PDA

View Full Version : I miss armouries



Lord Asuryan
11-03-2009, 16:30
It's pretty obvious by now that GW are done with armouries. what I'm wondering is does anyone else miss them? they may have been confusing, broken at times, but they allowed players to customize their characters to a massive extent. nowadays, there's only three or so 'good' character setups per character, and next to no originality needed. some books in particular need an armoury IMO-maybe not marines, as they're pretty uniform, and they get too much attention already, but definately CSM (anyone miss those daemonic gifts and highly unique god-specific armouries?) eldar (supposed to be highly individualised beings, yet there's so little in the way of character variation it's not funny, dark eldar (OK, not phased out YET, but they will be) and even orks and nids.

Maybe they were difficult to balance, but with a little work, GW could have given us balanced, yet unique characters. sadly, they took the easy way out.

Anyone else feel this way, or am I just crazy?

Phunting
11-03-2009, 16:31
I agree. Another nail in the coffin of variation for this game...

Forlorn
11-03-2009, 16:34
I'm glad it's gone to be honest. I like everything in a nice neat package.

arch_inquisitor
11-03-2009, 16:38
There only ever was a few good loadouts even with armories and what little is missing is not enough to worry about in my book.

Bekenel
11-03-2009, 16:46
This thread will turn into a "4th ed Chaos sucks!" thread.

Loss of armouries is a good thing, as it is now much harder to make broken characters. There's also fewer no-brainer options. SM Commanders, for example, can be cheap and cheerful (Power Weapon, maybe Digital Weapons) or super expensive (Relic Blade, Bike, Storm Shield), but there's still plenty of middle ground.

Mr Stu
11-03-2009, 16:48
As a Chaos player, I was gutted to see the armoury dropped in the latest codex. It made my Flying, plasma pistol, power fist, power sword and daemon armoured Chosen completely redundant. It was also the end of my Chaos Lord with his Kai gun, daemon sword (amongst other upgrades) One of the attractions of Chaos is to be able to personalise your army.

I agree the balancing was a little off, but GW took the easy way out and uniformed everything. I guess it works better this way for tourneys, but it has killed a great part of the hobby.

Sarah S
11-03-2009, 16:50
Good riddance to armouries.


Chaos Lord with his Kai gun, daemon sword (amongst other upgrades)
I don't think you could do that, as they were both Daemonic Weapons?

ard boy stu
11-03-2009, 16:53
i loved armouries but oh well you can get most of the stuff in the options they still allow

Mr Stu
11-03-2009, 16:54
I don't think you could do that, as they were both Daemonic Weapons?[/QUOTE]

Counts as 1 hand weapon and one ranged weapon. Also he had termie armour.

brother_fandango
11-03-2009, 16:56
I thought they were a nice addition, every time I'd make an army I'd look at them. I always chose the same things, but it was still fun to look.

DhaosAndy
11-03-2009, 17:04
Prefered armouries to the current method, more variation, less temptation to create clone characters/squad leaders. There was a lot of feedback between the modeling and the armoury/gifts.

Mr Stu: "Counts as 1 hand weapon and one ranged weapon. Also he had termie armour."

You could still only have 1 daemon weapon though and a Kai gun counted as a daemon weapon.

PondaNagura
11-03-2009, 17:06
i understand that they picked up the most used options from each armory to write up the character options list, but it streamlines lists into rather bland option..back to the days of limited cast models, counts as, and paint jobs to tell the difference.

It would have been nice if they kept the armories for some armies (orks, chaos, eldar), but limited others who are easier more streamlined (marines, IG, tau), and maybe emphasized the ability for char to gain access to the armories (more than just 15pts upgrade), to which the items might be beneficial to not only the one char (serg) but the whole squad (icons, marks, skills).
this way all the extra wargear info could be located in one area of the codex, no more build-your-own-adventure-lists, while not cluttering up the unit info box, and allow some flexibility in lists beyond options x, y, z.

Sarah S
11-03-2009, 17:08
They are both Daemon Weapons.

Daemon weapons are much sought after weapons. You may only include a single Daemon Weapon in your army.

You was cheatin!

So that's another point for the removal of the armouries. By putting all the options that a model can take in its entry it prevents people from taking equipment that is illegal!

Mr Stu
11-03-2009, 17:11
They are both Daemon Weapons.


You was cheatin!

So that's another point for the removal of the armouries. By putting all the options that a model can take in its entry it prevents people from taking equipment that is illegal!

I's bin busted!:D

Awilla the Hun
11-03-2009, 17:20
I rather liked the armouries. Then, they got time to explain all the background to special wargear.

Now that's all gone, I suppose.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e4NtSqZcT_4

Ubermensch Commander
11-03-2009, 17:20
*shrug*
I do not really miss it all that much to be honest. They still give plenty of options to each individual squad/bossman model.
Its kind of like the 3rd edition to 4th edition Nid codex. Yeah, you missed out on the bio-morphing squad options, but overall one still gets a codex that offers plenty of variety and options, just in a different and generally smoother and cleaner manner.
Case in point being our dear Mr Stu's mega super flying god Daemon Chaos thing.

Vedar
11-03-2009, 17:21
For Chaos Marines it was pretty much the death of taking anything but Deamon Princes. Every now and again I take out Kharn or Typhus then as they fail a 5+ Inv save againts a scout Sgt and take a power fist to the face and die I put them back in there case and wait until I foget how easy they die.

You can take a Tzeetch lord to get the 4+ save but his weapon options blow.

Of course this makes the Deamon Prince the no brainer with wings of course. But you have so few options you only see a few builds. Because of this the next codex with probably have the Deamon prince at 150 points Wings 100 points and his only weapon choices will be a bolt pistol for 200 points or teddy bear (for free).

chrismp_123
11-03-2009, 17:25
This one is tough to answer. I mean I really do miss them. I love the customization. However, I do like the cleanliness of the codexes now. I mean everything is so neat and organized now.

Captain Micha
11-03-2009, 17:25
Armouries were trap options aside from a handful of broken pieces of wargear here and there.

(In two codexes in particular.. 4e smurfs and 3.5 Chaos gee both wear power armor, and they people that want wargear back are the people that used those two armies the most while having the most broken wargear options ..imagine that)

Current wargear is pretty much how -non marines- have always had it since I've come into 40k in their "armory" section.

Back to Trap option though, Armouries came at the expense of army composition. The idea of kitting out a serj or what have you in every squad is neat and appealing to new players sure, but it hurts the over all army. They can field less soldiers for the cost of those 50 -75 pt serjs, less vehicles less heavy guns and the list goes on and on.

Armouries also promote the "ZOMG IF IT IS A DIFFERENT MODEL IT MUST HAVE DIFFERENT RULEZ" mentality, which I frankly can't stand and is one that again seems to stem from only two army groups. I don't ask for special rules for my Guardsmen with Jet Packs, armed with clip removed bolters (my Vespid), so why should you get special rules just because you are wearing a different chest piece on your Smurf?

It also makes a given codex much more difficult to balance since people might be sinking unnecessary points into a unit, it also leads to pt costing -everything- even stuff that should be -free- (such as the 4+ Invulnerable save Heroes seem to be getting for free with their pt costs now).

I'm glad it's gone. A model's individual customization shouldn't cost you pts just because it's wearing spiffy pieces of paper on it's power armor, or you wanted that awesome looking chest piece out of hand. It being gone, lets you put stuff on your model -because you think it will look cool-.

PondaNagura
11-03-2009, 17:27
i think i would have been less miffed if they had announced ahead of time that they were removing them, and then provided the analysis/research as to why they did it, instead of Culture Shock! but that's past...

StormWulfen
11-03-2009, 17:27
i agree bring back armouries, i miss making every chaos marine differant, and soon space wolves will all be exactly the same:cries:

SimonL
11-03-2009, 17:31
I miss the Armoury. I mean, you can't even give a Terminator Sergeant a different weapons now, it's so boring.

Ubermensch Commander
11-03-2009, 17:33
@SimonL
Wait, which Termy seargent in what list are you talking about and different from what? Clarification please.

Kulgur
11-03-2009, 17:34
I miss my armou.... wait a sec..

*flicks through his Tau, Witch Hunters, and Dark Eldar books*

Nope still here ;)

Thanatos_elNyx
11-03-2009, 17:40
There only ever was a few good loadouts even with armories and what little is missing is not enough to worry about in my book.

What he said.

LordofWar1986
11-03-2009, 17:44
I honestly can say that I did miss some of the armouries. It seemed to come out with new fluff that at the time I really liked. If GW where to re-release some type of those books again, I would definitely get them.

Xardian
11-03-2009, 17:53
There are a few things I miss from my old chaos armory. Not the cheese things, but basic things like being able to give my daemon prince Frag Grenades. I ran a prince with stature and speed so it was about the same as the current winged prince in points and ability. But it had the common sense to be an assault model with assault grenades.

I also miss spikey bits, just because it was cool to have wargear like that. Same reason I love the new apoc doomsday device ("I demand that you all dance a merry jig for the Skull Throne!").

I miss the customization that spurred a lot of neat modelling ideas. But, you wouldn't really need an armoy to do about the same thing again. The nid codex has a passle of options for a lot of units. The same could be done elsewhere. Heck, a few more options for a chaos marine daemon prince beyond "Winged or not" and "Warptime, Lash, or some other lesser power" might make them a bit less cookie-cutter. It's one of the reasons I tend to stick more to lords and sorcerers. Sick of the same-old same-old.

