Lance845 wrote: Give the Gargs their blinding venom and yeah I am pretty cool with that.
Why are you cool with this?
As to your point about power wepaons, 40K did that once. It was the change to 2nd and 3rd Ed. Eventually they brought back the variety as they wanted to have an axe perform differently to a sword/mace/whatever. What is wrong with doing that? Why is adding granularity a bad thing?
Why would I not be? The kit still exists. I still get all the units on the table. They still have all their options. Does calling the gargoyles gargoyles mean much? Not even a little bit. Know what got squatted for nids with legends? Weapon options for the termagants. Wanna know why nobody complained? Because those weapons sucked and nobody took them anyway. Having weapon options wasting space on the data sheet was just that. Wasted data sheet. That is a concise datasheet that I could fit on a regular playing card and represents what used to take 3 pages.
100% wrong LOL.
I personally know two people who complained... They shared the same army and were hoping their gear options that they painstakingly custom built and magnetized would get better and you know,,, not squated XD... not everyone is so happy to lose options,,, even bad ones XD.
Yeah, these forums were overflowing with rage over the strangleweb. SO MANY players custom built that gun that did no damage. No literally. It dealt no damage.
dakkadakka is hardly the entire 40k community dude.
Correct. By all means, find me some rage about the strangleweb. I would love to see it.
The thing is, nothing of ours that we remotely care about went to Legends, but there are still Index only options with points in CA i.e. AG on gargs, shrikes and skyslashers. They're not Legends and have pts in latest CA, so...?
Thats from the forum dedicated entirely to tyranids.
Balancing the game for every little change would be exactly like balancing the game for every little datasheet now. Nobody changes point costs for chapter tactics now. So on and so forth.
100% not true. when PA came out,,, new point costs... when the marine dex came out ,,, new point cost,,, new eddition,,, new point cost.... they might not have done a good job of it,,, but there is a reason the point costs changed and that was because the balance of the units changed with introduction new stratagems, abilties and etc...
They are having enough trouble keeping up whilst some restrictions ARE in place, you think they ll be able to keep balance sans restrictions and with total customization ? you got to be kidding me.
The workload is either equal (less datasheets more options) or less (with less datasheets and more options you likely are consolidating duplicate options so there are actually less lines of data to adjust.)
you are fundamentally flawed with this logic.
The more you restrict your variables the less possible variances you have to account for. Even though you are reducing objects in your equations you are increasing dynamic variables. Given that you are running these objects through loops that try the different variables against other objects running similar loops. You now inherently have both more potential outcomes and therefore less predictable outcomes. Increasing the objects but making their variables largely static gives you an increased level predictability and therefor the time it will take to balance will be less.
Do you follow ?
This is literally an example of P vs. NP an unsolved problem in math.
If we already have NP complete (the static variables) we do not need to calculate all of NP which takes exponential time .
insaniak wrote: Whether you have 6 standalone books, or 1 core book and 5 supplements that refer back to the core book, you still have 6 books. If 6 books is too many in scenario 1, it's still too many in scenario 2.
Too many by whose standard?
Again, this comes back to the "should" thing. People are saying that things "should" be consolidated, but haven't presented a cogent reason as to why outside of their own personal preference, which isn't reason enough to do anything.
insaniak wrote: Instead, you have a single Marine codex, which has a cavalry option, and traits that can be taken to make your army more Space Wolfy. So people can make Space Wolf Thunderwolf cavalry, or they can make Space Gheckos Lizard Rider Cavalry, or they can make White Scar Bikers... all by taking the same generic unit with optional modifications via the traits. The end result is more choice, not less.
Maybe GW wants the Wolves to have TWC because it fits them, rather than "Generic Cavalry" that gets flavoured for different lists. Maybe there aren't any "Gheckos Lizard Rider Cavalry" because GW wants that element of the game - Marines riding living creatures - to be unique to the Space Wolves. Same for "Golden Winged Swordsmen" and "Robe-Covered Super Terminators" and anything else that's unique to different Chapters.
Maybe they don't have generic options for specific Chapters because they don't want Marines to just be a paint job.
The thing is, nothing of ours that we remotely care about went to Legends, but there are still Index only options with points in CA i.e. AG on gargs, shrikes and skyslashers. They're not Legends and have pts in latest CA, so...?
Thats from the forum dedicated entirely to tyranids.
congrats,
This still doesnt change that I KNOW PEOPLE WHO COMPLAINED because they cared about the fluff of its existence and didn't care it literally did nothing.
I'd rather my harlequin blades stayed and did something then just got squated in the rules... even though they currently do nothing... the idea is ,,, some players would like the unique stuff referenced on their datasheet to do something over getting rid of it.. admittedly we probobly wouldn't care if it wasn't on the sheet in the first place... but it was,,, so we are invested.
Yeah, My degree is game design. You are just wrong.
The consolidated "cavalry" data sheet that was proposed earlier can easily be costed to create all the data sheets that currently exist at the same point costs they are now. Balancing them in the future would be easier with a single sheet to adjust individual variables on.
Pouring through and updating 100+ data sheets is more work then 50. I know. I have made games. I speak from experience when placing basically repeat data in different places in a document you are likely to miss things if you are bad at editing. Oh look. GW keeps doing that and then releasing FAQs/Errata a week later.
The thing is, nothing of ours that we remotely care about went to Legends, but there are still Index only options with points in CA i.e. AG on gargs, shrikes and skyslashers. They're not Legends and have pts in latest CA, so...?
Thats from the forum dedicated entirely to tyranids.
congrats,
This still doesnt change that I KNOW PEOPLE WHO COMPLAINED because they cared about the fluff of its existence and didn't care it literally did nothing.
I'd rather my harlequin blades stayed and did something then just got squated in the rules... even though they currently do nothing... the idea is ,,, some players would like the unique stuff referenced on their datasheet to do something over getting rid of it.. admittedly we probobly wouldn't care if it wasn't on the sheet in the first place... but it was,,, so we are invested.
I take your anecdotal evidence with all the salt it deserves.
Again, this comes back to the "should" thing. People are saying that things "should" be consolidated, but haven't presented a cogent reason as to why outside of their own personal preference, which isn't reason enough to do anything.
Personal preference is absolutely a valid reason to think that something should be done a certain way. That's pretty much exactly what personal preference is about.
insaniak wrote: Maybe GW wants the Wolves to have TWC because it fits them, rather than "Generic Cavalry" that gets flavoured for different lists. Maybe there aren't any "Gheckos Lizard Rider Cavalry" because GW wants that element of the game - Marines riding living creatures - to be unique to the Space Wolves. Same for "Golden Winged Swordsmen" and "Robe-Covered Super Terminators" and anything else that's unique to different Chapters.
Maybe they don't have generic options for specific Chapters because they don't want Marines to just be a paint job.
But Marines are already just a paint job. That was my point. I can, right now, build an army of Space Gheckos Marines, using Space Wolf rules and riding giant lizards. The only difference between what exists now and what exists under my proposed system is that right now, my Space Gheckos are identical to Space Wolves in every way except appearance, whereas with all of the Marine options in one book, I could actually make a Chapter that wasn't just Space Wolves painted orange, because I wouldn't be restricted to the options currently available to Space Wolves.
H.B.M.C. wrote: 8th Edition - All the Marines have different books, or supplements.
"There are too many Marine books!"
9th Edition - Consolidates Marines into a single book, with supplements for anything that's unique to various Chapters.
"There are too many Marine books!"
So which is it?
Whether you have 6 standalone books, or 1 core book and 5 supplements that refer back to the core book, you still have 6 books. If 6 books is too many in scenario 1, it's still too many in scenario 2.
I don't want to look at 6 stand alone book or 1 core book and 5 sups.... as I said,,, I only wanted one book
To be clear, I'm not saying that choices should be taken away. I'm saying that they should be consolidated, but that, if combined with a robust Trait system, doesn't have to mean losing options. If anything, it opens up options, because it means that the things that currently make a particular Chapter 'unique' (just like all of the other Chapters that use the same rules because they're using the same codex!) can't only be taken in specific combinations. When the system allows for you to make 'The Totes Not Space Wolves' Chapter using the Space Wolf codex, the idea that rolling the Space Wolf-only goodies into the basic Marine book removes their uniqueness goes straight out the window. When you only have Thunderwolves in the Space Wolf Codex, they're not actually unique to Space Wolves... they're just unique to Space Wolves and any other chapter that is unique in the exact same way as Space Wolves.
Instead, you have a single Marine codex, which has a cavalry option, and traits that can be taken to make your army more Space Wolfy. So people can make Space Wolf Thunderwolf cavalry, or they can make Space Gheckos Lizard Rider Cavalry, or they can make White Scar Bikers... all by taking the same generic unit with optional modifications via the traits. The end result is more choice, not less.
The problem is that this level of customization might still provide customization, we would be sacrificing unique fluff (as everyone has access to the flavor we chose), the level of customization becomes a mess from a game design perspective and finally the User Interface becomes crowded and bloated. This proposal would be worse not better. Requires MORE effort for the designers for every little balance change ever with anything (it would be like dominos with every change), MORE time just to overhaul the entire faction as is AND unique factions would not feel like they had special flavour for taking the restrictions they want... If I choose firewariors, I want to get their weapons, I chose them because I am ok with not being able to get warpspider movement shenagins... I chose a restriction for my self for access to a flavour of rule.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lance845 wrote: Yeah, My degree is game design. You are just wrong.
The consolidated "cavalry" data sheet that was proposed earlier can easily be costed to create all the data sheets that currently exist at the same point costs they are now. Balancing them in the future would be easier with a single sheet to adjust individual variables on.
Pouring through and updating 100+ data sheets is more work then 50. I know. I have made games. I speak from experience when placing basically repeat data in different places in a document you are likely to miss things if you are bad at editing. Oh look. GW keeps doing that and then releasing FAQs/Errata a week later.
The thing is, nothing of ours that we remotely care about went to Legends, but there are still Index only options with points in CA i.e. AG on gargs, shrikes and skyslashers. They're not Legends and have pts in latest CA, so...?
Thats from the forum dedicated entirely to tyranids.
congrats,
This still doesnt change that I KNOW PEOPLE WHO COMPLAINED because they cared about the fluff of its existence and didn't care it literally did nothing.
I'd rather my harlequin blades stayed and did something then just got squated in the rules... even though they currently do nothing... the idea is ,,, some players would like the unique stuff referenced on their datasheet to do something over getting rid of it.. admittedly we probobly wouldn't care if it wasn't on the sheet in the first place... but it was,,, so we are invested.
I take your anecdotal evidence with all the salt it deserves.
If your degree is in game design... I would have failed you for not understanding what I just described LOL ... now you are out right lying to me to try and prove yourself right,,, this conversation is 100 % done... I was ok with arguing with your circular logic and silly assumptions... but I am not going to argue with you if you are going to stoop to faking credentials in order to "prove" a point over me XD... your officially trying too hard and you officially outed yourself as not being genuine.
The problem is that this level of customization might still provide customization, we would be sacrificing unique fluff (as everyone has access to the flavor we chose),...
Again, that 'unique fluff' is an illusion. Everyone already has access to it, because Codexes don't restrict you to only building the actual Chapter that's on the cover. You're restricted to those rules, but can call the Chapter whatever you want, and paint it however you want... but it will be identical to the Chapter on the cover.
Space Wolves can still have their unique fluff if other Chapters have access to their gear. We know this, because it's how things already work.
The problem is that this level of customization might still provide customization, we would be sacrificing unique fluff (as everyone has access to the flavor we chose),...
Again, that 'unique fluff' is an illusion. Everyone already has access to it, because Codexes don't restrict you to only building the actual Chapter that's on the cover. You're restricted to those rules, but can call the Chapter whatever you want, and paint it however you want... but it will be identical to the Chapter on the cover.
Space Wolves can still have their unique fluff if other Chapters have access to their gear. We know this, because it's how things already work.
Yes but the ruleset IS the flavour I am after... I don't care what you call it.. as long as I am rewarded for choosing restrictions in exchange for unique options... call them "Silly walking monkey marines" for all I care, as long as my choice to restrict myself to those rules equals certain unique options I am getting flavour and my choices feel like and in fact do mater.
Yes but the ruleset IS the flavour I am after... I don't care what you call it.. as long as I am rewarded for choosing restrictions in exchange for unique options... call them "Silly walking monkey marines" for all I care, as long as my choice to restrict myself to those rules equals certain unique options I am getting flavour and my choices feel like and in fact do mater.
If that's what you want, then a single book with a Chapter Trait system would give you exactly what you want. You don't need to have each available unit on a separate piece of paper to everyone else's for that to work.
Wants restrictions. Doesn't want to loose any data sheets or wargear from the army with more data sheets and wargear then any 2-3 others armies put together.
insaniak wrote: Personal preference is absolutely a valid reason to think that something should be done a certain way. That's pretty much exactly what personal preference is about.
I reject this notion in every perceivable manner. GW has created a situation where you can paint things in any way you want, make up any fluff you want, but at the end of the day a Blood Angel is different to a Dark Angel. They have different aesthetics, different narrative, and different mechanics. They are not just paint jobs. They are unique.
Lance845 wrote: But I could take DA models, paint them yellow, and use BA rules. So whats the difference?
Well, for one thing, you'd confuse your opponent quite a bit.
But more seriously, I just said what the difference is: Blood Angels are unique. Dark Angels are unique. They are not just a paint job.
Once upon a time they were all the same - back in 2nd Ed when all we had was the Codex Army Lists book and Marines were just Marines, but with different coloured paint. When I chose my army back then I chose it not based on differing aesthetic quirks (robes, wings, wolfy bits, etc.) or the strength of their unique units over one another. I chose them because I liked blue more than red.
Nower days, the choice isn't so black and white (or red and blue, as it were! ). There's a difference between Ultramarines and Blood Angels. There's a difference between Dark Angels and Imperial Fists. Sure, I can paint my Imperial Fists green and my Dark Angels yellow, but there is a mechanical difference to the way the two armies perform, even if they share a core of units. Stripping it down to just generic entries and making Marine Chapters just a paint job again robs the game of what makes it unique.
And, again, we have done this in the past. The various Chaos Legions stopped having their own rules and became just another paint job. Even Daemons lost their flavour. It was awful. How could anyone wish that upon any other type of army?
Yes but the ruleset IS the flavour I am after... I don't care what you call it.. as long as I am rewarded for choosing restrictions in exchange for unique options... call them "Silly walking monkey marines" for all I care, as long as my choice to restrict myself to those rules equals certain unique options I am getting flavour and my choices feel like and in fact do mater.
If that's what you want, then a single book with a Chapter Trait system would give you exactly what you want. You don't need to have each available unit on a separate piece of paper to everyone else's for that to work.
I do if those units are particularly unique and I bought into that ruleset specifically for those specifically unique units. It does, if those units should be restricted from other factions as a result of the choice of me picking my particular faction and what comes with that.
Now, saying all of this...
I will concede. Given an infinite amount of design time and resources... a completely customizable, balanced, choose your own heroes, units, wargear, abilities on a single convenient variable data sheet is a wonderful utopia for a game like warhammer... The problem is,,, this would take so much more work, time and effort on the parts of the designers just to make a working system that inlcudes everything in a way that doesnt lose anything. Then the task of constantly keeping it balanced and runing like clockwork in a good way all the time would be inconceivable ....
Otherwise leaving in the current restrictions and affordances just changes how they format and present data, it doesnt actually change design effort (maybe a bit harder because a balanced single datasheet with more variables takes more work then static ones) (p.s. this kinda seems to be there current method)
This total customizable limited set of datasheets proposal is just not this amazing balancing/time freeing thing everyone seems to think it would be ... in fact it is far far worse for resources, balance and time and then on top of it, my faction loses it's uniqueness.. its lose/lose/lose (not just lose/lose but a triple lose. )
I can't really explain this in any more ways then I have ...
So I was watching a sports match the other day, and I couldnt tell why people were cheering one second and booing the other.
I mean, the only difference between the players was the Jersey they were wearing so why couldnt they all just have been on the same side?
Or maybe, just maybe, those colors are a surface indicator of something else that actually stands for a lot of differences, even though they look similar.
If someone tried to claim that Biel-Tan is the same as Saim-han I would say the same thing as if they said "All marines are the same with a different coat of paint". Each chapter, craftworld, regiment, hell even each hive fleet represent completely different cultures, preferences, sometimes abilities. Things that appeal to different people for different reasons.
I'd just to point out that we have a working example of a generic marine list with added flavour layered on top, done in 2 books (missing Dark Angels as of right now)
A lot of customization potential, a lot of fun wargear builds available to legions even without using the unique stuff
You mean what they did with the new marine books? How they have all the core shared units in one book and then all the chapter specific ones in another?
Leth wrote: You mean what they did with the new marine books? How they have all the core shared units in one book and then all the chapter specific ones in another?
No, because it's not 2 books. Stretching out individual books over months is a contributor to marine fatigue
I'd just to point out that we have a working example of a generic marine list with added flavour layered on top, done in 2 books (missing Dark Angels as of right now)
Ya... that's a different game,,, with different unit access, and different wargear access, rules access , and less uniquely flavored units... again,,, sure everything will be the same if you remove what makes things different.
I'd just to point out that we have a working example of a generic marine list with added flavour layered on top, done in 2 books (missing Dark Angels as of right now)
Ya... that's a different game,,, with different unit access, and different wargear access, rules access , and less uniquely flavored units... again,,, sure everything will be the same if you remove what makes things different.
Nope, you have unique units available to each legion. It's just all consolidated to 2 books. Just because it's a different system doesn't mean that the idea couldn't work in 9th edition
I'd just to point out that we have a working example of a generic marine list with added flavour layered on top, done in 2 books (missing Dark Angels as of right now)
Ya... that's a different game,,, with different unit access, and different wargear access, rules access , and less uniquely flavored units... again,,, sure everything will be the same if you remove what makes things different.
Nope, you have unique units available
I don't want my TWC to have to be a 'counts as' unit when they have perfectly unique rules as is , thanks. Also, my faction is also in 2 books, it used to only be 1 book... but now it's in two because GW decided that's how SWs work now.
I'd just to point out that we have a working example of a generic marine list with added flavour layered on top, done in 2 books (missing Dark Angels as of right now)
Ya... that's a different game,,, with different unit access, and different wargear access, rules access , and less uniquely flavored units... again,,, sure everything will be the same if you remove what makes things different.
Nope, you have unique units available
I don't want my TWC to have to be a 'counts as' unit when they have perfectly unique rules as is , thanks.
What part of "unique units available" do you not understand?
Lance845 wrote: But I could take DA models, paint them yellow, and use BA rules. So whats the difference?
Well, for one thing, you'd confuse your opponent quite a bit.
But more seriously, I just said what the difference is: Blood Angels are unique. Dark Angels are unique. They are not just a paint job.
Once upon a time they were all the same - back in 2nd Ed when all we had was the Codex Army Lists book and Marines were just Marines, but with different coloured paint. When I chose my army back then I chose it not based on differing aesthetic quirks (robes, wings, wolfy bits, etc.) or the strength of their unique units over one another. I chose them because I liked blue more than red.
Nower days, the choice isn't so black and white (or red and blue, as it were! ). There's a difference between Ultramarines and Blood Angels. There's a difference between Dark Angels and Imperial Fists. Sure, I can paint my Imperial Fists green and my Dark Angels yellow, but there is a mechanical difference to the way the two armies perform, even if they share a core of units. Stripping it down to just generic entries and making Marine Chapters just a paint job again robs the game of what makes it unique.
And, again, we have done this in the past. The various Chaos Legions stopped having their own rules and became just another paint job. Even Daemons lost their flavour. It was awful. How could anyone wish that upon any other type of army?
Do you really think anyone here has suggested to get rid of chapter tactics, warlord traits, strats, and relics?
Nobody is saying get rid of the things that make a space wolf intercessor different from a DA intercessor. They are saying that you only need one intercessor data sheet to represent them both.
Lance845 wrote: Nobody is saying get rid of the things that make a space wolf intercessor different from a DA intercessor. They are saying that you only need one intercessor data sheet to represent them both.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought there only was one Intercessor sheet? I mean, that was the whole point of consolidating all the Marine Codices into a single book, so that the core units would only ever be represented by a single sheet.
This meant that the supplements could be used for things that were unique to that Chapter, whereas the base-line units would have One Entry to Rule Them All and avoid repetition.
If there's been some report that the Wolf Supplement is going to reprint the Intercessor (or any) datasheet verbatim, but with different keywords down the bottom, then I might actually agree with you.
I'd just to point out that we have a working example of a generic marine list with added flavour layered on top, done in 2 books (missing Dark Angels as of right now)
Ya... that's a different game,,, with different unit access, and different wargear access, rules access , and less uniquely flavored units... again,,, sure everything will be the same if you remove what makes things different.
Nope, you have unique units available
I don't want my TWC to have to be a 'counts as' unit when they have perfectly unique rules as is , thanks.
What part of "unique units available" do you not understand?
The unique unit rules part ? where did you find the rules for TWC ? XD ?
Lance845 wrote: Nobody is saying get rid of the things that make a space wolf intercessor different from a DA intercessor. They are saying that you only need one intercessor data sheet to represent them both.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought there only was one Intercessor sheet? I mean, that was the whole point of consolidating all the Marine Codices into a single book, so that the core units would only ever be represented by a single sheet.
This meant that the supplements could be used for things that were unique to that Chapter, whereas the base-line units would have One Entry to Rule Them All and avoid repetition.
If there's been some report that the Wolf Supplement is going to reprint the Intercessor (or any) datasheet verbatim, but with different keywords down the bottom, then I might actually agree with you.
Ya,,, at that point, why even bother with a supplement XD.
I reject this notion in every perceivable manner. GW has created a situation where you can paint things in any way you want, make up any fluff you want, but at the end of the day a Blood Angel is different to a Dark Angel. They have different aesthetics, different narrative, and different mechanics. They are not just paint jobs. They are unique.
And they still would be if they were in the same book, with Chapter Traits.
Imagine if instead of your Blood Angel successor being identical in every way to a Blood Angel despite the fluff in many cases telling us that they are different, you could build Build a Blood Angels army, or you could build a Blood Angel Successor Chapter who has cavalry instead of Sanguinary Guard, but otherwise follows Blood Angel rules?
Your Blood Angels are still different to Dark Angels... but every other Chapter doesn't have to just be a cookie cutter copy of the parent codex.
I'd just to point out that we have a working example of a generic marine list with added flavour layered on top, done in 2 books (missing Dark Angels as of right now)
Ya... that's a different game,,, with different unit access, and different wargear access, rules access , and less uniquely flavored units... again,,, sure everything will be the same if you remove what makes things different.
Nope, you have unique units available
I don't want my TWC to have to be a 'counts as' unit when they have perfectly unique rules as is , thanks.
What part of "unique units available" do you not understand?
The unique unit rules part ? where did you find the rules for TWC ? XD ?
Christ alive, you're being intentionally obtuse aren't you? Do you not understand how to take a framework and apply it in this context? Ideally you'd have the general list in one book, then every unique thing in a second book. So you have Space Marine Bikers in your general and TWC/White Scars Hypothetical/Ravenwing in the second if you guys need your Unique datasheets so badly. 2 books, one week release, move on
Jesus christ you guys are bad at understanding examples. Or maybe it is my fault. I can accept that. Here let me explain.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Well, for one thing, you'd confuse your opponent quite a bit.
But more seriously, I just said what the difference is: Blood Angels are unique. Dark Angels are unique. They are not just a paint job.
Once upon a time they were all the same - back in 2nd Ed when all we had was the Codex Army Lists book and Marines were just Marines, but with different coloured paint. When I chose my army back then I chose it not based on differing aesthetic quirks (robes, wings, wolfy bits, etc.) or the strength of their unique units over one another. I chose them because I liked blue more than red.
Nower days, the choice isn't so black and white (or red and blue, as it were! ). There's a difference between Ultramarines and Blood Angels. There's a difference between Dark Angels and Imperial Fists. Sure, I can paint my Imperial Fists green and my Dark Angels yellow, but there is a mechanical difference to the way the two armies perform, even if they share a core of units. Stripping it down to just generic entries and making Marine Chapters just a paint job again robs the game of what makes it unique.
And, again, we have done this in the past. The various Chaos Legions stopped having their own rules and became just another paint job. Even Daemons lost their flavour. It was awful. How could anyone wish that upon any other type of army?
See that bit in red. It's called chapter tactics, stratagems, warlord traits, unique characters and relics. If you have some ACTUALLY unique units then you get those too. Not superficially unique. Not unique because they get a special wargear option that is in the other guys army but not on that unit for some reason "unique". But actually something different unique.
Do you really think anyone here has suggested to get rid of chapter tactics, warlord traits, strats, and relics?
Nobody is saying get rid of the things that make a space wolf intercessor different from a DA intercessor. They are saying that you only need one intercessor data sheet to represent them both.
Because of the above a intercessor isn't just a intercessor in 2 different chapters armies. And a consolidated datasheet for landraider variants would work for everyone. And combining thunderwolf calvary in with outriders would work and the SW kit would still play as a SW unit in a SW army.
Imagine if instead of your Blood Angel successor being identical in every way to a Blood Angel despite the fluff in many cases telling us that they are different, you could build Build a Blood Angels army, or you could build a Blood Angel Successor Chapter who has cavalry instead of Sanguinary Guard, but otherwise follows Blood Angel rules?
Your Blood Angels are still different to Dark Angels... but every other Chapter doesn't have to just be a cookie cutter copy of the parent codex.
This would be terrible.
1. I would be robbing the SW player from having access to their unique flavour rule while not having the restriction of playing SWs myself.
2. I would be introducing a new set of variables for the designers to consider and adjust when focusing on these new customization options we introduced.
3. Ballance consideration for the unit would have to not only go against the SWCT but the all legions CT now.
4. less time goes toward other factions to address the above mentioned points.
5. My decisions to play BA mean less because I have access to everything else everyone has and they have access to everything I have.
I'd just to point out that we have a working example of a generic marine list with added flavour layered on top, done in 2 books (missing Dark Angels as of right now)
Ya... that's a different game,,, with different unit access, and different wargear access, rules access , and less uniquely flavored units... again,,, sure everything will be the same if you remove what makes things different.
Nope, you have unique units available
I don't want my TWC to have to be a 'counts as' unit when they have perfectly unique rules as is , thanks.
What part of "unique units available" do you not understand?
The unique unit rules part ? where did you find the rules for TWC ? XD ?
Christ alive, you're being intentionally obtuse aren't you? Do you not understand how to take a framework and apply it in this context? Ideally you'd have the general list in one book, then every unique thing in a second book. So you have Space Marine Bikers in your general and TWC/White Scars Hypothetical/Ravenwing in the second if you guys need your Unique datasheets so badly. 2 books, one week release, move on
which I might not is exactly the situation we have right now, and it works pretty well (beyond GW's bizzare need to stretch this out for 3 months)
I'd just to point out that we have a working example of a generic marine list with added flavour layered on top, done in 2 books (missing Dark Angels as of right now)
Ya... that's a different game,,, with different unit access, and different wargear access, rules access , and less uniquely flavored units... again,,, sure everything will be the same if you remove what makes things different.
Nope, you have unique units available
I don't want my TWC to have to be a 'counts as' unit when they have perfectly unique rules as is , thanks.
What part of "unique units available" do you not understand?
The unique unit rules part ? where did you find the rules for TWC ? XD ?
Christ alive, you're being intentionally obtuse aren't you? Do you not understand how to take a framework and apply it in this context? Ideally you'd have the general list in one book, then every unique thing in a second book. So you have Space Marine Bikers in your general and TWC/White Scars Hypothetical/Ravenwing in the second if you guys need your Unique datasheets so badly. 2 books, one week release, move on
OH !!! it was an honest question XD. sorry I honestly didn't know how 30k worked... Yes,,, this is what GW is currently doing in 40k ... just a little less confusing, I didn't need to find a supplement called "book 7 - inferno" instead supplement will be called "space wolves." but otherwise similar yes.
1. I would be robbing the SW player from having access to their unique flavour rule while not having the restriction of playing SWs myself.
2. I would be introducing a new set of variables for the designers to consider and adjust when focusing on these new customization options we introduced.
3. Ballance consideration for the unit would have to not only go against the SWCT but the all legions CT now.
4. less time goes toward other factions to address the above mentioned points.
5. My decisions to play BA mean less because I have access to everything else everyone has and they have access to everything I have.
I can't help thinking that you vastly overestimate how much effort GW put into game balance.
On reflection, I think the disconnect here is coming from the fact that some people see the different flavours of marines as different factions, while others (like myself) just see them as Marines with different rules. To the first group, consolidating them would mean removing their chosen faction, whereas to the second group, it's just putting all of the rules in one place.
I'd just to point out that we have a working example of a generic marine list with added flavour layered on top, done in 2 books (missing Dark Angels as of right now)
Ya... that's a different game,,, with different unit access, and different wargear access, rules access , and less uniquely flavored units... again,,, sure everything will be the same if you remove what makes things different.
Nope, you have unique units available
I don't want my TWC to have to be a 'counts as' unit when they have perfectly unique rules as is , thanks.
What part of "unique units available" do you not understand?
The unique unit rules part ? where did you find the rules for TWC ? XD ?
Christ alive, you're being intentionally obtuse aren't you? Do you not understand how to take a framework and apply it in this context? Ideally you'd have the general list in one book, then every unique thing in a second book. So you have Space Marine Bikers in your general and TWC/White Scars Hypothetical/Ravenwing in the second if you guys need your Unique datasheets so badly. 2 books, one week release, move on
which I might not is exactly the situation we have right now, and it works pretty well (beyond GW's bizzare need to stretch this out for 3 months)
And for me, the 3 month stretch is the objectionable part. Keeping it to 2 books cuts this down to a week
I'd just to point out that we have a working example of a generic marine list with added flavour layered on top, done in 2 books (missing Dark Angels as of right now)
Ya... that's a different game,,, with different unit access, and different wargear access, rules access , and less uniquely flavored units... again,,, sure everything will be the same if you remove what makes things different.
Nope, you have unique units available
I don't want my TWC to have to be a 'counts as' unit when they have perfectly unique rules as is , thanks.
What part of "unique units available" do you not understand?
The unique unit rules part ? where did you find the rules for TWC ? XD ?
Christ alive, you're being intentionally obtuse aren't you? Do you not understand how to take a framework and apply it in this context? Ideally you'd have the general list in one book, then every unique thing in a second book. So you have Space Marine Bikers in your general and TWC/White Scars Hypothetical/Ravenwing in the second if you guys need your Unique datasheets so badly. 2 books, one week release, move on
which I might not is exactly the situation we have right now, and it works pretty well (beyond GW's bizzare need to stretch this out for 3 months)
And for me, the 3 month stretch is the objectionable part. Keeping it to 2 books cuts this down to a week
I would have preferred one book,,, just "codex Space Wolves"
1. I would be robbing the SW player from having access to their unique flavour rule while not having the restriction of playing SWs myself.
2. I would be introducing a new set of variables for the designers to consider and adjust when focusing on these new customization options we introduced.
3. Ballance consideration for the unit would have to not only go against the SWCT but the all legions CT now.
4. less time goes toward other factions to address the above mentioned points.
5. My decisions to play BA mean less because I have access to everything else everyone has and they have access to everything I have.
I can't help thinking that you vastly overestimate how much effort GW put into game balance.
well they certainly should be putting more effort into it and increasing the difficulty and time to do so wont help ...
On reflection, I think the disconnect here is coming from the fact that some people see the different flavours of marines as different factions, while others (like myself) just see them as Marines with different rules. To the first group, consolidating them would mean removing their chosen faction, whereas to the second group, it's just putting all of the rules in one place.
There's unlikely to be a middle ground, here.
I think you hit the nail on the head here.
I didn't choose SW to play general marines. I chose a faction. I don't care about the vanilla. I honestly felt dirty buying the core book XD.
I bought the SW codex in 5th not the Marine codex. I bought SW packs, not grey hunters. I play a faction with overlap yet its own unique flavour and twist garnered from unique rules and units. I will never play them AS anything but SWs ... The SWs becoming a supplement changes very little in that regard... at least for now unless the FB apocalypse happens and everything gets vanilified.
I'd just to point out that we have a working example of a generic marine list with added flavour layered on top, done in 2 books (missing Dark Angels as of right now)
Ya... that's a different game,,, with different unit access, and different wargear access, rules access , and less uniquely flavored units... again,,, sure everything will be the same if you remove what makes things different.
Nope, you have unique units available
I don't want my TWC to have to be a 'counts as' unit when they have perfectly unique rules as is , thanks.
What part of "unique units available" do you not understand?
The unique unit rules part ? where did you find the rules for TWC ? XD ?
Christ alive, you're being intentionally obtuse aren't you? Do you not understand how to take a framework and apply it in this context? Ideally you'd have the general list in one book, then every unique thing in a second book. So you have Space Marine Bikers in your general and TWC/White Scars Hypothetical/Ravenwing in the second if you guys need your Unique datasheets so badly. 2 books, one week release, move on
which I might not is exactly the situation we have right now, and it works pretty well (beyond GW's bizzare need to stretch this out for 3 months)
And for me, the 3 month stretch is the objectionable part. Keeping it to 2 books cuts this down to a week
sure, except that the 2nd "advanced chapter tactics" book would likely be large, clunky and not have the info. TBH, if GW could stop dragging out the mini releases over months as they slowly dribble out these supplements and instead just publish the fething things together a month after the codex, it'd be fine and dandy. or even keep the supplement release pattern as is and just put out the MINIS in one or two batches
sure, except that the 2nd "advanced chapter tactics" book would likely be large, clunky and not have the info. TBH, if GW could stop dragging out the mini releases over months as they slowly dribble out these supplements and instead just publish the fething things together a month after the codex, it'd be fine and dandy. or even keep the supplement release pattern as is and just put out the MINIS in one or two batches
100% agree with this, that would be nice.
@insaniak thanks for the moderation and discussion btw... I think you really hit the nail on the head and figured out what's been bothering the different sides of this debate... that's good moderation.
Lance845 wrote: See that bit in red. It's called chapter tactics, stratagems, warlord traits, unique characters and relics.
So the core of this is that you're arguing that these rules should all be in one book?
Ok. That's fine. But it's going to be a biiiiiiiiiiiiiig book if it has Sanguinary Guard and Deathwing Knights and Thunderwolf Cavalry and all the various Kill Teams and so on and so forth. And then 8 pages of psychic disciplines, 8 pages of Warlord traits, a Relic section that goes on for months. I'm fine with all of that - more than happy for there to be a single ginormous Marine 'Dex, except...
Lance845 wrote: If you have some ACTUALLY unique units then you get those too. Not superficially unique. Not unique because they get a special wargear option that is in the other guys army but not on that unit for some reason "unique". But actually something different unique.
And who determines what is "actually" unique, hey?
You could say that you don't think Deathwing Knights are sufficiently unique from Codex-adherant Terminators to warrant a separate entry. Ok. Say I disagree with that. I think they represent a different kind of Terminator and as they are something unique to the Dark Angels they should be represented by their own entry. How do we resolve this? Who is "right"?
Or to take a recent example, I think that Tartaros and Cataphractii Terminators should have rules that represent the different patterns of armour, in much the same way as Mk.X Power Armour has 3 different variants that have their own rules (Phobos, Gravis and whatever the normal type is called... probably Indomitus). You think that they belong in a single "Relic Terminator" entry. Who is more right here?
Lance845 wrote: And a consolidated datasheet for landraider variants would work for everyone.
Don't we lose something by doing that. I mean, I'm pretty sure they used to do that with Predators. A single entry, starts with an AC, upgrade to a TL-LC, and then add your chosen flavour of sponson. Then they separated them back out to Predator Destructor and Predator Annihilator. They chose flavour and fluff over expediency and the efficient use of the page. I don't see what's so wrong with that...
And that's before we even get into how consolidation interacts with the choice limitations (the incorrectly titled "Rule of 3").
Seems to me, if you consolidate, you end up with fewer cards, but the cards you have are complex rather than simple.
The tyranid Carnifexes are a perfect example because they've had it both ways: once upon a time, you had a single Carnifex entry, and you built it up from that.
Now, all of the things that you used to have to build, you can just take, because they're separate cards.
I seem to remember enjoying building carnifexes, but it does seem faster and more convenient to just pick a card rather than build every single unit you wish to use.
Same with Aspect Warriors- a base Aspect Warrior with options to build to any of the existing Shrines could work. But lets say you compose your army in such a way that you leave room for including 3 different Aspects, which you customize based on who you're facing.
The question is, do you prefer to build each of these three Aspects from scratch, or would you rather pick those three from the list of 8 that exist and then just make a few minor decisions within those three pre-made units?
Either way, you end up with the same result, but which process do you prefer? I'm not sure I have a preference for either process.
I think that the build your own does probably end up giving you more options rules wise, but I feel like it takes longer and is more effort. I also think it is prone to people including options that don't seem appropriate to the model that's used to represent the unit, because the actual number of models available doesn't change even if the number of possible builds does.
So for example, if the build your own Aspect rules are detailed enough to build a unit that is distinct from any of the existing options, then you're obligated to convert to represent it on the table. And I know that some people LOVE doing conversions, and wouldn't mind that one bit.
But not all players want to, and even if they did not all of them could: conversions are expensive because you're buying many models to create one, and the game is expensive enough. Some people can't afford to convert. Others have lives that are so busy they just don't have the time to invest in developing the skills to convert, and others may have cognitive or physical disabilities that prevent their skills from developing to the threshold where conversions are possible.
So the added flexibility of Build Your Own isn't really beneficial to many players without the modeling options to support it.
I think that where people get worried is that they feel like they may not be able to exactly duplicate their favourite bespoke units using whatever Build-Your - Own system that rises to take their place. I think that's a legitimate concern. It could be done, but it wouldn't be easy.
The other concern that is unique to some Marine players is that they are concerned that some things that are currently available only to their subfaction would become available to all subfactions. These players are accused of being selfish or jealous, but I don't think that gives them enough credit. Because it is true that if every option is available to every subfaction, then there really isn't any difference between subfactions. Sure, most people will choose to assign the traits from the build your own to the most appropriate models, but that's not a guarantee. And doesn't a DA player have a right to feel cheated when a Blood Angels player chooses to use the Build Your Own rules to create a Deathwing equivalent?
Now some of the people accusing these folks of being selfish or jealous seem to have a point because they are Xeno players who don't have a whole lot of bespoke units unique to the subfactions of their armies. It seems reasonable for them to feel this way, because their army doesn't even have the luxury to think about such things...
