Modelling, WYSIWYG and reduction in options

[Kallas]

10 hours ago, jaxom said:

They're getting the same special rule as the index Assault Squad with JP. They'll probably be exactly the same except without the options for flamer, plasmagun, meltagun, and eviscerator. Is the lack of those four options what you were referring to?

I mean, that literally is just the same unit with fewer options, which is pretty sad. GW's modeling and rules trends over the past few years have been to reduce and reduce the available options, which is just much less interesting from both a modelling and gameplay perspective. Each release seems to be stripping more and more away from peoples' options, GW has become obsessed with controlling how people can build their stuff.

[Mogger351]

58 minutes ago, Kallas said:

I mean, that literally is just the same unit with fewer options, which is pretty sad. GW's modeling and rules trends over the past few years have been to reduce and reduce the available options, which is just much less interesting from both a modelling and gameplay perspective. Each release seems to be stripping more and more away from peoples' options, GW has become obsessed with controlling how people can build their stuff.

I see it as the exact opposite, if they don't have the special weapons, plasma pistols, eviscerators etc. then it actually doesn't matter how you build them, they represent one set of rules gameplay wise. There is a cost there, but hobby wise it's actually more freeing than anything.

[Kallas]

1 minute ago, Mogger351 said:

I see it as the exact opposite, if they don't have the special weapons, plasma pistols, eviscerators etc. then it actually doesn't matter how you build them, they represent one set of rules gameplay wise. There is a cost there, but hobby wise it's actually more freeing than anything.

You see fewer options as more interesting? It's more freeing to build only one thing, instead of being able to choose what you build? I really don't understand how having fewer options is more options, that's some crazy logic there.

 

The Jump Assault Intercessors are literally just... Assault Marines with less options. You can't choose to equip special weapons for a more shooty unit, and you can't equip Eviscerators for more powerful but fewer attacks. It's literally fewer choices. Sure, in 10th there's less choice rules-wise (which is what I'm saying, GW is stripping away as many choices as they possibly can) because they've made it so you have to take everything possible to make a decent unit, but that's a rules problem that could (and should) be remedied in one of various possible ways; the fact that they are reducing the number of options available for modelling is more concerning - it was already happening with every Primaris kit, but this is just more pronounced because it's such a direct 1:1 replacement kit, just with less freedom to choose.

[Mogger351]

14 minutes ago, Kallas said:

You see fewer options as more interesting? It's more freeing to build only one thing, instead of being able to choose what you build? I really don't understand how having fewer options is more options, that's some crazy logic there.

 

The Jump Assault Intercessors are literally just... Assault Marines with less options. You can't choose to equip special weapons for a more shooty unit, and you can't equip Eviscerators for more powerful but fewer attacks. It's literally fewer choices. Sure, in 10th there's less choice rules-wise (which is what I'm saying, GW is stripping away as many choices as they possibly can) because they've made it so you have to take everything possible to make a decent unit, but that's a rules problem that could (and should) be remedied in one of various possible ways; the fact that they are reducing the number of options available for modelling is more concerning - it was already happening with every Primaris kit, but this is just more pronounced because it's such a direct 1:1 replacement kit, just with less freedom to choose.

They've not reduced any modelling options, they aren't in the box admittedly but you can equip your jump intercessors with chainswords, chainaxes, spears, hammers, scythes, 2 handed weapons, dual pistols, any type of pistols for that matter. You name it and you can model them as you please with no rules impact. Because there are no rules. Modelling creativity is now up through the roof whereas gameplay options will be very limited.

 

You seem to be unable to detach modelling/converting/construction/hobbying from in-game options.

[Kallas]

9 minutes ago, Mogger351 said:

They've not reduced any modelling options, they aren't in the box admittedly but you can equip your jump intercessors with chainswords, chainaxes, spears, hammers, scythes, 2 handed weapons, dual pistols, any type of pistols for that matter. You name it and you can model them as you please with no rules impact. Because there are no rules. Modelling creativity is now up through the roof whereas gameplay options will be very limited.

