VladimirHerzog wrote: I know i would personally love to be able to take ANY power weapon i like visually, which is why i think the rumored "Accursed weapons" is a much better approach.
In a vacuum, I agree with you. As long as its consistent within the system. As it stands in 9th edition, that isn't the case.
What's worse, from what the rumors have said, it isn't even consistent within the codex itself. Some units get accursed weapons, other units get the whole pile of profiles. That's the worst of both worlds.
----
Now, if they FAQed melee weapons as a whole for everybody, it'd be far less of an issue to me. Though it would help if they did it right this time and not what they did with Imperial Ranged Weapons only, and left everybody else flailing.
VladimirHerzog wrote: I know i would personally love to be able to take ANY power weapon i like visually, which is why i think the rumored "Accursed weapons" is a much better approach.
In a vacuum, I agree with you. As long as its consistent within the system. As it stands in 9th edition, that isn't the case.
What's worse, from what the rumors have said, it isn't even consistent within the codex itself. Some units get accursed weapons, other units get the whole pile of profiles. That's the worst of both worlds.
----
Now, if they FAQed melee weapons as a whole for everybody, it'd be far less of an issue to me. Though it would help if they did it right this time and not what they did with Imperial Ranged Weapons only, and left everybody else flailing.
That's what i'm advocating for : every single faction in the game could have their weapons consolidated into :
VladimirHerzog wrote: I know i would personally love to be able to take ANY power weapon i like visually, which is why i think the rumored "Accursed weapons" is a much better approach.
In a vacuum, I agree with you. As long as its consistent within the system. As it stands in 9th edition, that isn't the case.
What's worse, from what the rumors have said, it isn't even consistent within the codex itself. Some units get accursed weapons, other units get the whole pile of profiles. That's the worst of both worlds.
----
Now, if they FAQed melee weapons as a whole for everybody, it'd be far less of an issue to me. Though it would help if they did it right this time and not what they did with Imperial Ranged Weapons only, and left everybody else flailing.
That's what i'm advocating for : every single faction in the game could have their weapons consolidated into :
Basic CCW Power CCW Heavy CCW
My first thought was "I'm not sure I want that much consolidation" then I remembered that WHFB 6th is great, and most weapons are almost identical.
VladimirHerzog wrote: I know i would personally love to be able to take ANY power weapon i like visually, which is why i think the rumored "Accursed weapons" is a much better approach.
In a vacuum, I agree with you. As long as its consistent within the system. As it stands in 9th edition, that isn't the case.
What's worse, from what the rumors have said, it isn't even consistent within the codex itself. Some units get accursed weapons, other units get the whole pile of profiles. That's the worst of both worlds.
----
Now, if they FAQed melee weapons as a whole for everybody, it'd be far less of an issue to me. Though it would help if they did it right this time and not what they did with Imperial Ranged Weapons only, and left everybody else flailing.
That's what i'm advocating for : every single faction in the game could have their weapons consolidated into :
Basic CCW Power CCW Heavy CCW
Relating to this, I've been a little frustrated with how GW reworked melee weapons for Tyranids, because in a lot of ways it highlights how they've moved away from having distinct, clearly-defined weapon roles.
In 5th Ed, you had Scything Talons for extra attacks, Rending Claws for defeating armor and cracking open tanks, Boneswords for ignoring armor and inflicting Instant Death (but expensive), and Bonesword+Lash Whip for ignoring armor and making enemies strike last. Fairly clearly delineated roles and each had utility and purpose, and the one that was significantly the best (Boneswords) was also costly.
In 9th Ed, Scything Talons give you extra attacks, but so do Boneswords, and the difference in S, AP, and Dam means Boneswords are straight up better in virtually all scenarios, often by a big margin. Rending Claws are totally worthless. Lash Whips still have some use (get to fight even if the model is killed), but otherwise nearly identical to Boneswords. And they all cost the same.
The problem is that, counterintuitively, the addition of specific S modifiers and AP values to melee weapons has made the weapons feel more similar, rather than more different. You can take the weapon that gives you extra attacks to help kill chaff, but the weapon that gets an extra point or two of S and AP is also better at killing chaff, so the difference isn't so clear. Trading off S for AP doesn't make for a huge difference because both stats help against virtually all targets, so it's usually a wash.
Compare power weapons across the editions. When all a power weapon did was ignore armor, the utility was obvious: You get a lot of mileage when fighting Terminators or Marines, and next to no benefit when fighting Gaunts. The role was clearly defined; you take power swords to defeat armor. Now, though, most power weapons give you someAP and some S, so they're just flat-out better against everything, but not as big an improvement against heavily-armored stuff as they used to be.
Then you throw in how there are multiple power weapons that incrementally trade different amounts of S for AP, and statistically they come out nearly equivalent against everything (so what's the point?), except that there's usually a single winning option and taking the others is strictly suboptimal.
How about power fists? Used to be that you got the same armor-ignoring ability as power weapons, but also doubled your strength in exchange for striking last. You could deliver a big wallop, but only if you survived that long, so you couldn't make suicide attacks. Now it's just a S boost and a to-hit modifier, so you can math out exactly how the typical damage compares, and decide whether the increase in damage is worth the points.
Instead of weapons having different roles, it's just flat upgrades. Power fists do more damage than power weapons which do more damage than CCWs. When the differentiation is this bland to begin with, there really is zero need to subdivide those categories further into nitpicky rearrangements of stats.
My first thought was "I'm not sure I want that much consolidation" then I remembered that WHFB 6th is great, and most weapons are almost identical.
thats basically what we already have anyway (with a few other weapons that could warrant unique profiles) but most of the time, a power mace/axe/sword is mostly the same
I think GW have learned (not unreasonably) that given the issues of getting across the table, navigating screening units and successfully making a charge, a functional melee unit has to blend everything.
So for your "100 point package" - there isn't really a difference whether you have mass (40 or something) S4 AP-, a smaller number of S5 AP-3 2 damage attacks, or a smaller again number of S8+ AP-3 3+ damage attacks. The rough outturn in damage for everything but the last unit into say chaff, has to be about the same - and so you can blend whatever you get into.
Otherwise you have a unit which still has to navigate all those above issues - but will also, by design, bounce off about 2/3rds of the things in the game. Which unsurprisingly makes the unit suck.
Relating to this, I've been a little frustrated with how GW reworked melee weapons for Tyranids, because in a lot of ways it highlights how they've moved away from having distinct, clearly-defined weapon roles.
In 5th Ed, you had Scything Talons for extra attacks, Rending Claws for defeating armor and cracking open tanks, Boneswords for ignoring armor and inflicting Instant Death (but expensive), and Bonesword+Lash Whip for ignoring armor and making enemies strike last. Fairly clearly delineated roles and each had utility and purpose, and the one that was significantly the best (Boneswords) was also costly.
In 9th Ed, Scything Talons give you extra attacks, but so do Boneswords, and the difference in S, AP, and Dam means Boneswords are straight up better in virtually all scenarios, often by a big margin. Rending Claws are totally worthless. Lash Whips still have some use (get to fight even if the model is killed), but otherwise nearly identical to Boneswords. And they all cost the same.
The problem is that, counterintuitively, the addition of specific S modifiers and AP values to melee weapons has made the weapons feel more similar, rather than more different. You can take the weapon that gives you extra attacks to help kill chaff, but the weapon that gets an extra point or two of S and AP is also better at killing chaff, so the difference isn't so clear. Trading off S for AP doesn't make for a huge difference because both stats help against virtually all targets, so it's usually a wash.
Compare power weapons across the editions. When all a power weapon did was ignore armor, the utility was obvious: You get a lot of mileage when fighting Terminators or Marines, and next to no benefit when fighting Gaunts. The role was clearly defined; you take power swords to defeat armor. Now, though, most power weapons give you someAP and some S, so they're just flat-out better against everything, but not as big an improvement against heavily-armored stuff as they used to be.
Then you throw in how there are multiple power weapons that incrementally trade different amounts of S for AP, and statistically they come out nearly equivalent against everything (so what's the point?), except that there's usually a single winning option and taking the others is strictly suboptimal.
How about power fists? Used to be that you got the same armor-ignoring ability as power weapons, but also doubled your strength in exchange for striking last. You could deliver a big wallop, but only if you survived that long, so you couldn't make suicide attacks. Now it's just a S boost and a to-hit modifier, so you can math out exactly how the typical damage compares, and decide whether the increase in damage is worth the points.
Instead of weapons having different roles, it's just flat upgrades. Power fists do more damage than power weapons which do more damage than CCWs. When the differentiation is this bland to begin with, there really is zero need to subdivide those categories further into nitpicky rearrangements of stats.
This is an excellent post and really helps define the issues with the current system. I'd like to add a couple of points if I may:
Firstly, just on the point of 5th edition, I think it's worth elaborating on the fact that there were very clear trade-offs with regard to the different weapons.
- Scything Talons tended to be secondary weapons (usually taken in conjunction with other melee weapons). I believe a single pair let you reroll 1s to hit and two pairs let you reroll all missed hits. Especially given their cheap cost, the latter could be very useful on Monstrous Creatures (as they ignored armour saves and got extra penetration dice against vehicles by default).
- Rending Claws were weaker against armour saves but allowed relatively low-strength units like Warriors to threaten many vehicles. This wasn't always necessary but could make a huge difference against units like Walkers, which could otherwise tie up a unit of Warriors or such with no fear whatsoever. Plus they were a cheaper option than either of the Bonesword choices (not a huge deal for Primes but it mattered if you were trying to outfit an entire Warrior unit).
- Twin Boneswords were power weapons that caused wounded enemies to make a Ld test on 3d6 or die. These were obviously better against characters and monsters with good armour saves. However, in taking them you lost the ability to rend vehicles and also had to rely on striking in initiative order. This was important as many Tyranids had middling initiative values and very few had noteworthy defences (almost nothing had an invulnerable save, for example). This was especially important as most of the units you might want to cause instant-death to had the same or better initiative as Primes and Warriors.
- Lastly, Lash Whip and Bonesword was also a power weapon and made enemies strike at I1. It had the same instant-death mechanic as the twin boneswords above, except that the unit only needed to make a Ld test on 2d6. So now you'd almost certainly get to strike first but in return it was far less likely that the instant-death effect would actually go off.
Anyway, I know you already covered some of this but I did just want to emphasise again the depths of choice you had to consider - including factors like initiative and vehicle armour-penetration, neither of which currently exist.
The second point I wanted to make relates to the cost of weapons and wargear. I think there's a notable issue with how wargear is costed at the moment, both on units and on characters. With units, more and more wargear seems to either be baked into the cost of the unit or else just priced identically. Tyranid Warriors, for example, no longer have to pay extra for any of their melee weapons - despite the fact that there are fewer (if any) trade-offs for just taking boneswords. While points aren't the only issue here, I do think they're making an already bad situation worse by costing mathematically-superior weapons at near-dentical prices to their less effective counterparts.
When it comes to characters, I think there are a few factors at play. For one (and I mention this partially because of the WHFB comparisons), we have long since dropped the idea of limiting wargear selection by price. It was once the case that characters could only have a certain amount of the available wargear (usually 100pts worth). This forced people to make choices about what they wanted a given character to focus on and what he'd sacrifice in return. For example, a character might have a very dangerous weapon but would then be left with little to spend on protection (or other bells and whistles).
What's more, so much wargear has been removed (or moved to stratagems/relics/warlord traits) and so much baked into the cost of units that many characters have little to spend their points on beyond weapons. Even when the 100pts wargear limit was dropped, it used to be the case that you had to watch how much you were spending on your characters as the costs could add up fast. As an example, a 5th edition Archon was about 60pts base but could easily get up to 150+pts (a 150% increase on his base cost) when you started adding weapons, defences and other tech to him. In particular, already-expensive weapons often encouraged you to spend even more points. A Power Fist might incline you towards giving a character extra protection (to make sure he got to swing), a Huskblade might incline you towards purchasing items like the Soul Trap and/or Combat Drugs, etc.
Now, though, there tend to be few such decisions to be made. To return to the Archon, even taking all the most expensive options available only pushes his cost from 70pts to 95pts (a mere 35% increase).
The point I'm trying to get at is that cost is no longer a useful way to balance weapons. There are no competing options and even the expensive gear makes so little difference in the overall cost of a model that there's really no reason to not just take the best gear available every time.
vipoid wrote: The second point I wanted to make relates to the cost of weapons and wargear. I think there's a notable issue with how wargear is costed at the moment, both on units and on characters. With units, more and more wargear seems to either be baked into the cost of the unit or else just priced identically. Tyranid Warriors, for example, no longer have to pay extra for any of their melee weapons - despite the fact that there are fewer (if any) trade-offs for just taking boneswords. While points aren't the only issue here, I do think they're making an already bad situation worse by costing mathematically-superior weapons at near-dentical prices to their less effective counterparts.
Yeah, that's a good point. The current melee weapon implementation means going from a chainsword to a power sword to a power fist is just a series of flat upgrades that are ostensibly balanced by cost, but it also often produces a situation where either it's worth it to just take the best option because the cost delta isn't great, or it's never worth it to take the best weapon because it costs too much, or your decision of what weapon to take is entirely dependent on how likely you are to get to use it rather than what role you want to perform.
In the case of Warriors, you could probably improve the balance a lot by giving Boneswords a per-model cost- but I still don't think it would be particularly interesting, since the choice would still be purely cost/benefit. Plan to get into melee? Take Boneswords. Don't plan to get into melee? Take something else. But at least that's a step above there being no real option because Boneswords are simply the best at no extra cost.
That's what i'm advocating for : every single faction in the game could have their weapons consolidated into :
Basic CCW Power CCW Heavy CCW
weapon flexibility in squads is part of the nature of GK squads, and we don't even have access to basic ccw. So we would be limited to power and heavy ccw. No idea how it would work for NDKs who have fists, swords and hammers too.