But then as some SM players have pointed out out, they actually want Tyranids to get bespoke units for the Jormungandr or Behemoth, or Leviathon. In other words, they too see the disparity, they would just prefer to address it by giving every other faction the same variety than by giving up the variety they have.
People argue- yeah, but that's never gonna happen, so removing SM options is the only way to achieve parity. And they're right of course. But it's also true that inching everyone as close to that as is possible is a solution that will result in far more people being happy than if you try to solve the problem by taking stuff away from marines. Because if you play DE, and you're angry about losing HQ's (and yeah, all of us are), finding out that GW is going with a build your own system for Marines that reduces their footprint either by removing bespoke options, or by removing unique datacards without actually limiting options or whatever, well guess what? It still didn't give us back our HQ's so we're still going to be just as angry, even if we don't have to see or hear as much about Marines. And in addition to the fact that we feel no better, many marine players will feel worse.
Whereas, if GW instead created a bespoke unit for two kabals, two cults and two covens, plus a character for the two mercenary units that don't already have one, DE players would be ecstatic (even if it didn't mean we got ALL the old HQ back, and even if that's still nowhere near the sheer variety of Marine Units). Furthermore, this solution wouldn't make any Space Marine players less happy.
Solving iniquity by adding always pleases more people than solving it by taking away. The former disappoints the privileged without improving the state of the marginalized while the latter improves the state of the marginalized while also allowing the privileged to be to be content with their already comfortable status quo.
WYSIWYG isn't a rule and hasn't been for a very long time. The options are already not in the boxes even when they are on the datasheets today. Build your own offers actual abitity to customize your fluff and flavor on the table in a much more compact in terms of page count and number of data sheets form while expanding options for everybody.
You literally loose nothing and gain everything.
Yes, Deathwing Knights are just terminators in robes with melee weapons. Again, that mace is just a power weapon and those are just storm shields.
It would be vastly superior to have a chapter master HQ unit with a ton of customization options and then have the chapters in the book have their Chapter Masters built from those rules to show you examples of what can be done. Likewise I would Love a very customizable Tyranid Prime with some examples of how Leviathan leverages those biomorphs vs Jormungandr.
The game needs more build your own then bespoke custom units. Everyone wins in a build your own system. They did a half ass job of build your own with the test character builder rules. They should do those better.
PenitentJake wrote: Solving iniquity by adding always pleases more people than solving it by taking away. The former disappoints the privileged without improving the state of the marginalized while the latter improves the state of the marginalized while also allowing the privileged to be to be content with their already comfortable status quo.
PenitentJake wrote: And doesn't a DA player have a right to feel cheated when a Blood Angels player chooses to use the Build Your Own rules to create a Deathwing equivalent?
Why?
Whether the army across the table from you is Dark Angels with Deathwing, or a Dark Angels Successor with Deathwing, or a Blood Angels with a Deathwing equivalent, your army is the same.
The problem for me is that most of the chapter-specific units don't actually make any sense being confined to only that Chapter. Yes, Deathwing are famously Dark Angels. But then by extension, they're also available to any other Chapter using Dark Angels rules... but is it really that inconceivable that other chapters would have similarly storied Terminator units? Should we really believe that only Space Wolves use any sort of cavalry?
Anyone remember when Blood Angels were the only Chapter that had Storm Ravens? Or when Black Templars were the only ones who used Land Raider Crusaders? Except that both of those restrictions mean nothing, because Timmy's homebrew Imperial Muggles could also use Land Raider Crusaders, because they used Black Templar rules!
It's weird, looking back at how much people riled against those restrictions then.
I get that people want their armies to be distinctive, I totally do. There just seems to be this weird hang-up on the idea that in order to be distinctive, it needs to be in its own book.
PenitentJake wrote: Solving iniquity by adding always pleases more people than solving it by taking away. The former disappoints the privileged without improving the state of the marginalized while the latter improves the state of the marginalized while also allowing the privileged to be to be content with their already comfortable status quo.
But that doesn't actually make for a better game and EVERYONE complains about the resulting complexity and bloat. There is a very real cap where building up reaches a breaking point.
40k at this point kind of needs a complete rewrite from the ground up. That includes army lists.
I don't think people are complaining that Space Wolves have unique units. They're complaining that baseline Marines have nearly 100 different units.
When the First Born get sent to Legends this complaint will go away... and will be replaced with a new complaint from all the people who want their First Born back.
@insaniak - GW has made statements that they don't want to homogenise Marines, which is why some things are separate to others. Then they remember they can sell more minis to people when they remove restrictions.
You raise a very good point about why Dark Angels would be the only guys with super Terminators, and why not other Chapters?
To that I say, I agree. There shouldbeothers. But my choice would be to include them, not to disassemble the existing ones and consolidate them into a single entry. I'd put some real meat into the Sallie/Imp Fist/Iron Hands/Raven Guard lines - make them equal of BAs, DAs and Wolves. Make their supplements more than just fluff books with a few scattered rules at the back.
40k has always been about making Your Dudes. You paint them how you like, make your own fluff, and set them up how you see fit within the confines of the rules. Every book talks about successor chapters or army equivalents. The build your own chapter tactics is an expansion of that. The bespoke characters and rules work in direct opposition to that. Don't give every chapter a new bespoke elite terminator unit. Now you have to have that keyword to use that terminator. Make the single sheet with options so Your Dudes can stand on equal footing.
If every named character was built from the same system of build your own character options then you would loose nothing by calling your guys Scythes of the Emperor instead of which ever chapter had the dudes you want.
Same goes for all the other bespoke units. The game is worse off for all their existence.
I'd just to point out that we have a working example of a generic marine list with added flavour layered on top, done in 2 books (missing Dark Angels as of right now)
Ya... that's a different game,,, with different unit access, and different wargear access, rules access , and less uniquely flavored units... again,,, sure everything will be the same if you remove what makes things different.
Nope, you have unique units available
I don't want my TWC to have to be a 'counts as' unit when they have perfectly unique rules as is , thanks. Also, my faction is also in 2 books, it used to only be 1 book... but now it's in two because GW decided that's how SWs work now.
Honestly why do you care if a Salamanders successor has access to Calvary?
H.B.M.C. wrote: I don't think people are complaining that Space Wolves have unique units. They're complaining that baseline Marines have nearly 100 different units.
When the First Born get sent to Legends this complaint will go away... and will be replaced with a new complaint from all the people who want their First Born back.
@insaniak - GW has made statements that they don't want to homogenise Marines, which is why some things are separate to others. Then they remember they can sell more minis to people when they remove restrictions.
You raise a very good point about why Dark Angels would be the only guys with super Terminators, and why not other Chapters?
To that I say, I agree. There shouldbeothers. But my choice would be to include them, not to disassemble the existing ones and consolidate them into a single entry. I'd put some real meat into the Sallie/Imp Fist/Iron Hands/Raven Guard lines - make them equal of BAs, DAs and Wolves. Make their supplements more than just fluff books with a few scattered rules at the back.
At what point though do you stop and think 'You know what? Maybe the product range is just getting a wee bit big, here...'?
I mean, it's one thing for those of us who have been around since the early days and have watched things slowly grow over time, but how is a new player supposed to have any chance of learning their way around when there are so many different variations of Marine that all do slightly different things? How long do you keep adding, and adding, and adding before you have to just stop?
For what it's worth, this is why I don't play Warmachine. I've been intending to get back into the game for about a decade now, but in the time since I last played there has been so much added to the game that I just have no idea where to even begin. So I just... don't.
Yes, Deathwing Knights are just terminators in robes with melee weapons. Again, that mace is just a power weapon and those are just storm shields.
Okay, full disclosure- I don't own the Deathwing dex, so I can't check. But I'm pretty sure DW Knights as they exist now do have profile differences and special rule differences from terminators; they probably also have some strats just for them. And if that's the case, I just don't see how you can believe both of the statements in the quote at the same time.
Because the words "Deathwing Knights are just Terminators" does mean that they no longer have the special rules.
Now maybe it's late and you are tired and you are trying to conserve words, or maybe English isn't your first language, and what you mean is "Deathwing Knights will just be called terminators even though my build your own system allows you to duplicate the exact rules and load out options as Deathwing Knights" but that's not what you are saying and dude, words have meanings. But even if that is what you meant, your very next sentence about a mace being just a power weapon indicates that there will be only one power weapon profile in your new system. If that's the case at the very least 2, and more likely 3 unique weapon profiles are lost.
You can't say "You literally lose nothing" and two sentences later say that your system will reduce the number of unique power weapon profiles available. That's just not what the word "Literally" means.
+2 str, - 1 AP is meaningfully different from +1 str, -2 AP. One is better at hurting high toughness low save; the other is better at hurting low toughness high save. The difference may be negligible, but it is there, and if I field 15 of these things, and each one gets 3 attacks, that negligible difference comes into play 100's of times over the course of the game, meaning that it will have an impact.
insaniak wrote: At what point though do you stop and think 'You know what? Maybe the product range is just getting a wee bit big, here...'?
When you introduce an entirely new type of Marine overnight but have to keep the old one in place for an edition or two because removing them overnight would create far more problems than it would solve.
Just a thought!
insaniak wrote: I mean, it's one thing for those of us who have been around since the early days and have watched things slowly grow over time, but how is a new player supposed to have any chance of learning their way around when there are so many different variations of Marine that all do slightly different things? How long do you keep adding, and adding, and adding before you have to just stop?
I actually can't answer that question, and no one else here can either. That's why this consolidation nonsense is just that - nonsense. It's someone deciding "enough is enough" when really it's a case of "this is enough for me". As Jake mentioned in his extensive post, we'd just be swapping lots of short simple entries for a a small amount of large complex entries. I mean, who wins there? Really?
I said "enough is enough" when the Primaris Marines came out. Had 0% interest in picking them up. As far as I was concerned, and as cool as I thought the Redemptor Dread was (I love Dreads of all shapes and sizes!), I wasn't going to get them. Happy to continue as though Primaris Marines didn't exist.
Then GW made Bladeguard Vets, Assault Intercessors, Outriders, that awesome Captain/Lt. combo with the Storm Shields and the Judiciar. I know everyone else hates* the Judiciar model, but I love it, and the false rumours about it getting bonuses agaisnt First Born actually inspired the fluff behind my custom chapter. Now I have a fledgling Primaris army, but I'm avoiding the units that I just don't like (the eyesore tanks, for instance). I have a new line of where "enough is enough", and I wouldn't dare impose that upon anyone else.
If enough is enough, then you can avoid it. I haven't looked at any 'Mechs in BattleTech past TRO: 3085. It's just too much to go through at the moment, and my head space is filled with all the existing 'Mechs. That doesn't mean I wish TRO:3145 and anything coming out in the next era expansion should be eliminated. I'll just avoid them, like I used to with Primaris Marines, until I'm ready to expand.
I use BTech as an example as someone posted this article in the N&R forum recently. It deals with a similar-yet-not-identical problem: Is there just too much stuff in BTech. For this issue I see it as there being two answers:
1. Yes. Of course there's too much stuff in BTech. It's overwhelming. Combined there are thousands of variant units in the game. 2. But also no, because you're not meant to use everything in BTech at the same time, because they people who make the game have very clearly divided it into "eras", so you end up with specific things that only really show up in certain parts of the timeline.
There are people in the BTech community who are very angry that everything from 3050 on was introduced. Still angry. Over 20 years later. They're the type of people who want to remove options from the game because they personally don't see a reason for them to exist. They are justly ridiculed for this notion, and it's why we call them Grognards.
Should we find an equal name for 40K fans who want to take away everyone's toys?
*Another example of consolidation nonsense. I've seen enough people bashing the Judiciar, including people saying it shouldn't exist or that it's redundant. They don't like it, that's fine. But why should they get to take away something that they don't like? If it exists, they can ignore it, but if it goes away, then I lose something. I don't want people to lose things, which is why I support an expansion of options and unit types. The only consolidation I support is ensuring that if armies have access to the same unit that that unit have one entry in one book, and not the same entry repeated over multiple books**.
**There are some necessary exceptions here, such as things like Rhinos. You couldn't have Chaos or Sisters players looking in the Marine book for those rules, for instance. Plus it allows further expansion of what makes those units unique within their respective codices.
Yes, Deathwing Knights are just terminators in robes with melee weapons. Again, that mace is just a power weapon and those are just storm shields.
Okay, full disclosure- I don't own the Deathwing dex, so I can't check. But I'm pretty sure DW Knights as the exist now do have profile differences and special rule differences; they probably also have some strats just for them. And if that's the case, I just don't see how you can believe both of the statements in the quote at the same time.
Because the words "Deathwing Knights are just Terminators" does mean that they no longer have the special rules. Saying that a mace is just a power weapon would mean that the different profiles for various weapons would be lost. And yes, it does make a difference whether the AP is 1 point higher on one than the other.
So you have an upgrade called "Death Wing" (or whatever generic name you want to call it) that costs x amount of points and gives the death wing keyword and associated special rules. I disagree in the various power weapons. I think it would be fine if there was just a singular power weapon profile and you modeled whatever weapon you wanted on your dudes.
Now maybe it's late and you are tired and you are trying to conserve words, or maybe English isn't your first language, and what you mean is "Deathwing Knights will just be called terminators even though my build your own system allows you to duplicate the exact rules and load out options as Deathwing Knights" but that's not what you are saying and dude, words have meanings. But even if that is what you meant, your very next sentence about a mace being just a power weapon indicates that there will be only one power weapon profile. If that's the case at the very least two, and more likely 3 profiles are lost.
Yup. Again, I agree with the consolidation of profiles that don't fill niches. Awhile back I linked to Apocalypse datasheets for how much better the vast majority of them are. They do a lot of consolidation.
You can't say "You literally lose nothing" and two sentences later say that your system will reduce the number of unique power weapon profiles available. That's just not what the word "Literally" means.
+2 str, - 1 AP is meaningfully different from +1 str, -2 AP. One is better at hurting high toughness low save; the other is better at hurting low toughness high save. The difference may be negligible, but it is there, and if I field 15 of these things, and each one gets 3 attacks, that negligible difference comes into play 100's of times over the course of the game, meaning that it will have an impact.
There are other weapon options in the marine dex that allow for hitting harder on higher toughness. You don't need 4 different weapons to do the same thing you just need to give every unit the one option.
Insectum7 wrote: The issue I have is that Marines continue to get more options while other factions seem to keep losing theirs.
That's... simply not true.
GW crams new things into Codices all the time. Since they came out the AdMech have only grown. GSC got a big expansion that added tons to their army. And less than a month ago, Necrons got tons of new stuff and don't appear to have lost a thing.
Insectum7 wrote: The issue I have is that Marines continue to get more options while other factions seem to keep losing theirs.
That's... simply not true.
GW crams new things into Codices all the time. Since they came out the AdMech have only grown. GSC got a big expansion that added tons to their army. And less than a month ago, Necrons got tons of new stuff and don't appear to have lost a thing.
While yes, the necrons gained many new units, most of what they got on their old ones was just recouping only some of the many wargear options they lost in 8th. Overlords use to have like 5 different weapon options (hyper phase sword, gauntlet of fire, tachyon arrow) and they got cut down to 2 (staff of light or warscythe). Crypteks had a long list of techno arkana that was all lost.
Now I am not saying that necrons didn't come out on top with a bunch of new stuff for 9th. But I am saying it's not QUITE as much as it looks at first glance and marines just haven't been shedding wargear options at ANY point like happened to them and tau.
insaniak wrote: At what point though do you stop and think 'You know what? Maybe the product range is just getting a wee bit big, here...'?
Well since I'm only ever going to buy the models I want, and I only ever need to know the rules for the base game and the models I own, it's not possible for the range to be too big. I would absolutely love it if they had 50 factions with 100 kits in each. I would not have to buy anything more than I already do, nor would I have to know anymore rules than I already do- but with so many more choices, my level of satisfaction with what I did choose to buy would be way higher.
insaniak wrote: I mean, it's one thing for those of us who have been around since the early days and have watched things slowly grow over time, but how is a new player supposed to have any chance of learning their way around when there are so many different variations of Marine that all do slightly different things? How long do you keep adding, and adding, and adding before you have to just stop?
Nope. A consolidated system where there are fewer cards but each card includes enough options that you could duplicate many units is way harder for a newbie. It is way harder to build my own Aspect Warrior to face a given opponent than it is for me to choose the most suitable from a list of 8 premade possibilities. And yeah, that means seven extra datacards, but it is still easier.
Insectum7 wrote: The issue I have is that Marines continue to get more options while other factions seem to keep losing theirs.
That's... simply not true.
GW crams new things into Codices all the time. Since they came out the AdMech have only grown. GSC got a big expansion that added tons to their army. And less than a month ago, Necrons got tons of new stuff and don't appear to have lost a thing.
I don't think it would be unfair at all to state that not only have Marines been given the most attention by far of any other, but that they've gained more and lost less as a proportion than all the other armies have collectively combined. Sure, some armies have gotten new stuff. Others have not. Dark Eldar however have been cut to the bone, any subfaction that FW ever did is basically kaput at this point (all 3 different DKoK regiment types, Elysians, Renegades & Heretics, Eldar Corsairs, etc). I cannot think of any Space Marine faction that has been similarly treated, even Black Templars got their own unique chapter tactic and still get a couple unique units of their own.
I use BTech as an example as someone posted this article in the N&R forum recently. It deals with a similar-yet-not-identical problem: Is there just too much stuff in BTech. For this issue I see it as there being two answers:
1. Yes. Of course there's too much stuff in BTech. It's overwhelming. Combined there are thousands of variant units in the game.
2. But also no, because you're not meant to use everything in BTech at the same time, because they people who make the game have very clearly divided it into "eras", so you end up with specific things that only really show up in certain parts of the timeline.
There are people in the BTech community who are very angry that everything from 3050 on was introduced. Still angry. Over 20 years later. They're the type of people who want to remove options from the game because they personally don't see a reason for them to exist. They are justly ridiculed for this notion, and it's why we call them Grognards.
The 3050 thing is an entirely different issue, that's far more akin to something like the End Times than anything Marine related, the Clan invasion heralded a massive lore change while also introducing a ton of power bloat. While it's fair to point out that a quarter century later it's probably not worth still being mad about, but I don't think that's the same thing as making the point that if some units can share a unit entry, they should, and that having special extra unit entries just for the sake of having additional pagespace isn't actually contributing much to flavor in and of itself.
Another place where this doesn't work is that 40k does mean for everything to be used at the same time, nothing is broken up into eras or locales, and the game tries to incorporate and portray things so small that Battletech really doesn't concern itself with (like an individual Grot and the grot's sidearm) as well as units much larger than what Battletech typically concerns itself with (such as a Warlord Titan standing more than twice the height of an Atlas).
I'll also note that while Battletech has gobs of mechs, those mechs are all basically built according to a set of universal rules by which anyone can make any mech they want within the given guidelines, you've got X number of critical locations you can mount hardware in over (IIRC) 8 locations with up to 100 tons of mass to work with (from what I recall at least). Nobody is rolling around with a 200 ton mech sporting a Naval PPC for instance, and every mech has basically the same number of critical slots to play with. Even if you're not familiar with a specific mech, figuring it out isn't hard, and everyone can get or make a mech with whatever loadout they want constrained only by mass and critical space. What Battletech doesn't do (or at least didn't from what I recall playing a gazillion years ago) is have gobs of special rules for different factions, mostly this is done through differences in technical bases (Clans vs Inner Sphere) or access to specific mech designs and preferences for certain kinds of weapons. It's also not impossible for OpFor units to show up in many armies as salvage or trophies. Despite also playing at a granularity level where individual vehicle torso twisting is a relevant rules detail, Battletech isn't trying to use special unit rules to portray sub-units of micro factions. They'll give you background, unit compositions, history, character info, etc, but something like the 1st Marik Protectors release isn't dumping huge amounts of special rules or unique units into the game either.
Battletech also introduces restriction by not only faction but also "year" and "region."
Battletech is also is famously non-symmetrical in terms of balance and has WAY swingier rules then 40k to make up for it.
There is NO way to fully balance Battletechs pelthora of customization options,,, and the players do not want that. but in battletech, even the smallest lowest point unit can swing the bigest punch taking down one of the bigest meanest highest point cost thing in the game, with the right set of dice roles. And honestly that is quite fun... but its not 40k.
To have 40k work anywhere close to battletech, you would have to redesign the entire 40k ruleset AND the entire ruleset of each faction in 40k... and even then you have introduced a game with no semblance of balance.
Battletech was definitly the wrong example. It is actually the perfect example of what we shouldn't want in 40k and the prefect example to show the types of problems I have been warning against... and if you still do want that... thats cool.... have it,,, there is a game for that, it is called Battletech, I like it, but I also like 40k.
Automatically Appended Next Post: p.s. Battletech 100% does have rules for special equipment that different factions/subfaction and even micro factions have... I have seen "this weapon is only usable by this small team from this particular year in this particular region and the pilot has to be this particular guy using this particular mech" rules ...
insaniak wrote: At what point though do you stop and think 'You know what? Maybe the product range is just getting a wee bit big, here...'?
When you introduce an entirely new type of Marine overnight but have to keep the old one in place for an edition or two because removing them overnight would create far more problems than it would solve.
Just a thought!
insaniak wrote: I mean, it's one thing for those of us who have been around since the early days and have watched things slowly grow over time, but how is a new player supposed to have any chance of learning their way around when there are so many different variations of Marine that all do slightly different things? How long do you keep adding, and adding, and adding before you have to just stop?
I actually can't answer that question, and no one else here can either. That's why this consolidation nonsense is just that - nonsense. It's someone deciding "enough is enough" when really it's a case of "this is enough for me". As Jake mentioned in his extensive post, we'd just be swapping lots of short simple entries for a a small amount of large complex entries. I mean, who wins there? Really?
I said "enough is enough" when the Primaris Marines came out. Had 0% interest in picking them up. As far as I was concerned, and as cool as I thought the Redemptor Dread was (I love Dreads of all shapes and sizes!), I wasn't going to get them. Happy to continue as though Primaris Marines didn't exist.
Then GW made Bladeguard Vets, Assault Intercessors, Outriders, that awesome Captain/Lt. combo with the Storm Shields and the Judiciar. I know everyone else hates* the Judiciar model, but I love it, and the false rumours about it getting bonuses agaisnt First Born actually inspired the fluff behind my custom chapter. Now I have a fledgling Primaris army, but I'm avoiding the units that I just don't like (the eyesore tanks, for instance). I have a new line of where "enough is enough", and I wouldn't dare impose that upon anyone else.
If enough is enough, then you can avoid it. I haven't looked at any 'Mechs in BattleTech past TRO: 3085. It's just too much to go through at the moment, and my head space is filled with all the existing 'Mechs. That doesn't mean I wish TRO:3145 and anything coming out in the next era expansion should be eliminated. I'll just avoid them, like I used to with Primaris Marines, until I'm ready to expand.
I use BTech as an example as someone posted this article in the N&R forum recently. It deals with a similar-yet-not-identical problem: Is there just too much stuff in BTech. For this issue I see it as there being two answers:
1. Yes. Of course there's too much stuff in BTech. It's overwhelming. Combined there are thousands of variant units in the game.
2. But also no, because you're not meant to use everything in BTech at the same time, because they people who make the game have very clearly divided it into "eras", so you end up with specific things that only really show up in certain parts of the timeline.
There are people in the BTech community who are very angry that everything from 3050 on was introduced. Still angry. Over 20 years later. They're the type of people who want to remove options from the game because they personally don't see a reason for them to exist. They are justly ridiculed for this notion, and it's why we call them Grognards.
Should we find an equal name for 40K fans who want to take away everyone's toys?
*Another example of consolidation nonsense. I've seen enough people bashing the Judiciar, including people saying it shouldn't exist or that it's redundant. They don't like it, that's fine. But why should they get to take away something that they don't like? If it exists, they can ignore it, but if it goes away, then I lose something. I don't want people to lose things, which is why I support an expansion of options and unit types. The only consolidation I support is ensuring that if armies have access to the same unit that that unit have one entry in one book, and not the same entry repeated over multiple books**.
**There are some necessary exceptions here, such as things like Rhinos. You couldn't have Chaos or Sisters players looking in the Marine book for those rules, for instance. Plus it allows further expansion of what makes those units unique within their respective codices.
it's actually worth noting that battletech tried to address the whole "ohh there's so much stuff people are prevented from getting involved" it was called Mechwarrior dark age. remember that game?
If you don't I don't blame you
even among the grognards you do NOT see this kind of bile in the battletech community...
well aside from among taurian fans insisting it's totally logical a second rate periphary state could conquer the federated suns granted battletech doesn't have the "individual army issue" if House Liao or clan wolf gets a mech I really like (guess what my favorite faction is!? ) I can just use it anyway and say "something something salvage!" the community is less divided among army type, beyond taking sides in a story. among 40k, well people are MUCH more invested in the differant armies.
I dunno.. as it is I've said it before and I'll say it again, GW wishes the fanbase for 40k was more like the fan base of battletech
Vaktathi wrote: I don't think it would be unfair at all to state that not only have Marines been given the most attention by far of any other, but that they've gained more and lost less as a proportion than all the other armies have collectively combined.
That was neither the point I was making nor the point I was responding to. I know Marines have got the most attention. That's not in dispute.
Vaktathi wrote: Sure, some armies have gotten new stuff. Others have not. Dark Eldar however have been cut to the bone, any subfaction that FW ever did is basically kaput at this point (all 3 different DKoK regiment types, Elysians, Renegades & Heretics, Eldar Corsairs, etc). I cannot think of any Space Marine faction that has been similarly treated, even Black Templars got their own unique chapter tactic and still get a couple unique units of their own.
The argument wasn't that Marines were losing units, it was the idea that the non-Marine factions in the game keep losing units whilst Marines gained them. That is flat out false.
Since the last Tyranid release, have Tyranids lost anything*? GSC? Orks? Two flavours of Eldar got new models. I'm asking a genuine question here: What's the last kit to go out of production (that wasn't immediately replaced with a newer plastic kit, obviously) and does it satisfy the theory that non Marines "keep losing [their units]" .
The only recent one I can find is the Blood Angel Tactical Squad. That kit vanished from all versions of the website a week or so ago. Not out stock. Not temporarily unavailable. Vanished. It appears that the Start Collecting! Blood Angel box that also contains those sprues went out of stock, and has only just resurfaced on at least the UK website. Now it could be an error - HTML linking not allowing the page to be displayed for instance. It could be an actual stock issue. It could be a COVID thing. Who knows. I noticed that it went away. What else has**? and perhaps the Thermic Plasma Conduits, but that's terrain so let's not muddy the waters there.
Finally, I don't count FW factions because GW doesn't count FW factions. I'd much rather Elysians and everyone else got to hang about, but they stopped selling the models, so those factions vanished. That sucks, but it doesn't have much bearing on 40K proper because GW didn't write those units, FW did, and GW and FW don't get along.
*No, Shrikes don't count. They're a long OOPFW unit. I'm talking about GW produce plastic and GW produce rules, the only thing that matters no matter much some may wish it wasn't the case.
**And not terrain, either. Obviously. If it sounds like I'm over clarifying with these notes it's because there are some people at this website who follow me into threads to split hairs and "wElL aCtUaLlY" me because they don't understand context or scope. These person's name may or may not rhyme with "Berbis".
Vaktathi wrote: The 3050 thing is an entirely different issue, that's far more akin to something like the End Times than anything Marine related, the Clan invasion heralded a massive lore change while also introducing a ton of power bloat. While it's fair to point out that a quarter century later it's probably not worth still being mad about, but I don't think that's the same thing as making the point that if some units can share a unit entry, they should, and that having special extra unit entries just for the sake of having additional pagespace isn't actually contributing much to flavor in and of itself.
I can see your End Times point, but it's not to the same degree, as End Times changed everything, right down to the core mechanics of the game. The Clans did not do such a thing. They just added more stuff into the game.
And this is why I make the comparison. Since 8th began GW has added more stuff to Marines more than any other faction, but how much of that more stuff is too much is only decided on an individual level. If it is too much for someone, then they, as I argued with BTech, they can ignore it. They don't have to use Primaris stuff, as I didn't for all of last Edition.
I don't like that Necrons have vehicles with crew. I don't like that Tyranids have special characters. I'm not demanding that these things be removed form the game for "consolidation" purposes or any other reason. I'll just choose to not use them, and I certainly wouldn't expect my own problems with these units to be mandatory for other players.
Vaktathi wrote: Another place where this doesn't work is that 40k does mean for everything to be used at the same time, nothing is broken up into eras or locales, and the game tries to incorporate and portray things so small that Battletech really doesn't concern itself with (like an individual Grot and the grot's sidearm) as well as units much larger than what Battletech typically concerns itself with (such as a Warlord Titan standing more than twice the height of an Atlas).
But that's the point! That's how they chose to deal with all those extras. They didn't consolidate them, they split them up into more manageable eras. They didn't take stuff away. The people in this thread are arguing for fewer options. Not more. C'mon Vaktathi. We've been at this website for years. I seem to remember you lamenting the loss of the 3.5 Chaos Codex. Why would you ever want any other faction to go through the same thing as us Chaos players did at the start of 4th?
Vaktathi wrote: I'll also note that while Battletech has gobs of mechs, those mechs are all basically built according to a set of universal rules by which anyone can make any mech they want within the given guidelines...
This is an interesting point (that I'm cutting down for brevity). If 40k had a universal set of "design rules" (that need not be public, mind you - it can just be an internal thing) that was as well crafted and robust as BTech's, then I think the game would improve dramatically. But even with this system, the folks creating new 'Mechs still make things that are redundant, or similar, because that's how the universe works. I don't see why 40k or any wargame would be any different
Vaktathi wrote: They'll give you background, unit compositions, history, character info, etc, but something like the 1st Marik Protectors release isn't dumping huge amounts of special rules or unique units into the game either.
Well, that's not quite true. Yes, everything stems from the same basic core design rules, but they have introduced new units for specific factions. The Clans are the obvious and overwhelming example, but I'm thinking the Word of Blake. Their Celestial line of 'Mechs - again, fully acknowledging that they exist within the same basic design rules - were different enough from everyone else, using some new rules (not many) they invented for those units. Those rules have since been incorporated into the general design rules, so that anyone can use the tech the Wobbies had, but they do do unique forces for factions, however rare that might be.
To sum up:
It was stated that Marines keep getting new units whilst everyone else loses theirs.
This is not true. It just isn't. I don't know how else to put it.
BrianDavion wrote: it's actually worth noting that battletech tried to address the whole "ohh there's so much stuff people are prevented from getting involved" it was called Mechwarrior dark age. remember that game? If you don't I don't blame you
Dark Age wasn't an attempt to rationalise BattleTech though. It was an attempt from BTech's creator, who had long since jettisoned himself from the creation of the BattleTech game, to make a game where it was like the "good old days", only with less tech somehow. It exemplified the "grognard" mentality that I talked about before.
And whilst I remember it, I'm trying to forget it.
BrianDavion wrote: well aside from among taurian fans insisting it's totally logical a second rate periphary state could conquer the federated suns
What do you call a Taurian fan? Nothing. 'Cause nobody cares about Taurian fans.
If other people see value in something for the hobby enough to spend their hard earned money on it, who am I to say there is too much when obviously the sales figures say otherwise?
Might be too much for me, but that is easy for me because I don’t buy things I don’t want. Having more diversity of options on the table top is good. Doesn’t matter if it’s in power army, wraith bone, flayed skin of the non-believers. I still get to have a game that is different from the last.
Marines could have some consolidation I don't thing anybody disagrees with that. What people disagree is with the level of that consolidation and prune of datasheets.
But TBH I just don't trust GW to do consolidations of armies. They always screw you up when they do it.
And in the age of "Primaris Captain in Gravis Armor with Master-Crafted Autoboltrifle", it doesn't look like GW wants to consolidate anything into "generic" datasheets.
Galas wrote: Marines could have some consolidation I don't thing anybody disagrees with that. What people disagree is with the level of that consolidation and prune of datasheets.
But TBH I just don't trust GW to do consolidations of armies. They always screw you up when they do it.
And in the age of "Primaris Captain in Gravis Armor with Master-Crafted Autoboltrifle", it doesn't look like GW wants to consolidate anything into "generic" datasheets.
and Galas hits the nail on the head. as HMBC said earlier the end result would be something like CSM 4.0 which would be AWEFUL
Lance845 wrote: Give the Gargs their blinding venom and yeah I am pretty cool with that.
Why are you cool with this?
As to your point about power wepaons, 40K did that once. It was the change to 2nd and 3rd Ed. Eventually they brought back the variety as they wanted to have an axe perform differently to a sword/mace/whatever. What is wrong with doing that? Why is adding granularity a bad thing?
I that that this level of granularity actually does create issues for some:
- It means that you can't model whichever weapon you like best on a given model without it also affecting how that model plays on the table. Previously, it didn't matter whether a model with a Power Weapon had a sword, an axe, a mace, or even something else entirely. Now though, if you model a character as having a sword, you're locked into using that specific type of Power Weapon.
- Especially with the no-model, no-rules policy, a great many models don't have access to multiple types of Power Weapon and are stuck with only one regardless.
- Following on from the second point, the Power Sword is by far the most common type of power weapon (and the only one available to many units) . . . yet it's also the least-versatile and is almost always the least useful in general.
Put simply, I'd argue that the splitting of Power Weapons in this manner has led to most such weapons not being used at all, and reduced creativity with regard to modelling.
Lance845 wrote: Give the Gargs their blinding venom and yeah I am pretty cool with that.
Why are you cool with this?
As to your point about power wepaons, 40K did that once. It was the change to 2nd and 3rd Ed. Eventually they brought back the variety as they wanted to have an axe perform differently to a sword/mace/whatever. What is wrong with doing that? Why is adding granularity a bad thing?
I that that this level of granularity actually does create issues for some:
- It means that you can't model whichever weapon you like best on a given model without it also affecting how that model plays on the table. Previously, it didn't matter whether a model with a Power Weapon had a sword, an axe, a mace, or even something else entirely. Now though, if you model a character as having a sword, you're locked into using that specific type of Power Weapon.
- Especially with the no-model, no-rules policy, a great many models don't have access to multiple types of Power Weapon and are stuck with only one regardless.
- Following on from the second point, the Power Sword is by far the most common type of power weapon (and the only one available to many units) . . . yet it's also the least-versatile and is almost always the least useful in general.
Put simply, I'd argue that the splitting of Power Weapons in this manner has led to most such weapons not being used at all, and reduced creativity with regard to modelling.
Right. Playing minotaurs? Load them up with power spears. Playing SW? Fill them up with axes. Your Dudes? Go nuts.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Nooooooo we need rules for power glaives and power scythes and power monkey wrenches!
Hey man, you couldn't make hilarious jokes like the Angry Marine Power Feet or Power Balls if GW decided not to differentiate power weapons.
Thats why I've been saying the profiles for the Power Sword, Power Axe, Lightning Claw, and Power Fist/Thunder Hammer basically cover all the ground necessary. I mean, did Genestealer Cults REALLY need a separate profile for a Power Pickaxe for some gimmick? Hell no.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Nooooooo we need rules for power glaives and power scythes and power monkey wrenches!
Hey man, you couldn't make hilarious jokes like the Angry Marine Power Feet or Power Balls if GW decided not to differentiate power weapons.
Thats why I've been saying the profiles for the Power Sword, Power Axe, Lightning Claw, and Power Fist/Thunder Hammer basically cover all the ground necessary. I mean, did Genestealer Cults REALLY need a separate profile for a Power Pickaxe for some gimmick? Hell no.
I think they cover too much ground. Is the difference between a handaxe and a sword in medieval combat really so significant that when 100 men and 4 catapults are fighting, it has to be explicitly modeled?
I absolutely agree with Vipoid and find it extremely frustrating that everything needs to have real mechanical differences in the name of diversity, rather than just abstracting and letting the players work it out.
Power Weapons are a clear example of when this has gone too far because they don't have a meaningful impact on how the bearer will act during the game. I accept that differences in Strength and AP have an impact on the game, but not to the extent that your models will move or engage differently once they hit the table.
I spend most of my time in 30k. Over there, we have 3 different Power Weapons:
Swords are AP3
Axes are S+1, AP2 but Unwieldy
Mauls are +2S, AP4 Concussive
If its not immediately apparent, Axes are far and away the superior option. Everyone and their mum is wearing Artificer Armour, and Unwieldy does not significantly offset the stat increases. Especially when the bearer is in a unit rather than a character, as is very common.
On the other hand I have literally never heard of anyone ever taking a Maul voluntarily, and Lances are not a legal choice outside of rare cases.
What this means that in the name of choice and diversity, you have effectively killed off swords and mauls as viable options, and made lances Non-WYSIWYG. This has not resulted in any improvement for tactics because power weapons are still sprinkled on Sergeants and Veterans, who are still engaging the same targets.
It just means that modelling your HQ with a chainsword is completely stupid and arbitrarily punishes modelling for coolness.
I would be far, far happier if 'Power Weapon' was just a broad term with a set profile and could be modelled however you like.
Probably less popular but I would personally go further and suggest that a character should have a set melee profile regardless of weapons and just let you model it as a sword, power fist, hammer etc.
It's a Company scale game featuring titans and hundreds of models in its basic format. Pretending that your HQ having a Thunder Hammer or a Lightning Claw is a meaningful tactical choice is just out of scale.
Apocalypse does exactly that Mozza. A statline is just "melee weapons" or "close combat weapons" or "Captain melee weapons" that might like, wound 1 better on a D12, irrespective of what is modeled.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Apocalypse does exactly that Mozza. A statline is just "melee weapons" or "close combat weapons" or "Captain melee weapons" that might like, wound 1 better on a D12, irrespective of what is modeled.
I've no experience with Apocalypse but that sounds great. Curious if anyone wants to chime in on how they feel about the game and how immersive it still feels.
To continue the 30k analogy, Loken is a major character and has rules in the game. His model is very obviously carrying a Chainsword, because they are cool and he is a typical cool commander.
This particular 'Chainsword' just happens to be AP2, +1s and causes Instant Death on a 6 to wound. There is no lore reason that his Chainsword should have this profile, although you could probably say its Master Crafted. It has this profile because he carries a Chainsword, but a HQ with S4 and no AP is clearly useless.
