I used to spend loads of time building lists. It was fun to give champions of units different options to make them distinct. I recently bought the Death Guard Codex and I haven't really been intrigued by the list building. Every unit is packaged in a neat little package ready to go with little options. And also with no longer listing points in unit options its really cumbersome.

I don't know why GW want to downplay the list building. Between calling 85% of all weapons plague something and no options this codex feels very underwhelming.

And this isn't even taking into consideration the poor background. The Death Guard don't feel like a military organization in a futuristic setting at all. Yes its fiction I know, but what makes good fiction is the merge of elements from reality to make it believable plus extraordinary circumstances to make it special. Then you have best of both worlds. GW has such a good IP but they are slowly killing it, because they have neither. Its not believable or extraordinary.

I remember when i was a child 20 years ago and Warhammer was a complicated mess. It didn't bother me. That's what lured me into the game. Anyone else share this notion?

Since I like to play my army WYSYG, I plan on making index cards for each of my units with the points cost already added up on the card.

That way, when I go to build a list I just flip through the index cards, pulling out units I want to take and adding up the total from there.

kaotkbliss wrote:
Since I like to play my army WYSYG, I plan on making index cards for each of my units with the points cost already added up on the card.

That way, when I go to build a list I just flip through the index cards, pulling out units I want to take and adding up the total from there.

As annoying as it is to only have points in the back, I think the lack of variety is what's so distressing. I miss 3rd and 4th edition options which made it feel like you could really build your own characters.

FudgeDumper wrote:
I used to spend loads of time building lists. It was fun to give champions of units different options to make them distinct. I recently bought the Death Guard Codex and I haven't really been intrigued by the list building. Every unit is packaged in a neat little package ready to go with little options. And also with no longer listing points in unit options its really cumbersome.

I don't know why GW want to downplay the list building. Between calling 85% of all weapons plague something and no options this codex feels very underwhelming.

And this isn't even taking into consideration the poor background. The Death Guard don't feel like a military organization in a futuristic setting at all. Yes its fiction I know, but what makes good fiction is the merge of elements from reality to make it believable plus extraordinary circumstances to make it special. Then you have best of both worlds. GW has such a good IP but they are slowly killing it, because they have neither. Its not believable or extraordinary.

I remember when i was a child 20 years ago and Warhammer was a complicated mess. It didn't bother me. That's what lured me into the game. Anyone else share this notion?

Very much agreed. I've almost given up on the game. I was excited by the Primaris Marines as I thought they'd be a new, fancier version of a Tactical Squad. Nope. No real weapon options. No special weapons or heavy weapons peppered in.

I had the same feeling when 3rd came out. My original minis for 40k were so jacked up because squads weren't limited to how many can take what pistols or melee weapons.

I'd have a squad where 1 had a plasma pistol, another had a hand flamer, another had a power axe, etc.

Then 3rd came along and the limitations began. At first I hated it and felt everything had been dumbed down and the uniqueness of each model taken away. But looking back now, I realize how often I forgot to use many of those weapons because there was just too many in a single unit.

I think it really depends on your army. I have loads of options for my Tyranids (and more incomeing next week). I think part of the theme GW is taking with it's newer armies/codexes is making things more simple for little jimmy but for me between All the tyranid goodness genestealer cults and linking up with Guard as well I have a ton of options.

malcontent999 wrote:

kaotkbliss wrote:
Since I like to play my army WYSYG, I plan on making index cards for each of my units with the points cost already added up on the card.

That way, when I go to build a list I just flip through the index cards, pulling out units I want to take and adding up the total from there.

As annoying as it is to only have points in the back, I think the lack of variety is what's so distressing. I miss 3rd and 4th edition options which made it feel like you could really build your own characters.

While I agree that the loss of options really hurts in this aspect, I am still enjoying list building my self. I just wish I could legally give my choosen the unique weapon load outs I used to under 3rd/4th rules. To do so know they're all chaos lords and that gets stupid expensive real quick. Making those custom characters back in the day was a ton of fun. It's what made my chaos warband different from my friends.

