troop Assault Squads with two special weapons in Razorbacks being a big one), but I'd not say the codex was that good.

johnpjones1775 wrote:
the terrain kits are soulless imho when compared to the stuff they taught you how to make.

I'm really sorry that GW smashed your hands and made you unable to build your own terrain.

Errhhh....Blood Angels bad? What edition are we talking about exactly? Because all I remember is Rhino Rush......

 Canadian 5th wrote:

johnpjones1775 wrote:
the terrain kits are soulless imho when compared to the stuff they taught you how to make.

I'm really sorry that GW smashed your hands and made you unable to build your own terrain.

He's not wrong though. The creativity died when people became obsessed with tournament balance.

Now you see people, mainly the competitive crowd, cry over homemade terrain because it doesn't adhere to whatever itc/etc/wtc feels is balanced enough. It has to be the same boring trash with the same mirrored boring ass layout to be good.

So yes in part I agree the tournament circuit is to blame for a lot of the blandness in the game with their idea things have to be balanced for them, and the fact garbage lie mirrored terrain is seen as fine and not indicative of a major issue with the game's design speaks volumes.

And before you try and argue that you can just choose to not do that The tournament circuit people have essentially indoctrinated wherever they go with the idea that their way is the only balanced way therefore everything else is not balanced and is too dangerous to be used because of what might happen. So thanks to their fear-mongering and in some cases outright sabotage of non-tournament play most places are too afraid to deviate out of fear of what they've been told happens if you don't have the most balanced style of play available

Wayniac wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

johnpjones1775 wrote:
the terrain kits are soulless imho when compared to the stuff they taught you how to make.

I'm really sorry that GW smashed your hands and made you unable to build your own terrain.

He's not wrong though. The creativity died when people became obsessed with tournament balance.

Now you see people, mainly the competitive crowd, cry over homemade terrain because it doesn't adhere to whatever itc/etc/wtc feels is balanced enough. It has to be the same boring trash with the same mirrored boring ass layout to be good.

So yes in part I agree the tournament circuit is to blame for a lot of the blandness in the game with their idea things have to be balanced for them, and the fact garbage lie mirrored terrain is seen as fine and not indicative of a major issue with the game's design speaks volumes.

Actually I'd argue that since terrain is such a key component of the game, arguments and debates over how valid terrain is a gaming item, not just a creative one, is a good thing.
Terrain for the game should take into consideration its impact on the game and factor that in as part of its design.

The problem is 40K (and a lot of fantasy/sci-fi wargaming) has this massive gaping black hole when it comes to actually understanding and teaching and passing on the "how to play" side of things.
We can pass it on at a mechanical "this is how the rule works", but actually understanding how to use those mechanics tactically; or how to build terrain that functions within the game without being broken/unfun/impractical to use - that's less well understood.


So yes if you are making terrain to play a game with then understanding how that terrain will impact the game, how to use that element to design the terrain to achieve not just a visual spectacle, but a desired in-table effect and how it interacts with armies and other terrain - all those are good important things and aspects we should be discussing.
Even if you play fully casual games, knowing how wide the widest tank/model/base is - how tall the tallest thing is - these are super basic bits of info that impact how you might design a table. And yes that might mean including gaps that are too small for certain things to pass through - creating challenge within your game and crafting part of the narrative of a non-tournament game.

Again all these are just tools in the box, same as scoring join surfaces is for gluing parts with superglue. The difference is we have that gaping hole which means its not as commonly talked about.
So it gets dominated by the tournament event crowd because they are the ones talking about this stuff and it does end up becoming rather one-note because there's not enough discussion, debate and education.

Also the fact it's significantly changed. You didn't need to talk about it a lot years ago because you didn't have umpteen keywords that could be applied. It was very simple but it still worked so you were able to be creative and just make whatever and it would suffice for a game

And linking back to earlier wibbling of mine? What impact would me talking about the terrain in a game against a friend have on someone on the internet?

Tournaments are a shared experience. Rather than me praising or moaning about one game against someone who doesn’t post on Dakka, we may get multiple Dakkanauts attending the same tournament, maybe even playing against each other, and reporting back.