 

You seem to be unable to detach modelling/converting/construction/hobbying from in-game options.

I mean, yeah, they're literally providing fewer modelling options and fewer gameplay options. Yes, you can go and take stuff from other places and put them on those models, that was always the case. GW is pushing for a "build what's in the box" mentality ever since Chapterhouse stuff and this is just more of it.

 

But it simply is reducing modelling options: they provided alternate builds before, and now they do not. That is reduced options, even without looking at in-game options, which are still a major facet of the hobby and game even though GW still clings to the "model company not a game company" (despite the massive driver that the game is).

[Blindhamster]

I think the point Mogger is making, is before, if you moddled a guy with a hammer, it needed to be a thunder hammer, because that was a legitimate mechanical option, now it isn't you can "go crazy", similarly, you couldn't model an assault marine with a bolter before, now you could because mechanically, they have set rules.

 

I'm not saying thats a good thing, I like options mechanically too, and am still holding out hope that maybe at least some form of heavy melee option may still be available... but I suspect its unlikely sadly. I don't much care about the special weapons, as to me they always kinda watered the unit down - but I prefer choppy assault squads.

[Kallas]

2 minutes ago, Blindhamster said:

I think the point Mogger is making, is before, if you moddled a guy with a hammer, it needed to be a thunder hammer, because that was a legitimate mechanical option, now it isn't you can "go crazy", similarly, you couldn't model an assault marine with a bolter before, now you could because mechanically, they have set rules.

You could always model an Assault Marine with, say, a Heavy Bolter. They never had that as a game option, so that'd be fine by that same logic - and yes, no one has ever prevented that from happening if someone wanted to.

 

But there are literally fewer options: you don't get as many modelling options in a new box, and you get fewer choices on datasheets. You can model your Chainsword Assault Marines with Lascannons, or with six arms with Lightning Claws, or with tank tracks for arms, these were all always possible - but the box and unit has had the options that are now being stripped out for years, the options that were part of their identity within the lore and game; they no longer have the same options in the kit or datasheet.

 

I originally replied to jaxom who was responding to OttoVonAwesome saying that the new kit is going to be Assault Marines with fewer options - which is factually accurate, the kit comes with fewer options, and the datasheet will reflect that, and while you can always model your Chainswords as Las-flails, you could always do that previously except you had more physical options on the kit if you wanted them and had more gameplay options to model your guys as having.

 

Now, anyone who wants to run their Assault Marine with Plasma Gun, say, now has to run them as...a Chainsword I guess? But yay modelling options somehow??

[tzeentch9]

37 minutes ago, Mogger351 said:

They've not reduced any modelling options, they aren't in the box admittedly but you can equip your jump intercessors with chainswords, chainaxes, spears, hammers, scythes, 2 handed weapons, dual pistols, any type of pistols for that matter. You name it and you can model them as you please with no rules impact. Because there are no rules. Modelling creativity is now up through the roof whereas gameplay options will be very limited.

 

You seem to be unable to detach modelling/converting/construction/hobbying from in-game options.

Convert the unit to jumping ninjas with power nunchucks, that would be excellent 

[Blindhamster]

20 minutes ago, Kallas said:

snip

 

Not quite the same, purely because when there were options, it forced a conversation about what counts as what and whilst any good player wouldn't care, some likely did.

 

Again though, I'm not disagreeing with the fact theres fewer options both in rules and in the box, thats simply a fact. I can just see the logic behind people saying it frees up the modelling options because a unit without options is always exactly that unit, whereas a unit with options requires some care going into making sure you model those options and don't cause confusion. It's a valid point just as much as yours, the difference is that it is of course an opinion, rather than a fact.

 

I'm hoping we get a reveal that shows at least some extra melee option on the unit, but really doubt that will be the case at this point. I do at least like the models and I don't personally care about the loss of special ranged weapons, so at least a lower impact for me personally, which is something.

