Losing a sense of 'my guys' within the hobby. Anyone else?

[TheMawr]

1 hour ago, Iron Father Ferrum said:

 

In my experience, the preference for a stricter view of paint schemes and going by what a thing is named is mostly an older-school gamer ideology.  It's how we learned to play, it's what we know.  For me, I'm a very literal person.  I say what I mean and I interpret things how they're initially presented (I was considered quite gullible as a kid).  So if I walk into my LGS and see an army in Raven Guard colors and Raven Guard markings, the last thing I'd expect is for someone to say "my warlord is Uriel Ventris."  I wouldn't like it, and I wouldn't refuse to play that person. . . but I still think it's in poor taste.  Ventris' datasheet has the ULTRAMARINES keyword.  I've read however many novels about him where he's an Ultramarine.  He belongs in an army that is representing the Ultramarines.  Anything else offends that autistic part of my brain that wants everything just so.

 

 

Funnily I was under the impression myself that that stricter view of paint schemes and names was a newer-school gamer ideology As it seems mostly those who started in 2nd edition or before that are least rigid with it, and its especially those end of 7th/8th/9th players that are heavy on the <subfaction> ideology.

 

What you are saying emphasizes one thing, "Ventris datasheet has the ULTRAMARINES keyword." and therefore you have a problem if they proxy him as a ravenguard character.. I get what you mean, but the biggest problem there is actually the ultramarines keyword. That and ofcourse, that in a spacemarine example there is no need for it, as you can represent a ravenguard captain with the captain datasheet, meaning the choice for uriel ventris is often a "competitive" one. Other armies however do not have that luck.

 

But you also clarify something I was wondering, Ive noticed a lot of eldar players are relatively ok and used to count-as mentality and It seems to be something Imperium players clash with most.. and it actually makes sense as their named characters are very storied. I think people ( and I have to admit, myself included in a small dose ) would have more problems with a count-as-Abaddon than a count-as-Haarken worldclaimer, and the very difference between these is how much story exposure they have.

 

 

[Magos Takatus]

I must admit I feel like my army identity has been slowly encroached on for a while now, the wargear lists for characters being removed or severely hacked apart being one of the biggest offenders. Being able to build a character your way is a big appeal to me, and if I want a plasma pistol and a power axe on my captain I shouldn't have to sift through a boatload of redundant captain dataslates only to be told there is no model for that specific combo so there are no longer rules for it. The fact that a fistful of combi-weapon options have been trimmed down to "fancy gun" is disappointing, it feels like 11th edition is set to throw out weapon profiles entirely so we we have such choices as "Gun" and "Big Gun" and "Boom Gun". I'd love to say I'm joking but at this point it wouldn't surprise me. I was pretty shocked when I found out that my Meganobs could be equipped with Kombi-Skorchas but they were a low number of high-quality shots rather than having a reliable flamer option, effectively killing that weapon option. It's limited options for the unit rather than streamlining anything.

 

I'm not asking for a return to 2nd edition with a massive pile of wargear cards to shuffle through but at least making each faction's character models feel less cookie cutter would be nice. Eldar Exarchs are another model that has lost a lot of it's original flavour. Hopefully that can be fixed.

Edited March 20 by Magos Takatus

[The Spitehorde]

5 hours ago, Magos Takatus said:

I must admit I feel like my army identity has been slowly encroached on for a while now, the wargear lists for characters being removed or severely hacked apart being one of the biggest offenders.

 

Wargear lists for characters? What's that? 

 

*cries in World Eater*

 

 

 

 

 

 

[TheMawr]

49 minutes ago, The Spitehorde said:

 

Wargear lists for characters? What's that? 

 

*cries in World Eater*

 

 

 

What characters would you want wargear for ? You dont have any

 

 

:p

 

 

 

[Karak Norn Clansman]

It's a strange decision, but I view it all as a game of counts-as. So nevermind what you run your models as, they are yours and not some Catachans or Cadians. But I sure prefer generic units and if possible a fun doctrine system to build one's very own army without naming things after known regiments and factions.

 

Sandbox, please.

 

At least the naming convention with Catachans can be translated as light infantry and so on.

 

As for wargear, yes. It's more lacklustre now.

Edited March 20 by Karak Norn Clansman

[apologist]

11 hours ago, Iron Father Ferrum said:

The lack of real customization on units and characters hurts your ability to explore a theme that's different from the mainstream.

 

I think this really sums up the nub of the problem. Like @Timberley, @Iron Father Ferrum and others, I've found that the rules often get in the way of connecting the lore to the tabletop – and while that's sometimes been the case in previous editions, it's more prevalent in the latest edition.

