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

Dudeface wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

ccs wrote:

Karol wrote:
But did we really need X separate types of ork buggies, instead of one buggy having X number of load outs?

Yes.
Because on GWs end the goal is to sell you as many buggies as possible. And 4 seperate data sheets/kits that an ork player can field 1-3 each is > than 1 sheet/kit that the player only needs 3 of.

Meaning the real answer is No, because the Rule of Three is really dumb.

In a world with no FoC, strong disagree.

Not only is Rule of Three dumb, but the implementation of it has gotten dumber. If you had a unit such as buggies that you wanted to take more than the FOC or earlier incarnation of Ro3 allowed, you could take squadrons of certain units, such as Land Speeders or Carnifexes. But it seems like that's out the window too now.

But sure, an army of 9 Land Raiders because they're different entries.

We can safely say that most Troops (now Battleline) Imperium units created prior to 8th Edition has "bloated" options. That used to be how variety was created in the game. A basic unit could be outfitted many ways to serve different purposes. Now, we have a different Primaris marine unit for every single purpose. There is no reason for Infliltators and Incursors to be different units rather than different weapon options for the same unit. But that digresses from the topic at hand.

The different weapon options for the Infantry Squad, Cadian Shock Troops, and Death Korps of Krieg units only need to have the same roughly equivalent usage in an army when equipped on that unit. That just means the Flamer, Grenade Launcher, Meltagun, Plasma gun, and Sniper Rifle need to have separate niches for each they are equally more effective than a Lasgun while not stepping on the other niches more effectively than the others.

The Plasma gun is the normal offender in this regard because the current rules allow it to be the most effective against MEQ while being a decent second choice for hordes and high toughness targets and better than the Grenade Launcher (the supposed Jack-of-all-trades weapon) for the most part. If it was just a little worst (and maybe the flamer a little better), we would have some decent options to pick between.

 alextroy wrote:

The Plasma gun is the normal offender in this regard because the current rules allow it to be the most effective against MEQ while being a decent second choice for hordes and high toughness targets and better than the Grenade Launcher (the supposed Jack-of-all-trades weapon) for the most part. If it was just a little worst (and maybe the flamer a little better), we would have some decent options to pick between.

Honestly, plasma was overly buffed transitioning to 8th. Previously the dangerous mode was S7, now S7 is safe while overcharge is S8 and multi damage. Dropping safe plasma to S5, and overcharged to S7 would be a reasonable nerf in line with plasma’s original efficacy.

I think just dropping Overcharge Mode to only increasing the damage by 1 with no Strength or AP improvement would be a fine nerf. No change in the likely hood of doing damage then when overcharged, just hurts the target more when you do. Then an Overcharged Plasma gun wouldn't be more dangerous to a Marine than a Lascannon!

Personally I am a fan of making plasma guns always in danger of overheating, at least it would give a reason to not take it compared to other weapon options.

The 8th edition plasma gun change never should have happened.

The issue isn't that there are a lot of options, the issue is that the options lack meaningful decision making due to the options being either unimportant, poorly balanced with defacto auto picks, and/or options that lost their mechanical purpose and so they don't have a way to differentiate themselves from other similar options. A lot of this came from 8th editions gutting of the core rules where things like area of effect, cover saves, USRs, and the all or nothing AP system made weapons have more niche purposes. Most of those things are still gone with only USRs sorta making a return while the current armor/cover/AP has the very problematic issue of "AP good, more AP more good" compared to the older edition situation where most weapons had a niche (it was just the points cost was too uniform, especially for melee weapons).

GW has it's head so far up it's own rear due to being so scared about making rules that don't exactly match the bits options in their kits (and they don't seem to let the rules writers have much say regarding what actually ends up on the sprues) and shying away from complexity as if previous edition army building was on the same level as calculating the moon landing. It's just painful to see GW identify pain points of previous editions and making the entirely wrong decisions to "fix" them.

 Vankraken wrote:
The issue isn't that there are a lot of options, the issue is that the options lack meaningful decision making due to the options being either unimportant, poorly balanced with defacto auto picks, and/or options that lost their mechanical purpose and so they don't have a way to differentiate themselves from other similar options. A lot of this came from 8th editions gutting of the core rules where things like area of effect, cover saves, USRs, and the all or nothing AP system made weapons have more niche purposes. Most of those things are still gone with only USRs sorta making a return while the current armor/cover/AP has the very problematic issue of "AP good, more AP more good" compared to the older edition situation where most weapons had a niche (it was just the points cost was too uniform, especially for melee weapons).

GW has it's head so far up it's own rear due to being so scared about making rules that don't exactly match the bits options in their kits (and they don't seem to let the rules writers have much say regarding what actually ends up on the sprues) and shying away from complexity as if previous edition army building was on the same level as calculating the moon landing. It's just painful to see GW identify pain points of previous editions and making the entirely wrong decisions to "fix" them.

It's always been "AP good, more AP more good", but at least low ap does something to everything now. The old all or nothing approach is part of what made plasma the go to due to proliferation of marines and the fact that a grenade launcher etc would tickle them at best, meaning against some opponents it was essentially worthless, whereas no matter if it was 5 or 10 points more it didn't matter, plasma was going to win.

 waefre_1 wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
One thing I always wondered, why have a missile launcher, AND a grenade launcher?

Because one was Assault and one was Heavy. If you can't understand why that might matter, perhaps you should take the opportunity to learn?

If GLs had a missile launcher profile with shorter range they'd be more worth taking. Or indirect fire so they could synergize with the mortar.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:First it was the GUARD is super bloated. Now I provided an example, that magnified, proves that assertion.

Except... it didn't. All it proved is that the Infantry Squad has flexible options, and has had for at least nine editions of the game.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:No, I'm sorry, both are bad faith arguments.

