Possible incoming changes to CSM wargear selection

[Umbros]

This is crazy, and a real step backwards. Or forwards. It seems like a move to cut down bitz-resellers who could charge an arm and a leg for a single in-demand part. 

 

Except it doesn't apply to blightlord terminators... 

 

It is a good change, in the sense that it doesn't incentivise people to have to buy more than what the kit provides. It just isn't consistently applied and should have been done in the first place

[SanguinaryGuardsman]

 

This is crazy, and a real step backwards. Or forwards. It seems like a move to cut down bitz-resellers who could charge an arm and a leg for a single in-demand part. 

 

Except it doesn't apply to blightlord terminators... 

 

It is a good change, in the sense that it doesn't incentivise people to have to buy more than what the kit provides. It just isn't consistently applied and should have been done in the first place

 

The problem with it is that it runs violently against 30+ years of gameplay design and runs counter to having a streamlined game.  Who wants to roll dice for 5 different weapon profiles on their terminators?  Also, having units with very restrictive loadouts could cause design space issues.  For example, flamestorm aggressors always have enough flamers for anyone interested to use them as an auspex scan/overwatch denial unit whereas a chaos player could not do that with terminators if the unit was sprue restricted. 

 

Hopefully this is just a one off otherwise it will be a huge downer for chaos marines.  I've been working on a CSM project recently and I feel I cannot make any purchases until there is a codex.  Too risky :(  I wish GW would stop and think before making such radical changes or even ask the players what they think :(

[ShibeKing]

Really glad I quit playing to focus on collecting, that way I can build my Plague Marines and Death Guard any way I want. The worst part of this hobby for me is the GW's rules writers.

 

If they do push this rule through for CSM and regret it, GW will just release another overpriced book with an update to the datasheet.

[MegaVolt87]

Really glad I quit playing to focus on collecting, that way I can build my Plague Marines and Death Guard any way I want. The worst part of this hobby for me is the GW's rules writers.

 

If they do push this rule through for CSM and regret it, GW will just release another overpriced book with an update to the datasheet.

 

GW has been kicking the can down the road with several issues now and the road has stopped. A second codex, is no real guarantee as we saw with our 2nd 8th ed one. And even if it did get better like the SM one, would you be happy is only for six months before a new edition? They should really get it right the first time or transition the rules to be free. Personally I set aside a certain amount for GW stuff, haven't bought anything since indomnitus. I think right now the best thing would be to work on our backlogs/ pile of shame and not purchase anything, unless its really needed/ wanted. I think 9th life cycle should really extend at least an extra year or preferably two as year one is just a complete wash at this point. 

[SanguinaryGuardsman]

 

Really glad I quit playing to focus on collecting, that way I can build my Plague Marines and Death Guard any way I want. The worst part of this hobby for me is the GW's rules writers.

 

If they do push this rule through for CSM and regret it, GW will just release another overpriced book with an update to the datasheet.

 

GW has been kicking the can down the road with several issues now and the road has stopped. A second codex, is no real guarantee as we saw with our 2nd 8th ed one. And even if it did get better like the SM one, would you be happy is only for six months before a new edition? They should really get it right the first time or transition the rules to be free. Personally I set aside a certain amount for GW stuff, haven't bought anything since indomnitus. I think right now the best thing would be to work on our backlogs/ pile of shame and not purchase anything, unless its really needed/ wanted. I think 9th life cycle should really extend at least an extra year or preferably two as year one is just a complete wash at this point. 

 

I think they are transitioning to a digital subscription model without some clunky book supply chain that breaks down anytime something unexpected happens along the way.  Wouldnt it be nice to just pay a monthly and never have to buy another stupid book ever again?  It would also be nice if FAQs could be issued digitally and if rules abominations(the new plague marine loadouts) could be corrected with player input.  

[MegaVolt87]

Why a mandatory monthly sub model? I think just a one time buy of a code for a codex and free updates within a walled garden GW app with GW product ads would be fine, then optional sub for no ads would be the way to do it. Or GW could also just do its codexes in digital format and stop being so upset the market controls the prices like with its BL stuff. I mean, they say they are a model company first and foremost, they don't need such a death grip on their rules monetization + distribution IMO. 

[Lucerne]

Well,  it's not as if GW's rules team has ever been particularly great at selling Chaos to begin with.

 

Here's to houserules, I guess?