[Blindhamster]

its almost back to 3rd ed assault squad loadout iirc, I think back then only blood angels had special ranged weapons as options for them and that may have only been on VAS

[Kallas]

18 minutes ago, Blindhamster said:

Not quite the same, purely because when there were options, it forced a conversation about what counts as what and whilst any good player wouldn't care, some likely did.

 

Again though, you could always build them however you wanted them - if you wanted a certain loadout, you had to build relatively close to that, as you sau what counts as. So if you wanted an Eviscerator it had to be distinct from the regular Chainswords, and the argument here is that now you can build whatever you want and because they can only take Chainswords it doesn't matter - except that before, you could build whatever you wanted and just run them as all Chainswords anyway, you didn't have to take the different options (which is an option in itself).

 

The only difference is now you cannot run with different options, you only have a single loadout. You still have the exact same modelling room but with fewer in-game choices (and fewer literal physical pieces you can choose to model things with). 

 

18 minutes ago, Blindhamster said:

I can just see the logic behind people saying it frees up the modelling options because a unit without options is always exactly that unit, whereas a unit with options requires some care going into making sure you model those options and don't cause confusion. It's a valid point just as much as yours, the difference is that it is of course an opinion, rather than a fact.

As above, however, you can always choose to run them however you want to. You can bring a guy modeled with a Lascannon and run it as a Chainsword guy, that has not changed; you can bring an Eviscerator and run it as a Chainsword - the only difference is that you have to tell your opponent, "I modelled it like this because I like the look, they're all just Chainswords." 

 

The below is literally untrue. It is factually false: you have always been able to model them however the hell you want, with weird stuff or without. The change is that now you have literally fewer options in-game and out to do it with; you can't actually equip them with different gear, and you have less pieces in the box with which to model them differently.

1 hour ago, Mogger351 said:

hobby wise it's actually more freeing than anything.

 

The problem with reducing options because one prefers it that way is that it forces it for anyone else who doesn't. While someone may not care for Plasma Guns in their Assault Squads, there are those who do who are now forced into that not being an option; whereas the other way around they can just choose not to run them.

[Rhavien]

54 minutes ago, Kallas said:

 

Snip

I totally agree with you.

Furthermore you still have the problem with the one odd extra plasmapistol and Sergeant in the squad. Say you have 5 highly converted guys with no connection to their original loadout. Who is the Sergeant? Which weapons does he carry? Do you have the extra plasma pistol? Who has it? 

Reminds me of the days a friend of mine only had Bolter CSM models as troops, but declared something like "the guy who shoots in the sky actually has a plasma gun. The guy with the knives carries a banner" It ended with me hanging the appropriate weapons onto their horns and spikes out of my bitz box. Don't get me wrong, I'm by no way a die hard wysiwig guy, but please have something distinctive on you models. 

[phandaal]

2 hours ago, Mogger351 said:

I see it as the exact opposite, if they don't have the special weapons, plasma pistols, eviscerators etc. then it actually doesn't matter how you build them, they represent one set of rules gameplay wise. There is a cost there, but hobby wise it's actually more freeing than anything.

 

Let me try to understand this.

 

Your WYSIWYG opponents were forcing you to pay the points for whatever weapon you had modeled on. If you said, "this thunder hammer is a chain sword" they said no, that is not good enough because I know the option exists for that to be a thunder hammer.

 

Now that there are no longer any options, this same opponent will say well, it is fine that you have different weapons for everyone in the unit because I know that they can only have chainswords.

 

Yeah?

[Mogger351]

54 minutes ago, phandaal said:

 

Let me try to understand this.

 

Your WYSIWYG opponents were forcing you to pay the points for whatever weapon you had modeled on. If you said, "this thunder hammer is a chain sword" they said no, that is not good enough because I know the option exists for that to be a thunder hammer.

 

Now that there are no longer any options, this same opponent will say well, it is fine that you have different weapons for everyone in the unit because I know that they can only have chainswords.