I completely agree. I remember the days of my old Heroic Senior Officers from the 3.5 IG codex that had more than twice as much wargear (if you include weapons) as their base points cost. It was glorious.

Lol yep. I remember my chaos choosen squad of 5 men who cost 200+ points themselves, all with jump packs, each with a different cc or ranged weapon load out. It was glorious!

No Model, No Rules. GW threw their toys out the pram and we all have to love with it.

Here is to hoping chapter approved gives us "experimental rules" for making our own "custom" charecters at some point, even if only allowed in friendly games I would be happy.

Hell I would be happy if dark apostles had the jump pack option.

While I don't have much dog in the fight because I play Eldar, arguably one of the armies with the least amount of "building"...ever, I can understand some people not enjoying the new direction GW is going. I don't see how this really stops you from doing your own thing in a friendly game setting - but that's a different discussion.

Death Guard will be the way new armies are sold. This is very likely the direction all GW armies will go as they get revamped. Unique and stupidly named things (legal issues be damned) which will be relatively monopose and will have X, Y, Z as weapons and that's it.

I think the end goal is very much for beginning gamers to buy a box...assemble it...use the rules in the box for those exact weapons - build the monopose minis (unable to mistakenly build the kits "wrong") and play them. It's far easier on GW to do this. Means that selling the product is easier - rules will have a bit less conflict, etc.

The replacement for list-building fans (I've never really been one) will now be list building combined with army traits and stratagems (and psychic powers). That's the list building you'll be doing now, instead of which sword or pistol you give your lord.

I found that even though there were tons of options in the past that the same options were being spammed for years regardless.... so I don't see any difference between having fake options that no one is going to take, or fewer options... when the end result seems to be the same thing: spamming the best thing over and over again.

 auticus wrote:
I found that even though there were tons of options in the past that the same options were being spammed for years regardless.... so I don't see any difference between having fake options that no one is going to take, or fewer options... when the end result seems to be the same thing: spamming the best thing over and over again.

Eh, I was the guy back then that took bad options for the giggles and surprise. I remember back in 4th ed going to a local tournament and showing up with dark eldar back when our only codex was that pamphlet that came out when 3rd first hit. I won easy not because that codex was op (God was it not op vs other chaos options) but because at that point no one else in the tournament had ever PLAYED against dark eldar, some didn't even realize they were a thing.

I only was able to pull that trick once though lol. Still, when my opponent fired his long fangs at my empty raider and ignored my 3 talos moving up the board because he was used to dealing with Falcons..... Pure bliss lol.

I digress. There are still ways to list build for cool effects. I am building a death guard army with mortarion atm but using Nagash, replaying pox walkers with skeleton warriors, and using other fantasy units (modified) as other stand in stuff. It's not a competitive army (heh, my only ranged comes from he'll turkeys and Forge fiends) but it's interesting and will look awesome on the board.

Go ahead hive mind, try and deal with these things for your hive fleet. It will be Aliens vs Army of Darkness!

 auticus wrote:
I found that even though there were tons of options in the past that the same options were being spammed for years regardless.... so I don't see any difference between having fake options that no one is going to take, or fewer options... when the end result seems to be the same thing: spamming the best thing over and over again.

That's always kind of been the core problem with game. It's cool to have guys with unique weapons and such, but the game is played at a scale where one guy with a special gun isn't going to answer whatever it is that gun is good against. Rather than have a bunch of dudes with unique weapons to handle a lot of different problems, your army becomes the best general option copy/pasted as many times as possible. In many ways, the game doesn't really diversify beyond 400-500 points. You kind of build that list and play 4-5 copies of it. A lot of it comes down to the game having a place for swarms of troops and the durability of vehicles, but not quite sure where to put stuff like Elites and Fast Attack in between.

 auticus wrote:
I found that even though there were tons of options in the past that the same options were being spammed for years regardless.... so I don't see any difference between having fake options that no one is going to take, or fewer options... when the end result seems to be the same thing: spamming the best thing over and over again.

My impression too from thouse few 7th codex i have read. Too many pointless wargear or weapon options for even the basic troop.

imo, by limiting gear and weapons you give other units a valid reason to be included. a 2000p army of any race should not contain 2-3 units on a copy paste pattern, but rather 5-7 completely different units.

