Modelling, WYSIWYG and reduction in options

[Laeketh]

36 minutes ago, Schlitzaf said:

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.

I don't think you can confidently state there will never be confusion, as if they used to have options or other similar models have that option still, you can easily be confused and mistake a model for another.

 

If someone is used to seeing models with plasma pistols being played as a model with a plasma pistol and all of the sudden, they see models with plasma pistols not being played as models with plasma pistol, they may think that model has a plasma pistol in the list and change their mental calculation on what unit should be shooting at it or how dangerous it is etc.

 

If an opponent has to remember that your models have different weapons that what they are modeled with, they have more cognitive load, regardless of if they have only one legal loadout or not.  For me, it is easier to be able to look at a model and know what it has rules wise based on its modeled wargear.

[jaxom]

3 hours ago, Kallas said:

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.

 

Yep. For me it's about acknowledging the difference between what is model and how it's modeled. If I don't have to worry about choosing between the whats then I can focus on the how. The reason I get bogged down by the what is because my brain sorts that into the  list-building processing. I'm not a tournament player, but I do like to build lists where I'm not shooting myself in the foot, so this can cause analysis paralysis. Then I never get around to building the unit. Magnets have helped with this, but that's more stuff to track (do I have magnets in the house, are they the right size for this model, etc).

 

3 hours 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.

2 hours 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?

54 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).

 

I think it all goes back to the idea of cognitive load. In a world with no options, if I know the rules for an Assault Squad then it I never need to ask what weapons counts-as what if the squad is clearly an Assault Squad. In a world with option, are laser-nunchucks the Eviscerator or the power sword on the sergeant? Is that steampunk looking thing a plasmagun or a meltagun or flamer? Oh, the other slightly different looking steampunk thing is the meltagun? I think this becomes more a conversation of what good conversion-counts-as looks like rather than whatever arcane logic drives some of GW's kit decisions. We know kits come before rules, so it wasn't like the Design Team had a huge roll in taking the options out. I can understand taking out the ranged weapon options (it's an assault squad, why do they have long arm special weapons?), but I am boggled by taking out a 1-in-5 melee option. Maybe to really just make the design Assault Intercessors, but with JP? Seems like a waste if that is the case.

 

3 hours ago, Blindhamster said:

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

 

A lot of the recent marine kits and rules remind me of 3rd edition sensibilities.

 

[Kallas]

 

7 hours ago, Kallas said:

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.

42 minutes ago, Mogger351 said:

Is GW forcing you to build your models in any way more than they used to? No by Kallas own admission.

They are literally offering less options in the box. If all boxes reduce their options, which is the way they are trending, then all options are being reduced.

 

As I said, they are literally reducing options. That has impacts on what's available to use and what's available to play with. 

 

Edited September 22, 2023 by TrawlingCleaner
Removal of quoted

[Mogger351]

4 minutes ago, Kallas said:

 

They are literally offering less options in the box. If all boxes reduce their options, which is the way they are trending, then all options are being reduced.

 

As I said, they are literally reducing options. That has impacts on what's available to use and what's available to play with. 

 

WYSIWYG has existed for a long time, well before the modern tournament scene.

 

You are still allowed freedom to model what you want, and you have never been prevented from doing so, but if you bring a heap of Lascannons, Heavy Bolters and Plasma Cannons and then turn around and say some of them are Multi-meltas and some are Missile Launchers it gets weird and awkward. WYSIWYG was a reaction to that kind of thing to help people, y'know, "get" what they see rather than trying to memorise what their opponent is actually running.

 

But you go on with your crusade against "tournament" players who you think are all WAAC 

People convert, scratch built, kitbash, buy 3rd party components. Just because the box potentially doesn't come with those bits, it doesn't mean they magically cease to exist and can't be made/found elsewhere.

 

Imagine a game where those lascannons, heavy bolters and plasma cannons are now all "devastator weapons" suddenly WYSIWYG isn't a problem. That's the entire point of what I'm trying to say and exactly what they've done to assault squads.

 

Can we just draw a line under it and leave it as "It is sad that there are reduced wargear options and fewer bits in the box", then leave out the relative point about GW forcing you to build models in certain ways or modelers having reduced creativity as a result, as that takes back into the realm of mutually agreeable?