No, claiming Guard are bloated with options is the bad faith argument here. Shame you can't recognise that, really.

JNAProductions wrote:I don’t think “Pick up to one special weapon, pick up to one heavy weapon, Sergeant can take up to one pistol and up to one melee weapon,” is the bloat you think it is.

Pretty much what JNA says here.

 Vankraken wrote:

GW has it's head so far up it's own rear due to being so scared about making rules that don't exactly match the bits options in their kits (and they don't seem to let the rules writers have much say regarding what actually ends up on the sprues)

Good point there. You have to wonder how they decide what actually ends up on the sprues. There's only so much you can squeeze into a mold, and you have to consider the physical and mechanical constraints. The situation used to be more a matter of GW telling the rules writers "Here are the models, you guys figure out how to write rules for them" but now it's "Here are the models, you must write rules for these things and only these things. Everything on the sprue must be used, and nothing that is not on the sprues can ever be used."

Since the sprues are officially the last word on everything that goes into the rules, there's really no room for the fluff to get a word in edgewise. I guess that can be cool from a certain perspective, like you're buying action figures and... hey, there's rules too, so you can pretend you're playing a game with them! But the game is entirely dependent on what action figures you can buy. There's no possibility of a cohesive design philosophy or any kind of overall vision for each faction, because every new kit completely shifts the balance of the rules. What incentive is there for the rules writers to keep trying? If the only objective is to make sure the latest kit beats everything else, it doesn't take a master game designer to work that out. Just make the numbers a little bit more bloated each time.

 Vankraken wrote:
The issue isn't that there are a lot of options, the issue is that the options lack meaningful decision making due to the options being either unimportant, poorly balanced with defacto auto picks, and/or options that lost their mechanical purpose and so they don't have a way to differentiate themselves from other similar options.

Well, personally, my Guard forces are long built.
I don't need to waste my time dwelling upon how meaningful each weapons choice is/isn't in the current edition - because if it's a legal loadout my basic squads don't change.
All I need is for each weapon to have rules - good/bad/otherwise. Of course I'd prefer "good", but existing is the minimum.... that way? When I pull out a case of Guard (I have several - Valhalla, Tallarn, etc) I can tally the points & play.

And you are wrong about the weapons having lost thier mechanical purposes.
A flamer does not do the same job as sniper rifle wich dies not do the sane as a mekta wich wich differs from a grenade launcher..... all you have to do is read the rules to see the difference.

I'm so sick of people in this hobby brushing past the new hobbyist concern. Space Marines are pushed as the starter friendly army, because they are not complicated. The Assault Interceptor Spru doesn't come with 12 different options that confuse a new player. It comes with 5 dudes, swords, and pistols. You can't screw it up. It doesn't matter what color you paint them, they still get the same options.

That is the standard for No bloat. Where do we put the goal line for "Most bloat? I would say the Infantry Squad box, but I am not familair with xenos or chaos troop boxes.

 Dysartes wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:First it was the GUARD is super bloated. Now I provided an example, that magnified, proves that assertion.

Except... it didn't. All it proved is that the Infantry Squad has flexible options, and has had for at least nine editions of the game.

It's had options. The flexibility of those options has always been variable.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:No, I'm sorry, both are bad faith arguments.

No, claiming Guard are bloated with options is the bad faith argument here. Shame you can't recognise that, really.

I'm going to be 100% blunt here.

Infantry Squad is bloated. It's also, arguably, the most problematic unit in the lineup because it's effectively a Legends unit. I'll get to that in a bit.

JNAProductions wrote:I don’t think “Pick up to one special weapon, pick up to one heavy weapon, Sergeant can take up to one pistol and up to one melee weapon,” is the bloat you think it is.

Pretty much what JNA says here.

That's not exactly how it works, but sure.

To copy-pasta:

Everyone loves, loves, loves to gripe about "what's in the box is the rules". That ain't the case here. No matter what box you're buying, you're never getting 100% of the unit entry for this unit. DKoK actually come closest to meeting it, but still don't 100% it.

Cadian Shock Troop kit is missing boltgun, plasma pistol, power weapon, and sniper rifle plus HWTs.
DKoK are missing HWTs.

Why are we okay with Guard players needing to buy a whole other unit(Heavy Weapon Squad) to finish out one of their basic troop types?
And heck, why are we okay with that other unit not actually having options that are in the box?! They have vox-casters, but no option to take them.

Anyways:
People also weirdly seem to always forget that the Cruddace book, released after the far superior Doctrines oriented book, homogenized things for the worse.
Sniper Rifles, as an example, weren't in basic infantry squads. A doctrine unlocked them in lieu of a heavy weapons team.
Heavy Weapon "Squads" weren't a thing in the Doctrines book. They were broken into 3 subtypes: Fire Support(Heavy Bolters & Autocannons), Anti-Tank(Missile Launcher & Lascannon), and Mortar. Cruddace helmed book homogenized them into the HWS we've been saddled with since.
Guard Veteran(which in itself was an optional upgrade!) Sergeants used to have far, far more options than they do now...the difference being that those options were meaningful. Because they weren't just guns(those were basically handled when you first chose the Sergeant. Shotgun, Lasgun/Hellgun, Pistol & CCW)--they were bits of kit from the Armoury too. Things like the Medallion Crimson(15pts to ignore ID the first time, instead taking 1W) or the Surveyor(free shot at infiltrators within 4D6 inches).

For all of the bloated options that the Infantry Squad has(and yeah, I'm gonna refer to 3 different types of pistol & a genuine firearm[the bolter] when there's only one that people no matter if they cost points or not will pick as bloat), there should be SOME kind of genuine discussion surrounding what they take.

But there's not. Because no matter the edition, the song remains the same. A list now looks extremely similar to a list from Cruddace's book in 2008.

None of those options are on the datasheet for the Cadian or Krieg squads, Kanluwen.