 

+ Inconsistency +

I don't think that it's necessarily a problem that rules do or don't make things 'special', but rather that the options that do exist are inconsistently restricted, and often mutually exclusive, which cuts down on the ability to customise things.

 

I understand that the principle behind this is to avoid abusive combinations (the infamous cameleoline Assassin in Terminator Armour on a bike), and I think that's a good aim, overall. However, I don't think that GW have quite hit the sweet spot between restricting players from abusing the rules, and allowing players to meaningfully personalise their armies.

 

Even things like weapons are often needlessly classified. Why do some datasheets have 'sword' rather than the more generic 'close combat weapon'? Why are some things specified, and other things not? 

 

+++

 

+ Guard example +

There are a few aspects to this. My main objection is that lore is inconsistently and arbitrarily muddled with rules. The Guard Codex is a perfect example of this – it feels really odd that there's a generic Imperial Guard infantry squad that can be assigned your own Regiment name; while the Catachan Jungle Fighters, Cadian Shock Troops and Death Korps Veterans, are picked out as specialist units. That just sits wrong, particularly as there aren't equivalent supporting units (like Command or Heavy Weapon equivalents), even where models for them exist.

 

Had those units been given more generic titles – for example 'Deathworld Veterans', 'Shock Troops' and 'Hardened Veterans', for example, there wouldn't have been any crossover of the use of planet names – and players like @Timberley and myself would have quite happily made (say) Cadian-themed Hardened Veterans, or Death Korps Shock Troops.

 

Of course, there's nothing stopping us doing exactly that – but it can create a barrier between you and your opponent. When fielding your Catachan models, there's an unnecessary awkwardness in explaining which models are 'Catachan Jungle Fighters' and thus have accompanying special rules, and which are normal Infantry squads/command squads/etc. with the 'Catachan Jungle Fighter' keyword – which doesn't interact with the 'Catachan Jungle Fighter' keyword on the Catachan Jungle Fighters. 

[Karak Norn Clansman]

Yeah, this is the brunt of Games Workshop shifting over army lists to be beginner friendly by only corresponding to wargear in kits. But by diluting the lovely customization, they are also diluting much of the intriguing fun for beginners once they are no longer fresh and green, but has gotten into the game and would be ready to tweak and build more after their own mind.

 

I predict a pendulum swing back toward customization in due time. If nothing else than because GW wanting to digest all the fresh blood and keep them hooked with all the usual hobby fun of building your own army list and customizing your own units and characters outside of the mainstream. These options give flavour.

 

The setup at the moment is more restrictive and keeping people in their box. Which goes contrary to the freewheeling customization that will always be a vibrant part of this fun hobby.

Edited March 20 by Karak Norn Clansman

[The Spitehorde]

49 minutes ago, apologist said:

Of course, there's nothing stopping us doing exactly that – but it can create a barrier between you and your opponent. When fielding your Catachan models, there's an unnecessary awkwardness in explaining which models are 'Catachan Jungle Fighters' and thus have accompanying special rules, and which are normal Infantry squads/command squads/etc. with the 'Catachan Jungle Fighter' keyword – which doesn't interact with the 'Catachan Jungle Fighter' keyword on the Catachan Jungle Fighters. 

 

This ^^^^

 

Constantly having to ask my opponent what's what (same as those who don't go down the WYSIWYG route) can be a tad wearing. 

 

"oh right, so those aren't in fact Catachan jungle fighters they're Cadians, and those flamers are in fact Plasma guns, and those chainswords are in fact power weapons"

 

I don't find it at all fun to play against armies which have a lot of those shenanigans going on. 

 

 

Edited March 20 by The Spitehorde

[apologist]

1 hour ago, Karak Norn Clansman said:

Yeah, this is the brunt of Games Workshop shifting over army lists to be beginner friendly by only corresponding to wargear in kits. But by diluting the lovely customization, they are also diluting much of the intriguing fun for beginners once they are no longer fresh and green, but has gotten into the game and would be ready to tweak and build more after their own mind.

 

The irony for 10th edition being, of course, that they've got a beginner-friendly fixed format in Combat Patrol. An ideal solution for me would be to have that format abstracting out details –  very few options, fixed loadouts, weapons being simplified to 'combi-weapon' etc. – and for the main game to bring back some meat for list-building.

 

As another poster pointed out elsewhere, there's a lot of fun to be had in planning – and we as a community spend far more time thinking about and realising our ideas through building and painting than we do playing.

 

[DemonGSides]

1 hour ago, The Spitehorde said:

 

This ^^^^

 

Constantly having to ask my opponent what's what (same as those who don't go down the WYSIWYG route) can be a tad wearing. 

