I think it’s worth remembering just what could comcievably count as a “supported model” under T9A design structure.Hey all WDG people. I'm trying to make sense of my WDG model collection now with 2.0. I remember there being a promise way back from the team that models useable in 8th ed WHFB wouldn't end up being unsupported. Looking through the new AB though I can't seem to find entries for some, but it could be that I just don't see the connection (I rarely play WDG).
For example, what would you use a daemonic steed as now? War Dais would make no sense.
There's no use for full plate-armoured dudes on steed of lust/shadow chaser?
Is there a list of models that basically became unsupported in the transition to 2.0 somewhere?
Most players who are upset at the changes consider a “supported model” to be a model that represents a unit which is functionally similar to what it previously had been, and which occupies a similar place in an army.
On the other side, it would be ENTIRELY supportable given the arguments of “supported models” for, as an (extreme) example, all Infantry units in the Orcs and Goblins army to be folded into a single unit choice with a single base size.
I don't care if I play the army or if someone else plays it. There are models that are distinguishable, and they had their own different rules. I don't care if there role in the army changes.
But I do care if I cannot ue them anymore.
To me, one type of models represents one entry in the AB. So, staying with WodG, if I use my fallen beasts as wrewtched beasts, I cannot use my trolls anymore, if I use my trolls as wretched beasts, I cannot us emy fallen beasts anymore.
The same goes for vortex beast or hellcannon as hellmaw, chimera or manticore as ridden chimera, blight kings or chaos ogres as forsworn.
And I would feel the same if OnG players needed to decide whether to use orcs or blach orcs or savage orks as orcs, as those are also 3 distinguishable model types that need to represent 3 different units out of the book.
I don't know where you get the idea that we only care for our own army and not for the game as a whole.
Any of the players models would be useable, though some would need to be rebased, etc. I am obviously not saying T9A would do that or anything as ridiculous, but that action wouldn’t invalidate any models as that restriction currently functions. Any suggestion that it had would be “subjective”
Additionally, players presented with this want to find work arounds, so things are suggested that are not implementable because they either go against a T9A core concept or would require a significant loss to the faction. Making a unit, let’s days Chais Ogres, available by having them be underpowered goes against the balance goal, goes against the no-unnecessary/un-used unit goal, and adds additional complexity to the faction, which means that the army needs to get weaker/simpler/less fully designed elsewhere to make that work.
Wrath Priest has to be removed because it doesn’t have any standing to exist, as despite the title of “Wrath” remaining, the previous incarnation is no longer part of this game, and with it goes anything conceptually linked. There is no more Wrath = Anti-Magic because that’s not NewFluff
That is the important point: don't invalidate models. Find new rules for them if you must, but do so.