That's what i'm advocating for : every single faction in the game could have their weapons consolidated into :
Basic CCW Power CCW Heavy CCW
weapon flexibility in squads is part of the nature of GK squads, and we don't even have access to basic ccw. So we would be limited to power and heavy ccw. No idea how it would work for NDKs who have fists, swords and hammers too.
Genuinely curious : How often do competitive lists mix and match force weapons?
NDKs would have :
Fist and Hammer : heavy CCW Sword : Power CCW
I agree but inevitably someone will wade in with a comment about how it's because gw can't balance anything rather than just accepting it's impossible to not have a "best" weapon in the power weapon realm.
I think for any given meta, there's probably going to be a "best" weapon. But for any given game, it could be widely different (i.e. you play against Harlequins and you should have brought power axes, even though power swords are more broadly useful)
I agree but inevitably someone will wade in with a comment about how it's because gw can't balance anything rather than just accepting it's impossible to not have a "best" weapon in the power weapon realm.
I think for any given meta, there's probably going to be a "best" weapon. But for any given game, it could be widely different (i.e. you play against Harlequins and you should have brought power axes, even though power swords are more broadly useful)
That's largely true alongside the stats of the bearer, like when guard officers only ever took a maul if anything because the strength breakpoint made the difference.
Genuinely curious : How often do competitive lists mix and match force weapons?
NDKs would have :
Fist and Hammer : heavy CCW Sword : Power CCW
A lot depends on the unit and which brotherhood you play. And stuff like nemezis force staffs, also a weapon we have, have their own stratagems.in form of zone of warding. It also depends if or how many of the units run hammerhand. Generally stuff like halabard+staff or sword+hammer or just swords on strikes combos are often played. Only falchions are the bad option, but GW wrote their rules like that. And they were the only sensible option in prior edition, so the change was good for the company.
Genuinely curious : How often do competitive lists mix and match force weapons?
NDKs would have :
Fist and Hammer : heavy CCW Sword : Power CCW
A lot depends on the unit and which brotherhood you play. And stuff like nemezis force staffs, also a weapon we have, have their own stratagems.in form of zone of warding. It also depends if or how many of the units run hammerhand. Generally stuff like halabard+staff or sword+hammer or just swords on strikes combos are often played. Only falchions are the bad option, but GW wrote their rules like that. And they were the only sensible option in prior edition, so the change was good for the company.
It's not hard to cut off a hand at the wrist and you'd possess the bits from when they were built the first time. It doesn't get them many more sales if any.
I agree but inevitably someone will wade in with a comment about how it's because gw can't balance anything rather than just accepting it's impossible to not have a "best" weapon in the power weapon realm.
I think for any given meta, there's probably going to be a "best" weapon. But for any given game, it could be widely different (i.e. you play against Harlequins and you should have brought power axes, even though power swords are more broadly useful)
That's largely true alongside the stats of the bearer, like when guard officers only ever took a maul if anything because the strength breakpoint made the difference.
Nah, it was either the maul or the axe. Axe was favored since at the normal I3 they'd likely strike last against any actual threat. Might as well go in with AP2 after all.
It's not hard to cut off a hand at the wrist and you'd possess the bits from when they were built the first time. It doesn't get them many more sales if any.
If you still have them. And it lowers the chance someone starting GK will get their army on the 2ed hand market, because all of those models are going to be coming with falchions. On top of that you have to paint the new weapons. It is not something that will stop everyone from playing or buying GK. But it does move people to buying stuff like the patrol box or regular boxs at the store.
VladimirHerzog wrote: That's what i'm advocating for : every single faction in the game could have their weapons consolidated into :
Basic CCW Power CCW Heavy CCW
Given all the models GW has produced over time, that is a little tight on the weapon options. You need to cover:
Default CCW - Unarmed
Basic CCW - Chainsword or other one-handed melee weapon
Heavy CCW - Most 2-Handed CCWs that are not power weapons
Power Weapon - all the various 1-handed power weapons
Heavy Power Weapon - The 2-handed power weapons along with things like Powerfist and Thunderhammers
And those are just the Infantry (and Infantry like) weapons. Monsters and Vehicles can use their own rules, but those can be bespoke rules along as some resemblance of balance is provided on the datasheet and points cost.
I find consolidation of melee weapons pretty easy.
1. Basic ass CC weapon
2. Chainsword
3. Bladed Power Weapon (where Swords would go)
4. Heavy Power Weapon (where Axes AND Mauls can go)
5. Power Fist
Let's imagine these dudes got the same treatment as BL/PM
Looking at this picture now after 10 years it strikes me that the Dark Vengeance set may have been the start of this trend discussed in this thread. The models are all monopose and their wargear is all unique. The 6th edition rules provided for a difference between the power maul and power axe pictured here probably solely due to this kit. I remember thinking these models were cool, but I never made the connection that these models drove the rules that were such a hassle for players who built models when the choice of power axe or power sword was purely a cosmetic decision.
vipoid wrote: The second point I wanted to make relates to the cost of weapons and wargear. I think there's a notable issue with how wargear is costed at the moment, both on units and on characters. With units, more and more wargear seems to either be baked into the cost of the unit or else just priced identically. Tyranid Warriors, for example, no longer have to pay extra for any of their melee weapons - despite the fact that there are fewer (if any) trade-offs for just taking boneswords. While points aren't the only issue here, I do think they're making an already bad situation worse by costing mathematically-superior weapons at near-dentical prices to their less effective counterparts.
Yeah, that's a good point. The current melee weapon implementation means going from a chainsword to a power sword to a power fist is just a series of flat upgrades that are ostensibly balanced by cost, but it also often produces a situation where either it's worth it to just take the best option because the cost delta isn't great, or it's never worth it to take the best weapon because it costs too much, or your decision of what weapon to take is entirely dependent on how likely you are to get to use it rather than what role you want to perform.
In the case of Warriors, you could probably improve the balance a lot by giving Boneswords a per-model cost- but I still don't think it would be particularly interesting, since the choice would still be purely cost/benefit. Plan to get into melee? Take Boneswords. Don't plan to get into melee? Take something else. But at least that's a step above there being no real option because Boneswords are simply the best at no extra cost.
I'm not really sure I'm following the logic and perhaps I've missed part of the argument jumping in the middle.
On the old hammer front a power sword was better than a chainsword - the armor system was all or nothing. If your unit produced a low volume of attacks then you go power swords otherwise they'll suck. Similarly a power fist was the next step up, but limited in availability ( mostly ). It was a "flat upgrade" as long as you had enough chumps to take hits before the fist could swing. It made you swing last, which is synonymous with -1 to hit. It also had instant death available which, again pairs with the new D2.
Now when you pick weapons your decision pivots around what you expect to fight.
Are you fighting lots of transhuman? -1D? Chaff? You may be better suited to use scytals to side step the wounding, -1D, and body count.
As it stands scytals need an AP bump or boneswords could do with a really small point cost. Regardless the differentiation in roles is visible and the opponents can have an impact on how the weapons function on the table.
Earlier you painted the old tyranid weapons in a very positive light, but a lash whip and bonesword was clearly superior to two boneswords. And with WS5 there was little reason to take two pairs of scytals to hit better when you could make them swing at I1. If I remember right you could take rending claws plus LW&BS and literally cover all the bases.
VladimirHerzog wrote: I know i would personally love to be able to take ANY power weapon i like visually, which is why i think the rumored "Accursed weapons" is a much better approach.
In a vacuum, I agree with you. As long as its consistent within the system. As it stands in 9th edition, that isn't the case.
What's worse, from what the rumors have said, it isn't even consistent within the codex itself. Some units get accursed weapons, other units get the whole pile of profiles. That's the worst of both worlds.
----
Now, if they FAQed melee weapons as a whole for everybody, it'd be far less of an issue to me. Though it would help if they did it right this time and not what they did with Imperial Ranged Weapons only, and left everybody else flailing.
That's what i'm advocating for : every single faction in the game could have their weapons consolidated into :
Basic CCW Power CCW Heavy CCW
Relating to this, I've been a little frustrated with how GW reworked melee weapons for Tyranids, because in a lot of ways it highlights how they've moved away from having distinct, clearly-defined weapon roles.
In 5th Ed, you had Scything Talons for extra attacks, Rending Claws for defeating armor and cracking open tanks, Boneswords for ignoring armor and inflicting Instant Death (but expensive), and Bonesword+Lash Whip for ignoring armor and making enemies strike last. Fairly clearly delineated roles and each had utility and purpose, and the one that was significantly the best (Boneswords) was also costly.
In 9th Ed, Scything Talons give you extra attacks, but so do Boneswords, and the difference in S, AP, and Dam means Boneswords are straight up better in virtually all scenarios, often by a big margin. Rending Claws are totally worthless. Lash Whips still have some use (get to fight even if the model is killed), but otherwise nearly identical to Boneswords. And they all cost the same.
The problem is that, counterintuitively, the addition of specific S modifiers and AP values to melee weapons has made the weapons feel more similar, rather than more different. You can take the weapon that gives you extra attacks to help kill chaff, but the weapon that gets an extra point or two of S and AP is also better at killing chaff, so the difference isn't so clear. Trading off S for AP doesn't make for a huge difference because both stats help against virtually all targets, so it's usually a wash.
Compare power weapons across the editions. When all a power weapon did was ignore armor, the utility was obvious: You get a lot of mileage when fighting Terminators or Marines, and next to no benefit when fighting Gaunts. The role was clearly defined; you take power swords to defeat armor. Now, though, most power weapons give you someAP and some S, so they're just flat-out better against everything, but not as big an improvement against heavily-armored stuff as they used to be.
Then you throw in how there are multiple power weapons that incrementally trade different amounts of S for AP, and statistically they come out nearly equivalent against everything (so what's the point?), except that there's usually a single winning option and taking the others is strictly suboptimal.
How about power fists? Used to be that you got the same armor-ignoring ability as power weapons, but also doubled your strength in exchange for striking last. You could deliver a big wallop, but only if you survived that long, so you couldn't make suicide attacks. Now it's just a S boost and a to-hit modifier, so you can math out exactly how the typical damage compares, and decide whether the increase in damage is worth the points.
Instead of weapons having different roles, it's just flat upgrades. Power fists do more damage than power weapons which do more damage than CCWs. When the differentiation is this bland to begin with, there really is zero need to subdivide those categories further into nitpicky rearrangements of stats.
You actually just didn't take power weapons at all. Characters would take Thunderhammers, Powerfists, or Lightning claws based on cost and what interacts better with special rules. Much the same as it is today.
Most of what you're describing either died with 5th or never happened.
vipoid wrote: This, presumably, is for Imperial/SM factions.
Given the existence of stuff like Witchblades, Agonisers etc., I imagine Xeno factions would have more unusual weapon selections.
I did forget about Lightning Claws, but I consider HQ equipment to be a whole different thing. For example I'd straight up remove Power Weapons as an option for Captains and Relic Blade can encompass their super cool weapon they've been fighting with for years. After all, the basic Power Weapon does nothing except get replaced for relics.
Daedalus81 wrote:On the old hammer front a power sword was better than a chainsword - the armor system was all or nothing. If your unit produced a low volume of attacks then you go power swords otherwise they'll suck. Similarly a power fist was the next step up, but limited in availability ( mostly ). It was a "flat upgrade" as long as you had enough chumps to take hits before the fist could swing. It made you swing last, which is synonymous with -1 to hit. It also had instant death available which, again pairs with the new D2.
I think you're missing the nuance.
Yes, a power sword was a flat upgrade over a chainsword, but the degree to which it was an upgrade depended heavily on the target. If you took a power sword to kill chaff, you were wasting points; if you took it to fight MEQs or TEQs, you'd get your points back easily. It was an upgrade, but one with a specific role. In the current implementation, all the power weapons that give you bonus S as well as bonus AP are better against chaff than the old implementation, but worse against MEQs and TEQs (whose armor is no longer simply ignored). So you take the power axe or power maul because it's statistically optimal, and then you're just better against everything.
With power fists, that 'as long as you can take hits before the fist could swing' is a significant drawback that changed how you used the unit. It is absolutely not synonymous with -1 to hit; all -1 to hit does is change your statistical damage output. Hitting last meant that a unit of Boyz could drag down a Command Squad or Combat Squad before the fist ever gets a chance to swing, or a Carnifex could eat your character if he didn't bring enough backup. There's no drawback now, you just do more damage.
Daedalus81 wrote:Now when you pick weapons your decision pivots around what you expect to fight.
Are you fighting lots of transhuman? -1D? Chaff? You may be better suited to use scytals to side step the wounding, -1D, and body count.
And this is my point: It doesn't actually work that way.
Marines with Transhuman: A Warrior with one pair of ScyTals average 0.55 wounds. One pair of Boneswords average 1.33. Extra AP and D2 is way better than an extra attack, it's not even close.
Death Guard with their innate -1D: ScyTals average 0.55 wounds. Boneswords average 0.89 wounds. Slimmer margin, but the extra S and AP is more useful.
How about Guard, those are pretty chaffy, right? ScyTals average 1.85 kills. Boneswords average 2.22 kills. The Boneswords are better.
Cultists? I mean it doesn't get much more chaff than T3/6+. ScyTals averages 2.22 kills. Boneswords still average 2.22. The extra S of the Boneswords offsets the extra attack with the ScyTals even against a target where the AP and D2 don't matter. This is the only comparison where ScyTals can pull ahead if you assume two pairs rather than one... Then winning by a measly 17%.
There's no specialization here- bonus attacks help against everything, but so does bonus S and bonus AP, so Boneswords are far better in any case where the D2 matters and somewhat better or on par where it doesn't. I mean, granted, that's not dissimilar to the old situation with upgrading from a chainsword to a power sword ('on par' to 'way better' depending on target), but at least you had to pay for that and it wasn't rendering other options (poor Rending Claws) redundant as well.