 

"oh right, so those aren't in fact Catachan jungle fighters they're Cadians, and those flamers are in fact Plasma guns, and those chainswords are in fact power weapons"

 

I don't find it at all fun to play against armies which have a lot of those shenanigans going on. 

 

If only the game had you write out a list of what army you're bringing to the game.

 

If only!

 

I don't think this is as much of a worry as you make it out to be. I literally have no idea what any of the different eldar, necron, Tau, Tyranid or really any xenos races weapons look like.  It's never been a problem in a decade of playing. I ask "What is the use for that unit?" And that solves 99% of any other question you could really wanna know.

 

It's a imperial problem, not a game problem. The imperial weapons are so bespoke to such a large portion of the hobby, that they can tell the difference.  But if you ask me to point out the shuriken cannon in a line up of weapons, I'm not gonna have any idea, let alone the various different appendage weapons something like a tyranid can have.

 

If asking questions of your opponent in a game like this is too onerous, you may be looking for a different type of game. This one is very social. 

[The Spitehorde]

50 minutes ago, DemonGSides said:

 

If only the game had you write out a list of what army you're bringing to the game.

 

If only!

 

I don't think this is as much of a worry as you make it out to be. I literally have no idea what any of the different eldar, necron, Tau, Tyranid or really any xenos races weapons look like.  It's never been a problem in a decade of playing. I ask "What is the use for that unit?" And that solves 99% of any other question you could really wanna know.

 

It's a imperial problem, not a game problem. The imperial weapons are so bespoke to such a large portion of the hobby, that they can tell the difference.  But if you ask me to point out the shuriken cannon in a line up of weapons, I'm not gonna have any idea, let alone the various different appendage weapons something like a tyranid can have.

 

If asking questions of your opponent in a game like this is too onerous, you may be looking for a different type of game. This one is very social. 

 

Nobody is going to get the hump if it's just the odd weapon or unit type that isn't WYSIWYG, but when a large proportion of the army isn't then it can get annoying. I'm not sure what your point about lists is because you're still going to have to ask what's what on the table, as @apologist illustrated so well with the Catachan example. The problem is compounded in armies that can be very infantry heavy, such as Guard. Could you accurately remember all the details of 10+ infantry units that aren't what the models are, and don't have the weapons that the models do?

 

Edited March 20 by The Spitehorde

[DemonGSides]

41 minutes ago, The Spitehorde said:

 

Nobody is going to get the hump if it's just the odd weapon or unit type that isn't WYSIWYG, but when a large proportion of the army isn't then it can get annoying. I'm not sure what your point about lists is because you're still going to have to ask what's what on the table, as @apologist illustrated so well with the Catachan example. The problem is compounded in armies that can be very infantry heavy, such as Guard. Could you accurately remember all the details of 10+ infantry units that aren't what the models are, and don't have the weapons that the models do?

 

If their owner can, yes, so can I.  There's 0 need to memorize anything, there's a list made that I can check and ask if I'm confused on something.  Are you not providing a list to your opponents?

 

If they can't keep it straight, well, then they're cheating and I probably won't continue making game plans with them.  Problem solved. 

 

Like I said, a little social magic goes a long way.

[The Spitehorde]

Of course I provide a list to my opponent, and what's on the list is what they see on the table. 

 

If your army is chock full of units that aren't what they appear to be then your opponent has to put in more work mentally because of your decision. Is that fair on them? No. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[DemonGSides]

Unless it's a tournament where speed and precision is the point, I don't see the issue with some counts as. It's a game and an expensive one at that, so no biggie.

 

We just have different levels of grace to give others, I guess. It's not that mentally taxing, it's not rocket science we are asked to do.

[Noserenda]

I think you might be imagining some level of Wysiwyg avoidance that really doesnt exist*, ive fought buckets of proxy armies over the years and they are invariably fairly consistent about whats what. Though tbf i do a fair bit myself, and arguably the worst offender ive seen are my own Iron warrior tactical squads who are all tooled up as trench raiders with buckets of extra gear :D  

Guard are especially easy honestly, seeing as most of their armaments are pretty weeny and irrelevant!

*Outside of some practice games with unbought models and the like, which are typically not with strangers 

[The Spitehorde]

Some counts-as is fine (I thought I made that fairly clear earlier?). A lot is not when you have the same type of units on the table portraying completely different types of units on the list. 