Heh, it's also why I'm not as fond of the Chaos Daemons codex. Not a lot of customization there, except for the daemon princes. I wouldn't mind having that many options for my chaos marine version :p

The_Outsider
11-03-2009, 18:29
Since I am not allergic to game balance I think the loss of armouries is a good thing - even those that still have them there only a handful of choices that are actually taken (hohohoho archangel of pain does what?).

Laser guided fanatic
11-03-2009, 18:46
Tbh it was a bit silly when you could have terminators leading scout squads or terminators leading assault squads or bikes leading tactical squads or assault seragants leading dev squads.

Ubermensch Commander
11-03-2009, 18:47
@ LGF
AHHAH oh man! I had forgotten about that particular abusal in the armouries! Thank you.

Mannimarco
11-03-2009, 18:59
even if we were to get armouries back certain thing will still be a no brainer choice for some: lash prince, cybork warboss with a power klaw

squeekenator
11-03-2009, 21:10
Not at all. GW doesn't playtest much, we all know that, and armouries are giant, evil monsters that not even the bravest of balance will agree to go near.

Lord Damocles
11-03-2009, 21:12
Chaos Lord with Demonic Armour, Demonic Stature, Demonic Rune, Demonic Essence, Demonic Flight, Mark of Khorne, Beserker Glaive.

Erm, no.

Lord Inquisitor
11-03-2009, 21:16
I don't miss armouries. For your HQs they usually have as many options as they ever had - just look at the list of goodies a Marine Captain can have, it really hasn't diminished much, if you discount all the stuff he comes with as standard or other wargear that he couldn't take. In some cases options are lacking - but this isn't necessarily a bad thing. If I could give my Daemon Prince frag grenades and a daemonsword, I wouldn't have much cause to take anything else!

wingedserpant
11-03-2009, 21:28
Personally I prefwer everything on the same page but I'm a little underwhelmed with the choice.

It was rather tiresome having to flip through the pages all the time. I'm still having to do it with my Tau and its a hassle. I like just being able to look at the costs and write up a list fairly quickly.

Grand Master Raziel
11-03-2009, 21:36
Well, I was all set to agree with the OP...but then he mentioned the previous Chaos book. Remembering what could be done with that book, between the Armory, Daemonic Gifts, and Veteran Skills, I'm now inclined to think that we're probably better off with the current system. That said, I do kinda miss the day when a storm shield was a nice, cheap alternative to the iron halo.

isidril93
11-03-2009, 21:40
i prefer it like this.no armouries

my BT codex is a bit of a pain when i have to check how much the items cost

ehlijen
12-03-2009, 00:08
NO! My terminator scout seargeant with his master crafted sniper rifle is no longer legal! (Yes I actually made that model out of the free WD termie :p)

Armouries aren't that different to what we have now. All characters have a bucket load of options, excpet that they removed:
a) things that made no sense for specific characters (JPs in bike squads and the like)
b) things that were no brainers either way

They have brought the equipment selection much closer to actually being appropriatly priced for each model and each piece of wargear having a specific purpose.

The 3rd/4th ed armouries with their one (or two) price fits all approach and multiple redundant items at times just led to confusion, abuse and ridiculous stuff.

Snotteef
12-03-2009, 00:13
This way is better. I've been playing since RT and I tend to like 2nd edition better than any other edition, and I STILL think we're better off w/o armories. Much more balanced and easy and still leaves a great deal of variety. Even with armories, there wasn't a great deal of variation... people found out what was strongest and most took that loadout.

Tommygun
12-03-2009, 00:13
What's so broken about giving my Chaplin jump packs and twin lighting claws?:D

Born Again
12-03-2009, 01:32
I think it's better without them. Makes the army list so much neater and easier to use. I think it might be good to see the options for characters in their list entry expanded a little, but a full page of wargear options isn't really necessary imo.

Koryphaus
12-03-2009, 02:25
What's so broken about giving my Chaplin jump packs and twin lighting claws?:D

Now that he fights like a Valium-dosed Granny in a straightjacket, not a lot..

Draconian77
12-03-2009, 02:58
Now a Tyranid players point of view:

"Hahaha! We win!"

Ahem.

In all honesty I don't miss them, everyone took the same combos over and over again (Dark Blade, Daemonic Strength, Mark of Slaanesh, Combat Drugs...for example.) and overall if you think it looks nice it should be on the model anyway.

Noserenda
12-03-2009, 04:05
The only thing i miss is whacking Auspexes on squad sergeants to make up those last few points... The rest ive yet to actually notice a difference in kit...

Thylacine
12-03-2009, 05:16
The old armoury system was great!

I am able to tailor my SW lists and account for every point when I take a list to a tournament. Sure there were items in the armoury that were not often used, however you had the option to use those items every so often just to tweak a list and try something different.

Over the years I have read how people so dislike cookie-cutter lists, I have watched dumbfounded as tournament players deducted composition points because a number of units were identical. Hypocritically, now it seems that people want the sameness they previously rejected!

Starting with the Blood Angles or Space Wolves codex, Games Workshop, put back the armoury system!

Hellebore
12-03-2009, 05:41
It doesn't really seem like much has been lost though.

A squad sergeant has almost as many options as he used to, characters have many.

It seems to me that all they did was go from an armywide armoury to an individual unit armoury.

Which in some way is pretty inefficient, repeating each option a dozen times throughout the list.

Hellebore

Khornate Fireball (Ork)
12-03-2009, 06:23
The idea behind all that variety is the good thing. The implementation wasn't that great. That said, there are a few options I genuinely miss, like being able to give an Ork Nob an 'eavy weapon, which would be very useful now that they can no longer get a dual wielding bonus with their Klawz.

ehlijen
12-03-2009, 07:04
Repeating each option may be inefficient from a page count point of view, but it makes costing each item appropriately for the user much easier. They haven't really emphasised that in the SM codex, but there are a few examples where the cost for one item changes depending on who buys it, something that was harder to do with the armoury.

Pooky
12-03-2009, 07:23
The armory itself wasn't a bad idea. It's just that people used to abuse the Chaos armory like nothing else. Giving a lord daemonic everything was just lame. I do prefer the current personal armory for each unit. And I don't think that taking away the armory has taken away from the game since I still take exactly the same kit out I used to on my units* Sergeants with Powerfists and Bolt Pistols, Chaplain with Jump Pack and Commander (now Captain) with Terminator Armor and Paired Lightning Claws.

*I also now take Lysander as a HQ, but he wasn't around in the old codex and he rocks :D

Xelloss
12-03-2009, 09:42
IMHO "mini-armories" each for HQ/elite/etc... would have been better to take account of point difference while keeping variety of options.

Yes, most of people didn't use every armory options. But did it justify to prevent totally to give player the choice ? I think not.

Hlokk
12-03-2009, 09:50
What's so broken about giving my Chaplin jump packs and twin lighting claws?:D
Its criminal they got rid of that, especially now they dropped chaplains by 1 attack as well :eek:

ehlijen
12-03-2009, 09:55
What's so wrong about chaplains having to take their symbols of office into battle (given that it's a free power weapon too!)?

hush88
12-03-2009, 10:12
While it was more customisable with armouries, more often or not, people tend to take the same options.

Without armouries, choices are limited but much easier to see and understand, and ultimately choose from.

BigRob
12-03-2009, 10:14
I like having all the options in one place. It makes it alot easier, quicker and puts less wear and tear on the armybook if you cna go through it building the army, rather than flicking back and forth between pages doing the armoury.

Looking at it, very few upgrades have gone anyway, just the useless ones no one ever took. Yes Chaos can't make thier super combo possessed units anymore and a couple f the other power combos may have gone from the books but other than that, no one else has come off badly. Having certain options built in as well makes sense. SM Commanders with an Iron Halo, Tanks with smoke launchers and searchlights as standard. It makes more sense.

Nero
12-03-2009, 10:30
Another nail in the coffin of diversity, inventiveness and 'hobby' gaming. I'm sure, as this thread attests, all the gamers who play only for the sake of beating other people are glad to see armories gone. I played for fun, though, so I got screwed over.

The 'but people only used the most powerful options anyway!' excuse is really terrible, by the way. May as well remove half the armies if that's the case - I mean, people only play the overpowered armies like CSM and Orks anyway!

Adra
12-03-2009, 11:56
I hate it when people say everyone used to take the same builds with armouries. I didnt. My chaos guys where very odd. I used to think of a cool model then think how best to represent him with rules. I guess that powergamers found some builds better but I was always more concerned over how my army looked.

But mark these next words well my fellows: Armouries will be back. Eventually the streamline dull as dish water method will begin to move back towards options and veriety. Will take a few years but they shall return.

Tonberry
12-03-2009, 12:09
For people with an armouryless codex who complain that they want armouries back, there is a simple solution:
Go to the little list in said character's unit entry where it says ' x may takye y for z points' or 'may exchange a for b', take some scissors and cut it out. Write in the gap ' may select equipment from the armoury, following the restrictions within it, see page 51'.
Sellotape in what you cut out on page 51, write 'armoury' above it...

I really don't see the problem, you still have wargear options for most things, just not in some huge list.

Askari
12-03-2009, 12:20
I just miss the little pointless things you could do...

Tzeentch-marked Sorcerer Chosen on Discs? Yup.
Making a 100 point Aspiring Champion that had more stuff than your Lieutenant? Yup.
The Relic Blade that might kill the user and is only 1 per army... Yup. ;)

"Balance" has not been sorted with the loss of Armouries, ref. Lash Princes, Nob Bikers.