[Doom Herald]

I've been of the opinion that GW needs to have a free open beta on more rules changes before making them official. It would save a lot of need for FAQ/Erataing and help to make the books more complete when published. I've heard people say that doing so would essentially mean that most of the rules are free online, but they basically already are. Personally, I don't buy the books just for the rules anyway, but also for the fluff/art and the sense of completeness I get from having the book(s) for my army. So many problems that happened with CSM Codexes (and Index) could have been avoided with a public beta since most issues were immediately evident to players.

 

I personally miss when CSM was much more customizable. The last two editions have felt stifling in that regard, though early 8th made up for it with streamlining. The Rule of Three and current Battle Brothers rules only make it worse. My poor Cypher will never see game play, my Khorne Bike Lord (that I literally bled making) will gather dust, and now I'm worried so many of my other models will. There's been far too many changes and far too few have been positive.

 

If all Winged Dameon Princes are taking the movement nerf, there's another couple models that will be shelved. If all of our units get restrictive options, I really think I'll sit this edition out (which won't last very long the way they've been going).

 

GW did great as a company through 8th edition not just because of Primaris, but also because they made 8th edition out as an edition made to be streamlined and to last. In the end, it was neither and it happened right after they released a whole series of books with updates for every army. As much of a downer as a new edition was, 9th seemed largely like it would be a good thing after I played a few gamea, much like 8th edition in the beginning. The changes since then, and they way they've handed it, makes me feel that this is going to be a repeat of the way 8th was handled. It's not a fun game when rule changes and updates come out quicker than you can handle and many of them are in new publications that you have to purchase and then use to piece together how to play along with atleast two other books, nor is it when you play an army specifically for the presence of options and then they are continually dwindled away.

 

I really think that the people that bring up the artificial scarcity for bits have the right of it. I also really think that GW willfully misinterprets the way consumers react to the changes made and uses the data as a way to try to make more profits. I don't know how well it's going to work though. Doing it in 8th pushed some people away and that they seem to continue to be doing the same, probably because they think its good for stocks, is pushing more away. 40k, as a game, is almost dead now where I live and NOBODY is happy with the game locally.

Edited January 19, 2021 by Doom Herald

[BrainFireBob]

Having had time to think, I think someone in mid management sold the suits on power level.

 

They killed WFB to do it, and had a huge backlash. I think it's still the goal, though. First Primaris, with mono squads. Then limiting characters. Then this.

 

Actually, first allow any model to target separate from their unit.

 

They can't balance the scope of their game right now. It's not the too complicated, it's that targeted loadouts vary massively in efficiency against their chosen target.

 

Take a Dev squad.

 

A squad with 4 heavy bolters: Good against infantry, weak against a Knights list.

 

A squad with 4 multimeltas? Weak against Orks. Very good against Knights.

 

Its survivability varies based on whether it's 5 or 10 models.

 

You literally cannot power level that.

 

Your solution is fixed loadouts, which gives you fixed *capability.*

 

Tl, dr: They still want to balance the game at the unit level. They're baby stepping and backdooring us. Because we rejected power level as a community, they're trying to make us boiled frogs.

Edited January 19, 2021 by BrainFireBob

[SanguinaryGuardsman]

Why a mandatory monthly sub model? I think just a one time buy of a code for a codex and free updates within a walled garden GW app with GW product ads would be fine, then optional sub for no ads would be the way to do it. Or GW could also just do its codexes in digital format and stop being so upset the market controls the prices like with its BL stuff. I mean, they say they are a model company first and foremost, they don't need such a death grip on their rules monetization + distribution IMO. 

I think we will see a subscription service in the next few years because 3d printers are starting to become viable.  For now it will be what you described but I think GW wants to be able to expand on this without being 5 years behind and having half their fan base printing models at home at cost.  

[sitnam]

 

Stupid move. This has to be driven by all the negative feedback they received over things like the single chainaxe- artificial scarcity deliberately created- by someone in marketing. Just include the options.

 

Including all possible options in the kit is logistically problematic, its not artificial scarcity.

 

I dont entirely disagree, but the new Battle Sister Box shows that GW can cram a ton of options into a box if they wanted. It has the options to make three separate datasheets, and iirc the only options not available in the box was a Multi-Melta, and a few wargear options for the Superior (Power mace, hand flame, and inferno pistol iirc). 

[Closet Skeleton]

 

 

Stupid move. This has to be driven by all the negative feedback they received over things like the single chainaxe- artificial scarcity deliberately created- by someone in marketing. Just include the options.

 

Including all possible options in the kit is logistically problematic, its not artificial scarcity.