But is less options really more kid friendly? I'm thinking the kids who are going to like playing war games are going to like it no matter if its complicated or not, and kids who are into sports et.z will never like it no matter how easy it is.

Seems like GW is just lazy and take the easy way out. They have the most experience in this field of all companies on the market, they have IPs with limitless potential, and this is what they come up with?

The only positive thing they have going for them is the detail on the models. Art has become ridiculous Photoshop hackjobs (seriously, what happened to the artists who had a clue what proportions and composition meant?) and the fluff has become equally one dimensional, and then the rules are also bad.

How can such a giant fall so short? Its as if BMW would start selling box cars.


PS: To remove options because they are never used is not an excuse to remove them. With ingenuity and patience all options could be made viable. GW reminds me of a child, who when faced with an obstacle just ignores it and forget it instead of trying to solve the problem.

The options in the back are so that next year they can release index2 with updated points.

The lack of "options" is for the young blood that dont understand that they can in fact cut miniatures up and put different things on in different ways. so a box will have excatly what you need.. except dev squads. you need two boxes if you want a full 4 man squad with the same guns.

personally i dont mind as ultimately everyone just min maxes those options anyway.

I personally enjoy not having a ton of options per unit but having some.

The problem with having a ton of options is that everyone will just migrate to whatever the "best" option is and all the others become obsolete anyways. What's the point of having 18 different weapon options if people are going to use 2 or 3 regardless? Having a couple options still gives you a loadout specific for a job, but not extra stuff people will just whine and complain about not being good enough.

Hoodwink wrote:
I personally enjoy not having a ton of options per unit but having some.

The problem with having a ton of options is that everyone will just migrate to whatever the "best" option is and all the others become obsolete anyways. What's the point of having 18 different weapon options if people are going to use 2 or 3 regardless? Having a couple options still gives you a loadout specific for a job, but not extra stuff people will just whine and complain about not being good enough.

By this logic, what's the point of GW releasing new model lines if only one unit is any good? Final destination.

 MagicJuggler wrote:

Hoodwink wrote:
I personally enjoy not having a ton of options per unit but having some.

The problem with having a ton of options is that everyone will just migrate to whatever the "best" option is and all the others become obsolete anyways. What's the point of having 18 different weapon options if people are going to use 2 or 3 regardless? Having a couple options still gives you a loadout specific for a job, but not extra stuff people will just whine and complain about not being good enough.

By this logic, what's the point of GW releasing new model lines if only one unit is any good? Final destination.

You know what I like? Reductio ad absurdum.

Wanting to have different options with different roles is fine.

not wanting to have redundant options such that one will almost always cancel out the other directly competing options (See: Leman Russ Battlecannon, Demolisher, Vanquisher, Eradicator) is also fine.

 auticus wrote:
I found that even though there were tons of options in the past that the same options were being spammed for years regardless.... so I don't see any difference between having fake options that no one is going to take, or fewer options... when the end result seems to be the same thing: spamming the best thing over and over again.

I mean this is fundamentally accurate. The illusion of choice helps no one, and it also makes the game harder to balance over time.

My personal stance would be: let's fix some OP stuff, get the game balanced, get all the codexes out, and then talk about expanding it. You need a solid jumping off point or it's more of the same.

I enjoy list building a whole lot, but I'm also getting tired of it, but for probably different reasons. I never gave Superiors/Sergeants/Pack Leaders unique loadouts, and I try to never assign a piece of wargear that I don't intend to use. As a rule, Superiors/Sergeant generally get a weapon that is as close as possible to what the rest of their squad has, or have no additional points spent on them if there's nothing I really want in their inventory. Similar for HQ's, really. I like to keep units efficient.

