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.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Or in 10th edition, the fact that core rules errata are in the "rules commentary" document rather than updated in the actual rules PDF. For example, the rule that units are no longer eligible to shoot after shooting is nowhere in the core rules. Literally never mentioned, at all. It is in the "commentary" on the rules? That's not commentary, that's an errata! And the core rules pdf should be updated with that!

To be fair, GW's rules commentary is an amendment to the rulebook.

Both an errata and a FAQ (or commentary) change what a document means.
- An errata changes the text of the document.
- A FAQ doesn't change the text of the document.
Same thing applies whether it's a game rulebook or the cards for a game.

That's true for both GW and other game companies. The big reason for not doing an errata: Having to figure out a concise change to the original text wording, and then redo the page layout.

ccs wrote:

Karol wrote:
Chaos and Dark Eldar can at least still be played. Marines had entire armies made illegal. No army got that treatment and they are suppose to be the army that GW puts extra care of. While after 3 editions I think that GW just milks marines players hard hard. Oblits, cultists etc were and are good, if not every edition then at least in the last few ones. Dark Eldar are the dudes in boats faction. What is the dude who bought intercessors in 8th suppose to do now, or in 9th. The Sang Guard BA player. The WS or RW "the faction is about bikes, so I picked them, because I like bikes" player.
A tyranid player could be using stealers, guants and monsters from 2ed, a marine player can't, not just because the load outs on units are different, the bases or similar stuff. No marines stuff is just gone. Even the supposed still legal legends doesn't have rules on the GW app, that is how much GW cares about marine stuff.

Not saying that losing crucial upgrades or models that existed for decades isn't a feels bad moment for other factions it is. But when was it the last time that GW invalided an entire army of an eldar player, with zero chance of it ever being reverted.

Oh good God....
GW did not make all of our old school SM armies illegal.

Here are the current Legends rules those of us still playing with the things you claim no longer exist. https://www.warhammer-community.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/DD7n141LfVjgQltr.pdf
It doesn't matter wether or not the App grants you access to these rules.

Legally-no
realistically-yes

There are only 4 official firstborn infantry units left in the game that will still get a balance pass and rules update to conform with GWs current game setup.
tacs, devs, sternguard and vanguard. everything else has been replaced by a primaris variant.

While you can still use all the "legends" units as the game goes on all the current meta/matched play players will be less and less ok with you bringing units without current rules updates to go with the constant churn.

As an old gamer who has built up and supported a large active group of players at the FLGS who are there for the fun of playing various games/systems. i feel very lucky i am not on the GW train anymore or that it isn't my only game. play what you want as often as you want in any manner you want, but chasing current 40K to me seems to be an exercise in frustration and not why i play wargames. 40K specifically doesn't feel like it lost it's soul to me, it is worse because it doesn't even feel like 40K or a wargame anymore.

The only thing i can recommend is to do what our group did-build a community of like minded gamers and encourage others to join. it will be hard and take time but the best things in life often do. the results speak for themselves in my experience.

Tyel wrote:

I dont think for example giving Haemis a dozen weapon choices is meaningful if they all end mathing out to the same. There's perhaps some variety in target - but given the difficulties of getting into combat good assault has to chop everything.

This is fair. Though I would argue it isn't helped by the desire to flatten everything out and remove all rules that could be considered remotely interesting.

Thus, rather than serving different purposes, you end up with 12 variations of 'Poisoned weapon' and 'another poisoned weapon'.

Put simply, I don't mind some consolidation. However, I do think a decent effort should be made to actually improve and vary the existing weapons, rather than just keeping the worse one and deleting the other eleven.

 vipoid wrote:

Tyel wrote:

I dont think for example giving Haemis a dozen weapon choices is meaningful if they all end mathing out to the same. There's perhaps some variety in target - but given the difficulties of getting into combat good assault has to chop everything.

This is fair. Though I would argue it isn't helped by the desire to flatten everything out and remove all rules that could be considered remotely interesting.

Thus, rather than serving different purposes, you end up with 12 variations of 'Poisoned weapon' and 'another poisoned weapon'.

Put simply, I don't mind some consolidation. However, I do think a decent effort should be made to actually improve and vary the existing weapons, rather than just keeping the worse one and deleting the other eleven.