 

Yeah?

In a nut shell, it's not a case even of anyone forcing anything, if I rocked up with a unit of assault marines and they all have eviscerators modelled on, I'd have to track which 2 were the "real" eviscerators and it's an extra thing to check with your opponent whilst also a greater cognitive burden.

 

I understand and sympathise people being upset at losing options and loadouts (my twin claw vanguard vets say hi), but there's less confusion over the models purpose and equipment if there are fewer options in the first place.

 

To the comment about the sergeant above, most chapters schemes have some of designation for sergeants, even if it's simply using a bare head or the sergeants helm to do it. Unless you paint all of your marines in the exact same scheme with no rank markings of any kind, that is actually something you can easily solve.

[Kallas]

6 minutes ago, Mogger351 said:

In a nut shell, it's not a case even of anyone forcing anything, if I rocked up with a unit of assault marines and they all have eviscerators modelled on, I'd have to track which 2 were the "real" eviscerators and it's an extra thing to check with your opponent whilst also a greater cognitive burden.

You can also just choose to run them as all Chainswords, however, and not have to keep track of anything and it requires a simple one sentence to your opponent at the start of the game, "These guys are all just Chainswords." The modern GW method is not an improvement, it is just stripping away options.

 

If you choose to take the additional wargear then yes, you need to differentiate, but then that's true of any different piece of wargear (Auxiliary Grenade Launcher, Plasma Gun, Power Fist, whatever), but nobody forces you to take those options. Nobody is required to take an AGL in an Intercessor Squad, but if someone chooses to then they need to have some form of differentiation for whichever model has it, because then it's much better for your opponent to understand what's going on in your unit (ie, WYSIWYG).

 

What baffles me is why reduction of options is somehow a positive when the arguments for it have never held when they are actual options (ie, not forced wargear, such as for AdMech Pteraxii Sterylizors which have specific wargear differences for the Alpha).

[Mogger351]

8 minutes ago, Kallas said:

You can also just choose to run them as all Chainswords, however, and not have to keep track of anything and it requires a simple one sentence to your opponent at the start of the game, "These guys are all just Chainswords." The modern GW method is not an improvement, it is just stripping away options.

 

If you choose to take the additional wargear then yes, you need to differentiate, but then that's true of any different piece of wargear (Auxiliary Grenade Launcher, Plasma Gun, Power Fist, whatever), but nobody forces you to take those options. Nobody is required to take an AGL in an Intercessor Squad, but if someone chooses to then they need to have some form of differentiation for whichever model has it, because then it's much better for your opponent to understand what's going on in your unit (ie, WYSIWYG).

 

What baffles me is why reduction of options is somehow a positive when the arguments for it have never held when they are actual options (ie, not forced wargear, such as for AdMech Pteraxii Sterylizors which have specific wargear differences for the Alpha).

Ok my last post as it doesn't seem to be sinking in and it's not worth repeating it over and over.

 

If a unit can be equipped with 1 plasma pistol per 5, you equip all 5 with plasma pistols because you like how it looks, yes you can say "they all have bolt pistols" but it's visually a plasma pistol, it has it's own rules, is something the unit can have, so your opponent at some point is going to forget quite likely. So there is a active disincentive to build them with 5 plasma pistols.

 

If the entire unit is now forced to only have bolt pistols and chainswords, stick whatever gun you want on because it can never be confused or misidentified. There are now no disincentives to sticking whatever you want on.

 

As a result your freedom to model as you please with no negative impact on your or your opponents game has increased. Whether you consider this an improvement is entirely subjective based on your hobbying and gaming preferences.

 

This is categorically not the same thing as in-game options being reduced. This can be subjectively different as to whether it's a positive from the modelling component. People may like both, neither or combinations.

 

Nobody has said them losing options game-wise is good, no matter how hard you try and frame it that way. What has been said is that for people who like creative modelling it's certainly easier and there are less disincentives to doing so now.