From that, we just get a more interesting topic. If the resulting opinions are largely in agreement, it’s a clearer sign all is well or indeed not well. If it’s a mix, we can dig deeper with some easy questions about army composition etc to help explore the issues as presented in a more informed way.

It doesn’t make those voices overpowering as such, or the experiences more valid. It just gives everyone more information and more situation relevant datapoints, and thus a clearer picture overall.

Example. The woeful London GT terrain from a few years back. Whilst I didn’t attend, a fair few friends did. The following video is not an endorsement of the channel, just being used for example purposes. I point this out in case there’s any beef with the channel itself.




Now of course, this isn’t focussing on the terrain rules specifically. But it is a good example of how an organised event can provide greater feedback than non-organised events/games.

Wayniac wrote:
Also the fact it's significantly changed. You didn't need to talk about it a lot years ago because you didn't have umpteen keywords that could be applied. It was very simple but it still worked so you were able to be creative and just make whatever and it would suffice for a game

You still had key words, but I agree terrain rules were simpler in some ways. Certain changes to things like line of sight and such do change how certain types and designs of terrain work. That cathdral wall with lots of decorative windows and such goes from fully hiding models to "ok I can draw a line through that open crack so I can fire my rockets at your infantry behind".


Another thing that might be worth considering is that even back then people had thoughts on tournament level terrain. Now perhaps there were way fewer events and those events were more reliant on local terrain. So there were fewer considerations because you just took what you could get. Now some events are much better supported and have resources to have their own terrain sets. So of course with an increase in resources and facilities comes a change from "whatever we can get" to "ok lets try and make it the best for the game".


Another element might be the shift in your group/area from simple pure casual play to more serious. This can happen over time as you get older in many hobbies because the greater number of people who "hang on" long term and who are often running groups/ promoting events and generally the most engaged are often the more invested into things. The level of gameplay creeps up which can nudge other things - such as a desire for more formal/balanced/structured tables instead of whatever the heck you could find/make








Also we can have things go too far the wrong way. Eg Warmachine events wound up with flat terrain features and almost card-cut-out style instead of proper 3D Terrain. Its an example of where the extreme angle went wrong along the way. In many ways the rules of the game didn't support proper 3D terrain and the hyper competitive focus broke the need for fully featured terrain. I'd also argue that their market contracting in the extreme likely sapped a LOT of resources from the competitive scene. Suddenly dropping numbers means less money, less people to make terrain; less skill within the community as a whole spread out etc...

Deadnight wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
I'm not trying to convince you

I am offended you called my apology a non-apology. You don't have to accept my apology but spitting on it is more rude than I have been, unless I missed the Orkmoticon that is showing that you're saying something in jest as I did.

.

Its what it is. Which is not an apology. 'I'm sorry you feel that way' is generally regarded as a classic cop-out and denial of any personal reapinsibility or acknowledgement of error/fault on the part of the speaker. Its saying hypothetical-you did nothing wrong (you know, for whatever was said), nor do hypothetical-you take it back or retract it, but really just puts all the weight of their words onto ther person essentially for taking it the wrong way. And it also doesn't retract the original offensive statement. Politicians use it all the time. They can point to what they claim is an apology, whilst quietly signalling to their own people they still believe it and its really just a clever sleight of hand/mouth.
Its the same vein as a bully saying 'it was only a joke'. No, it probably wasn't.

Maybe you're not aware or didn't realise how horrendously loaded the phrase is. If that's the case, that's fine but be aware of it in future. 'It was not my intent to come across aa patronising' or 'I didn't mean to imply you can't play a full game' is an apology and acknowledgement that things were phrased very poorly.

Recognize your mistake and understand what you did wrong. An apology doesn't mean much if we're just saying, “I'm sorry,” to get out of trouble with someone we care about. ...
Be sincere. ...
Don't delay. ...
Take ownership. ...
Correct the behavior. ...
Listen. ...
Don't expect a return apology.

Say what it is that you're apologizing for. Be specific. Show you understand why it was bad, take ownership, and show that you understand why you caused hurt. Don't make excuses.