Yeah. I don't really mind a reasonable amount of consolidation, but I do mind having essentially (or literally) no customization options. So using haemis as an example, maybe we boil down most of the poisoned weapons into a generic "Evenomed Weapon" profile that's statted out to be effective. But then we could also have something like ye olde mindphase gauntlet that's worse at killing things but good at debuffing the enemy (thus turning the haemi into a better melee support character that relies on allies to kill things). And then maybe something like a hex rifle as a third option. And then give them an "arcane talisman" slot that lets them choose between a single-use special attack or an anti-psyker crucible of malediction effect or single-use pain token provider, etc.

Similarly, I'm okay with sybarite weapons getting consolidated down to just "sybarite weapons" instead of various other options. But also Sybarite Weapons are too ineffective to really matter, so they just become an extra thing to track. Whereas ye olde power sword sybarite with I5 and furious charge could potentially do enough damage to warrant paying points for and tracking (even if it was more cost effective to not take the sword.)

 Tyran wrote:
... you cannot have the options and flavour of HH, the faction diversity of 40k and competitive balance.

I don't think that's true at all.

 aphyon wrote:
There are only 4 official firstborn infantry units left in the game that will still get a balance pass and rules update to conform with GWs current game setup.
tacs, devs, sternguard and vanguard. everything else has been replaced by a primaris variant.

Three. Sternguard are Primaris now.

So it's even worse.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Tyran wrote:
... you cannot have the options and flavour of HH, the faction diversity of 40k and competitive balance.

I don't think that's true at all.

 aphyon wrote:
There are only 4 official firstborn infantry units left in the game that will still get a balance pass and rules update to conform with GWs current game setup.
tacs, devs, sternguard and vanguard. everything else has been replaced by a primaris variant.

Three. Sternguard are Primaris now.

So it's even worse.

if you count space wolves, it's double...

I think it's pretty clear that in the context of this discussion we're looking at the Space Marine Codex, not the sub-faction Chapters.

I said years ago there was no point in buying into the primaris line when, giving it a few years, everything will be primaris and therefore any space marine you put on the table will be a primaris marine by default...

All we need to do is wait for a primaris tactical squad and that will be complete...

Well that's simply not true.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Well that's simply not true.

Which part?

GW have done most of the hardwork for you by reducing the difference down to one keyword.

If you deployed a squad of original marines with just bolters, people are going to tell you they can't be primaris intercessors? They've already folded 3 different gun designs into the one profile, trying to say that a boltgun isn't boltrifly enough is pretty funny.


I have no problem whatsoever with that, nor with someone building intercessors with a tactical load and using that datasheet.


The definition of primaris vs original design (i refuse to use the phrase first born, it's overly dramatic) will have 0 impact when there literally aren't any original units and you can then just use your original marines as whatever the latest marine squad is. Which is no different to using RT era beakies as 5th ed tacticals, they look almost nothing alike and they are completely out of scale, but people don't have a problem with them being space marines.


GW got people too wound up over the design of a gorget, or tassets, or the length of a boltgun and whether it's magazine was a box or not.

 Hellebore wrote:
Which part?

The part where the Primaris and First Born miniature ranges are quite a bit different to one another. You can't wait out the Primaris releases and hope that eventually all your First Born miniatures will become relevant again, because there are heaps of Primairs units that have no First Born equivalents. You can't just put your First Born Inceptors or Aggressors on the table... as there are no equivalents.

There are certainly parallels - Assault Intercessors/Jump Pack Intercessors and some of the character models aren't all that different from their Firs Born counterparts - but there's no First Born Repulsor, Stormstrike or Interceptor Squad that you will eventually able to sub in once all First Borns have been replaced.

 Hellebore wrote:
GW have done most of the hardwork for you by reducing the difference down to one keyword.

Keywords don't mean a whole hell of a lot. The removal of "Primaris" from the recent Marine 'Dex wasn't done to unify the model ranges. It was part of removing First Born's from the game almost completely. If Tactical and Devastator Squads weren't selling, they'd've been out the door alongside Bikers and Assault Squads.

 Hellebore wrote:
If you deployed a squad of original marines with just bolters, people are going to tell you they can't be primaris intercessors? They've already folded 3 different gun designs into the one profile, trying to say that a boltgun isn't boltrifly enough is pretty funny.