 RaptorusRex wrote:
None of those options are on the datasheet for the Cadian or Krieg squads, Kanluwen.

So what is the rule when I have a model that used to have rules, (By GW's own admission) and doesn't in the current edition? If it's not legends, you play by the most recent rules. So yes, you can still use them, by 9th rules. Until GW says you can't.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

 RaptorusRex wrote:
None of those options are on the datasheet for the Cadian or Krieg squads, Kanluwen.

So what is the rule when I have a model that used to have rules, (By GW's own admission) and doesn't in the current edition? If it's not legends, you play by the most recent rules. So yes, you can still use them, by 9th rules. Until GW says you can't.

Got an example of such a unit?

 RaptorusRex wrote:
None of those options are on the datasheet for the Cadian or Krieg squads, Kanluwen.

My dude, we're talking about the Infantry Squad. Y'know, the thing I copy-pasted in the spoiler? The thing that LITERALLY DOES NOT HAVE A KIT?

Hence why I said the following:

Everyone loves, loves, loves to gripe about "what's in the box is the rules". That ain't the case here. No matter what box you're buying, you're never getting 100% of the unit entry for this unit. DKoK actually come closest to meeting it, but still don't 100% it.

Cadian Shock Troop kit is missing boltgun, plasma pistol, power weapon, and sniper rifle plus HWTs.
DKoK are missing HWTs.

Why are we okay with Guard players needing to buy a whole other unit(Heavy Weapon Squad) to finish out one of their basic troop types?

So I don't know what box you're buying for Infantry Squads, but while DKoK and Cadian Shock Troops have their own unit entries now...they also are meant to be the basis of a basic troop choice.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dudeface wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

 RaptorusRex wrote:
None of those options are on the datasheet for the Cadian or Krieg squads, Kanluwen.

So what is the rule when I have a model that used to have rules, (By GW's own admission) and doesn't in the current edition? If it's not legends, you play by the most recent rules. So yes, you can still use them, by 9th rules. Until GW says you can't.

Got an example of such a unit?

DKoK Engineers, off the top of my head. Still available for sale, no rules in the Imperial Armour Index or Legends.

Dudeface wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

 RaptorusRex wrote:
None of those options are on the datasheet for the Cadian or Krieg squads, Kanluwen.

So what is the rule when I have a model that used to have rules, (By GW's own admission) and doesn't in the current edition? If it's not legends, you play by the most recent rules. So yes, you can still use them, by 9th rules. Until GW says you can't.

Got an example of such a unit?

Most Titans, literally every edition, Knights until their dex drops, Any faction at the start of a new edition, Sly Marbo, Old One Eye, Exhalted Champion, Mad Doc Grotsnik, Chaos Lord with Jump Pack, Space Marine Captain with Plasma Pistol (Forget the specifics on this one) Eisenhorne, Stern, Servitors, and I think the Stormraven Gunship still exist without rules in 10th.

Point is, 10th is slow to roll out, and there is still a ton of special character bloat from 9th that hasn't caught up. There answer, and I ask you to prove me wrong here: if we don't have rules yet, you play by the most recent rules available for that model. Unless, or until that specific model is banned, or legends, you can still play with it.

Dudeface wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

 RaptorusRex wrote:
None of those options are on the datasheet for the Cadian or Krieg squads, Kanluwen.

So what is the rule when I have a model that used to have rules, (By GW's own admission) and doesn't in the current edition? If it's not legends, you play by the most recent rules. So yes, you can still use them, by 9th rules. Until GW says you can't.

Got an example of such a unit?

GK Dreadnoughts, both the rifleman and the FW specific one. The GK specific razorback. GK termintors with TH and SS. And my faction is small. I am sure that marines could drown the thread in stuff that exist, and GW just removed or only left it in HH, or did some other stupid thing like they did to the DA stuff.

Karol wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

 RaptorusRex wrote:
None of those options are on the datasheet for the Cadian or Krieg squads, Kanluwen.

So what is the rule when I have a model that used to have rules, (By GW's own admission) and doesn't in the current edition? If it's not legends, you play by the most recent rules. So yes, you can still use them, by 9th rules. Until GW says you can't.

Got an example of such a unit?

GK Dreadnoughts, both the rifleman and the FW specific one. The GK specific razorback. GK termintors with TH and SS. And my faction is small. I am sure that marines could drown the thread in stuff that exist, and GW just removed or only left it in HH, or did some other stupid thing like they did to the DA stuff.

GK dreadnought and razorback have legend entries for 10th, they never had hammer and storm shield that I'm aware of so it's not "missing" and rifleman wasn't a unit, it was a dreadnought with autocannon arms which only ever existed as FW model they stopped producing many years ago but is the nearest claim you have there.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

 RaptorusRex wrote:
None of those options are on the datasheet for the Cadian or Krieg squads, Kanluwen.

So what is the rule when I have a model that used to have rules, (By GW's own admission) and doesn't in the current edition? If it's not legends, you play by the most recent rules. So yes, you can still use them, by 9th rules. Until GW says you can't.

Got an example of such a unit?

Most Titans, literally every edition, Knights until their dex drops, Any faction at the start of a new edition, Sly Marbo, Old One Eye, Exhalted Champion, Mad Doc Grotsnik, Chaos Lord with Jump Pack, Space Marine Captain with Plasma Pistol (Forget the specifics on this one) Eisenhorne, Stern, Servitors, and I think the Stormraven Gunship still exist without rules in 10th.

Point is, 10th is slow to roll out, and there is still a ton of special character bloat from 9th that hasn't caught up. There answer, and I ask you to prove me wrong here: if we don't have rules yet, you play by the most recent rules available for that model. Unless, or until that specific model is banned, or legends, you can still play with it.