It's clearly more important that Loken feels like Loken, than a Chainsword feels like a Chainsword. It's also clear that a Chainsword can represent anything from 'nothing' to 'preferred weapon of a senior commander'.
Another thing that really gets on my nads is the need for pistols and grenades to have rules. It's a professional army; of course every single model is going to have grenades. And yet the need to cover this in rules means that A; every single datasheet is needing to carry 4 distinct weapon profiles, and B; any unit without grenades (Tyranids) is absolutely devastated despite being a supposed melee army.
It's like requiring rules for shoes or helmets, it's just an unnecessary level of detail that is so prevalent that it only takes effect when it's not there.
Another one of my favourite games is Dropzone Commander which feels extremely tactical in contrast, despite having much smaller army lists. The reason for this is that the game is heavily abstracted to pretty bare mechanics, but then forces the player to make actual choices in how they move and the units they take. Units are literally incapable of performing actions depending on their type, and this demands that a player takes a balanced list to cover all bases.
There are no semantics about whether this AA gun is a Mk1 or Mk2 or how many barrels the model has, its a case of 'Can it even target aircraft? Can it even damage the target? If yes, its probably your best choice'.
IMO whether or not two weapons need separate profiles should depend on whether they fulfil significantly different roles.
For example, a Power Sword and a Thunder Hammer will tend to be effective against quite different targets.
However, do Power Fists and Thunder Hammers really need separate profiles? It wasn't too bad in some past editions, but 8th-9th seemed like GW desperately trying to not make one outright superior to the other and failing dismally.
As already discussed, I don't think it's worth separating Power Weapons into mauls, swords, axes etc.
I don't mind Lightning Claws remaining separate, as (IMO) they're at least different enough to warrant separate profiles.
Now, I freely admit that there will be a level of opinion involved in this, and there may well be arguments over some weapons just because of the Rule of Cool, for example.
However, what I really want to avoid is a wargear list like that of the DE Haemonculus:
- Electrocorrosive Whip: S- AP-2 D2 Poison 4+ (Anti-infantry weapon, always taken)
- Agoniser: S- AP-2 D1 Poison 4+ (Anti-infantry weapon, never taken because the Whip is better)
- Venom Blade: S- AP0 D1 Poison 2+ (Anti-infantry weapon, never taken because the Whip is better)
- Flesh Gauntlet: S- AP0 D1 Poison 4+, Mortal Wound on 6+ to-wound (Anti-infantry weapon, never taken because the Whip is better)
- Scissorhands: S- AP-1 D1 Poison 4+, +1A (Anti-infantry weapon, never taken because the Whip is better)
- Mindphase Gauntlet: S User AP0 D2 (Anti-nothing weapon, never taken because its the worst weapon to ever exist)
We have 6 weapons here, of which 5 never see play. Because every single one of them is just a mediocre anti-infantry weapon, and the differences between them are minuscule. Want to be better at killing hordes? Tough. Want to try your luck against vehicles? Better hope they develop a spontaneous weakness to poison.
This is the sort of granularity that I absolutely loathe, because all it's doing is guaranteeing that the vast majority of these weapons will never be used at all.
Oh, one other thing, I know that there exist stuff like Plague Weapons or Wolf/Frost weapons, which tend to be along the lines of 'power weapon but slightly better'. However, I can't help but wonder whether these would be better served as faction/subfaction rules. e.g. Death Guard could have a rule wherein all Power Weapons get the Plague Weapon rule, SWs could have a rule wherein all Power Weapons and Lightning Claws (as appropriate) get the Frost Weapon rule (is it still +1S, or am I thinking of older editions?). Basically, if a faction has access to weapons that are just 'Power Weapon +1', it seems like it would be easier to just make all their power weapons function like that, rather than giving them options they'll never bother with. Hell, this could also be used to give a little boost to low-strength factions like Eldar/DE/Harlequins, which generally never use Power Swords unless they have no other options.
Mozzamanx wrote: I've no experience with Apocalypse but that sounds great. Curious if anyone wants to chime in on how they feel about the game and how immersive it still feels.
Apocalypse is an author being given free rein to re-write the 40K ruleset from the ground up, with a consistent scale focused on 2K-and-up battles. All units are organized into formations, with lower requirements than 40K (fewer mandatory troops); each formation has a commander, and units need to stay reasonably near the commander or have to start taking morale checks. Models within a unit are moved in tight cohesion (usually on movement trays), are removed all at once a la Kings of War rather than incrementally losing models, and have a single statline to represent the whole unit. Unit types are divided into Light and Heavy (broadly, infantry vs vehicles); each weapon is rated for AP (vs Light) and AT (vs Heavy). Heavy weapons generally get their own profiles and attacks, while special weapons and basic rifles are abstracted into a Small Arms profile whose AP and AT stats depend on the unit and weapon.
The game uses alternating activation by formation, with all members of a formation given the same order (move + shoot, double move + melee, or stationary but shoot at +1 to hit). Damage is not resolved until after everything activates, so there's no alpha striking, only the 'active' player needs to roll dice, and all you need to know about the target is whether it's Light or Heavy (or has some to-hit penalty in effect). It also uses a mix of D6s and D12s for granularity, with a clever save system where you normally take saves on a D12, but every two wounds gets consolidated into a single D6 roll, so for example a unit that has taken 7 wounds rolls 3 D6s and a D12 for saves.
So a unit of 10 Intercessors shooting a unit of 20 Ork Boyz at 10" makes four Small Arms shots on D6s, hitting on 3s. Since Boyz are 'Light', the Intercessors roll a D12 for each hit against their 5+ AP stat. For each wound, the Orks will subsequently take saves (consolidated as described above) against their 10+ save stat, which in practice means they'll roll either zero dice (if they took an even number of wounds, so all are on D6s) or one die (if there's an odd number, so one left on a D12). If they score two unsaved wounds then the Orks will halve their attacks from that point onwards; if they score four unsaved wounds then the Orks are eliminated. If they survive, then they take a morale check which make result in additional wounds.
Honestly, I think if you play it a bit, you may find that the 'flavor' of 40K comes through from things like Knights stomping on tanks and hordes swarming outnumbered Space Marines- the big picture, if you will- rather than the nitty-gritty details of upgrades. It doesn't allow Your Dudes to get as many bespoke rules, but the result is a clean, fast-playing system that captures the feel of the RT/2nd/3rd box art and lets you play a game involving superheavies and Titans in an afternoon.
If it had just a little more detail at the low end- even just accounting for special weapons in some manner, like upgrading your Small Arms AP stat if you take grenade launchers or AT stat if you take meltaguns- I'd probably use it as a substitute for 40K in the 1K-2K points range.
Apoc does care about heavy weapons - like Lascannons and Missile Launchers, but it folds Grenade Launchers into the lasguns.
One other thing about flavor: there are Command Cards that can also capture the "your dudes" flavor, like the Tallarn have one for flanking a unit, the Cadians have one for rolling d12s to-hit (with the same BS) instead of D6s, etc. So there is some dash of flavor thrown in, but it's not overwhelming.
Furthermore, the cards are randomly drawn into a hand from a deck you yourself built, so they're nothing like Stratagems (and cost nothing to play) and typically work on an entire Detachment (so the whole Cadian detachment rolls D12s instead of D6s, as an example).
Awesome.
This is exactly the mentality I describe when I say that the role and 'feel' of a unit is far, far more important than how many permutations it can be built in.
I'm a firm believer that a small number of dynamic choices makes for far better gameplay than a large number of minor choices. Whether a unit is capable of performing a role at all, rather than whether it performs the role X% better against meta targets.
Continuing my rant is the humble Power Fist Sergeant and whether it is appropriate at all that a Tactical Squad should threaten a Dreadnought. The decision to take a Fist or Sword is not something that defines the unit, but rather its how you round out the last handful of leftover points.
From the perspective of the Dreadnought owner, it feels like the last whims of the list creation are going to change the targets your Dreadnought can engage and unfairly punish you for using the unit in exactly the way it is supposed to be used; as a heavy melee linebreaker.
It feels like a 'Gotcha!' moment that reactively wins the matchup because you had 15pts spare rather than 10, rather than any deliberate choice. Is the Dreadnought pilot even aware that one of his targets has a particularly large hand that is going to be the difference between who wins that matchup?
My point is that the question of choosing the optimal weapon for a matchup should be far less important than whether one unit should just be designed to win that matchup and be left to it.
In this case, I am of the opinion that getting a Dreadnought stuck in and stomping infantry is exactly where it should thrive and it should not be possible to 'buy your way out' because you bought the right filler wargear rather than getting a better matchup.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Apocalypse does exactly that Mozza. A statline is just "melee weapons" or "close combat weapons" or "Captain melee weapons" that might like, wound 1 better on a D12, irrespective of what is modeled.
I've no experience with Apocalypse but that sounds great. Curious if anyone wants to chime in on how they feel about the game and how immersive it still feels.
To continue the 30k analogy, Loken is a major character and has rules in the game. His model is very obviously carrying a Chainsword, because they are cool and he is a typical cool commander.
This particular 'Chainsword' just happens to be AP2, +1s and causes Instant Death on a 6 to wound. There is no lore reason that his Chainsword should have this profile, although you could probably say its Master Crafted. It has this profile because he carries a Chainsword, but a HQ with S4 and no AP is clearly useless.
It's clearly more important that Loken feels like Loken, than a Chainsword feels like a Chainsword. It's also clear that a Chainsword can represent anything from 'nothing' to 'preferred weapon of a senior commander'.
Another thing that really gets on my nads is the need for pistols and grenades to have rules. It's a professional army; of course every single model is going to have grenades. And yet the need to cover this in rules means that A; every single datasheet is needing to carry 4 distinct weapon profiles, and B; any unit without grenades (Tyranids) is absolutely devastated despite being a supposed melee army.
It's like requiring rules for shoes or helmets, it's just an unnecessary level of detail that is so prevalent that it only takes effect when it's not there.
Another one of my favourite games is Dropzone Commander which feels extremely tactical in contrast, despite having much smaller army lists. The reason for this is that the game is heavily abstracted to pretty bare mechanics, but then forces the player to make actual choices in how they move and the units they take. Units are literally incapable of performing actions depending on their type, and this demands that a player takes a balanced list to cover all bases.
There are no semantics about whether this AA gun is a Mk1 or Mk2 or how many barrels the model has, its a case of 'Can it even target aircraft? Can it even damage the target? If yes, its probably your best choice'.
In Loken's crunch profile it's a Paragon Blade. That's why I asked Type40 the question if all his relic blades are explicitly modeled as Swords because there's no profile for anything else.
In Loken's crunch profile it's a Paragon Blade. That's why I asked Type40 the question if all his relic blades are explicitly modeled as Swords because there's no profile for anything else.
If your standard flighty HQ did not have a large wargear list and instead had a 'Master Crafted Melee Weapon' as set wargear, that dealt a large number of very good attacks, I genuinely believe that I would not notice the difference other than being free to model it however I wanted and the removal of silly business like Smash Captains.
While I acknowledge that the strength probably wouldn't be high enough to seriously threaten vehicles like a Thunder Hammer does, I would also question if its good game design that your HQ can do that to begin with.
If a unit should be capable of doing something, give it the stats to do that role. Don't base their effectiveness within their role on which weapon gives you the best mechanical result for or allow units to fulfil radically different roles based on your specific build of them. Especially when that specific build is dependent on your specific subfaction or arbitrary, out-of-universe rules abstraction.
Vaktathi wrote: The 3050 thing is an entirely different issue, that's far more akin to something like the End Times than anything Marine related, the Clan invasion heralded a massive lore change while also introducing a ton of power bloat. While it's fair to point out that a quarter century later it's probably not worth still being mad about, but I don't think that's the same thing as making the point that if some units can share a unit entry, they should, and that having special extra unit entries just for the sake of having additional pagespace isn't actually contributing much to flavor in and of itself.
I can see your End Times point, but it's not to the same degree, as End Times changed everything, right down to the core mechanics of the game. The Clans did not do such a thing. They just added more stuff into the game.
And this is why I make the comparison. Since 8th began GW has added more stuff to Marines more than any other faction, but how much of that more stuff is too much is only decided on an individual level. If it is too much for someone, then they, as I argued with BTech, they can ignore it. They don't have to use Primaris stuff, as I didn't for all of last Edition.
Setting aside the earlier points, I think in the case of 40k, it's a lot harder to ignore it. When other factions *are* losing stuff, even if we don't want to talk about FW (which I think isn't fair, but I'll set that aside), if armies like Dark Eldar are being cut to the bone, that should probably be addressed before coming out with a gazillion new Marine books and sub-faction rules. Additionally, there are no "eras" or "locales" to really restrict stuff, events are open to and allow everything, and people will have to deal with and face everything and keep up on those rules and with an array of sub-faction books adding tons of special rules and abilities to minor small niche factions it's hard to keep up. It also doesn't help that mainstays of older editions are often being actively pushed out. More to the point, the power level and divergence in basic troop capabilities is becoming a real issue. When the basic Marine is now W2, and needs a half page to print all the text for all their special rules and abilities, it's excessive. GW's need to have and differentiate so many microfactions drives that power level up in an attempt to justify their special-ness. It also takes up gobs of marketing pipeline that other stuff can't occupy because retail sales markets don't maximize profit by dumping lots of unrelated releases in a week.
I don't like that Necrons have vehicles with crew. I don't like that Tyranids have special characters. I'm not demanding that these things be removed form the game for "consolidation" purposes or any other reason. I'll just choose to not use them, and I certainly wouldn't expect my own problems with these units to be mandatory for other players.
I don't think that's really the issue here, or at least that I've been arguing for. I don't have a problem with people running all the new models. I have an issue with the idea that they all need super unique datasheets and rulesets to be portrayed accurately, and I have an issue with GW trying to make microfactions and units that all fundamentally do the same thing in mostly the same way appear to be radically different unique things when they're not. To use an easier example than the bikes one that's been bandied about, do we really need a unique Heavy Intercessor Captain datasheet?
The Leman Russ used to have different entries for different types of Russ tank, they all got consolidated into one, even though some had different armor values or weapons options. There used to be separate army lists for IG Armoured Companies, several in fact, including a unique DKoK one. Stromtroopers used to be an Elites unit that sometimes had an option to take as Troops and sometimes had to be finagled as Grenadier vets but had options to make elite carapace guard infantry and eventually got rolled into their own codex as Scions. These options all just got baked into normal simple codex entries and options. I don't recall anyone bemoaning the great loss of IG diversity and options for this. I think GW actually did a good job in this regard there. I like the way GW handled that.
Vaktathi wrote: Another place where this doesn't work is that 40k does mean for everything to be used at the same time, nothing is broken up into eras or locales, and the game tries to incorporate and portray things so small that Battletech really doesn't concern itself with (like an individual Grot and the grot's sidearm) as well as units much larger than what Battletech typically concerns itself with (such as a Warlord Titan standing more than twice the height of an Atlas).
But that's the point! That's how they chose to deal with all those extras. They didn't consolidate them, they split them up into more manageable eras. They didn't take stuff away. The people in this thread are arguing for fewer options. Not more. C'mon Vaktathi. We've been at this website for years. I seem to remember you lamenting the loss of the 3.5 Chaos Codex. Why would you ever want any other faction to go through the same thing as us Chaos players did at the start of 4th?
Two parts here. First, I acknowledge there were issues with the 3.5 codex and it had some things that needed toning down. For my Iron Warriors, a couple FoC swap options with an option to take an Vindicator (later added to the entire CSM army) or a Basilisk, and Siege Specialists giving them an Ld boost in fortifications, worked pretty well for faction differentiation and was more than enough to make it one of the most powerful armies of the era, and it all fit on one page (it also prevented you from taking certain things). Relative to what *far* smaller (and in most cases ostensibly Codex-Adherent) loyalist Chapters are receiving these days that's extremely minor. I didn't need an entire faction sub-book with a gazillion special rules and stratagems or unique special units and a grip of characters. Second, the problem with the 4E codex was that it just ripped out everything without even making a minimal effort at minor subfaction functionality, while also introducing a ton of new fractured and incomplete lore issues (e.g. why could there be Cult power armored troops but not proper Cult terminators?) on top and basically ignoring the Legion in its lore and heavily featuring more recent Renegades, there were a multitude of issue with that book beyond just a lack of Legion rules.
At one point an IW specific codex probably would have made me real giddy, sure. At this point, I'm really ok with how they're handled with the current CSM book, that's enough for me, my bigger issues are with the CSM faction as a whole being an awkward step child.
Vaktathi wrote: I'll also note that while Battletech has gobs of mechs, those mechs are all basically built according to a set of universal rules by which anyone can make any mech they want within the given guidelines...
This is an interesting point (that I'm cutting down for brevity). If 40k had a universal set of "design rules" (that need not be public, mind you - it can just be an internal thing) that was as well crafted and robust as BTech's, then I think the game would improve dramatically. But even with this system, the folks creating new 'Mechs still make things that are redundant, or similar, because that's how the universe works. I don't see why 40k or any wargame would be any different
Sure, but its not the same problem if they're redundant or similar in that setting as faction balance and flavor isn't defined in the same way by the mechs and people can make whatever they want anyway, the game by default is built around "take whatever you want within these space and weight limitations", and isn't building factions around minor unit subvariants or differentiating factions the way 40k with different individual combat capability. Everyone can take an Atlas, everyone can take infantry hordes, and everything in between, and nobody is making entire faction books devoted to forces that only field the Atlas, and different variations or customizations of the Atlas are treated as swap options not as whole new unit entries (IIRC at least).
Vaktathi wrote: They'll give you background, unit compositions, history, character info, etc, but something like the 1st Marik Protectors release isn't dumping huge amounts of special rules or unique units into the game either.
Well, that's not quite true. Yes, everything stems from the same basic core design rules, but they have introduced new units for specific factions. The Clans are the obvious and overwhelming example, but I'm thinking the Word of Blake. Their Celestial line of 'Mechs - again, fully acknowledging that they exist within the same basic design rules - were different enough from everyone else, using some new rules (not many) they invented for those units. Those rules have since been incorporated into the general design rules, so that anyone can use the tech the Wobbies had, but they do do unique forces for factions, however rare that might be.
Anything post 3067 I'll cop to being unfamiliar with and can't talk much to. While the Clans introduced new units for specific factions, this was pretty much "clans vs inner sphere", and still followed the same basic design principles they just got stuff that was all straight up better in every way, at the cost of *ostensibly* being costlier to bring to the table, and it's not hard to see where some of the bitterness came from that for some of the same reasons being mentioned here, but in general all that boils down to is "clan" or "inner sphere", and even then it's possible for both sides to have units or tech from each other through salvage, capture, old stockpiles (in the Clans case), etc. Everyone can get everything, at least on some level, faction doesn't have anywhere near as large a role to play in balance and what is available to you in Btech the way it is in 40k (at least, from what I recall of pre-3067 BT), and significant customization and overlap between mechs just doesn't cause the issues it does with 40k.
I'd like to make the argument that the consolidation that this thread is advocating for runs a very real risk of turning out as D&D 4e did. 4e was objectively more balanced and better suited to being played on a grid than 3.x was while also requiring less work on the part of the DM; yet it was rejected by the community. Better, in some specific way, isn't always what the community wants.
To this day I'd rather play 3.x or 2e than either 4e or 5e. I like their flawed ambition and feel that too many games since value balance and ease of play over given players options and trusting them to find what works for their table.
Canadian 5th wrote: I'd like to make the argument that the consolidation that this thread is advocating for runs a very real risk of turning out as D&D 4e did. 4e was objectively more balanced and better suited to being played on a grid than 3.x was while also requiring less work on the part of the DM; yet it was rejected by the community. Better, in some specific way, isn't always what the community wants.
To this day I'd rather play 3.x or 2e than either 4e or 5e. I like their flawed ambition and feel that too many games since value balance and ease of play over given players options and trusting them to find what works for their table.
4es flaw wasn't the rules (except a poorly balanced first monster manual). It was presentation. 5e is mostly just 4e. It just has an added layer of fluff hiding the mechanics to make it more palitable. Nobody is suggesting to kill the fluff. In fact, I have mentioned a couple times that I want little side bars in my codex telling me about things like screamer killers and presenting me the build that represents them.
Likewise, I would love it if the SM codex in the SW section took a unified "outrider" datasheet and showed which options to grab to represent TWC with a picture of them and some fluff explaining why the SW do things this way.
The fluff should be there with the tools. It just doesn't need to be done with bespoke bs.
In fact, doing it that way means that when the eventual old marine purge happens the SW players can still stick some primaris on some wolves and the book itself would just be supporting that.
Canadian 5th wrote: I'd like to make the argument that the consolidation that this thread is advocating for runs a very real risk of turning out as D&D 4e did. 4e was objectively more balanced and better suited to being played on a grid than 3.x was while also requiring less work on the part of the DM; yet it was rejected by the community. Better, in some specific way, isn't always what the community wants.
To this day I'd rather play 3.x or 2e than either 4e or 5e. I like their flawed ambition and feel that too many games since value balance and ease of play over given players options and trusting them to find what works for their table.
I honestly find 5E is a nice balance between 3.5 and the need for simplification, I quite like it. (but I LIKE bounded accuracy as it means from a DM's POV I can use enemies longer without "gee those orks are now all level 15 barbarians.. odd that!")
Lance845 wrote: 4es flaw wasn't the rules (except a poorly balanced first monster manual).
The balance, while objectively better, was still just as broken as previous editions. Need I remind you of the errata needed to end a plethora of infinite combos and changes so that forced movement didn't trigger movement-based effects. Its rules were all kinds of flawed even if they did fix the problem of linear fighters and quadratic wizards.
5e is mostly just 4e. It just has an added layer of fluff hiding the mechanics to make it more palatable.
Which is why I dislike 5e. I can't build the same depth and breadth of characters in 5e that I could build in 3.x and given that WotC seems hellbent on printing only adventure modules and setting books I don't think we'll ever get there.
Just as an example can I build a 5e necromancer that controls a horde of undead? How about a creature that steals knowledge and skills from the enemies they've killed? Playing as a monster with a full level progression system and rules that allow me to use any monster in the game as a player character? I want all of that and more from 5e before I'll consider playing it. Why should I lose features I enjoyed just so plebs don't have to learn the mechanics of a more complex game?
Lance845 wrote: 4es flaw wasn't the rules (except a poorly balanced first monster manual).
The balance, while objectively better, was still just as broken as previous editions. Need I remind you of the errata needed to end a plethora of infinite combos and changes so that forced movement didn't trigger movement-based effects. Its rules were all kinds of flawed even if they did fix the problem of linear fighters and quadratic wizards.
5e is mostly just 4e. It just has an added layer of fluff hiding the mechanics to make it more palatable.
Which is why I dislike 5e. I can't build the same depth and breadth of characters in 5e that I could build in 3.x and given that WotC seems hellbent on printing only adventure modules and setting books I don't think we'll ever get there.
Just as an example can I build a 5e necromancer that controls a horde of undead? How about a creature that steals knowledge and skills from the enemies they've killed? Playing as a monster with a full level progression system and rules that allow me to use any monster in the game as a player character? I want all of that and more from 5e before I'll consider playing it. Why should I lose features I enjoyed just so plebs don't have to learn the mechanics of a more complex game?
Because those features sent balance down the crapper.
Though that's not really right-you can play 3.P all you want. Just so long as you accept that it's not getting new content, and 5E is.
BrianDavion wrote: I honestly find 5E is a nice balance between 3.5 and the need for simplification, I quite like it. (but I LIKE bounded accuracy as it means from a DM's POV I can use enemies longer without "gee those orks are now all level 15 barbarians.. odd that!")
I never had that issue as a DM. The higher-level characters shouldn't still be fighting the same low-level threats they were at low levels, at high levels the threat of those monsters should be what the political cost of eliminating them will be or that their gods may take notice of the players and make their lives a living hell because of that.
Also, what were your solutions to the plethora of options lost between editions? Many, many builds that I found fun in 3.5 simply don't work in 5e.
Though that's not really right-you can play 3.P all you want. Just so long as you accept that it's not getting new content, and 5E is.
People who want fewer options in 40k can also go back to older editions where the current options didn't exist. If it's good for the goose it must be good for the gander, right?
Lance845 wrote: 4es flaw wasn't the rules (except a poorly balanced first monster manual).
The balance, while objectively better, was still just as broken as previous editions. Need I remind you of the errata needed to end a plethora of infinite combos and changes so that forced movement didn't trigger movement-based effects. Its rules were all kinds of flawed even if they did fix the problem of linear fighters and quadratic wizards.
5e is mostly just 4e. It just has an added layer of fluff hiding the mechanics to make it more palatable.
Which is why I dislike 5e. I can't build the same depth and breadth of characters in 5e that I could build in 3.x and given that WotC seems hellbent on printing only adventure modules and setting books I don't think we'll ever get there.
Just as an example can I build a 5e necromancer that controls a horde of undead? How about a creature that steals knowledge and skills from the enemies they've killed? Playing as a monster with a full level progression system and rules that allow me to use any monster in the game as a player character? I want all of that and more from 5e before I'll consider playing it. Why should I lose features I enjoyed just so plebs don't have to learn the mechanics of a more complex game?
And yet YOUR dislike of 5e doesn't stop it from being the most popular version of the game that has ever existed. This is your analogy man. The simplification that you were saying could be a bad thing is exactly what has made it such a popular and profitable product.
Lance845 wrote: 4es flaw wasn't the rules (except a poorly balanced first monster manual).
The balance, while objectively better, was still just as broken as previous editions. Need I remind you of the errata needed to end a plethora of infinite combos and changes so that forced movement didn't trigger movement-based effects. Its rules were all kinds of flawed even if they did fix the problem of linear fighters and quadratic wizards.
5e is mostly just 4e. It just has an added layer of fluff hiding the mechanics to make it more palatable.
Which is why I dislike 5e. I can't build the same depth and breadth of characters in 5e that I could build in 3.x and given that WotC seems hellbent on printing only adventure modules and setting books I don't think we'll ever get there.
Just as an example can I build a 5e necromancer that controls a horde of undead? How about a creature that steals knowledge and skills from the enemies they've killed? Playing as a monster with a full level progression system and rules that allow me to use any monster in the game as a player character? I want all of that and more from 5e before I'll consider playing it. Why should I lose features I enjoyed just so plebs don't have to learn the mechanics of a more complex game?
And yet YOUR dislike of 5e doesn't stop it from being the most popular version of the game that has ever existed. This is your analogy man. The simplification that you were saying could be a bad thing is exactly what has made it such a popular and profitable product.
yeah except one thing that always sells with D&D has been new supplements and sphlat books. you know.. the "bloat" that so many people here cry about. If I play d&d it's entirely possiable that I need 3 or more books to make my char.
Lance845 wrote: And yet YOUR dislike of 5e doesn't stop it from being the most popular version of the game that has ever existed. This is your analogy man. The simplification that you were saying could be a bad thing is exactly what has made it such a popular and profitable product.
I'm not convinced that 5e is popular because of the rules. Unlike previous versions of the game it had a lot of endorsement from online voices such as Critical Role as well as a prominent feature in Stranger Things. It was no longer seen as something only for nerds or seen through the lens of the satanic panic. I could be wrong, but even if I am, I'm not sure how it applies to 40k where you can't just role up a new character when the new edition removes options you used to use.
Squatting models and their rules isn't ideal for anybody and, as 4e showed, there's nothing to say that doing it will lead to sales.
EDIT: We also don't know that 5e has sold more books total than prior editions, we know its sold more PHBs but 5e has 13 total books whereas 3.x had 69 plus tons of 3rd party due to the magic of OGL. 5e just doesn't have a lot to sell a customer willing to buy.
Lance845 wrote: 4es flaw wasn't the rules (except a poorly balanced first monster manual).
The balance, while objectively better, was still just as broken as previous editions. Need I remind you of the errata needed to end a plethora of infinite combos and changes so that forced movement didn't trigger movement-based effects. Its rules were all kinds of flawed even if they did fix the problem of linear fighters and quadratic wizards.
5e is mostly just 4e. It just has an added layer of fluff hiding the mechanics to make it more palatable.
Which is why I dislike 5e. I can't build the same depth and breadth of characters in 5e that I could build in 3.x and given that WotC seems hellbent on printing only adventure modules and setting books I don't think we'll ever get there.
Just as an example can I build a 5e necromancer that controls a horde of undead? How about a creature that steals knowledge and skills from the enemies they've killed? Playing as a monster with a full level progression system and rules that allow me to use any monster in the game as a player character? I want all of that and more from 5e before I'll consider playing it. Why should I lose features I enjoyed just so plebs don't have to learn the mechanics of a more complex game?
And yet YOUR dislike of 5e doesn't stop it from being the most popular version of the game that has ever existed. This is your analogy man. The simplification that you were saying could be a bad thing is exactly what has made it such a popular and profitable product.
yeah except one thing that always sells with D&D has been new supplements and sphlat books. you know.. the "bloat" that so many people here cry about. If I play d&d it's entirely possiable that I need 3 or more books to make my char.
Really? Because the super specific stuff from 3.x were the worst selling things they ever produced. Sandstorm and other related products that offered super specific equipment, feats, and prestige classes that dealt specifically with niche things. These are the books that basically killed 3rd. The generalist things that have applications in lots of situations are the ones that keep on selling.
Lance845 wrote: Really? Because the super specific stuff from 3.x were the worst selling things they ever produced. Sandstorm and other related products that offered super specific equipment, feats, and prestige classes that dealt specifically with niche things. These are the books that basically killed 3rd. The generalist things that have applications in lots of situations are the ones that keep on selling.
This is true but by the same token you can't sell what isn't produced. Given modern methods, I'd like to see a return to 3.x supplement spam in the form of cheaper PDFs that don't take up space and piss off retailers.
So to bring this analogy back around to roost. 5th ed... most popular. Super simple. Core books have sold more then they ever have. Instead of releasing splats with more and more individual classes they keep releasing splats with options for the classes that already exist. And those options are actually meaningful and usable in more than niche situations.
And in 40k instead of having more and more datasheets and wargear to represent more and more niche and specfic things they could do with a consolidation and simplification so that the options available are actually meaningful and accessible while giving players options that matter.
Lance845 wrote: So to bring this analogy back around to roost. 5th ed... most popular. Super simple. Core books have sold more then they ever have. Instead of releasing splats with more and more individual classes they keep releasing splats with options for the classes that already exist. And those options are actually meaningful and usable in more than niche situations.
And in 40k instead of having more and more datasheets and wargear to represent more and more niche and specfic things they could do with a consolidation and simplification so that the options available are actually meaningful and accessible while giving players options that matter.
That look like it lines up properly to you?
What do they do if they alienate people whos formerly unique army now ends up as a generic and flavourless mass of generic rules? Wouldn't that create a 4e situation?
You've also failed to rebuff the role that pop culture has played in the rise of 5e compared to earlier editions.
Lance845 wrote: 4es flaw wasn't the rules (except a poorly balanced first monster manual).
The balance, while objectively better, was still just as broken as previous editions. Need I remind you of the errata needed to end a plethora of infinite combos and changes so that forced movement didn't trigger movement-based effects. Its rules were all kinds of flawed even if they did fix the problem of linear fighters and quadratic wizards.
5e is mostly just 4e. It just has an added layer of fluff hiding the mechanics to make it more palatable.
Which is why I dislike 5e. I can't build the same depth and breadth of characters in 5e that I could build in 3.x and given that WotC seems hellbent on printing only adventure modules and setting books I don't think we'll ever get there.
Just as an example can I build a 5e necromancer that controls a horde of undead? How about a creature that steals knowledge and skills from the enemies they've killed? Playing as a monster with a full level progression system and rules that allow me to use any monster in the game as a player character? I want all of that and more from 5e before I'll consider playing it. Why should I lose features I enjoyed just so plebs don't have to learn the mechanics of a more complex game?
And yet YOUR dislike of 5e doesn't stop it from being the most popular version of the game that has ever existed. This is your analogy man. The simplification that you were saying could be a bad thing is exactly what has made it such a popular and profitable product.
yeah except one thing that always sells with D&D has been new supplements and sphlat books. you know.. the "bloat" that so many people here cry about. If I play d&d it's entirely possiable that I need 3 or more books to make my char.
Really? Because the super specific stuff from 3.x were the worst selling things they ever produced. Sandstorm and other related products that offered super specific equipment, feats, and prestige classes that dealt specifically with niche things. These are the books that basically killed 3rd. The generalist things that have applications in lots of situations are the ones that keep on selling.
well yes there's something of a happy medium between "absolutely zero" and two fething hyperspecific books a month.
Lance845 wrote: So to bring this analogy back around to roost. 5th ed... most popular. Super simple. Core books have sold more then they ever have. Instead of releasing splats with more and more individual classes they keep releasing splats with options for the classes that already exist. And those options are actually meaningful and usable in more than niche situations.
And in 40k instead of having more and more datasheets and wargear to represent more and more niche and specfic things they could do with a consolidation and simplification so that the options available are actually meaningful and accessible while giving players options that matter.
That look like it lines up properly to you?
What do they do if they alienate people whos formerly unique army now ends up as a generic and flavourless mass of generic rules? Wouldn't that create a 4e situation?
You've also failed to rebuff the role that pop culture has played in the rise of 5e compared to earlier editions.
No. Because I didn't say scrap chapter tactics. I didn't say to scrap the super unique things. 4th eds problem wasn't the rules. It was the presentation. Again, I WANT your book to have all the fluff. And I want a pic of some primaris marines on top of wolves with axes painted like ice on them. I want that picture to be connected to a fluff blurb about how the Space Wolves train Thunder Wolves as cavalry and how they make power weapons out of ice and how they favor axes within the chapter. Then I want them to show you which options they picked off the "cavalry" datasheet to represent that unit. I want ALL your flavor to be there with the options available for people to build their flavor to taste. You might notice that the more books they release for 5th the more they are about giving classes options that break them out of their singular molds and allowing the player to swap class features for other features and racial features for other features and in Tashas Caldron of Everything they will even let you customize spells. Because it's about meaningful options on a single datasheet that lets you represent whatever it is you want it to be instead of giving you an entirely different class to do this niche thing and another class over here to do this niche thing.
As for pop culture. Chicken or egg? Do you think pop culture made it popular or do you think it's ease and accessibility made it more pop culture? Since nothing else really changed I am inclined to say it's the latter.
Lance845 wrote: No. Because I didn't say scrap chapter tactics. I didn't say to scrap the super unique things. 4th eds problem wasn't the rules. It was the presentation. Again, I WANT your book to have all the fluff. And I want a pic of some primaris marines on top of wolves with axes painted like ice on them. I want that picture to be connected to a fluff blurb about how the Space Wolves train Thunder Wolves as cavalry and how they make power weapons out of ice and how they favor axes within the chapter. Then I want them to show you which options they picked off the "cavalry" datasheet to represent that unit. I want ALL your flavor to be there with the options available for people to build their flavor to taste. You might notice that the more books they release for 5th the more they are about giving classes options that break them out of their singular molds and allowing the player to swap class features for other features and racial features for other features and in Tashas Caldron of Everything they will even let you customize spells. Because it's about meaningful options on a single datasheet that lets you represent whatever it is you want it to be instead of giving you an entirely different class to do this niche thing and another class over here to do this niche thing.
As for pop culture. Chicken or egg? Do you think pop culture made it popular or do you think it's ease and accessibility made it more pop culture? Since nothing else really changed I am inclined to say it's the latter.
5e classes still fail to replicate options that existed in 3.x. There are many, many things that are mechanically unique that simply can't be done in 5e or that 5e has removed rules for and left up to the DM to fudge.
In 40k terms, they've taken away the weapons that make DWKs unique and left them as rebadged TH/SS terminators with access to special rules. If you go the other way and just give them to everybody then why have different chapters at all? At that point, you may as well role the Fighter and Barbarian together because they're both martial classes designed to take on a frontline role and really why should it matter that one wears full plate and the other goes unarmored if they have the same AC.
Lance845 wrote: No. Because I didn't say scrap chapter tactics. I didn't say to scrap the super unique things. 4th eds problem wasn't the rules. It was the presentation. Again, I WANT your book to have all the fluff. And I want a pic of some primaris marines on top of wolves with axes painted like ice on them. I want that picture to be connected to a fluff blurb about how the Space Wolves train Thunder Wolves as cavalry and how they make power weapons out of ice and how they favor axes within the chapter. Then I want them to show you which options they picked off the "cavalry" datasheet to represent that unit. I want ALL your flavor to be there with the options available for people to build their flavor to taste. You might notice that the more books they release for 5th the more they are about giving classes options that break them out of their singular molds and allowing the player to swap class features for other features and racial features for other features and in Tashas Caldron of Everything they will even let you customize spells. Because it's about meaningful options on a single datasheet that lets you represent whatever it is you want it to be instead of giving you an entirely different class to do this niche thing and another class over here to do this niche thing.
As for pop culture. Chicken or egg? Do you think pop culture made it popular or do you think it's ease and accessibility made it more pop culture? Since nothing else really changed I am inclined to say it's the latter.
5e classes still fail to replicate options that existed in 3.x. There are many, many things that are mechanically unique that simply can't be done in 5e or that 5e has removed rules for and left up to the DM to fudge.
In 40k terms, they've taken away the weapons that make DWKs unique and left them as rebadged TH/SS terminators with access to special rules. If you go the other way and just give them to everybody then why have different chapters at all? At that point, you may as well role the Fighter and Barbarian together because they're both martial classes designed to take on a frontline role and really why should it matter that one wears full plate and the other goes unarmored if they have the same AC.
Why have different hive fleets? There are literally 0 fleet specific units. Tau septs? Necron Dynasties? You keep acting like it would collapse SM into some kind of bland singularity but every other army gets plenty of millage out of that exact situation right now. So stop catastrophizing.
Lance845 wrote: Why have different hive fleets? There are literally 0 fleet specific units. Tau septs? Necron Dynasties? You keep acting like it would collapse SM into some kind of bland singularity but every other army gets plenty of millage out of that exact situation right now. So stop catastrophizing.
Why take a step backwards rather than give those factions different units? Is it inconceivable that a hive fleet creates unique bioorganisms in response to threats or that a sept might customize their crisis suits in a unique way? I'd rather see more stuff added to other factions rather than see anything taken away from anybody be it via outright removal or homogenization of formerly unique factions.
Lance845 wrote: Why have different hive fleets? There are literally 0 fleet specific units. Tau septs? Necron Dynasties? You keep acting like it would collapse SM into some kind of bland singularity but every other army gets plenty of millage out of that exact situation right now. So stop catastrophizing.