I actually put some reading into trying to formulate a proper apology and I specifically avoided saying "I'm sorry you feel that way". Because you can feel sorry for someone if they lost their dog and say you're sorry that they have to deal with losing their dog, but if you're the one that ran their dog over then you need to show that you accept responsibility by saying "I regret running over your dog", there was no intention of running over the dog, but it happened and you regret causing the death of their dog. I take ownership over me being the cause of you feeling insulted, I did not intend to make you feel patronized, but I did make you feel patronized. I was trying to say that you are likely to forget errata during the heat of a game because you're not reading the book in the middle of the game, so if Ghazz got an extra S instead of a pts reduction then the former is more likely to be forgotten because the players will be familiar with Ghazzy's regular S which was listed back when they first read the datasheet the first couple of times the player used Ghazz. I am well and truly sorry about making the assumption that an Orkmoticon would reveal that the whole thing was meant to convey something entirely different than patronization and I have resolved to change the way I engage with DakkaDakka because of it. I also realise that I have made enough patronizing and otherwise combative comments in the past that it is a reasonable assumption that I would make one towards you.

Hecaton wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

I don't think GW are in the habit of releasing broken datasheets

You're incorrect. Remember when Howling Banshees couldn't even stand up to tactical marines in melee? So basically nobody took them? No, sometimes datasheets need to be fixed to make them useful.

I don't think that was broken. Howling Banshees could still provide value and that value was greater against Marines than against Guardsmen. Fast anti-MEQ unit specializing in dealing with ranged units.

@johnpjones1775 "...we'll never see a similar mechanic in the game again most likely."
Crusade rules include random rolling for effects, with some of them being bad and others being good, so you can end up with good or bad crusade forces based on whether units have a mafunction in their guns causing them to lose accuracy or a malfunction in the brain that increases their melee lethality or prevents falling back. If you think a table is bad you can adjust it for your crusade force with the accept of your crusade community. This is the appropriate place for these kinds of rules. Players that like random stuff and play a moderate number of games. It is not appropriate for players that rarely play, are getting started or competitive players.

Another thought?

Tournaments are the one place where standardised rules are truly required.

If you’re playing at home or in a club? There’s no reason you can’t go with terrain rules from another edition, another game, or of entirely your own devising,

Remember, GW are providing a framework. Their current focus is to make the game as smooth to play and accessible as possible.

Perhaps you can see through that window or crack - but the rules say “nope”? That’s speed of game play over any kind of real world accuracy. Not just in seeing what your LoS is, but removing the motivation to micro-manage model positioning.

This is the same motivation as removing blast and flame templates. People used to (understandably) micro-measure distances in infantry units to ensure whilst maintaining cohesion, incoming blast templates would hit as few as possible. It also meant no more arguments relating to exactly where a template ended up after scattering - and I’m sure all of us from that era can remember…generous….interpretations of the direct of scatter from opponents.

Remove fiddling, remove causes for argument, and the game can be played swifter and will hopefully be more enjoyable.

johnpjones1775 wrote:

in the old days GW encouraged creativity in the hobby in the form of conversions, home made vehicle rules, and scratch built terrain tutorials. they don't do that any more.

This gets said a lot... And there is some justification for it due to the simplification of weapon options... In my experience most people who convert do so in order to accommodate upgrades. It's also true to say that you don't see "how to build" in official book releases.

But I'm a White Dwarf guy, and I gotta tell you, there are a lot of conversions in that mag. The hobby bingo card has I think 3 slots for kitbashed models?

And again, Crusade is the best motivator of conversion I've ever encountered. All Relics (Crusade and otherwise) provide conversion incentives and ideas. Other battle honours can be represented via conversion as well.

So while it may not be in the core publications anymore, and while weapon lists for Matched Play games are increasingly restricted to what's in the box, I don't think conversion is as dead as you think it is.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Another thought?

Tournaments are the one place where standardised rules are truly required.