Titans have rules for 10th
Knights have rules for 10th
All factions got new rules for 10th
Marbo is in index Astra militarum
OOE is in Codex Tyranids
Exalted champion is in index chaos space marines
Mad Doc Grotskin is in Index orks
Chaos lord with jump pack is missing but rumoured to be released shortly explaining no legend entry
Captain with plasma pistol - in Codex space marine
Eisenhorn is in index imperial agents
Stern, which one? Doesn't matter they both have 10th ed rules in their indexes GK or sisters respectively
Servitors exist in index inquisitorial agents, astra militarum and grey knights. Legends for Marines
Storm raven is in both marine and grey knight rules for 10th.

You found 1 thing and listed a load of really dumb stuff you can search for free in seconds. Try hardrer please.

In regards to your other point, I'd suggest you actually check the rules first to see if they exist. If they don't (unlikely), check with your opponent. As all previous resources were rendered invalid with the shift to 10th, what exists in the legends/indexes/codexes are the only GW official unit entries and other units sadly do not exist.

Dudeface wrote:

Karol wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

 RaptorusRex wrote:
None of those options are on the datasheet for the Cadian or Krieg squads, Kanluwen.

So what is the rule when I have a model that used to have rules, (By GW's own admission) and doesn't in the current edition? If it's not legends, you play by the most recent rules. So yes, you can still use them, by 9th rules. Until GW says you can't.

Got an example of such a unit?

GK Dreadnoughts, both the rifleman and the FW specific one. The GK specific razorback. GK termintors with TH and SS. And my faction is small. I am sure that marines could drown the thread in stuff that exist, and GW just removed or only left it in HH, or did some other stupid thing like they did to the DA stuff.

GK dreadnought and razorback have legend entries for 10th, they never had hammer and storm shield that I'm aware of so it's not "missing" and rifleman wasn't a unit, it was a dreadnought with autocannon arms which only ever existed as FW model they stopped producing many years ago but is the nearest claim you have there.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

 RaptorusRex wrote:
None of those options are on the datasheet for the Cadian or Krieg squads, Kanluwen.

So what is the rule when I have a model that used to have rules, (By GW's own admission) and doesn't in the current edition? If it's not legends, you play by the most recent rules. So yes, you can still use them, by 9th rules. Until GW says you can't.

Got an example of such a unit?

Most Titans, literally every edition, Knights until their dex drops, Any faction at the start of a new edition, Sly Marbo, Old One Eye, Exhalted Champion, Mad Doc Grotsnik, Chaos Lord with Jump Pack, Space Marine Captain with Plasma Pistol (Forget the specifics on this one) Eisenhorne, Stern, Servitors, and I think the Stormraven Gunship still exist without rules in 10th.

Point is, 10th is slow to roll out, and there is still a ton of special character bloat from 9th that hasn't caught up. There answer, and I ask you to prove me wrong here: if we don't have rules yet, you play by the most recent rules available for that model. Unless, or until that specific model is banned, or legends, you can still play with it.

Titans have rules for 10th (Not at launch they didn't)
Knights have rules for 10th (Not at launch they didn't)
All factions got new rules for 10th (Not at launch they didn't)
Marbo is in index Astra militarum (Not at launch he wasn't)
OOE is in Codex Tyranids (Not at launch he wasn't)
Exalted champion is in index chaos space marines
Mad Doc Grotskin is in Index orks
Chaos lord with jump pack is missing but rumoured to be released shortly explaining no legend entry
Captain with plasma pistol - in Codex space marine (And with any power weapon, or just Sword?)
Eisenhorn is in index imperial agents (Not at Launch he wan't)
Stern, which one? Doesn't matter they both have 10th ed rules in their indexes GK or sisters respectively
Servitors exist in index inquisitorial agents, astra militarum and grey knights. Legends for Marines
Storm raven is in both marine and grey knight rules for 10th.

You found 1 thing and listed a load of really dumb stuff you can search for free in seconds. Try hardrer please. (You tried really hard to be smarmy, and condescending and suceeded, point is, you are refusing to admit the obvious fact that everyone else already agrees with.)

In regards to your other point, I'd suggest you actually check the rules first to see if they exist. If they don't (unlikely), check with your opponent. As all previous resources were rendered invalid with the shift to 10th, what exists in the legends/indexes/codexes are the only GW official unit entries and other units sadly do not exist.

Maybe try and look at it from the perspective of the original point: In ANY instance where a model exists, in a new edition, and DOES NOT have that edition's rules yet, you use the previous editions rules. Last week, the Warhound was using different rules than it's using now. See my point yet?

With GW it is sometimes hard to know which rules are the correct one. What is a miss print and what is the actual work. And it doesn't help that GW changes their mind, sometimes mid edition on how a rule they wrote in a specific way, should work. For DA right now, you have the codex and its rules. You have an updated, which GW says always trumps the codex, but it somehow mentions unit set ups, squad sized etc from before the codex. And this isn't a rare or new thing with GW. In 9th they would do stuff like that all the time. Books would come out of sync, and suddenly the custodes data slate was moding points cost of a codex that didn't yet come out.

And you can't tell me that a company the size of GW, can't send one dude with a pice of paper to at least change the DW Knights to be 5 model only in the PDF.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

Spoiler:

Dudeface wrote:

Karol wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

 RaptorusRex wrote:
None of those options are on the datasheet for the Cadian or Krieg squads, Kanluwen.

So what is the rule when I have a model that used to have rules, (By GW's own admission) and doesn't in the current edition? If it's not legends, you play by the most recent rules. So yes, you can still use them, by 9th rules. Until GW says you can't.

Got an example of such a unit?

GK Dreadnoughts, both the rifleman and the FW specific one. The GK specific razorback. GK termintors with TH and SS. And my faction is small. I am sure that marines could drown the thread in stuff that exist, and GW just removed or only left it in HH, or did some other stupid thing like they did to the DA stuff.