Why take a step backwards rather than give those factions different units?
Because locking specific options and units behind a keyword prevents everyone from making "their dudes" and while it LOOKS like more options to people like you it is in fact more restrictive by locking things behind keywords.
Is it inconceivable that a hive fleet creates unique bioorganisms in response to threats
No. Hive fleets create new organisms in response to threats all the time. What is inconceivable is that only one hive fleet would ever have access to that organism forever after.
or that a sept might customize their crisis suits in a unique way?
Not at all. But once those options are being mass produced to not provide them to the empire so that all septs had access to the collective tactics and resources of the empire would be pretty crazy. More specifically when I make my sept I might want to decide how my sept customizes it's crisis suits and having a meaningful list of options from which to choose to flavor my sept with is good not just for me but everyone who plays tau.
I'd rather see more stuff added to other factions rather than see anything taken away from anybody be it via outright removal or homogenization of formerly unique factions.
You are not loosing any flavor. The wargear and data sheets that remain are capable of representing everything. Nobody is asking for TWC or stonecrsuher carnifexes to be thrown into a fire and never be used again. In fact, you gain options you didn't have before!
Canadian 5th wrote: ...Why take a step backwards rather than give those factions different units?...
Because with GW's insistence on releasing everything for one army all at once and then not touching them again except for band-aid patches for years at a time that'd stretch out the release cycle and make it take longer for GW to ineptly attempt to fix their endless parade of errors.
Lance845 wrote: Because locking specific options and units behind a keyword prevents everyone from making "their dudes" and while it LOOKS like more options to people like you it is in fact more restrictive by locking things behind keywords.
So why have factions at all then? What is the distinction between some restrictions being good and others being bad?
No. Hive fleets create new organisms in response to threats all the time. What is inconceivable is that only one hive fleet would ever have access to that organism forever after.
They aren't in contact all the time, nor are they always friendly with one another. Also, 40k doesn't span an infinite amount of time so that organism might become widespread but not do so throughout the span covered by the game.
Not at all. But once those options are being mass produced to not provide them to the empire so that all septs had access to the collective tactics and resources of the empire would be pretty crazy.
Which is why every field modification used in WWII was immediately mass-produced and why no unique prototype units ever saw the battlefield.
You are not loosing any flavor. The wargear and data sheets that remain are capable of representing everything. Nobody is asking for TWC or stonecrsuher carnifexes to be thrown into a fire and never be used again.
I guess the Barbarian doesn't lose any flavor by using plate armor by that logic. Nor would they lose anything if the Fighter gained access to rage.
EDIT: Also there were editions without these 'flaws'. So why are you complaining about this edition when you could just play 5th edition and be happy?
AnomanderRake wrote: Because with GW's insistence on releasing everything for one army all at once and then not touching them again except for band-aid patches for years at a time that'd stretch out the release cycle and make it take longer for GW to ineptly attempt to fix their endless parade of errors.
Okay, so if they were to magically do what you want with regards to datasheets why couldn't they also magically fix their release schedule? Why assume one specific change that will 'fix' things and not another equally unlikely change?
Lance845 wrote: Because locking specific options and units behind a keyword prevents everyone from making "their dudes" and while it LOOKS like more options to people like you it is in fact more restrictive by locking things behind keywords.
So why have factions at all then? What is the distinction between some restrictions being good and others being bad?
Are you suggesting that there should be only one army? I am just asking to make sure wether this is more catastrophizing or not.
No. Hive fleets create new organisms in response to threats all the time. What is inconceivable is that only one hive fleet would ever have access to that organism forever after.
They aren't in contact all the time, nor are they always friendly with one another. Also, 40k doesn't span an infinite amount of time so that organism might become widespread but not do so throughout the span covered by the game.
They are in fact in contact all of the time. There are not actually separate hive fleets. There is only one hive mind. The designation "hive fleet" is a term used by the imperium to classify different groups of tyranids in the galaxy or waves of invasion. The hive mind does in fact collect that data instantly and distribute it across it's collective gestalt intelligence. Different hive fleets adapt different adaptations to deal with different threats and experiment with different tactics in different situations. But they can in fact adapt to any situation at any time.
Not at all. But once those options are being mass produced to not provide them to the empire so that all septs had access to the collective tactics and resources of the empire would be pretty crazy.
Which is why every field modification used in WWII was immediately mass-produced and why no unique prototype units ever saw the battlefield.
Sure. Shadowsun is weareing an experimental suit. XV-9 hazard suits are experimental. Longshots suit is a new prototype used to interface in his tank in a way no other pilot does. Named character, unit available to everyone, named character.
You are not loosing any flavor. The wargear and data sheets that remain are capable of representing everything. Nobody is asking for TWC or stonecrsuher carnifexes to be thrown into a fire and never be used again.
I guess the Barbarian doesn't lose any flavor by using plate armor by that logic. Nor would they lose anything if the Fighter gained access to rage.
If they trade x for y.... yup.
In 3rd rogue and barbs could detect traps and nobody else. They also both got uncanny dodge. They were totally carbon copy classes right?
AnomanderRake wrote: Because with GW's insistence on releasing everything for one army all at once and then not touching them again except for band-aid patches for years at a time that'd stretch out the release cycle and make it take longer for GW to ineptly attempt to fix their endless parade of errors.
Okay, so if they were to magically do what you want with regards to datasheets why couldn't they also magically fix their release schedule? Why assume one specific change that will 'fix' things and not another equally unlikely change?
If GW were to magically get their heads out of their a**es on endless rules bloat, cannibalizing casual play to support tournament play, ignoring their playtesters, updating one army all at once and then not touching them for years instead of doing small updates to more armies more frequently, nerfing or deleting older models, deleting options because they'd require you to swap parts between kits, alternately s***ing on and buffing to the stratosphere whole broad categories of units between editions, trying to use the card game to patch the minis game instead of fixing the minis game, pushing spam lists to make sure you have to buy more new minis to switch list builds, and assigning Codexes to small competing design teams that don't talk to each other instead of having some kind of unified vision for the game, then sure, it'd be fine to make unique units for more sub-factions. Without fixing all that, however, giving more unique units to more sub-factions is just going to make everything else that's wrong with 40k worse.
Lance845 wrote: Are you suggesting that there should be only one army? I am just asking to make sure wether this is more catastrophizing or not.
I'm asking why you want some things merged but not others? Why draw a line at one place and not another?
They are in fact in contact all of the time. There are not actually separate hive fleets. There is only one hive mind. The designation "hive fleet" is a term used by the imperium to classify different groups of tyranids in the galaxy or waves of invasion. The hive mind does in fact collect that data instantly and distribute it across it's collective gestalt intelligence. Different hive fleets adapt different adaptations to deal with different threats and experiment with different tactics in different situations. But they can in fact adapt to any situation at any time.
Ignore that they've fought each other in the past and that information can't be transmitted instantly much less analyzed and put into practice as quickly. Even if you ignore those issues, a fleet that's fighting over on one side of the galaxy is likely to be facing different threats than one elsewhere. Thus while any fleet might make that same biomorph they don't need to thus creating a 'unique' datasheet for a certain hive fleet.
Sure. Shadowsun is weareing an experimental suit. XV-9 hazard suits are experimental. Longshots suit is a new prototype used to interface in his tank in a way no other pilot does. Named character, unit available to everyone, named character.
Why is Shadowsun available to everybody? There's only one of them and they should be tied to a unique region of space where they've actually fought. Otherwise, you may as well deploy Rommel in Barbarossa in a WWII game and claim that there was nothing stopping Hitler from doing so and thus you can too. 40k needs to be ground somewhere and hence it should have unique datasheets that were only used in certain campaigns by certain groups.
If they trade x for y.... yup.
In 3rd rogue and barbs could detect traps and nobody else. They also both got uncanny dodge. They were totally carbon copy classes right?
Most full casters could also detect traps either via specific spells or summoned allies, so you're wrong right off the hop that only some classes could do this specific thing. Secondly, they filled different roles.
Your comparison is like claiming that all sniper themed units in 40k should use the same data sheet with each factions special rules bolted on because they're the only units that fill that niche.
AnomanderRake wrote: If GW were to magically get their heads out of their a**es on endless rules bloat, cannibalizing casual play to support tournament play, ignoring their playtesters, updating one army all at once and then not touching them for years instead of doing small updates to more armies more frequently, nerfing or deleting older models, deleting options because they'd require you to swap parts between kits, alternately s***ing on and buffing to the stratosphere whole broad categories of units between editions, trying to use the card game to patch the minis game instead of fixing the minis game, pushing spam lists to make sure you have to buy more new minis to switch list builds, and assigning Codexes to small competing design teams that don't talk to each other instead of having some kind of unified vision for the game, then sure, it'd be fine to make unique units for more sub-factions. Without fixing all that, however, giving more unique units to more sub-factions is just going to make everything else that's wrong with 40k worse.
If you hate the rules so badly why are you here discussing them rather than making your own rules and convincing your playgroup to use them? We both expect that GW will continue on its current course making errors along the way because that's all they've ever done. 40k has always had meh at best rules attached to great models and a cool setting. I'm fine with that.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Lance, rather than quote debate endlessly I'll end this here by saying that my fix to 3.5 wouldn't have been to cut spellcasters off at the knees. It would have been to make martial classes feel cool by letting them do superhuman stuff too. The Fighter doesn't need spells when he can pick up a bow and fire arrow after arrow through a line of goblins felling many with each shot.
That's what I want for 40k. Don't cut the powerful factions off at the knees, give other factions really cool unique stuff too. Hordes should have bonuses while above a certain model count, poison weapons should deal mortal wounds, shurikens should ignore saves on 6s to hit as they slide through gaps in armor. If other stuff felt cool on the table the game would be more fun than if decided every codex should get the DE treatment.
Lance845 wrote: Are you suggesting that there should be only one army? I am just asking to make sure wether this is more catastrophizing or not.
I'm asking why you want some things merged but not others? Why draw a line at one place and not another?
Because I like meaningful options. I don't like bloated wasted options. Spinefists and stranglewebs are wasted options. I gain nothing by having them on the datasheet and neither does anyone else. I do gain something by having the bits though. The bits mean I can build interesting looking models that can be represented by "ranged bioweapon" or whatever.
They are in fact in contact all of the time. There are not actually separate hive fleets. There is only one hive mind. The designation "hive fleet" is a term used by the imperium to classify different groups of tyranids in the galaxy or waves of invasion. The hive mind does in fact collect that data instantly and distribute it across it's collective gestalt intelligence. Different hive fleets adapt different adaptations to deal with different threats and experiment with different tactics in different situations. But they can in fact adapt to any situation at any time.
Ignore that they've fought each other in the past and that information can't be transmitted instantly much less analyzed and put into practice as quickly. Even if you ignore those issues, a fleet that's fighting over on one side of the galaxy is likely to be facing different threats than one elsewhere.
You don't need to ignore that they have fought each other in the past. Nobody knows why this extragalactic intelligence that drives psykers mad and kills them when they make contact with it does what it does. It could be testing it's tactics against itself or eliminating an infection, or cannibalizing biomass to produce a new strain of something. Or any other unfathomable reason because of all the things in 40k the nids are the only thing that are truely alien.
Thus while any fleet might make that same biomorph they don't need to thus creating a 'unique' datasheet for a certain hive fleet.
This is not adding options to me. It is locking options behind a keyword and taking them away from everyone else. Why is that a good thing?
Sure. Shadowsun is weareing an experimental suit. XV-9 hazard suits are experimental. Longshots suit is a new prototype used to interface in his tank in a way no other pilot does. Named character, unit available to everyone, named character.
Why is Shadowsun available to everybody? There's only one of them and they should be tied to a unique region of space where they've actually fought. Otherwise, you may as well deploy Rommel in Barbarossa in a WWII game and claim that there was nothing stopping Hitler from doing so and thus you can too. 40k needs to be ground somewhere and hence it should have unique datasheets that were only used in certain campaigns by certain groups.
Shadowsun ISN'T available to everyone. She has the T'au Sept Keyword. As do all the other named characters besides Farsight who has the Farsight Keyword. The other Septs get nothing. I would much prefer a generic HQ with a ton of options including experimental suits so that I could build my own sept with a fluffy character that fit instead of just playing T'au because unit. Her datasheet should be released made out of the rules that the generic customizable HQ has. That way everyone wins and we all have more fluffy flavorful options.
If they trade x for y.... yup.
In 3rd rogue and barbs could detect traps and nobody else. They also both got uncanny dodge. They were totally carbon copy classes right?
Most full casters could also detect traps either via specific spells or summoned allies, so you're wrong right off the hop that only some classes could do this specific thing. Secondly, they filled different roles.
Your comparison is like claiming that all sniper themed units in 40k should use the same data sheet with each factions special rules bolted on because they're the only units that fill that niche.
It's not. Because I don't actually think Barbs and Rogues are copy classes. It's what you are claiming with your catastrophizing and I am refuting with my sarcasm. They both managed to be unique things and fill different roles because despite having similar options (martial and simple weapons, light armor, detecting traps, uncanny dodge) they don't get everything from both classes all at once.
Nobody told you that a single cavalry datasheet for marines means that that unit would have every chapters chapter tactics at the same time along with every potential piece of wargear. You still have to take the options you take which gear them towards a certain role and coupled with your chapter tactics make them into your dudes and not somebody elses.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Canadian 5th wrote: Lance, rather than quote debate endlessly I'll end this here by saying that my fix to 3.5 wouldn't have been to cut spellcasters off at the knees. It would have been to make martial classes feel cool by letting them do superhuman stuff too. The Fighter doesn't need spells when he can pick up a bow and fire arrow after arrow through a line of goblins felling many with each shot.
That's what I want for 40k. Don't cut the powerful factions off at the knees, give other factions really cool unique stuff too. Hordes should have bonuses while above a certain model count, poison weapons should deal mortal wounds, shurikens should ignore saves on 6s to hit as they slide through gaps in armor. If other stuff felt cool on the table the game would be more fun than if decided every codex should get the DE treatment.
See. I prefer classless/levelless point buy systems where everyone can build their own characters from long lists of options, variable attributes and skills, and taking the weapons and equipment they think their character should have. Somehow in these classless game system people still manage to make unique characters that have their own interesting elements. In fact, once you break away from a class system you find that players manage to make a far larger variety of characters then when you stick everyone inside of a predetermined couple of boxes.
I really think you guys should drop the DnD/roleplay analogies. These things are not supporting your position at all.
Lance845 wrote: Because I like meaningful options. I don't like bloated wasted options. Spinefists and stranglewebs are wasted options. I gain nothing by having them on the datasheet and neither does anyone else. I do gain something by having the bits though. The bits mean I can build interesting looking models that can be represented by "ranged bioweapon" or whatever.
Or, radical idea, give those weapons a use.
This is not adding options to me. It is locking options behind a keyword and taking them away from everyone else. Why is that a good thing?
You're objectively adding something if you give factions unique datasheets even if they're sub-faction locked.
Shadowsun ISN'T available to everyone. She has the T'au Sept Keyword. As do all the other named characters besides Farsight who has the Farsight Keyword. The other Septs get nothing. I would much prefer a generic HQ with a ton of options including experimental suits so that I could build my own sept with a fluffy character that fit instead of just playing T'au because unit. Her datasheet should be released made out of the rules that the generic customizable HQ has. That way everyone wins and we all have more fluffy flavorful options.
I disagree. Having some things you don't get to have unless you play a certain subfaction gives you a reason to use that subfaction rather than just take the best bits of everything in a bland generic blob of taking the best options and filling in the fluff later.
It's not. Because I don't actually think Barbs and Rogues are copy classes. It's what you are claiming with your catastrophizing and I am refuting with my sarcasm. They both managed to be unique things and fill different roles because despite having similar options (martial and simple weapons, light armor, detecting traps, uncanny dodge) they don't get everything from both classes all at once.
So they have UNIQUE stats that aren't shared between them and which give them a flavorful reason to exist as separate entities. Kind of like let SW keep TW as unique to them gives them continued reason to exist. Why draw the line in one place and not in another?
See. I prefer classless/levelless point buy systems where everyone can build their own characters from long lists of options, variable attributes and skills, and taking the weapons and equipment they think their character should have. Somehow in these classless game system people still manage to make unique characters that have their own interesting elements. In fact, once you break away from a class system you find that players manage to make a far larger variety of characters then when you stick everyone inside of a predetermined couple of boxes.
40k isn't that though and never has been. It's very much the World of Warcraft or D&D of tabletop games, big gaudy, not terribly well balanced, and weighed down by legacy systems that they'll never drop. If you don't want that nothing is stopping you from using your models, your dudes, with whatever rules you like.
Lance845 wrote: Because I like meaningful options. I don't like bloated wasted options. Spinefists and stranglewebs are wasted options. I gain nothing by having them on the datasheet and neither does anyone else. I do gain something by having the bits though. The bits mean I can build interesting looking models that can be represented by "ranged bioweapon" or whatever.
Or, radical idea, give those weapons a use.
There is only so much design space. As someone explained earlier having 3 power weapon profiles was in reality 1 power weapon profile especially when a particular datasheet only allows for 1 type of power weapon. By only having 1 power weapon profile you actually give everyone tons of modeling options while not actually taking anything away. See how that works?
This is not adding options to me. It is locking options behind a keyword and taking them away from everyone else. Why is that a good thing?
You're objectively adding something if you give factions unique datasheets even if they're sub-faction locked.
You objectively are not if the alternative is giving the options to everyone.
Shadowsun ISN'T available to everyone. She has the T'au Sept Keyword. As do all the other named characters besides Farsight who has the Farsight Keyword. The other Septs get nothing. I would much prefer a generic HQ with a ton of options including experimental suits so that I could build my own sept with a fluffy character that fit instead of just playing T'au because unit. Her datasheet should be released made out of the rules that the generic customizable HQ has. That way everyone wins and we all have more fluffy flavorful options.
I disagree. Having some things you don't get to have unless you play a certain subfaction gives you a reason to use that subfaction rather than just take the best bits of everything in a bland generic blob of taking the best options and filling in the fluff later.
If there are "best bits" as you say then all those other options are not actually options. They are the illusion of choice.
Just in case you are unfamiliar with the term I will explain it. In many games they give you "options" but only a couple of them are viable. In these cases it is whats called the illusion of choice. If you remember the really old choose your own adventure games where you can eat the white berries or the red berries. Well, one of them kills you and ends the game and the other doesn't. So it's not ACTUALLY a meaningful choice. It's the illusion of choice. Because you only really have 1 choice. See how this is working? If the options on your data sheet are actually the illusion of choice you in fact gain by consolidating them so that you gain modeling freedom while still having the same number of actual choices.
On the other hand if the choices you have ARE meaningful then they shouldn't be consolidated and then you don't get homogeneous blobs of everyone being the same. Because there isn't actually a best choice you end up with a variety of things on the field. Ta Da! Actual options without the bloat?! Just sticking extra options on the datasheet doesn't actually give you variety. It only gives you the illusion of it.
It's not. Because I don't actually think Barbs and Rogues are copy classes. It's what you are claiming with your catastrophizing and I am refuting with my sarcasm. They both managed to be unique things and fill different roles because despite having similar options (martial and simple weapons, light armor, detecting traps, uncanny dodge) they don't get everything from both classes all at once.
So they have UNIQUE stats that aren't shared between them and which give them a flavorful reason to exist as separate entities. Kind of like let SW keep TW as unique to them gives them continued reason to exist. Why draw the line in one place and not in another?
See above.
See. I prefer classless/levelless point buy systems where everyone can build their own characters from long lists of options, variable attributes and skills, and taking the weapons and equipment they think their character should have. Somehow in these classless game system people still manage to make unique characters that have their own interesting elements. In fact, once you break away from a class system you find that players manage to make a far larger variety of characters then when you stick everyone inside of a predetermined couple of boxes.
40k isn't that though and never has been. It's very much the World of Warcraft or D&D of tabletop games, big gaudy, not terribly well balanced, and weighed down by legacy systems that they'll never drop. If you don't want that nothing is stopping you from using your models, your dudes, with whatever rules you like.
I would argue that 40k has ALWAYS been that. Right from the rogue trader days 40k has been about kitbashing, custom paint jobs, turning a deoderant stick into a tank, and making your army into your guys. Right now we have build your own chapter tactics. And older codexes had long lists of custom options to go onto people to make your own characters and units. An older nid dex let you customize each unit with a list of biomorphs that could enhance their armor or add strength and so on and so forth. 40k has ALWAYS been the point buy of table top games where players can make their army into THEIR army (by litterally spending points even!). This thing with bespoke units. Thats the aberrant thing that was introduced in the middle and grown.
Lance845 wrote: There is only so much design space. As someone explained earlier having 3 power weapon profiles was in reality 1 power weapon profile especially when a particular datasheet only allows for 1 type of power weapon. By only having 1 power weapon profile you actually give everyone tons of modeling options while not actually taking anything away. See how that works?
Yet we went from this exact situation where we just had power weapons and GW decided that they wanted to model them as unique profiles. Many players like these unique profiles that do unique things and thankfully for players like you WYSIWYG is dead so you can have axes modelled and use whatever rules you like for them. You lose nothing but people who think axes and swords should be different get that too.
You objectively are not if the alternative is giving the options to everyone.
So let's give Dark Lances to Space Marines then, after all there's no reason to only give profiles to one group.
If there are "best bits" as you say then all those other options are not actually options. They are the illusion of choice.
So? Balance simply for the sake of balance leads to bland gameplay where there's no skill in setting up your army or building your character. Your argument is the same as the player who asks why TCGs print bad cards and rage about how all cards should be good.
Just in case you are unfamiliar with the term I will explain it. In many games they give you "options" but only a couple of them are viable. In these cases it is whats called the illusion of choice. If you remember the really old choose your own adventure games where you can eat the white berries or the red berries. Well, one of them kills you and ends the game and the other doesn't. So it's not ACTUALLY a meaningful choice. It's the illusion of choice. Because you only really have 1 choice. See how this is working? If the options on your data sheet are actually the illusion of choice you in fact gain by consolidating them so that you gain modeling freedom while still having the same number of actual choices.
That choice is a choice though even if the result of that choice is as minor as your reading the paragraph of text that details your death and flip back to the last page/reload a save. Trap options also give players room to play around with the concept of being the underdog and doing the best that they can with a suboptimal setup. That too is a choice and one that some players really enjoy.
On the other hand if the choices you have ARE meaningful then they shouldn't be consolidated and then you don't get homogeneous blobs of everyone being the same. Because there isn't actually a best choice you end up with a variety of things on the field. Ta Da! Actual options without the bloat?! Just sticking extra options on the datasheet doesn't actually give you variety. It only gives you the illusion of it.
This is also false. If all choices are equally good then all choices may as well be the same and we may as well take prewritten lists and simply proxy in the models we like to represent the archetype we've chosen to play.
It would be like opening an MtG pack and getting nothing but vanilla creatures that fit to various mana curves. You'd have an excellent balance but a terrible game.
See above.
Your above just tells me that you'd rather we all play FUDGE instead of D&D.
An older nid dex let you customize each unit with a list of biomorphs that could enhance their armor or add strength and so on and so forth.
Weren't you just saying that it was fine that Nids lost weapon options because they weren't used? So should they get a large custom list and open up the possibility of trap options or have one option so you can model them however you like? You can't have both at once.
I don't even know where to start with how wrong you are in all of that. Of course you are entitled to your opinions, but god damn is it wrong.
From more catastrophizing of merging completely different armies to thinking the illusion of choice has value to the catastrophizing of making all choices one choice.
If you can't have an argument with the bare minimum of good faith to not use strawman extremes then I don't even know what to do with you.
Lance845 wrote: I don't even know where to start with how wrong you are in all of that. Of course you are entitled to your opinions, but god damn is it wrong.
From more catastrophizing of merging completely different armies to thinking the illusion of choice has value to the catastrophizing of making all choices one choice.
If you can't have an argument with the bare minimum of good faith to not use strawman extremes then I don't even know what to do with you.
You're the one who has argued for removing options, adding (or restoring) options, and drawing arbitrary lines for when and where to use both of these tools. You want to bring back the old Tyranid codex where they had tons of options while also cheering for removing weapons options from gants because you wouldn't have used them; you also ignored my call to instead try to find them a niche by changing their rules. As an example, you could in past editions upgrade Tyranid models with +1 str (I played that army back then) which is good++ fun, but wanting to give a Space Marine +1 strength by giving them an axe instead of a sword is bad-- fun because reasons... So which is it, should we have a lot of options, some of which will end up being worse options than others, or should we streamline everything so that every choice that isn't used gets removed?
If you're willing to say that some long-standing unique armies should be merged to avoid bloat then why not ask for all armies to be merged into a generic set of profiles that allow us to use whichever models we want to represent various archetypal armies. You claim that this is a ridiculous argument but offer no explanation for why one merging is good++ fun and the other is bad-- fun.
Lance845 wrote: I don't even know where to start with how wrong you are in all of that. Of course you are entitled to your opinions, but god damn is it wrong.
From more catastrophizing of merging completely different armies to thinking the illusion of choice has value to the catastrophizing of making all choices one choice.
If you can't have an argument with the bare minimum of good faith to not use strawman extremes then I don't even know what to do with you.
You're the one who has argued for removing options, adding (or restoring) options, and drawing arbitrary lines for when and where to use both of these tools. You want to bring back the old Tyranid codex where they had tons of options while also cheering for removing weapons options from gants because you wouldn't have used them; you also ignored my call to instead try to find them a niche by changing their rules. As an example, you could in past editions upgrade Tyranid models with +1 str (I played that army back then) which is good++ fun, but wanting to give a Space Marine +1 strength by giving them an axe instead of a sword is bad-- fun because reasons... So which is it, should we have a lot of options, some of which will end up being worse options than others, or should we streamline everything so that every choice that isn't used gets removed?
If you're willing to say that some long-standing unique armies should be merged to avoid bloat then why not ask for all armies to be merged into a generic set of profiles that allow us to
use whichever models we want to represent various archetypal armies. You claim that this is a ridiculous argument but offer no explanation for why one merging is good++ fun and the other is bad-- fun.
it's basicly a case of "I don't have it right now so I don't want ANYONE to have it" as far as I can tell. you'll notice his arguements ALWAYS circle back to ".. well Tyranids don't have.."
AnomanderRake wrote: Because with GW's insistence on releasing everything for one army all at once and then not touching them again except for band-aid patches for years at a time that'd stretch out the release cycle and make it take longer for GW to ineptly attempt to fix their endless parade of errors.
Okay, so if they were to magically do what you want with regards to datasheets why couldn't they also magically fix their release schedule? Why assume one specific change that will 'fix' things and not another equally unlikely change?
If GW were to magically get their heads out of their a**es on endless rules bloat, cannibalizing casual play to support tournament play, ignoring their playtesters, updating one army all at once and then not touching them for years instead of doing small updates to more armies more frequently, nerfing or deleting older models, deleting options because they'd require you to swap parts between kits, alternately s***ing on and buffing to the stratosphere whole broad categories of units between editions, trying to use the card game to patch the minis game instead of fixing the minis game, pushing spam lists to make sure you have to buy more new minis to switch list builds, and assigning Codexes to small competing design teams that don't talk to each other instead of having some kind of unified vision for the game, then sure, it'd be fine to make unique units for more sub-factions. Without fixing all that, however, giving more unique units to more sub-factions is just going to make everything else that's wrong with 40k worse.
AnomanderRake wrote: If GW were to magically get their heads out of their a**es on endless rules bloat, cannibalizing casual play to support tournament play, ignoring their playtesters, updating one army all at once and then not touching them for years instead of doing small updates to more armies more frequently, nerfing or deleting older models, deleting options because they'd require you to swap parts between kits, alternately s***ing on and buffing to the stratosphere whole broad categories of units between editions, trying to use the card game to patch the minis game instead of fixing the minis game, pushing spam lists to make sure you have to buy more new minis to switch list builds, and assigning Codexes to small competing design teams that don't talk to each other instead of having some kind of unified vision for the game, then sure, it'd be fine to make unique units for more sub-factions. Without fixing all that, however, giving more unique units to more sub-factions is just going to make everything else that's wrong with 40k worse.
If you hate the rules so badly why are you here discussing them rather than making your own rules and convincing your playgroup to use them? We both expect that GW will continue on its current course making errors along the way because that's all they've ever done. 40k has always had meh at best rules attached to great models and a cool setting. I'm fine with that...
Why aren't you writing your own 9e-compatible unique unit datasheets for sub-factions that don't have them instead of complaining about why GW won't write them for you?
Lance845 wrote: I don't even know where to start with how wrong you are in all of that. Of course you are entitled to your opinions, but god damn is it wrong.
From more catastrophizing of merging completely different armies to thinking the illusion of choice has value to the catastrophizing of making all choices one choice.
If you can't have an argument with the bare minimum of good faith to not use strawman extremes then I don't even know what to do with you.
You're the one who has argued for removing options, adding (or restoring) options, and drawing arbitrary lines for when and where to use both of these tools. You want to bring back the old Tyranid codex where they had tons of options while also cheering for removing weapons options from gants because you wouldn't have used them; you also ignored my call to instead try to find them a niche by changing their rules. As an example, you could in past editions upgrade Tyranid models with +1 str (I played that army back then) which is good++ fun, but wanting to give a Space Marine +1 strength by giving them an axe instead of a sword is bad-- fun because reasons... So which is it, should we have a lot of options, some of which will end up being worse options than others, or should we streamline everything so that every choice that isn't used gets removed?
If you're willing to say that some long-standing unique armies should be merged to avoid bloat then why not ask for all armies to be merged into a generic set of profiles that allow us to use whichever models we want to represent various archetypal armies. You claim that this is a ridiculous argument but offer no explanation for why one merging is good++ fun and the other is bad-- fun.
1) Nothing I have said was arbitrary.
2) Right now PA did bring that back for tyranids in a very limited fashion. It's generally considered the best thing we got out of PA.
3) You ignored every statement about limited design space and answered with the strawman argument of "well then lets just merge elder into marines".
4) I find it incredibly hard to believe you are old enough to have played back then. You don't make arguments here like you are that old. Not an insult, just noting my disbelief based on your behavior.
5) I didnt say to bring back everything from the past. I used it as an example to prove that 40k has always been more point buy rpg than class based. Are you capable of following the flow of conversation? It seems like you are getting the arguments conflated.
BrianDavion wrote:
it's basicly a case of "I don't have it right now so I don't want ANYONE to have it" as far as I can tell. you'll notice his arguements ALWAYS circle back to ".. well Tyranids don't have.."
Not only did I say it was a good thing that those 2 guns went to legends I also suggested multiple ways in which nid units today could be consolidated and said I don't want the crap bloat that SM have (or the crap bloat that Nids have). If you are going to attempt a juvenile ad hominem you might want to AT LEAST base it on some form of reality instead of fabricating it entirely out of thin air.
I play Tau and admech and there are a few things I’d like consolidated and made generic.
- strike teams and bleachers should be one datasheet
- crisis teams and crisis bodyguards should just be merged imo - I want a generic stealth suit commander because I can’t justify shadowsun as part of my narrative
- I want a generic “Etheral Supreme” datasheet to replace aunva who should be dead
- Longstrike should be a generic tank ace now, since the OG should be dead
- aunshi should also be dead, and we could get a blade master ethereal datasheet instead
- darkstrider should become a new generic pathfinder hq
- for admech, I’d rather have Cawl become an archmagos datasheet. I don’t play mars so I can’t justify that character either.
Long story short, I dislike named characters because they’re too narratively and gameplay restricted. I’d much prefer shadowsun to become a mantle that is passed down instead of cryo sleeping the same one over and over. I.e. the supreme commander of the tau is always called Shadowsun in honor of the OG (who is dead).
Now, since marines are the topic of the day, I will say that I don’t think Wulfen and TWC should be consolidated. They are distinct enough to be their own thing, however, reducing the sheer number of marine named characters would leave plenty of room for them. Plus, having multiple datasheets for the gladiator is wasted space and could be used for actually different things.
Canadian 5th wrote: I'd like to make the argument that the consolidation that this thread is advocating for runs a very real risk of turning out as D&D 4e did. 4e was objectively more balanced and better suited to being played on a grid than 3.x was while also requiring less work on the part of the DM; yet it was rejected by the community. Better, in some specific way, isn't always what the community wants.
To this day I'd rather play 3.x or 2e than either 4e or 5e. I like their flawed ambition and feel that too many games since value balance and ease of play over given players options and trusting them to find what works for their table.
I honestly find 5E is a nice balance between 3.5 and the need for simplification, I quite like it. (but I LIKE bounded accuracy as it means from a DM's POV I can use enemies longer without "gee those orks are now all level 15 barbarians.. odd that!")
The loss of templating crushed 5th ed for me. Nothing like a good template to keep players on their toes.
I play Tau and admech and there are a few things I’d like consolidated and made generic.
- strike teams and bleachers should be one datasheet
- crisis teams and crisis bodyguards should just be merged imo - I want a generic stealth suit commander because I can’t justify shadowsun as part of my narrative
- I want a generic “Etheral Supreme” datasheet to replace aunva who should be dead
- Longstrike should be a generic tank ace now, since the OG should be dead
- aunshi should also be dead, and we could get a blade master ethereal datasheet instead
- darkstrider should become a new generic pathfinder hq
- for admech, I’d rather have Cawl become an archmagos datasheet. I don’t play mars so I can’t justify that character either.
Long story short, I dislike named characters because they’re too narratively and gameplay restricted. I’d much prefer shadowsun to become a mantle that is passed down instead of cryo sleeping the same one over and over. I.e. the supreme commander of the tau is always called Shadowsun in honor of the OG (who is dead).
Now, since marines are the topic of the day, I will say that I don’t think Wulfen and TWC should be consolidated. They are distinct enough to be their own thing, however, reducing the sheer number of marine named characters would leave plenty of room for them. Plus, having multiple datasheets for the gladiator is wasted space and could be used for actually different things.
Your imput is valued and I appreciate your perspective.
Yes, especially when it comes to characters a generic template from which to build all the current in fluff characters and make your own would be really fantastic.
I play Tau and admech and there are a few things I’d like consolidated and made generic.
- strike teams and bleachers should be one datasheet
- crisis teams and crisis bodyguards should just be merged imo - I want a generic stealth suit commander because I can’t justify shadowsun as part of my narrative
- I want a generic “Etheral Supreme” datasheet to replace aunva who should be dead
- Longstrike should be a generic tank ace now, since the OG should be dead
- aunshi should also be dead, and we could get a blade master ethereal datasheet instead
- darkstrider should become a new generic pathfinder hq
- for admech, I’d rather have Cawl become an archmagos datasheet. I don’t play mars so I can’t justify that character either.
Long story short, I dislike named characters because they’re too narratively and gameplay restricted. I’d much prefer shadowsun to become a mantle that is passed down instead of cryo sleeping the same one over and over. I.e. the supreme commander of the tau is always called Shadowsun in honor of the OG (who is dead).
Now, since marines are the topic of the day, I will say that I don’t think Wulfen and TWC should be consolidated. They are distinct enough to be their own thing, however, reducing the sheer number of marine named characters would leave plenty of room for them. Plus, having multiple datasheets for the gladiator is wasted space and could be used for actually different things.
Your imput is valued and I appreciate your perspective.
Yes, especially when it comes to characters a generic template from which to build all the current in fluff characters and make your own would be really fantastic.
So much this. IMO this would have several advantages:
- More options and customisation for generic characters.
- Special characters don't get all the best weapons, rules, and wargear.
- Hopefully no more one-upmanship of special characters.
Well Marines sorta got their wish for a generic Scout Captain outside Ultramarines in the form of the Phobos Captain. However a generic Tank Commander needs to be made since Cronus doesn't exactly have anything unique to him.
The problem for balance with DnD 3.x WAS templating.... DnD 4th and 5e solved the balance issue by removing the extreme templating...
I am so confused at why people think reducing static datasheets in favour of less datasheets that use templating is in anyway going to help... it is in fact so much worse for balancing lol... sure 3.x had way way way more rules,,, but the balancing problem was BECAUSE of the loose, nonrestictive templating people keep advocating for here.
So what is it, do people want 3.x style templating or do they want 5e restricted differences...
also, many factions have subfaction specific units... usually named characters.
Ynari is more of subfaction then SWs is of Marines by all arguments presented in this thread... and there are tons of restricted units for that sub faction...
Necrons have quite a few characters used only be specific sub factions ...
I know people say "space wolves have Chapter tactics and that's what makes things space wolves not their unique units"
But WHY ?
Ynari have their unique Chapter tactics,,, but their unique units are also what makes them Ynari..
Aldari specific units make their identity what it is as much as the army specific units make them what they are...
I think a lot of people here seem to forget SWs were a unique codex up until very very recently... sure, there is a bunch of overlap,,, but their was also unique units that made this faction have an identity.
SWs being a subfaction now doesn't change that those specific units exist and give them identity.
TWC and wulfen make SW identity what it is as much as chapter tactics do...
I am not asking GW to put MORE time into making new SW specific units... in fact, I want and encourage GW to put into make other, non power armor, factions and sub factions specific units. That is way way more pertinent right now.
But removing the units that exist already are 1: dulling the identity of a faction that already exists (and yes I called it a faction to whom ever goes "THEY ARE JUST MARINES" ... unfortunately, until you get rid of the unique units,,, they are not JUST marines,,, they are something different and you wont be right until you erase what makes them different).
2. no design space will be made available. that design space was already spent making these unique units,,, your not getting that back, its gone.
3. the propsed consolidation rules can do nothing introduce tons of pottential balancing issues... removing restrictions and adding variable options that can now be used with other variables (i.e. TWC equivilant options with other CTs or any othe XYZ instead of Specific datasheets) is so 3.x dnd its not even funny. how can you possibly keep up with balancing.. When any variable changes you cause a trickle down effect of non balance that is way way harder to get right in the first place and maintain over time...
5e is more open and available for change and customization within the classes then dnd has ever been.
SW share over 80% of their datasheets with normal marines. On top of that most of the non character datasheets they don't share have superficial changes at best. Not fluff wise. Mechanically.
Ynnari is closer to inquisitors or assassins then anything else. They are a couple of characters that allow you to use datasheets from across the eldar line in the same way that you can find an inquisitor as part of any of the imperium codexes. Your analogy is bad.
You seem to forget that SW were not always a unique codex. In fact for the first 6 years of the game SW were just space marines.