Bob Hunk
12-03-2009, 12:27
I missed them at first, but now I prefer the in-list options - nice and neat and clear with everything in one place. :)

arch_inquisitor
12-03-2009, 12:45
In all honesty I don't miss them, everyone took the same combos over and over again (Dark Blade, Daemonic Strength, Mark of Slaanesh, Combat Drugs...for example.) and overall if you think it looks nice it should be on the model anyway.


Agreed, not every little detail on a model needs rules, in fact now without that whole 'is it represented by rules' mentality I find my models can be way more characterful, because now I'm not as worried weather or not certain gubbinz on a model will be confused with wargear.

A good fluffy army depends more on models and back story rather than what fancy rules it has, I don't remember the source but someone once stated when doing a good fluff army it should be 10% rules 90% modeling/story, I think it was some GW guy but not sure.

Sir_Turalyon
12-03-2009, 12:54
I say good ridance to them - wading through the armouries in search of good equipment bulids withing XXX points for your characters was most boring part of army list making. The fact that lists were too large too completly memorize and one had to constantly flip between equipment rules and equipment prices sections was especially unpleasant (unless one was using the same few items -or the same bulids - over and over again, which defeated the point of big armouries and which present lists do better). Last month I dusted off my Dark Eldar to play a game with them and was surprised how tiresome that approach was, and how strong is urge to take a break with army list and do something actualy fun; then I remembered what almost drove me off 40k in early 4th edition.

Another observation: the hight of armouries craze (early 4th edition) was moment I drifted away from 40k to WFB; when DA codex went out I bought it out of curiosity and got new interest in 40k (further fuelled by Orks), and now when I think of WFB I think it would be fun if magic item lists were more compact and similiar to 40k approach. At the moment it's thought of making a WFB list thar brings boredom and urge to do something actually fun instead.

Koryphaus
12-03-2009, 13:19
... wading through the armouries in search of good equipment builds ... one had to constantly flip between equipment rules and equipment prices sections was especially unpleasant ...

So now, instead of wading through the armoury looking for an item, it seems I now have to wade through the entire damn book to find it's rules (Codex: Space Marines, I'm looking at you..)! :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad::mad:

Corrode
12-03-2009, 13:22
So now, instead of wading through the armoury looking for an item, it seems I now have to wade through the entire damn book to find it's rules (Codex: Space Marines, I'm looking at you..)! :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad::mad:

There's a fairly logical system at work there, though. It's not perfect, but it's certainly not the terrible mess some people like to make out.

El_Phen
12-03-2009, 13:22
I always liked the old armouries because of the oft mentioned variability/individuality etc. it gave to everything. Then again I've always been a fan of RPG's so I suppose I'm a little biased by that. I can see why people prefer the 'newer' method of streamlining things but it has led to the, again, often mentioned rise in army lists including 'Cybork Warboss with Klaw, Pedro Cantor etc.' due to a reduction in the possibilities available to the armies concerned.

And, while I know that the next few words will be unpopular I shall still write them, for those complaining that they *gasp* have to look through their codicies to find things...honestly, is it REALLY that big a deal? You might need to do it a few times while you're unfamiliar with whatever particular codex you have but I'm sure that you'll have learned what you need to learn reasonably quickly and this 'nuisance' wouldn't occur very much after the first few times you've played with said codex?

EVIL INC
12-03-2009, 13:28
To be honest, they looked nice and all but were rarely actually used.
They took up pages and pages out of the codex that could have been used by more productive or informative things. You had to constantly flip back and forth. 90% of the stuff in them are rarely ever used as only a few options were ever actually used because people took the "no brainer" loadouts so they actually offered no more individuality then you have now. They were only ever actually usefull when you had an extra 5-15 points left over from making your army and you wanted to just spend them on anything to bring the point total up to the agreed to ammount for a game.

Sir_Turalyon
12-03-2009, 13:29
No, nowadays armouries are short enough to allow us to actualy memorise them ;-) , with only few really generic options like grenade launchers, storm shields or relic blades. Most other items are unit specific and page with their rules is provided in unit's entry (like thunderfire cannon). So it's more like few quick jumps to provided page numbers then wading there and back again through armoury.

Corrode
12-03-2009, 13:30
How has 'streamlining' led to a rise in stuff like Cybork warbosses? Cybork + PK has ALWAYS been a no-brainer for a warboss, armoury or not. Pedro Kantor is a powerful special character, which is why he gets chosen - he's not even particularly optimally equipped considering his power fist and uberstorm-bolter. A vanilla Chapter Master still has the option of taking pretty much any weapon combination he might like plus a few fun toys like digital weapons and melta bombs. Where exactly has variation been lost because of the loss of the armoury?

The_Outsider
12-03-2009, 14:12
How has 'streamlining' led to a rise in stuff like Cybork warbosses? Cybork + PK has ALWAYS been a no-brainer for a warboss, armoury or not. Pedro Kantor is a powerful special character, which is why he gets chosen - he's not even particularly optimally equipped considering his power fist and uberstorm-bolter. A vanilla Chapter Master still has the option of taking pretty much any weapon combination he might like plus a few fun toys like digital weapons and melta bombs. Where exactly has variation been lost because of the loss of the armoury?

It is because none of those are chaos related.

Captain Micha
12-03-2009, 14:22
Another nail in the coffin of diversity, inventiveness and 'hobby' gaming. I'm sure, as this thread attests, all the gamers who play only for the sake of beating other people are glad to see armories gone. I played for fun, though, so I got screwed over.

The 'but people only used the most powerful options anyway!' excuse is really terrible, by the way. May as well remove half the armies if that's the case - I mean, people only play the overpowered armies like CSM and Orks anyway!

No, they just quit rewarding the powergamers for converting, and stopped scaring people from converting.

Big difference there pal. One this isn't an Rpg game. It's a wargame. It shouldn't be trying to be an Rpg by having a stupid armory section.

"only the people that play to win are glad to see it gone"

Bs. I play cause I like the look of the models. I like the fluff, I love conversions. Armories flew in the face of all of that to me. And everyone plays to win. Otherwise you wouldn't be playing now would you.

Armories also contained much of the ingredients for having a stupidly broken army... and gee imagine that a Chaos player whining that his cheese was taken from him... Was Lash not enough for you? You want Siren back too? What?

marv335
12-03-2009, 14:23
Hang on, pretty much all the most recent codecies still have armouries.
They're just in the individual characters entry.
For example;
The different options that an Ork warboss or a marine captain can take are just as extensive as before.
An Ork warboss has a choice of 5 guns and 3 close combat weapons plus 3 armour options Which can be combined.
The armoury hasn't gone, it's just moved.

Corrode
12-03-2009, 14:38
It is because none of those are chaos related.

Chaos losing its variety has nothing to do with not having an armoury, though. You could easily add Daemon weapons and whatever other gubbins it is that Chaos players seem to want with the current format - the lack of diversity reflects GW's fear of creating another set of power combos, not an inability to make the format work.

The_Outsider
12-03-2009, 14:51
Chaos losing its variety has nothing to do with not having an armoury, though. You could easily add Daemon weapons and whatever other gubbins it is that Chaos players seem to want with the current format - the lack of diversity reflects GW's fear of creating another set of power combos, not an inability to make the format work.

How is it any less diverse? Sure you cannot take a daemon weapon on an aspiring champion, but they were never meant to take such weapons anyway - in a game that is written around mighty heros the higher up the food chain you are the better your gear is, that is al lthere is to it. It doesn't kill diversity (at the very least it changes nothing when it comes to converting).

GW have finally seen to what players did as a whole (i.e only powerfists and power weapons on sergeants) and written the lists accordingly, but suddenly that is not good enough?

Not to mention armouries were a complete cluster**** when it came to restrictions (just look at the SW one).

Corrode
12-03-2009, 15:05
How is it any less diverse? Sure you cannot take a daemon weapon on an aspiring champion, but they were never meant to take such weapons anyway - in a game that is written around mighty heros the higher up the food chain you are the better your gear is, that is al lthere is to it. It doesn't kill diversity (at the very least it changes nothing when it comes to converting).

GW have finally seen to what players did as a whole (i.e only powerfists and power weapons on sergeants) and written the lists accordingly, but suddenly that is not good enough?

Not to mention armouries were a complete cluster**** when it came to restrictions (just look at the SW one).

I have a feeling we're arguing whilst on the same side.

EVIL INC
12-03-2009, 15:14
It is because none of those are chaos related.

To be perfectly honest, even the chaos armies have lost none of thier variety (as a matter of fact, chaos armies are now more flavourfull and full of variety then ever before because of other aspects then the armoury so I wont go into details on that). The chaos armies of the earlier editions had reams of armoury which was never used because only the few no brainers were actually used. The rest only served to fill in the last few points in a list that couldnt be spent on anything else.

Lord Inquisitor
12-03-2009, 15:31
So now, instead of wading through the armoury looking for an item, it seems I now have to wade through the entire damn book to find it's rules (Codex: Space Marines, I'm looking at you..)! :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad::mad:
I'm completely with you on this one. While I love the layout of the army lists themselves, the layout of the rules is appalling.

The book has an armoury, why the heck can't all of the wargear's rules be in the armoury!?


There's a fairly logical system at work there, though. It's not perfect, but it's certainly not the terrible mess some people like to make out.
Yes, yes, it is.