GK dreadnought and razorback have legend entries for 10th, they never had hammer and storm shield that I'm aware of so it's not "missing" and rifleman wasn't a unit, it was a dreadnought with autocannon arms which only ever existed as FW model they stopped producing many years ago but is the nearest claim you have there.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

 RaptorusRex wrote:
None of those options are on the datasheet for the Cadian or Krieg squads, Kanluwen.

So what is the rule when I have a model that used to have rules, (By GW's own admission) and doesn't in the current edition? If it's not legends, you play by the most recent rules. So yes, you can still use them, by 9th rules. Until GW says you can't.

Got an example of such a unit?

Most Titans, literally every edition, Knights until their dex drops, Any faction at the start of a new edition, Sly Marbo, Old One Eye, Exhalted Champion, Mad Doc Grotsnik, Chaos Lord with Jump Pack, Space Marine Captain with Plasma Pistol (Forget the specifics on this one) Eisenhorne, Stern, Servitors, and I think the Stormraven Gunship still exist without rules in 10th.

Point is, 10th is slow to roll out, and there is still a ton of special character bloat from 9th that hasn't caught up. There answer, and I ask you to prove me wrong here: if we don't have rules yet, you play by the most recent rules available for that model. Unless, or until that specific model is banned, or legends, you can still play with it.

Titans have rules for 10th (Not at launch they didn't)
Knights have rules for 10th (Not at launch they didn't)
All factions got new rules for 10th (Not at launch they didn't)
Marbo is in index Astra militarum (Not at launch he wasn't)
OOE is in Codex Tyranids (Not at launch he wasn't)
Exalted champion is in index chaos space marines
Mad Doc Grotskin is in Index orks
Chaos lord with jump pack is missing but rumoured to be released shortly explaining no legend entry
Captain with plasma pistol - in Codex space marine (And with any power weapon, or just Sword?)
Eisenhorn is in index imperial agents (Not at Launch he wan't)
Stern, which one? Doesn't matter they both have 10th ed rules in their indexes GK or sisters respectively
Servitors exist in index inquisitorial agents, astra militarum and grey knights. Legends for Marines
Storm raven is in both marine and grey knight rules for 10th.

You found 1 thing and listed a load of really dumb stuff you can search for free in seconds. Try hardrer please. (You tried really hard to be smarmy, and condescending and suceeded, point is, you are refusing to admit the obvious fact that everyone else already agrees with.)

In regards to your other point, I'd suggest you actually check the rules first to see if they exist. If they don't (unlikely), check with your opponent. As all previous resources were rendered invalid with the shift to 10th, what exists in the legends/indexes/codexes are the only GW official unit entries and other units sadly do not exist.

Maybe try and look at it from the perspective of the original point: In ANY instance where a model exists, in a new edition, and DOES NOT have that edition's rules yet, you use the previous editions rules. Last week, the Warhound was using different rules than it's using now. See my point yet?

No models will be using 9th edition rules, either they have 10th edition rules or they don't. If they don't there is no official instruction to use prior editions rules given all prior.

Imperial armour titans was last updated 19th June 2023, so what rules changes did you warhound undertake last week?

I'll be able to consider your position once it make sense in the first place, it doesn't as you can't provide an example of a single instance where you're asked/advised to use 9th edition rules and your evidence isn't rooted in reality so far.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Karol wrote:
With GW it is sometimes hard to know which rules are the correct one. What is a miss print and what is the actual work. And it doesn't help that GW changes their mind, sometimes mid edition on how a rule they wrote in a specific way, should work. For DA right now, you have the codex and its rules. You have an updated, which GW says always trumps the codex, but it somehow mentions unit set ups, squad sized etc from before the codex. And this isn't a rare or new thing with GW. In 9th they would do stuff like that all the time. Books would come out of sync, and suddenly the custodes data slate was moding points cost of a codex that didn't yet come out.

And you can't tell me that a company the size of GW, can't send one dude with a pice of paper to at least change the DW Knights to be 5 model only in the PDF.

Not yet, the DA book isn't released until Saturday and is a limited edition copy for an early release. GW note the points in the MFM (the correct place to get them from as referenced in the codex) is for use with the index until the full release date:

With the Deathwing Assault army box arriving in stores on Saturday, you might be wondering where the points are for units like the Inner Circle Companions. As Codex Supplement: Dark Angels isn’t on shelves for a few more weeks, its rules aren’t “official” for matched play yet, and so the points don’t appear here. But rest assured there’ll be another update to the Munitorum Field Manual when the Codex is released. Stay tuned!

I feel like both issues here are born entirely of not bothering to perform the most basic of searches/reference/reading.

Dudeface wrote:

 Vankraken wrote:
The issue isn't that there are a lot of options, the issue is that the options lack meaningful decision making due to the options being either unimportant, poorly balanced with defacto auto picks, and/or options that lost their mechanical purpose and so they don't have a way to differentiate themselves from other similar options. A lot of this came from 8th editions gutting of the core rules where things like area of effect, cover saves, USRs, and the all or nothing AP system made weapons have more niche purposes. Most of those things are still gone with only USRs sorta making a return while the current armor/cover/AP has the very problematic issue of "AP good, more AP more good" compared to the older edition situation where most weapons had a niche (it was just the points cost was too uniform, especially for melee weapons).

GW has it's head so far up it's own rear due to being so scared about making rules that don't exactly match the bits options in their kits (and they don't seem to let the rules writers have much say regarding what actually ends up on the sprues) and shying away from complexity as if previous edition army building was on the same level as calculating the moon landing. It's just painful to see GW identify pain points of previous editions and making the entirely wrong decisions to "fix" them.