And in second edition the only actually unique units were named characters. Sure there were units CALLED rune priest and long fangs but as we all know those are just librarians and so forth.
And in 3rd they lost 5 of those characters while gaining no truly unique units again.
And in 4th they didn't even get a codex.
Sooo... Tell me again about how SW are a totally unique faction?
Wulfen have existed for less then a 10th of the games entire existence. TWC were not introduced until 5th edition and they arrived very not to the acclaim of all SW players but were in fact very divisive. People didn't like the ham fisted wolves riding on actual wolves.
So please.... tell me more about how these things are tied directly into the inherent identity of the "faction"?
But even if you could, which you can't, nobody is saying you shouldn't keep the kit and be able to represent them on the table. What is being said is that they do not need their own datasheet to do it. Further, SW being their own codex has routinely created imbalance between them and the rest of the SM line. Not getting updates to shared units while the other did.
Right now there is nothing but balancing issues. And the sheer volume of datasheets is a problem that introduces balancing issues. At worst it's just as bad. At best it's less pieces to juggle and easier to balance with more meaningful choices.
AnomanderRake wrote: Why aren't you writing your own 9e-compatible unique unit datasheets for sub-factions that don't have them instead of complaining about why GW won't write them for you?
My argument is against the idea of further consolidation which is what this thread is asking for, that means I don't need to do any work because I'm fine with things as they are. If GW keeps on as they have been I'll be fine with it, if they change things to create even more options I'll be even happier, if they consolidate things and further simplify the game I'll probably leave the hobby again like I did the last time I wasn't having fun with 40k.
But even if you could, which you can't, nobody is saying you shouldn't keep the kit and be able to represent them on the table. What is being said is that they do not need their own datasheet to do it. Further, SW being their own codex has routinely created imbalance between them and the rest of the SM line. Not getting updates to shared units while the other did.
then all you would be doing is playing a different coloured version of one army. And that ends very bad. Because without different set of rules, you don't get things like centurions being valid in one army or flamer aggresors being good in another.
And having this one good build is the best situation, because what can very much happen is that if all the sm factions have this one build, and GW changes the core rules or the rules for other factions in a such a way that this one build is bad, then every marine player is going to have a bad time. No more green marines are bed, but at least the black bikers are good.
It also makes it easier for xeno player to meta play, because they no longer have to deal with shoty marines, melee marines or combo marines. they just have to deal with one marine list, and if they can skew hard enough against them then they are having good match ups with over 50% of all players. Now for xeno players this maybe a good thing, the way it was good for them in 2ed, but it ain't very fun if you play marines. And expecting the marine players to accept losing units, rules etc just so xeno players have more fun is a bit much.
And also, I don't think that modeling or playing the models the way you want is a good entice for such a situation, because if it was the xeno players would just use their armies as count as marines, if they are so broken or just concetrated on painting and converting, if they are really so unfocused on gaming and only care about the hobby.
Honestly the whole "your army is just a different color" has worked for years. Also nobody has explained the problem of availability to Calvary using the same stats for Salamanders successors.
Probably because there isn't a problem and "wE hAvE tO mAkE eVeRyThInG uNiQuE bEcAuSe"
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Honestly the whole "your army is just a different color" has worked for years. Also nobody has explained the problem of availability to Calvary using the same stats for Salamanders successors.
Probably because there isn't a problem and "wE hAvE tO mAkE eVeRyThInG uNiQuE bEcAuSe"
Except SWs has never been "just a different colour"
SWs have had access to unique units, wargear, rules, wargear options , unit sizes, unit compositions, and army compositions since 2nd edition...they also had unique model kits since 3rd.
Salamanaders do not have access to Calvary ? are you proposing another power armor faction get yet another unit ?and have time spent balancing that out ? if you give it to just salamanders or all marines you need to fix balance , rules designs, stats and point costs to work for all additional factions. Also exponentially increasing design time if it is intended to fit all options.
I have explained why you shouldnt give general SMs more options, more accesss, more variables and other factions/subfactions unique units repeatedly, go back and look at my previous posts, especially, from a few pages ago.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Further, SW being their own codex has routinely created imbalance between them and the rest of the SM line. Not getting updates to shared units while the other did.
You mean like the "imbalance" between any two codex XD lol ,,, ya because they are different.
But even if you could, which you can't, nobody is saying you shouldn't keep the kit and be able to represent them on the table. What is being said is that they do not need their own datasheet to do it. Further, SW being their own codex has routinely created imbalance between them and the rest of the SM line. Not getting updates to shared units while the other did.
then all you would be doing is playing a different coloured version of one army. And that ends very bad. Because without different set of rules, you don't get things like centurions being valid in one army or flamer aggresors being good in another.
Right. With different chapter tactics. Thats correct. Thats what the entire game is like outside of your bubble. It works fine for everyone else.
And having this one good build is the best situation, because what can very much happen is that if all the sm factions have this one build, and GW changes the core rules or the rules for other factions in a such a way that this one build is bad, then every marine player is going to have a bad time. No more green marines are bed, but at least the black bikers are good.
Right. The illusion of choice. I already went over this. The illusion of choice exists NOW. You already have it with your tons of wargear options and your tons of units. Actual meaningful choices that don't create the illusion of choice will only happen with consolidation.
It also makes it easier for xeno player to meta play, because they no longer have to deal with shoty marines, melee marines or combo marines. they just have to deal with one marine list, and if they can skew hard enough against them then they are having good match ups with over 50% of all players. Now for xeno players this maybe a good thing, the way it was good for them in 2ed, but it ain't very fun if you play marines. And expecting the marine players to accept losing units, rules etc just so xeno players have more fun is a bit much.
Do you mean what happens now and has always happened? This isn't a result of consolidation. This is a result of bad balance. Or do you not remember the last few years leviathan dreads?
And also, I don't think that modeling or playing the models the way you want is a good entice for such a situation, because if it was the xeno players would just use their armies as count as marines, if they are so broken or just concetrated on painting and converting, if they are really so unfocused on gaming and only care about the hobby.
What is the point of even saying this? Is this not what happens now when players want to paint their dudes how they want but want access to the character/rules in another SM faction? Hey guys I modeled x chapter but they suck so I am playing them as Y chapter.
I think it's worth noting that D&D and 40k are differant in that D&D has a DM and the DM's job is basicly to run things, every DM has run into a situation where an encounter for whatever reason isn't as balanced as it was supposed to be and fudged the gak out of it I suspect
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Honestly the whole "your army is just a different color" has worked for years. Also nobody has explained the problem of availability to Calvary using the same stats for Salamanders successors.
Probably because there isn't a problem and "wE hAvE tO mAkE eVeRyThInG uNiQuE bEcAuSe"
Except SWs has never been "just a different colour"
SWs have had access to unique units, wargear, rules, wargear options , unit sizes, unit compositions, and army compositions since 2nd edition...they also had unique model kits since 3rd.
Again, in fact the first 6 years of the game they were "just a different color" and for 4 editions after they were basically "just another color".
Further, SW being their own codex has routinely created imbalance between them and the rest of the SM line. Not getting updates to shared units while the other did.
You mean like the "imbalance" between any two codex XD lol ,,, ya because they are different.
Except in all the ways that they were not.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BrianDavion wrote: I think it's worth noting that D&D and 40k are differant in that D&D has a DM and the DM's job is basicly to run things, every DM has run into a situation where an encounter for whatever reason isn't as balanced as it was supposed to be and fudged the gak out of it I suspect
they do in the fluff, but on the tabletop its bikes or jetbikes only.
ok,,, so you DO want to give a new unit to a power armor faction ?
And again, your frost weapons arent different enough from power weapons to warrant a whole separate codex
Again, not different enough until you erase the things that make them different XD.
I could say "your aldari arn't different enough from marines to warrannt a whole seperate codex"
Just because you, some guy on the internet, doesn't think they are different enough doesn't me jack gak to anyone.
You don't get to decide whats different enough... and if you do,, then fine,,, I will decide aldari and marines are the same XD I have just as much logic XD ...
but you'll say
"YOU CANT TELL THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AN ELF AND A MARINE"
and i'll say
"YOU CANT TELL THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MAGIC ICE AND POWER WEAOPONS"
Where you place the division between which factions should be folded together and which ones shouldn't be folded together is entirely arbitrary. In all cases, you're drawing a line between made-up sci-fi/fantasy factions based on your own personal feelings about how much difference between factions is acceptable.
2) Right now PA did bring that back for tyranids in a very limited fashion. It's generally considered the best thing we got out of PA.
Yet cutting weapons options was also good?
3) You ignored every statement about limited design space and answered with the strawman argument of "well then lets just merge elder into marines".
There aren't really limits on design space. GW has shown that they're willing to continue inflating design space whenever they feel like doing so as has been demonstrated with Flyers, Imperial Knights, weapon damage, 2W marines. They have plenty of room left to make factions feel unique without needing to up the lethality of the game to rediculous degrees.
4) I find it incredibly hard to believe you are old enough to have played back then. You don't make arguments here like you are that old. Not an insult, just noting my disbelief based on your behavior.
I started playing 40k out of high school back in 2006 playing floor wars with proxied models where I played literally every faction that existed. I lost a lot because while I'd jump to a new codex every game my friends found factions they enjoyed and started building collections. I joined this forum back in 2009 on an account by the name of Norade. I posted in YDMC alongside a poster named Gwar! and enjoyed BatReps by posters like DashofPepper and Recius. That account was banned because I'm an incredibly abrasive person who's 100% happy to just roll up a new account and leap back into the fray.
Go read those old posts and my current posts and you should see the same poster.
5) I didnt say to bring back everything from the past. I used it as an example to prove that 40k has always been more point buy rpg than class based. Are you capable of following the flow of conversation? It seems like you are getting the arguments conflated.
If 40k was point-based it wouldn't have classes (read: factions) and you'd just have a list of generic options that you could match certain models to. That's the point I've been making.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Honestly the whole "your army is just a different color" has worked for years. Also nobody has explained the problem of availability to Calvary using the same stats for Salamanders successors.
Probably because there isn't a problem and "wE hAvE tO mAkE eVeRyThInG uNiQuE bEcAuSe"
Except SWs has never been "just a different colour"
SWs have had access to unique units, wargear, rules, wargear options , unit sizes, unit compositions, and army compositions since 2nd edition...they also had unique model kits since 3rd.
Again, in fact the first 6 years of the game they were "just a different color" and for 4 editions after they were basically "just another color".
just because you didn't play them so where unwilling to understand the differance between space wolves and normal marines doesn't mean they wheren't there. the differanced started off more sublte yes but they where definatly there
they do in the fluff, but on the tabletop its bikes or jetbikes only.
ok,,, so you DO want to give a new unit to a power armor faction ?
And again, your frost weapons arent different enough from power weapons to warrant a whole separate codex
Again, not different enough until you erase the things that make them different XD.
I could say "your aldari arn't different enough from marines to warrannt a whole seperate codex"
Just because you, some guy on the internet, doesn't think they are different enough doesn't me jack gak to anyone.
You don't get to decide whats different enough... and if you do,, then fine,,, I will decide aldari and marines are the same XD I have just as much logic XD ...
but you'll say
"YOU CANT TELL THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AN ELF AND A MARINE"
and i'll say
"YOU CANT TELL THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MAGIC ICE AND POWER WEAOPONS"
and the circular arguments continue.
It's only circular because you keep using bad faith strawman arguments. Start having a big boy conversation and it will stop being circular.
Just a different colour is such a disingenuous argument.
So were CSM in the beginning ...
Even orks and marines shared a lot of rules, wargear, and units in RT/2nd ed days...
Ya... most armies actually just started as a different colour of the same models or units... whats your point, that was a fething long time ago and a lot of design and development has happened since.
Again if you just arbitrarily remove what makes things different,,, ya they are the same ,,, but the very fact that in order to remove it/share it between factions means they would have to be different from the start lol XD .
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Honestly the whole "your army is just a different color" has worked for years. Also nobody has explained the problem of availability to Calvary using the same stats for Salamanders successors.
Probably because there isn't a problem and "wE hAvE tO mAkE eVeRyThInG uNiQuE bEcAuSe"
Except SWs has never been "just a different colour"
SWs have had access to unique units, wargear, rules, wargear options , unit sizes, unit compositions, and army compositions since 2nd edition...they also had unique model kits since 3rd.
Again, in fact the first 6 years of the game they were "just a different color" and for 4 editions after they were basically "just another color".
just because you didn't play them so where unwilling to understand the differance between space wolves and normal marines doesn't mean they wheren't there. the differanced started off more sublte yes but they where definatly there
In exactly the same way that there are differences between ultramarines, salamanders, and iron hands? Yes. I believe that is true. There were definitely difference between the "sub factions" even back at the beginning. That doesn't make them anything but a sub faction.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Type40 wrote: Just a different colour is such a disingenuous argument.
So were CSM in the beginning ...
Even orks and marines shared a lot of rules, wargear, and units in RT/2nd ed days...
Ya... most armies actually just started as a different colour of the same models or units... whats your point, that was a fething long time ago and a lot of design and development has happened since.
The point is that if YOU argue that SW have always been a unique faction then you are wrong and there is the evidence. It's simple proof to refute the incorrect argument you were making.
I have codex SWs 2nd, 3rd and SMs 3rd here with me right now.
Strange,,, there are absolutely no differences between ultramarines, salamanders, iron hands and etc.... but there is a full seperate book for SWs...
Some people really like to imagine things, if they can't see SWs had differences from the beginning... Some people are objectively incorrect... You can't really argue with the actual documents.
Right. 2nd. Which came out in 1993. The game started in 1987.
I am also looking at the 2nd ed book right now. It appears that you share 100% of your wargear with SM along with... 10? of your 26 datasheets. Ignoring of course that "rune priest" is just librarian with a different name and paint job so the shared data sheets is actually more.
On top of this... oh look! SWs on bikes! But no space wolves on wolves. That wouldn't happen until 2009, 22 god damn years into the games existence and only 11 years ago. Thats right. TWC have existed for only about 1/3rd of the time SW have. They are not a unique faction.
And any argument that they were for that less than half the time they existed ends at the end of last edition when they became a supplement to the main SM codex. Just like Ultramarines.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Oh look and it's a bunch of the same entries as regular Marines. fething unique army right there.
Clearly, GW thought SW were unique enough to have their own codex and supported that via special rules which and wholly unique datasheets over the years. Now I see it argued that the never reached some mythical threshold of unique enough because they still used the MEQ profile and that their unique rules should be removed to make them more generic for... reasons.
Even if you dislike the rules, Frost Weapons are currently distinct from both power weapons and master-crafted power weapons and we objectively lose flavour and uniqueness if we remove that rule. Likewise, Thuderwolves are still unique getting their own attack profiles for their mounts and unique rules that apply specifically to them.Just because SM get more than other factions doesn't mean that you're right to remove units that have existed for decades so you can try to Harrison Bergeron the game into balance.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Oh look and it's a bunch of the same entries as regular Marines. fething unique army right there.
Sure, as much as the ork codex was also just a bunch of same enteries in 2nd.
Also, very much not true in 3rd...
SWs can even take a Lemun russ in 3rd XD ?
By 3rd SWs had most of their own unique units, by 5th they had even their own kits... your wrong XD lol...
I dunno, I am looking at these books, in physical copy, right in front of me.
Wolf Guard, Grey Hunters, Blood Claws, Long Fangs, Wolf Scouts , lemun russ, wolves as wargear (interesting)
wolf gaurd unit members.
Lance845 wrote: Right. 2nd. Which came out in 1993. The game started in 1987.
I am also looking at the 2nd ed book right now. It appears that you share 100% of your wargear with SM along with... 10? of your 26 datasheets. Ignoring of course that "rune priest" is just librarian with a different name and paint job so the shared data sheets is actually more.
On top of this... oh look! SWs on bikes! But no space wolves on wolves. That wouldn't happen until 2009, 22 god damn years into the games existence and only 11 years ago. Thats right. TWC have existed for only about 1/3rd of the time SW have. They are not a unique faction.
And any argument that they were for that less than half the time they existed ends at the end of last edition when they became a supplement to the main SM codex. Just like Ultramarines.
Look, Custodes and Ad Mech haven't existed since the start of the game so we should cull them and only play with units that existed in 2e!
EDIT: More seriously, Space Wolves started out as an offshoot of regular Marines and have grown in distinctiveness over time. They created a new design space for the SM faction to explore. We can argue if that space was explored well or if SM needed that extra space, but we shouldn't argue that they did explore new space as editions came and went.
Lance845 wrote: Right. 2nd. Which came out in 1993. The game started in 1987.
I am also looking at the 2nd ed book right now. It appears that you share 100% of your wargear with SM along with... 10? of your 26 datasheets. Ignoring of course that "rune priest" is just librarian with a different name and paint job so the shared data sheets is actually more.
On top of this... oh look! SWs on bikes! But no space wolves on wolves. That wouldn't happen until 2009, 22 god damn years into the games existence and only 11 years ago. Thats right. TWC have existed for only about 1/3rd of the time SW have. They are not a unique faction.
And any argument that they were for that less than half the time they existed ends at the end of last edition when they became a supplement to the main SM codex. Just like Ultramarines.
Look, Custodes and Ad Mech haven't existed since the start of the game so we should cull them and only play with units that existed in 2e!
Another bad faith strawman from the usual suspects.
Lance845 wrote: Right. 2nd. Which came out in 1993. The game started in 1987.
I am also looking at the 2nd ed book right now. It appears that you share 100% of your wargear with SM along with... 10? of your 26 datasheets. Ignoring of course that "rune priest" is just librarian with a different name and paint job so the shared data sheets is actually more.
On top of this... oh look! SWs on bikes! But no space wolves on wolves. That wouldn't happen until 2009, 22 god damn years into the games existence and only 11 years ago. Thats right. TWC have existed for only about 1/3rd of the time SW have. They are not a unique faction.
And any argument that they were for that less than half the time they existed ends at the end of last edition when they became a supplement to the main SM codex. Just like Ultramarines.
Look, Custodes and Ad Mech haven't existed since the start of the game so we should cull them and only play with units that existed in 2e!
Another bad faith strawman from the usual suspects.
I see why you say that but he is not taking my argument to an absurd level (though it is absurd). He is misrepresenting it by claiming I am asking for things I am not.
Lance845 wrote: I see why you say that but he is not taking my argument to an absurd level (though it is absurd). He is misrepresenting it by claiming I am asking for things I am not.
Read. The. Fething. Edit.
I made a glib joke and used the fact that I knew you would reply without considering the edit to heighten the punchline.
I see why you say that but he is not taking my argument to an absurd level (though it is absurd). He is misrepresenting it by claiming I am asking for things I am not.
You are ignoring that the has been a lot of design space between 2nd and 9th
He points that out using an Reductio ad absurdum logic.
Your points about 2nd edition SWs similarity to SMs is just as valid for Orks and SMs in 2nd....
But a lot has changed for Orks since then,
and a lot has changed for SWs since then.
Even 3rd the differences were incredibly different between all 3 compared to 2nd ...
You are also objectively wrong about it just being a different paint coat like salamanders or iron hands... its just factually untrue, those subfactions did not get unique rules or units (other then one or two special characters) until many editions later.
So again, please stop making stuff up because you think your proving your point... you already pissed me off enough earlier by pretending you had a degree in game design whilst not understanding what the P v.s. NP problem in game design was... so, just stop making things up ... we can continue the conversation but really... if your going to make a claim,,, especially ones where we can literally pull out the books to check, know what your talking about.
Lance845 wrote: I see why you say that but he is not taking my argument to an absurd level (though it is absurd). He is misrepresenting it by claiming I am asking for things I am not.
Read. The. Fething. Edit.
I made a glib joke and used the fact that I knew you would reply without considering the edit to heighten the punchline.
1) Jokes are funny.
2) It's not the first time you used that argument.
3) You have brought nothing to the table but your strawmans.
4) You can absolutely argue that they have expanded what SWs are over the editions. It's indisputable. But you cannot claim that they have always been unique. That is also indisputable. And you cannot claim that they are not being folded back in. As a supplement to codex spacemarines since code space marines 2.0 last edition they are very clearly not a separate faction. So they started as a part of SM and now they are a part of codex SM again. Claiming otherwise is just sticking your head in the sand and ignoring reality.
4) You can absolutely argue that they have expanded what SWs are over the editions. It's indisputable. But you cannot claim that they have always been unique. That is also indisputable. And you cannot claim that they are not being folded back in. As a supplement to codex spacemarines since code space marines 2.0 last edition they are very clearly not a separate faction. So they started as a part of SM and now they are a part of codex SM again. Claiming otherwise is just sticking your head in the sand and ignoring reality.
Except now we know what the supplement has in it via the reviews released by Goonhammer and etc...
The unique differences that the wolves have gained over the yeas have 100% been preserved. They were folded in to make the vanilla primaris shared units easier to keep track of. Fine.
The only way to get rid of all the flavour of SWs is to literally remove it ,,, which is what your advocating for ... so supplement or not does not mater. The faction is different. Unless you remove what makes it different XD.
I see why you say that but he is not taking my argument to an absurd level (though it is absurd). He is misrepresenting it by claiming I am asking for things I am not.
You are ignoring that the has been a lot of design space between 2nd and 9th He points that out using an Reductio ad absurdum logic.
Your points about 2nd edition SWs similarity to SMs is just as valid for Orks and SMs in 2nd.... But a lot has changed for Orks since then, and a lot has changed for SWs since then. Even 3rd the differences were incredibly different between all 3 compared to 2nd ...
You are also objectively wrong about it just being a different paint coat like salamanders or iron hands... its just factually untrue.
So again, please stop making stuff up because you think your proving your point... you already pissed me off enough earlier by pretending you had a degree in game design whilst not understanding what the P v.s. NP problem in game design was... so, just stop making things up ... we can continue the conversation but really... if your going to make a claim,,, especially ones where we can literally pull out the books to check, know what your talking about.
P = NP or P /= NP is not a game design issue it's a computing and math one and it relates to methods of problem solving and verification not game balance. While yes, it CAN be applicable in game design it's mostly just as an exercise in computing power. Not balance. Not design from a mechanical point of view. I ignored it before because debating with you your obvious ignorance on a subject of theoretical math is a waste of everyones time and has no bearing on this discussion.
Again, you don't have to believe I have a degree in game design. I very much don't care what you think.
4) You can absolutely argue that they have expanded what SWs are over the editions. It's indisputable. But you cannot claim that they have always been unique. That is also indisputable. And you cannot claim that they are not being folded back in. As a supplement to codex spacemarines since code space marines 2.0 last edition they are very clearly not a separate faction. So they started as a part of SM and now they are a part of codex SM again. Claiming otherwise is just sticking your head in the sand and ignoring reality.
Except now we know what the supplement has in it via the reviews released by Goonhammer and etc...
The unique differences that the wolves have gained over the yeas have 100% been preserved. They were folded in to make the vanilla primaris shared units easier to keep track of. Fine. The only way to get rid of all the flavour of SWs is to literally remove it ,,, which is what your advocating for ... so supplement or not does not mater. The faction is different. Unless you remove what makes it different XD.
I am. I am 100% advocating for scrapping all of the supplements and folding it all into a condensed SM codex.
P = NP or P /= NP is not a game design issue it's a computing and math one and it relates to methods of problem solving not game balance. While yes, it CAN be applicable in game design it's mostly just as an exercise in computing power. Not balance. Not design from a mechanical point of view. I ignored it before because debating with you your obvious ignorance on a subject of theoretical math is a waste of everyones time and has no bearing on this discussion.
Again, you don't have to believe I have a degree in game design. I very much don't care what you think.
Do you think game design has nothing to do with math ?
P v NP is a math problem, it is related to computing power but its not ONLY related to computing power. Computing power is just one of the issues it would solve. It would also solve the balancing issues that come up if a designer choses to use restrictionless variable datasheets.
The fact that you do not see how this is related, or why P vs NP is relevant, shows me that you are lying about being in game design. Because when designing game mechanics knowing what kind of mechanic propose problems related to P vs NP is fundamental.
You don't have to care about what I think... but what you are/were doing is demonstrating, beyond a doubt, that you were lying about your degree and therefor making up fake credentials to dispute me from a place of "authority" rather then any real constructed arguments. which is a way lower argumentative tactic then even a strawman XD.
This also means, its quite clear, you are willing to make arguments based on lies, lack of research, or sheer fallacious facts to "prove" your points... and its really confusing on why would do that to prove SWs shouldnt have rules for riding wolves or being warewolves... like are the rules for my wolves hurting you THAT much ... We both agree other factions need more attention XD.
2) It's not the first time you used that argument.
It's almost as if I'm using exaggeration and hyperbole to highlight that I find the crux of your argument as stupid as you find mine.
3) You have brought nothing to the table but your strawman.
You keep saying that but have yet to prove that this is the case. Mostly you just ignore large chunks of what I type, strip selected quotes of context, and pretend that I'm saying something that I'm not.
4) You can absolutely argue that they have expanded what SWs are over the editions. It's indisputable. But you cannot claim that they have always been unique. That is also indisputable. And you cannot claim that they are not being folded back in. As a supplement to codex spacemarines since code space marines 2.0 last edition they are very clearly not a separate faction. So they started as a part of SM and now they are a part of codex SM again. Claiming otherwise is just sticking your head in the sand and ignoring reality.
They've been unique for most of the game. Sometimes that uniqueness was simply that they got fluff where other chapters didn't, in other cases they got unique rules and models, now they're getting unique supplements while sharing a book in a worst of all worlds scenario that everybody hates.
See, this is the conversation I didn't want to have.
PvNP has no answer at the moment. It's theoretical. It's solution would have implications once the problem is solved. But it's not solved. And so while it can be a fun topic of discussion for those who understand enough about it to actually have that conversation it means nothing here. In this discussion.
Lance845 wrote: See, this is the conversation I didn't want to have.
PvNP has no answer at the moment. It's theoretical. It's solution would have implications once the problem is solved. But it's not solved. And so while it can be a fun topic of discussion for those who understand enough about it to actually have that conversation it means nothing here. In this discussion.
Lol you don't get it XD..
Yes, PvNP has no answer... precicely why it would take exponential time to balance variable unrestricted datasheets. if PvNP was solved I would agree 100% that balancing would be no problem... Then I would only have flavour arguments (which in IMO are even more valid XD then the balancing issues)
PvNP is theoretical in the same way gravity is theoretical.
PvNP actively dictates game design decisions ALL the time as well as computation coding decisions. Game balancing requires COMPUTATION. Either by a computer or people. When some one is doing algorithmic coding PvNP is an active concern. In game design , when figuring out mechanics you MUST keep PvNP in mind in order to figure out timing limitations for things like balance (in an actively maintained living game like 40k) as well as player options (so players arn't required (or are required) to me exponential amounts of decisions). 40k already has problems with the computation of point costs for balancing... you really think it is a good idea to severely and exponentially increase the amount of computing resources needed ?
PvNP in the case of unrestricted variable datasheets would cause a balancing nightmare (unless PvNP was solved) ...
If you understood PvNP or had studied game design, you would know exactly why this matters.
Lance845 wrote: See, this is the conversation I didn't want to have.
PvNP has no answer at the moment. It's theoretical. It's solution would have implications once the problem is solved. But it's not solved. And so while it can be a fun topic of discussion for those who understand enough about it to actually have that conversation it means nothing here. In this discussion.
Lol you don't get it XD.. Yes, PvNP has no answer... precicely why it would take exponential time to balance variable unrestricted datasheets. if PvNP was solved I would agree 100% that balancing would be no problem... Then I would only have flavour arguments (which in IMO are even more valid XD then the balancing issues)
IF P /= NP.
PvNP is theoretical in the same way gravity is theoretical. PvNP actively dictates game design decisions ALL the time as well as computation decisions. When some one is doing algorythmic coding PvNP is an active concern. In game design , when figuring out mechanics you MUST keep PvNP in mind in order to figure out timing limitations for things like balance (in an actively maintined living game like 40k) as well as player options (so players arn't required (or are required) to me exponential amounts of decisions)
You really don't. Games were made long before PvNP was proposed and continue to be designed by people who don't give PvNP any thought. PvNP is a singular element in a broad spectrum of game design philosophy and in no way the central core tenant upon which all game design is built.
PvNP in the case of unrestricted variable datasheets would cause a balancing nightmare (unless PvNP was solved) ...
If you understood PvNP or had studied game design, you would know exactly why this matters.
You really don't. Games were made long before PvNP was proposed and continue to be designed by people who don't give PvNP any thought.
LOLLOLLOL
WOW !!!!
That's like saying "Gravity didnt exist before it was proposed. People used to play ball games long before gravity and people didn't give gravity any thought when they tried to figure out the weight of the ball to use"
"there was no such thing a sphere before the concept of a sphere was proposed, before that, people just kicked around cubes"
you are literally saying "No body thought about how much longer computation would take when adding extra variables before someone made up a name for the problem"
HOLY CRAP ....
You are too funny man,,, actually, toooooo funny. XD .
Lance845 wrote: You really don't. Games were made long before PvNP was proposed and continue to be designed by people who don't give PvNP any thought. PvNP is a singular element in a broad spectrum of game design philosophy and in no way the central core tenant upon which all game design is built.
Just because a theory wasn't formally proposed doesn't mean that aspects of it weren't considered. Rules complexity has always been a core issue in game design both in terms of balancing a large spread of rules and in readability for players of said games. We can also go and look at extant games and apply PvNP theory to them to understand a key aspect of what makes a game 'good' and to see if there are corelations between how complexity is handled and enjoyable gameplay.
Just because a theory wasn't formally proposed doesn't mean that aspects of it weren't considered. Rules complexity has always been a core issue in game design both in terms of balancing a large spread of rules and in readability for players of said games. We can also go and look at extant games and apply PvNP theory to them to understand a key aspect of what makes a game 'good' and to see if there are corelations between how complexity is handled and enjoyable gameplay.
Thanks for explaining this 100% more politely and clearly then me . XD, too funny.
At this point I'm for any option that means we don't need to spend month upon month in every new edition waiting for GW to release codices for every different flavour of Marine before maybe getting around to other factions.
As to whether that means consolidating identical or near-identical dataslates or just shoving every single one of them into the same book, I really don't care.
Of course, my preferred option would involve GW updating every faction at once right at the start of each edition with free, downloadable rules. However, that seems about as likely as me riding a winged marshmallow to the moon.
Lance845 wrote: You really don't. Games were made long before PvNP was proposed and continue to be designed by people who don't give PvNP any thought. PvNP is a singular element in a broad spectrum of game design philosophy and in no way the central core tenant upon which all game design is built.
Just because a theory wasn't formally proposed doesn't mean that aspects of it weren't considered. Rules complexity has always been a core issue in game design both in terms of balancing a large spread of rules and in readability for players of said games. We can also go and look at extant games and apply PvNP theory to them to understand a key aspect of what makes a game 'good' and to see if there are corelations between how complexity is handled and enjoyable gameplay.
And yet games are made with a variable amount of complexity. Some games are designed to be completed in 30 minutes and are enjoyed by many. Some games are designed to be played in cycles of less than a minute and find mass appeal. And yet others are designed with such complexity that they take several days. There are die hard fans of a version of cricket that is played over many days and others who like the version thats played over hours.
The point I made was that games can be designed either way. That the degree of complexity on a data sheet does not mean an increase in the time to balance when compared to the degree of time to balance a multitude of data sheets. In order for you to prove that you would need to be able to prove PvNP one way or the other AND prove that the solution is applicable in this particular instance in a way that is favorable to you. And you can't so even bringing it up is just dumb.
PvNP often only matters when dealing with physical limitations (such as computing power) and otherwise it's an interesting philosophical debate but not much else. I don't have to keep PvNP in mind when designing a game because it's not a problem I can solve. I am not a mathematician who can solve a hereto unsolvable theoretical problem. What I can do is design interface, measure cost to impact, pay attention to psychology to predict player action and how mechanics influence predictable patterns of player action. I can build towards the philosophical goals of game design that I subscribe to. Write, run, measure, and iterate on test cases. Game design isn't pure math. It's also psychology and art.
You either understand that PvNP has no answer and is thus not applicable in this discussion or you don't.
Again. A waste of time.
I am done discussing this. I will not respond to anything related to it again.
vipoid wrote: At this point I'm for any option that means we don't need to spend month upon month in every new edition waiting for GW to release codices for every different flavour of Marine before maybe getting around to other factions.
As to whether that means consolidating identical or near-identical dataslates or just shoving every single one of them into the same book, I really don't care.
Of course, my preferred option would involve GW updating every faction at once right at the start of each edition with free, downloadable rules. However, that seems about as likely as me riding a winged marshmallow to the moon.
100% agreed here !
They should just release everything at once... and I do agree that some factions really don't need a supplement to list there 2 special characters.And it is 100% egregious to sit through 6 months of marine releases... but to keep the amount of customizability that exist,,, or the increased amount on single datasheets as people are proposing would take up MORE designer time, not less... not to mention it removes faction identity. Which not enough other armies have alot of access too , i agree, but that doesn't mean we should have removed, that doesnt make more design space, that space was spent... stop focusing on power armor, starting giving other factions more unique and interesting stuff.... and maybe don't drip release the releases,,, drip releasing is fething BS and its frustrating to literally everyone who plays the game,,, especially this time because its power armor for months .
Lance845 wrote: [spoiler]You really don't. Games were made long before PvNP was proposed and continue to be designed by people who don't give PvNP any thought. PvNP is a singular element in a broad spectrum of game design philosophy and in no way the central core tenant upon which all game design is built.
Just because a theory wasn't formally proposed doesn't mean that aspects of it weren't considered. Rules complexity has always been a core issue in game design both in terms of balancing a large spread of rules and in readability for players of said games. We can also go and look at extant games and apply PvNP theory to them to understand a key aspect of what makes a game 'good' and to see if there are corelations between how complexity is handled and enjoyable gameplay.
And yet games are made with a variable amount of complexity. Some games are designed to be completed in 30 minutes and are enjoyed by many. Some games are designed to be played in cycles of less than a minute and find mass appeal. And yet others are designed with such complexity that they take several days. There are die hard fans of a version of cricket that is played over many days and others who like the version thats played over hours.
The point I made was that games can be designed either way. That the degree of complexity on a data sheet does not mean an increase in the time to balance when compared to the degree of time to balance a multitude of data sheets. In order for you to prove that you would need to be able to prove PvNP one way or the other AND prove that the solution is applicable in this particular instance in a way that is favorable to you. And you can't so even bringing it up is just dumb.
PvNP often only matters when dealing with physical limitations (such as computing power) and otherwise it's an interesting philosophical debate but not much else. I don't have to keep PvNP in mind when designing a game because it's not a problem I can solve. I am not a mathematician who can solve a hereto unsolvable theoretical problem. What I can do is design interface, measure cost to impact, pay attention to psychology to predict player action and how mechanics influence predictable patterns of player action. I can build towards the philosophical goals of game design that I subscribe to. Write, run, measure, and iterate on test cases. Game design isn't pure math. It's also psychology and art.
You either understand that PvNP has no answer and is thus not applicable in this discussion or you don't.
Again. A waste of time.
I am done discussing this. I will not respond to anything related to it again.
Your understanding of this concept is 100% wrong... PvNP is 100% not only concerned with physical limitations and is 100% concerned (and only concerned) with computational resources (like how many game designers can fit in a room and make calculation about potential balancing scenarios) and the exponential time it takes to make said calculations v.s. the limited amount of time it takes to reverse the formula if the answer variables are already present.
PvNP is 100% taught in game design unrelated to physical computing power and is also 100% not limited to philosophy...
You do not have an understanding of this concept and you are embarrassing yourself the more you try to push this weird idea this is a philosophical question. Let me break it down for you in an easy to understand way because your clearly getting caught up in something you read on wikipedia or w/e .
If you have a data sheet with 50 options on it and you can pick 5.
Finding out what combinations will equal 150 points will take some time for you to compute (as a human OR as a computer)
the more options you add the more exponential computational time will be needed.
NOW if you had already chose the 5 options and you wanted to see what points they equalled,,, that is very quick. but you are left with the same set of fixed variables at the end of both calculations.
This is just one example... so if on of the 50 options changes and becomes better, then the designer need to re-balance the other 49 options as they synergise with each other. not to mention adding more rules to the datasheet by letting other subfactions with different characters, rules, and relics have access to it increasing the exponential calculations even more...
Everything I have explained here is related to PvNP and none of it is "philosophical".
Computation /= only computers... you get that right ?
PvNP Solved : would mean all these calculations could be made as fast as the reverse formula i.e. calculating what combinations could equal 150 as fast as calculating the points cost of 5 chosen options.
Unfortunately PvNP is not solved... sooo ,,,, we need to considering it in game design,,, and we needed to consider it even before it was proposed, we just didnt have something specific to call it.
I am sorry I even mentioned it as PvNP i should have just explained the issue with unrestricted variable datasheets with tons of customization outright from the get go,,, I didn't realize someone would start making a bunch of nonsense up XD.
I am done discussing this. I will not respond to anything related to it again.
AKA " I am tired of making things up about something I have no understanding of so I will pretend I am the one who gets it and no one else does XD"
ok,,, so you DO want to give a new unit to a power armor faction ?
well yes? i never said i didnt.
So the designers can sink even more time into design and balance of power armor whilst also removing a unique option from another army. Nice. ("BUT ITS ALL THE SAME ITS ALL JUST MARINES THEY ARNT DIFFERENT ARMIES." except they are different, because in order to make them the same you are proposing either removing what makes them different or giving what is different to the others. of course they are the same if you make them a clone of each other,,, its absurd that you think you can arbitrarily make that decision)
Lance845 wrote: And yet games are made with a variable amount of complexity. Some games are designed to be completed in 30 minutes and are enjoyed by many. Some games are designed to be played in cycles of less than a minute and find mass appeal. And yet others are designed with such complexity that they take several days. There are die hard fans of a version of cricket that is played over many days and others who like the version thats played over hours.
You're mistaking complexity for playtime. Test cricket is no more complex than 20/20 cricket, it merely requires a greater number of steps of the same complexity.
Likewise one could make an incredibly dense ruleset for a game that resolves very quickly. One such game could be a universe simulator where each player takes turns bidding to determine who gets to set certain universal constants with the end goal being to create a universe that reaches specific states at a set time after the big bang. Rules which govern the simulation of the universe would be incredibly complex but due to a limited number of constants, the gameplay itself could be completed fairly quickly. This sort of game disproves your idea that time = complexity.