[Rhavien]

This has become a weird discussion. @BlindhamsterI also like to view things from both directions, but in some cases it just doesn't work.

@Mogger351 while I can't get behind your point, I also don't see any improvement from your point of view. The squad still isn't equipped uniformly. There is the odd plasmapistol as I've stated before and also the sergeant. You will have to tell me which of your mooks carries a plasma pistol or if there is any at all. Also you'll have to tell me if your sergeant has any special equipment of if he's bog standard. Is the jackhammer he is dragging along representing a powerfist, or also just a chainsword? In addition there are Vanguard veterans, which actually carry heirloom weapons. They also can have all sorts of pistols and stormshields. If you like to convert that heavily you will have to tell me what kind of unit I'm facing at all. And before you'll tell me that I'll know through the paintjob what kind of unit I'm facing please consider these points:

I'm proficient with BA and maybe regular codex Astartes squad markings. There are plenty more diverse chapters and you can't even expect knowing anything about that from a player which only plays Xenos or chaos. 

Second, you tell me that you run a heavily converted space marine army where your squads carry all kind of weapons they normally can't, but your paintjob is loyal to a specific chapter heraldry? 

I honestly don't even know why I'm so invested in this, but it irks me a lot if you say less is actually more. 

They even lost battlefield roles through this. The new ones won't go tank hunting any more at all. 

[Kallas]

2 minutes ago, Mogger351 said:

People convert, scratch built, kitbash, buy 3rd party components. Just because the box potentially doesn't come with those bits, it doesn't mean they magically cease to exist and can't be made/found elsewhere.

So what's the point in reducing options?? It doesn't make converting, scratch building, kitbashing or using third-party bits any more or less relevant, all it does is harm in-game creativity/preferences.

 

Also, kitbashing parts is significantly impacted if they are reducing the amount of bits you have available to use for kitbashing.

 

4 minutes ago, Mogger351 said:

Imagine a game where those lascannons, heavy bolters and plasma cannons are now all "devastator weapons" suddenly WYSIWYG isn't a problem. That's the entire point of what I'm trying to say and exactly what they've done to assault squads.

It'd be that way if they made them "Devastator Weapons" and then the box only comes with, say, Lascannons. Now you've got fewer options (in-game and hobby) to use for your models.

 

5 minutes ago, Mogger351 said:

then leave out the relative point about GW forcing you to build models in certain ways or modelers having reduced creativity as a result

But this is literally true. As I originally said:  

7 hours ago, Kallas said:

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.

The trend is that they are reducing the available options (both in-game on the datasheets, and in the box with what options you can build with); and the intent appears to be to control (or at least heavily influence) what people can build - they are angling more and more that models are monopose, they have less flexibility and choice in what arms/arm poses they can have, and so on. This is beyond just specific pieces of wargear, but that is still a part of it. New GW kits are very well detailed, absolutely, but they are significantly less conversion friendly than they used to be (and yes, before then when they were metal they weren't, but since plastic models became the norm they were generally much more conversion friendly with spare parts, weapon options, etc). There is an emphasis in newer GW kits (not just Marines) that have less customisation. AoS especially is very limited on options, and this kind of design is very evident in new 40k kits. 

 

But if you wanna stop talking about it, sure. We seem to be going in circles anyway.

 

21 minutes ago, danodan123 said:

So glad I read all the recent posts about the space marine codex previews :) 

It is related to the Jump Assault Intercessors, albeit tangentially 

[Schlitzaf]

30 minutes ago, Laeketh said:

I don't think you can confidently state there will never be confusion, as if they used to have options or other similar models have that option still, you can easily be confused and mistake a model for another.

 

If someone is used to seeing models with plasma pistols being played as a model with a plasma pistol and all of the sudden, they see models with plasma pistols not being played as models with plasma pistol, they may think that model has a plasma pistol in the list and change their mental calculation on what unit should be shooting at it or how dangerous it is etc.

 

If an opponent has to remember that your models have different weapons that what they are modeled with, they have more cognitive load, regardless of if they have only one legal loadout or not.  For me, it is easier to be able to look at a model and know what it has rules wise based on its modeled wargear.