I place my new unit of Sternguard on the table. I start with the army list rules, oh yeah, they've got "Special issue ammunition" under their "Wargear". Okay, so I go to the Wargear section of the book, right? No, there's no such thing as "Special issue ammunition" in "wargear" despite it being listed as "wargear".

No problem, it must be listed under the unit specific rules. So I find that. It does indeed have the rules for the ammunition .... until you get to Hellfire Rounds, which sends you back to the Wargear section! Argh!

There is no cunning system. Any claim that there is should explain to me why seismic hammers are listed under dreadnought rules but ironclad launchers are listed in the armoury. So if you are looking up the rules for Ironclad Dreadnoughts you have to look in both places to get the full rules - and I can't see any reason all of the rules couldn't be placed in one place.

It's an awful layout. If you're going to put a Wargear section with entries for all wargear in the army, then put the rules for the wargear in there. Looking up the rules for a unit can be like reading a choose-your-own-adventure. The Redeemer has unique wargear in its own entry, it references both other Land raider variants and you need to check the Wargear section for its hull-mounted weaponry.

Adra
12-03-2009, 15:54
Mentioning bad aspects of the chaos codex is the Goodwin's Law of 40k forums.

I think a reasonable point has been made. The armourie did keep everything in one place and was pretty cool for background. I dont think you can say that it was a bad aspect of the old codecies, it was just a different way. Its an attempt to reduce confusion amongst players. Really its a bit of an insult to gamers really as it assumes that your not capable of looking at two sheets of paper and making a decision.

Corrode
12-03-2009, 16:05
Yes, yes, it is.

I place my new unit of Sternguard on the table. I start with the army list rules, oh yeah, they've got "Special issue ammunition" under their "Wargear". Okay, so I go to the Wargear section of the book, right? No, there's no such thing as "Special issue ammunition" in "wargear" despite it being listed as "wargear".

No problem, it must be listed under the unit specific rules. So I find that. It does indeed have the rules for the ammunition .... until you get to Hellfire Rounds, which sends you back to the Wargear section! Argh!

There is no cunning system. Any claim that there is should explain to me why seismic hammers are listed under dreadnought rules but ironclad launchers are listed in the armoury. So if you are looking up the rules for Ironclad Dreadnoughts you have to look in both places to get the full rules - and I can't see any reason all of the rules couldn't be placed in one place.

It's an awful layout. If you're going to put a Wargear section with entries for all wargear in the army, then put the rules for the wargear in there. Looking up the rules for a unit can be like reading a choose-your-own-adventure. The Redeemer has unique wargear in its own entry, it references both other Land raider variants and you need to check the Wargear section for its hull-mounted weaponry.

The Sternguard are a perfect example. 3 of their 4 ammunition types are unique to them, and thus listed on their entry. 1 is shared (with Captains at least, I can't remember if anyone else can take them) and so is in the general Wargear section. If you're honestly telling me you forget what 1 ammunition round does often enough that you need to flip through the Codex every time (or even remember that it's on page 100 rather than 51) then perhaps this game isn't for you.

You're right about the Ironclad and there are some weird decisions about where to put things. It seems a bit half-done and could be improved upon, but it's not a terrible system and if done right would make a great deal of sense.

Freakiq
12-03-2009, 16:10
The armories were awful, they always had to make erratas so that terminators could take certain items, plus it limited any weapon to two different point costs, nowadays every unit in a codex can pick an item at a different price depending on how much it'll benefit said unit.

Lord Inquisitor
12-03-2009, 16:33
The Sternguard are a perfect example. 3 of their 4 ammunition types are unique to them, and thus listed on their entry. 1 is shared (with Captains at least, I can't remember if anyone else can take them) and so is in the general Wargear section. If you're honestly telling me you forget what 1 ammunition round does often enough that you need to flip through the Codex every time (or even remember that it's on page 100 rather than 51) then perhaps this game isn't for you.
Even if we do subscribe to this crazy system, wouldn't it be better to put the rules in the sternguard entry, and put a Hellfire tab in the Wargear section and reference the Sternguard entry? Even then, it still makes no sense. The logical place to look for the rules for wargear is in the wargear section. I could get a system of putting wargear in the unit entries and leaving the wargear section essentially an index - why not actually make an index? Why the arbitrary placing of wargear in the unit entries and wargear section?

I remember the stats just fine, thanks. But I play against people who really do look this crap up in-game and it drives me nuts watching them flick all over the book trying to find stuff. The big problem is that you can't predict where rules or wargear are going to be in the book. I get the idea that shared wargear -> wargar section, unique wargear -> unit entry, but that's not in any way adhered to with any kind of consistency. You've got units referencing other units - if Iron Halo is a shared item, why not put it in the damn armoury?


You're right about the Ironclad and there are some weird decisions about where to put things. It seems a bit half-done and could be improved upon, but it's not a terrible system and if done right would make a great deal of sense.
Why not put the unit-specific rules in the unit entries and all wargear in the wargear section. Is that too crazy a notion? Bear in mind that if you're looking up stuff in-game, you're going to start with the army list summary, so you'll start by looking up "wargear" in the "wargear" section. Being sent to the unit entry is stupid. Most of the entries in the Wargear section simply reference other pages and make the Wargear section seem like a complete waste of space. You could even put the rules in BOTH the unit entry AND the Wargear section! The rules for most wargear entries don't take up much more space than writing "see page XX". For really complicated ones like the bikers booby-traps then perhaps a reference would be required, but for many items (e.g. Narthecium) you could just put the rules in both places without using up any more space. Or is that crazy talk?

DhaosAndy
12-03-2009, 17:07
Alright, I've let it pass long enough, the armoury and the gifts section of the 3.5 chaos dex inspired more modelling projects than any book since ROC.

When 3.5 came out I decided to equip all my squads with all the options I might concievably want to field, so an eight man zerker squad would need, 8 zerkers with chainaxes, eight zerkers without chainaxes, 2 zerkers with plasma pistols, 2 zerkers with plasma pistols and chainaxes.

Then a selection of aspiring champions (per squad and taking spikey bits as a no brainer, since I'm a power gamer:angel:) with:-

bolt pistol and cc weapon,
bolt pistol and chainaxe,
bolt pistol and power weapon,
bolt pistol and Axe of khorne,
bolt pistol and powerfist,
bolt pistol and chainaxe, c/w daemonic strength,
bolt pistol and power weapon, c/w daemonic strength,
bolt pistol and Axe of khorne, c/w daemonic strength,
bolt pistol and powerfist, c/w daemonic strength,
bolt pistol and chainaxe, c/w daemonic mutation,
bolt pistol and power weapon, c/w daemonic mutation,
bolt pistol and Axe of khorne, c/w daemonic mutation,
bolt pistol and powerfist, c/w daemonic mutation,
bolt pistol and chainaxe, c/w daemonic strength and daemonic mutation,
bolt pistol and power weapon, c/w daemonic strength and daemonic mutation,
bolt pistol and Axe of khorne, c/w daemonic strength and daemonic mutation,
bolt pistol and powerfist, c/w daemonic strength and daemonic mutation,
plasma pistol and chainaxe,
plasma pistol and power weapon,
plasma pistol and Axe of khorne,
plasma pistol and powerfist,
plasma pistol and chainaxe, c/w daemonic strength,
plasma pistol and power weapon, c/w daemonic strength,
plasma pistol and Axe of khorne, c/w daemonic strength,
plasma pistol and powerfist, c/w daemonic strength,
plasma pistol and chainaxe, c/w daemonic mutation,
plasma pistol and power weapon, c/w daemonic mutation,
plasma pistol and Axe of khorne, c/w daemonic mutation,
plasma pistol and powerfist, c/w daemonic mutation,
plasma pistol and chainaxe, c/w daemonic strength and daemonic mutation,
plasma pistol and power weapon, c/w daemonic strength and daemonic mutation,
plasma pistol and Axe of khorne, c/w daemonic strength and daemonic mutation,
plasma pistol and powerfist, c/w daemonic strength and daemonic mutation,

Now I sized this up and bought the bits and kits for 6 such squads, I was well over halfway through building it all and close to halfway on the painting side when the 4.0 codex came out, haven't touched it since, just not inspired by it at all.

4.0 more diverse, cobblers and orthanc speak.

Bitter, definately, aquiring all those AOK's was a pain, was it realy that unbalanced they couldn't leave it in at any price?

And don't use the C word, I bloody hate the C word:mad:

Corrode
12-03-2009, 17:10
Even if we do subscribe to this crazy system, wouldn't it be better to put the rules in the sternguard entry, and put a Hellfire tab in the Wargear section and reference the Sternguard entry? Even then, it still makes no sense. The logical place to look for the rules for wargear is in the wargear section. I could get a system of putting wargear in the unit entries and leaving the wargear section essentially an index - why not actually make an index? Why the arbitrary placing of wargear in the unit entries and wargear section?

I remember the stats just fine, thanks. But I play against people who really do look this crap up in-game and it drives me nuts watching them flick all over the book trying to find stuff. The big problem is that you can't predict where rules or wargear are going to be in the book. I get the idea that shared wargear -> wargar section, unique wargear -> unit entry, but that's not in any way adhered to with any kind of consistency. You've got units referencing other units - if Iron Halo is a shared item, why not put it in the damn armoury?

I basically agree with you here. I think they should settle on one or the other, and I don't think it's perfect. But I do think the principle is laudable, even if the execution is lacking.

Nero
12-03-2009, 17:26
No, they just quit rewarding the powergamers for converting, and stopped scaring people from converting.