The point I made was that games can be designed either way. That the degree of complexity on a data sheet does not mean an increase in the time to balance when compared to the degree of time to balance a multitude of data sheets. In order for you to prove that you would need to be able to prove PvNP one way or the other AND prove that the solution is applicable in this particular instance in a way that is favorable to you. And you can't so even bringing it up is just dumb.
Yet you argue that 40k is bounded by how complex it can be and how much design space it can have. This is, unless I'm mistaken, your core argument for why some factions should have their design space curtailed while others should have their design space expanded. You're literally arguing a PvNP style problem but refusing to see your argument in those terms.
PvNP often only matters when dealing with physical limitations (such as computing power) and otherwise it's an interesting philosophical debate but not much else.
Are humans not physically limited by how much we can compute in a given span of time? Is our enjoyment of a game not influenced by things such as how long it takes both ourselves and other players to decide upon an action?
------
Also, lol at your argument that taking 9th edition morale tests at an unmodified ld of 10 isn't the same as being immune to morale. This really shows off your chops as a game designer.
I'm not convinced that the PvNP problem even applies to the problem of balancing datasheets.
In plain english, the PvNP problem basically asks 'If the solution to a problem is easy to check for correctness, must the problem be easy to solve?'
For instance it's easy to verify that a filled in Sudoku grid is correct. However it's much more complex to fill one out.
I'm sure there's a complex algorithm which could be applied to balance the games datasheets (arguments over the run-time of this algorithm vs the heat death of the universe aside ).
However do you really think there's a simple algorithm which could be applied to verify that the game is actually balanced?
It would certainly save a lot of argument on these forums if there was
Arson Fire wrote: I'm not convinced that the PvNP problem even applies to the problem of balancing datasheets.
In plain english, the PvNP problem basically asks 'If the solution to a problem is easy to check for correctness, must the problem be easy to solve?'
For instance it's easy to verify that a filled in Sudoku grid is correct. However it's much more complex to fill one out.
I'm sure there's a complex algorithm which could be applied to balance the games datasheets (arguments over the run-time of this algorithm vs the heat death of the universe aside ).
However do you really think there's a simple algorithm which could be applied to verify that the game is actually balanced?
It would certainly save a lot of argument on these forums if there was
Arson Fire wrote: I'm not convinced that the PvNP problem even applies to the problem of balancing datasheets.
In plain english, the PvNP problem basically asks 'If the solution to a problem is easy to check for correctness, must the problem be easy to solve?'
For instance it's easy to verify that a filled in Sudoku grid is correct. However it's much more complex to fill one out.
I'm sure there's a complex algorithm which could be applied to balance the games datasheets (arguments over the run-time of this algorithm vs the heat death of the universe aside ).
However do you really think there's a simple algorithm which could be applied to verify that the game is actually balanced?
It would certainly save a lot of argument on these forums if there was
On a unit by unit basis, yes there are simple mathematical models that can show that one unit is objectively better than another unit point for point. Theoretically, these can be applied to compare every unit (in every configuration) to every other unit. Then theoretically we can apply these results to examine each faction, list, and meta for balance. Thus fundamentally 40k is solvable by simple equations but provable only by more work than can ever actually be done.
Arson Fire wrote: I'm not convinced that the PvNP problem even applies to the problem of balancing datasheets.
In plain english, the PvNP problem basically asks 'If the solution to a problem is easy to check for correctness, must the problem be easy to solve?'
For instance it's easy to verify that a filled in Sudoku grid is correct. However it's much more complex to fill one out.
I'm sure there's a complex algorithm which could be applied to balance the games datasheets (arguments over the run-time of this algorithm vs the heat death of the universe aside ).
However do you really think there's a simple algorithm which could be applied to verify that the game is actually balanced?
It would certainly save a lot of argument on these forums if there was
So, the leading proposal to consolidate the datasheets is to have customizable options given to all subfactions with no restrictions.
so here is how it applies .
Data sheet has 50 options.
You have options chosen which = 150 pts... very easy to check
v.s.
You need to calculate which of the 50 options chosen together = 150 pts. much longer to compute.
^ this is for simply checking points costs but the same would apply for every piece of balancing consideration.
Now lets start balancing other variables,, like game length, what stats actually do, how many points rules are worth.
Make 1 change to one set of the 50 options and BAMB everything else now needs to be changed.
the more options the more exponential time needto make these calculations.
More dynamic variables increase calculation time exponential.
A static sheet has already chosen the options (or majority of) and has far less computation time for figuring out the balancing considerations.
Its simply, dynamic variables = exponential computation time. Static variables do not. Static variables are easy to check because you can work backwards. Sure we probably can't achieve total static variables without having an even bigger problem with books... but the less variables the better. The more restrictions the better. SWs only unit, great, no need to add the variables from the other faction rules,,, way less time. This type of unit only uses this wargear, GREAT no need to add the variables of that unit using other wargear... and etc etc etc.
It doesnt mater if the algorithm is simple. What matters is that it would be simplER to calculate the reveres once we have balanced armies . It is easy to see how knowing exactly the perfect balanced army rules would be quicker to figure out then how to make that army with out already knowing the solution Thats how PvNP applies.. and we don't want to make it more complicated then it already is for the designers during the process of balance and maintining balance because that would just take even more time.
Automatically Appended Next Post: The point is,,, the problem right now is marines take up to much time... people think that less data sheets with less restrictions and more customization = more free time for the designers... when it in fact means the opposite.
Also, I don't want to lose the unique identity I have playing the rules of a unique SWs unit...
these two points together means, I lose, and every other faction loses at the same time. So why bother XD.
Arson Fire wrote: I'm not convinced that the PvNP problem even applies to the problem of balancing datasheets.
In plain english, the PvNP problem basically asks 'If the solution to a problem is easy to check for correctness, must the problem be easy to solve?'
For instance it's easy to verify that a filled in Sudoku grid is correct. However it's much more complex to fill one out.
I'm sure there's a complex algorithm which could be applied to balance the games datasheets (arguments over the run-time of this algorithm vs the heat death of the universe aside ).
However do you really think there's a simple algorithm which could be applied to verify that the game is actually balanced?
It would certainly save a lot of argument on these forums if there was
This guy gets it.
Lol ya he does XD you do realize he is disagreeing with you and not at all saying what you were saying XD .... LOL man ,,, you got to stop... XD
Before this thread moves on too quickly, I would like to say that I want more customizable options for the sake of having customizable options. Restricted units and characters are generally boring and frustrating to use imo. Unique rules are just kinda bleh imo.
I also feel that this thread overly focuses on marines (and sw in particular for some reason). There’s a lot of things that are redundant and could be condensed (eg infiltrators and incursors or tau strike teams and breachers) before we even need to touch wulfen.
@type40 it seems to me that you’re putting way to much emphasis on balancing variables by theory and you’re making it seem far more challenging than it is. Fundamentally, loosening restrictions would make the modeling and narrative side of the game more fun instead of being shoehorned into the same play styles. Since GW has proven they will never fully balance the game due to new releases and editions, why not let loose and have fun with the models?
Dandelion wrote: Before this thread moves on too quickly, I would like to say that I want more customizable options for the sake of having customizable options. Restricted units and characters are generally boring and frustrating to use imo. Unique rules are just kinda bleh imo.
I also feel that this thread overly focuses on marines (and sw in particular for some reason). There’s a lot of things that are redundant and could be condensed (eg infiltrators and incursors or tau strike teams and breachers) before we even need to touch wulfen.
@type40 it seems to me that you’re putting way to much emphasis on balancing variables by theory and you’re making it seem far more challenging than it is. Fundamentally, loosening restrictions would make the modeling and narrative side of the game more fun instead of being shoehorned into the same play styles. Since GW has proven they will never fully balance the game due to new releases and editions, why not let loose and have fun with the models?
Now this ! this I can relate too.
Yes, customization for the sake of it,, sure 100% , but lets not pretend design space would increase because of it,,, cuz it wont.. But because you WANT customization... sure ! I get you
and ya the vanilla primaris stuff, i have been saying all along ,, sure ! but not TWC and wulfen,,, which a lot of people seem to be arguing for.
But ya, I am focused on the balancing variables because people keep saying reduced sheets with more variables = more design space... and thats not going to happen... buuutttt i get where your coming from 100% if you dont like unique rules or units... hey thats your choice, you play your game and I ll play mine... but i like my unique stuff and GW knows both me and you exist as types of players and they arnt going to forget it any time soon.
So ya, you enjoy, ill enjoy and we can both enjoy, no reason to take my unique stuff though when it doesnt stop you from enjoying your game.
Lance845 wrote: Right. 2nd. Which came out in 1993. The game started in 1987.
I am also looking at the 2nd ed book right now. It appears that you share 100% of your wargear with SM along with... 10? of your 26 datasheets. Ignoring of course that "rune priest" is just librarian with a different name and paint job so the shared data sheets is actually more.
On top of this... oh look! SWs on bikes! But no space wolves on wolves. That wouldn't happen until 2009, 22 god damn years into the games existence and only 11 years ago. Thats right. TWC have existed for only about 1/3rd of the time SW have. They are not a unique faction.
And any argument that they were for that less than half the time they existed ends at the end of last edition when they became a supplement to the main SM codex. Just like Ultramarines.
if sharing 100% of your wargear with space marines makes you space marines.....
Honestly, I think the biggest issue with marines right now is just how endless it feels. Whether or not units should be consolidated is somewhat academic when the real issue is that we should have had all the supplements released at once. Marines would have been a one and done deal at least, but instead they just keep dragging it on. And then they went and released a limited ed termie!
PS for what it’s worth, I do think marines could all share one book. Trimming some needless doubled datasheets (*cough* primaris *cough) and a whole bunch of generally uninteresting minor characters would leave plenty of space for full BA, DA and SW rules. And to be frank, only those 3 should have been supplements at all. The other chapters had too little to even need a whole book.
Dandelion wrote: Honestly, I think the biggest issue with marines right now is just how endless it feels. Whether or not units should be consolidated is somewhat academic when the real issue is that we should have had all the supplements released at once. Marines would have been a one and done deal at least, but instead they just keep dragging it on. And then they went and released a limited ed termie!
PS for what it’s worth, I do think marines could all share one book. Trimming some needless doubled datasheets (*cough* primaris *cough) and a whole bunch of generally uninteresting minor characters would leave plenty of space for full BA, DA and SW rules. And to be frank, only those 3 should have been supplements at all. The other chapters had too little to even need a whole book.
define "unintreasting minor characters" because I suspect that would be.... subject to debate
Just ones that are so similar to their generic counterparts that they may as well just be generic. Of the top of my head, Tabletop tactics talked about a bunch of space wolf characters that don’t do anything unique while competing with Ragnar for a slot, things like that. Grand master voldus also comes to mind. Mind you this is not exclusive to marines, but named characters really pad out the marine books in number of pages.
Dandelion wrote: Just ones that are so similar to their generic counterparts that they may as well just be generic. Of the top of my head, Tabletop tactics talked about a bunch of space wolf characters that don’t do anything unique while competing with Ragnar for a slot, things like that. Grand master voldus also comes to mind. Mind you this is not exclusive to marines, but named characters really pad out the marine books in number of pages.
What's sad about this is that I feel like the named characters have been slowly getting more and more vanilla in general (for all factions).
But I agree. Especially in 9th, you do not have excess HQ slots like 8th...
Either make them special/unique or ill play the model as a regular cpt/librarian/farseer or w/e ...
Again, my argument this entire thread is not to remove unique rules... but if there arn't any on the sheet at all... well ...
Now saying that. with the wolves, I would much rather they got more unique and have them do something that stands out then just remove them... but the time for focusing on a power armor faction isn't now and other armies need the spotlight.
Dandelion wrote: Just ones that are so similar to their generic counterparts that they may as well just be generic. Of the top of my head, Tabletop tactics talked about a bunch of space wolf characters that don’t do anything unique while competing with Ragnar for a slot, things like that. Grand master voldus also comes to mind. Mind you this is not exclusive to marines, but named characters really pad out the marine books in number of pages.
they where proably talking about Krom. even among space wolf players he's basicly considered to be "discount ragnar" I kinda suspect they started off making a "plastic ragnar" with him and then internally it was decided to make him another character.
Dandelion wrote: Before this thread moves on too quickly, I would like to say that I want more customizable options for the sake of having customizable options. Restricted units and characters are generally boring and frustrating to use imo. Unique rules are just kinda bleh imo.
Completely agree. I thought the Cryptek Arcana for Necrons was at least a step in the right direction. But yeah, in general I'd like to see much more in the way of character customisation.
I thought one of the best ideas was what they did with Harlequins - letting each of the characters swap out their aura or signature ability for a different one, to give them a different role.
Yes, customization for the sake of it,, sure 100% , but lets not pretend design space would increase because of it,,, cuz it wont.. But because you WANT customization... sure ! I get you
I think customisation potentially can open up at least some design space.
As a example, Primaris have next to no customisation and so every configuration of wargear requires a separate model and separate dataslate. If instead some models were simply able to swap weapons, you could cut down on both without actually losing any options.
It would be like if a SM Devastator squad could only be modelled with Lascannons, and if you wanted Plasma Cannons you instead needed to buy entirely separate models (which are called Blastinators) or if you prefer Heavy Bolters then you instead need a Bolternator squad (again with separate models) etc.
What's sad about this is that I feel like the named characters have been slowly getting more and more vanilla in general (for all factions).
But I agree. Especially in 9th, you do not have excess HQ slots like 8th...
Regarding special characters, I've often wondered whether it would be better to 'build' them from generic characters via wargear, artefacts, and/or warlord traits.
So rather than every character needing their own dataslate with unique rules, wargear and weapons to show how extra super special they are, they'd instead be given as a particular combination of wargear for a generic character.
Special Characters should be stuff that is truly unique like Guilliman.
When you have special characters that are just generic character+1 its feel a little bit boring. Sadly GW and many , many people love their special characters with names so it is not gonna change.
And I know that as a ruler writters, writting your own special characters with background and some special rules that you can make their own "package" instead of oppening up to the wild so they can be broken is also fun.
Right. With different chapter tactics. Thats correct. Thats what the entire game is like outside of your bubble. It works fine for everyone else.
For what everyone? marines of different kinds have different rules and different units others don't have access to.
Right. The illusion of choice. I already went over this. The illusion of choice exists NOW. You already have it with your tons of wargear options and your tons of units. Actual meaningful choices that don't create the illusion of choice will only happen with consolidation.
How is being able to take TWC and not being able to take TWC an illusion of choice? Also it is a safety mechanism too. If lets say 6 months in the future GW brings out the WS supplement and outriders become OP, and GW went you way of streamlining with TWC being outridders. then someone who wanted to play TWC would be hit by the anti ouridders nerfs. I know it, because that is how the gulliman "fix" or the rule of 3 hit Grey Knights.
Do you mean what happens now and has always happened? This isn't a result of consolidation. This is a result of bad balance. Or do you not remember the last few years leviathan dreads?
I don't care if it is the cause of bad balance, GW design philosophy or the design team being a hell cult living out of people anger. I don't want my army to be nerf, and have units removed just so other peoples can get more stuff of theirs. I fully support people wanting to get more stuff and having more things to use. That is great, but the idea that because some people want their corsair and chaos IG armies now all marines should be one army is stupid.
And yeah I remember the last year pre covid. I had a friend chased out of the game by donkey-caves, because he picked Iron Hands as his army at the start of 8th, and while no one cared about his fun in the game till 2.0, everyone else got very interested in theirs when his army made out of 2 dark empire suddenly became WAAC incarnate.
If 8th ed, specialy its end, tought me anything is that, people like to talk a lot about balance and fun, casual games, but in the end they care about their armies. You want streamline lets start with your army, and after a year or two we can think if we can do it for other people too.
What is the point of even saying this? Is this not what happens now when players want to paint their dudes how they want but want access to the character/rules in another SM faction? Hey guys I modeled x chapter but they suck so I am playing them as Y chapter.
Only if you don't paint your models the right way, you can't play pink dark angles. you can play ink successor, but then you are skiping all special characers and often relics, unless you pay extra .
Dandelion wrote: Before this thread moves on too quickly, I would like to say that I want more customizable options for the sake of having customizable options. Restricted units and characters are generally boring and frustrating to use imo. Unique rules are just kinda bleh imo.
Completely agree. I thought the Cryptek Arcana for Necrons was at least a step in the right direction. But yeah, in general I'd like to see much more in the way of character customisation.
I thought one of the best ideas was what they did with Harlequins - letting each of the characters swap out their aura or signature ability for a different one, to give them a different role.
The changes to harlequins was super fun !
However, it did drastically increase the amount of balancing maintenance and design time needed for when this army even has minor changes.
This is ok though because harlies only had 7-8 units anyways, so even with an exponential claim to design space, it is totally resonable.
Doing something like this for SMs without losing any of the unique abilities on their generic would be incredibly difficult to initially balance and further maintain due to the sheer size and amount of options. .
Yes, customization for the sake of it,, sure 100% , but lets not pretend design space would increase because of it,,, cuz it wont.. But because you WANT customization... sure ! I get you
I think customisation potentially can open up at least some design space.
As a example, Primaris have next to no customisation and so every configuration of wargear requires a separate model and separate dataslate. If instead some models were simply able to swap weapons, you could cut down on both without actually losing any options.
It would be like if a SM Devastator squad could only be modelled with Lascannons, and if you wanted Plasma Cannons you instead needed to buy entirely separate models (which are called Blastinators) or if you prefer Heavy Bolters then you instead need a Bolternator squad (again with separate models) etc.
The problem is, each of these units have different special rules, so this would mean every piece of wargear you added as an option would not have to balanced up against the rules of each other version. Unless wargear was restricted by what special rules your allowing that unit to make use of. But at the point you havn't actually changed anything but how the data is presented. No extra resources are freed in this way other then maybe a bit of paper but even then you just doubled/trippleled the size of the datasheet explaining the exceptions, affordances, exra rules and wargear. Now, acknowledging that this is just presentation of data and nothing more with that solution, I can see how some people would like a datasheet like this, but I honestly think static sheets are just easier for new palyers,,, if its not going to make a difference for design space, why change the ,admittedly slightly, more readable option.
What's sad about this is that I feel like the named characters have been slowly getting more and more vanilla in general (for all factions).
But I agree. Especially in 9th, you do not have excess HQ slots like 8th...
Regarding special characters, I've often wondered whether it would be better to 'build' them from generic characters via wargear, artefacts, and/or warlord traits.
So rather than every character needing their own dataslate with unique rules, wargear and weapons to show how extra super special they are, they'd instead be given as a particular combination of wargear for a generic character.
Totally a fun idea. I am not saying this wouldn't be cool and honestly, I feel a bit of this coming out in crusade... Now there are balancing and design issues out the wazoo on this. Along with premade named characters in RT, there were rules for what you jsut described... but i think you could also roll d100s for the traits... So cool and sooo fluffy IMO ... BUT I don't think GW would ever do this. 1 everyone would just play the 'best' character min/maxed and as soon as they fix the balance they would move onto the next best composition.
So lets use the harlequins as an example .
Before PA what GW had to keep in balance and determine worth for was the following
Troupe Masters had solid stats (represented as TM), 1 solid ability (represented as ability [a]) and 4 wargear options (represented as wargear (a-d)).
Also strats, interaction with nearby units, chapter tactics, and various other factors.
However, I will explain this example with just abilities and wargear options for simplicity.
The designers must determine point cost and ability strength for the following situations
So when figuring out what the ability should do and any point costs there are a certain amount of considerations to be based on the possibilities a player might pick. Of course this array can have been expanded further for synergetic units, stratagems, chapter tactics and etc.
After PA this simple set of examples has increased exponentially. due to access to the new pivitol roles AND especially because there can be two at once or just one. (lets represent this combination potential as ability(x)(x) and the abilities as (a-d))
After PA the considerations made about how much costs/how powerful abilties should be just with wargear has exponentially increased... not to mention extra layers like chapter tactics, access to stratagems and etc etc...
The initial balancing is a pain and exponentially longer, but then to go further as soon as a resource cost or rules change happens to any of these variables, the designers have to recheck each other corresponding variable to ensure nothing has broken. Thus balancing maintenance of any kind has just, also, exponentially increased.
On top of this, harlequins are quite simple compared to SMs with access to all the customization in the game...
Sure it would be fun, but the amount of extra work and extra design space taken would be staggering.
I think it was appropriate for harlequins... but i think people underestimate jsut HOW much work went into making the harlequins that customizable and that cool. I for one went from feeling like it was a half assed faction to being a solid stand alone faction after PA (minus the gate, for the love of god fix the gate) . The harlies went from feeling like they had absolutely no options and 7 units to effectively feeling like they had like 30+ units and possible synergies coming out of their wazoo... appropriate for such a small faction,,, inappropriate for marines,,, they have enough.
vipoid wrote: Regarding special characters, I've often wondered whether it would be better to 'build' them from generic characters via wargear, artefacts, and/or warlord traits.
So rather than every character needing their own dataslate with unique rules, wargear and weapons to show how extra super special they are, they'd instead be given as a particular combination of wargear for a generic character.
That would be completely lame. Who would need special characters then? Just slap three generic ones on table, done. No, special characters as it is (with some unique bonus) work far better, because if the default blandness doesn't work for your leader idea, you can always count him as one of the specials to make him fit better. Your librarian of novamarines is a prodigy? Use Tigurius. Captain of Black Dragons uses flamer to fit dragon image? Use Adrax. Etc, etc.
I like how people spoiled for choice talk they have too much of it, when addition of two special characters was frankly one of few strong points of turning DW into supplement. After years and years and years of maximum blandness due to extreme DW writer incompetence, finally there is an option of having better chaplain or librarian than bottom of the barrel bland and generic garbage. Try playing army with few options for a time, then you can say choice is bad.
Special characters are keyword locked now, whereas they used to be available for anyone. So just “use tigurius” is a bad example because I don’t want to be locked into ultramarine rules.
Besides I play admech, not exactly spoiled for choice, eh? If I could, I would turn cawl into an archmagos datasheet in a heartbeat. At this point he doesn’t need new war gear, i just want to run an archmagos for my deimos army without having to use mars.
vipoid wrote: Regarding special characters, I've often wondered whether it would be better to 'build' them from generic characters via wargear, artefacts, and/or warlord traits.
So rather than every character needing their own dataslate with unique rules, wargear and weapons to show how extra super special they are, they'd instead be given as a particular combination of wargear for a generic character.
That would be completely lame. Who would need special characters then?
In a large way, I think that's the point, most of them aren't actually really all that special, just get some minor wargear combo not available to a generic version or get an extra power bonus just to justify them being a unique entry, without actually doing anything truly unique and otherwise serving the exact same role as their more generic equivalent.
Just slap three generic ones on table, done. No, special characters as it is (with some unique bonus) work far better, because if the default blandness doesn't work for your leader idea, you can always count him as one of the specials to make him fit better. Your librarian of novamarines is a prodigy? Use Tigurius.
If this is the use case we're going for, then I'd argue that Tigurius isn't unique, he's functionally being treated as a generic Librarian+1, and that can (and has) been captured within generic Librarian entries (e.g. Lexicanums vs Codiciers vs Epistolaries vs Chief Librarian).
To my mind special characters should completely alter how you build your list and play on the board. This is obviously difficult - especially if you are a faction with a veritable shopping list of such characters - but otherwise you end up with "this is a regular character but he has this special rule for X more points". Which means its now an auto/never take if you were going to use that regular character.
Tyel wrote: To my mind special characters should completely alter how you build your list and play on the board. This is obviously difficult - especially if you are a faction with a veritable shopping list of such characters - but otherwise you end up with "this is a regular character but he has this special rule for X more points". Which means its now an auto/never take if you were going to use that regular character.
I'll be honest, I have the exact opposite view. I absolutely despise when a certain playstyle is locked behind a special character..
For example, I set my campaign on the Western Fringe because I KNEW I wanted to use Taddeus the Purifier, Pious Vorne, and Gotfret de Montbard.
They can stop over in our star system and join our armies for a few small battles on their way to the BSF. These would be battles of opportunity- at this stage, the Sisters army is small, and not prestigious enough for the Heroes to join full time.
Then, once the BSF storyline is finished, they can return to our system and perhaps become a more permanent part of the army; by the time they get back, the Sisters Crusade will have grown and earned prestige by bringing Saint Katherine's Praesidium Protectiva back into the Imperial fold to form the Triumph.
That's the kind of army worthy Taddeus and his disciples. And by the time this happens, their enemies will have grown more powerful, and they will need Taddeus and the crew.
For me special characters seem to drive far too many stories.
In fact, given their recurrence, it seems every major conflict might as well be happening on and around the same 5 or 6 planets, while the rest of the galaxy might as well not exist for all the difference it makes.
However, I realise I'm in a clear minority on this one.
Can special characters drive their own stories without rendering generic characters irrelevant by having better/cheaper rules and doing the things the generic characters aren't allowed to do?
AnomanderRake wrote: Can special characters drive their own stories without rendering generic characters irrelevant by having better/cheaper rules and doing the things the generic characters aren't allowed to do?
If we enter in the competitive aspect to be honest special characters are inferior version of more customisable generic ones 90% of the time. This is like FW. People claim special characters are OP because two or three are powerfull ignoring than most of the rest are mediocre so taken just for narrative reasons.
AnomanderRake wrote: Can special characters drive their own stories without rendering generic characters irrelevant by having better/cheaper rules and doing the things the generic characters aren't allowed to do?
If we enter in the competitive aspect to be honest special characters are inferior version of more customisable generic ones 90% of the time. This is like FW. People claim special characters are OP because two or three are powerfull ignoring than most of the rest are mediocre so taken just for narrative reasons.
Which goes back into why these bespoke sheets while looking like more choices are actually the illusion of choice and why having more datasheets, especially bespoke ones, are not easier to balance by any means.
If you have 4 different kinds of librarians but one is just by far the best then you really just have 1 librarian thats worth taking. And the fact that we keep running into this over and over and over again means the balance is very out of whack. Trim the fat. Give everyone more actual options.
AnomanderRake wrote: Can special characters drive their own stories without rendering generic characters irrelevant by having better/cheaper rules and doing the things the generic characters aren't allowed to do?
If we enter in the competitive aspect to be honest special characters are inferior version of more customisable generic ones 90% of the time. This is like FW. People claim special characters are OP because two or three are powerfull ignoring than most of the rest are mediocre so taken just for narrative reasons.
Which goes back into why these bespoke sheets while looking like more choices are actually the illusion of choice and why having more datasheets, especially bespoke ones, are not easier to balance by any means.
If you have 4 different kinds of librarians but one is just by far the best then you really just have 1 librarian thats worth taking. And the fact that we keep running into this over and over and over again means the balance is very out of whack. Trim the fat. Give everyone more actual options.
trimming the fat doesn't mean more options, it just means less options.
Besides let's take this mentality to the hilt. If one army is better then every other army, via your logic the answer is obviously "squat the inferior armies"
AnomanderRake wrote: Can special characters drive their own stories without rendering generic characters irrelevant by having better/cheaper rules and doing the things the generic characters aren't allowed to do?
If we enter in the competitive aspect to be honest special characters are inferior version of more customisable generic ones 90% of the time. This is like FW. People claim special characters are OP because two or three are powerfull ignoring than most of the rest are mediocre so taken just for narrative reasons.
Which goes back into why these bespoke sheets while looking like more choices are actually the illusion of choice and why having more datasheets, especially bespoke ones, are not easier to balance by any means.
If you have 4 different kinds of librarians but one is just by far the best then you really just have 1 librarian thats worth taking. And the fact that we keep running into this over and over and over again means the balance is very out of whack. Trim the fat. Give everyone more actual options.
trimming the fat doesn't mean more options, it just means less options.
Besides let's take this mentality to the hilt. If one army is better then every other army, via your logic the answer is obviously "squat the inferior armies"
I am not explaining the illusion of choice to you again.
Lance845 wrote: I am not explaining the illusion of choice to you again.
I am not responding to absurd arguments either.
What is the difference between removing options within an army and genericizing rules between armies? You keep asserting that comparing the two is absurd but have yet to explain why.
AnomanderRake wrote: Can special characters drive their own stories without rendering generic characters irrelevant by having better/cheaper rules and doing the things the generic characters aren't allowed to do?
If we enter in the competitive aspect to be honest special characters are inferior version of more customisable generic ones 90% of the time. This is like FW. People claim special characters are OP because two or three are powerfull ignoring than most of the rest are mediocre so taken just for narrative reasons.
Which goes back into why these bespoke sheets while looking like more choices are actually the illusion of choice and why having more datasheets, especially bespoke ones, are not easier to balance by any means.
If you have 4 different kinds of librarians but one is just by far the best then you really just have 1 librarian thats worth taking. And the fact that we keep running into this over and over and over again means the balance is very out of whack. Trim the fat. Give everyone more actual options.
It doesn't mater what options you have. The people who always take the best stuff will take the best stuff whether they do what your suggesting or not. sure no named character, whats the best of the "more actual options" your proposing, they'll only take that instead.. you point is moot.
AnomanderRake wrote: Can special characters drive their own stories without rendering generic characters irrelevant by having better/cheaper rules and doing the things the generic characters aren't allowed to do?
If we enter in the competitive aspect to be honest special characters are inferior version of more customisable generic ones 90% of the time. This is like FW. People claim special characters are OP because two or three are powerfull ignoring than most of the rest are mediocre so taken just for narrative reasons.
Which goes back into why these bespoke sheets while looking like more choices are actually the illusion of choice and why having more datasheets, especially bespoke ones, are not easier to balance by any means.
If you have 4 different kinds of librarians but one is just by far the best then you really just have 1 librarian thats worth taking. And the fact that we keep running into this over and over and over again means the balance is very out of whack. Trim the fat. Give everyone more actual options.
It doesn't mater what options you have. The people who always take the best stuff will take the best stuff whether they do what your suggesting or not. sure no named character, whats the best of the "more actual options" your proposing, they'll only take that instead.. you point is moot.
So if some people always choose the best thing regardless, why shouldn't we go for the option approach? It's not like we're trying to stop people minmaxing, as you've just said they always will.
AnomanderRake wrote: Can special characters drive their own stories without rendering generic characters irrelevant by having better/cheaper rules and doing the things the generic characters aren't allowed to do?
If we enter in the competitive aspect to be honest special characters are inferior version of more customisable generic ones 90% of the time. This is like FW. People claim special characters are OP because two or three are powerfull ignoring than most of the rest are mediocre so taken just for narrative reasons.
Which goes back into why these bespoke sheets while looking like more choices are actually the illusion of choice and why having more datasheets, especially bespoke ones, are not easier to balance by any means.
If you have 4 different kinds of librarians but one is just by far the best then you really just have 1 librarian thats worth taking. And the fact that we keep running into this over and over and over again means the balance is very out of whack. Trim the fat. Give everyone more actual options.
It doesn't mater what options you have. The people who always take the best stuff will take the best stuff whether they do what your suggesting or not. sure no named character, whats the best of the "more actual options" your proposing, they'll only take that instead.. you point is moot.
So if some people always choose the best thing regardless, why shouldn't we go for the option approach? It's not like we're trying to stop people minmaxing, as you've just said they always will.
Please read my earlier posts. I am not answering this again. The circular arguments are just getting monotonous.
Lance845 wrote: I am not explaining the illusion of choice to you again.
I am not responding to absurd arguments either.
What is the difference between removing options within an army and genericizing rules between armies? You keep asserting that comparing the two is absurd but have yet to explain why.
You have different levels of choice so to speak when playing the game.
You can choose format/scale etc... How many points? What kinds of missions?
Then you choose armies. And your choice of army presents you with options thematic, aesthetic, and mechanical.
Choice of armies should be distinct in wargear and units and other game play elements. There isn't anything else in the game with a datasheet like the tyranid warrior for example. Synapse functions like nothing else in the game.
From there you have subfactions which basically give you your "chapter tactics" along with new options from warlord traits, a relic, stratagems and (sometimes) units.
The choice of army is not arbitrary. And if the choice of army was arbitrary then they should be consolidated. If traitor marines were just regular marines then you could have one codex with rules to present chaos chapter tactics. But you don't. Because the chaos army has access to units and rules that are nothing like what general space marines have which makes them a distinct choice and not the illusion of choice. Traitor marines do not and should not play like loyalist marines. If they did, again, I would argue for consolidation.
But when one unit in the army can choose between a bunch of guns.. like say the tyranid warrior. They get spinefists, devourers, deathspitters, or they can swap them for a pair of scytal. (these are swaps 1 for 1. There are other options that are not relevant to this discussion.
So you have a stock gun that shoots 3 times. a better gun that also shoots 3 times but with better ap and higher str and a better range. A gun that shoots (Attack) times (on warriors thats 3 again) with worse strength and no ap and 1/3rd the range of the deathspitter. And a melee weapon.
At this stage you have choices and you have calculations. The spine fist is a calculation. There is virtually no situation where the spine fists will be preferable to any other option available. Then the deathspitter and the devourer and scy tal is a choice between shooting or spending a couple extra points to shoot better vs committing entirely to melee. If you are going to commit to shooting then the deathspitters are a no brainier and if you are going to forgo shooting for melee then your choice is already made. So REALLY you have 2 meaningful choices. Shoot well with the deathspitter or take the scytal and fight. There is no target the devourer is better against then the deathspitter. You are not optimizing for a role by taking it. It's a calculation not a choice. Therefore just give Warriors the choice of Deathspitters or Scytal. It's the only meaningful choice on the list.
If you look at their melee options things get more interesting. Scytal let you reroll 1s and with 2 pair you get an extra attack. But boneswords have better AP and ALSO give an extra attack. Rending claws have another layer of interesting choice with 6s becoming ap4. Scytal are better against things with no or weak saves. Bone swords are better against decently armored targets and rending claws have a interesting effect that has some overlap with boneswords but out shines beyond a certain point. Those are all meaningful options. They also represent almost all of the melee options for the entire army (understanding that there are monstrous versions that upscale but function similarly).
Removing spinefists is a no brainer. It was never a real choice. Removing the devourer from the warrior datasheet is also a good idea. The choice was already made there if you were going to shoot at all. Or do what Apoc does and give them the single line of "Ranged Bio Weapon" and allow me to model whatever the hell I want.
When you start looking through the marine wargear list there is a ton of overlap. 2 or 3 options do the exact same job. In certain cases those exact same job options are available on the same units. When thats the case a singular profile that does the job and allows you to model more things while being just as good as the option you were taking anyway eliminates the illusion of choice and presents you with your real options. Coincidentally this makes it easier to balance too.
Merging armies isn't what we are talking about. Merging 3 different datasheets for terminators and giving you all your meaningful choices on one data sheets is. Just like someone suggested I could have gaunts and gants on a single datasheet with options for melee or shooting on it. Yeah. I could. It wouldn't hurt at all to do it and nothing of value would be lost.
Automatically Appended Next Post: If you are playing competitively and/or enjoy crunching the numbers having meaningful choices is all you were paying attention to anyway and we have made it easier for you to do that. If you like fluffy narrative stuff then merging things like the power weapons into a single power weapon profile has given you more narrative options then you do now by allowing you to present that power weapon as whatever the hell you want it to be.
AnomanderRake wrote: Can special characters drive their own stories without rendering generic characters irrelevant by having better/cheaper rules and doing the things the generic characters aren't allowed to do?
If we enter in the competitive aspect to be honest special characters are inferior version of more customisable generic ones 90% of the time. This is like FW. People claim special characters are OP because two or three are powerfull ignoring than most of the rest are mediocre so taken just for narrative reasons.
Which goes back into why these bespoke sheets while looking like more choices are actually the illusion of choice and why having more datasheets, especially bespoke ones, are not easier to balance by any means.
If you have 4 different kinds of librarians but one is just by far the best then you really just have 1 librarian thats worth taking. And the fact that we keep running into this over and over and over again means the balance is very out of whack. Trim the fat. Give everyone more actual options.
trimming the fat doesn't mean more options, it just means less options.
I know I'm not the chap you were responding to, but I'd refer you once again to the Haemonculus' current selection of melee weapons.
In theory you have a choice of 6 different weapons.
In practise, there's no choice at all - because all of them fulfil the exact same role, but one of them is objectively better at it than any of the others (and doesn't even cost more points).
I believe this is the sort of thing Lance was referring to. Much as I like customisation, trap options are not a good thing.
Again, Lance can correct me if I'm wrong, but I imagine his preference in this example would be to make the weapons markedly different. For example, changing one or two of them to be effective against vehicles, rather than 5/6 of them being Poison (and the 6th just being outright trash against every conceivable target). Maybe have the Mindphase Gauntlet wound against Ld, or else have it do no damage in and of itself, but with each hit an enemy character/monster has to pass a Ld check or attack itself.
Even if people still end up preferring one option over the others, at least the alternative options won't be objectively worse against every possible target.
AnomanderRake wrote: Can special characters drive their own stories without rendering generic characters irrelevant by having better/cheaper rules and doing the things the generic characters aren't allowed to do?
If we enter in the competitive aspect to be honest special characters are inferior version of more customisable generic ones 90% of the time. This is like FW. People claim special characters are OP because two or three are powerfull ignoring than most of the rest are mediocre so taken just for narrative reasons.
Which goes back into why these bespoke sheets while looking like more choices are actually the illusion of choice and why having more datasheets, especially bespoke ones, are not easier to balance by any means.
If you have 4 different kinds of librarians but one is just by far the best then you really just have 1 librarian thats worth taking. And the fact that we keep running into this over and over and over again means the balance is very out of whack. Trim the fat. Give everyone more actual options.
trimming the fat doesn't mean more options, it just means less options.
I know I'm not the chap you were responding to, but I'd refer you once again to the Haemonculus' current selection of melee weapons.
In theory you have a choice of 6 different weapons.
In practise, there's no choice at all - because all of them fulfil the exact same role, but one of them is objectively better at it than any of the others (and doesn't even cost more points).
I believe this is the sort of thing Lance was referring to. Much as I like customisation, trap options are not a good thing.
Again, Lance can correct me if I'm wrong, but I imagine his preference in this example would be to make the weapons markedly different. For example, changing one or two of them to be effective against vehicles, rather than 5/6 of them being Poison (and the 6th just being outright trash against every conceivable target). Maybe have the Mindphase Gauntlet wound against Ld, or else have it do no damage in and of itself, but with each hit an enemy character/monster has to pass a Ld check or attack itself.
Even if people still end up preferring one option over the others, at least the alternative options won't be objectively worse against every possible target.
You got it.