It's always been "AP good, more AP more good", but at least low ap does something to everything now. The old all or nothing approach is part of what made plasma the go to due to proliferation of marines and the fact that a grenade launcher etc would tickle them at best, meaning against some opponents it was essentially worthless, whereas no matter if it was 5 or 10 points more it didn't matter, plasma was going to win.

The thing that made the old AP system work to an extent was that certain APs were useful against certain units. Hot shot lasguns where ideal vs 3+ saves like power armor but basically worthless vs terminator armor but higher AP weapons had some combination of high cost, downsides (gets hot), and/or low volume of fire. Pre 8th, shooting plasma against Boyz in cover was a huge waste of points efficiency as your very expensive plasma veteran guard, grey hunters, scions, etc would of been better served shooting at something where that point investment into good AP would provide more benefit. The new system just makes it so having AP degrades the armor save and the cover save just improves the armor save. So unless your shooting at units with no saves at all with some AP weapons then your rarely wasting the value of the AP on your weapons. While that seems like it makes everything useful, you end up with easy to calculate "best weapon" and so you don't need anything else besides the mathhammered optimal option(s). The old system gave weapons niches that they where optimal at doing and made the calculation of where to apply your firepower factor in more aspects of the battlefield situation instead of most of the calculations being made during the army building process. It wasn't a great system, it felt somewhat nonsensical, BUT it did make a lot of options useful in certain situations and helped avoid making one option good for everything... unless GW did something stupid like make a high volume of fire, AP2, auto glance + immobilize vehicles on a 6, wounds based on the enemy save weapon that countered basically everything except low/medium toughness units with cardboard or t-shirt saves.

As for plasma spam, maybe in 5th and before plasma was the go to option but 6th and 7th was a lot of grav spam for marines, melta being the best anti vehicle option, and plasma being the MC/Elite infantry killer. I know for my Scions and Tau loadouts, I had some command squads and crisis suit teams using all plasma but I also had need for teams of melta/fusion blasters and also CIB units for the Crisis Suits. For the Tau, most of the crisis suit weapon options where quite viable but options like burst cannons, flamers, and to a lesser extent the AFP weren't really needed due to Tau's abundance of small arms fire that could get ignore cover due to markerlights. That said for a Farsight Enclave army, those redundant options would be potentially useful given that they tend to not run any regular infantry.

Also wasn't plasma spam really big in 8th? I really remember Plasma being super popular in 8th compared to 7th.

 Vankraken wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 Vankraken wrote:
The issue isn't that there are a lot of options, the issue is that the options lack meaningful decision making due to the options being either unimportant, poorly balanced with defacto auto picks, and/or options that lost their mechanical purpose and so they don't have a way to differentiate themselves from other similar options. A lot of this came from 8th editions gutting of the core rules where things like area of effect, cover saves, USRs, and the all or nothing AP system made weapons have more niche purposes. Most of those things are still gone with only USRs sorta making a return while the current armor/cover/AP has the very problematic issue of "AP good, more AP more good" compared to the older edition situation where most weapons had a niche (it was just the points cost was too uniform, especially for melee weapons).

GW has it's head so far up it's own rear due to being so scared about making rules that don't exactly match the bits options in their kits (and they don't seem to let the rules writers have much say regarding what actually ends up on the sprues) and shying away from complexity as if previous edition army building was on the same level as calculating the moon landing. It's just painful to see GW identify pain points of previous editions and making the entirely wrong decisions to "fix" them.

It's always been "AP good, more AP more good", but at least low ap does something to everything now. The old all or nothing approach is part of what made plasma the go to due to proliferation of marines and the fact that a grenade launcher etc would tickle them at best, meaning against some opponents it was essentially worthless, whereas no matter if it was 5 or 10 points more it didn't matter, plasma was going to win.

The thing that made the old AP system work to an extent was that certain APs were useful against certain units. Hot shot lasguns where ideal vs 3+ saves like power armor but basically worthless vs terminator armor but higher AP weapons had some combination of high cost, downsides (gets hot), and/or low volume of fire. Pre 8th, shooting plasma against Boyz in cover was a huge waste of points efficiency as your very expensive plasma veteran guard, grey hunters, scions, etc would of been better served shooting at something where that point investment into good AP would provide more benefit. The new system just makes it so having AP degrades the armor save and the cover save just improves the armor save. So unless your shooting at units with no saves at all with some AP weapons then your rarely wasting the value of the AP on your weapons. While that seems like it makes everything useful, you end up with easy to calculate "best weapon" and so you don't need anything else besides the mathhammered optimal option(s). The old system gave weapons niches that they where optimal at doing and made the calculation of where to apply your firepower factor in more aspects of the battlefield situation instead of most of the calculations being made during the army building process. It wasn't a great system, it felt somewhat nonsensical, BUT it did make a lot of options useful in certain situations and helped avoid making one option good for everything... unless GW did something stupid like make a high volume of fire, AP2, auto glance + immobilize vehicles on a 6, wounds based on the enemy save weapon that countered basically everything except low/medium toughness units with cardboard or t-shirt saves.

As for plasma spam, maybe in 5th and before plasma was the go to option but 6th and 7th was a lot of grav spam for marines, melta being the best anti vehicle option, and plasma being the MC/Elite infantry killer. I know for my Scions and Tau loadouts, I had some command squads and crisis suit teams using all plasma but I also had need for teams of melta/fusion blasters and also CIB units for the Crisis Suits. For the Tau, most of the crisis suit weapon options where quite viable but options like burst cannons, flamers, and to a lesser extent the AFP weren't really needed due to Tau's abundance of small arms fire that could get ignore cover due to markerlights. That said for a Farsight Enclave army, those redundant options would be potentially useful given that they tend to not run any regular infantry.

Also wasn't plasma spam really big in 8th? I really remember Plasma being super popular in 8th compared to 7th.