Big difference there pal. One this isn't an Rpg game. It's a wargame. It shouldn't be trying to be an Rpg by having a stupid armory section.

That doesn't even make sense. Did you read what you wrote?


Bs. I play cause I like the look of the models. I like the fluff, I love conversions. Armories flew in the face of all of that to me.

Armories fly in the face of conversions? What, by giving you more options to convert with?

This game has a little rule called 'WYSIWYG' - maybe you should check it out?


And everyone plays to win. Otherwise you wouldn't be playing now would you.

No, I don't play to win. Please don't assume everyone else is a powergamer too, mate.

I play for fun, to come up with cool stories, army ideas and scenarios. Some of the best games I've ever had have been losses, as my men valiantly fight to the very last while surrounded by the bodies of their fallen foes.

As I said, not everyone needs to win all the time and 'beat' other players to get enjoyment out of this game.


Armories also contained much of the ingredients for having a stupidly broken army... and gee imagine that a Chaos player whining that his cheese was taken from him... Was Lash not enough for you? You want Siren back too? What?

I'm... not solely a Chaos player? I'm collecting regular Space Marines right now, and IG before that. I have old Tyranid and Eldar armies too. I don't even use the current Chaos codex, which I might add is far more overpowered and cheesy than the old 3.5 Ed Chaos codex ever was, and I've never used either lash or siren.

Nice strawman though. Get a real argument next time. :D

Corrode
12-03-2009, 17:38
No, I don't play to win. Please don't assume everyone else is a powergamer too, mate.

I play for fun, to come up with cool stories, army ideas and scenarios. Some of the best games I've ever had have been losses, as my men valiantly fight to the very last while surrounded by the bodies of their fallen foes.

As I said, not everyone needs to win all the time and 'beat' other players to get enjoyment out of this game.

That's not the point that's being made. Nobody writes their lists, puts their models on the table, and then declares, "Right then, I'm going to do my utmost to lose this game!" Some players might not go balls to the wall to try and win, and they might be willing to do things for the sake of how crazy/funny they would be rather than whether they're the optimal strategy, but nobody plays the game without the intention of trying to win. There's always a tradeoff between desire to win vs. desire to entertain oneself and others, but that's different from simply trying your best to win whilst adhering to your own personal rules as to what constitutes winning 'fairly'. Even 'scenario' games adhere to this rule - your outnumbered force defending itself to the last might not be able to win the traditional sense, but there's likely to be an objective for them to achieve. Otherwise there's no point to playing the game, and you might as well just put a fancy diorama together and call it a day.

Captain Micha
12-03-2009, 17:41
That doesn't even make sense. Did you read what you wrote?

Armories fly in the face of conversions? What, by giving you more options to convert with?

This game has a little rule called 'WYSIWYG' - maybe you should check it out?

No, I don't play to win. Please don't assume everyone else is a powergamer too, mate.



Yep it makes perfect sense. People that want Armories back 1 apparently mistake this for a RPG, (Role Playing Game) or 2 they are power gaming cheeseheads. Or both. Because the best way to powergame in an Rpg as we all know is to have the best gear available and the most "options" to cover up the best gear.

Oh yes they do, and that rule (WYSIWYG) is precisely why Armories as they were flew in the face of making a model awesome just because it would look cool.

Purity seals anyone? Seriously. If it was on the model you better pay points for it! That is about the dumbest idea ever when it was taken to it's extreme like it was.

No, Armories don't "give you more options" infact they take away options. By one limiting people to a "If it's not in the codex you can't do it!" Philosophy, or a "If it has different colors it must mean different rules!" (which is something Gw further promoted by having multiple kinds of Smurf but I'm not going there right now). As a matter of fact there's a great deal of stuff that should not be represented in the rules of a game just because it -looks- different, such as Bionics to cite one example. Purity Seals for another. The list just goes on and on.

All armories did was reward munchkinism. Just like 3e D&D did in much the same style. "We shall limit Rules lawyers and powergamers by having more rules for everything!" yeah, problem is the more of said rules you put in the more room there is for rape and abuse and the more limiting the rules become. "I want a mechanical hand on my marine commander cause it'll look cool" Says bob. "You better pay points for that" says the system....

The only people that get hurt by having crap bogging down the game are the ones that just want cool looking models.

Looks do not = mechanical effects and benefits. Especially when the benefits would only slow down gameplay and create balance issues. I find it hilarious that the powergamers are trying to pull a "We are true Rpers and people that hate our cheese gear only want to powergame!"

Don't try and lie. Yes you play for fun, and part of the fun is winning. I bet you don't appreciate being trounced into the dirt by a 1,000 pt victory margins. Or losing -constantly-. Your other army is marines... look the other Armory raper... Big surprise.

New chaos is more broken :wtf::wtf: are you smoking? You've apparently never heard of Iron Warriors, or Siren Prince have you. or for that matter Alpha Legion. All of these things make Lash Prince cry because it's pathetic in comparison. And that's just off the top of my head.

Ps you better learn about your fellow poster before accusing them of powergaming

I one play Necrons and they are the suck of legends in 5e (I still win with them because I'm not a tactical *****)
my second army is Tau with NO CRISIS SUITS

My third army is Imperial Guard.

You on the other hand play and liked the Broken Chaos, and you liked it for the brokenness (a good portion of it's "wargear") and also play another Broken Force.

Of course I play to enjoy myself. winning is part of the fun when it happens. I don't try for WAAC like some powergaming ass hat that has to compensate for his or her inadequacies in life.

RampagingRavener
12-03-2009, 17:48
This game has a little rule called 'WYSIWYG' - maybe you should check it out?

If someone wishes to convert a model to have a Bionic arm, WYSIWYG may force them to pay the 5, 10, or however many points Bionics used to cost. Points which they may want to spend elsewhere. Now one such thing might not be too bad, but if you have two or three such meaningless upgrades, then the cost can rack up. So, people mat well end up not making that cool, inventive conversion they thought of; because they baulk at the idea of the points cost shooting up.


No, I don't play to win. Please don't assume everyone else is a powergamer too, mate.

I play for fun, to come up with cool stories, army ideas and scenarios. Some of the best games I've ever had have been losses, as my men valiantly fight to the very last while surrounded by the bodies of their fallen foes.

Hahaha, oh wow, I love it when people come up with this argument.

See, here's the thing. Fun is subjective. "I play for fun" is about the most utterly meaningless statement you can come up with in such an argument, as everyone plays for fun because everyone has their own definition of 'fun'. Just because the way you have fun doesn't match that of a 'powergamer' doesn't mean said 'powergamers' don't play for fun as well.

I've never been to a tournament in my life. I don't play competitively, I don't use the most powerful army lists, and I don't really care what the result of the game is so long as I enjoy it. However, at the same time, I do whatever I can with my chosen fluff-themed lists to win once they've hit the battlefield. Under the old Armouries, I resented having to shell out points for the little details I'd modelled on my HQ choices, points that I'd rather have invested in other stuff; a few more Infantry models, or an extra Warbuggy, or even just upgrades I'd rather put on something else.

So to be honest, in retrospect, I'm glad to see the back of the Armoury section. I can model whatever the damn hell I like on my Characters without the worry that I'll have to cut points from elsewhere in the list to appease the WYSIWYG rule. Besides, fluff and story are, IMO, far better conveyed by modelling and painting than they are by having half a dozen obscure little rules that'll never actually have any effect on the game.

Vampiric16
12-03-2009, 18:03
Trimming down and simplifying the chaos armoury was a good move. It's just a pity that GW decided to take out the fluffy goodness aswell.
I like not having to make constant trips through the book to equip my lord, its nice and convenient having it all on one page. The problem now is that there isn't enough on that page, and that whatever a lord or sorcerer can do, a prince can do better and cheaper.
My suggestion would be to keep the basic selections listed with the unit, as it is now, but then have an armoury with god specific items aswell. For example, you equip your lord with Termie armour and mark of slaanesh. You then see the wee adendem: lords with a mark may take equipment from the armoury page. In this case the player can equip the lord with slaaneshi stuff like sonic pistols or some such thing. This way people can once again field their beloved legions.

Nero
12-03-2009, 18:39
Yep it makes perfect sense. People that want Armories back 1 apparently mistake this for a RPG, (Role Playing Game) or 2 they are power gaming cheeseheads. Or both. Because the best way to powergame in an Rpg as we all know is to have the best gear available and the most "options" to cover up the best gear.

Oh yes they do, and that rule (WYSIWYG) is precisely why Armories as they were flew in the face of making a model awesome just because it would look cool.

Purity seals anyone? Seriously. If it was on the model you better pay points for it! That is about the dumbest idea ever when it was taken to it's extreme like it was.

OMG and the current system FORCES you to use plasmaguns if they're modelled onto your units! /deadpan

How is that an argument against armories? Both systems have options that you're forced to take if you model them onto your unit. Again, nice strawman, but please use real arguments to defend your point.


Don't try and lie. Yes you play for fun, and part of the fun is winning. I bet you don't appreciate being trounced into the dirt by a 1,000 pt victory margins. Or losing -constantly-. Your other army is marines... look the other Armory raper... Big surprise.

You on the other hand play and liked the Broken Chaos, and you liked it for the brokenness (a good portion of it's "wargear") and also play another Broken Force.

Of course I play to enjoy myself. winning is part of the fun when it happens. I don't try for WAAC like some powergaming ass hat that has to compensate for his or her inadequacies in life.