 

You're right, we have different levels of grace to give others. There's enough to remember about playing 40K as there is, so why would you want to make life more difficult for others if you don't have to? I'll leave the science for Monday to Friday, when I get paid for it 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[The Spitehorde]

13 minutes ago, Noserenda said:

Though tbf i do a fair bit myself, and arguably the worst offender ive seen are my own Iron warrior tactical squads who are all tooled up as trench raiders with buckets of extra gear :D  

 

I'm guessing you don't turn up with 10 identical tactical squads, then point to each one in turn saying "that one is bladeguard vets", "that one is devastators", "that one is a scout squad" etc etc, which is the point i'm trying to make. 

 

Mind you, doing it that way would save a fortune on buying more plastic crack 

Edited March 20 by The Spitehorde

[DemonGSides]

Yeah, I just don't think that actually happens.  Those people would be pretty soundly ostracized from any in store group based on what's been talked about on here, and if it's just a buddy as part of your routine group, then having the conversation with them that they've gotta put a little more effort in should be relatively easy.

[TheMawr]

3 hours ago, The Spitehorde said:

 

Nobody is going to get the hump if it's just the odd weapon or unit type that isn't WYSIWYG, but when a large proportion of the army isn't then it can get annoying. I'm not sure what your point about lists is because you're still going to have to ask what's what on the table, as @apologist illustrated so well with the Catachan example. The problem is compounded in armies that can be very infantry heavy, such as Guard. Could you accurately remember all the details of 10+ infantry units that aren't what the models are, and don't have the weapons that the models do?

 

 

But this makes it sound to me that the "40k losing the sense of my guys being my guys" is not because of the game, the edition or GW... but rather its mostly the (changed) attitude of a big part of the fanbase/players.

 

 

5 hours ago, The Spitehorde said:

 

Constantly having to ask my opponent what's what (same as those who don't go down the WYSIWYG route) can be a tad wearing. 

 

"oh right, so those aren't in fact Catachan jungle fighters they're Cadians, and those flamers are in fact Plasma guns, and those chainswords are in fact power weapons"

 

I don't find it at all fun to play against armies which have a lot of those shenanigans going on. 

 

 

 

Thats not what people advocating a count-as attitude for personalisation mean ( I know I dont), in fact what you describe has very little to do with the topic of making your guys really your guys, because you make catachans into cadians, the latter already being an option to begin with so its a rather nonsensical move and indeed confusing for the opponent, if you like the catachan models more than the cadians.. you can actually play them as catachans as they have rules... it ofcourse can be that catachans have worse rules than cadians, things like that have always been there however and are definitely not a "your guys not being your guys" problem, nor a recent one.

 

More appropiate would be; You want your squads of world eaters bikers ( I just keep rubbing salt, but I do it with love and understanding :p) lead by a Lord on chaos bike.. problem.. there is no WE lord on a chaos bike, but the juggernaut lord can lead bikers. And here the solution is the count-as attitude; You take the Outrider captain and use it* count-as a juggernaut lord. There shouldnt really be confusion because 1. The only character able to lead the bikers is the juggernaut lord and 2. the outrider captain is not a normal option in a world eaters list.

Voila.. you made the juggernaut lord "your guy"

 

 

* convert and paint ofcourse, after all, its an important element of "your guys"

 

editted addition :

 

And it actually gets even better if there is a limit on the weapon options.  Say you want the outrider captain equipped with a dead horse for melee and a gun that shoots small angry epic legion imperiales marines as bullets. Obviously, you cant expect there are rules for it, despite it being not even that out of flavor for a berzerker riding a bike, despite the exageration.

 

If your Lord options had for example a Power hammer, Power maul, Chainsword, Chainaxe, relic chainsword, ancient powersword and powersword for a weapon.. it gets complicated fast. Is the choice only between Blunt weapon and Slash weapon it becomes obvious.. a dead horse is obviously a blunt weapon.

And it then doesnt matter if that single blunt weapon has the name power hammer or Skull maul or Blunt object on the datasheet... its the one blunt weapon that covers all blunt weapons.

 

On the ranged weapon, if there is 3 type of bolters, a shotgun, autopistol, a laser weapon, a missile weapon and 3 type of heat weapons this again hurts the viability of your-guys freedom. But is the choice more limited between Bolter (projectile), Fusion (beam) and Flamer (torrent), then the simplicity creates freedom.

 

In short when striking a proper balance with options you can walk from the limiting WYSIWYG towards a more free WCCIWYG.

 

Admittedly GW wouldnt be GW is they didnt push those things too far, but, that is another topic.

 

And ofcourse in the end, this is all subjective anyway, as befits a "my guys" topic really.. and the biggest reason I post it is because I already typed it XD

Edited March 20 by TheMawr

[Timberley]

On 3/19/2024 at 10:36 PM, jaxom said:

 

GW's been making a lot of decisions lately to stress their intellectual property which is why we didn't get generic unit names.