The most target-specific characteristic of melee weapons is their Damage stat, but everything else is just different flavors of 'kills everything better'. Shuffling those stats around doesn't meaningfully distinguish melee weapons, so there's really no mechanical need for the multitude of melee weapon profiles that currently exist.
A lot of people responded to my last post here, generally all roughly saying the same sort of thing. Took catbarf (unsurprisingly) to really hit the nail on the head though with this:
catbarf wrote: Shuffling those stats around doesn't meaningfully distinguish melee weapons, so there's really no mechanical need for the multitude of melee weapon profiles that currently exist.
And herein lies where I seem to differ to most of you.
You're absolutely correct that there is no need for the multitude of melee weapons given the way their rules work - as much as I may want the variety, I cannot in good faith argue that they should exist based upon how their rules are written - but where most of you see this as a reason to consolidate and simplify (or downright kneecap in Herzog's case - you sure you ain't Jervis in disguise?), I prefer the opposite: They should create that need.
I want these weapons to have a reason to exist outside of shuffling stats. I dislike the way they've done Tyranid Warriors because they've made a bunch of unequal weapons equal in points, and this is terrible game design (they just did the same thing for Guard Infantry squads). This is why Power Level, despite one particular Dakkanaut's insistence to the opposite, is an inadequate system compared to points*, because it creates zero distinction between base options and the best options. You lose nothing by taking the best options, so why bother with anything else?
The set up for power weapons is, generally, the same right now. With few exceptions, they generally all cost the same, and shuffle the Strength, AP and Damage around a bit, and given that they all cost the same and there is no specific points-based advantage or disadvantage to any of them, you just either take the one that is generally the most effective in most circumstances, or just the one you like.
I started in 2nd Edition, where a Power Axe was different to a Power Sword. We then moved into 3rd when suddenly everything was a "Power Weapon", except for Fists, Thunder Hammers and Chainfists (and Lightning Claws). I felt this was going too far in the opposite way. It was removing too much of what made differing load outs interesting. But what we have now with power swords/axes/mauls, is a bunch of weapon distinctions without any real difference.
But people pointed out what the various Tyranid bio-weapons were meant to do, and how they fulfilled different roles. I would want that to be the goal, not reducing everything to bland generic "Accursed Weapon" because we're too lazy to come up with a meaningful alternative.
*No, this does not mean that points are perfect, or that points solve every problem, so please don't start that.
What we see currently is stuff like Harlequin weapons (which, in terms of fluff, have some of the most unusual and esoteric effects in the game) being consolidated into a single profile, whilst SMs still have 20 different varieties of power weapons and 50 different varieties of bolters.
I think it's fair to question whether the current consolidation is really happening in the most necessary places.
Harlequins' weapons were all very samey, and the kit doesn't cover every possible combination, so consolidation is a really good thing for them.
I was mostly talking about consolidation for a single kit rather than a whole faction, which would also be good but not relevant to the thread which is about kit restrictions. Bolters variants for example don't matter there, kits don't come with multiple kinds of bolters.
But to me there's no point to differentiate Power Sword, Agoniser, Razorflails, Hydra Gauntlets and Shardnet/Impaler in a wyches kit. They're all already samey and I'd merge all of those weapons into a single profile, something like S+1, AP-2, D1. Pairs, aka all three options for regular wyches, would then grant an extra attack.
Blackie wrote: Harlequins' weapons were all very samey, and the kit doesn't cover every possible combination, so consolidation is a really good thing for them.
This is the defeatist attitude I dislike when it comes to options vs consolidation.
"They weren't very unique, so let's make 'em the same."
Why not go the opposite route and make 'em unique?
And I flatly reject "the kit didn't have enough for every combination" being a valid reason to remove something from the game.
Blackie wrote: But to me there's no point to differentiate Power Sword, Agoniser, Razorflails, Hydra Gauntlets and Shardnet/Impaler in a wyches kit. They're all already samey and I'd merge all of those weapons into a single profile, something like S+1, AP-2, D1. Pairs, aka all three options for regular wyches, would then grant an extra attack.
Why? Why not make them unique?
40k is zoomed in enough where you can differentiate between different weapons in squads. If we're going to consolidate melee weapons, then why not special weapons? Why not heavy weapons?
I don't think Tyranids need 15 different types of Scything Talons like the do right now, but just having one is equally as bad.
Imo less is more is a thing and its absolutely not defeatist.
Making all the things 'unique' is fine in theory but there are only so many practical levers to pull - very swiftly you get the boltnoun phenomenon or the necromunda big melee thing phenomenon where everything is different for the sake of being different and there is little de jure or valid difference between any of it - its really just bloat masquerading as variety.
And lets remember. Ttgs are very limited systems. Whild gw are notorious for this, you aee the exact same thing in every game by every company. There will always be a 'best' option. All that variety is false variety - essentislly just useless text on a page. Less is more because its easier to distinguish and separate a smaller number of 'things' into useful and distinct categories. Fewer 'words', more 'real' variety.
Blackie wrote: Harlequins' weapons were all very samey, and the kit doesn't cover every possible combination, so consolidation is a really good thing for them.
This is the defeatist attitude I dislike when it comes to options vs consolidation.
"They weren't very unique, so let's make 'em the same."
Why not go the opposite route and make 'em unique?
And I flatly reject "the kit didn't have enough for every combination" being a valid reason to remove something from the game.
Blackie wrote: But to me there's no point to differentiate Power Sword, Agoniser, Razorflails, Hydra Gauntlets and Shardnet/Impaler in a wyches kit. They're all already samey and I'd merge all of those weapons into a single profile, something like S+1, AP-2, D1. Pairs, aka all three options for regular wyches, would then grant an extra attack.
Why? Why not make them unique?
40k is zoomed in enough where you can differentiate between different weapons in squads. If we're going to consolidate melee weapons, then why not special weapons? Why not heavy weapons?
I don't think Tyranids need 15 different types of Scything Talons like the do right now, but just having one is equally as bad.
Making them unique could be a solution of course. But you need to make them really unique. In the examples I made, about wych and harlequins melee weapons, all those weapons have been designed for the same role, to be anti elite. They're basically all equivalents for SM power weapons. That's why I advocate for a consolidation. They were/are already the same weapons basically, and having slightly different profiles only slows down the game or put the weapons with the worst averages into oblivion.
Special weapons such as plasma, melta, flamer, etc... do serve different purpose instead and they need to stay unique. So do splinter cannons, blasters and dark lances for example, although I think blasters could appreciate being a bit more unique compared to lances.
What we see currently is stuff like Harlequin weapons (which, in terms of fluff, have some of the most unusual and esoteric effects in the game) being consolidated into a single profile, whilst SMs still have 20 different varieties of power weapons and 50 different varieties of bolters.
I think it's fair to question whether the current consolidation is really happening in the most necessary places.
Harlequins' weapons were all very samey, and the kit doesn't cover every possible combination, so consolidation is a really good thing for them.
Nah dude, they were not samey, I said this a page ago (and many other times on dakka but nobody cares about Harlequins except for considering them LeOP Menace). In 8th, yeah they were bland as hell. But in 7th:
Harlequin's Kiss: One attack at S6 AP2, and 6s to wound have Instant Death
Harlequin's Caress: 6s to hit autowound/glance at AP2
Harlequin's Embrace: d3 Hammer of Wrath attacks at S6
Differentiated, unique, and interesting. Don't forget it!
What we see currently is stuff like Harlequin weapons (which, in terms of fluff, have some of the most unusual and esoteric effects in the game) being consolidated into a single profile, whilst SMs still have 20 different varieties of power weapons and 50 different varieties of bolters.
I think it's fair to question whether the current consolidation is really happening in the most necessary places.
Harlequins' weapons were all very samey, and the kit doesn't cover every possible combination, so consolidation is a really good thing for them.
Nah dude, they were not samey, I said this a page ago (and many other times on dakka but nobody cares about Harlequins except for considering them LeOP Menace). In 8th, yeah they were bland as hell. But in 7th:
Harlequin's Kiss: One attack at S6 AP2, and 6s to wound have Instant Death
Harlequin's Caress: 6s to hit autowound/glance at AP2
Harlequin's Embrace: d3 Hammer of Wrath attacks at S6
Differentiated, unique, and interesting. Don't forget it!
Looking at that, I don't think I'd consider embrace for anything, HoW attacks were meh at best. I kinda feel the caress is the better "go to" with the kiss being something you'd splash in.
Edit: depending on access to rerolls decides it, if you have decent rerolls anywhere the caress, if not the kiss. Different? Yes. Are they all valid use cases and you'd keep a mix of them? I dare say not.
That doesn't seem differentiated, unique and interesting to me. At all.
For different, unique and interesting I mean profiles such as chainsword, power sword and thunder hammer. Or choppas, big choppas and power klaws. All weapons with a different role.
Blackie wrote: That doesn't seem differentiated, unique and interesting to me. At all.
For different, unique and interesting I mean profiles such as chainsword, power sword and thunder hammer. Or choppas, big choppas and power klaws. All weapons with a different role.
vipoid wrote: This, presumably, is for Imperial/SM factions.
Given the existence of stuff like Witchblades, Agonisers etc., I imagine Xeno factions would have more unusual weapon selections.
Agoniser is just a power weapons with poison
witchblades? (do you mean venom blades?) are just a basic CCW with poison.
Archite glaive : heavy ccw demiklaives : heavy ccw electrowhip : power weapon with poison
most weapons can be merged into these categories. I'd argue that for drukhari specifically you could give them a rule that puts poison on all their weapons. And keep stuff like flesh gauntlets/shardnets/ichor injector as bespoke weapons since they are truly unique
This is a slippery slope. One of the biggest appeals of Xenos factions are their esotericism. No thanks, I don't want everything to be homogenized. I'll be getting off the train if that happens.
Gene St. Ealer wrote: This is a slippery slope. One of the biggest appeals of Xenos factions are their esotericism. No thanks, I don't want everything to be homogenized. I'll be getting off the train if that happens.
I agree, most of my arguments apply to Imperial factions honestly.
But do keep in mind that my suggestion of having 3 groups of weapons encompassing everything does not prevent the existence of specific weapons that arent in that list (lighning claws for example)
catbarf wrote: Shuffling those stats around doesn't meaningfully distinguish melee weapons, so there's really no mechanical need for the multitude of melee weapon profiles that currently exist.
And herein lies where I seem to differ to most of you.
You're absolutely correct that there is no need for the multitude of melee weapons given the way their rules work - as much as I may want the variety, I cannot in good faith argue that they should exist based upon how their rules are written - but where most of you see this as a reason to consolidate and simplify (or downright kneecap in Herzog's case - you sure you ain't Jervis in disguise?), I prefer the opposite: They should create that need.
I want these weapons to have a reason to exist outside of shuffling stats. I dislike the way they've done Tyranid Warriors because they've made a bunch of unequal weapons equal in points, and this is terrible game design (they just did the same thing for Guard Infantry squads). This is why Power Level, despite one particular Dakkanaut's insistence to the opposite, is an inadequate system compared to points*, because it creates zero distinction between base options and the best options. You lose nothing by taking the best options, so why bother with anything else?
The set up for power weapons is, generally, the same right now. With few exceptions, they generally all cost the same, and shuffle the Strength, AP and Damage around a bit, and given that they all cost the same and there is no specific points-based advantage or disadvantage to any of them, you just either take the one that is generally the most effective in most circumstances, or just the one you like.
I started in 2nd Edition, where a Power Axe was different to a Power Sword. We then moved into 3rd when suddenly everything was a "Power Weapon", except for Fists, Thunder Hammers and Chainfists (and Lightning Claws). I felt this was going too far in the opposite way. It was removing too much of what made differing load outs interesting. But what we have now with power swords/axes/mauls, is a bunch of weapon distinctions without any real difference.
But people pointed out what the various Tyranid bio-weapons were meant to do, and how they fulfilled different roles. I would want that to be the goal, not reducing everything to bland generic "Accursed Weapon" because we're too lazy to come up with a meaningful alternative.
I actually agree with you in that I would be happier with seeing different weapons distinguished from one another rather than what we currently have. But I'm not sure how to accomplish that, given the mechanical redundancy that currently exists. Looking at different target profiles, the niches boil down to:
-Anti-chaff (need high volume of attacks at D1)
-Anti-elite (need AP and/or D2)
-Anti-vehicles/monsters (need a combo of high S, AP, and/or D2+)
And... that's about it, as far as the core stats are concerned. Beyond that it's just rearranging numbers, so weapons of comparable power tend to produce comparable outcomes. So how would you go about making, say, a power axe different from a power sword? Are there special abilities that you feel could be layered on to differentiate them?
I mean, if you're taking how Tyranid weapons used to work as an ideal reference point, that was fundamentally 3rd Ed's consolidation in pure form, as weapons simply conferred special abilities to the bearer rather than minor stat adjustments. There weren't many of them, and the rules treated different morphologies of the same type identically, and I would argue that that simplicity was key to it functioning well as a system. Now every different type of Tyranid claw has its own stats to remember, and there's a lot of functional redundancy. It could be worse, though- at least we don't have Boneswords, Bonesabres, and Bonedaggers to choose from on a single model.
The other issue, which relates back to the OP, is that having a squad of 5 with all different melee weapons makes melee resolution tedious, and doesn't permit specializing the squad into any particular niche (at best, you pick casualties based on who's least likely to be useful). I prefer if squads can be armed identically, whether that be through generic profiles or just nixing the kit-based restrictions, because it makes the game easier to play.
vipoid wrote: This, presumably, is for Imperial/SM factions.