If you’re playing at home or in a club? There’s no reason you can’t go with terrain rules from another edition, another game, or of entirely your own devising,

Remember, GW are providing a framework. Their current focus is to make the game as smooth to play and accessible as possible.

Perhaps you can see through that window or crack - but the rules say “nope”? That’s speed of game play over any kind of real world accuracy. Not just in seeing what your LoS is, but removing the motivation to micro-manage model positioning.

This is the same motivation as removing blast and flame templates. People used to (understandably) micro-measure distances in infantry units to ensure whilst maintaining cohesion, incoming blast templates would hit as few as possible. It also meant no more arguments relating to exactly where a template ended up after scattering - and I’m sure all of us from that era can remember…generous….interpretations of the direct of scatter from opponents.

Remove fiddling, remove causes for argument, and the game can be played swifter and will hopefully be more enjoyable.

If your club has a lot of turnover or irregulars then using house rules would be a pain. On the other hand a tournament can more easily use house rules because the tournament will have an invitation that everyone is going to read where you can write that your hedges are dangerous terrain and any vehicle that moves into contact with them have a 1/6 chance of being permanently immobilized. Look at what the ITC did in 8th with their missions, which were designed to level the playing field but ended up magnifying the problem of SM2.0 because the missions were not designed for the current rules and pts values. Tournaments have tournament organizers with the authority to implement a house rule almost no matter how unpopular, while a club manager probably has a lot less sway to tell people how to play their games.

PenitentJake wrote:
And again, Crusade is the best motivator of conversion I've ever encountered. All Relics (Crusade and otherwise) provide conversion incentives and ideas. Other battle honours can be represented via conversion as well.

So while it may not be in the core publications anymore, and while weapon lists for Matched Play games are increasingly restricted to what's in the box, I don't think conversion is as dead as you think it is.

Would your crusade community allow you to take all power swords even if the datasheet said max 1 power sword + up to 1 power axe + up to one power fist...? I'm asking out of curiosity.

PenitentJake wrote:

johnpjones1775 wrote:

in the old days GW encouraged creativity in the hobby in the form of conversions, home made vehicle rules, and scratch built terrain tutorials. they don't do that any more.

This gets said a lot... And there is some justification for it due to the simplification of weapon options... In my experience most people who convert do so in order to accommodate upgrades. It's also true to say that you don't see "how to build" in official book releases.

But I'm a White Dwarf guy, and I gotta tell you, there are a lot of conversions in that mag. The hobby bingo card has I think 3 slots for kitbashed models?

And again, Crusade is the best motivator of conversion I've ever encountered. All Relics (Crusade and otherwise) provide conversion incentives and ideas. Other battle honours can be represented via conversion as well.

So while it may not be in the core publications anymore, and while weapon lists for Matched Play games are increasingly restricted to what's in the box, I don't think conversion is as dead as you think it is.

This is a pet grump of mine.

In the olden days, conversions and scratch builds were encouraged. Not only was it something you can fill WD pages with, but it allowed GW and the player base to expand the game beyond GW’s, at the time, relatively meagre resources.

They produce the Rhino Hull, offer up rules and a conversion guide (Vindicaror, Sabre), you put in the modelling work, everyone wins. Your army gets expanded, GW gets the sale of the base hull. Same with the Claymore, except that was two kits you needed.

Since then? GW’s production resources have expanded exponentially. No they’ve not always (ever?) been equally distributed. As such, there’s just not the need for either party to have to convert.

Hence we just don’t see the old style articles on DIY tanks, terrain etc. The necessity of them just isn’t there. But that is not the same as restricting or banning such efforts.

The last hurrah for that would be the ooooold VDR rules, and Tyranid Design Rules. Intended to spark creativity and original additions to armies? Sadly they became a mathhammer exercise in how to shave off points making overpowered, underpointed things. Like a then local goon that created a super cheap “flat bed Rhino”. Not because he thought it was cool. But to get Dreadnought special character Moriar well into my front line on the first turn. Or the netlist which involved points shaved Gaunts using the TDR which performed exactly as their more expensive Codex equivalent.

In short? We can’t be properly trusted with the powers of design gods. Because we’re collectively idiots.