Unless you're list tailoring you take the best all-comers option, which yes shooting boyz in with plasma cover is a waste, but shooting mega/nobz/kanz/dreads is not and something you still need. Plasma, melta and grav - all able to bypass AP3, wound marines on a 3+ at worse and can hurt vehicles, that's not a coincidence and also why it would never be grenade launchers unless plasma was so stupidly expensive it was easier to get the same value out of an equivalent number of flamers/lasguns etc.

So I'd argue in the older AP system it was easier to have a "best" answer than the current one.

 Vankraken wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 Vankraken wrote:
The issue isn't that there are a lot of options, the issue is that the options lack meaningful decision making due to the options being either unimportant, poorly balanced with defacto auto picks, and/or options that lost their mechanical purpose and so they don't have a way to differentiate themselves from other similar options. A lot of this came from 8th editions gutting of the core rules where things like area of effect, cover saves, USRs, and the all or nothing AP system made weapons have more niche purposes. Most of those things are still gone with only USRs sorta making a return while the current armor/cover/AP has the very problematic issue of "AP good, more AP more good" compared to the older edition situation where most weapons had a niche (it was just the points cost was too uniform, especially for melee weapons).

GW has it's head so far up it's own rear due to being so scared about making rules that don't exactly match the bits options in their kits (and they don't seem to let the rules writers have much say regarding what actually ends up on the sprues) and shying away from complexity as if previous edition army building was on the same level as calculating the moon landing. It's just painful to see GW identify pain points of previous editions and making the entirely wrong decisions to "fix" them.

It's always been "AP good, more AP more good", but at least low ap does something to everything now. The old all or nothing approach is part of what made plasma the go to due to proliferation of marines and the fact that a grenade launcher etc would tickle them at best, meaning against some opponents it was essentially worthless, whereas no matter if it was 5 or 10 points more it didn't matter, plasma was going to win.

The thing that made the old AP system work to an extent was that certain APs were useful against certain units. Hot shot lasguns where ideal vs 3+ saves like power armor but basically worthless vs terminator armor but higher AP weapons had some combination of high cost, downsides (gets hot), and/or low volume of fire. Pre 8th, shooting plasma against Boyz in cover was a huge waste of points efficiency as your very expensive plasma veteran guard, grey hunters, scions, etc would of been better served shooting at something where that point investment into good AP would provide more benefit. The new system just makes it so having AP degrades the armor save and the cover save just improves the armor save. So unless your shooting at units with no saves at all with some AP weapons then your rarely wasting the value of the AP on your weapons. While that seems like it makes everything useful, you end up with easy to calculate "best weapon" and so you don't need anything else besides the mathhammered optimal option(s). The old system gave weapons niches that they where optimal at doing and made the calculation of where to apply your firepower factor in more aspects of the battlefield situation instead of most of the calculations being made during the army building process. It wasn't a great system, it felt somewhat nonsensical, BUT it did make a lot of options useful in certain situations and helped avoid making one option good for everything... unless GW did something stupid like make a high volume of fire, AP2, auto glance + immobilize vehicles on a 6, wounds based on the enemy save weapon that countered basically everything except low/medium toughness units with cardboard or t-shirt saves.

As for plasma spam, maybe in 5th and before plasma was the go to option but 6th and 7th was a lot of grav spam for marines, melta being the best anti vehicle option, and plasma being the MC/Elite infantry killer. I know for my Scions and Tau loadouts, I had some command squads and crisis suit teams using all plasma but I also had need for teams of melta/fusion blasters and also CIB units for the Crisis Suits. For the Tau, most of the crisis suit weapon options where quite viable but options like burst cannons, flamers, and to a lesser extent the AFP weren't really needed due to Tau's abundance of small arms fire that could get ignore cover due to markerlights. That said for a Farsight Enclave army, those redundant options would be potentially useful given that they tend to not run any regular infantry.

Also wasn't plasma spam really big in 8th? I really remember Plasma being super popular in 8th compared to 7th.

All I remember was death balls of guard surrounding a key model, usually a Castellan, while Murder squads of what essentially were air dropped Hell blasters (Scions Command Squads) were dropping into the back field and double shooting plasma every turn. 8-16 shots of plasma can pretty much melt anything 8th had. This was before the big 2 Wound Primaris showed up. But yes, plasma was everywhere. Then Hellblasters arrived, and those kinda took the top spot.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Ok guys, I think we're shifting the goal posts here. First it was the GUARD is super bloated. Now I provided an example, that magnified, proves that assertion. Now the argument has morphed into "Well, Aldari MLs used to be though worthless, and are still viable", or "One squad is a tiny percentage of your overall army".

No, I'm sorry, both are bad faith arguments. The Infantry squad is the back bone of the guard lists, they hold the objectives while the big guns do heavy lifting. Also, most of the rules focus on Guard is around the Infantry squad. or Supplimenting it. Furthermore, who gives a spit in the wind about another faction's effectiveness? It's not the point here.

I assure you that my argument was made in good faith. I thought the topic had drifted into non-guard-specific territory, but I can use a guard-specific example. In the post I was replying to, you seemed to be making the case that weapons getting knocked up and down in the meta was a source of great stress/a big problem:

If new hobbyists could hot swap parts and we all played with Mr Potato heads, this wouldn't be an issue. But instead, the time, effort, and money involved, tends to really cause upset confusion when you can't play, or worse, have a good time, because you glued the wrong bit of plastic on.

Not hyperbole to say that one of the simplest squads in the entire game is the most frustration to properly assemble, then get smacked with a rules shift that makes it non-viable.

If you choose to stick a meltagun in your squad to deal with tanks and heavy infantry and then an edition change makes plasma slightly better at those jobs, your meltaguns aren't necessarily invalidated. If post-changes your meltagun is still reasonably helpful, then you just have a quirky pick that isn't mathematically #1 in its primary role.