Given the existence of stuff like Witchblades, Agonisers etc., I imagine Xeno factions would have more unusual weapon selections.
Agoniser is just a power weapons with poison
witchblades? (do you mean venom blades?) are just a basic CCW with poison.
I'm surprised you felt the need to to ask which blade I meant by 'witchblade'. I would have thought which blade I was referring to was obvious. Granted, if I had misspelled it as 'Wychblade', then I could certainly see the confusion in which blade I was referring to. However, when I said 'Witchblade' I was in fact referring to the literal 'Witchblade' of Warlock/Farseer fame.
most weapons can be merged into these categories. I'd argue that for drukhari specifically you could give them a rule that puts poison on all their weapons. And keep stuff like flesh gauntlets/shardnets/ichor injector as bespoke weapons since they are truly unique
More seriously, putting poison onto everything would seem to have the opposite effect from what you're intending. Far from differentiating weapons, you'd instead be making them more same-y.
In 5th, an Archon could have a Venom Blade (Poison 2+), an Agoniser (Power Weapon, Always wounds on 4+) or a Huskblade (Power Weapon, any successful wounds inflict Instant Death). Adding the same Poison stat to all of them would surely only serve to diminish the differences between them? It would also diminish other possible differences (e.g. having weapons that wound against Leadership instead of Toughness).
I'm surprised you felt the need to to ask which blade I meant by 'witchblade'. I would have thought which blade I was referring to was obvious. Granted, if I had misspelled it as 'Wychblade', then I could certainly see the confusion in which blade I was referring to. However, when I said 'Witchblade' I was in fact referring to the literal 'Witchblade' of Warlock/Farseer fame.
s that wound against Leadership instead of Toughness).
oh lol, i got hard jebaited and thought you were talking about Drukhari because of the agoniser mention
More seriously, putting poison onto everything would seem to have the opposite effect from what you're intending. Far from differentiating weapons, you'd instead be making them more same-y.
In 5th, an Archon could have a Venom Blade (Poison 2+), an Agoniser (Power Weapon, Always wounds on 4+) or a Huskblade (Power Weapon, any successful wounds inflict Instant Death). Adding the same Poison stat to all of them would surely only serve to diminish the differences between them? It would also diminish other possible differences (e.g. having weapons that wound against Leadership instead of Toughness).
yeah, i already realised after reflection that my suggestion was mostly for Imperial armies
H.B.M.C. wrote: A lot of people responded to my last post here, generally all roughly saying the same sort of thing. Took catbarf (unsurprisingly) to really hit the nail on the head though with this:
catbarf wrote: Shuffling those stats around doesn't meaningfully distinguish melee weapons, so there's really no mechanical need for the multitude of melee weapon profiles that currently exist.
And herein lies where I seem to differ to most of you.
You're absolutely correct that there is no need for the multitude of melee weapons given the way their rules work - as much as I may want the variety, I cannot in good faith argue that they should exist based upon how their rules are written - but where most of you see this as a reason to consolidate and simplify (or downright kneecap in Herzog's case - you sure you ain't Jervis in disguise?), I prefer the opposite: They should create that need.
I want these weapons to have a reason to exist outside of shuffling stats. I dislike the way they've done Tyranid Warriors because they've made a bunch of unequal weapons equal in points, and this is terrible game design (they just did the same thing for Guard Infantry squads). This is why Power Level, despite one particular Dakkanaut's insistence to the opposite, is an inadequate system compared to points*, because it creates zero distinction between base options and the best options. You lose nothing by taking the best options, so why bother with anything else?
The set up for power weapons is, generally, the same right now. With few exceptions, they generally all cost the same, and shuffle the Strength, AP and Damage around a bit, and given that they all cost the same and there is no specific points-based advantage or disadvantage to any of them, you just either take the one that is generally the most effective in most circumstances, or just the one you like.
I started in 2nd Edition, where a Power Axe was different to a Power Sword. We then moved into 3rd when suddenly everything was a "Power Weapon", except for Fists, Thunder Hammers and Chainfists (and Lightning Claws). I felt this was going too far in the opposite way. It was removing too much of what made differing load outs interesting. But what we have now with power swords/axes/mauls, is a bunch of weapon distinctions without any real difference.
But people pointed out what the various Tyranid bio-weapons were meant to do, and how they fulfilled different roles. I would want that to be the goal, not reducing everything to bland generic "Accursed Weapon" because we're too lazy to come up with a meaningful alternative.
FWIW at least some of us do see your point, the difference is we see enough variety present outside of power weapons that we feel they don't need to be further diversified. I see that accursed weapons are coming in alongside CCW, chainblade, heavy chainblade, lightning claws, power fists, chainfists, and thunder hammers, and I think that is a solid spread of options which doesn't need any additional categories.
H.B.M.C. wrote: A lot of people responded to my last post here, generally all roughly saying the same sort of thing. Took catbarf (unsurprisingly) to really hit the nail on the head though with this:
catbarf wrote: Shuffling those stats around doesn't meaningfully distinguish melee weapons, so there's really no mechanical need for the multitude of melee weapon profiles that currently exist.
And herein lies where I seem to differ to most of you.
You're absolutely correct that there is no need for the multitude of melee weapons given the way their rules work - as much as I may want the variety, I cannot in good faith argue that they should exist based upon how their rules are written - but where most of you see this as a reason to consolidate and simplify (or downright kneecap in Herzog's case - you sure you ain't Jervis in disguise?), I prefer the opposite: They should create that need.
I want these weapons to have a reason to exist outside of shuffling stats. I dislike the way they've done Tyranid Warriors because they've made a bunch of unequal weapons equal in points, and this is terrible game design (they just did the same thing for Guard Infantry squads). This is why Power Level, despite one particular Dakkanaut's insistence to the opposite, is an inadequate system compared to points*, because it creates zero distinction between base options and the best options. You lose nothing by taking the best options, so why bother with anything else?
The set up for power weapons is, generally, the same right now. With few exceptions, they generally all cost the same, and shuffle the Strength, AP and Damage around a bit, and given that they all cost the same and there is no specific points-based advantage or disadvantage to any of them, you just either take the one that is generally the most effective in most circumstances, or just the one you like.
I started in 2nd Edition, where a Power Axe was different to a Power Sword. We then moved into 3rd when suddenly everything was a "Power Weapon", except for Fists, Thunder Hammers and Chainfists (and Lightning Claws). I felt this was going too far in the opposite way. It was removing too much of what made differing load outs interesting. But what we have now with power swords/axes/mauls, is a bunch of weapon distinctions without any real difference.
But people pointed out what the various Tyranid bio-weapons were meant to do, and how they fulfilled different roles. I would want that to be the goal, not reducing everything to bland generic "Accursed Weapon" because we're too lazy to come up with a meaningful alternative.
*No, this does not mean that points are perfect, or that points solve every problem, so please don't start that.
My only other war game is Infinity, so I have a limited perspective. In Infinity, quite a few melee weapons serve different roles, even if some are just straight upgrades or downgrades, usually for saving points or not.
There is a distinct difference between Electromagnetic CC Weapons and Explosive CC Weapons and APCC Weapons and Vorpal CC weapons, and Para CC Weapons, and it all depends on what you need them to do. Vorpal is great at murderizing TAGs and Heavy Infantry, but its damage is low, so it is less efficient against less armored troops. APCC weapons are the straight downgrade, but halve armor, and cost less, but the damage is based on the physical stat, like most CC weapons, meaning it can have a higher damage, and be more efficient against non TAG units. Electromagnetic CC weapons cause debuffs for TAGs and Heavy Infantry, and are a good weapon to use when you want to cut off orders from the Lieutenant, or just as a way to cause extra wounds against people with higher armor and lower BTS, as it affects BTS instead of Armor. Explosive/Double Action are just a good default cc weapon for taking out non TAGs and weaker Heavy Infantry. Each weapon serves a role, even if there's overlap, and some do their jobs better than the other ones in the group. Nourkias, for example, has an ability where he heals if he causes a wound. His Vorpal CC weapon kills instantly, so he only gets 1 wound back, regardless of how many wounds he causes. Alternatively, he could use his Electromagnetic CC weapon and potentially get 4 wounds back, bringing him up from 0 to 3, his max. It's not perfect, but it works.
I actually agree with you in that I would be happier with seeing different weapons distinguished from one another rather than what we currently have. But I'm not sure how to accomplish that, given the mechanical redundancy that currently exists. Looking at different target profiles, the niches boil down to:
-Anti-chaff (need high volume of attacks at D1)
-Anti-elite (need AP and/or D2)
-Anti-vehicles/monsters (need a combo of high S, AP, and/or D2+)
And... that's about it, as far as the core stats are concerned. Beyond that it's just rearranging numbers, so weapons of comparable power tend to produce comparable outcomes. So how would you go about making, say, a power axe different from a power sword? Are there special abilities that you feel could be layered on to differentiate them?
One thing that comes to mind is that weapons like Power Fists and Thunder Hammers could replicate the old I1 rule by saying 'a model can't fight with this weapon until all other models have already fought.' (Or whatever the exact wording is for Always Strikes Last.) Seems like it would be more impactful (and harder to mitigate) than a mere -1 to hit.
In terms of other abilities, Poison or Haywire-type abilities could be interesting for some Xeno factions to specialise without going straight into the chainsword/power weapon/power fist dynamic. The current issue with this is that, when these weapons exist at all, they tend not to represent meaningful choices. An Archon, for example, gets to choose between a poisoned weapon, another poisoned weapon, a power sword, and a power sword sidegrade. So, rather than being able to specialise as anti-infantry, anti-elite, anti-character, anti-vehicle or such, you've instead got 4 choices that all amount to basically the exact same thing. I've seen similar examples elsewhere, with poison weapons simply not existing as distinct or meaingful choices.
Honestly, though, I do struggle to think of many rules that could be used to meaningfully distinguish different weapons without just continuing the issue of one-upmanship (with special rules that ignore other special rules like invulnerable saves and/or FNP).
EviscerationPlague wrote: I find consolidation of melee weapons pretty easy.
1. Basic ass CC weapon
2. Chainsword
3. Bladed Power Weapon (where Swords would go)
4. Heavy Power Weapon (where Axes AND Mauls can go)
5. Power Fist
Where do power staffs, power halabards or falchions go, and how is the falchion different from a power longsword? Are L.claws just two swords? For models that are armed with just one falchion, are they going to be the same as models armed with a single longsword?
What about armies that have great focus put on to their different melee weapons, to counter balance their lack of range options and range units? Will it be somehow adressed and most important will the points cost be adjusted, or will the weapon stay at the higher point cost, but same stats till a new codex comes out?
They are different right now. Besides of course being a different type of weapon. With different lenght. Would a halabard be a slow weapon, the same as a thunder hammer, and suddenly force staff got x2 strenght? Would the staff keep its inv boosting stratagem? if yes then taking hammers or halabards would be stupid, unless point costs were kept different.
Karol wrote: They are different right now. Besides of course being a different type of weapon. With different lenght. Would a halabard be a slow weapon, the same as a thunder hammer, and suddenly force staff got x2 strenght? Would the staff keep its inv boosting stratagem? if yes then taking hammers or halabards would be stupid, unless point costs were kept different.
i'm not gonna bother explaining it to you since you've stated you're incapable of understanding theoreticals
Well they have to have a base in something. A blank removal of weapon types, and only for imperial factions seems odd.
And if it were to be done to marines, it would be done to GK too, because GK get affected by marine changes no matter, if they have or don't have the specific extra rules other loyalist marines have.
That is why I am asking the questions.
GK have 4 specific to them weapons. I am not talking about lore, where clearly a two handed hammer is something different then a staff with a powerfield generator. But pure mechanics. And stuff like GK and Strikes box is full of weapons to arm the units if different ways. A change like that could even bring the risk of removing GK terminators and puting in primaris GK in to the game.
Karol wrote: Well they have to have a base in something. A blank removal of weapon types, and only for imperial factions seems odd.
And if it were to be done to marines, it would be done to GK too, because GK get affected by marine changes no matter, if they have or don't have the specific extra rules other loyalist marines have.
That is why I am asking the questions.
GK have 4 specific to them weapons. I am not talking about lore, where clearly a two handed hammer is something different then a staff with a powerfield generator. But pure mechanics. And stuff like GK and Strikes box is full of weapons to arm the units if different ways. A change like that could even bring the risk of removing GK terminators and puting in primaris GK in to the game.
Put strats aside for now, what are the 4 mechanically different weapons and what makes you feel like they couldn't be consolidate to one profile? You could arm them however you like then. I'd make an exception for the hammer.
And this is my point: It doesn't actually work that way.
Marines with Transhuman: A Warrior with one pair of ScyTals average 0.55 wounds. One pair of Boneswords average 1.33. Extra AP and D2 is way better than an extra attack, it's not even close.
Death Guard with their innate -1D: ScyTals average 0.55 wounds. Boneswords average 0.89 wounds. Slimmer margin, but the extra S and AP is more useful.
How about Guard, those are pretty chaffy, right? ScyTals average 1.85 kills. Boneswords average 2.22 kills. The Boneswords are better.
Cultists? I mean it doesn't get much more chaff than T3/6+. ScyTals averages 2.22 kills. Boneswords still average 2.22. The extra S of the Boneswords offsets the extra attack with the ScyTals even against a target where the AP and D2 don't matter. This is the only comparison where ScyTals can pull ahead if you assume two pairs rather than one... Then winning by a measly 17%.
There's no specialization here- bonus attacks help against everything, but so does bonus S and bonus AP, so Boneswords are far better in any case where the D2 matters and somewhat better or on par where it doesn't. I mean, granted, that's not dissimilar to the old situation with upgrading from a chainsword to a power sword ('on par' to 'way better' depending on target), but at least you had to pay for that and it wasn't rendering other options (poor Rending Claws) redundant as well.