 

I think what you've talked about shows why it's more important than ever to have an idea of who 'your guys' are. You talk about having the 333rd Terrisinian having Elite Infantry and Tanks. Okay, what tells me those models are from the same regiment? What tells me the 295th Morganthan Rifles' Sentinels are from a different regiment than the tanks? You've already picked out some conversion ideas, but why did you choose those models? Even if it's just because they're cool, how can you tie it into the narrative about the regiment?

 

How has their world or combat doctrine impacted both infantry and armour? Or one, but not the other?

 

I kind feel like that's missing the forest for the trees. Sure, rules can inspire who Your Dudes are going to be, but it can go both ways. You say pistols and ccws are for feral worlders, but it also covers high-tech duelists armed with vibro-blades and pulse pistols. For the former, 40k is in a drought right now for the former, but for the latter it's the same as it ever was.

 

Hey @jaxom - As things currently stand, it's the models selected for those particular regiments, and their colour schemes that mark them as different from each other.  Within my own lore (tied to my subsector that the Dusk Falcons are part of), they're regiments that come from very different worlds (the 333rd Terrisinian coming from a Feudal World, the 295th from a desert Mining World).  My 'sadness' (for lack of a better word to hand) is more that whilst I have the lore, paint scheme, models, etc. of my regiments (and chapter, warband, et al) there's not really a way to have their particular fighting style be reflected within the rules as a 'regiment rule' or similar.

 

20 hours ago, Iron Father Ferrum said:

I totally understand the increasingly-common concept, voiced in this thread, that the lack of hard-coded identification is a good thing.  It's not a terrible idea, and I even utilized the concept back in 5th Edition when my Iron Hands didn't have a named character that triggered a change to how the army functioned.  So I used a black-painted Lysander and played as "counts-as" (which was the term en vogue at the time).  I understand it, I tried it (briefly!), but I didn't like it then.

 

And I still don't like it now.

 

In my experience, the preference for a stricter view of paint schemes and going by what a thing is named is mostly an older-school gamer ideology.  It's how we learned to play, it's what we know.  For me, I'm a very literal person.  I say what I mean and I interpret things how they're initially presented (I was considered quite gullible as a kid).  So if I walk into my LGS and see an army in Raven Guard colors and Raven Guard markings, the last thing I'd expect is for someone to say "my warlord is Uriel Ventris."  I wouldn't like it, and I wouldn't refuse to play that person. . . but I still think it's in poor taste.  Ventris' datasheet has the ULTRAMARINES keyword.  I've read however many novels about him where he's an Ultramarine.  He belongs in an army that is representing the Ultramarines.  Anything else offends that autistic part of my brain that wants everything just so.

 

Getting to OP's real question, though: yes, I do think there's a bit of personalization missing.  Making everything as generic and rigid as possible makes the game more easily balanced, which is a noble goal foisted upon us by the comparatively ignoble idea of catering the game to the tournament crowd.  The lack of real customization on units and characters hurts your ability to explore a theme that's different from the mainstream.  Sorry to say, people like you & I are no longer GW's preferred market for 40K (though some of that is still present in the Heresy rules from what I understand).

 

Now.  All that being said, my golden rule of the hobby still applies: they're your models, you can do what you want with them.

 

I think we're of similar mind there @Iron Father Ferrum.  I've been led to believe that HH has some elements of 'old school' GW within it that may be good for my Guard regiments.

 

Sorry I've not replied to most of you who've been engaging in this debate, I've been working in the middle of nowhere for a wee while.  It's been interesting reading all of the responses.

 

Overall, my thoughts boil down to; with the current edition, I can create elaborate lore for my various armies (or use the in-game stuff in the case of Farsight), paint up my models (badly), and so on, yet there's nothing I can use as a universal rule to show 'my guys' adopt a doctrine similar to 'X' named chapter/regiment/etc. (being more sneaky as RG successors, having more Farseers/Warlocks as Ulthwé, and so on) that plays out no matter which 'detachment' I select.  The Uriel Ventris example is one way where the named character (and his ties to the Ultramarines) provides a rule that'd be perfect for my Falcons (and the main RG), but I can't take it (in my mind anyway) because they're not Ultramarines.

 

If GW want to continue down the unit cards route, I think it'd be great to have officers/character archetypes be able to pick a single rule from a list that's printed on the card (and the full rules blurb/effects are in the Codex).  As the rules are on the cards, it wouldn't matter which chapter used them, and thus make them applicable to 'your guys'.  If you want to use the named characters, then they come with their rules (which may not be the same as one on the generic character list).  You could argue that people (particularly in tournament play) will field a list of characters that have the best combination of rules, but that's getting towards the competitive end of the player spectrum anyway.  What's everyone's thoughts on that as a sort of mid-way solution?