Trolling and flaming are against the forum rules. I'm not even going to argue with you, because frankly I'm above being baited by childish trolling like this. If you can't discuss things civilly, don't bother posting anything at all.

EDIT


That's not the point that's being made. Nobody writes their lists, puts their models on the table, and then declares, "Right then, I'm going to do my utmost to lose this game!"

No, obviously. I play to win (to a reasonable degree) once I'm at the table, but I'm not 'playing to win' when constructing my army lists. I'm building stuff that is fluffy and, more importantly, fun to play with. I'm arguing against the game being dumbed down at the latter, not the former - where I'm not 'playing to win'.

Captain Micha
12-03-2009, 18:41
Oh and insulting posters by calling them WAAC powergamers isn't insulting?

Plasma guns actually have a mechanical use in the game worth mentioning.

Bionics and Purity seals were put on there because they felt the entire universe needed Rules Quantification. When it didn't.

If you can't take heat, then don't throw out flames. You'll only get them back.
Furthermore the last sentence which you bolded had no bearing on you. Now if you chose for it to maybe it strikes abit close to home?

Hellfury
12-03-2009, 19:16
I miss the armoury section but this method has merit as well.

It isn't without its faults, such as invalidating a perfectly reasonable models like a termie sgt with a combi weapon (*GRUMBLE*), but overall I like the new system.

Tweak it a bit to offer a few more options where needed and I think the system is quite close to perfect.


Even if we do subscribe to this crazy system, wouldn't it be better to put the rules in the sternguard entry, and put a Hellfire tab in the Wargear section and reference the Sternguard entry? Even then, it still makes no sense. The logical place to look for the rules for wargear is in the wargear section. I could get a system of putting wargear in the unit entries and leaving the wargear section essentially an index - why not actually make an index? Why the arbitrary placing of wargear in the unit entries and wargear section?

I remember the stats just fine, thanks. But I play against people who really do look this crap up in-game and it drives me nuts watching them flick all over the book trying to find stuff. The big problem is that you can't predict where rules or wargear are going to be in the book. I get the idea that shared wargear -> wargar section, unique wargear -> unit entry, but that's not in any way adhered to with any kind of consistency. You've got units referencing other units - if Iron Halo is a shared item, why not put it in the damn armoury?


Why not put the unit-specific rules in the unit entries and all wargear in the wargear section. Is that too crazy a notion? Bear in mind that if you're looking up stuff in-game, you're going to start with the army list summary, so you'll start by looking up "wargear" in the "wargear" section. Being sent to the unit entry is stupid. Most of the entries in the Wargear section simply reference other pages and make the Wargear section seem like a complete waste of space. You could even put the rules in BOTH the unit entry AND the Wargear section! The rules for most wargear entries don't take up much more space than writing "see page XX". For really complicated ones like the bikers booby-traps then perhaps a reference would be required, but for many items (e.g. Narthecium) you could just put the rules in both places without using up any more space. Or is that crazy talk?

Agreed. There is a very clear lack of being able to locate said obscure rules (obscure being very subjective) like the old system had.

Its like trading one head ache for a migraine.

Even the chaos book from 3rd ed was a lot more clearer to read and locate what item is where. The new system of locating wargear items has little to do with logic.

sydbridges
12-03-2009, 20:19
Mentioning bad aspects of the chaos codex is the Goodwin's Law of 40k forums.

I hear Hitler liked the wargear section of the 3.5 codex (or are we talking about 4E chaos, because I can chalk one up for that as well.)

Overall, I like having a list of the wargear available under the unit options. I'm not ecstatic about some of the changes this has made to wargear availability. If I want to build Sergeant Luko from the Soul Drinkers, who is a tactical marine sergeant who for some bizarre reason wields lightning claws, or whathisface from the Iron Snakes, a Sergeant who wields a lightning claw and a bolter, then I'm going to have to build them as veterans or something. So, from a "I want to recreate an army that I liked in this book" perspective, the new changes are suboptimal.

The "choose your own adventure" style hunt for the rules for items in the new codices is awful, though. Whoever designed that seems to have done so with the explicit goal of making finding things in any given codex more complicated than necessary. Watching someone who flip through the book for two minutes while they try to work out what a piece of wargear does and if they want to use it at the moment makes me feel like I've got evidence that the codices must have evolved, because that is not intelligent design. :eyebrows:

Still, I feel like the new system, with work, could be much better than the old system. Assuming GW doesn't scrap it or make things worse.

The_Outsider
13-03-2009, 00:34
I hear Hitler liked the wargear section of the 3.5 codex (or are we talking about 4E chaos, because I can chalk one up for that as well.)

As much as you joke (not picking on you in particular, just quoting) - the reason chaos gets picked on is for two main reasons-

1) The codex was broken as hell for various reasons, but the armoury was a big part of that.

2) A lot of chaos players have whined on warseer and their arguments have basically boiled down to "If I cannot build a powerful *insert unit/model of choice here* then it isn't fluffy!"

You know who you are.

REGARDLESS, armouries have never correctly factored in who can buy what wargear and the huge variations thereof, even when GW has tried it said armoury is full of asterix's excluding this, that and the other (for a good example look at the SW armoury).

While the system we have now is not perfect, it does allow (pirmarily HQ's) different units that compete for the same slot of have different wargear to reflect what they should be doing, in addition to their base stats.

The biggest problem with that pretty much is a marine exclusive thing - anything can do anything reasonably well, so they all have 80% of the same options for the same cost with little difference between weapon/wargear access (especially now things like force weapons come with the model).

The eldar codex truly makes the current format shine in relation to the old one, simply because the eldar HQ's are so different. Tyranids, DE and Tau would also benefit greatly (in particular the Tau etheral).

kairous
13-03-2009, 00:36
As a Chaos player, I was gutted to see the armoury dropped in the latest codex. It made my Flying, plasma pistol, power fist, power sword and daemon armoured Chosen completely redundant. It was also the end of my Chaos Lord with his Kai gun, daemon sword (amongst other upgrades) One of the attractions of Chaos is to be able to personalise your army.

I agree the balancing was a little off, but GW took the easy way out and uniformed everything. I guess it works better this way for tourneys, but it has killed a great part of the hobby.

agreed, my chaos army was about 3000 points before the current book, went down to something like 1450??? something like that, my demon prince cried.:D.
but he dealt with it like the rest of us did.
notice im a chaos player but im not whinning, lol, no offence intended, i was seriously bummed when the chaos dex got redone, but now i have warptime ;)

Lord Inquisitor
13-03-2009, 00:39
The eldar codex truly makes the current format shine in relation to the old one, simply because the eldar HQ's are so different. Tyranids, DE and Tau would also benefit greatly (in particular the Tau etheral).
While I really like the Eldar army list, the codex itself is perhaps the worst offender in terms of looking up wargear/special rules. The vehicle upgrades are particularly fun to find.

The_Outsider
13-03-2009, 00:41
While I really like the Eldar army list, the codex itself is perhaps the worst offender in terms of looking up wargear/special rules. The vehicle upgrades are particularly fun to find.

This is true, but I was more referring to unit options - rather than the cluster**** layout it has for telling you what a reaper launcher does (or whatever).

sydbridges
13-03-2009, 01:13
As much as you joke (not picking on you in particular, just quoting) - the reason chaos gets picked on is for two main reasons-

1) The codex was broken as hell for various reasons, but the armoury was a big part of that.

2) A lot of chaos players have whined on warseer and their arguments have basically boiled down to "If I cannot build a powerful *insert unit/model of choice here* then it isn't fluffy!"

Eh, I was disappointed in the 4E codex, but that was basically because I wanted to do (and had mostly built) a noise-based army, and I couldn't stick noise weapons on all the things I had stuck noise weapons onto or had been planning to stick onto. I'm not convinced that this was always an optimal plan (trading heavy bolters on a predator for sonic blasters for free is still a downgrade from S5AP4 to S4AP5, for instance), but I was mostly doing it for the whole, "Hahaha, you have been rocked... to the death!" Doesn't matter much to me now that I've gone to the trouble of changing my army to fit the codex.

Hilariously, after finishing up with my Chaos army, I read the Soul Drinker novels and went, "I think I'd like to field that army, could be fun." The new marine codex hits several months later and I can't put lightning claws on a tactical sergeant to create one of the characters. The new system does have drawbacks for people besides WAACers.

SimonL
13-03-2009, 01:39
@SimonL
Wait, which Termy seargent in what list are you talking about and different from what? Clarification please.

Sorry about the late reply U. Commander :D 4th Ed Marine Codex (pg 30 and 31). "The Squad sergeant may select equipment from the Space Marine Armoury" under Terminator Command, Assault and standard squads.

I just want a Assault Term. sarge with a Relic blade lol.

EVIL INC
13-03-2009, 02:20
I knew this thread wouldnt last long before it turned into a flame war.

Askari
13-03-2009, 12:41
If someone wishes to convert a model to have a Bionic arm, WYSIWYG may force them to pay the 5, 10, or however many points Bionics used to cost. Points which they may want to spend elsewhere. Now one such thing might not be too bad, but if you have two or three such meaningless upgrades, then the cost can rack up. So, people mat well end up not making that cool, inventive conversion they thought of; because they baulk at the idea of the points cost shooting up.


Purity Seals, Bionics and the like were dumb. They were just little tidbits designed to alter the aesthetics and not actually do anything.