How are you going to field Heavy Intercessors then? They don't have an equivalent model.

 Hellebore wrote:
IfThe definition of primaris vs original design will have 0 impact when there literally aren't any original units and you can then just use your original marines as whatever the latest marine squad is.

That's a big assumption. I mean, most of us believe that we'll eventually get an Intercessor Tactical Squad, but right now the Primaris and First Born ranges have no real crossover outside of characters and a couple of units (the aforementioned Assault/JP Intercessors, and even there there are gaps - what good is a JP Flamer or Eviscerator dude when the JP Intercessors never had that option to begin with?).

 Hellebore wrote:
Which is no different to using RT era beakies as 5th ed tacticals, they look almost nothing alike and they are completely out of scale, but people don't have a problem with them being space marines.

It's very different when we're talking about units that have no equivalent.

 Hellebore wrote:
I said years ago there was no point in buying into the primaris line when, giving it a few years, everything will be primaris and therefore any space marine you put on the table will be a primaris marine by default...

All we need to do is wait for a primaris tactical squad and that will be complete...

Yeah, judging by that new Sternguard veterans kit, they've now mixed Mk.VII and Mk."X" helmets in it. Not surprising since they are veterans, but I see this as a sign that GW is loosing on the helmet front so in time they will just conflate the two. Not removing the boundaries between vanilla and primaris, I don't think they'd go so far with that, but mixing in Corvus and VII helmets in regular multiple part kits, or at least make them available in upgrade kits going forward.


Sadly I just don't like the new Primaris Heavy Bolters' looks, I preferred that belt-fed aethestics and have opted for kit-bashing my vanilla devastor torsos with cut-off primaris legs instead.

I've been OOTL so what's this with scouts being removed? I guess they are now just gonna throw them into the Kill Team bin, is it?

I think Hellebore is basically right on this one. I suspect that we'll eventually see rules for putting hellblasters and whatever the primaris flamer and missile launcher guys are called into intercessor squads, and that will be one of the last steps of finally making primaris totally interchangeable with firstborn.

Gravis units probably remain their own thing, which admittedly throws a wrench in my prediction.

 Wyldhunt wrote:
I think Hellebore is basically right on this one. I suspect that we'll eventually see rules for putting hellblasters and whatever the primaris flamer and missile launcher guys are called into intercessor squads, and that will be one of the last steps of finally making primaris totally interchangeable with firstborn.

Gravis units probably remain their own thing, which admittedly throws a wrench in my prediction.

Having a few totally unique units isn’t really a new thing for space marine ether, so I think it’s a solid prediction to work on.

 catbarf wrote:
I actually agree with Hellebore. The reason tournament rules are commonly taken as the de facto standard is because the entire game is currently written around Matched Play.

But if you make competitive play its own, unique thing with highly restrictive (but balanced) rules, then maybe players will start to really think about whether they're really looking for a Balanced Competitive Game™, or something with a bit more room for personal freedom, particularly if the tradeoff is losing the ability to customize your list. Competitive players get a more balanced and constrained experience to test their skills, casual players don't have the influence of tournament gaming breathing down their necks, win-win.

It does mean that listbuilding to exploit imbalance would no longer be an essential skill in competitive play, but feth it.

Except it doesn't work in practice.

Every time something is made specifically for tournament play...It becomes de facto standard EVERYWHERE.

People don't want to hash terms for game for every game so go with one standard only.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:


Or in 10th edition, the fact that core rules errata are in the "rules commentary" document rather than updated in the actual rules PDF. For example, the rule that units are no longer eligible to shoot after shooting is nowhere in the core rules. Literally never mentioned, at all. It is in the "commentary" on the rules? That's not commentary, that's an errata! And the core rules pdf should be updated with that!

Appendixes for rules is common in games...So you are saying every other company can use it but GW can't?

Why GW is forbidden? What's the justification? Go on. Try and explain why GW can't use what others can?

 Tyran wrote:
Also I'm doubtfull a Tyranid player can use models from 2nd, if only because 2nd ed Tyrants and Fexes are much smaller and thus have a blatant LOS advantage over modern iterations.

Also regarding HH, does anyone else wish it had a wahapedia version? I'm skimming through the HH Militia list and it has a lot of USR I have no idea what they do.