 

Going back to the Guard, and kind of looking for clarification on @DemonGSides point-of-view here; let's say I turned up with a list that included the following models (to go with my example regiments in my OP):

 

- Solar Auxilia Tactical Command Squad - counts as Platoon Command Squad - 333

- 20x Solar Auxilia - counts as Death Korps of Krieg Infantry Squad - 333

- Aethon Pattern Heavy Sentinel - counts as Armoured Sentinel - 333

- 10x Van Saar Gang - counts as Catachan Jungle Fighters - 295

- 3x Van Saar Arachni-rig - counts as Scout Sentinels - 295

- 10x Tempestus Scions - painted like the Solar Auxilia, but still Scions

- 5x Converted Kerberys (Van Saar riders) - counts as Attlian Rough Riders - 295

- 5x Van Saar Archeoteks & Champions - counts as Kasrkin - 295

- 1x Dracosan - counts as Chimera - 333

- 10x DKOK Engineers - counts as Infantry Squad (Mole Launcher is a mortar) - 270

 

In reality, this is only 3 regiments in my subsector lore: the 333rd Terrisinian Fusiliers; the 295th Morganthan Rifles; and the 270th Kheriban Armoured Regiment.  Would this feel confusing and/or odd?

Edited March 20 by Timberley
Formatting!

[Primarch Betalio]

On 3/18/2024 at 9:09 PM, Timberley said:

Hi all,

 

Recently, I got the Solar Auxilia box with the intent of finally creating an Imperial Guard army to complement the others I have (Farsight Enclaves, my custom chapter, a Chaos warband).  It'd be easy enough right?  I'd have the Auxilia as a mechanised regiment (333rd Terrisinan Fusiliers), using Tempestus Scions as their Elite Infantry, with Leman Russes, maybe a Rogal Dorn, and some artillery.  They'd be supported by a light infantry regiment of converted Van Saars (295th Morganthan Rifles) with Sentinel support (converted Arachni-rigs), and some Rough Riders (converted Serberys) which would be their scouts and infiltrators.

 

Then, finally going through the IG Index, I realised that General Purpose Rough Riders, GP Scout-types, and so on don't exist (I should point out that the last time I checked our IG as an army was around 3rd Edition - I have some old OG Stormtroopers amongst my minis).  The Index leans towards you taking units from named Regiments (Cadian, Catachan, etc.), rather than creating a comprehensive force of 'your guys' that fulfil the same requirements.  Is their intention that you build up 'your guys' then use 'counts as' for rules purposes?  If so, why not just have GP units and a 'Named Regiment' keyword that gives you a slightly different rule for taking that Regiment (like a Chaos Mark or similar)?  

 

I watched a couple of videos on tournament lists, and saw that a lot of them include all of the following; Lord Solar, Ursula Creed, Cadian Command Squads, Cadian Shock Troops, Catachan Jungle Fighters, Gaunt's Ghosts, and a Tank Commander in a Demolisher.  Apart from Gaunt being knackered from being in so many places at once, why can't the Cadians have a scout unit that fulfils the same purpose (like the old Cadian Scout-snipers)?  Similarly, why can't the Catachan have a Command Squad that uses their 'Jungle Fighters' rule (the models exist)?

 

When I finalised the Dusk Falcons in 8th, I could pick things from the Raven Guard supplement that made them feel more like a RG successor.  In 10th Edition, the only way to do this is to take the Vanguard Spearhead.  That said, top tier Marine lists were Ultramarines with their characters and an infiltrating block of Aggressors with Calgar, and Ventris deep striking a block of Centurions, using the Vanguard Spearhead (proving that, as always, the Raven Guard way of battle is the superior option)... So, what's the point of taking a Raven Guard successor when the poster boys can do the same thing, but better?  Also, why can't I have a Raven Guard-type enhancement for an officer (Lt/Captain) that allows me the same thing as Ventris' ability?

 

In a similar vein, I'd just started painting up 'The Eight' for my T'au Farsight Enclaves army, and they've just dropped the new Crisis suits updates, which means that two of the loadouts for members of the Eight are now illegal in tournament play. They've also removed the Iridium Suit and the Onager Gauntlet (both of which were in Bravestorm's loadout), which were some quirky wargear that they could use and made them stand out.  I'm quietly surprised they've kept the rule that if you have Farsight you can't have Ethereals, though I'm also surprised that they're allowing Shadowsun to be taken with Farsight.