I just don't see what the problem was giving Daemon Armour to a Champion, if a Chaos Lord and a whole unit can have Terminator Armour, why not squad leaders? Armouries, to me, let you make the leaders stand out more as individuals.

Before someone comes along calling me a powergamer wanting uber champions... three words... Thousand Sons player.

That said, the current Codex Space Marines hasn't actually lost many options besides Purity seals and the like, and Terminator-armoured Scout Sergeants. It's just really foolish layout... at least the Armoury listed everything each item did on the pages directly after where they were listed.

Imperialis_Dominatus
13-03-2009, 13:29
Meh. I'm a Chaos player and I'm fine with armories being gone.

Now watch as the universe rips itself a new one by the paradox. :rolleyes:


This thread will turn into a "4th ed Chaos sucks!" thread.

Aaaaand immediately after:


As a Chaos player, I was gutted to see the armoury dropped in the latest codex.

Go figure.


Counts as 1 hand weapon and one ranged weapon.

See, this is why they gutted armories.

ehlijen
13-03-2009, 13:39
To understand the full folly of the armoury system vs option lists in each entry, have a look at the 3rd ed Tau codex. The armoury contained a grand total of 4 items, 3 of which only affect the models shooting attacks. The ethereal was allowed to pick any one of the 4...

To those who want armouries back: what do you mean by armoury?
Do you mean the listing of all options in one common table? Even if that means a mishmash of asterikses and exceptions to prevent stupid things like terminator bike seargeants slowing his squad down?
Or do you mean you want all the old options back and don't really care whether they are all on one page or in the entry? Even if that means all the no brainers (the must-takes and the mustn't-takes) willl be back?
Or both?
Or do you want the layout to go back to having all gear explained in one section, keeping in mind that those sections still exists and that their quality of layout really has nothing to do with the presence of an armoury?

Occulto
13-03-2009, 14:23
Purity Seals, Bionics and the like were dumb. They were just little tidbits designed to alter the aesthetics and not actually do anything.

Not only did they not do much, but I could never remember what I'd bought anyway. :p

Besides, giving a model a +1 modifier doesn't make it particularly original or personalised (especially if every other player takes the same bloody upgrades).

"Oh so your havocs have tank hunters? Never seen that before..." :rolleyes:

I'm not sad to see the armouries go for one simple reason: game balance.

Take the current Chaos codex as an example - the cost of the Icons change depending on what unit is carrying them - you'll pay less to give Chaos Termies the icon of Tzeentch than normal CSM, while Khorne costs the same in both units. The Mark of Tzeentch costs three different amounts on the HQ choices.

Seems kind of silly that while heavy and special weapons generally cost a different amount depending on the role of the squad, the other upgrades were (for the most part) identically costed.

sydbridges
13-03-2009, 15:04
To those who want armouries back: what do you mean by armoury?
Do you mean the listing of all options in one common table? Even if that means a mishmash of asterikses and exceptions to prevent stupid things like terminator bike seargeants slowing his squad down?

No, I'm fine with an explicit list of 'what you can take' under each unit option. That particular bit is the most sensible part of the new layout.


Or do you mean you want all the old options back and don't really care whether they are all on one page or in the entry? Even if that means all the no brainers (the must-takes and the mustn't-takes) willl be back?

What would "Lightning claws on a tactical sergeant" count as? Or "sonic weapons on everything?" I don't really need all the old options back (I'm fine with things like bionics being a modelling thing), but if a piece of wargear is still wargear for one unit and used to be wargear for another, I'd like more of that back, if only for WYSIWYG. If they'd simply removed sonic weapons all together, I could have stuck them on everything and just said, "no, those are actually bolters and autocannons" or whatever.


Or do you want the layout to go back to having all gear explained in one section, keeping in mind that those sections still exists and that their quality of layout really has nothing to do with the presence of an armoury?

Yes, I think that's a reasonable request, that all the rules for items be in one place. They have a section in the codex for this to be done, but some of the entries link to other sections, and it is not always done rationally. Rather than having a more complicated system for determining what rules go where that they don't follow all the time (presumably because they get confused by it, too), I'd rather they go with a simpler system that they aren't going to mess up.

DhaosAndy
13-03-2009, 16:00
ehlijen: "To understand the full folly of the armoury system vs option lists in each entry, have a look at the 3rd ed Tau codex. The armoury contained a grand total of 4 items, 3 of which only affect the models shooting attacks. The ethereal was allowed to pick any one of the 4..."

I could just as easily say look at the pointless inefficiency of the 4.0 chaos codex. Every asp chp & IC, bar terminators pays the same for power fists, power weapons, plasma pistols, etc. Why waste space listing the same options in each unit entry?

ehlijen: "To those who want armouries back: what do you mean by armoury? Do you mean the listing of all options in one common table?"

Yes

ehlijen: "Even if that means a mishmash of asterikses and exceptions to prevent stupid things like terminator bike seargeants slowing his squad down?"

You call it a mishmash, I call it a decent system, occaisionaly let down by GW's lack of proof reading and some players lacking common sense.

ehlijen: "Or do you mean you want all the old options back and don't really care whether they are all on one page or in the entry?"

Both, I think an armoury is the better system, but I'd rather have wargear & gifts back wether in an armoury or not.

ehlijen: "Even if that means all the no brainers (the must-takes and the mustn't-takes) willl be back?"

Yeah, cos the 4.0 chaos dex is so free of them ain't it guv:rolleyes:

Occulto: "Take the current Chaos codex as an example - the cost of the Icons change depending on what unit is carrying them - you'll pay less to give Chaos Termies the icon of Tzeentch than normal CSM, while Khorne costs the same in both units. The Mark of Tzeentch costs three different amounts on the HQ choices."

True, but not very balanced because the IOK is clearly more valuable on a unit of terminators than it is on a unit of CSM's.

Occulto: "Seems kind of silly that while heavy and special weapons generally cost a different amount depending on the role of the squad, the other upgrades were (for the most part) identically costed."

Not sure what your driving at here, special/heavy costs have always been part of the squad entries.

Also the 3.5 chaos dex had IC's, etc, paying more than asp chps. For their weapons, etc. Which was a more balanced system since an IC gains more from a power weapon than an asp chp with a lower I and less attacks.

ehlijen
13-03-2009, 16:53
I happen to think that every unit having their own option list is a better idea than a long list having more exceptions that straight rules.

Yes it means you end up repeating yourself, but it also means all the points costs are in one place, and the designer has much better control over what combos are possible for whom and what they cost for whom.

The 3.5 chaos dex also had aspiring champions paying less for power fists even though they gained more from having them than ICs because of their 9 ablative wounds and the fact that they sacrificed less I. I don't think that was a good system at all.

Lord Inquisitor
13-03-2009, 18:05
It also - potentially - allows you to customise the points of the upgrade to the unit. GW has largely squandered this opportunity - daemonic possession is worth a whole lot more on a vindicator than a predator, and falcons make the most out of holofields, as just two examples - but there have been a few cases where different units do pay different points for things based on how useful they are to them.

DhaosAndy
13-03-2009, 19:06
ehlijen: "I happen to think that every unit having their own option list is a better idea than a long list having more exceptions that straight rules."

Fine, but when the wheel turns again and options come back into fashion (speed the day) they'll have to abandon it as unwieldy. Can you imagine each unit entry running to over a page, just to fit all the wargear and gifts in?

ehlijen: "Yes it means you end up repeating yourself, but it also means all the points costs are in one place, and the designer has much better control over what combos are possible for whom and what they cost for whom."

Not really, the designer has exactly the same control over the combo's regardless of how they are presented.

ehlijen: "The 3.5 chaos dex also had aspiring champions paying less for power fists even though they gained more from having them than ICs because of their 9 ablative wounds and the fact that they sacrificed less I. I don't think that was a good system at all."

What your saying is that the relative values weren't correct, which is arguable either way. I would argue that the current blanket value for a P.Fist is incorrect, an IC pays the same as an Asp Chp who really does gain more benefit from it. Neither is an argument for or against an armoury.

Lord Inquisitor: "It also - potentially - allows you to customise the points of the upgrade to the unit. GW has largely squandered this opportunity - daemonic possession is worth a whole lot more on a vindicator than a predator, and falcons make the most out of holofields, as just two examples - but there have been a few cases where different units do pay different points for things based on how useful they are to them."

True, but anything you want to vary according to unit you put in the unit entry and anything else goes in the armoury.

As an aside, another example is the cost of a P.Weapon for an Asp Chp & a Skull Chp, why do they pay the same? When the Skull Chp gets so much more benefit from it.

Ubermensch Commander
13-03-2009, 20:58
Sorry about the late reply U. Commander :D 4th Ed Marine Codex (pg 30 and 31). "The Squad sergeant may select equipment from the Space Marine Armoury" under Terminator Command, Assault and standard squads.

I just want a Assault Term. sarge with a Relic blade lol.

Thanks for the reply! Was wondering what ya were referencing. I will admit you cannot switch up the Termy sarge in the SM codex. My only wish is that you could tone him down9up?) to a P.Fist like the rest of the squad. Unfortunate but not a big deal.
Hahaha. at least your honest man! Sorry, you get relic blades on the Vanguard.
*looks at sarge* NO RELIC BLADE FOR YOU! YOU KNOW WHAT YOU DID! THIS IS WHY WE CANT HAVE NICE THINGS! heh.

I dont mind...my love of Thunder Hammers is probably not healthy. Now the builds are worth it! yay 3+ invulnerable means banshees, genestealers, MC (Which Assault termys are supposed to take on) now wont eat ALL of them before i can strike! heh.