 

I dont entirely disagree, but the new Battle Sister Box shows that GW can cram a ton of options into a box if they wanted. It has the options to make three separate datasheets, and iirc the only options not available in the box was a Multi-Melta, and a few wargear options for the Superior (Power mace, hand flame, and inferno pistol iirc). 

 

Fundamentally they have to make choices about which bits to squeeze in based on balancing different target audiences.

 

1. People who just want to model.

 

2. People who want to play but don't care about optimisation.

 

3. People who want to build lists and only model as a in between step between that and playing.

 

4. The people who aren't going to touch the hobby but have power over the company.

 

All of which have many different variations in outlook.

 

Different designers have taken different approaches to solving this problem, leading to different kits. The Battle Sisters squad being on 3 sprues didn't come cheap, though I'm sure its price point will become the new normal for 2 sprue troops choices as that's how its gone so far.

 

Its important that Chaos terminators are a legacy unit from an era where you could just pick and choose which arm to buy from mail order. That makes them intrinsically different to Primaris marines which were designed to be on a sprue from the start. Its also interesting to note that loyalists had plastic terminators very early on from space hulk and never got the same level of customisation that chaos had.

 

 

Closet Skeleton, if marketing had no power over sprue design, the new Havocs, which introduced the chaincannon, would not have had two of each weapon except the singular chaincannon.

 

The recut Devs wouldn't have had 2 of each weapon- except the brand new gravcannon.

 

And finally adding combiplasma to the CSM terminator kit, after two decades of the option, wouldn't have been a single combiplasma when the other two combis were available in pairs.

 

This is a longstanding GW move, so repeated it cannot be anything but deliberate artificial scarcity.

 

 

That first statement just doesn't follow as an argument. Its entirely possible to the marketing team to pull of this supposed scheme by telling the rules team to make something over-powered after its been made rare without marketing involvement.

 

You're correct about a trend for new options to be both over-powered and limited, but there are multiple possible intents behind that.

 

It could just be that the new options are thrown in after-thoughts and that's why there's less of them. It could just be that they design the sprue to have all the old things in it, find there's more space and use it to put something new in there. Gravcannons weren't new with the redone devastators, they'd been around on Centurions for a while and Grav-devastors didn't become better than Grav-Centurions until the second 8th ed codex.

 

If they intended to make people buy 4x Devastator boxes to spam gravcannons they failed for years (and if you did buy 4x havoc boxes to spam chaincannons under the assumption it would win you tournaments you were an idiot).

 

Everything about a sprue is artificial, I don't think artificial scarcity as a concept really applies since we're talking about two things, the sprue design and the bits seller after market. Chaincannon scarcity with bits sellers wasn't artificial scarcity it was a 'natural' supply issue. I don't think the marketing team thinks about bits sellers.

 

Timed exclusives are a form of artificial scarcity that GW uses a lot, so obviously they're aware of it. But its very easy for someone with an outside perspective to assume one set of considerations when the more stressed people inside the company aren't making decisions from the same set of information.

Edited January 19, 2021 by Closet Skeleton

[BrainFireBob]

I was referring to the introduction of gravcannons- 6th, I think? No grav before that, and grav bits were highly limited.

 

GW follow a pattern of new thing=limited access (1 per box) and also powerful rules.

 

I work in manufacturing, so don't smoke and mirrors "it's complicated" me on this. New CSM terminators- andBlihhtlords- use multipart combis, bolter half and your choice of bolter, plasma, melta, or flamer for the other. Older kits, you'd hsve a point- but even with mord crowded sprues the not-base half of these arms are tiny, there is sprue room

 

EDIT: You're also being disinfenuous. Take chaincannons. Legal for troops and Havocs. 0 supplied for the recut Troops sprue, and 1-whereas there were two of every other weapon- on the Havoc dprue. They were deliberately restricting supply compared to other heavy weapons, especially since anyone who had any Chaos sprues were likely to have every other weapon avsilable anyway.

 

That's artigicial scarcity. Sensible game supply would have been 2 of each heavy, customer-centered supply would have either put it in troops boxes or made it separately available. Artificial scarcity to justify thd Havocs remaining at a premium price point

Edited January 19, 2021 by BrainFireBob

[Umbros]

I was referring to the introduction of gravcannons- 6th, I think? No grav before that, and grav bits were highly limited.

 

GW follow a pattern of new thing=limited access (1 per box) and also powerful rules.