 
I mean sure but look at the example I used. Kroot Carnivores, if I swap his Kroot Rifle bit for say a catachan lasgun with a knife or a specific example I did. Was I used a HotShotLas and a Gaurd Sword for one of my Kroot. Something that most folks wouldn’t take a second look at. But for marines atleast, I see sometbing :cuss: Intercessor, simplification as a great example of reducing 3 BoltRifle types down to 1. 
 

So I xan use the ABR bit because its mh favorite even if the unit something more like a backfield obj holder. And the other classic marine js the “Power Weapon” Diversity. I can use any power weapon I want aethesricallg and not worry which one is marginally better than the other

[TrawlingCleaner]

=][= I've split this topic away from the SM codex discussion as we're veering further and further away from the original topic. Keep things civil, you're entitled to your opinions as much as other frater =][=

[sarabando]

2 hours 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

we are on the 10th edition of a game that shares minis with a game on its second edition in a series with dozens of different weapons. You think people are going to remember every single loadout for every single unit in the game?  

you have units with chainswords, astartes chainswords, heavy chainswords. 

theres going to be loads of confusion. 

 

===================================

 

 

For me customisation is super important, if we strip everything back eventually we might aswell just play rock paper scissors in the carpark and not even go into the GW for a game (cheaper and quicker to play too) 

 

i tried to plan out a BT phobos armour army for a painting and modelling project and when i saw fixed loadouts and just how limited everything was i closed battle scribe and went right back to 30k. 

[gideon stargreave]

Interesting topic 

 

for me, as a veteran since 2nd I haven to say that at today’s army sizes, a lack of options is in my opinion much better. As someone else mentioned 3rd, that to me is the glory days of the game minus

 a handful of improvements over the next two editions( eg more chapter /craft world specific units). I loved it when I could just use pretty much any model with two weapons and a jump pack and say ‘assault marine’. Im absolutely not interested in load out

 options, and am happy to abstract that out further.

 

on the other hand, the kits are absolutely more restrictive now than they have been since the bad old days of 2nd ed plastics, which is a massive shame for the converter (but a bonus for the collector - which reminds me of oldhammer )

 

as an illustration of what I mean about paint one. This is a tactical marine 

[Schlitzaf]

No, and that not what I said. A Kroot using a simple weapon swap and a knife swap, for most folks wouldn’t raise an eyebrow. Because despite not being a kroot rifle, the options avaliable to Kroot Carnivore squads in terms of “cool” weapons are known. Every art or set piece of those units is just duders with guns.

 

And then as I said, I no longer need to fess over what gimmick power weapon to give my guys because they are all the same. And case of Phobos, you have a lot of customization. Ace has down Incursor-Infilitrator hybrids because how interchangable their appearance and loadouts for example. You could have one guy with a Firstborn Bolter holding a combat knife and it wouldn’t be out of place (my own infilitrators used the classic BT Upgrade Sprew Bolters instead of the Phobos ones). 

 

Its not matter of needing to know its matter of needing to recgonize. You seeing a set of 5 tacticus armored marines with chainsword and bolt pistols says “that an assault cessor squad”. If one duder has a weird looking melee weapon that not a hammer or fist, that most likely a power weapon and so on.

[Blindhamster]

2 hours ago, Kallas said:

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.

I assume yes, because apparently its hard to use legends, and reasonable opponents will be fine with either outside of tournaments.

 

plus side folks, at least its friday! TGIF :D

I'm going to try and get a game in this weekend with my son, hope others get some hobby time too

Edited September 22, 2023 by Blindhamster

[Kallas]

33 minutes ago, Blindhamster said:

I assume yes, because apparently its hard to use legends

That seems pretty disingenuous man, you said before:  

3 hours ago, Blindhamster said:

you just say "this is an assault squad". No more or less needed, other than possibly saying what the sergeant has.

but now you're saying that people are so totally unreasonable that they won't accept something with six extra words that takes two seconds to say, even though it's the exact same principle? Because the AS has other options available, now that person will have a problem with the counts-as?