Oh and general thing, if any one wants to respond to me in discussion and the name is too long, just go with UC, Ucom, or Uber. Hell, Urbs would be fine.

Sheena Easton
13-03-2009, 21:16
I miss being able to give my Nobz Big Shootas, or in the case of squad-leader Nobz kustom shootaz...

I also miss being able to give my Wierdboy Warphead a graviton gun and power field.

GeneralDisaster
13-03-2009, 22:31
I play SoB and Necrons. The crondex armoury is just the warscythe, and the rest is Necron Lord upgrades.

At the other end of the spectrum, the SoB codex is filled with beautiful things. Oh, and a massive armoury.

Occulto
13-03-2009, 23:32
True, but not very balanced because the IOK is clearly more valuable on a unit of terminators than it is on a unit of CSM's.

I didn't say they got it absolutely perfect. :D


Not sure what your driving at here, special/heavy costs have always been part of the squad entries.

I wasn't disputing that. I pointed out that it was strange that other options weren't given the same treatment all along.


Also the 3.5 chaos dex had IC's, etc, paying more than asp chps. For their weapons, etc. Which was a more balanced system since an IC gains more from a power weapon than an asp chp with a lower I and less attacks.

Hence my use of the words "for the most part". There have been some exceptions.

I think Aspiring Champs should have been paying more for their powerfists as it was. 15 points to put one on an untouchable model with a heap of ablative wounds? There's a reason why they appeared on just about every model which could take one. :p

But getting back to the point, you still paid the same for a lot of non-weapon options like veteran skills or Marks of Chaos regardless of what the role of the unit. That's the biggest problem with having everything in one place (ie the armoury).

I'm well aware that Chaos started this off (rather simplistically), but who wants to see an armoury where everything is listed:

Upgrade X - 20/10/15/25/35

So 5 different point costs depending on what units can take them. Much easier just to put them in the units.

I suspect I might be arguing this from a different perspective. I'm not concerned about the number of options - I'm just happier that the options are in the unit entries rather than bunched up on a separate page.

DhaosAndy
14-03-2009, 01:07
Occulto: "I didn't say they got it absolutely perfect."

Oe indeed anything faintly resembling it :cries:

Occulto: "I wasn't disputing that. I pointed out that it was strange that other options weren't given the same treatment all along."

Not really, consider the length of the unit entry for CSM's (leaving aside cult troops) in the 3.5 dex if all the options had been listed in it :eek:

Occulto: "Hence my use of the words "for the most part". There have been some exceptions.

I think Aspiring Champs should have been paying more for their powerfists as it was. 15 points to put one on an untouchable model with a heap of ablative wounds? There's a reason why they appeared on just about every model which could take one."

I'd agree with that, no brainer under 4th Ed, 5th Ed less so. You still see a lot though, mainly because a power weapon isn't worth the points except for a skull or noise chp. Again though, that's a point about relative value, not list structure.

Occulto: "But getting back to the point, you still paid the same for a lot of non-weapon options like veteran skills or Marks of Chaos regardless of what the role of the unit. That's the biggest problem with having everything in one place (ie the armoury)."

I'd go with that, it was a structural problem, the basic CSM entry was trying to do too much.

Occulto: I'm well aware that Chaos started this off (rather simplistically), but who wants to see an armoury where everything is listed:

Upgrade X - 20/10/15/25/35

So 5 different point costs depending on what units can take them. Much easier just to put them in the units.

Well I'd have to admit that upgrade X should be in the unit entry.

Occulto: "I suspect I might be arguing this from a different perspective. I'm not concerned about the number of options - I'm just happier that the options are in the unit entries rather than bunched up on a separate page.

Well, yeah, I'm more concerned with the number of options (or lack there of), I'd like to see more than a single page unit entry could handle. ;)

killfrenzy
14-03-2009, 01:23
The problem here is not the Armoury; people are right to say that armouries where all the varying items for different units, characters and model types are all lumped together is going to get needlessly complicated and difficult to navigate. This is a given.
You'll need asterix' and special notes and what have you telling the person using it who can have what and when. It wasn't a good system.

However, most people see the armouries representing the character and wholesome customisability of a race -particularily chaos marines.
But this needn't be the case.

When a units full options are detailed in their unit entry, this prevents confusion and obfuscation over what exactly, say, a marine sergeant can get.

But daemonic gifts were taken out of 4.0 along with the armoury and so people associate the two.

The problem is that many people see the elimination of the armoury as the elimination of customisability and individual characterisation that they were previously able to apply to their army.

I support the present format, in principle, but I feel that certain armies -particularily chaos marines- need to have their unit/character options expanded to include more chaotic options in the form of daemonic gifts.
They cut too much out.

RichBlake
14-03-2009, 01:35
I think the new system is better to be honest.

Firstly it acts as a "recommendation" list for newer players. For example how often did anyone give their Lieutenant a refractor field for example? 5+ invulnerable sounds OK, but 15 points is a lot to spend on a 1 wound model.

Secondly it prevents "broken" load outs. In honesty I don't have much experience with these, being a Guard player, however I also collect Daemon Hunters and certain combinations in there are pretty nasty.

Thirdly because the unit profiles are all in the same places there is no flicking back and forth for the points costs from page 65 back to page 28 for example. Again I don't have much personal problem with this as I have practically memorised the entire Guard codex and most of the Daemonhunters codex.

Occulto
14-03-2009, 01:37
Oe indeed anything faintly resembling it :cries:

I'm well aware of your attitude to the current Chaos codex hombre. I don't share it.


Not really, consider the length of the unit entry for CSM's (leaving aside cult troops) in the 3.5 dex if all the options had been listed in it :eek:

Chaos tends to distort the argument.

But other armies that existed and not all of them had the multitude of options that Chaos did. Eldar for example, benefited immensely under their new codex with the increase in options.


I'd go with that, it was a structural problem, the basic CSM entry was trying to do too much.

The whole damn codex was trying to do too much!!! :p


Well I'd have to admit that upgrade X should be in the unit entry.

That's what I'm getting at. A side affect of this, is that we no longer have the same restrictions on the amount of wargear a model can take. If it's in the entry, you can take it - no dicking round with 50 or 100 point wargear limits.


Well, yeah, I'm more concerned with the number of options (or lack there of), I'd like to see more than a single page unit entry could handle. ;)

I know mate. :D

Khornate Fireball (Ork)
14-03-2009, 03:01
Ok, so, basically, we should have an armory that lists the effects of all the gear. Then, we have each unit entry state what it can take and for how many points. This is *basically* what we have now. But really, two issues are being conflated: How the book is organized, and how many options players are given. The layout issue isn't the biggest deal. The same design space is available in the end with both.

But there isn't a reason we can't have the old number of options under the new system, or a reason we had to have so many under the old system. Also... Are you guys seriously saying that Chaos, let alone every army, needs to have as many options as it did in 3.5? Now, one might say things are bland at the moment... But you do NOT need 3.5's options to have a good AND characterful game. Oh, and by paring down the ridiculous number of options, you make game balance a lot easier. (Not that GW will actually make it balanced... :rolleyes:)

DhaosAndy
14-03-2009, 05:13
Occulto: "I'm well aware of your attitude to the current Chaos codex hombre. I don't share it."

Fair enough, ain't compulsary :)

Occulto: "Chaos tends to distort the argument."

Of course ;)

Occulto: "But other armies that existed and not all of them had the multitude of options that Chaos did. Eldar for example, benefited immensely under their new codex with the increase in options."

Couldn't say, my only interest in eldar is killin'em. I'll shed no more tears for the flying circus than I did for siren, 4+3 IW or the daemon bomb.

Occulto: "The whole damn codex was trying to do too much!!!"

Too much is not enough :p

Occulto: "That's what I'm getting at. A side affect of this, is that we no longer have the same restrictions on the amount of wargear a model can take. If it's in the entry, you can take it - no dicking round with 50 or 100 point wargear limits."

Principaly because there ain't 100pts of wargear to take.......

@ Khornate Fireball (Ork)

Given that the choices are;

Lots of options, unbalanced

&

Few options, unbalanced

You'll excuse me if I plump for the former, since if nothing else I'll be uttering the C words less often. :D

killfrenzy
14-03-2009, 07:07
++ REMOVED BY THE WS =I= quoting deleted post. ++

The amount of threads complaining about the quality of 4.0, the amount of people declaring their dislike for 4.0, the amount of forums hosting revised and/or homebrew codexes for chaos marines and the move on GWs part toward more diversity in the recent MEQ codex all point to a majority dissatisfaction with 4.0.

It does not help the situation that when this subject is ever aired, the thread gets swarmed with pointless spam telling people to just zip their mouths and take it.

This issue will not be wished away. B+C have an entire sub-forum dedicated to this; so should warseer.

DhaosAndy
14-03-2009, 07:09
++ REMOVED BY THE WS =I= quoting deleted post. ++

For the record, no one said Codex: CSMs sucks! People have opined that codex CSM 'sucks' because of..........

There is a difference, go figure :angel:

EVIL INC
14-03-2009, 13:13
No difference at all. This is not a pro/anti chaos codex thread. Try to leave the flame wars at home because we have hashed this out a million times already. Just go back and read the previous threads because they hold all the same arguments, flames and everything else that you guys are retyping here. It will no more be decided now then it was then.
This thread is about the armory in the new codexes not the chaos codex and it's merits.