Honestly , i wish gw would release the rules for free period, if only for its own sake,considering we have multiple differing rulessources now in HH, including weapons profiles...

Anyways if you have a question just PM me. But take above into Account since i only own german sources beyond pdf.

tneva82 wrote:



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:


Or in 10th edition, the fact that core rules errata are in the "rules commentary" document rather than updated in the actual rules PDF. For example, the rule that units are no longer eligible to shoot after shooting is nowhere in the core rules. Literally never mentioned, at all. It is in the "commentary" on the rules? That's not commentary, that's an errata! And the core rules pdf should be updated with that!

Appendixes for rules is common in games...So you are saying every other company can use it but GW can't?

Why GW is forbidden? What's the justification? Go on. Try and explain why GW can't use what others can?

Other companies generally put all the errata in their errata documents.
GW? Nooo.... you've got seperate rules, faqs, erratta,, 3 separate pts docs, and then this thi g called the commentary.....
The criticism isn't that they do it, it's how they do it.

tneva82 wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:


Or in 10th edition, the fact that core rules errata are in the "rules commentary" document rather than updated in the actual rules PDF. For example, the rule that units are no longer eligible to shoot after shooting is nowhere in the core rules. Literally never mentioned, at all. It is in the "commentary" on the rules? That's not commentary, that's an errata! And the core rules pdf should be updated with that!

Appendixes for rules is common in games...So you are saying every other company can use it but GW can't?

Why GW is forbidden? What's the justification? Go on. Try and explain why GW can't use what others can?

You don't put a core rules change in the appendix or the "rules commentary", you put it in a clearly labelled errata for people who have physical copies and update the relevant section where it is making the change in digital copies. In the case I highlighted, you add an extra bullet point to the list of what makes a unit ineligible to shoot. This is basic editorial standards, that GW fails at.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:


Or in 10th edition, the fact that core rules errata are in the "rules commentary" document rather than updated in the actual rules PDF. For example, the rule that units are no longer eligible to shoot after shooting is nowhere in the core rules. Literally never mentioned, at all. It is in the "commentary" on the rules? That's not commentary, that's an errata! And the core rules pdf should be updated with that!

Appendixes for rules is common in games...So you are saying every other company can use it but GW can't?

Why GW is forbidden? What's the justification? Go on. Try and explain why GW can't use what others can?

You don't put a core rules change in the appendix or the "rules commentary", you put it in a clearly labelled errata for people who have physical copies and update the relevant section where it is making the change in digital copies. In the case I highlighted, you add an extra bullet point to the list of what makes a unit ineligible to shoot. This is basic editorial standards, that GW fails at.

100% this. GW's complete failure to even make their frequent rules changes easy to find/understand is completely mind-boggling. This isn't new ground, there are established ways of doing updates, commentary, and errata and GW repeatedly shows they don't "get" it.

 Wyldhunt wrote:
Yeah. I don't really mind a reasonable amount of consolidation, but I do mind having essentially (or literally) no customization options. So using haemis as an example, maybe we boil down most of the poisoned weapons into a generic "Evenomed Weapon" profile that's statted out to be effective. But then we could also have something like ye olde mindphase gauntlet that's worse at killing things but good at debuffing the enemy (thus turning the haemi into a better melee support character that relies on allies to kill things). And then maybe something like a hex rifle as a third option. And then give them an "arcane talisman" slot that lets them choose between a single-use special attack or an anti-psyker crucible of malediction effect or single-use pain token provider, etc.

I think the answer is as you say. There should be Haemi builds to be a poisoner, a healer or a monster maker. Whether you do this via datasheets, gear options or relics can be debated. But I feel you have to walk backwards from "this is a thing you could want in your army". It does its job at a suitable level of efficiency compared to everything else in 40k.

Rather than a more RPG system of "here are a dozen (or many more) options - have fun". And you find that a huge percentage of choices are bad - and most people just run the cookie cutter build because why wouldn't you?

I kind of think the same with D&D/Pathfinder - or computer games etc. In some ways I'm envious of people who can just go "this feels fluffy/cool, I'm doing it", with no regard for the efficiency. But it feels like once you are through that veil its very hard to go back.