 

In conclusion, I think we're losing things that make 'your guys' personal, in preference for having everything fit neatly into currently released miniatures and named Detachments that can be easily adjusted (usually with a nerf hammer).  Things like chapter relics, regimental rules, etc. that make things 'fluffier' and allow for some personalisation (and maybe some meta combos), don't feel like they exist any more.

 

Would the panel agree, or is there something I'm missing here?

That's due to the hobby leaning towards the competitive side more, I'm.from late 8th/early 9th and I feel like they've been removing the sandbox ambience of it

[DemonGSides]

35 minutes ago, Timberley said:

If GW want to continue down the unit cards route, I think it'd be great to have officers/character archetypes be able to pick a single rule from a list that's printed on the card (and the full rules blurb/effects are in the Codex).  As the rules are on the cards, it wouldn't matter which chapter used them, and thus make them applicable to 'your guys'.  If you want to use the named characters, then they come with their rules (which may not be the same as one on the generic character list).  You could argue that people (particularly in tournament play) will field a list of characters that have the best combination of rules, but that's getting towards the competitive end of the player spectrum anyway.  What's everyone's thoughts on that as a sort of mid-way solution?

 

Going back to the Guard, and kind of looking for clarification on @DemonGSides point-of-view here; let's say I turned up with a list that included the following models (to go with my example regiments in my OP):

 

- Solar Auxilia Tactical Command Squad - counts as Platoon Command Squad - 333

- 20x Solar Auxilia - counts as Death Korps of Krieg Infantry Squad - 333

- Aethon Pattern Heavy Sentinel - counts as Armoured Sentinel - 333

- 10x Van Saar Gang - counts as Catachan Jungle Fighters - 295

- 3x Van Saar Arachni-rig - counts as Scout Sentinels - 295

- 10x Tempestus Scions - painted like the Solar Auxilia, but still Scions

- 5x Converted Kerberys (Van Saar riders) - counts as Attlian Rough Riders - 295

- 5x Van Saar Archeoteks & Champions - counts as Kasrkin - 295

- 1x Dracosan - counts as Chimera - 333

- 10x DKOK Engineers - counts as Infantry Squad (Mole Launcher is a mortar) - 270

 

In reality, this is only 3 regiments in my subsector lore: the 333rd Terrisinian Fusiliers; the 295th Morganthan Rifles; and the 270th Kheriban Armoured Regiment.  Would this feel confusing and/or odd?

 

I think the transition to the new style datatcards definitely has some growing pains, but I don't think the system is bad.  I think it's extremely early to write off such a system in its infancy, but I get some people have more tolerance.

That list is freaking sick and I think all of that is legit; you've got obvious designations for things, and looks nothing like the fabricated worry that people above have over concern for WYSIWYG. eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeThe only minor concern I would have is the DKOK squad not being a DKOK squad WHILE running a DKOK squad in game, but I think as long as you're very obvious about it up front and stick to it, there's no real worry. I've thought about grabbing the Solar Auxilia box to run as Infantry Squads (With some 3D printed additions for the HWS and specialty weapons) and the fancy Leman Russ as my Tank Commander, and maybe running the Atheon sometime as a Sentinel (I have a regular sentinel, and probably would run that as a Scout Sentinel).

As long as all of the above things are on the "Correct" (There's even some wiggle room there) sized base or bigger, and the model is in roughly the same size range, I don't really have an issue with any Counts-As.  I don't really see why anyone would; there's plenty of reasons why you would need to do such a thing, so why bother worrying.  This is all, of course, under the auspices of it not being a tournament; if you're playing in a competitive tournament, you should be running WYSIWYG because there ease of knowledge and being able to judge things extremely quickly and at a glance is paramount, whereas a random game in the store or with your buddies or BeerHammer, give some grace to your co-players because probably some day you're gonna need some grace too.  That outlook has done me well, in Warhammer and in life!

[The Spitehorde]

2 hours ago, TheMawr said:

Thats not what people advocating a count-as attitude for personalisation mean ( I know I dont), in fact what you describe has very little to do with the topic of making your guys really your guys, because you make catachans into cadians, the latter already being an option to begin with so its a rather nonsensical move and indeed confusing for the opponent, if you like the catachan models more than the cadians.. you can actually play them as catachans as they have rules... it ofcourse can be that catachans have worse rules than cadians, things like that have always been there however and are definitely not a "your guys not being your guys" problem, nor a recent one.

 

I've played against someone at the FLGS who has done precisely that. The whole army was Steel Legion themed (and yes, it looked damn good), but it was a PITA to keep track of which unit on the table was running as which unit in the Index. When you've got big mass of infantry units that look exactly the same but are being played to different data sheets from the Index (4 as Cadian shock troops, 4 as DKOK, and 2 as Kasrkin IIRC) it gets quite messy, and after a while (and not a long while at that), it becomes quite wearing asking which unit is playing as what. 