I've always enjoyed creating lists, because that's where a lot of the strategy is. I have to predict what my potential opposition will be fielding and how they're going to use their units, create a plan of my own to best them, and then actually select and outfit units to optimally fulfill those objective. And then I take it to the table, and I get to see what worked and what didn't, what units of my own fell short of expectation and what unis overperformed, how the enemy actually played and how I need to adjust to defeat them next time. I still enjoy it, but as a whole I feel less engaged, almost as if my list has neared peak efficiency. One of my favorite moments was in 7e, with my IG, the first time I decided to branch out and bring Coteaz attached to a 50-man plasmagun/lascannon squad, and used that instead of Conscripts for my denial zone. "I've Been Expecting You" triggered on an incoming Riptide, and it was vaporized, and the look on my opponent's face was glorious. I felt like I had accomplished something, as it were. Lately, writing and revising my list has become a matter of tightening weaknesses and improving hypothetical efficiency by fractions of a percent.

 FrozenDwarf wrote:

 auticus wrote:
I found that even though there were tons of options in the past that the same options were being spammed for years regardless.... so I don't see any difference between having fake options that no one is going to take, or fewer options... when the end result seems to be the same thing: spamming the best thing over and over again.

My impression too from thouse few 7th codex i have read. Too many pointless wargear or weapon options for even the basic troop.

imo, by limiting gear and weapons you give other units a valid reason to be included. a 2000p army of any race should not contain 2-3 units on a copy paste pattern, but rather 5-7 completely different units.

I'd argue. Armies that have fewer units repeated more often are generally more fun to play against, because it's indicative of the list being built proactively to press it's own strategy as opposed to being built reactively, with sufficient diversity to cover all it's bases against whatever the enemy can bring. This isn't always the case, but it's a trend.

I think, as a whole, a army should consist of a few heavily repeated units driving the core proactive element of the list, with a few more auxiliary units brought in small numbers to provide a reactive diversity.

 MagicJuggler wrote:

Hoodwink wrote:
I personally enjoy not having a ton of options per unit but having some.

The problem with having a ton of options is that everyone will just migrate to whatever the "best" option is and all the others become obsolete anyways. What's the point of having 18 different weapon options if people are going to use 2 or 3 regardless? Having a couple options still gives you a loadout specific for a job, but not extra stuff people will just whine and complain about not being good enough.

By this logic, what's the point of GW releasing new model lines if only one unit is any good? Final destination.

Yeah, at the end of the day, one needs to add variety to make the game more diverse and fun. Yeah, not everything is gonna be as competitive as the OP stuff, but as Magic Juggler said, even "ultra balanced" games are just like that at the high end competitive level. Theres a reason why Fox is the most used character in Smash Bros Brawl tournaments, with a 78% I believe of usage.

But that doesn't mean in casual play you can't use the rest of the characters and have fun and a balanced game.

I'm torn, on one hand the new IG codex stripped away a ton of wargear options for our units. Many lost a wide variety of equipment and there are a few weapons that were removed entirely.

However, I feel like my actual army has never been this flexible and capable of variation since 5th. The very same units can change radically in purpose and use just by what regiment trait they use now, and you can see some pretty crazy differences in how a list plays even if you just change the regiment title but leave the overall list unchanged. I've had a blast writing up lists for the various regiment types, and even trying to mix and match units in combined regiments to see what works best with the other.

Personally I feel we should've kept all our options and gotten this, but its not nearly as bad as it could've been. Regiment traits should have been linked to the type of army, not homeworld, but there's not really anything stopping you from saying your cadians are say Tallarn or whatever. I don't really like when people talk about how an army should have a "variety of units" or "spam a select few". This is 40k, each army has a different schtick. Something like an ork mob may have a wide variety or units or it may be a dedicated speed freaks klan. An Imperial Guard force may consist only of infantry, or it could be a highly varied combined arms force, etc. It seems weird to try and blame the overabundance/lack of options on that, when ultimately each army is different.

the_scotsman wrote:

 MagicJuggler wrote:

Hoodwink wrote:
I personally enjoy not having a ton of options per unit but having some.

The problem with having a ton of options is that everyone will just migrate to whatever the "best" option is and all the others become obsolete anyways. What's the point of having 18 different weapon options if people are going to use 2 or 3 regardless? Having a couple options still gives you a loadout specific for a job, but not extra stuff people will just whine and complain about not being good enough.