The most target-specific characteristic of melee weapons is their Damage stat, but everything else is just different flavors of 'kills everything better'. Shuffling those stats around doesn't meaningfully distinguish melee weapons, so there's really no mechanical need for the multitude of melee weapon profiles that currently exist.
It's a lot closer than you might think when you start to apply layers.
If you make either stand out in some regard then that option will take off with buffs. Giving boneswords 2 points per pair would probably be enough for a reasonable distinction.
Adrenals against DG gives you 1.1 for BS and 1.03 for ST. Obviously adrenals do nothing for BS in this context.
Again with GEQ you get 2.8 v 3.2.
On the other end Adrenals allows BS to hit T7 on 3s, which is a significant difference.
A slight tap makes Scytals more useful on the low end and worse on the high end -- unless you come into weird conditions and use something like 6s to wound = mortal.
Karol wrote: Well they have to have a base in something. A blank removal of weapon types, and only for imperial factions seems odd.
And if it were to be done to marines, it would be done to GK too, because GK get affected by marine changes no matter, if they have or don't have the specific extra rules other loyalist marines have.
That is why I am asking the questions.
GK have 4 specific to them weapons. I am not talking about lore, where clearly a two handed hammer is something different then a staff with a powerfield generator. But pure mechanics. And stuff like GK and Strikes box is full of weapons to arm the units if different ways. A change like that could even bring the risk of removing GK terminators and puting in primaris GK in to the game.
For GK, there are a couple of options. You could easily justify making halberds a heavy power weapon (basically a PF) while the falchion and sword are just regular power weapons. Or make them all regular power weapons so the difference is purely aesthetic. This looks to be how CSM are going with the Accursed Weapon profile. Staffs could be either type, or be more of a defensive upgrade rather than offensive.
There's no reason why all these different types need to have different rules. There's also no reason this should only affect Imperial weapons. The designers should be looking to create archetypes for weapons so they fulfil a specific purpose, instead of worrying about how to differentiate between two swords of slightly different lengths. Incidentally, this is where USRs where really good, because you could have two weapons with identical profiles but add a single USR to one to modify it under certain conditions (make one slightly better against vehicles, for example).
Daedalus81 wrote: It's a lot closer than you might think when you start to apply layers.
If you make either stand out in some regard then that option will take off with buffs. Giving boneswords 2 points per pair would probably be enough for a reasonable distinction.
Adrenals against DG gives you 1.1 for BS and 1.03 for ST. Obviously adrenals do nothing for BS in this context.
Again with GEQ you get 2.8 v 3.2.
On the other end Adrenals allows BS to hit T7 on 3s, which is a significant difference.
A slight tap makes Scytals more useful on the low end and worse on the high end -- unless you come into weird conditions and use something like 6s to wound = mortal.
Yeah, there are some niche edge cases that elevate Scything Talons from 'strictly worse' to 'about the same'. Which, again, doesn't really support the argument that these are differentiated weapons with distinct use cases, it's just that the otherwise strictly worse weapon can pull up to on par in some situations.
Meanwhile, if we're taking Adrenal Glands, let's fight basic Marines, the most common defensive profile on the tabletop: Boneswords average 2.22 wounds, Scything Talons average 0.74. I will happily give up the opportunity to be 14% better against GEQs in return for being 200% better against MEQs, let alone vehicles, thank you very much.
Your suggested fix of assigning a points cost to Boneswords (and 2pts is still a no-brainer, given how much better the Boneswords still are against heavy infantry and vehicles) goes right back to what I said about it just putting a cost on the better weapon, rather than giving them different purposes.
If Boneswords are supposed to be the anti-heavy infantry option and Scything Talons the anti-chaff one, I'd expect the Talons to be at least 33-50% better against chaff- but start playing around with the values and you soon find that you have to get a boatload of extra attacks to actually make up for a reduction of S and AP. The game system just doesn't support differentiating weapons in this manner.
catbarf wrote: Your suggested fix of assigning a points cost to Boneswords (and 2pts is still a no-brainer, given how much better the Boneswords still are against heavy infantry and vehicles) goes right back to what I said about it just putting a cost on the better weapon, rather than giving them different purposes.
If Boneswords are supposed to be the anti-heavy infantry option and Scything Talons the anti-chaff one, I'd expect the Talons to be at least 33-50% better against chaff- but start playing around with the values and you soon find that you have to get a boatload of extra attacks to actually make up for a reduction of S and AP. The game system just doesn't support differentiating weapons in this manner.
Sure, you couldn't add more attacks to Scytals to make them more interesting, because then you might find auto-wounding on 6s to hit works better when you have two or three times the attacks.
I think it's a good approach to give more of the specialized rules like fight last to other units rather than enforcing those rules on to just the weapons of a single unit.
I feel like the goal should be taking one weapon or the other is not ultimately punishing to the player and, if they so choose, they can design an army that works around either particular weapon.
If Boneswords are supposed to be the anti-heavy infantry option and Scything Talons the anti-chaff one, I'd expect the Talons to be at least 33-50% better against chaff- but start playing around with the values and you soon find that you have to get a boatload of extra attacks to actually make up for a reduction of S and AP. The game system just doesn't support differentiating weapons in this manner.
Also, adding a load of extra attacks also increases the potential damage ceiling.
I feel like the goal should be taking one weapon or the other is not ultimately punishing to the player and, if they so choose, they can design an army that works around either particular weapon.
That first part sounds a little like "list building choices shouldn't matter". Am I missing something here?
If Boneswords are supposed to be the anti-heavy infantry option and Scything Talons the anti-chaff one, I'd expect the Talons to be at least 33-50% better against chaff- but start playing around with the values and you soon find that you have to get a boatload of extra attacks to actually make up for a reduction of S and AP. The game system just doesn't support differentiating weapons in this manner.
Sorry I haven't really been following the dialogue here in detail, but this statement didn't ring true to me so I took it up as a challenge.
Scything Talons vs (calculations remove WS for brevity, also ignoring AoC for broader application and also because it's dumb )
MEQ: 6x .5 x .5 = 1.5
GEQ: 6x .666 x .83 = 3.3
Boneswords vs
MEQ: 3x .666 x .83 x 2 = 3.3
GEQ: 3x .666 = 1.998
So you get a pretty decent difference between targets for both of those outcomes. Once you leverage Damage, AP and S you can get reasonable amounts of differentiation. Is doubling attacks a boatload? I don't think it breaks the bank necessarily. (you could replace extra attacks with bonuses to hit or rerolls *bleh*) I don't know how it all plays with other rules, but 40K has too many other rules so I'll just leave it at that
I do agree with the general premise that 40ks stat-resolution is a little squishy though. It could have been managed better for sure.
EDIT AGAIN: But yes I also agree with catbarfs follow up observation that the amount of additional GEQ casualties here with the Scything Talons is also not compelling enough over the greater MEQ/vehicle killing power. Imo there would have to be a pretty substantial points difference between the two.
I feel like the goal should be taking one weapon or the other is not ultimately punishing to the player and, if they so choose, they can design an army that works around either particular weapon.
That first part sounds a little like "list building choices shouldn't matter". Am I missing something here?
No - sorry if it came across that way. They would matter in the context that Scytals would be worse into tanks and BS worse into chaff ( in a simplified statement ), but smart army design and play would help you deal with any weakness and give you a solid advantage into their specialty.
I feel like the goal should be taking one weapon or the other is not ultimately punishing to the player and, if they so choose, they can design an army that works around either particular weapon.
That first part sounds a little like "list building choices shouldn't matter". Am I missing something here?
No - sorry if it came across that way. They would matter in the context that Scytals would be worse into tanks and BS worse into chaff ( in a simplified statement ), but smart army design and play would help you deal with any weakness and give you a solid advantage into their specialty.
Ok gotcha, thanks for clarifying.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Revised experiment, instead of doubling attacks giving Sctything Talons +1 to hit:
Scything Talons proposal: S4, AP-1, D1, +1 to hit
Boneswords proposal: S5 AP-3 D2
Scything Talons vs (including to-hit this time, still ignoring AoC for broader application and also because it's dumb )
MEQ: 3 x .83 x .5 x .5 = .62
GEQ: 3 x .83 x .666 x .83 = 1.37
Boneswords vs
MEQ: 3 x .666 x .666 x .83 x 2 = 2.2
GEQ: 3 x .666 x .666 = 1.33
Well that didn't work out nearly as well because Scything Talons don't really kill any more GEQ than Boneswords. Hm. . .
For GK, there are a couple of options. You could easily justify making halberds a heavy power weapon (basically a PF) while the falchion and sword are just regular power weapons. Or make them all regular power weapons so the difference is purely aesthetic. This looks to be how CSM are going with the Accursed Weapon profile. Staffs could be either type, or be more of a defensive upgrade rather than offensive.
There's no reason why all these different types need to have different rules. There's also no reason this should only affect Imperial weapons. The designers should be looking to create archetypes for weapons so they fulfil a specific purpose, instead of worrying about how to differentiate between two swords of slightly different lengths. Incidentally, this is where USRs where really good, because you could have two weapons with identical profiles but add a single USR to one to modify it under certain conditions (make one slightly better against vehicles, for example).
Well the thing is the whole codex is build around GK having those different weapons in melee, and in return the heavy weapons squads have are rather bad. Aside of of being forced to remove weapons from model, which in case of my metal terminators would not be possible, it would be really wierd thing to do. Specialy if at the same time other non imperial armies are suppose to keep their different type of weapon, what most people seem to propose.
And long swords aren't slightly different lenght, they are 1/3 longer, try wrestling or box a guy who has 1/3 longer arms. It is not a slight difference. longer reach is a huge adventage, there is a reason why a pole arm weapon user can fight two sword user, unless they fight with something like a montante. But that is more or less a sword version of a spear it even has an additional grip in front of the guard to go stab mode.
To me this all sounds like people with armies that have ccw, fist and maybe sword weapons as only options for weapons trying to make armies that have more varity in their choices lose gear options, they don't care about, because their army don't have them. Can we lose transports or efficient heavy weapons in squads too, because I just decided they are unfun and too confusing to play with. Lets just have squads armed with basic weapons, and any special ammo or special kind of shot should be moved in to stratagems or core weapon rules.
Well the thing is the whole codex is build around GK having those different weapons in melee, and in return the heavy weapons squads have are rather bad.
But We're not talking about 'this' codex or the current incarnation of the game. Just because things are ^this way^ now doesn't mean it's the best way, the only way, the correct way, or that there aren't other approaches that can be considered.
People are talking about cutting down the categories of weapons as per earlier editions
And this might blow your mind but in earlier editions grey knights were not like their current incarnation and ^shock^ worked within the older framework of smaller categories of weapons just fine. Nemesis force weapons were s6 power weapons back in the day, as I recall. and for Sergeants and higher they were force weapons (and force weapons could be nasty)
Aside of of being forced to remove weapons from model, which in case of my metal terminators would not be possible, it would be really wierd thing to do. Specialy if at the same time other non imperial armies are suppose to keep their different type of weapon, what most people seem to propose.
Why would you need to remove weapons?
The whole point of this approach is the weapons modelled can have greater variety (grey knights with axes, clubs, blades etc for example...), but in rules terms these would simply be considered power weapons/fists etc like it was back in the day. In other words your models are perfectly fine...
And I'm pretty sure your grey knights aren't bring picked out in isolation. Your just hyper focused on them.
And long swords aren't slightly different lenght, they are 1/3 longer, try wrestling or box a guy who has 1/3 longer arms. It is not a slight difference. longer reach is a huge adventage, there is a reason why a pole arm weapon user can fight two sword user, unless they fight with something like a montante. But that is more or less a sword version of a spear it even has an additional grip in front of the guard to go stab mode.
To me this all sounds like people with armies that have ccw, fist and maybe sword weapons as only options for weapons trying to make armies that have more varity in their choices lose gear options, they don't care about, because their army don't have them.
No it's just you, as usual, completely missing the point.
Can we lose transports or efficient heavy weapons in squads too, because I just decided they are unfun and too confusing to play with. Lets just have squads armed with basic weapons, and any special ammo or special kind of shot should be moved in to stratagems or core weapon rules.
Ill meet you half way. Having a million varieties of pseudo-variety isn't clever- there's no reason not to consolidate transports. That said we are not talking about eliminating options, just consolidating the excessive bloat like in previous versions of the game. Maybe do some research on older editions and how they worked to understand this pov.
And I'm all in board for basic weapons and limiting special ammo types.
For GK, there are a couple of options. You could easily justify making halberds a heavy power weapon (basically a PF) while the falchion and sword are just regular power weapons. Or make them all regular power weapons so the difference is purely aesthetic. This looks to be how CSM are going with the Accursed Weapon profile. Staffs could be either type, or be more of a defensive upgrade rather than offensive.
There's no reason why all these different types need to have different rules. There's also no reason this should only affect Imperial weapons. The designers should be looking to create archetypes for weapons so they fulfil a specific purpose, instead of worrying about how to differentiate between two swords of slightly different lengths. Incidentally, this is where USRs where really good, because you could have two weapons with identical profiles but add a single USR to one to modify it under certain conditions (make one slightly better against vehicles, for example).
Well the thing is the whole codex is build around GK having those different weapons in melee, and in return the heavy weapons squads have are rather bad. Aside of of being forced to remove weapons from model, which in case of my metal terminators would not be possible, it would be really wierd thing to do. Specialy if at the same time other non imperial armies are suppose to keep their different type of weapon, what most people seem to propose.
And long swords aren't slightly different lenght, they are 1/3 longer, try wrestling or box a guy who has 1/3 longer arms. It is not a slight difference. longer reach is a huge adventage, there is a reason why a pole arm weapon user can fight two sword user, unless they fight with something like a montante. But that is more or less a sword version of a spear it even has an additional grip in front of the guard to go stab mode.