You need to give meaningful choices. There are only so many different kinds of targets in the design space. Having 2 weapons that do the same job except one does it better isn't actually a choice. Drop or consolidate the 2 into a shared proifle so you at least gain modeling options. If the weapons are not providing meaningful choice they shouldn't exist. They are the very definition of bloat.
Lance845 wrote: The choice of army is not arbitrary. And if the choice of army was arbitrary then they should be consolidated. If traitor marines were just regular marines then you could have one codex with rules to present chaos chapter tactics. But you don't. Because the chaos army has access to units and rules that are nothing like what general space marines have which makes them a distinct choice and not the illusion of choice. Traitor marines do not and should not play like loyalist marines. If they did, again, I would argue for consolidation.
What is your threshold for consolidation? Is it some specific percentage of shared rules hard and objective or is it an 'I'll know it when I see it' style judgement call?
But when one unit in the army can choose between a bunch of guns.. like say the tyranid warrior. They get spinefists, devourers, deathspitters, or they can swap them for a pair of scytal. (these are swaps 1 for 1. There are other options that are not relevant to this discussion.
So you have a stock gun that shoots 3 times. a better gun that also shoots 3 times but with better ap and higher str. A gun that shoots (Attack) times with worse strength and no ap. And a melee weapon.
I'm going to cut your explanation for the sake of brevity, I assure you that I did read it.
My argument is that these weapons should be balanced not removed. For example, we could give the Devourer back it's old ability to reroll wounds which then does make it an actual choice between it and a Deathspitter based on expected targets. Spinefists could be strength user rather than S3 and that would make them an interesting choice actual use cases. If you always cut options the second they underperform you're going to end up with a boring game while also limiting your options to change the balance at a later date. If this were GWs design philosophy we'd be much closer to generic armies, which we can all agree are bad, than to anything interesting and unique.
Merging armies isn't what we are talking about. Merging 3 different datasheets for terminators and giving you all your meaningful choices on one data sheets is. Just like someone suggested I could have gaunts and gants on a single datasheet with options for melee or shooting on it. Yeah. I could. It wouldn't hurt at all to do it and nothing of value would be lost.
So merge these units, keep all the same restrictions on load-outs, and gain what exactly? You don't change anything in terms of gameplay by doing this unless you remove options or change restrictions as part of the merger. You do however make the rules denser and more difficult for some players to read by filling a single sheet with lists of exceptions and if statements.
If you are playing competitively and/or enjoy crunching the numbers having meaningful choices is all you were paying attention to anyway and we have made it easier for you to do that.
We made every answer on this multiple-choice test C, the test is now impossible to fail and therefore not worth studying for. Do you see why some players might take an issue with this approach?
If you like fluffy narrative stuff then merging things like the power weapons into a single power weapon profile has given you more narrative options then you do now by allowing you to present that power weapon as whatever the hell you want it to be.
So there are no cases where the current differentiation of power weapons change anything? If this is the case there's already no need for balance, but otherwise, every weapon has, at least in theory, a niche to fill.
Lance845 wrote: The choice of army is not arbitrary. And if the choice of army was arbitrary then they should be consolidated. If traitor marines were just regular marines then you could have one codex with rules to present chaos chapter tactics. But you don't. Because the chaos army has access to units and rules that are nothing like what general space marines have which makes them a distinct choice and not the illusion of choice. Traitor marines do not and should not play like loyalist marines. If they did, again, I would argue for consolidation.
What is your threshold for consolidation? Is it some specific percentage of shared rules hard and objective or is it an 'I'll know it when I see it' style judgement call?
I told you before that game design is math, psychology, and art. So the answer to your question is all 3. There is a psycological element to it, there is a math element to it and there is an art element to it. There is no math that wholly explains that synapse is different from mob rules. But we can all agree that it is and that tyranids (at least in part) because of synapse function differently from other armies right? It's objective right? Tyranids as an army do not play like other armies.
But when one unit in the army can choose between a bunch of guns.. like say the tyranid warrior. They get spinefists, devourers, deathspitters, or they can swap them for a pair of scytal. (these are swaps 1 for 1. There are other options that are not relevant to this discussion.
So you have a stock gun that shoots 3 times. a better gun that also shoots 3 times but with better ap and higher str. A gun that shoots (Attack) times with worse strength and no ap. And a melee weapon.
I'm going to cut your explanation for the sake of brevity, I assure you that I did read it.
My argument is that these weapons should be balanced not removed. For example, we could give the Devourer back it's old ability to reroll wounds which then does make it an actual choice between it and a Deathspitter based on expected targets. Spinefists could be strength user rather than S3 and that would make them an interesting choice actual use cases. If you always cut options the second they underperform you're going to end up with a boring game while also limiting your options to change the balance at a later date. If this were GWs design philosophy we'd be much closer to generic armies, which we can all agree are bad, than to anything interesting and unique.
Hey man, but what about PvNP and all that, right? You are talking about a massive increase in the developers time spent to balance a game they already cannot keep up with.
The ability to reroll wounds is already on termagants in units of 20+. See how you are stepping on the limited design space? And don't change it to rerolling to hit. Because thats what Tervigons give them. But even if you did do that, 6" extra range +1 str and -1 ap would STILL make the devourer a non-choice. Rerolling wounds doesn't change the intended target. They are BOTH made to take out lower save infantry. They both have the same rate of fire. The deathspitter is just better at it. So you would need to up the devourers rate of fire. Lets say we give it 5 shots? (meaning termagants now shoot 150 times rerolling 1s to hit and wound with tervigon support) But we also need to make the deathspitter better at heavier save targets otherwise the deathspitter becomes the illusion of choice. SO we make it AP-2. But now why the hell would I ever pay points to take the anti infantry biocanon on the warriors? See how they are stepping on each others toes? A random number of shots with blast but the same str with less AP. MSU and marine prevalence means blast is nigh useless. The higher AP or the 5 shot devourers would be far more reliable.
As for your spinefist suggestion. SO they become 12" pistol A(3) str 4 ap- d1 versus the devourers 18"assault 3 str4 ap- D1 reroll 1s to wound. And while spinefists are free, they also mean you loose out on a second pair of scything talons which means you are loosing out on an extra str 4 attack in melee that reroll to hit. Would YOU trade a crap pistol for rerolling to hit attacks in melee? I wouldn't. It not only still looses to the devourer it also looses out to the scytal.
PvNP. What do you think? Is time spent developing and balancing a multitude of datasheets and wargear that fulfill the same role on the same units within the same army or should they consolidate and focus on balancing the meaningful options that actually get used so players have good meaningful choice?
Nobody is suggesting to cut things because they underperform. They are saying cut and consolidate so that the distinct roles are filled. It's about removing overlap more than anything so that the choices actually matter.
Merging armies isn't what we are talking about. Merging 3 different datasheets for terminators and giving you all your meaningful choices on one data sheets is. Just like someone suggested I could have gaunts and gants on a single datasheet with options for melee or shooting on it. Yeah. I could. It wouldn't hurt at all to do it and nothing of value would be lost.
So merge these units, keep all the same restrictions on load-outs, and gain what exactly? You don't change anything in terms of gameplay by doing this unless you remove options or change restrictions as part of the merger. You do however make the rules denser and more difficult for some players to read by filling a single sheet with lists of exceptions and if statements.
It only gets more difficult to read if the formatting is difficult to read. That is a interface issue and unrelated to the mechanics being discussed. You keep the meaningful options. By now having them on a single sheet it's easier to see what is and is not meaningful and consolidate where needed to create actual choice. The much fought over TWC is an example where the attacks from the wolf are not doing anything meaningful compared to the bike. they both impact targets basically the same way. You COULD argue the on the charge element and I am even inclined to agree with you. Which can be solved with some 2-3 point option on the "cavalry" datasheet called "War Steed" or some gak to make the attacks every round instead of just on the charge. Then if salamanders want to ride big lizards they can. And if my homebrew wants to ride dinosaurs they can. Options are gained and nothing of value is lost.
If you are playing competitively and/or enjoy crunching the numbers having meaningful choices is all you were paying attention to anyway and we have made it easier for you to do that.
We made every answer on this multiple-choice test C, the test is now impossible to fail and therefore not worth studying for. Do you see why some players might take an issue with this approach?
Another absurdum/strawman. Nobody is saying that. You also misrepresent the purpose of a test. This statement is meaningless. Further, if some players issue is "BUT I WANT MORE THINGS EVEN IF THEY DO NOTHING AND BLOAT THE GAME" then I don't care about their issues. I want a better game.
If you like fluffy narrative stuff then merging things like the power weapons into a single power weapon profile has given you more narrative options then you do now by allowing you to present that power weapon as whatever the hell you want it to be.
So there are no cases where the current differentiation of power weapons change anything? If this is the case there's already no need for balance, but otherwise, every weapon has, at least in theory, a niche to fill.
Incorrect. As pointed out by me and others repeatedly in this thread.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I want to reiterate this. If somehow you gave deathspitters, devourers, and spinefists the correct point costs to perfectly balance their impact versus their shared intended targets then all you have done is given players a no choice. You either want the greatest impact per model which is the deathspitter or you want the lowest cost per model which is the spine fists (which also means you have basically no impact so why the platform is worth anything at this point is anyones guess). It's 3 options to equip a tyranid warrior to do the exact same job.
Imperial Guard are a great example of the Generic Datasheet gone wrong.
How?
Regiments. Take a look at your average Catachan versus your average Cadian. Usually the Cadian is wearing flak armor everywhere crucial - on his head, chest, shoulders, and sometimes his knees. The Catachan has a shirt (sometimes) and a bandana... Yet somehow his rock hard abs give him a 5+ just like the armored Cadian? Ork Boyz are wearing even more armor than Catachans and their armor is worse!
The Catachans could have received their own datasheet: 7+ save and when in cover count as having a 4+ save. Just as an example.
Slayer6 wrote: Imperial Guard are a great example of the Generic Datasheet gone wrong.
How?
Regiments. Take a look at your average Catachan versus your average Cadian. Usually the Cadian is wearing flak armor everywhere crucial - on his head, chest, shoulders, and sometimes his knees. The Catachan has a shirt (sometimes) and a bandana... Yet somehow his rock hard abs give him a 5+ just like the armored Cadian? Ork Boyz are wearing even more armor than Catachans and their armor is worse!
The Catachans could have received their own datasheet: 7+ save and when in cover count as having a 4+ save. Just as an example.
I disagree with you but thats fine. This isn't kill team or necromunda where something like that which is just aesthetic should matter.
Slayer6 wrote: Imperial Guard are a great example of the Generic Datasheet gone wrong.
How?
Regiments. Take a look at your average Catachan versus your average Cadian. Usually the Cadian is wearing flak armor everywhere crucial - on his head, chest, shoulders, and sometimes his knees. The Catachan has a shirt (sometimes) and a bandana... Yet somehow his rock hard abs give him a 5+ just like the armored Cadian? Ork Boyz are wearing even more armor than Catachans and their armor is worse!
The Catachans could have received their own datasheet: 7+ save and when in cover count as having a 4+ save. Just as an example.
Because literally all Catachans are wearing tank tops for those over the top models? Thats really what you're basing it on?
I disagree with you but thats fine. This isn't kill team or necromunda where something like that which is just aesthetic should matter.
It's a miniatures game.
Aesthetic of the miniatures is the whole point.
Rules, even the existence of a game or not, is secondary to that.
I am glad you feel that way but others feel different. The models only sell in meaningful numbers because of the game. Ergo I think the game takes precedent. If you want the miniatures above all else you are free to model, paint, and display them however you see fit.
Rules, even the existence of a game or not, is secondary to that.
That is a very big claim considering the legions of people that never paint their armies.
Plus it doesn't explain at all how chaplain dreads or centurions become a thing, or how castellan or eldar sells suddenly stop as soon as the rules get changed.
The Catachans could have received their own datasheet: 7+ save and when in cover count as having a 4+ save. Just as an example.
If there's really a need for slightly different guardsmen, that could easily be baked into existing unit data sheets, rather than simply replicating existing units but with t-shirts.
'Each platoon may be upgraded to Light Infantry for +X pts per unit.
Light Infantry have a 6+ armour save and gain the Move Through Cover and Stealth USRs.'
Or something. Repeat for Genadiers, Mechanised, etc.
The Catachans could have received their own datasheet: 7+ save and when in cover count as having a 4+ save. Just as an example.
If there's really a need for slightly different guardsmen, that could easily be baked into existing unit data sheets, rather than simply replicating existing units but with t-shirts.
'Each platoon may be upgraded to Light Infantry for +X pts per unit.
Light Infantry have a 6+ armour save and gain the Move Through Cover and Stealth USRs.'
Or something. Repeat for Genadiers, Mechanised, etc.
Nostalgia..
Still a better system then the traits now, which just split up a faction into haves and havenots subfactions instead.
I am glad you feel that way but others feel different. The models only sell in meaningful numbers because of the game. Ergo I think the game takes precedent. If you want the miniatures above all else you are free to model, paint, and display them however you see fit.
If you don't care about the miniatures and lore and their representation on the table (including through bespoke rules written evoke their "character" and "background", not necessarily game-balance as a first priority), feel free to play competitive chess or go or some such.
I am glad you feel that way but others feel different. The models only sell in meaningful numbers because of the game. Ergo I think the game takes precedent. If you want the miniatures above all else you are free to model, paint, and display them however you see fit.
If you don't care about the miniatures and lore and their representation on the table (including through bespoke rules written evoke their "character" and "background", not necessarily game-balance as a first priority), feel free to play competitive chess or go or some such.
The price money is a lot better too.
The hobby is built on 3 pillars so to speak. The game, the modeling (which includes the paint), the lore. You can read the books and give no feths about the game or models. You can build the models and not care about the game or story. And you can play the game not care about the fluff or models. Each individuals investment into each of the pillars is different from everyone elses. BUT the pillars still stand on their own. The game doesn't exist for the sake of the lore and should focus on being a good game. Yes, the lore should be A factor in how the game is built but it shouldn't be the determining factor that says "it doesn't matter if this makes the game worse the lore says it so lets do it".
When I am discussing the game I am discussing that pillar. When I say this is a bad idea mechanically it doesn't have to do with the lore it has to do with the game. And if GW releases a neat model for the game thats great for 2 and maybe even 3 pillars (sometimes they get a book!).
I didn't say I don't care about the miniatures or the lore. I said the game doesn't need to go into that level of minutia to represent aesthetics.
It's a wholistic experience where the various elements reinforce each other.
Again, if you want to keep things separate, you can play chess for gaming, read Harry Potter for lore, paint & build model train landscapes for the painting/crafting aspect.
The point of 40K is to bring it together. It's a triathlon across all disciplines. You can't just skip out and say "I don't like the swimming part, I only wanna focus on the running". If you do that, you're kinda miss the point of a triathlon. Just go running.
Dismissing the "minutae" of the lore is just as dumb as someone being dismissive of "a few inches short" on a charge or so "just push the models in", because they don't care so much for the gaming side and/or feel the game-mechanics dont reflect other parts of the hobby in the way they feel they should.
It's a wholistic experience where the various elements reinforce each other.
Disagree entirely. I will never buy a 40k book. The extent of my lore delving is wiki articles and the codexes I own. I do however love kit bashing and making custom models. Even if they never see the table in the game.
Again, if you want to keep things separate, you can play chess for gaming, read Harry Potter for lore, paint & build model train landscapes for the painting/crafting aspect.
The point of 40K is to bring it together. It's a triathlon across all disciplines. You can't just skip out and say "I don't like the swimming part, I only wanna focus on the running". If you do that, you're kinda miss the point of a triathlon. Just go running.
I absolutely can and many do. Try and stop me. Further go kick down the doors of people who only read the books and tell them they need to start buying models and rules books ASAP! How many painted armies do you see versus unpainted? Guess whos skipping out on swimming.
Dismissing the "minutae" of the lore is just as dumb as someone being dismissive of "a few inches short" on a charge or so "just push the models in", because they don't care so much for the gaming side and/or feel the game-mechanics dont reflect other parts of the hobby in the way they feel they should.
All parts need to be respected.
I wasn't dismissing lore in the example I gave I was dismissing the aesthetic of the model. I can build a tau firewarrior with binoculars up against his face looking out at things. There is no rule to represent that. Should we make up rules for binoculars for everyone who has access to them because of the bit? Again, this isn't necromunda or killteam. The focus isn't on individuals. WYSIWYG is not a rule and paint is not required to play.
It's a wholistic experience where the various elements reinforce each other.
There are pillars and although they can reinforce each other they can also stand alone. Dan Abnett discussed in one lecture how the Horus Heresy books managed to get a lot of people interested in the setting but didn't have any interest in the hobby or the gaming aspect of it. There are people who only the hobby aspect as they just want to paint miniatures just as there are people who only buy into the gaming experience and field grey plastic. Then there are people who weave these things together for a cohesive experience that they enjoy.
I mean, even the tourney scene technically eschews the lore pillar altogether as they are in it for the gaming mostly. The only reason to reinforce the painting for tourneys is that otherwise it would be a rather dull sport to watch, but that doesn't stop people from putting the bare minimum of 3 colors onto the plastic and call it done.
Dismissing the "minutae" of the lore is just as dumb as someone being dismissive of "a few inches short" on a charge or so "just push the models in", because they don't care so much for the gaming side and/or feel the game-mechanics dont reflect other parts of the hobby in the way they feel they should.
All parts need to be respected.
Nothing needs to be respected as this is a hobby and not organized religion.
Again, if you want to keep things separate, you can play chess for gaming, read Harry Potter for lore, paint & build model train landscapes for the painting/crafting aspect.
Why the gatekeeping? Why do you bother with what people do with the stuff they bought and enjoy? I mean, you can refuse to play a person who doesn't abide by your own personal rules, but that should in no way limit what they want out of the franchise.
We've been there. People have tried to "gamify" 40K. Both in fan-made rule-sets or GW itself, e.g. when 4th Edition only had "minor Daemons" and some such, leaving it purely an aesthetic choice whether you do your army in "Khorne" or in "Slaanesh".
It's failed and failed and failed and failed and failed again for 40K for 30 years, mainly because there're so many better alternatives out there to scratch that particular itch for a slightly more abstract-leaning, more-game-oriented gamer (or "light" hobbyist or whatever).
Funny you keep naming Kill Team as a game where aesthetic matter more. If anything Kill Team, Kill Team Arena and Underworlds are GW's products for people who prefer their gaming experience to be more streamlined, more competitive-focussed, less "put-all-your-toys-on-the-table-for-the-joy-of-it".
40K just isn't that game. Isn't trying to fill that niche. Both in the broader gaming market or even within GW's own product range.
Sunny Side Up wrote: .
Funny you keep naming Kill Team as a game where aesthetic matter more. If anything Kill Team, Kill Team Arena and Underworlds are GW's products for people who prefer their gaming experience to be more streamlined, more competitive-focussed, less "put-all-your-toys-on-the-table-for-the-joy-of-it".
I mention it because of the scale in which those games are emulating. 40k is closer to apoc in that it is emulating the movement of units with an army, not soldiers within a unit. As such there is a focus on certain aspects of the game. Yeah, catachan wear tank tops. And Cadias wear actual body armor, and steel legion wear a big leather coat. So do DKoKbtw. So Shouldn't DKoK and Steel Legion ALSO be sv 7+? I cannot possibly imagine that a leather coat is going to stop the explosive mini rockets fired from bolters any better then a tank top would. And hey, we should be emulating all the minutia on the models apparently.
There's a new discussion thread here probably every two weeks demanding that 40K moves from a D6 system to a D10 or D20 or something to provide more granularity in the stats to model exactly these kind of differences.
For the moment, GW has chosen to model these differences with added special rules. E.g. the "unique" rule of the Imperial Guard used to be "Orders" compared to the "unique" rule of Space Marines being "Chapter Tactics", but because people loved the "Chapter Tactics" idea to give random differently-coloured sub-factions a unique "flavour/personality", they ported that concept over to Imperial Guard (and every other faction).
If anything, the differentiation is going to continue (even if it is potentially to the detriment of a more stream-lined gameplay), because that's what 40K does best. For a less minutia-focused, more "game-oriented" game, GW has other products.
There's a new discussion thread here probably every two weeks demanding that 40K moves from a D6 system to a D10 or D20 or something to provide more granularity in the stats to model exactly these kind of differences.
For the moment, GW has chosen to model these differences with added special rules. E.g. the "unique" rule of the Imperial Guard used to be "Orders" compared to the "unique" rule of Space Marines being "Chapter Tactics", but because people loved the "Chapter Tactics" idea to give random differently-coloured sub-factions a unique "flavour/personality", they ported that concept over to Imperial Guard (and every other faction).
If anything, the differentiation is going to continue (even if it is potentially to the detriment of a more stream-lined gameplay), because that's what 40K does best. For a less minutia-focused, more "game-oriented" game, GW has other products.
I feel like And They Shall Know No Fear is actually closer to the equivalent for orders since orders were given to every IG army just like ATSKNF. Chapter tactics certainly were a thing and maybe it was a combination of the 2, but nobody elses army wide rule adjusted depending on which sub faction you wanted to represent.
It's a wholistic experience where the various elements reinforce each other.
That's demonstrably untrue.
One only has to look at the people who enjoy the lore and the game but don't want to paint their models because that aspect is of no interest to them.
Or the people who enjoy the lore and collect, build and paint models but don't actually play the game.
Not everyone is interested in every aspect of a hobby.
Regardless, as far as lore goes, IMO it should be used to determine the overall theme, flavour and playstyle for each army. However, it should still stand within the framework of the game and so the attributes and general power of a given unit should be somewhat flexible, and appropriate for the other units. It should should probably also take into account that the lore tends to be Marine-centric and this will likely exaggerate their overall power.
As an example, I believe the lore suggest that a single SM is worth something in the region of 1000 Imperial Guardsmen. It seems very likely that this was a blatant exaggeration to begin with, but even if we take it as gospel, 1 space marine per 1000 guardsmen is obviously completely impractical for a wargame, so SMs would need to be toned down accordingly.
Does that make sense?
Like, lore should definitely inform a race's playstyle (e.g. Marines should be tough, elite, fearless, tactical, and focus on force-concentration and precision attacks; Dark Eldar also focus on precision attacks, but are individually less durable and so instead focus much more on speed and evasion, using various dirty tricks and dark pseudo-magical devices to get the edge, Imperial Guard should embody the mantra 'quantity has a quality all of its own', being worse individually than any other army and instead focusing on sheer manpower and attrition).
But for most units, power level should tend towards what's better for the game, rather than what's closer to the lore.
It's a wholistic experience where the various elements reinforce each other.
That's demonstrably untrue.
One only has to look at the people who enjoy the lore and the game but don't want to paint their models because that aspect is of no interest to them.
Or the people who enjoy the lore and collect, build and paint models but don't actually play the game.
Not everyone is interested in every aspect of a hobby.
Regardless, as far as lore goes, IMO it should be used to determine the overall theme, flavour and playstyle for each army. However, it should still stand within the framework of the game and so the attributes and general power of a given unit should be somewhat flexible, and appropriate for the other units. It should should probably also take into account that the lore tends to be Marine-centric and this will likely exaggerate their overall power.
As an example, I believe the lore suggest that a single SM is worth something in the region of 1000 Imperial Guardsmen. It seems very likely that this was a blatant exaggeration to begin with, but even if we take it as gospel, 1 space marine per 1000 guardsmen is obviously completely impractical for a wargame, so SMs would need to be toned down accordingly.
Does that make sense?
Like, lore should definitely inform a race's playstyle (e.g. Marines should be tough, elite, fearless, tactical, and focus on force-concentration and precision attacks; Dark Eldar also focus on precision attacks, but are individually less durable and so instead focus much more on speed and evasion, using various dirty tricks and dark pseudo-magical devices to get the edge, Imperial Guard should embody the mantra 'quantity has a quality all of its own', being worse individually than any other army and instead focusing on sheer manpower and attrition).
But for most units, power level should tend towards what's better for the game, rather than what's closer to the lore.
I think the lore should inform the game, and that GW should write the lore carefully to make for a balanced game.
The fact that the lore is not written carefully is the source of most of the cognitive dissonance befalling players. One could argue that means I think the game should inform the lore, which is also true (they should be interwoven).
Unit1126PLL wrote: I think the lore should inform the game, and that GW should write the lore carefully to make for a balanced game.
The fact that the lore is not written carefully is the source of most of the cognitive dissonance befalling players. One could argue that means I think the game should inform the lore, which is also true (they should be interwoven).
To get to this point GW would need to pull a Disney Starwars, turn every piece of lore that came before into Legends and start a new official canon where each release going forward is carefully curated to build that story with all aspects of the hobby working in conjunction.
Unit1126PLL wrote: I think the lore should inform the game, and that GW should write the lore carefully to make for a balanced game.
The fact that the lore is not written carefully is the source of most of the cognitive dissonance befalling players. One could argue that means I think the game should inform the lore, which is also true (they should be interwoven).
To get to this point GW would need to pull a Disney Starwars, turn every piece of lore that came before into Legends and start a new official canon where each release going forward is carefully curated to build that story with all aspects of the hobby working in conjunction.
It should be. It never will be.
They've already shifted from satire to playing it straight, so they've already done this in a way. The old satirical lore doesn't fit with the new stuff at all.
Unit1126PLL wrote: I think the lore should inform the game, and that GW should write the lore carefully to make for a balanced game.
The fact that the lore is not written carefully is the source of most of the cognitive dissonance befalling players. One could argue that means I think the game should inform the lore, which is also true (they should be interwoven).
To get to this point GW would need to pull a Disney Starwars, turn every piece of lore that came before into Legends and start a new official canon where each release going forward is carefully curated to build that story with all aspects of the hobby working in conjunction.
It should be. It never will be.
Well, a lot of stuff "should be" but "never will be." If we're talking design philosophy, this is how the design should be prosecuted imo.
Unit1126PLL wrote: I think the lore should inform the game, and that GW should write the lore carefully to make for a balanced game.
The fact that the lore is not written carefully is the source of most of the cognitive dissonance befalling players. One could argue that means I think the game should inform the lore, which is also true (they should be interwoven).
To get to this point GW would need to pull a Disney Starwars, turn every piece of lore that came before into Legends and start a new official canon where each release going forward is carefully curated to build that story with all aspects of the hobby working in conjunction.
It should be. It never will be.
They've already shifted from satire to playing it straight, so they've already done this in a way. The old satirical lore doesn't fit with the new stuff at all.
Yeah but they haven't wiped it. There is nothing that tells us this story happened and this story didn't or whatever. An old story has a group of space marines break into a tyranid bioship and run into a norn queen. And while that story is SOMETIMES eluded to in a very vague way in the codexes over the last couple editions the only reference to a norn queen that has existed since 6th ed is the bio artifact a norn crown that makes your synapse range 6" larger. So do Norn queens exist or don't they? We don't know!
And the game just makes up new gak to justify new models all the time. And the novels are sometimes written to adjust to that new gak and they ignore or don't the old stuff as needed. Nobody knows whats canon and so it's impossible to use any of it as a basis for anything. GW isn't organized enough to take control.
Unit1126PLL wrote: I think the lore should inform the game, and that GW should write the lore carefully to make for a balanced game.
The fact that the lore is not written carefully is the source of most of the cognitive dissonance befalling players. One could argue that means I think the game should inform the lore, which is also true (they should be interwoven).
Why?
If they want a more balanced game, they could simply make a new game to go with the new, more balanced fluff (hello Underworlds?).
No need to crash the old 40K-lady for something the game was never meant to be in the first place.
Unit1126PLL wrote: I think the lore should inform the game, and that GW should write the lore carefully to make for a balanced game.
The fact that the lore is not written carefully is the source of most of the cognitive dissonance befalling players. One could argue that means I think the game should inform the lore, which is also true (they should be interwoven).
Why?
If they want a more balanced game, they could simply make a new game to go with the new, more balanced fluff (hello Underworlds?).
No need to crash the old 40K-lady for something the game was never meant to be in the first place.
Because there are much better games out there for gamers; the primary draw of 40k is the lore. Plus, why shouldn't the play of a game match the lore?
It's like asking why a WWII game should be based in WWII...
Unit1126PLL wrote: I think the lore should inform the game, and that GW should write the lore carefully to make for a balanced game.
The fact that the lore is not written carefully is the source of most of the cognitive dissonance befalling players. One could argue that means I think the game should inform the lore, which is also true (they should be interwoven).
Why?
If they want a more balanced game, they could simply make a new game to go with the new, more balanced fluff (hello Underworlds?).
No need to crash the old 40K-lady for something the game was never meant to be in the first place.
Because there are much better games out there for gamers; the primary draw of 40k is the lore. Plus, why shouldn't the play of a game match the lore?
It's like asking why a WWII game should be based in WWII...
Fortunately the facts of WWII aren't nearly as malleable as the "facts" of 40K.
Unit1126PLL wrote: I think the lore should inform the game, and that GW should write the lore carefully to make for a balanced game.
The fact that the lore is not written carefully is the source of most of the cognitive dissonance befalling players. One could argue that means I think the game should inform the lore, which is also true (they should be interwoven).
Why?
If they want a more balanced game, they could simply make a new game to go with the new, more balanced fluff (hello Underworlds?).
No need to crash the old 40K-lady for something the game was never meant to be in the first place.
40k was born with the game. Rogue Trader was a game before it ever started producing books. The fluff WAS written for the game to sell models and explain armies. Let's not pretend it was ever anything else. It's not like Dragonlance and Drizzit novels are the reason the forgotten realms and dragon lance settings exist. Those books were written to flesh out and supplement the game. Not the other way around.
I am sorry that you are so invested in the one pillar that you take offense to the others not bowing to it.
Dismissing the "minutae" of the lore is just as dumb as someone being dismissive of "a few inches short" on a charge or so "just push the models in", because they don't care so much for the gaming side and/or feel the game-mechanics dont reflect other parts of the hobby in the way they feel they should.
All parts need to be respected.
I have played against people that never read the lore, because they don't understand english and against people that never painted their armies. I have also seen people buy models just to paint and sell them, and never play the game once in a span of over 2 years. There very much are separate things, and one does not require the other, nor does it somehow stop you from enjoying one of the three. I bought a second hand army, it was already painted. I have not painted a single model in my life, it didn't stop me from not ejoying 8th ed and enjoying 9th ed.
So no the parts don't have to be respected, what ever that is suppose to mean, not when enjoying one of the "pillars" doesn't require to enjoy the other.
At the same time telling people that the thing they do care about isn't as bad, because they just have to learn to enjoy something they don't care about is stupid. It is like telling someone dieing from hunger, that they can enjoy the beauty of nature not tainted by civilisation.
SecondTime wrote: Fortunately the facts of WWII aren't nearly as malleable as the "facts" of 40K.
But this is a deliberate choice on the part of the person (people) writing the facts, and my argument is they should've chosen differently. You can't play a wargame set in lala land where there are no rules and everything is just five year olds on a playground. Only, in this case, the five year olds are the game designers.
"I can shoot you to death with my shuriken weapons!" "NUH UH, I have two wounds because I'm a SPACE MARINE!" "Oh yeah? Well every army's weapons are D2 now!" "Nooo! You can't - oh, my Dreadnoughts reduce all damage by 1, because they're SO LOYAL!!"
40k was born with the game. Rogue Trader was a game before it ever started producing books. The fluff WAS written for the game to sell models and explain armies. Let's not pretend it was ever anything else. It's not like Dragonlance and Drizzit novels are the reason the forgotten realms and dragon lance settings exist. Those books were written to flesh out and supplement the game. Not the other way around.
I am sorry that you are so invested in the one pillar that you take offense to the others not bowing to it.
It was a game born to sell miniatures. GW sold random pewter figures for middle earth, DnD, etc.. before they ever chose to make a "game" to sell the miniatures. Not the other way around.
The rulebooks, codexes, etc.. are just fancy sales pamphlets for the miniatures, paint pots, etc..
I am sorry that you are so invested in that those sales pamphlets that you take offence to the fact that the ad-tail isn't wagging the main-product dog.
40k was born with the game. Rogue Trader was a game before it ever started producing books. The fluff WAS written for the game to sell models and explain armies. Let's not pretend it was ever anything else. It's not like Dragonlance and Drizzit novels are the reason the forgotten realms and dragon lance settings exist. Those books were written to flesh out and supplement the game. Not the other way around.
I am sorry that you are so invested in the one pillar that you take offense to the others not bowing to it.
It was a game born to sell miniatures. GW sold random pewter figures for middle earth, DnD, etc.. before they ever chose to make a "game" to sell the miniatures. Not the other way around.
The rulebooks, codexes, etc.. are just fancy sales pamphlets for the miniatures, paint pots, etc..
I am sorry that you are so invested in that those sales pamphlets that you take offence to the fact that the ad-tail isn't wagging the main-product dog.
I am not! I am happy for the models to be super intricate and great with options and whatever else makes for an excellent model.
I am so happy that modeling has improved as it has over the years so that modelers and painters have so much more to work with. It's great. No sarcasm. I love it. But over here in the pillar that is the game I don't need to differentiate between a tank top and a leather jacket. It doesn't make the model better. And it arguably actively hurts the game.
40k was born with the game. Rogue Trader was a game before it ever started producing books. The fluff WAS written for the game to sell models and explain armies. Let's not pretend it was ever anything else. It's not like Dragonlance and Drizzit novels are the reason the forgotten realms and dragon lance settings exist. Those books were written to flesh out and supplement the game. Not the other way around.
I am sorry that you are so invested in the one pillar that you take offense to the others not bowing to it.
It was a game born to sell miniatures. GW sold random pewter figures for middle earth, DnD, etc.. before they ever chose to make a "game" to sell the miniatures. Not the other way around.
The rulebooks, codexes, etc.. are just fancy sales pamphlets for the miniatures, paint pots, etc..
I am sorry that you are so invested in that those sales pamphlets that you take offence to the fact that the ad-tail isn't wagging the main-product dog.
I am not! I am happy for the models to be super intricate and great with options and whatever else makes for an excellent model.
I am so happy that modeling has improved as it has over the years so that modelers and painters have so much more to work with. It's great. No sarcasm. I love it. But over here in the pillar that is the game I don't need to differentiate between a tank top and a leather jacket. It doesn't make the model better. And it arguably actively hurts the game.
Well not at the scale we are playing at, at any rate. In like, few-on-few gladiator fights (warcry) you could account for such things - or a 1 person = 1 person game like DND.
40k was born with the game. Rogue Trader was a game before it ever started producing books. The fluff WAS written for the game to sell models and explain armies. Let's not pretend it was ever anything else. It's not like Dragonlance and Drizzit novels are the reason the forgotten realms and dragon lance settings exist. Those books were written to flesh out and supplement the game. Not the other way around.
I am sorry that you are so invested in the one pillar that you take offense to the others not bowing to it.
It was a game born to sell miniatures. GW sold random pewter figures for middle earth, DnD, etc.. before they ever chose to make a "game" to sell the miniatures. Not the other way around.
The rulebooks, codexes, etc.. are just fancy sales pamphlets for the miniatures, paint pots, etc..
I am sorry that you are so invested in that those sales pamphlets that you take offence to the fact that the ad-tail isn't wagging the main-product dog.
I am not! I am happy for the models to be super intricate and great with options and whatever else makes for an excellent model.
I am so happy that modeling has improved as it has over the years so that modelers and painters have so much more to work with. It's great. No sarcasm. I love it. But over here in the pillar that is the game I don't need to differentiate between a tank top and a leather jacket. It doesn't make the model better. And it arguably actively hurts the game.
Well not at the scale we are playing at, at any rate. In like, few-on-few gladiator fights (warcry) you could account for such things - or a 1 person = 1 person game like DND.
Agreed. Necromunda. Killteam. Games that zoom in on the individual much more is where that level of minutia can function as a part of the game and not be a hindrance.
Only by the design-goals you ascribe to Warhammer 40K (and to Necromunda, etc..).
I don't think you have a good understanding of what type of game, what type of audience GW is trying to get with 40K (and on the other hand with things like Kill Team, Underworlds, etc..).
If anything, it's the latter that want to peel off from the more game-oriented, competitively minded MtG, X-Wing, Infinity, etc.. crowd, while the former ... just doesn't want to do that. And would be the worst possible game in GW's catalog to try doing that.
SecondTime wrote: Fortunately the facts of WWII aren't nearly as malleable as the "facts" of 40K.
But this is a deliberate choice on the part of the person (people) writing the facts, and my argument is they should've chosen differently. You can't play a wargame set in lala land where there are no rules and everything is just five year olds on a playground. Only, in this case, the five year olds are the game designers.
"I can shoot you to death with my shuriken weapons!"
"NUH UH, I have two wounds because I'm a SPACE MARINE!"
"Oh yeah? Well every army's weapons are D2 now!"
"Nooo! You can't - oh, my Dreadnoughts reduce all damage by 1, because they're SO LOYAL!!"
Well, yes. 40K needs a unified narrative free of propaganda viewpoints so they can implement mathematical models for these units. But, you know. Gotta sell those marines.
Only by the design-goals you ascribe to Warhammer 40K (and to Necromunda, etc..).
I don't think you have a good understanding of what type of game, what type of audience GW is trying to get with 40K (and on the other hand with things like Kill Team, Underworlds, etc..).
If anything, it's the latter that want to peel off from the more game-oriented, competitively minded MtG, X-Wing, Infinity, etc.. crowd, while the former ... just doesn't want to do that. And would be the worst possible game in GW's catalog to try doing that.
Personally, I don't think GW knows what type of game they are making with 40k. It's such a fething mess.
But claiming I don't know comes with some kind of assumption that you do? Or are you in the same boat as every other person who doesn't work in GWs office? You can try to explain the mechanical benefits of that level of minutia with the models if you want to. I am listening.
SecondTime wrote: Fortunately the facts of WWII aren't nearly as malleable as the "facts" of 40K.
But this is a deliberate choice on the part of the person (people) writing the facts, and my argument is they should've chosen differently. You can't play a wargame set in lala land where there are no rules and everything is just five year olds on a playground. Only, in this case, the five year olds are the game designers.
"I can shoot you to death with my shuriken weapons!"
"NUH UH, I have two wounds because I'm a SPACE MARINE!"
"Oh yeah? Well every army's weapons are D2 now!"
"Nooo! You can't - oh, my Dreadnoughts reduce all damage by 1, because they're SO LOYAL!!"
Well, yes. 40K needs a unified narrative free of propaganda viewpoints so they can implement mathematical models for these units. But, you know. Gotta sell those marines.