By this logic, what's the point of GW releasing new model lines if only one unit is any good? Final destination.

You know what I like? Reductio ad absurdum.

Wanting to have different options with different roles is fine.

not wanting to have redundant options such that one will almost always cancel out the other directly competing options (See: Leman Russ Battlecannon, Demolisher, Vanquisher, Eradicator) is also fine.

Yeah, if only the game didn't flatten the to-wound chart, flatten saving throws and marginalize plasma, AOEs, or anything that makea the tanks distinct...

 MagicJuggler wrote:

Hoodwink wrote:
I personally enjoy not having a ton of options per unit but having some.

The problem with having a ton of options is that everyone will just migrate to whatever the "best" option is and all the others become obsolete anyways. What's the point of having 18 different weapon options if people are going to use 2 or 3 regardless? Having a couple options still gives you a loadout specific for a job, but not extra stuff people will just whine and complain about not being good enough.

By this logic, what's the point of GW releasing new model lines if only one unit is any good? Final destination.

Because the entire reason to not have 1000 options per unit is so units have a specific gap in the army to fill and don't do everything. Otherwise, you get units that do everything and push out other units, making less diverse armies. By reducing the amount of variables, you make the game easier to balance and force people to diversify their list in order to cover all bases. When you can take one unit and give them anti-tank, anti-infantry, long range, number of shots, or any other type of variance, you create a situation where that unit is better than other units that don't have all those options which is what brings the unit spam. Inevitably there are units that will be considered "better" than other units but reducing the ability to make them better by gear is one step in diversifying the playfield.

Hoodwink wrote:

 MagicJuggler wrote:

Hoodwink wrote:
I personally enjoy not having a ton of options per unit but having some.

The problem with having a ton of options is that everyone will just migrate to whatever the "best" option is and all the others become obsolete anyways. What's the point of having 18 different weapon options if people are going to use 2 or 3 regardless? Having a couple options still gives you a loadout specific for a job, but not extra stuff people will just whine and complain about not being good enough.

By this logic, what's the point of GW releasing new model lines if only one unit is any good? Final destination.

Because the entire reason to not have 1000 options per unit is so units have a specific gap in the army to fill and don't do everything. Otherwise, you get units that do everything and push out other units, making less diverse armies. By reducing the amount of variables, you make the game easier to balance and force people to diversify their list in order to cover all bases. When you can take one unit and give them anti-tank, anti-infantry, long range, number of shots, or any other type of variance, you create a situation where that unit is better than other units that don't have all those options which is what brings the unit spam. Inevitably there are units that will be considered "better" than other units but reducing the ability to make them better by gear is one step in diversifying the playfield.

So wait, you're saying reducing options makes for more diversity?

If you can make a unit that is great at everything at an affordable cost, this is because the points are off, not because diversity is the problem. Honestly, I can't believe I've ever read such a set of statements here on Dakka.

I don't know, with the current release of tyrnaid coming out there looks to be some amazing different and diverse options that hive fleets and their hive tyrant hq's will be able to get. Maybe it's just a case of individuals are out, army modification is in with a sprinkle of custom hq?

I consider myself an experienced hobbyist, however I cannot say I particularly enjoy scrounging for bitz and scratchbuilding whatever option is the best in every which codex iteration.

Say I'd want to equip 10 Sternguard with combi-weapons. Sure there are a few in the kit, but getting to 10 takes some work. And them add the fact that there are 4 different combi-weapons it gets old really fast.

Or in the case of the old dakkafex or flyrant I believe there didn't exist a devourer for whichever side so that had to be converted. Not a big deal for someone proficient with greenstuff or modeling but can be a bit daunting for anyone just starting the hobby.

I'm all for options and diversity but instead of making people come up with bitz that don't exist I hope they included more options in the box to begin with. So that said I'm not super keen on monopose single-option models either...

Playing SW myself I still feel I have enough options to work with while building my lists. However I have a creeping fear that some of that diversity will be gone come codex-day, whenever that is.

So rather than fix options there's no such obvious need remove options all together.

GW being lazy as usual.