 

The whole issue around wargear modelling not being accepted assumes a certain level of adherence to WYSIWYG anyway, and neither example (either no options and counts-as; or various options and counts-as) has any real difference - they both rely on the opponent being ok with the level of counts-as. The main reason WYSIWYG exists is to reduce confusion about what models have: if you give an Inceptor a Plasma Gun instead of a Plasma Exterminator, few people will even notice; but if you give them two Reaper Chaincannons and a Cyclone Missile Launcher they will likely be a bit confused (at least at first) about what it's meant to be.

 

Ultimately, units have wargear that is represented by the model, whether it's converted or not. To differing degrees people still need a kind of visual reference - if something is clearly converted and is readily distinct from something that might be similar (eg, you don't use the same kind of spear to represent chainswords as you do to represent a Power Fist) then most people won't have a problem with counts-as stuff. This is why things like 10e Vanguard Veterans are actually an example of GW making a mess, not streamlining: for most units in the Index, a Power Fist is a Power Fist, you know what you're getting; but on VV you see a Power Fist and...it's a fancy Chainsword. Or you see a Thunder Hammer and...it's a fancy Chainsword - these things don't match up to the expectation of what that wargear usually represents (and what it represents on other models in the same faction and even in the same list: that Intercessor Sergeant with a Power Fist hits harder than that VV because...reasons?).

 

So yeah. Modelled wargear is notable - it can be communicated clearly, both through modelling choices and through actual player communication, but it still comes back around that removing options from a unit doesn't really help make things better, especially when there are still options present just...less.

 

46 minutes ago, Blindhamster said:

apparently its hard to use legends

We can go into the Legends argument again if you want, I'm sure there are plenty of people willing to throw out lots of stereotypes about tournament players who'll help, but the point is that many people, including casual players, tend towards the most "official" rules - and while Legends is officially playable, it is still a 'side' set of datasheets which even though GW have said it's ok to use (but also had conflicting statements and in lots of different articles and stuff which just muddies the waters) people will still, in varying degrees, look askance at something that is more than just the core stuff. It's why Forgeworld was looked down upon for years; and even now people will lobby for its removal because it's "unbalanced" while ignoring 'core' units that are far worse (and FW units that are just plain bad).

 

But of course, I assume it's all because 'tournament players bad' according to some folks 

[Blindhamster]

Nah I get it, I was honestly being a bit tongue in cheek, because to me, all games are just a conversation and as I’ve said more than once on this topic, I am lucky enough that none of the issues people like to call out on here around wysiwyg or legends have been issues in my games for ages (years and years since I had any kind of issue around wysiwyg, and I’ve never had an issue with legends, I also never had issues with forgeworld when that was less commonly used).

 

But, clearly, for some people, your stance doesn’t apply on the idea that things are exactly the same for a unit with lots of options vs one with basically none when it comes to what’s fine and easy for counts as, because they genuinely feel it’ll simplify things with their groups. So the attitude you and some others have that they’re just incorrect, seems kinda weird to me, because if conversations are easy, then stuff like legends or even homebrew are easy, they’re no less official now, they’ve updated stuff and for all we know they’ll continue to do so.
 

Reasonable groups with reasonable players are great, because you can absolutely build models however you like and use whatever rules you like so long as you communicate. 
 

anyway, I’m going to attempt to be sensible and bow out of the conversation because to me, it literally doesn’t matter beyond a bit of a distraction from my day and I actually feel like I’m arguing against the original point that I actually agreed with, which was that the new assault marines don’t have as many options in terms of rules and presumably parts - and that sucks 

 

 

[jaxom]

1 hour ago, sarabando said:

we are on the 10th edition of a game that shares minis with a game on its second edition in a series with dozens of different weapons. You think people are going to remember every single loadout for every single unit in the game?  

you have units with chainswords, astartes chainswords, heavy chainswords. 

theres going to be loads of confusion. 

Modern GW isn't the same company that Andy Chambers worked for. The people that work on rules don't influence the design process. I think the people responsible for the what makes it into kits would point to what you typed and as see it as exactly why they're reducing options. They want people buying new kits. If one isn't going to buy new kits, " GW" probably doesn't care about if those folks keep playing 40k (either the most recent edition or not). They don't want options, they want lack of role redundancy. No anti-tank options in a unit means one has to buy a whole other kit to accomplish that goal. It pushes sales.