 

2 hours ago, TheMawr said:

 

More appropiate would be; You want your squads of world eaters bikers ( I just keep rubbing salt, but I do it with love and understanding :p) lead by a Lord on chaos bike.. problem.. there is no WE lord on a chaos bike, but the juggernaut lord can lead bikers. And here the solution is the count-as attitude; You take the Outrider captain and use it* count-as a juggernaut lord. There shouldnt really be confusion because 1. The only character able to lead the bikers is the juggernaut lord and 2. the outrider captain is not a normal option in a world eaters list.

Voila.. you made the juggernaut lord "your guy"

 

That's one mini subbing for another. I don't have any problems with that. I'd only have an issue if that one type of mini was representing multiple different datasheets.

 

Oh, and you can pile the salt on as much as you like. I've got to the point where I just have to laugh at what GW have done to World Eaters  

 

2 hours ago, TheMawr said:

And it actually gets even better if there is a limit on the weapon options.  Say you want the outrider captain equipped with a dead horse for melee and a gun that shoots small angry epic legion imperiales marines as bullets. Obviously, you cant expect there are rules for it, despite it being not even that out of flavor for a berzerker riding a bike, despite the exageration.

 

If your Lord options had for example a Power hammer, Power maul, Chainsword, Chainaxe, relic chainsword, ancient powersword and powersword for a weapon.. it gets complicated fast. Is the choice only between Blunt weapon and Slash weapon it becomes obvious.. a dead horse is obviously a blunt weapon.

And it then doesnt matter if that single blunt weapon has the name power hammer or Skull maul or Blunt object on the datasheet... its the one blunt weapon that covers all blunt weapons.

 

Sheesh, don't give GW ideas! They've already dumbed things down as it is

 

2 hours ago, TheMawr said:

On the ranged weapon, if there is 3 type of bolters, a shotgun, autopistol, a laser weapon, a missile weapon and 3 type of heat weapons this again hurts the viability of your-guys freedom. But is the choice more limited between Bolter (projectile), Fusion (beam) and Flamer (torrent), then the simplicity creates freedom.

 

Same as above. 

 

2 hours ago, TheMawr said:

 

In short when striking a proper balance with options you can walk from the limiting WYSIWYG towards a more free WCCIWYG.

 

Admittedly GW wouldnt be GW is they didnt push those things too far, but, that is another topic.

 

And ofcourse in the end, this is all subjective anyway, as befits a "my guys" topic really.. and the biggest reason I post it is because I already typed it XD

 

It's intrinsically linked to the "my guys" topic.

 

Edited March 21 by The Spitehorde

[The Spitehorde]

1 hour ago, Timberley said:

Going back to the Guard, and kind of looking for clarification on @DemonGSides point-of-view here; let's say I turned up with a list that included the following models (to go with my example regiments in my OP):

 

- Solar Auxilia Tactical Command Squad - counts as Platoon Command Squad - 333

- 20x Solar Auxilia - counts as Death Korps of Krieg Infantry Squad - 333

- Aethon Pattern Heavy Sentinel - counts as Armoured Sentinel - 333

- 10x Van Saar Gang - counts as Catachan Jungle Fighters - 295

- 3x Van Saar Arachni-rig - counts as Scout Sentinels - 295

- 10x Tempestus Scions - painted like the Solar Auxilia, but still Scions

- 5x Converted Kerberys (Van Saar riders) - counts as Attlian Rough Riders - 295

- 5x Van Saar Archeoteks & Champions - counts as Kasrkin - 295

- 1x Dracosan - counts as Chimera - 333

- 10x DKOK Engineers - counts as Infantry Squad (Mole Launcher is a mortar) - 270

 

That's the kind of "counts as" list I have zero problems with. Each is a direct substitution. One type of unit on the table being played as one type of unit from the Index/Codex.

[TheMawr]

40 minutes ago, The Spitehorde said:

 

That's the kind of "counts as" list I have zero problems with. Each is a direct substitution. One type of unit on the table being played as one type of unit from the Index/Codex.

 

Disagree.. and so do you actually.

 

No @Timberley most of it looks reasonable, I just dont get why you would use Dkok as Infantry squad and Solar auxilia as Dkok... I would definitely switch those around, as that can be confusing real fast... Solar auxilia as Dkok wouldnt be a problem if you didnt also have Dkok in the army.

And personally I feel van saar in general ( so not just the characters) fit kasrkin better, but thats more a taste thing. Van saar have a varied equipment elite specialist look to them wich I think comes better across in the game trough kasrkin.