I have a lot of love for my memories of 2nd and 3rd edition because I was in that innocent state and playing with similar minded people. By 5th it was much more competitive and doing so would just see me get ruthlessly tabled. Efficiency was no longer an optional extra. In some ways I think that innocence is the real "soul" of 40k. That's how GW play themselves.

But its never really been there. I think every GW game has collapsed once you start crunching the maths.

40k has always been broken. It’s great when you find like minded people to play with. Pair of casual/fluff players? Great time. Tournament with no slack in the list, all killer, no filler? GG. Mix the two? Nobody is having fun.

 solkan wrote:

Remember when the Defiler came out for Chaos and GW had a contest for kit bashing it, and ended up putting the parts lists online? Classic early 40k philosophy. That's no longer necessary and thus no longer encouraged.

You may want to check WD 493's Tale of four Warlords- three of the four armies are significantly converted- World Eaters have a breakout box called Khorneversion corner, with the Lord and 2 Terminator bodyguards; the Votan have Sagitaur kitbashed with the SM Warsuits to make Transformers and all six IG Chimeras are six-wheeled kitbashes with Cargo 8 Hauler parts.

In the last four years, I haven't completed a single kitbashed model square in hobby bingo, but there's been one every year, and the WD Bunker has Kitbash challenges from time to time.

I won't argue that previous editions provided MORE support for conversions- expansive equipment lists do more to encourage conversion than any WD could, so I do see your point. But damn there are still REALLY good conversions most issues.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I encourage everyone to check the Horus Heresy Militia List, available as a *free* PDF (so you have no reason not to) and explain how you could get that degree of flavor in 9th edition.

I know nothing about the Horus Heresy game- from my perspective if the game doesn't include Sisters or Xenos, it isn't worth one minute of my time or one thin dime of my cash, so I can't say for sure, but I've got three 9th ed armies that have a fighting chance to win your challenge:

Torchbearer Fleets (WD), Armies of Faith (Nachmund I) and Armis of Chaos Undivided (Nachmund II) all have more options.

In the first, you can include ANY unit in the Custodes, Admech, or Marine dex, as well as any of the Marine supplements in single detachment. In the second, it's any unit from the Guard, Sisters or Marines (including supplements) and the third, you can include any unit that has the Chaos Keyword.

The first two can be further augmented by Imperial Agents; the latter two can be augmented with bespoke Crusade content from WD 472, 73. 74, and 75 and the last can be augmented by Agents of Chaos.

Every unit retains access to the bespoke Crusade Content from its own dex.

And these construction rules are per detachment; in a 3k game you can take four detachments, and in Crusade each detachment can use different subfactions, so a 3k force could teoretically include up to 16 subfactions (4 from each of 3 factions) for Imperial armies or 20 subfactions for Chaos armies, as each detachment can freely blend Daemons.

I think there might be more Crusade options alone for any of these three armies than there are for your list, but I can't assert that for sure, because I know nothing about Heresy, and BTW, don't feel obligated to reply with complex explanations for HH, because I have zero interest in learning more about any Heresy game. I personally consider the production of any Heresy era game as a waste of resources, though I do like many of the plastic Heresy era models that can be used in 40k (even if they are Legends).

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

I could reflect my IG army's lore better in 30k than I can in 40k, across the board, despite the IG codex being ostensibly representative of the IG in 40k.

This true 100%.

In Crusade, you don't make up the fluff for your army on paper and then build it as an army list. Instead, you start with a rough cut, somewhat generic green force and you EARN your fluff through game play.

I get that putting together a highly customized army at the list building stage and playing it through a series of linked games in a structured campaign with narrative missions is your definition of narrative gaming, and it is certainly one version of narrative gaming, and I agree that it is both valid and fun. I used to do it all the time when it was the only option, and I enjoyed every minute of it.

But for me, building a small, generic starting force and then letting it grow into a massive, highly customized army over a period of years as a direct result of table-top in-game and between-game choices across several campaigns and even the occasional stand-alone feels more narrative to me- again, not because it's superior, but because this approach better suits my personal preferences.

Heh, I recently had a friend who is a newer player (when I say newer I mean he joined during 8th edition, so he's been around for a while) ask me what "conversion" and "kitbash" meant. It was a weird moment because those are terms that have been in my lexicon for 20 years now and were some of the first concepts I learned as I was getting into the hobby. It says a lot about how the approach and mentality of the customers has changed.