To me this all sounds like people with armies that have ccw, fist and maybe sword weapons as only options for weapons trying to make armies that have more varity in their choices lose gear options, they don't care about, because their army don't have them. Can we lose transports or efficient heavy weapons in squads too, because I just decided they are unfun and too confusing to play with. Lets just have squads armed with basic weapons, and any special ammo or special kind of shot should be moved in to stratagems or core weapon rules.
Harliquins managed to put 4 melee weapons into 2 profiles and 3 stratagems. Is there a reason Grey Knights cannot put 5 melee weapons into 2 profiles and 4 stratagems?
It's not that hard a thought exercise since we already have a Warding Stave Stratagem (Zone of Warding). So give all the weapons except the Daemon Hammer the same weapon profile and add a stratagem each for Swords, Halberds, and Falchions.
Well the thing is the whole codex is build around GK having those different weapons in melee, and in return the heavy weapons squads have are rather bad. Aside of of being forced to remove weapons from model, which in case of my metal terminators would not be possible, it would be really wierd thing to do. Specialy if at the same time other non imperial armies are suppose to keep their different type of weapon, what most people seem to propose.
Why would you need to remove weapons? The whole point of this type of consolidation is you're much less likely to need to do that. GK are the perfect example of this benefit. Falchions were the best option in 8th but are not in 9th, so anyone who built around them in 8th would "need" to replace them when the new Codex came out. If the options were consolidated it wouldn't matter which choice you made or when you bought the models as the weapons would follow the same rules and the choice of which to put onto a model would be purely aesthetic.
I'm not arguing for this to only apply to Imperial armies either. In fact, we've already seen it happen to Haemonculi. I'd argue they went a little too far in that case, but in previous editions they've had a big list of weapons that all did more or less the same thing, leading to one choice just being better than the half-dozen others. I'd have preferred them to keep maybe 2-3 options and make them distinct, but the principle is fine for me.
And long swords aren't slightly different lenght, they are 1/3 longer, try wrestling or box a guy who has 1/3 longer arms. It is not a slight difference. longer reach is a huge adventage, there is a reason why a pole arm weapon user can fight two sword user, unless they fight with something like a montante. But that is more or less a sword version of a spear it even has an additional grip in front of the guard to go stab mode.
Just looking at various SM/CSM armies, we have units equipped with gladius, khopesh, longsword, scimitar and various other types of sword. Every one of those requires a different style. There comes a point where you need to decide what level of detail you need in a game of 40k's scale. I'm arguing the difference between a falchion and a longsword is simply not important enough to take into account at this sort of scale. If you think it is, where do you draw the line? The gladius used by a lot of UM units is a short sword too, should that get different rules to a power sword?
Karol wrote: To me this all sounds like people with armies that have ccw, fist and maybe sword weapons as only options for weapons trying to make armies that have more varity in their choices lose gear options, they don't care about, because their army don't have them. Can we lose transports or efficient heavy weapons in squads too, because I just decided they are unfun and too confusing to play with.
I run many armies and my arguments are not being made with any one army in particular in mind. I'm purely talking about the game as a whole, regardless of how this might affect my own armies. This may shock you, but people are entirely capable of proposing ideas that they think will improve the game, even at the cost of losing some power from their own armies.
My arguments aren't about how fun something is. They're about how necessary a distinction they are within the context of the game, so your transport and heavy weapon examples are simply missing the point. You're welcome to argue for the removal of transports, if you can come up with a sensible reason why, but it seems you've missed the entire basis for the argument against multiple different types of close combat weapons.
Karol wrote: Lets just have squads armed with basic weapons, and any special ammo or special kind of shot should be moved in to stratagems or core weapon rules.
Heavy and special weapons should still be a thing. I'm actually not aware of any special ammo or special shot other than DW bolters and missile launchers so I'm not really sure what you're getting at with this suggestion. I wouldn't be opposed, in principle, to moving those kind of things to core weapon rules or removing them entirely, depending on the specifics.
alextroy wrote: Harliquins managed to put 4 melee weapons into 2 profiles and 3 stratagems. Is there a reason Grey Knights cannot put 5 melee weapons into 2 profiles and 4 stratagems?
Just because something has been done stupidly once, doesn't mean we should encourage GW to do it stupidly again in the future.
After all, this was why people bitched about the 4th ed Dark Angels and Chaos books...
alextroy wrote: Harliquins managed to put 4 melee weapons into 2 profiles and 3 stratagems. Is there a reason Grey Knights cannot put 5 melee weapons into 2 profiles and 4 stratagems?
Just because something has been done stupidly once, doesn't mean we should encourage GW to do it stupidly again in the future.
After all, this was why people bitched about the 4th ed Dark Angels and Chaos books...
Wargear Stratagems are the way of the future
Love them or hate them, they have become more and more common. If they can be used to make the game simpler and faster, I say go with the flow.
Note that I would rather half the stratagems disappear with many incorporated into the unit datasheets, even in a limited use capacity. There is no reason for a stratagem used by 1 or 2 units to be separated from their datasheet.
Yeah, as it is their loadout is a pain. 3 special melee weapons with different profiles, a 4th one on the leader and then the basic weapons on the remaining wyches means it takes forever to resolve their attacks without any tactical benefit. All the special weapons are kinda samey in fact, always have been but at least people could equip their squads with multiples of the same weapon. That's why I'd advocate for consolidating all those weapons into a single profile and adding a stratagem for the shardnet/impaler to lock enemy models in combat.
If Boneswords are supposed to be the anti-heavy infantry option and Scything Talons the anti-chaff one, I'd expect the Talons to be at least 33-50% better against chaff- but start playing around with the values and you soon find that you have to get a boatload of extra attacks to actually make up for a reduction of S and AP. The game system just doesn't support differentiating weapons in this manner.
Sorry I haven't really been following the dialogue here in detail, but this statement didn't ring true to me so I took it up as a challenge.
Scything Talons vs (calculations remove WS for brevity, also ignoring AoC for broader application and also because it's dumb )
MEQ: 6x .5 x .5 = 1.5
GEQ: 6x .666 x .83 = 3.3
Boneswords vs
MEQ: 3x .666 x .83 x 2 = 3.3
GEQ: 3x .666 = 1.998
So you get a pretty decent difference between targets for both of those outcomes. Once you leverage Damage, AP and S you can get reasonable amounts of differentiation. Is doubling attacks a boatload? I don't think it breaks the bank necessarily. (you could replace extra attacks with bonuses to hit or rerolls *bleh*) I don't know how it all plays with other rules, but 40K has too many other rules so I'll just leave it at that
I was looking at it from the perspective of how you would modify Talons to bring them up to the level of Boneswords. In order to get this differentiation between the two weapons, you've had to
-Give the Talons extra attacks
-Give the Boneswords extra AP -Heavily nerf the strength of both weapons and the base profile (currently, Talons hit at S6, and Boneswords at S7, with Warriors being S5 base)
-Remove the extra attack from dual Boneswords
All that just to get the anti-chaff weapon to, against chaff, inflict 65% more damage. Would this be a better differentiation of roles than we currently have? Absolutely, and I'd actually really like for Boneswords to have low S so they're not better anti-tank weapons than Rending Claws (which we haven't even touched on yet!), but I think when you need one weapon to outright double your attacks and the other to have anti-tank levels of AP in order to clearly say that one is anti-chaff and the other is anti-MEQ, it highlights the limitations of the system.
If Boneswords are supposed to be the anti-heavy infantry option and Scything Talons the anti-chaff one, I'd expect the Talons to be at least 33-50% better against chaff- but start playing around with the values and you soon find that you have to get a boatload of extra attacks to actually make up for a reduction of S and AP. The game system just doesn't support differentiating weapons in this manner.
Sorry I haven't really been following the dialogue here in detail, but this statement didn't ring true to me so I took it up as a challenge.
Scything Talons vs (calculations remove WS for brevity, also ignoring AoC for broader application and also because it's dumb )
MEQ: 6x .5 x .5 = 1.5
GEQ: 6x .666 x .83 = 3.3
Boneswords vs
MEQ: 3x .666 x .83 x 2 = 3.3
GEQ: 3x .666 = 1.998
So you get a pretty decent difference between targets for both of those outcomes. Once you leverage Damage, AP and S you can get reasonable amounts of differentiation. Is doubling attacks a boatload? I don't think it breaks the bank necessarily. (you could replace extra attacks with bonuses to hit or rerolls *bleh*) I don't know how it all plays with other rules, but 40K has too many other rules so I'll just leave it at that
I was looking at it from the perspective of how you would modify Talons to bring them up to the level of Boneswords. In order to get this differentiation between the two weapons, you've had to
-Give the Talons extra attacks
-Give the Boneswords extra AP -Heavily nerf the strength of both weapons and the base profile (currently, Talons hit at S6, and Boneswords at S7, with Warriors being S5 base)
-Remove the extra attack from dual Boneswords
All that just to get the anti-chaff weapon to, against chaff, inflict 65% more damage. Would this be a better differentiation of roles than we currently have? Absolutely, and I'd actually really like for Boneswords to have low S so they're not better anti-tank weapons than Rending Claws (which we haven't even touched on yet!), but I think when you need one weapon to outright double your attacks and the other to have anti-tank levels of AP in order to clearly say that one is anti-chaff and the other is anti-MEQ, it highlights the limitations of the system.
If you don't mind me asking, what would be your proposed solution to this sort of problem? Not just boneswords/scything talons but the overall lack of meaningful specialisation for most weapons.
As in, do you think it can be fixed within the current system or would you prefer us moving back to AV values and the old version of AP?
It doesn't have to be specialization though; boneswords can be just straight-up better at the cost of more points. That in itself distinguishes them from one another. Maybe I am in the minority but I like having the option to pay extra for weapons that are simply better.
vipoid wrote:If you don't mind me asking, what would be your proposed solution to this sort of problem? Not just boneswords/scything talons but the overall lack of meaningful specialisation for most weapons.
As in, do you think it can be fixed within the current system or would you prefer us moving back to AV values and the old version of AP?
I think it could be fixed if the weapons were really specialized in what benefits they provided, with more special abilities tied to weapons. Make power weapons give you bonus AP but nothing, nada, zip for S or Dam. Make chaff-clearing weapons give you bonus attacks, not re-roll 1s or a point of S. Make the big bruiser weapons always strike last, so you're taking a risk in return for that high damage.
NinthMusketeer wrote:It doesn't have to be specialization though; boneswords can be just straight-up better at the cost of more points. That in itself distinguishes them from one another. Maybe I am in the minority but I like having the option to pay extra for weapons that are simply better.
Sure, but where does that leave Rending Claws?
I mean, the reason I'm using Tyranids as an example is because they showcased both differentiation and upgrades- Boneswords were the best weapon overall (and the most costly), but there were still situations where Scything Talons or Rending Claws were better. Even if you had points to spare, it was worth considering what you were going to use the squad for.
I don't think there's anything wrong with having weapons that are just upgrades, like taking a power sword in lieu of a chainsword, but if your options always come down to taking X to stay cheap or taking Y to do damage then that's not a particularly deep choice.
Yeah, as it is their loadout is a pain. 3 special melee weapons with different profiles, a 4th one on the leader and then the basic weapons on the remaining wyches means it takes forever to resolve their attacks without any tactical benefit. All the special weapons are kinda samey in fact, always have been but at least people could equip their squads with multiples of the same weapon. That's why I'd advocate for consolidating all those weapons into a single profile and adding a stratagem for the shardnet/impaler to lock enemy models in combat.
Yeah, i used to just go 3 HGs in 1 unit and 3 Shardnets in another. Made it really easy, fun, and gave each unit a role. But now.... nope, just annoying now.
If Boneswords are supposed to be the anti-heavy infantry option and Scything Talons the anti-chaff one, I'd expect the Talons to be at least 33-50% better against chaff- but start playing around with the values and you soon find that you have to get a boatload of extra attacks to actually make up for a reduction of S and AP. The game system just doesn't support differentiating weapons in this manner.
Sorry I haven't really been following the dialogue here in detail, but this statement didn't ring true to me so I took it up as a challenge.
Scything Talons vs (calculations remove WS for brevity, also ignoring AoC for broader application and also because it's dumb )
MEQ: 6x .5 x .5 = 1.5
GEQ: 6x .666 x .83 = 3.3
Boneswords vs
MEQ: 3x .666 x .83 x 2 = 3.3
GEQ: 3x .666 = 1.998
So you get a pretty decent difference between targets for both of those outcomes. Once you leverage Damage, AP and S you can get reasonable amounts of differentiation. Is doubling attacks a boatload? I don't think it breaks the bank necessarily. (you could replace extra attacks with bonuses to hit or rerolls *bleh*) I don't know how it all plays with other rules, but 40K has too many other rules so I'll just leave it at that
I was looking at it from the perspective of how you would modify Talons to bring them up to the level of Boneswords. In order to get this differentiation between the two weapons, you've had to
-Give the Talons extra attacks
-Give the Boneswords extra AP -Heavily nerf the strength of both weapons and the base profile (currently, Talons hit at S6, and Boneswords at S7, with Warriors being S5 base)
-Remove the extra attack from dual Boneswords
All that just to get the anti-chaff weapon to, against chaff, inflict 65% more damage. Would this be a better differentiation of roles than we currently have? Absolutely, and I'd actually really like for Boneswords to have low S so they're not better anti-tank weapons than Rending Claws (which we haven't even touched on yet!), but I think when you need one weapon to outright double your attacks and the other to have anti-tank levels of AP in order to clearly say that one is anti-chaff and the other is anti-MEQ, it highlights the limitations of the system.
Yeah, I agree it's not elegant with the double attacks. But maybe double attacks is preferable to tacking on other rules like rerolls. The nice thing about the atracks is that it's still relying on modifying the base variables. Otherwise I found myself twiddling the S value to leverage differentiation on the to-wound roll.