The online obsession with a million meaningless "options" with a near-zero in-game effect has always baffled me. I'd rather have a choice between 5 things with different, defined roles than between 15 things half of which are very similar or practically useless. Having three Russes which are good at anti-horde, anti-heavy infantry and anti-tank is very different to having four choices of anti-tank Russ of which one will be mathematically the best at its particular job, for example.

Got to admit, I still like building lists but much rather prefer doing it for Horus Heresy. I can quickly reel off 165 for a Praetor with Digital Lasers, Iron Halo & Paragon blade, 140 for Tactical marines with a fit on the sergeant, 295 for 5 red butchers with 2 chainfist on the devoured, etc.

I just can't do that with the new system as there is so many different price tags attached to everything. The new system is a much more convoluted way of doing the same thing. Though I assume with the extra granularity GW were hoping for a finer level of balance?

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
I'm torn, on one hand the new IG codex stripped away a ton of wargear options for our units. Many lost a wide variety of equipment and there are a few weapons that were removed entirely.

However, I feel like my actual army has never been this flexible and capable of variation since 5th. The very same units can change radically in purpose and use just by what regiment trait they use now, and you can see some pretty crazy differences in how a list plays even if you just change the regiment title but leave the overall list unchanged. I've had a blast writing up lists for the various regiment types, and even trying to mix and match units in combined regiments to see what works best with the other.

Personally I feel we should've kept all our options and gotten this, but its not nearly as bad as it could've been. Regiment traits should have been linked to the type of army, not homeworld, but there's not really anything stopping you from saying your cadians are say Tallarn or whatever. I don't really like when people talk about how an army should have a "variety of units" or "spam a select few". This is 40k, each army has a different schtick. Something like an ork mob may have a wide variety or units or it may be a dedicated speed freaks klan. An Imperial Guard force may consist only of infantry, or it could be a highly varied combined arms force, etc. It seems weird to try and blame the overabundance/lack of options on that, when ultimately each army is different.

Pretty much this.

Strangely, the thing that bugs me the most is the removal of Power Mauls and Power Axes. I liked having melee options beyond 'sword, other sword, or big fist'.

 vipoid wrote:

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
I'm torn, on one hand the new IG codex stripped away a ton of wargear options for our units. Many lost a wide variety of equipment and there are a few weapons that were removed entirely.

However, I feel like my actual army has never been this flexible and capable of variation since 5th. The very same units can change radically in purpose and use just by what regiment trait they use now, and you can see some pretty crazy differences in how a list plays even if you just change the regiment title but leave the overall list unchanged. I've had a blast writing up lists for the various regiment types, and even trying to mix and match units in combined regiments to see what works best with the other.

Personally I feel we should've kept all our options and gotten this, but its not nearly as bad as it could've been. Regiment traits should have been linked to the type of army, not homeworld, but there's not really anything stopping you from saying your cadians are say Tallarn or whatever. I don't really like when people talk about how an army should have a "variety of units" or "spam a select few". This is 40k, each army has a different schtick. Something like an ork mob may have a wide variety or units or it may be a dedicated speed freaks klan. An Imperial Guard force may consist only of infantry, or it could be a highly varied combined arms force, etc. It seems weird to try and blame the overabundance/lack of options on that, when ultimately each army is different.

Pretty much this.

Strangely, the thing that bugs me the most is the removal of Power Mauls and Power Axes. I liked having melee options beyond 'sword, other sword, or big fist'.

And I liked being able to give my Sergeants lasguns and my Stormtrooper Sergeants hellguns.

Haven't had those options since the doctrines book though.

The points being in the back only is stupid.

I get that they want to mske it easier to FAQ/errata points, but it's a hassle when you're unfamimiar with the army. Oh, this Primaris Psyker guy, how much is he. Wait, the mandatory staff is extra points? No?

Just add points to the entry and state that the list in the back takes priority. And would it kill them to have a sheet with the points on them included in every codex? Making a copy of an expensive hardback codex is not my favourite thing to do.