 

I work in manufacturing, so don't smoke and mirrors "it's complicated" me on this. New CSM terminators- andBlihhtlords- use multipart combis, bolter half and your choice of bolter, plasma, melta, or flamer for the other. Older kits, you'd hsve a point- but even with mord crowded sprues the not-base half of these arms are tiny, there is sprue room

 

EDIT: You're also being disinfenuous. Take chaincannons. Legal for troops and Havocs. 0 supplied for the recut Troops sprue, and 1-whereas there were two of every other weapon- on the Havoc dprue. They were deliberately restricting supply compared to other heavy weapons, especially since anyone who had any Chaos sprues were likely to have every other weapon avsilable anyway.

 

That's artigicial scarcity. Sensible game supply would have been 2 of each heavy, customer-centered supply would have either put it in troops boxes or made it separately available. Artificial scarcity to justify thd Havocs remaining at a premium price point

 

By this logic they wouldn't have changed the rules for PM to be limited to the box options, which is the entire premise of this topic.

[BrainFireBob]

That's the point. This is how they've historically been.

 

The change to PMs and Blightlords is new. Essentially, the argument was raised that you weren't supposed to go "that far" beyond the box, the counterpoint is that it is longstanding sales strstegy, and historic box contents deliberately shorted you on what the most desirable bits were at the time.

 

As a policy change, it is therefore harsh

 

EDIT: Phrased differently, regarding Blightlords in specific,people were implying the single combiplasma was single because it must have been intended as single for power reasons. There's an existing pattern of it being for a sales reason, much like CSM terminators, chaincannons,or gravcannons.

 

Really smacks of a left-hand doesn't talk to the right hand situation

Edited January 20, 2021 by BrainFireBob

[The Widowmaker]

If this goes through, my Night Lords will never be played in 9th Edition.

 

I just got finished making a Terminator squad of all Lightning Claw+Combi-Flamers, and my three finished squads of 10x basic Chaos Marines have loadouts that'd become illegal through this (Combi-Bolter on Champ, two Chaincannons)

 

I'm in the same boat.

 

The wargear options is one of the best parts of playing/collecting CSM.

[Khornestar]

I would actually applaud a change like this if it wasn’t implemented partway through a new edition where up until this point it hadn’t been.

 

I don’t particularly care about WYSIWYG but the issue goes beyond that.

 

I guess we’ll see.

[BrainFireBob]

If they'd recut the kits sensibly.

 

Take a heavy bolter out of the Havoc kit. Add a chaincannon. Buy CSMs and Havocs? 2 of each weapon.

 

2 piece combis: Put the same number-1,2,3, however-on termie sprues.

 

Devs- axe a missile launcher. Add a gravcannon.

[Umbros]

I would actually applaud a change like this if it wasn’t implemented partway through a new edition where up until this point it hadn’t been.

 

I don’t particularly care about WYSIWYG but the issue goes beyond that.

 

I guess we’ll see.

 

Not even partway through an edition - just at the release of a new kit would be fine.

[Schurge]

 

 

Really glad I quit playing to focus on collecting, that way I can build my Plague Marines and Death Guard any way I want. The worst part of this hobby for me is the GW's rules writers.

 

If they do push this rule through for CSM and regret it, GW will just release another overpriced book with an update to the datasheet.

 

GW has been kicking the can down the road with several issues now and the road has stopped. A second codex, is no real guarantee as we saw with our 2nd 8th ed one. And even if it did get better like the SM one, would you be happy is only for six months before a new edition? They should really get it right the first time or transition the rules to be free. Personally I set aside a certain amount for GW stuff, haven't bought anything since indomnitus. I think right now the best thing would be to work on our backlogs/ pile of shame and not purchase anything, unless its really needed/ wanted. I think 9th life cycle should really extend at least an extra year or preferably two as year one is just a complete wash at this point. 

 

I think they are transitioning to a digital subscription model without some clunky book supply chain that breaks down anytime something unexpected happens along the way.  Wouldnt it be nice to just pay a monthly and never have to buy another stupid book ever again?  It would also be nice if FAQs could be issued digitally and if rules abominations(the new plague marine loadouts) could be corrected with player input.  

 

 

I like owning my .

[battle captain corpus]

Ok I think that we've clearly veered enough off of topic now!

 

The thread started with a discussion about potential Wargear and changes to CSM's equipment changes for 9th Edt based off of what we know from the new Death Guard Codex. Personally I thought this was a great idea for a topic Marshall Loss, however it's been derailed into subscriptions etc etc.

 

So...

 

=][= This topic is now Closed =][=

 

BCC