Dropping the strength even more on BS could get you further, but thematically doesn't feel as good imo. The balance between designing for "role" vs. Designing for "flavor/cool" is tricky, though I suspect I may be a little more in the "flaver/cool" camp on this one, as long as each weapon isn't terrible for the points I'm ok.
I'll have to refresh myself on how earlier editions handled them. I don't recall.
Racerguy180 wrote: There are many different ways they could keep the differentiation without one being necessarily the best. GW chooses not to.
People keep saying this but I've not seen any suggestions where there doesn't end up with a "best weapon", usually because people cook up a suggestion don't assign points to their suggestions.
NinthMusketeer wrote:It doesn't have to be specialization though; boneswords can be just straight-up better at the cost of more points. That in itself distinguishes them from one another. Maybe I am in the minority but I like having the option to pay extra for weapons that are simply better.
Sure, but where does that leave Rending Claws?
I mean, the reason I'm using Tyranids as an example is because they showcased both differentiation and upgrades- Boneswords were the best weapon overall (and the most costly), but there were still situations where Scything Talons or Rending Claws were better. Even if you had points to spare, it was worth considering what you were going to use the squad for.
I don't think there's anything wrong with having weapons that are just upgrades, like taking a power sword in lieu of a chainsword, but if your options always come down to taking X to stay cheap or taking Y to do damage then that's not a particularly deep choice.
I imagine something like this:
Scything Talons; no AP, D1, reroll 1s to hit, no points cost
Rending Claws; AP -1, D1, AP -4 on 6s to wound, no points cost
Bonesword(s); AP -2, D2, costs extra points
NinthMusketeer wrote: I imagine something like this:
Scything Talons; no AP, D1, reroll 1s to hit, no points cost
Rending Claws; AP -1, D1, AP -4 on 6s to wound, no points cost
Bonesword(s); AP -2, D2, costs extra points
Well, to make a counter-proposal:
Scything Talons- no AP, D1, extra attack per pair, no cost
Rending Claws- AP-1, D1, on 6s to wound become AP-4 and Dam D6, low cost
Boneswords- AP-2, D2, low cost
That keeps Scything Talons as the budget option with a niche use case against chaff, while Boneswords and Rending Claws are specialized for anti-heavy-infantry and anti-vehicle respectively. I think that's more interesting than just going for Boneswords if you have the points every time.
On the standard A3/S5 Warrior profile, comparing a single pair of each weapon, the performance against MEQs (without AoC) then looks like:
STs- 0.59 dam
RCs- 1.11 dam
BSs- 1.78 dam
Against Cultists:
STs- 1.48 dam
RCs- 1.33 dam
BSs- 1.33 dam
Against T7/8 vehicles:
STs- 0.3 dam
RCs- 1.33 dam
BSs- 0.89 dam
(You'd still have to figure out how to handle Bonesword+Lash Whip, as Boneswords no longer grant extra attacks when taken in pairs, but there are a number of ways you could do that. Perhaps have the Warrior lose an attack in exchange for forcing the enemy to strike last)
Things is, if you have the points you could spend them on boneswords... or more models. Or heavy weapons, or upgrades on other units, they don't exist in a vacuum. But d6 damage? WAY too swingy; a min squad of warriors could one-shot a tank with good rolls!
And therein lies the problem. The only characteristic that separates anti-tank weapons from anti-heavy-infantry weapons is high damage, particularly randomized damage that will tend to overkill infantry but can occasionally roll a 1 and get soaked by a multi-wound infantry model instead of killing it outright. D6 damage on 6s is the best I can come up with for making a weapon specifically anti-vehicle in contrast to the flat D2 of Boneswords.
Though a swingy ability where rolling a few lucky 6s lets you eat a tank would be spot-on for how the old Rending rule worked.
catbarf wrote: And therein lies the problem. The only characteristic that separates anti-tank weapons from anti-heavy-infantry weapons is high damage, particularly randomized damage that will tend to overkill infantry but can occasionally roll a 1 and get soaked by a multi-wound infantry model instead of killing it outright. D6 damage on 6s is the best I can come up with for making a weapon specifically anti-vehicle in contrast to the flat D2 of Boneswords.
Though a swingy ability where rolling a few lucky 6s lets you eat a tank would be spot-on for how the old Rending rule worked.
It's not like the game has any grounding in thematic sense anymore. You could just give a weapon a rule that specifically does more damage to weapons and less to infantry.
e.g Lascannon stats stats stats Dmg d3/+3 if target has Vehicle keyword.
Epic Armageddon had cool unit/weapon interactions so that you needed AT weapons to shoot tanks and AI weapons to shoot infantry, and Macro weapons to shoot both (or be a light vehicle).
catbarf wrote: And therein lies the problem. The only characteristic that separates anti-tank weapons from anti-heavy-infantry weapons is high damage, particularly randomized damage that will tend to overkill infantry but can occasionally roll a 1 and get soaked by a multi-wound infantry model instead of killing it outright. D6 damage on 6s is the best I can come up with for making a weapon specifically anti-vehicle in contrast to the flat D2 of Boneswords.
Though a swingy ability where rolling a few lucky 6s lets you eat a tank would be spot-on for how the old Rending rule worked.
It's not like the game has any grounding in thematic sense anymore. You could just give a weapon a rule that specifically does more damage to weapons and less to infantry.
e.g Lascannon stats stats stats Dmg d3/+3 if target has Vehicle keyword.
You mean how a lascannon would instant death anything T4 or less and could pen a vehicle?
Or like when that same lascannon hit a Centurion and absolutely didn't kill it, but could certainly have had the chance to kill a tank?
The game is no less thematically linked than it used to be. If anything the outcomes are more grounded in profiles that reflect the real durability of models.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
catbarf wrote: And therein lies the problem. The only characteristic that separates anti-tank weapons from anti-heavy-infantry weapons is high damage, particularly randomized damage that will tend to overkill infantry but can occasionally roll a 1 and get soaked by a multi-wound infantry model instead of killing it outright. D6 damage on 6s is the best I can come up with for making a weapon specifically anti-vehicle in contrast to the flat D2 of Boneswords.
Though a swingy ability where rolling a few lucky 6s lets you eat a tank would be spot-on for how the old Rending rule worked.
Why is it necessary to have a distinction of weapons used against tanks as opposed to heavy infantry?
Because half of the factions in the game consist of heavy infantry. making an army which can spam efficient anti tank automaticly favourable in half, or more the match ups. On top of that if the weapons are multi shot and/or easy to spam, they become a good choice vs non heavy infantry too. Or at least a good enough option. Such a set up creates 8th ed where plasma is king, and running sm and csm in a sm or csm army makes no sense at all.
catbarf wrote: And therein lies the problem. The only characteristic that separates anti-tank weapons from anti-heavy-infantry weapons is high damage, particularly randomized damage that will tend to overkill infantry but can occasionally roll a 1 and get soaked by a multi-wound infantry model instead of killing it outright. D6 damage on 6s is the best I can come up with for making a weapon specifically anti-vehicle in contrast to the flat D2 of Boneswords.
Though a swingy ability where rolling a few lucky 6s lets you eat a tank would be spot-on for how the old Rending rule worked.
Why is it necessary to have a distinction of weapons used against tanks as opposed to heavy infantry?
It's not 'necessary' to have that distinction. It's not necessary to have any distinctions between weapons. We can freely declare that any weapon rolls a single die and on a 4+, the target model is removed from the table.
Sorry to snark but have you been following the conversation at all? The point is that the current rules don't support the functional niches that used to exist and forced decisions about unit role. Boneswords and Rending Claws used to be very straightforwardly distinguished as anti-heavy-infantry (Instant Death) and anti-vehicle (Rending) respectively; now it is simply the bland choice between a good weapon and a bad one. This is a single illustrative example of a broader trend, even if you don't feel that the decision between being able to instagib Terminators or being able to crack open a Land Raider was particularly 'necessary'.
Yea I just don't think the actual application of these differences were as stark as you suggest. It mattered more for a Tyrant than it did for Warriors.
Daedalus81 wrote: You mean how a lascannon would instant death anything T4 or less and could pen a vehicle?
Or like when that same lascannon hit a Centurion and absolutely didn't kill it, but could certainly have had the chance to kill a tank?
The game is no less thematically linked than it used to be. If anything the outcomes are more grounded in profiles that reflect the real durability of models.
Again you present previous problems as a reason why current problems cannot ever be solved.
Daedalus81 wrote: Yea I just don't think the actual application of these differences were as stark as you suggest. It mattered more for a Tyrant than it did for Warriors.
Thats because you're arguing over specifics when everyine else is speaking in broad terms. Something that happens when a person is trying to deflect or derail and argument because they don't have a good counter-argument.
Daedalus81 wrote: Yea I just don't think the actual application of these differences were as stark as you suggest. It mattered more for a Tyrant than it did for Warriors.
Alright, so for funsies let's compare Tyrant options.
And that's it, they're just weapons. Once again, the BS+LW combo gets an ability (re-rolling 1s) that rather undercuts the advantage of STs, and is otherwise just better. The STs have an exactly 20% advantage against chaff, and the BS+LW is tremendously better against everything else. Against MEQs the BS+LW is 30% better and against heavier things it's not even close, so unless you take Hive Tyrants to kill Guardsmen there's no actual choice here. If you want a melee build you have to take one of each, and if you want a ranged weapon the correct choice is to swap out the Talons.
In 4th Ed, giving a Tyrant Scything Talons gave it bonus attacks (a significant ability for a model with only 3 attacks base), while the Lash Whip reduced enemy attacks in base contact, and Boneswords gave you permanent Catalyst and let you make a psychic test to extend Catalyst to all units within 6". So you had STs for increasing the Tyrant's raw killing power, and BS+LW for increasing its durability and extending that durability increase to nearby friendlies. Two completely different options with completely different purposes and no overlap.
So, like... what's your point? The broad observation that weapons have been homogenized is invalid because you don't think it really mattered for Warriors?
I got back into 40k earlier last year. Before then I'd been collecting a bunch of warmachine but... warmachine isn't in a good state so.
Back then one of the major advantages I considered 40k having was 'the models are extremely modular, you can build almost any configuration you want'.
But I got into miniature painting with 40k in 5th and things were pretty modular back then.
Anyway the biggest issue for me is the prices. Next year I'm buying a 3d printer and will probably get into some other gameline. (OPR or something else). GW has always been ludicrously expensive but it's gone from ludicrous to impossible.
I can afford to finish up my Eldar collection and there's a couple of out of print models I want I'll scour trough online auctions and suchlike for, but I have a full time job, a lot of disposable income and I can't justify the costs anymore.
Games Workshop made a statement some years back that they considered themselves a 'primarily a seller of miniatures'.
I don't think this is true anymore.
I think they're more an Intellectual Property Seller.
People don't stay in 40k because they love the miniatures can't find any better better ones or because they love the systems and can't find any better systems. That might help but the primary reason people stay with 40k is because they love the setting.
Since I logged in anyway, I'd like to toss in 2 cents about expectations versus history.
Briefly, take CSM.
Pewter.
Basic CSMs in plastic, 2 bodies.
CSM assault weapon sprue with plastic arms (powerfist, plasma pistol, power sword, power axe) to make any pewter body a champion.
Blisters selling 1 heavy+1 bolter pewter or 2 CSM pewters with bolters.
First CSM plastic kit. 2nd Ed champ sprue discontinued. 1 of each assault weapon but only heavy bolter in kit. Obvious companion kit to 1 CSM+1 hvy weapon CSM blisters. Only power sword and fist because power weapons were streamlined.
Recut of same kit with better detailing. I forget if it went 10 men at the time, think it was still 8, but still only heavy bolter. Released alongside plastic-pewter Havoc hybrid kit. Again, kitbashing required. Blisters discontinued around this time.
Newest iteration of kit. Now it's legacy contents. 10 men, though.
New players entering the system, though, don't see the system of it. "Why dies this kit not have everything I'd need?" Well, because if you buy these three kits, you'll have everything you need for all options for a basic army. But that's not how new, post 2010 companies operate- even if it is how 1990 companies operated.
I forget which weapon it was, but one of the kits- I think CSM terminators- had something like 2 axes in the old kit and three in the new. Means with one of each kit, briefly available together, you could mono-equip a squad. Move obviously to move old stock.
New weapon- gravcannon? One per Dev box, though Tacs and Devs could both use. Chaincannon? Same. Just sales tactics.
So let's tell the truth. Kits not having options was a sales strategy- to sell multiples or companion kits. There were always complaints. Why listen now? See, when they restrict you to the kit, they can pretend its faurness, but existing kit options weren't designed in any way for the squad the player wanted. But if everyone only builds the box as-is, the reason for the community resisting power level goes away. Personally, I see their insistence that it's for "new players" a PR lie. Kit contents aren't balanced for game role. But a Legionaire squad with heavy bolter for free and no other heavy option is superior to one without, so people will "why not" build it. Now you know the exact capabilities of that squad and can now PL cost on a squad level.
New weapon- gravcannon? One per Dev box, though Tacs and Devs could both use. Chaincannon? Same. Just sales tactics.
Dev box has 2 Grav Cannons along with 2 of every other heavy weapon option. Chaos got screwed with getting just one chaincannon. Dev kit awesome. Havoc kit suck.
New weapon- gravcannon? One per Dev box, though Tacs and Devs could both use. Chaincannon? Same. Just sales tactics.
Dev box has 2 Grav Cannons along with 2 of every other heavy weapon option. Chaos got screwed with getting just one chaincannon. Dev kit awesome. Havoc kit suck.
Lot of years, lot of kits. Two is not 4, and it's desirable in a uni-squad.