[Kallas]

36 minutes ago, Mogger351 said:

What has been said is that for people who like creative modelling it's certainly easier and there are less disincentives to doing so now.

You have always been able to build models however you want. Nobody has ever stopped you from doing so, nor could they ever do so.

 

But if you want to field them and play games with them, then certain conditions are required, or emphasised, because that's how the social side of the game works - bringing 5 models with Chainswords and saying they're a Hellblaster Squad is pretty disingenuous. Yes, you absolutely could do that, but it's also really not anywhere near representative of what you're fielding.

 

The modelling side of the hobby and the gaming side of the hobby are not 100% linked, but they are still heavily connected. If you build all of your Marines with Bolters, then say some of them are Plasma Incinerators when you want to field a squad of Hellblasters that's a problem in-game, regardless of the options you have, Reducing the available choices does not make this less of a problem, it just reduces the choices you can make.

 

36 minutes ago, Mogger351 said:

If the entire unit is now forced to only have bolt pistols and chainswords, stick whatever gun you want on because it can never be confused or misidentified. There are now no disincentives to sticking whatever you want on.

Isn't this still just relying on the game side of things to inform you though, which is something you claim you're not talking about? Your modelling options have always been allowed to model them with all Plasma Pistols, but if you bring an Intercessor Squad with all Plasma Pistols, they're not actually equipped with those - but those weapons can still exist within the Marine army and it can still be confusing for your opponent. Are they actually Hellblasters, because they're all Plasma? Are they Intercessors and the Sergeant does have a Plasma Pistol, or are they all Bolt Pistols?

 

Lorewise and modelwise , weapons typically have certain visual traits and design cues that generally inform what they do, and this is also usually true for the third-party bits that others make based on GW models. Plasma weapons usually have visible coils; Meltaguns usually have vented barrels and little tanks on them somewhere; Chainswords have serrated blades, etc, etc. Sure, you can build things different ways, and often in ways that make plenty of sense (ie, Chainswords can easily be replaced with other melee weapons without too much issue), but once you're actually playing games there typically needs to be some kind of rhyme or reason behind X/Y/Z weapon swap otherwise it becomes a disorganised mess that becomes hard to tell apart.

 

The only reason visual weapon distinctions matter is when it comes to playing the game, because different weapons do different things. If your concern was only for modelling, which you seem to keep claiming, then it wouldn't matter unless you go to play with them.

 

36 minutes ago, Mogger351 said:

Nobody has said them losing options game-wise is good, no matter how hard you try and frame it that way.

A lot of my focus is on the game side, yes, but you're saying that it's better to have fewer game options because it makes it easier for modelling. But the only reason this would be true is if modelling and gaming were entirely separate, but they're not. Putting all Eviscerators on your unit is still confusing to your opponent, albeit less so than putting one Power Fist, and one Thunder Hammer, and one Chainsword, and one Las Nun-Chuck, and...

 

If you are only modelling based on what you want your models to look like, there is not and has never been an issue with building them how you want, no matter how outlandish. If you want to model them with the intention of playing within the established rules of the game, then a certain level of consistency is required with how you model stuff - putting that random mix of weapons in an Intercessor Squad, say, becomes odd and unusual and may very well confuse you and/or your opponent as to what your unit actually is; same as if you put a bunch of Multi-meltas, Missile Launchers and Heavy Bolters on a Hellblaster Squad, are they still a Hellblaster Squad when you put them on the table?

 

Visual consistency is still important when it comes to the gaming side of the models we build. If you're running your Plasma Pistols in Squad X are Bolt Pistols, but your Plasma Pistol Sergeant in Squad Y as a Plasma Pistol, you begin breaking down what is actually what's represented. This is why WYSIWYG became a big thing in the first place. 

 

4 hours ago, Mogger351 said:

I see it as the exact opposite, if they don't have the special weapons, plasma pistols, eviscerators etc. then it actually doesn't matter how you build them, they represent one set of rules gameplay wise. There is a cost there, but hobby wise it's actually more freeing than anything.