If you’re going with Allies for 9th edition armies, you should include Allies for a Heresy army.

Which includes… literally anything available in 30k. With some penalties depending on who’s with who, but yeah.

PenitentJake wrote:You may want to check WD 493's Tale of four Warlords- three of the four armies are significantly converted- World Eaters have a breakout box called Khorneversion corner, with the Lord and 2 Terminator bodyguards; the Votan have Sagitaur kitbashed with the SM Warsuits to make Transformers and all six IG Chimeras are six-wheeled kitbashes with Cargo 8 Hauler parts.

GW's attitude to conversions nowadays seems to be something along the lines of encouraging them for your personal models that you buy for no reason other than to put on a shelf, but as soon as you want to actually play with them then their rules create phrases like 'modeling for advantage', and NMNR means they tacitly discourage conversion for the sake of personalizing wargear.

You can counts-as so long as you don't really change the visual profile of a unit. That's it.

PenitentJake wrote:but I've got three 9th ed armies that have a fighting chance to win your challenge:

Torchbearer Fleets (WD), Armies of Faith (Nachmund I) and Armis of Chaos Undivided (Nachmund II) all have more options.

Absolutely not.

You said you don't want to get into the weeds with the HH rules, so the tl;dr is that the Cults & Militia list is chock-full of transformative options that change how the entire army works, and then on top of that the individual units have a ton of options.

Being able to take units from multiple lists is nowhere close, even with Crusade content. It's not even in the same ballpark.

Meanwhile, if Allies are on the table, those C&M can be readily allied with any of the other factions to further expand options.

So, I'm curious. Armies of Chaos Undivided, for 9th, from Nachmund. I'll be ignoring R&H and the BIG Titans, but I'll include everything else. Not counting modifiable unit sizes as an option as well.

Daemons

Let's compare that Codex to a Militia from 30k.

Militia

Yeah. It's not even close to close. The very first Militia unit (which is, admittedly, a little bit more option-heavy than some others) has more than 2/3rds the options of the entire Daemons' 9th Edition Codex in numbers. Daemon Princes top the chart of the Daemons Codex in potential unique builds, with 24. (4 from Allegiance times 3 for weapon choices times 2 for Wings or not.)
The Force Commander has over a million potential builds. I will freely admit that not every build will see play-but then again, neither did all Daemon Prince builds.

You forgot relics, traits, psychic powers and crusade.

 vict0988 wrote:
You forgot relics, traits, psychic powers and crusade.

No he did not. Crusade is directly inadequat beeing a special modus and not representative of the basegame and the relics are potentially 6, the traits are 6 however the militia force commander has what 4-5 to himself aswell.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

catbarf 811846 11604193 wrote:
Absolutely not.

You said you don't want to get into the weeds with the HH rules, so the tl;dr is that the Cults & Militia list is chock-full of transformative options that change how the entire army works, and then on top of that the individual units have a ton of options.

Being able to take units from multiple lists is nowhere close, even with Crusade content. It's not even in the same ballpark.

Meanwhile, if Allies are on the table, those C&M can be readily allied with any of the other factions to further expand options.

Further funny because summoning daemons is also a thing for miltia or traitor legions and directly including them into your force org.

I don't know how you could convince anyone of anything with this. Why do you and why should I care about whether a Company Commander has 4+ or 5+ when the model isn't different like it is when it has a plasma pistol instead of a las pistol?

What would giving Heralds of Khorne an option to upgrade their weapons to etherblades for +1AP for 5 pts or firestorm blades for +1S for 10 pts add to the game?

How about adding pts costs for all Crusade options and letting them be used in regular games? That's way too much bloat for pickup games.

 vict0988 wrote:
I don't know how you could convince anyone of anything with this. Why do you and why should I care about whether a Company Commander has 4+ or 5+ when the model isn't different like it is when it has a plasma pistol instead of a las pistol?

What would giving Heralds of Khorne an option to upgrade their weapons to etherblades for +1AP for 5 pts or firestorm blades for +1S for 10 pts add to the game?

How about adding pts costs for all Crusade options and letting them be used in regular games? That's way too much bloat for pickup games.

And yet the local HH community manages to play with Militia armies.