Is there a resource anywhere online of historic GW kits? It'd help with some of these discussions. The 8 man plastics alongside the 2 man blisters being a prime example
New weapon- gravcannon? One per Dev box, though Tacs and Devs could both use. Chaincannon? Same. Just sales tactics.
Dev box has 2 Grav Cannons along with 2 of every other heavy weapon option. Chaos got screwed with getting just one chaincannon. Dev kit awesome. Havoc kit suck.
Lot of years, lot of kits. Two is not 4, and it's desirable in a uni-squad.
Is there a resource anywhere online of historic GW kits? It'd help with some of these discussions. The 8 man plastics alongside the 2 man blisters being a prime example
Dev kit didn’t always have 2 of each. Previous iteration only had a single MM and ML, two of the rest. The ML wasn’t a big deal, as we got tons of them in tac squads, but it made it hard to melta up.
New weapon- gravcannon? One per Dev box, though Tacs and Devs could both use. Chaincannon? Same. Just sales tactics.
Dev box has 2 Grav Cannons along with 2 of every other heavy weapon option. Chaos got screwed with getting just one chaincannon. Dev kit awesome. Havoc kit suck.
Lot of years, lot of kits. Two is not 4, and it's desirable in a uni-squad.
I would never expect them to include four of every heavy weapon. The Dev kit is a downright luxurious kit imo.
New weapon- gravcannon? One per Dev box, though Tacs and Devs could both use. Chaincannon? Same. Just sales tactics.
Dev box has 2 Grav Cannons along with 2 of every other heavy weapon option. Chaos got screwed with getting just one chaincannon. Dev kit awesome. Havoc kit suck.
Lot of years, lot of kits. Two is not 4, and it's desirable in a uni-squad.
I would never expect them to include four of every heavy weapon. The Dev kit is a downright luxurious kit imo.
That can end with people needing to buy 2 boxs to just get one unit. Especialy if GW knows what it is doing and never having more then 1 top option per box.
If GW does them it is going to be 3-4 box. With best melee weapon in one box, best "special" weapon in another and the best heavy one in the third. And if they are really cheeky, they could put support gear or something like SS, assuming they were good, in the fourth. And suddenly to gear out 4-5 squads in your army, you don't just buy two boxs of infantry but also 4 boxs of kits for them.
At which point you just buy third party to get a complete sprue of whatever you want.
Because GW has demonstrated that it is not willing to offer a product that can compete in terms of customer experience, even when it is entirely within its power to do so.
If a company goes out of its way to make its products worse in order to try and extract more money from consumers, then DO NOT GIVE THAT COMPANY YOUR MONEY.
A Town Called Malus wrote: At which point you just buy third party to get a complete sprue of whatever you want.
Because GW has demonstrated that it is not willing to offer a product that can compete in terms of customer experience, even when it is entirely within its power to do so.
If a company goes out of its way to make its products worse in order to try and extract more money from consumers, then DO NOT GIVE THAT COMPANY YOUR MONEY.
I'll stop giving GW $ when they stop making models I like. It's that simple. They don't seem inclined to stop doing that though....
I trust you don't play the game then. After all you wouldn't play with worthless rules right? As if you play them by definition they have value and thus not worthless.
You can play an army or units which are bad for many reasons. starting from not being able to update your army to the current edition or codex, through someone not liking the good stuff or not being able to buy the models needed, and ending with stuff more rooted in the psyche of a person. You can even find the army worthless, specialy if you can't sell it back for the minimal price you find acceptable.
tneva82 wrote: I trust you don't play the game then. After all you wouldn't play with worthless rules right? As if you play them by definition they have value and thus not worthless.
I agree with you here, it's like people go "god this game is so bad, the rules aren't worth paying for, but goddamn I play twice a week and attend 4 big tournaments a year to play it"
tneva82 wrote: I trust you don't play the game then. After all you wouldn't play with worthless rules right? As if you play them by definition they have value and thus not worthless.
I agree with you here, it's like people go "god this game is so bad, the rules aren't worth paying for, but goddamn I play twice a week and attend 4 big tournaments a year to play it"
Well it's the people who play competitively who are often knowledgable enough about the system to know just how bad it is.
New weapon- gravcannon? One per Dev box, though Tacs and Devs could both use. Chaincannon? Same. Just sales tactics.
Dev box has 2 Grav Cannons along with 2 of every other heavy weapon option. Chaos got screwed with getting just one chaincannon. Dev kit awesome. Havoc kit suck.
Lot of years, lot of kits. Two is not 4, and it's desirable in a uni-squad.
I would never expect them to include four of every heavy weapon. The Dev kit is a downright luxurious kit imo.
2 per is a great compromise; two boxes makes two units with four of the same (albeit different between units) weapon while the champion has special champion stuff. Alternatively making separate upgrade kits like HH is getting is also a great option. Failing that 1-per sucks a bit but between bits swapping and conversions we can make do.
What doesn't work? The crap they are pulling now. It is the worst of many options.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BrainFireBob wrote: So let's tell the truth. Kits not having options was a sales strategy- to sell multiples or companion kits.
Providing a product customers genuinely enjoy makes them genuinely want to buy it. Sure that is technically a sales strategy but it is also the default for any entertainment product.
If they made a box with flamers and rocket launchers, not many people would be enjoying the buying of them. Kits are popular based on how useful the stuff in them list. A kit with bad stuff has to have some very specific powerful option you can't get anywhere else to be considered worth buying.
A GK patrol box for example, post the AoC changes, is a good option to buy. Maybe even twice. If the same box had a dreadnought and Crow in it instead of the librarian, no one would be buying it, save for people who REALLY want Crow and can't get him from split boxs.
tneva82 wrote:I trust you don't play the game then. After all you wouldn't play with worthless rules right? As if you play them by definition they have value and thus not worthless.
I play plenty & like the game(with modifications), its just I choose to pay GW what their rules are worth...which is $€¥¥ zip zip zero. Models on the other hand GW gets a good chunk of change from me.
tneva82 wrote:I trust you don't play the game then. After all you wouldn't play with worthless rules right? As if you play them by definition they have value and thus not worthless.
I play plenty & like the game(with modifications), its just I choose to pay GW what their rules are worth...which is zero. Models on the other hand GW gets a good chunk of change from me.
So what does it take for you to pay? For it to be a solid 8/10? If you play the game plenty you clearly find plenty of value in their setting and rules.
If you just don't want to keep shelling out for books that's one thing, just be honest about it.
tneva82 wrote:I trust you don't play the game then. After all you wouldn't play with worthless rules right? As if you play them by definition they have value and thus not worthless.
I play plenty & like the game(with modifications), its just I choose to pay GW what their rules are worth...which is zero. Models on the other hand GW gets a good chunk of change from me.
So what does it take for you to pay? For it to be a solid 8/10? If you play the game plenty you clearly find plenty of value in their setting and rules.
If you just don't want to keep shelling out for books that's one thing, just be honest about it.
Or there's no other games in the area. You keep forgetting how hard it is to get a group going for literally any other game.
tneva82 wrote:I trust you don't play the game then. After all you wouldn't play with worthless rules right? As if you play them by definition they have value and thus not worthless.
I play plenty & like the game(with modifications), its just I choose to pay GW what their rules are worth...which is zero. Models on the other hand GW gets a good chunk of change from me.
So what does it take for you to pay? For it to be a solid 8/10? If you play the game plenty you clearly find plenty of value in their setting and rules.
If you just don't want to keep shelling out for books that's one thing, just be honest about it.
When the rules change faster than one can plan/model/paint a list, the rules ceased to have value to me.
The rules are a vehicle for the models to represent something on the tabletop. When the rules don't really reflect (what we feel) how gak should work, they cease to have to have value to me. When a unit requires a strat+doctrine+stance+whatever to work, that unit doesn't work.
I play specifically to enjoy my very well painted miniatures in a way that is interactive(post painting), tells a story, & visually spectacular. The game is the thing I like the least about 40k, but I still like to play 40k. There are plenty of better GAMES out there(esp Titanicus) both GW and otherwise.
tneva82 wrote: I trust you don't play the game then. After all you wouldn't play with worthless rules right? As if you play them by definition they have value and thus not worthless.
The rules might not be worthless but they certainly aren't worth the MSRP (including whatever discount one can find)....
tneva82 wrote:I trust you don't play the game then. After all you wouldn't play with worthless rules right? As if you play them by definition they have value and thus not worthless.
I play plenty & like the game(with modifications), its just I choose to pay GW what their rules are worth...which is zero. Models on the other hand GW gets a good chunk of change from me.
So what does it take for you to pay? For it to be a solid 8/10? If you play the game plenty you clearly find plenty of value in their setting and rules.
A tip jar function on their site so I can give them something for the rules I do use.
Racerguy180 wrote: When the rules change faster than one can plan/model/paint a list, the rules ceased to have value to me.
Racer nailed it in one.
The rules change too quickly for the printed books to have any worth. The Tyranid Codex was already outdated before I got my first game in. In a week (or fortnight's) time it will be even further outdated.
Why should anyone put up with that given the ludicrous price GW charges for their books?
Racerguy180 wrote: When the rules change faster than one can plan/model/paint a list, the rules ceased to have value to me.
Racer nailed it in one.
The rules change too quickly for the printed books to have any worth. The Tyranid Codex was already outdated before I got my first game in. In a week (or fortnight's) time it will be even further outdated.
Why should anyone put up with that given the ludicrous price GW charges for their books?
Until the rules are more than transient, GW will get zero $ from me for their waste of paper. Before anyone says something about 100% digital being updated constantly. IT SHOULDNT NEED TO BE UPDATED CONSTANTLY in the first place. I've held off on the Liber Astartes for AOD cuz I fear it'll be subject to the same bs and day 1/10/100 FAQ/Errata.
There is another issue as well in that many of the balance-patches have actually invalidated entire builds.
For example, various models (Tau Commanders, Hive Tyrants, Fliers etc.) have had arbitrary limits placed upon them.
Similarly, there's stuff like Ynnari - which went from a subfaction available to each of the Eldar factions to one which demanded every army be dominated by specifically Craftworld units.
These sorts of things makes me disinclined to buy (or convert) new models, as they can (and have) end up being redundant or outright unusable because of rule changes like these. Indeed, even a build that is perfectly valid when a codex drops can be unusable within a few weeks.
Thing is limits come and go. This edition Hive Tyrants are restricted back down to 1; next edition they are wide open again.
GW tends to react to feedback in a very wide swing when they do. It creates big shifts in things
Builds going invalid is why I say that any model warrior sized or bigger should have magnetic arms. Especially when Tyranids are like tanks in that their roles are defined by their weapons which can come and go in popularity, effectiveness and legality on the table.
I do very much agree its disheartening when a build isn't just made a bit less effective by slight changes in the rules but is outright removed or invalidated or made super impossible to take.
Honestly consider how popular that model was I'm kinda surprised GW invalidated it. I mean I know the reason is management policy instead of rules; but its a clear example of gap, esp since they did technically sell the arms AND as they are putting FW into the main GW site one would have thought a simple set of twinlink devourers would have stuck around to facilitate the official nature of a model build that's been popular since, well, forever
Overread wrote: Honestly consider how popular that model was I'm kinda surprised GW invalidated it. I mean I know the reason is management policy instead of rules; but its a clear example of gap, esp since they did technically sell the arms AND as they are putting FW into the main GW site one would have thought a simple set of twinlink devourers would have stuck around to facilitate the official nature of a model build that's been popular since, well, forever
The option isn't part of the kit. That's the only reason they need.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again, the only reason that the Carnifex can still take double twin Devourers despite only having one pair on the sprue is because them come two to a box, and therefore technically you can still make the config by combining both sprues.
I'd settle for an update to the Tyranids Legends document to include the now-missing items.
This thread deserves to be resurrected due to the current CSM codex leaks being proven correct. No Jump Pack Lords (EVEN THOUGH ONE EXISTS), Chaos Marines are stuck doing the Loyalist "no more than one of each weapon because that's all in the kit", Chosen lost any ability to take Power Fists, and the Terminators are about as expected.
EviscerationPlague wrote: No Jump Pack Lords (EVEN THOUGH ONE EXISTS), Chaos Marines are stuck doing the Loyalist "no more than one of each weapon because that's all in the kit", Chosen lost any ability to take Power Fists, and the Terminators are about as expected.
EviscerationPlague wrote: No Jump Pack Lords (EVEN THOUGH ONE EXISTS), Chaos Marines are stuck doing the Loyalist "no more than one of each weapon because that's all in the kit", Chosen lost any ability to take Power Fists, and the Terminators are about as expected.
For reals??
Yes, my dude. Go look in the News and Rumors thread.
EviscerationPlague wrote: This thread deserves to be resurrected due to the current CSM codex leaks being proven correct. No Jump Pack Lords (EVEN THOUGH ONE EXISTS), Chaos Marines are stuck doing the Loyalist "no more than one of each weapon because that's all in the kit", Chosen lost any ability to take Power Fists, and the Terminators are about as expected.
Can't wait to see the defense for this one!
the jump pack lord isnt sold by GW anymore...
But yeah, loadouts and loss of jump pack HQs is sad
Good thing theyre things that you can easily not care about. I know i'll still be running my jump HQs and that my termies will have their mono combi loadouts still.
rest of codex seems pretty fun
VladimirHerzog wrote: Good thing theyre things that you can easily not care about. I know i'll still be running my jump HQs and that my termies will have their mono combi loadouts still.
rest of codex seems pretty fun
Now we just need some tournaments to house rule them back in and watch GW gak a brick.
H.B.M.C. wrote: When was the last time they added something to Legends, anyway?
Frankly it is better to have the uit completly squatted, sorry canned, compared to ending up in legends.
with the former atleast you can use count as freely, whilest legends is just... honestly legends needs to go it is that bad.
)