Or put another way, your melta becoming slightly less good in the meta doesn't have to translate to your squad being "non-viable" or preventing you from having a good time. It *can* if the rules shakeup makes your meltagun non-usable in the extreme. But if the difference in efficiency between your meltagun and the new fotm plasma gun is small enough, then it's probably not a big deal for most people. As previously mentioned, competitive players will have less tolerance for such things, but competitive paradigms should also be acknowledged to not be representative of all players.

Dudeface wrote:

 Vankraken wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 Vankraken wrote:
The issue isn't that there are a lot of options, the issue is that the options lack meaningful decision making due to the options being either unimportant, poorly balanced with defacto auto picks, and/or options that lost their mechanical purpose and so they don't have a way to differentiate themselves from other similar options. A lot of this came from 8th editions gutting of the core rules where things like area of effect, cover saves, USRs, and the all or nothing AP system made weapons have more niche purposes. Most of those things are still gone with only USRs sorta making a return while the current armor/cover/AP has the very problematic issue of "AP good, more AP more good" compared to the older edition situation where most weapons had a niche (it was just the points cost was too uniform, especially for melee weapons).

GW has it's head so far up it's own rear due to being so scared about making rules that don't exactly match the bits options in their kits (and they don't seem to let the rules writers have much say regarding what actually ends up on the sprues) and shying away from complexity as if previous edition army building was on the same level as calculating the moon landing. It's just painful to see GW identify pain points of previous editions and making the entirely wrong decisions to "fix" them.

It's always been "AP good, more AP more good", but at least low ap does something to everything now. The old all or nothing approach is part of what made plasma the go to due to proliferation of marines and the fact that a grenade launcher etc would tickle them at best, meaning against some opponents it was essentially worthless, whereas no matter if it was 5 or 10 points more it didn't matter, plasma was going to win.

The thing that made the old AP system work to an extent was that certain APs were useful against certain units. Hot shot lasguns where ideal vs 3+ saves like power armor but basically worthless vs terminator armor but higher AP weapons had some combination of high cost, downsides (gets hot), and/or low volume of fire. Pre 8th, shooting plasma against Boyz in cover was a huge waste of points efficiency as your very expensive plasma veteran guard, grey hunters, scions, etc would of been better served shooting at something where that point investment into good AP would provide more benefit. The new system just makes it so having AP degrades the armor save and the cover save just improves the armor save. So unless your shooting at units with no saves at all with some AP weapons then your rarely wasting the value of the AP on your weapons. While that seems like it makes everything useful, you end up with easy to calculate "best weapon" and so you don't need anything else besides the mathhammered optimal option(s). The old system gave weapons niches that they where optimal at doing and made the calculation of where to apply your firepower factor in more aspects of the battlefield situation instead of most of the calculations being made during the army building process. It wasn't a great system, it felt somewhat nonsensical, BUT it did make a lot of options useful in certain situations and helped avoid making one option good for everything... unless GW did something stupid like make a high volume of fire, AP2, auto glance + immobilize vehicles on a 6, wounds based on the enemy save weapon that countered basically everything except low/medium toughness units with cardboard or t-shirt saves.

As for plasma spam, maybe in 5th and before plasma was the go to option but 6th and 7th was a lot of grav spam for marines, melta being the best anti vehicle option, and plasma being the MC/Elite infantry killer. I know for my Scions and Tau loadouts, I had some command squads and crisis suit teams using all plasma but I also had need for teams of melta/fusion blasters and also CIB units for the Crisis Suits. For the Tau, most of the crisis suit weapon options where quite viable but options like burst cannons, flamers, and to a lesser extent the AFP weren't really needed due to Tau's abundance of small arms fire that could get ignore cover due to markerlights. That said for a Farsight Enclave army, those redundant options would be potentially useful given that they tend to not run any regular infantry.

Also wasn't plasma spam really big in 8th? I really remember Plasma being super popular in 8th compared to 7th.

Unless you're list tailoring you take the best all-comers option, which yes shooting boyz in with plasma cover is a waste, but shooting mega/nobz/kanz/dreads is not and something you still need. Plasma, melta and grav - all able to bypass AP3, wound marines on a 3+ at worse and can hurt vehicles, that's not a coincidence and also why it would never be grenade launchers unless plasma was so stupidly expensive it was easier to get the same value out of an equivalent number of flamers/lasguns etc.

So I'd argue in the older AP system it was easier to have a "best" answer than the current one.

In a sense that is still list tailoring though, but tailoring to Marines (as typically >50% of armies in an area). Plasma is much less valuable against, say, Ork boyz in 4th edition than against Marines- a grenade launcher still ignores 6+ armour, can hit more models with blast or with equal effectiveness per shot against a boy with krak. Meanwhile, if the plasma gun rapid fires both shots carry a 1/3rd chance of blowing up and a Guardsmen has only a third chance of surviving that- they are unlikely to rapid fire more than twice due to their expensive gun exploding. So against Marines, taking out a few is worth that investment. Less so against boyz, gaunts etc.

The issue is that Marines were/are hugely popular in comparison to other armies, so list tailoring to Marines was a reasonable option.

So Meta shifts will make entire factions, let alone weapons, obsolete. That goes without saying.

But 40k has never really embraced the idea of basic troops being close ranged AT units, unless those troops are Space Marines, or one of the various space Elf groups. The one with free Melta pistols on their troops.

That being said, while technically capable of doing a good job, putting your points/strategy behind a single wound trooper that has a 2/6 chance of doing on average 3 damage to a single target within 12", is asking a LOT of that unit. At that point, you're no longer "Holding the line" which I would argue was the point of that unit in the first place. To hold the objective and force your opponent to waste turns removing it. If it's going tank hunting, it's no longer doing that. It's better to just have a Sentinel with a LasCannon do pot shots from 48" away. That actually has a better chance of achieving it's goal. Being that it will still be alive the turn after it shoots.