You can preserve the propaganda viewpoint fluff as long as you, yourself, are aware that they're propaganda.
For example, in the 5th edition IG codex, there's a blurb about an air-defense regiment equipped with Hydras that got a kill ratio of 99,999-1 fighting Orks. I don't think anyone, including the game designers, took that number seriously. Simply publishing propagandistic bolter-porn isn't the error; the error is in not having a single unified idea of how the world works.
SecondTime wrote: Fortunately the facts of WWII aren't nearly as malleable as the "facts" of 40K.
But this is a deliberate choice on the part of the person (people) writing the facts, and my argument is they should've chosen differently. You can't play a wargame set in lala land where there are no rules and everything is just five year olds on a playground. Only, in this case, the five year olds are the game designers.
"I can shoot you to death with my shuriken weapons!"
"NUH UH, I have two wounds because I'm a SPACE MARINE!"
"Oh yeah? Well every army's weapons are D2 now!"
"Nooo! You can't - oh, my Dreadnoughts reduce all damage by 1, because they're SO LOYAL!!"
Well, yes. 40K needs a unified narrative free of propaganda viewpoints so they can implement mathematical models for these units. But, you know. Gotta sell those marines.
You can preserve the propaganda viewpoint fluff as long as you, yourself, are aware that they're propaganda.
For example, in the 5th edition IG codex, there's a blurb about an air-defense regiment equipped with Hydras that got a kill ratio of 99,999-1 fighting Orks. I don't think anyone, including the game designers, took that number seriously. Simply publishing propagandistic bolter-porn isn't the error; the error is in not having a single unified idea of how the world works.
Thats' not sufficient. There needs to be a factual narrative somewhere to inform design decisions.
Right, that's what I mean by a unified idea of how the world works. The design team, GW, and the novel writers all need a coherent world to live in.
The novel writers can write bolter-porn novels for people, but to the game designers, core writer team, and GW itself, they're propaganda. So that when another novelist writes, say, a Chaos-themed novel, then it can be propaganda the other way (or a brute and truthful retelling, even). That way, you get deviation and fluctuation in the lore and freedom to write your own stories, but very little of it is "true."
The core inherent way the universe operates is preserved in the aforementioned Unified Idea (now in capitals!), and the game follows that Unified Idea. That way, the universe is balanced on a knife-edge (as the overall narrative has sought to portray things!) and the game is balanced as well, while remaining lore-friendly.
If you Unified Idea has one faction that just trounces everyone, then it's boring narratively AND unbalanced on the tabletop, so don't do that. Duh.
The novels can have propaganda in them but the events that takes place cannot be propaganda. It should have the propaganda being broadcasted around. Reports written and filed based on it. But then when the rubber reaches road and the space marines start fighting and taking losses it should reflect the reality of the world. All the amazing genetic and technological advancements is just so they can keep up.
Only by the design-goals you ascribe to Warhammer 40K (and to Necromunda, etc..).
I don't think you have a good understanding of what type of game, what type of audience GW is trying to get with 40K (and on the other hand with things like Kill Team, Underworlds, etc..).
From my perspective, I'm not sure GW has a specific audience in mind really beyond "geeks who like to play with plastic space monsters and toy soldiers", and their rules appear to increasingly be written to try and encompass everyone. 40k's rules are written such that it sells itself as something on a platoon/company level wargame, but encompasses everything from nurglings up through 100ft+ tall titans, wanting to portray entire tank companies in battle and incorporating literal strategic weapons into tactical skirmishes, while also insisting on making stats, and rolling, for individual grot blasters, diving into deep RPG detail and unit abstraction in about the exact opposite direction of what you'd expect from a wargame on platoon/company scale. 40k's design goals appear to basically be a sandbox where anything GW makes from their IP's can be used and have something to roll dice for or influence dice rolls to make it feel special and cool no matter how big or small (or appropriateness to the general scale), with little thought or intent beyond that. As a mechanism for getting people to buy models, that's great. As a game design paradigm, that's not such a great philosophy.
Personally, I don't think GW knows what type of game they are making with 40k. It's such a fething mess.
But claiming I don't know comes with some kind of assumption that you do? Or are you in the same boat as every other person who doesn't work in GWs office? You can try to explain the mechanical benefits of that level of minutia with the models if you want to. I am listening.
As said above, whether it has mechanical benefits or drawbacks is of secondary concern.
If 40K is the "show-off-your-miniatures-collection-game" more than the "smooth-game-mechanics-game" (like Underworlds or Kill Team), it has the benefit of advertising different miniatures and provides a reason for people to want both tank-top and leather jacket miniatures in their collection. It harmonises more naturally with the buying habits of people that place higher priority on the "miniature" and "hobby" pillar, as you called them. Whereas there are other games available on GWs website and in the market more generally that cater more and better to people that place higher priority on the "game" pillar, to use your venacular.
And yes, we are in the same boat of not being in a GW office. As explained above, my assumptions are partly based on observing GW trying to make 40K a more streamlined, "game-pillar-game" in 3rd and 4th edition and almost going bankrupt over it. Doesn't make my view "more right", but neither have I seen arguments supporting the idea that the niche GW wants to fill with 40K when they do pie-charts and power-point presentations with their sales team would align with your ideal.
Vaktathi wrote: 40k's design goals appear to basically be a sandbox where anything GW makes from their IP's can be used and have something to roll dice for or influence dice rolls to make it feel special and cool no matter how big or small (or appropriateness to the general scale), with little thought or intent beyond that. As a mechanism for getting people to buy models, that's great. As a game design paradigm, that's not such a great philosophy.
I've never thought about it that way but you are 100% right on the money. Any time I look at the game from a game design lens, step 1 is trimming the fat off low-level equipment and granular options; things that modelers might expect to have specific rules rather than be baked into a more generic stat profile.
Great. So when I said that emulating the level of minutia that would be a tank top versus a leather jacket would be bad for the game your argument is...
"Probably, but I don't care because I prefer fluff!"
Right? Thats where we are at?
If thats the case then I am happy for you to have your opinion but your opinion is frankly useless for any discussion about the mechanics of the game and what "should be". I.E. this discussion about bespoke datasheets and war gear versus consolidated ones. If you decide to have anything of value to add I am happy to hear it.
Lance845 wrote: Great. So when I said that emulating the level of minutia that would be a tank top versus a leather jacket would be bad for the game your argument is...
"Probably, but I don't care because I prefer fluff!"
Right? Thats where we are at?
If thats the case then I am happy for you to have your opinion but your opinion is frankly useless for any discussion about the mechanics of the game and what "should be". I.E. this discussion about bespoke datasheets and war gear versus consolidated ones. If you decide to have anything of value to add I am happy to hear it.
Well, imagine there are two games.
A) One game, something like Underworlds or Blood Bowl, that comes with easy two, max-three part snap-fit miniatures in pre-coloured plastic that can be assembled in minutes. Game also includes a board to play on straight out of the box, has official "organised play" support from GW itself. Rules come in cards or decks, similar to MtG, etc.. that rotate in and out of seasons. Etc..
B) The other game, something like 40K, comes with insanely complicated diorama pieces like the Silent King that by itself cost multiples of most games, is made from hundreds of delicate pieces that takes many hobbyists weeks, if not months to assemble (let alone paint), not to mention myriads of insane details (or "minutia" like tiny repair scarabs on the inside of plastic panels you won't even ever see after the model is fully assembled). To play the game, you also need additional hundred of Euros worth of boxes, construct your own terrain. Not to mention you'll probably need to invest into specialised transport to even move the thing around without breaking, etc..
Looking in from the outside, which one of those two games would be the one most people would consider (or "assume") to be the game for the "I am not super into-painting/hobby and mostly a game-pillar-type-gamer" and which one of those two games would be the game for people "I am obsessed with "minutia" and details hobby-pillar-type-gamers"?
Lance845 wrote: Great. So when I said that emulating the level of minutia that would be a tank top versus a leather jacket would be bad for the game your argument is...
"Probably, but I don't care because I prefer fluff!"
Right? Thats where we are at?
If thats the case then I am happy for you to have your opinion but your opinion is frankly useless for any discussion about the mechanics of the game and what "should be". I.E. this discussion about bespoke datasheets and war gear versus consolidated ones. If you decide to have anything of value to add I am happy to hear it.
Well, imagine there are two games.
A) One game, something like Underworlds or Blood Bowl, that comes with easy two, max-three part snap-fit miniatures in pre-coloured plastic that can be assembled in minutes. Game also includes a board to play on straight out of the box, has official "organised play" support from GW itself. Rules come in cards or decks, similar to MtG, etc.. that rotate in and out of seasons. Etc..
B) The other game, something like 40K, comes with insanely complicated diorama pieces like the Silent King that by itself cost multiples of most games, is made from hundreds of delicate pieces that takes many hobbyists weeks, if not months to assemble (let alone paint), not to mention myriads of insane details (or "minutia" like tiny repair scarabs on the inside of plastic panels you won't even ever see after the model is fully assembled). To play the game, you also need additional hundred of Euros worth of boxes, construct your own terrain. Not to mention you'll probably need to invest into specialised transport to even move the thing around without breaking, etc..
Looking in from the outside, which one of those two games would be the one most people would consider (or "assume") to be the game for the "I am not super into-painting/hobby and mostly a game-pillar-type-gamer" and which one of those two games would be the game for people "I am obsessed with "minutia" and details hobby-pillar-type-gamers"?
And assumptions are always correct!
If it weren't for Covid, I could get a game of 40k. I couldn't necessarily get a game of Underworlds.
Moreover, I like having customizable armies. Maybe not down to the sergeant's pistol, but hero's gear? That should be mine to pick and choose, in a game like 40k. (Which GW has failed to deliver, at least for my Daemons, in any significant capacity.)
Acknowledging the fact that GW doesn't really care that much about balance, I'd at least like to be able to personalize my army heavily without having to make stuff up. I'd like 40k to be a well-balanced game, but since that's not likely, at least let me deck my Heralds out however I please.
Fundamentally, the problem is that 40k isn't a good game, but has lots of traction because:
1) A pervasive and frankly interesting IP/lore.
2) Popularity and inertia (and therefore accessibility)
If it weren't for Covid, I could get a game of 40k. I couldn't necessarily get a game of Underworlds.
Moreover, I like having customizable armies. Maybe not down to the sergeant's pistol, but hero's gear? That should be mine to pick and choose, in a game like 40k. (Which GW has failed to deliver, at least for my Daemons, in any significant capacity.)
Acknowledging the fact that GW doesn't really care that much about balance, I'd at least like to be able to personalize my army heavily without having to make stuff up. I'd like 40k to be a well-balanced game, but since that's not likely, at least let me deck my Heralds out however I please.
You might like 40K to be a highly-balanced game for competitive play and couldn't care less about Underworlds.
And you might be able to catch a competitive ITC 40K game at the FLGS and not be able to get a round of Underworlds to save your life.
But that is your perspective and your hopes/ideals/wishes for 40K.
Unless you have a higher management position at GW, that presumably has no impact on how GW positions their products in their portfolio.
Of course my assumptions don't necessarily have to be correct. But if the shoe fits, why not?
I like myself a good competitive 40K tournament as much as anyone. But that doesn't mean I am blind to the "fact" (or assumption) that this is using 40K somewhat against the grain of its design-DNA (at least compared to things like Underworlds, Infinity, Warmachine, etc... not to mention straight up competitive Chess, etc..).
A) One game, something like Underworlds or Blood Bowl, that comes with easy two, max-three part snap-fit miniatures in pre-coloured plastic that can be assembled in minutes.
Game also includes a board to play on straight out of the box,
has official "organised play" support from GW itself.
Nothing. Seems like the product you're looking for, no?
It has much more streamlined datasheets for the units too, stripped of a lot of "minutia" like strats, chapter tactics, command protocols, all that jazz.
Everything you were saying was "not 40k" in your "example a" is everything they have produced for 40k. Your idea of what 40k is or is not is just wrong.
Lance845 wrote: Everything you were saying was "not 40k" in your "example a" is everything they have produced for 40k. Your idea of what 40k is or is not is just wrong.
Everything I said was in example B is also in 40K (but not in the other games).
Not sure how that refutes my point that 40K has thus a stronger pitch to hobbyists/painters/miniature-enthusiasts than Underworlds or Blood Bowl. But if you say so. I am happy to hear your argument why your claim that streamlined mechanics are a design goal for 40K for the people over at Nottingham.
If 40k is supposed to be all about the minutia and customization, how come my Nurgle Daemons only have 10 options?
That's across all my units.
I dont know. Perhaps so there is an army in 40K for people like Lance845 and yourself that appreciate a more austere approach and would be turned away by things like bespoke rules for Catachans vs. Cadians?
Thus far, the argument was that 40K has allegedly too many minutia, now you're saying it has not enough?
Lance845 wrote: Great. So when I said that emulating the level of minutia that would be a tank top versus a leather jacket would be bad for the game your argument is...
"Probably, but I don't care because I prefer fluff!"
Right? Thats where we are at?
If thats the case then I am happy for you to have your opinion but your opinion is frankly useless for any discussion about the mechanics of the game and what "should be". I.E. this discussion about bespoke datasheets and war gear versus consolidated ones. If you decide to have anything of value to add I am happy to hear it.
Respectfully, that is not at all what I meant nor is it, I think, what Vaktathi meant either. We were remarking on why things are the way they are rather than saying this is how it should be; Vaktathi arguing that the messy inconsistencies of 40K are due to an everything-and-the-kitchen-sink approach to the game rather than an attempt to appeal to a specific target audience.
If it were up to me, I would have framed the gameplay side of the hobby, specifically the 'three ways to play' concept, at different scales of game rather than different rulesets.
You would have the Kill Team level where everything is represented in granular detail and it matters what kinds of grenade your dudes are carrying. Maybe have it still be squad-based like 40K, but with looser coherency requirements and maybe more of a command system for fireteam leaders. The largest scale this could operate at would be the old RT/2nd Ed scale where you might have one tank and that's it.
Then a 40K level, minus the Titans, and with LoWs exceptionally rare and only suited to the largest battles. Abstract out more of the low end of equipment and squad coherency, purging some of those minute differences. If you care whether your sergeant is armed with a power axe or power sword, you play the Kill Team level; this is about armies.
And then an Apocalypse level where infantry are abstracted out into block statlines, formations of vehicles are common, and the big Titans can come out to play.
Or to put it another way: I don't think the problem is 40K trying to give you rules for everything you could model, I think it's trying to give all those rules simultaneously. There are times when I want to simulate my lovingly converted badass characters cutting down mooks in single combat, and there are times when I want to simulate mass infantry assaults supported by superheavy tanks, but those are not the same game. I don't need rules for aircraft in the former, and I don't need rules for individual grenade types in the latter. Focusing on a coherent scale greatly streamlines design.
As long as you can play the smaller-scale games when you want that kind of granularity, but still field those individual models in the more abstract larger-scale games, then you get the best of both worlds. This also allows hobbyists to lean into what scale they care about, rather than try to accommodate the guys who want to convert a band of heroes and the guys who want to field an entire battalion with the exact same game.
Lance845 wrote: Great. So when I said that emulating the level of minutia that would be a tank top versus a leather jacket would be bad for the game your argument is...
"Probably, but I don't care because I prefer fluff!"
Right? Thats where we are at?
If thats the case then I am happy for you to have your opinion but your opinion is frankly useless for any discussion about the mechanics of the game and what "should be". I.E. this discussion about bespoke datasheets and war gear versus consolidated ones. If you decide to have anything of value to add I am happy to hear it.
Respectfully, that is not at all what I meant nor is it, I think, what Vaktathi meant either.
I was responding to Sunny. Sorry catbarf. We were both posting at the same time and you got in first. That being said I agree with your 3 ways to play. It's what I was really hoping for and we didn't get. 3 ways to play was really just 2 ways to build your army and some missions.
Lance845 wrote: Because I am not arguing that they have a goal.
1) I can't know what they want to do. I don't argue assumptions as facts.
2) They don't seem to have any plan at all. Or if they do, they seem to be to disorganized to follow through on it.
You don't have a stronger pitch. You just have your perspective and your wants.
I have no wants regarding 40K.
I play the game on the market that fits my personal preference the best. Which atm happens to be 40K.
If 40K moves into a direction that I don't enjoy (or my preferences change), I pick a different game.
You're the one sitting in a McDonalds arguing they should be Pizza Hut because you prefer pizza, instead of just heading over to Pizza Hut.
Welcome to DakkaDakka. It's a website where a bunch of people discuss the state of the game and what they think it should be while asking a lot of "why the hell did they do x". If you are not up for that kind of discusion I am not sure you are going to find much to talk about here.
Welcome to DakkaDakka. It's a website where a bunch of people discuss the state of the game and what they think it should be while asking a lot of "why the hell did they do x". If you are not up for that kind of discusion I am not sure you are going to find much to talk about here.
Well, we're discussing, no? I already explained what I think 40K is, tries to be, emphasises, to what type of gamers/hobbyists it tries to appeal to (and thereby currently appeals to me), and why GW should continue to go into that direction with 40K (while simultaneously offering other games that have different qualities and appeal to different gamers).
I found no scarcity of things to talk about so far.
Or in other words, the benefit of ultra-precise datasheets as is the (publicly asked) question of this thread is it's hobby/minutia-focus that is IMO among 40K's core strengths and a big reason I am a 40K-customer atm.
Lance845 wrote: The only value is emotional for the people who really like to have their own unique datasheet. Mechanically and practically there is none.
Further this can get applied to war gear as well. It has been argued that having power axe, power sword, power spear, etc etc... is a waste. Just have a singular stat line for power weapon and then the player is free to model whatever weapon they want onto the model to flavor it however they see fit.
The extra granularity isn't actually helping anything and doesn't actually make that big of a difference while the modeling options would become vastly better.
Thanks. You are rock solid evidence that I was correct when I respond to the OP back on page 1.
I dont know. Perhaps so there is an army in 40K for people like Lance845 and yourself that appreciate a more austere approach and would be turned away by things like bespoke rules for Catachans vs. Cadians?
Thus far, the argument was that 40K has allegedly too many minutia, now you're saying it has not enough?
Cadians getting to reroll hits and catachans having +1S is the bespoke rules they get....
Lance845 wrote: No. I quoted myself to show it to you. I was speaking to you. Sorry if that was confusing for you.
Ahh, ok.
As I said. I was there when 40K was in 4th Edition and did exactly that. Generic power weapon rules. Generic daemon rules. Etc...
It sounds somewhat plausible on paper, but ultimately destroys the immersion and richness of the game as too many players in turn settle for the bland minimum. I prefer 9th Ed.
Perhaps in some part because there are too many people in 40K that don't put sufficient effort into the hobby aspect. Maybe the simpler-rules-for-hobby-freedom-approach can work in some distant future when the community as a whole puts significantly more effort to the hobby/narrative side and each and every army I ever meet at a local RTT is a genuinely hobby-feast for the eyes and the lore enthusiast in me without needing minutia-prompts from GW?
My ideal for 40k is a tight, well-balanced game, that still has plenty of customization. But! I acknowledge that that is not GW's goal, and relatedly, not likely to ever happen.
But, with that in mind, what I'd like that's more realistic, is for there to be lots of customization. But there isn't-not for everyone. My Nurgle Daemons, across a dozen datasheets, have 10 options. 10. Total.
4th was a fantastic edition, I think, and one of the "peaks" of GW's market share ownership.
5th rode it out, but GW's marketshare dropped in 6th and 7th.
Then it climbed again in 8th, primarily due to the accessibility of the new edition and the promise indexes would bring back old models (e.g. from 4th edition) that people had lying around who ducked out of 6th or 7th...
Lance845 wrote: No. I quoted myself to show it to you. I was speaking to you. Sorry if that was confusing for you.
Ahh, ok.
As I said. I was there when 40K was in 4th Edition and did exactly that. Generic power weapon rules. Generic daemon rules. Etc...
It sounds somewhat plausible on paper, but ultimately destroys the immersion and richness of the game as too many players in turn settle for the bland minimum. I prefer 9th Ed.
Perhaps in some part because there are too many people in 40K that don't put sufficient effort into the hobby aspect. Maybe the simpler-rules-for-hobby-freedom-approach can work in some distant future when the community as a whole puts significantly more effort to the hobby/narrative side and each and every army I ever meet at a local RTT is a genuinely hobby-feast for the eyes and the lore enthusiast in me without needing minutia-prompts from GW?
GW is just as likely to create immersion breaking rules by being specific, though. Probably more so, because they have to write MOAR rules. 3rd ed might be the best version of 40K, and they achieved that by stripping out a lot of nonsense.
I suspect the secret to the success of 8th and 9th (even in the face of a pandemic that would've wiped the company in a month 10 years ago) is that GW today got it largely right.
Sunny Side Up wrote: I suspect the secret to the success of 8th and 9th (even in the face of a pandemic that would've wiped the company in a month 10 years ago) is that GW today got it largely right.
I don't think they got it largely right. I think they got it so catastrophically wrong in 6th and 7th that the improvements in 8th look right by comparison. They took HUGE strides forward. But the shiniest turd still goes in the toilet.
Sunny Side Up wrote: I suspect the secret to the success of 8th and 9th (even in the face of a pandemic that would've wiped the company in a month 10 years ago) is that GW today got it largely right.
I think they got it right enough to tempt players in - that's what I mean by accessibility. But I don't think there's any sign the game is actually retaining players - at the end of 8th, event attendance was relatively stable, after a huge boom at the beginning of the edition.
Note that there's nothing fluffier about 8th and 9th vs 4th in terms of options - some options are new, but other options have been removed (lemme mount my Chaos Lord on a Slaaneshi Seeker, like I could every edition before 8th- oh, oh I see..)
I never found generic power weapons to be flavorless or an issue in that regard, especially when most of the non-powered equivalents weren't differentiated, and I much preferred just being able to stick whatever weapon I thought looked coolest on instead of having to worry about which weapons did what and what weapon combo is now illegal or underpowered and whatnot. The differentiation at that level just isn't worth it, particularly when most of the time you'd have two nearly matched options and one clearly standout worst option if given a choice.
Generic Daemons were an issue because the various daemons genuinely had very divergent profiles and uses and there wasn't any unit options for differentiation or purpose, only size, and there really wasn't an actual daemon unit that really fit the profile offered.
Unit1126PLL wrote: 4th was a fantastic edition, I think, and one of the "peaks" of GW's market share ownership.
5th rode it out, but GW's marketshare dropped in 6th and 7th.
Then it climbed again in 8th, primarily due to the accessibility of the new edition and the promise indexes would bring back old models (e.g. from 4th edition) that people had lying around who ducked out of 6th or 7th...
That's not what the numbers say.
Spoiler:
4th released at one of the historic (laughable today, but so what) highpoints in 2004 at around 750 GBX, having just recovered from the "post-LotR"-hole and dropped GW into it's biggest whole at that point, dropping the share price down to sub-200 GBX.
5th Ed. launched in 2008 and started a 6-year climb through 5th and 6th that quadrupled the shareprice again (before the 7th-Ed. dip in 2014, which rightly killed off Tim Kirby, but was a fraction of the crash GW saw post 4th Edition).
Can I ask for a source and an uncropped version of that picture with a legend, please?
I don't know whether to look at the red and green bar graph, or the blue squiggly line, and you asserting it says what it says is something I'd like to verify myself.
What I see there is a calamitous plummet (the low point of the blue squiggly) when 5th released. I see a dip before that presumably due to LOTR's trilogy completing... but I just don't know what I am looking at.
Etc.. (click on interactive full-page visuals for each of those, once you're on the page)
Ah, I wash hoping you'd find something that differentiated the games. LOTR's reign of terror in early 2000s, combined with its subsequent loss of popularity due to GW's inept handling, is almost impossible to differentiate from the success or failure of 40k or fantasy. But I'll take a look.
additionally, there's a reason I said market share and not stock; there has been a recent surge of popularity in gaming in general, and you'd have to differentiate GW's success with 8th between "it's a better game" and "more people are getting into this previously niche hobby." Because you could say 8th is the most popular indisputably, but that doesn't have to mean it's a better game.
additionally, there's a reason I said market share and not stock; there has been a recent surge of popularity in gaming in general, and you'd have to differentiate GW's success with 8th between "it's a better game" and "more people are getting into this previously niche hobby." Because you could say 8th is the most popular indisputably, but that doesn't have to mean it's a better game.
Perhaps. Just saying there is a strong correlating (not necessarily causation) with 4th edition and a deep dive in GW share price, and a strong correlation with 5th / 6th and stock going up (also simultaneously to early-days-Kirby going scorched earth on the retail-chain, etc..).
Based on my experience as someone who has been playing in communities across the US, I would say that the community was strong and vibrant in 4th and 5th (which didn't differentiate power weapons), then plummeted in 6th and 7th, though by the end of 7th even I was playing HH to get away from the badness, and then picked up again in 8th, and seems to have stabilized in 9th.
What that generally tells me is that rules quality and community support has far more to do with the popularity of the game than philosophical distinctions about game design. GW could delete all power weapon type differentiation tomorrow and it wouldn't suddenly cause people to depart the hobby in droves, IMO.
We had one table flip and four quits over just conscript armies in 8th ed. I told the guy don't play the other guy with your conscript army, but he wouldn't listen...
Letting that get through testing (among other things) is why I don't give them many props for 8th.
Vaktathi wrote: I never found generic power weapons to be flavorless or an issue in that regard, especially when most of the non-powered equivalents weren't differentiated, and I much preferred just being able to stick whatever weapon I thought looked coolest on instead of having to worry about which weapons did what and what weapon combo is now illegal or underpowered and whatnot. The differentiation at that level just isn't worth it, particularly when most of the time you'd have two nearly matched options and one clearly standout worst option if given a choice.
Agreed- as is often said, meaningful choice is good, but the illusion of choice (a bunch of weapons that all have the same role and one is best) is bad.
Frankly, I think gamers pointing to things like that and complaining about lack of flavor is just a superficial, knee-jerk reaction to taking away an option, no matter how pointless the option was to start with. You'll hear people say that it ruins the flavor to treat power mauls and power axes the same, but somehow it's never been a problem that a Space Marine and a Grot are equally quick to react to the enemy and equally easy to command, or that an Eldar Aspect Warrior is no harder to hit than a Titan- simply because the game has never featured differential C&C or differential hit profiles to begin with.
catbarf wrote: Frankly, I think gamers pointing to things like that and complaining about lack of flavor is just a superficial, knee-jerk reaction to taking away an option, no matter how pointless the option was to start with. You'll hear people say that it ruins the flavor to treat power mauls and power axes the same, but somehow it's never been a problem that a Space Marine and a Grot are equally quick to react to the enemy and equally easy to command, or that an Eldar Aspect Warrior is no harder to hit than a Titan- simply because the game has never featured differential C&C or differential hit profiles to begin with.
I mean I'll complain about the latter two things, but I won't get anywhere except yelled at.
catbarf wrote: Frankly, I think gamers pointing to things like that and complaining about lack of flavor is just a superficial, knee-jerk reaction to taking away an option, no matter how pointless the option was to start with. You'll hear people say that it ruins the flavor to treat power mauls and power axes the same, but somehow it's never been a problem that a Space Marine and a Grot are equally quick to react to the enemy and equally easy to command, or that an Eldar Aspect Warrior is no harder to hit than a Titan- simply because the game has never featured differential C&C or differential hit profiles to begin with.
I mean I'll complain about the latter two things, but I won't get anywhere except yelled at.
I mean, I agree, which is why I brought them up. People hyperfocus on the idea of nitty-gritty wargear options conveying flavor when there are some really basic, high-level things that ought to be distinguishing units and factions but are currently absent.
The gameplay flavor to a Space Marine Captain shouldn't reflect in whether he's carrying an axe or a sword; it should be in the fact that he's a centuries-old combat veteran with perfect tactical coordination with his subordinates. A Drukhari Archon's flavor doesn't come from what kinds of grenades he's packing, it's from his superhuman speed and delight in killing. Even at the novels' most bolter-porny, they spend a lot more time talking about the capabilities of the characters than the raw mechanical nuances of their weapons; and if a weapon is singled out it's usually more about quality, not type. The sword of Hieronymo Sondar is important because it's a Master-Crafted Power Weapon and a badge of office, not because it's a sword rather than an axe which slightly reduces its strength but gives it +15% effectiveness against stop it I don't care.
If the game engine supports the variables that distinguish the factions in the lore, then it's trivial to represent those differences through gameplay without needing to get down in the weeds with wargear. A hero's characterization shouldn't stem from exactly what flavor of bladed implement he's carrying.
catbarf wrote: Frankly, I think gamers pointing to things like that and complaining about lack of flavor is just a superficial, knee-jerk reaction to taking away an option, no matter how pointless the option was to start with. You'll hear people say that it ruins the flavor to treat power mauls and power axes the same, but somehow it's never been a problem that a Space Marine and a Grot are equally quick to react to the enemy and equally easy to command, or that an Eldar Aspect Warrior is no harder to hit than a Titan- simply because the game has never featured differential C&C or differential hit profiles to begin with.
I mean I'll complain about the latter two things, but I won't get anywhere except yelled at.
I mean, if we were to move to a D8 or D10 system line I want we could totally propose an evasion stat
catbarf wrote: Frankly, I think gamers pointing to things like that and complaining about lack of flavor is just a superficial, knee-jerk reaction to taking away an option, no matter how pointless the option was to start with. You'll hear people say that it ruins the flavor to treat power mauls and power axes the same, but somehow it's never been a problem that a Space Marine and a Grot are equally quick to react to the enemy and equally easy to command, or that an Eldar Aspect Warrior is no harder to hit than a Titan- simply because the game has never featured differential C&C or differential hit profiles to begin with.
I mean I'll complain about the latter two things, but I won't get anywhere except yelled at.
I mean, if we were to move to a D8 or D10 system line I want we could totally propose an evasion stat
Why is the dice size change related to the evasion stat?
Just make a comparative table like Strength and Toughness but have it be BS and Evasion. You could even have the tables be identical if you wanted to suffer badly as a game designer. This would have the added bonus of having a higher BS mean something, rather than only having 6 BS values. (So like BS 10 vs evasion 5 hits on a 2+, BS 10 vs evasion 6-9 hits on a 3+, BS10 vs Ev 10 hits on a 4+, etc).
This would also allow for units that rely on an Ev (evasion) stat to be durable without being outwardly "durable" in the armor/toughness/wounds sense. You could have Guardsmen be BS3 Ev 3, SM be BS4 Ev 3, Eldar BS4 Ev 5, Orks BS 2 Ev 3, Necrons BS5 Ev 2, etc. Then, stratagems such as "Lightning Fast Reflexes" or the old Raven Guard army bonus could be "Unit gets +X Ev vs [whatever]" which means their stealthyness might help them against Guardsmen but less so against SM (e.g. going from 5-6 Ev would help Eldar evade fire from Guardsmen and Necrons but not SM).
catbarf wrote: Frankly, I think gamers pointing to things like that and complaining about lack of flavor is just a superficial, knee-jerk reaction to taking away an option, no matter how pointless the option was to start with. You'll hear people say that it ruins the flavor to treat power mauls and power axes the same, but somehow it's never been a problem that a Space Marine and a Grot are equally quick to react to the enemy and equally easy to command, or that an Eldar Aspect Warrior is no harder to hit than a Titan- simply because the game has never featured differential C&C or differential hit profiles to begin with.
I mean I'll complain about the latter two things, but I won't get anywhere except yelled at.
I mean, if we were to move to a D8 or D10 system line I want we could totally propose an evasion stat
Why is the dice size change related to the evasion stat?
Just make a comparative table like Strength and Toughness but have it be BS and Evasion. You could even have the tables be identical if you wanted to suffer badly as a game designer. This would have the added bonus of having a higher BS mean something, rather than only having 6 BS values. (So like BS 10 vs evasion 5 hits on a 2+, BS 10 vs evasion 6-9 hits on a 3+, BS10 vs Ev 10 hits on a 4+, etc).
This would also allow for units that rely on an Ev (evasion) stat to be durable without being outwardly "durable" in the armor/toughness/wounds sense. You could have Guardsmen be BS3 Ev 3, SM be BS4 Ev 3, Eldar BS4 Ev 5, Orks BS 2 Ev 3, Necrons BS5 Ev 2, etc. Then, stratagems such as "Lightning Fast Reflexes" or the old Raven Guard army bonus could be "Unit gets +X Ev vs [whatever]" which means their stealthyness might help them against Guardsmen but less so against SM (e.g. going from 5-6 Ev would help Eldar evade fire from Guardsmen and Necrons but not SM).
Like, did you forget about all the complainers about modifiers to begin with? We're now at the pendulum balance of nothing over -1 to hit because GW is infinitely wise.
On a larger scale you can create more granularity with -1 to hit Eldar and then the extra sneaky ones after that with an additional -1 to hit. Modifiers themselves aren't a problem, but they are on the D6 no matter how many people say "Oh you can get the same effect....", except not without a bunch of garbage Dakka×3 on a BS5+ becoming basically almost BS4+. Is it terribly necessary?
catbarf wrote: Frankly, I think gamers pointing to things like that and complaining about lack of flavor is just a superficial, knee-jerk reaction to taking away an option, no matter how pointless the option was to start with. You'll hear people say that it ruins the flavor to treat power mauls and power axes the same, but somehow it's never been a problem that a Space Marine and a Grot are equally quick to react to the enemy and equally easy to command, or that an Eldar Aspect Warrior is no harder to hit than a Titan- simply because the game has never featured differential C&C or differential hit profiles to begin with.
I mean I'll complain about the latter two things, but I won't get anywhere except yelled at.
I mean, I agree, which is why I brought them up. People hyperfocus on the idea of nitty-gritty wargear options conveying flavor when there are some really basic, high-level things that ought to be distinguishing units and factions but are currently absent.
The gameplay flavor to a Space Marine Captain shouldn't reflect in whether he's carrying an axe or a sword; it should be in the fact that he's a centuries-old combat veteran with perfect tactical coordination with his subordinates. A Drukhari Archon's flavor doesn't come from what kinds of grenades he's packing, it's from his superhuman speed and delight in killing. Even at the novels' most bolter-porny, they spend a lot more time talking about the capabilities of the characters than the raw mechanical nuances of their weapons; and if a weapon is singled out it's usually more about quality, not type. The sword of Hieronymo Sondar is important because it's a Master-Crafted Power Weapon and a badge of office, not because it's a sword rather than an axe which slightly reduces its strength but gives it +15% effectiveness against stop it I don't care.
If the game engine supports the variables that distinguish the factions in the lore, then it's trivial to represent those differences through gameplay without needing to get down in the weeds with wargear. A hero's characterization shouldn't stem from exactly what flavor of bladed implement he's carrying.
I was going to agree with you, but upon second thought, I actually don't think I do.
Weapons, and particular the type of a cc weapon are one of the more defining visual characteristics of a character, and so people like to have discrete options there. I mean, I get the "power weapon is a power weapon" thing from 3rd and 4th too. But I think having interesting options to give your hero is ultimately good.
Grenades less so, but "batmanning" your way out of a situation with something fancy from your tool belt can be fun to. If ever there was a place to lean in to RPG-lite customization, it would be your warlord/command group.
. . .
That said, I'm all for better "leadership role" representation, don't get me wrong. I just think allowing some nitty gritty customization of certain characters is a good thing too.
It's extra fun going back to 2nd edition and kitting characters out with wargear cards.
I was going to agree with you, but upon second thought, I actually don't think I do.
Weapons, and particular the type of a cc weapon are one of the more defining visual characteristics of a character, and so people like to have discrete options there. I mean, I get the "power weapon is a power weapon" thing from 3rd and 4th too. But I think having interesting options to give your hero is ultimately good.
The problem is that they're ultimately not actually that interesting, "wound you on 4's and you save on 6's vs wound you on 3's and you save on 5's vs the option you're never going to take because it's objectively inferior to the other two" isn't really worth splitting out into separate options, especially when most characters only have few attacks and may only swing once or twice a game. Yes there are circumstances in which the differences can be made more profound, but they're still niche enough to not really justify needing the different types power weapons.
I was going to agree with you, but upon second thought, I actually don't think I do.
Weapons, and particular the type of a cc weapon are one of the more defining visual characteristics of a character, and so people like to have discrete options there. I mean, I get the "power weapon is a power weapon" thing from 3rd and 4th too. But I think having interesting options to give your hero is ultimately good.
The problem is that they're ultimately not actually that interesting, "wound you on 4's and you save on 6's vs wound you on 3's and you save on 5's vs the option you're never going to take because it's objectively inferior to the other two" isn't really worth splitting out into separate options, especially when most characters only have few attacks and may only swing once or twice a game. Yes there are circumstances in which the differences can be made more profound, but they're still niche enough to not really justify needing the different types power weapons.
TBH thats more a problem of AoS were you have a ton of +3 to hit /+4 to wound vs +4 to hit/+3 to wound weapons but with 40k and SvsT and armor and invulnerables things become more interesting. At the end of the day, they are better for different kind of enemies.
I was going to agree with you, but upon second thought, I actually don't think I do.
Weapons, and particular the type of a cc weapon are one of the more defining visual characteristics of a character, and so people like to have discrete options there. I mean, I get the "power weapon is a power weapon" thing from 3rd and 4th too. But I think having interesting options to give your hero is ultimately good.
The problem is that they're ultimately not actually that interesting, "wound you on 4's and you save on 6's vs wound you on 3's and you save on 5's vs the option you're never going to take because it's objectively inferior to the other two" isn't really worth splitting out into separate options, especially when most characters only have few attacks and may only swing once or twice a game. Yes there are circumstances in which the differences can be made more profound, but they're still niche enough to not really justify needing the different types power weapons.
Ah, but my argument isn't really about the utility of the options. It's about the experience of explicitly defining your characters image. I agree that the actual in-game difference is minimal, and could easily just be "power weapon". But I think giving the player the explicit choice is honestly more "choice for the sake of choice", and I think in some places that's justified.
I know, it's weird. This is coming from my experience with customization in video games though, in which cosmetics are literally doing nothing, and people still love having the explicit choice of customizing their stuff.
). There's a difference between Ultramarines and Blood Angels. There's a difference between Dark Angels and Imperial Fists. Sure, I can paint my Imperial Fists green and my Dark Angels yellow, but there is a mechanical difference to the way the two armies perform, even if they share a core of units. Stripping it down to just generic entries and making Marine Chapters just a paint job again robs the game of what makes it unique.