36 minutes ago, Mogger351 said:

As a result your freedom to model as you please with no negative impact on your or your opponents game has increased.

Thing is, you were arguing that the hobby side of thing was freed up to be less restrictive, but it isn't. It's exactly as restrictive as before (ie, not at all). It's the game side of things that asks you to be clear in what you build. 

 

Further, as I stated before, you are literally getting fewer options in the box. There are not as many weapon choices for you to build your models with. Your modelling variety is going down, because now you don't have Eviscerators/Flamers/whatever* that you can choose to put on your models or not.

 

*And this hold for the various other new kits which have worked to reduce and reduce and reduce modelling options, such as Intercessors having basically no options whatsoever, especially now in 10th Edition.

 

Ultimately, 10th Edition rules and new models are both combining to bring less variety and fewer options, at the very least for Marines. Models and units now typically have a single way to build them for use across the hobby (ie, building and playing). Anyone who beyond the game can, of course, build them however far their imagination and skill is capable of taking them (and which has always been the case), but the latest Marine kits and rules have been reducing what works as a model that is part of the game.

 

No matter how hard you argue, 2 minus 1 does not equal 3. Fewer options is a reduction.

Edited September 22, 2023 by Kallas

[Schlitzaf]

What Moger is getting at, is that there is no longer a need to have the “This guy is actually this” convo before game. And I said this before, as an example. If my SM Captain has only 1 legal loadout I can give them whatever I want and there only 1 legal loadout, there will never be confusion.

 

Its one of the most freeing aspects of my mono kroot army. There is basically zero choice in wargear for almost every unit. Meaning I can go utterly insane with how I model a kroot. Sense a Carnivore always just be a duder with a kroot rifle in the rules

[Lexington]

42 minutes ago, Mogger351 said:

If a unit can be equipped with 1 plasma pistol per 5, you equip all 5 with plasma pistols because you like how it looks, yes you can say "they all have bolt pistols" but it's visually a plasma pistol, it has it's own rules, is something the unit can have, so your opponent at some point is going to forget quite likely. So there is a active disincentive to build them with 5 plasma pistols.

 

If the entire unit is now forced to only have bolt pistols and chainswords, stick whatever gun you want on because it can never be confused or misidentified. There are now no disincentives to sticking whatever you want on.

I get what you’re saying, here - as an Ork player, I’ve long enjoyed and exploited the fact that a Choppa can be a random pointy bit of whatever. I’m also old enough to remember the bygone days of 3rd - 5th Edition when a CCW was a CCW. Didn’t matter if it was a chainsword, a club or an exquisitely-modeled rubber chicken, it was all the same, and you saw a lot of interesting modeling happening. I understand why those days are gone, but they are missed.

 

Still, I think you’re making a pretty weak point here, and one that’s a whole lot more provocative than it is useful. 40K’s just not complex enough that I see opponents getting confused all the time by a few extra Plasma Pistols or whatever. Plus, there’s still a fairly low cap on this supposed “freedom” - go too far with the modeling, and it’s just as confusing to an opponent. Even if you start off the game saying that your Surrealist masterpiece of 28mm burning tires and girafffe lungs is just an Assault Squad, they’ll likely be asking about it more than once.

 

For the most part, this is just a weird, negative change that I suspect has been brought about by GW’s overbearing focus on sales to new customers. What’s gained is, at best, marginal, and nothing that couldn’t be done previously anyway.

Edited September 22, 2023 by Lexington

[phandaal]

3 minutes ago, Schlitzaf said:

What Moger is getting at, is that there is no longer a need to have the “This guy is actually this” convo before game. And I said this before, as an example. If my SM Captain has only 1 legal loadout I can give them whatever I want and there only 1 legal loadout, there will never be confusion.

 

Its one of the most freeing aspects of my mono kroot army. There is basically zero choice in wargear for almost every unit. Meaning I can go utterly insane with how I model a kroot. Sense a Carnivore always just be a duder with a kroot rifle in the rules

 

You still need to inform your opponents what the models represent in game, yeah? The other guy will probably have questions if you have a unit with 30 different weapons.