[phandaal]

1 hour ago, jaxom said:

Modern GW isn't the same company that Andy Chambers worked for. The people that work on rules don't influence the design process. I think the people responsible for the what makes it into kits would point to what you typed and as see it as exactly why they're reducing options. They want people buying new kits. If one isn't going to buy new kits, " GW" probably doesn't care about if those folks keep playing 40k (either the most recent edition or not). They don't want options, they want lack of role redundancy. No anti-tank options in a unit means one has to buy a whole other kit to accomplish that goal. It pushes sales.

 

Yeah, these changes are not driven by the model team or the rules team. These are definitely top-down decisions, along with the forced use of Power Levels.

 

Someone at GW wants customers to pick up a box, look at the outside of the box, and know they can put that thing in the picture into their army. And if the points change, people cannot just swap weapons around to take advantage of it. They have to go out and buy a whole new kit.

[roryokane]

1 hour ago, phandaal said:

 

Yeah, these changes are not driven by the model team or the rules team. These are definitely top-down decisions, along with the forced use of Power Levels.

 

Someone at GW wants customers to pick up a box, look at the outside of the box, and know they can put that thing in the picture into their army. And if the points change, people cannot just swap weapons around to take advantage of it. They have to go out and buy a whole new kit.

I think you;re right. Problem GW has is that Space Marines in particular are SUCH a big part of 40k, and firstborn in particular, that anyone who's been in the game from before 8th edition probably has a bitz box full of gubbins - meaning we can just... build what we want. I've got HUNDREDs of marines' worth of parts from the plastic command/sternguard/vanguard/assault/devastator/tactical/combat/bike squads, plus various vehicle crews (land speeders and tank gunners) along with older metal bits (and the old 2nd ed assault marines weapons sprues)...Younger players won't have that.
30k Is I think, their way of trying to massage the Firstborn into near monoform compliance hence the designof the new Mk VIs, which is why they've relegated pretty much everything from HH into legends (power armoured marines notwithstanding, and you can always use the terminators as their Indomitus pattern equivalents if they're equipped properly - doubt anyone would mind too much proxying a Reaper autocannon as an assault cannon). I mean, head swaps, weapon swaps, and shoulder pad options aside, we're going to see the firstborn range genuinely made less viable both for modelling and for gaming until they're basically all in 30k, or legends.

However, I suspect they will likely keep A firstborn unit around for a while yet (who knows, monopose Mk VIIs/VIIIs wouldn't be impossible) just as a "last men standing" from the Firstborn perspective. Or they'll use the meta to milk a few more purchases of Mk VIIs/MkVIIIs out of us before consigning them to history. :(

[Doghouse]

I'm a bit torn on this one. I think that while it does open modelling options which I think is great it's also making proxying a legitimate part of the game almost removing the need for wysiwyg all together which I am not so keen on. 

 

[DemonGSides]

I'd prefer they had MORE bits in the boxes; alternate heads, more shoulderpads, more accoutrements, more extra little bits, but I don't need each squad to have access to every single weapon that space marines use; tacticals should have this ability, but other squads having bespoke uses is favorable TO ME.  I will miss the eviscerators, only because two handed chainswords are dope as hell.  I have a few kicking around and will give them to a Jump Int regardless of the rules.

[Blindhamster]

From that perspective, something I DO like with the newer kits (including Horus heresy), is that they did expand (comparatively) on stuff like:

- there’s actually enough pouches for every model to get one

- there’s actually enough holsters/sheaths for every model to get one

- in the case of primaris kits they give enough bare heads for every model to have one, and usually have some variants for the helmets too (albeit less diverse than firstborn due to all being mkX still)

- whilst there’s fewer weapon options on a lot of them, there’s often a bunch of alternative arm poses 

- marine kits have been good for years with having shoulder pad variants included, primaris kits included

- lots of little spare bits to add bling if desired 

 

[MaximusTL]

So back when intercessors were first released, the sergeant could only take a chainsword because that a unit from the Dark Imperium box had one (IIRC, the multipart kit has none.) however, as they released chapter upgrade kits, we got more options (the salamanders had a thunderhammer, the imperial fists had a power fist, and the smurfs had a powersword) and now everyone can take all of them. fingers crossed GW puts out a multipart kit that has options for eviscerators and/or special weapons.

actually, while we're at it, standard intercessors should have access to a helix adept and a special weapon.