 

You don't just rock up and start rolling dice with no explanation.

[Blindhamster]

2 minutes ago, phandaal said:

 

You still need to inform your opponents what the models represent in game, yeah? The other guy will probably have questions if you have a unit with 30 different weapons.

 

You don't just rock up and start rolling dice with no explanation.

not especially. you just say "this is an assault squad". No more or less needed, other than possibly saying what the sergeant has. Kallas is correct, you've always been able to build your models however you like, but WYSIWYG is far more strict in groups when stuff has lots of options and it can cause confusion. If a unit is mono loadout, adjusting some models visually doesn't cause confusion. And it won't be an issue in tournaments where a model with an eviscerator will almost certainly not be allowed to be ran as a model with bp & chainsword, for example (precisely because it causes confusion)

 

Tbh I'm not sure why i'm even saying anything as I actually do fall into the "camp" of people thinking the new jump intercessors have fewer options. I guess just because I like to critical think and consider both sides of arguements? Who knows... anyway...

 

[Kallas]

9 minutes ago, Blindhamster said:

not especially. you just say "this is an assault squad". No more or less needed, other than possibly saying what the sergeant has.

I mean, is it really that hard to say, "This is an Assault Squad, all Bolt Pistols and Chainswords"? If one is running a basic squad, then it takes three seconds to say so, and is easy enough to remember.

 

The only difference is when people want to model in one way while benefitting from rules in another, which is an entirely different box of frogs from just wanting to be able to model however you want.

[phandaal]

Just now, Blindhamster said:

If a unit is mono loadout, adjusting some models visually doesn't cause confusion.

 

This is an assumption several people are making, and to be honest I have not seen things play out that way in real life.

 

Even when people have rarely seen an army before and therefore will not have an expectation that a unit can have a bunch of different loadout options, if they see you putting down a bunch of different weapons, chances are they will ask about it.

 

What I think happened here is one person reflexively denied that something could be a negative in some way, and is now having to come up with a justification for that denial in reverse. Rather than saying "yeah, it does seem like you have less freedom in your loadout now but I like that I can just say everything is a chainsword," we got the "less options is more freedom" thing, and here we are.

[Mogger351]

11 minutes ago, phandaal said:

 

This is an assumption several people are making, and to be honest I have not seen things play out that way in real life.

 

Even when people have rarely seen an army before and therefore will not have an expectation that a unit can have a bunch of different loadout options, if they see you putting down a bunch of different weapons, chances are they will ask about it.

 

What I think happened here is one person reflexively denied that something could be a negative in some way, and is now having to come up with a justification for that denial in reverse. Rather than saying "yeah, it does seem like you have less freedom in your loadout now but I like that I can just say everything is a chainsword," we got the "less options is more freedom" thing, and here we are.

Not at all, it came from:

 

Quote

GW's modeling and rules trends over the past few years have been to reduce and reduce the available options, which is just much less interesting from both a modelling and gameplay perspective. Each release seems to be stripping more and more away from peoples' options, GW has become obsessed with controlling how people can build their stuff.

Is GW forcing you to build your models in any way more than they used to? No by Kallas own admission. Are they limiting in-game options? Yes, which as I stated has a cost associated to it i.e. not all positive. But it's false representation to suggest that your modelling options are reduced because jump intercessors don't have plasma guns in-game.

 

Honestly it's more a "I'm angry my models aren't doing what they used to" situation and me trying to offer a silver lining that for modellers you've gained creative license rather than lost it.

 

Again, I've lost units and loadouts to these changes the same as most.

Edited September 22, 2023 by Mogger351

[phandaal]

Just now, Mogger351 said:

But it's false representation to suggest that your modelling options are reduced because jump intercessors don't have plasma guns in-game.

 

They are reduced, though, if the boxes no longer have the bits.