[Noserenda]

It got a bit wall of texty in the middle there but even if assault marines lost all options youd still have to explain that to us old grogs, a unit of all plasma pistols or some new fangled power scythe-chuck is entirely plausible these days and the marine dex was pretty unpleasant to use for a whole edition so we are a bit rusty :P 

Futhermore, as someone who does a lot of conversions, kitbashing and weird unit building its a basic courtesy to discuss your weird :cuss: with your opponent before a game no? You arent saving anything, just losing options and gaining nothing from that.

[jaxom]

3 hours ago, MaximusTL said:

So back when intercessors were first released, the sergeant could only take a chainsword because that a unit from the Dark Imperium box had one (IIRC, the multipart kit has none.) however, as they released chapter upgrade kits, we got more options (the salamanders had a thunderhammer, the imperial fists had a power fist, and the smurfs had a powersword) and now everyone can take all of them. fingers crossed GW puts out a multipart kit that has options for eviscerators and/or special weapons.

actually, while we're at it, standard intercessors should have access to a helix adept and a special weapon.

 

To the first part, yeah, those should just be standard sergeant weapon options in all units because the upgrade kits make it possible.

 

The second is a whole other conversation in my opinion.

 

2 hours ago, Noserenda said:

Futhermore, as someone who does a lot of conversions, kitbashing and weird unit building its a basic courtesy to discuss your weird with your opponent before a game no? You arent saving anything, just losing options and gaining nothing from that.

 

Correct, but the other side is recognizing that one is imposing extra cognitive load on one's opponent. The degree of that load will vary from person-to-person and conversion-to-conversion. For example, I have no trouble remembering these are Cataphrons

Spoiler

because the weapons are WYSIWYG and the silhouette is near-identical to the original model.

 

I don't have a lot of trouble remembering this

Spoiler

From Table Top Tactics Dark Mechanicum army

represents Belisarius Cawl because it's got the right bulk, enough arms to impress it's important and is the same type of archetype (mechanically monstrous human-insect thing). Meanwhile while I have a lot trouble remembering this is supposed to be a Dune Crawler

Spoiler

It looks really cool! But nothing really matches up with the original model. Don't get me wrong, I love opportunities to play against lovingly converted armies (they tend to look cool, and no one does a lot of conversions if they aren't lovingly emotionally invested in their little plastic dudes); but it can definitely add more energy I need to spend to play the game. The first time I did so it was against Tzeentch Chaos Squats at the local store and the guy (it's been years and I can't remember his name off hand) had a printed mini-dex to give to his opponents to help them keep track of everything. I think it's still floating around online. 

[Helias_Tancred]

On 9/22/2023 at 4:17 AM, 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'm sure in some meeting of the minds, GW has figured out this will be more profitable for them.

 

[Interrogator Stobz]

On 9/23/2023 at 6:54 AM, Blindhamster said:

Snip....

....the new assault marines don’t have as many options in terms of rules and presumably parts - and that sucks 

 

 

Now, this, apart from the last bit, is objective Fact.

 

Brother Mogger feels it frees him up. That is fact. His opinion is his truth.

His justification has been well explained. He can model how he likes a little easier now, that's on a scale, not a binary situation because we always could to some degree.

 

The other side of the discussion doesn't need to justify anything. There is no requirement as the objective fact doesn't change. There are less rules and plastic parts options available now.

Only the impact on the individual is really up for discussion. 

 

My humble Opinion is WYSIWYG is very important because I'm a visual kinda guy; and even if someone tells me something, if I see it later, I will likely forget what they said.

For example, I will never take a squad with visible Plasma pistols with Chainswords or flamers, and say they are all Bolt pistols and Chainswords. In holsters, pistols can be anything; in hand, it's WYSISWG for me.

 

I won't be converting my OG Marines ever again, too many Editions, too many changes.

All of my 28 Legend units will stay with their OG load out; GeeDubs disregard for OGs has made 40k not worth that much to me anymore.

I'll game with mates from time to time, as GeeDub said OGs can, but my Assault Marines won't 'Counts As' these new fellas, they'll keep their options.

Edited September 23, 2023 by Interrogator Stobz
Clarity and Commas lolz