I am liking building lists as wargear was never really a big attraction for me. I would prefer less options, or at lease unique options for specific units. The more options you have for a unit the more difficult it is to balance that unit. Especially with the lack of granularity in the points system. Even more so when multiple units have access to the same weapons. The scale of 40k at this point is much more a game of armies where options should be on the unit level not the individual. Which I guess is part of the issue. When 40k started the scale was much smaller so individual upgrading made sense. NOw much less so.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Binabik15 wrote:
The points being in the back only is stupid.

I get that they want to mske it easier to FAQ/errata points, but it's a hassle when you're unfamimiar with the army. Oh, this Primaris Psyker guy, how much is he. Wait, the mandatory staff is extra points? No?

Just add points to the entry and state that the list in the back takes priority. And would it kill them to have a sheet with the points on them included in every codex? Making a copy of an expensive hardback codex is not my favourite thing to do.

It really isn't that tough, just make a photo copy or print out of the points sheet. I would agree that it would be cool to get a points sheet (or maybe a code for a PDF copy) with the codex. I am not a fan of adding points to the unit entries as then changes just cause more confusion.

I can't really identify with the problem in the OP. Orks haven had a proppa armory or wargear list in a very very long time. The last one was in the 3rd edition codex. So, oh well. I'm not really excited about using points although I tend to. I'd just as well move off to power levels. I haven't enjoyed list building in many years. I like the index card idea though. I should probably do that just to speed things up. My units tend to always be the same any way. (another reason power levels would work fine for me.)

 Corrode wrote:
The online obsession with a million meaningless "options" with a near-zero in-game effect has always baffled me. I'd rather have a choice between 5 things with different, defined roles than between 15 things half of which are very similar or practically useless. Having three Russes which are good at anti-horde, anti-heavy infantry and anti-tank is very different to having four choices of anti-tank Russ of which one will be mathematically the best at its particular job, for example.

Believe me, id be happy if my lord had 5 options. But as it stand right now the HQ options for the death guard have between 1 and 2 options. Unless you want to use the gimped copy pasterino options from codex CSM that are totally bad and out of place.

At the very least you should be able to choose if your lord will carry a power first or a sword or terminator armor or power armor, and the nurgle terminators mysteriously forgot how to use power firsts, while the generic copy paste lord (who has less toughness then ordinary troops and no death guard specific special rules) somehow still can equip it.

I don't know about the other new codexes, but the death guard one is rank with bureaucracy.

As someone else pointed out, I hope this is just an entry phase into 8th where they balance things, and more intuitive datasheets will be created later.

Options I took that are absent:

-Chaos Bikers with Pistol & CCW
-Chaos Marines that can take Bolter, Pistol, and CCW
-Chosen Champions with Special Weapons
-3-man Terminator Squads, solo Mutilators and solo Obliterators
-Dirge Casters. Yes, I know you "can" do Auxiliary detachments, but this is limited in matched play. My previously ITC-compliant army is illegal for matched play in 8th now.
-Numerous relics, including: The Burning Brand, Scrolls of Magnus, and *many* Traitor Legion artifacts I never got to test out.

And of course, my Chaos Lord and Sorcerer are index-only since my Lord rode a Disc and my Sorcerer a Palanquin.

And this is just for Chaos Marines. Other players have lost Veteran Doctrines, Looted Wagons, Ardboyz, or *entire armies* in the case of Corsair players.

It's also particularly telling that many of the options in 8th that do cause cries of imba, such as Gulliman, Celestine, Brimstones and Conscripts and Malefic Lords and such, don't even *have* loadout options.

Yes and that should make them easier to balance. That doesn't mean it will happen. That said Aura abilities also make balance difficult.

So here's an example of what I am talking about (and I think others mean too):

The Baneblade used to be a 500 point model that came with stock wargear (back when it was FW only).

Now, it's anywhere from 459 points to 605 points. It has:
- choice between heavy bolters or heavy flamers in sponsons
- choice of 0, 2, or 4 sponsons with any mix of aforementioned heavy flamers or heavy bolters
- a heavy stubber
- a hunter killer missile

Back in 3rd this would have felt like a gakky amount of choice, but compared to the company commander (who can cost anywhere from 30-45 points):

- a pistol (one of 3 choices: laspistol, plasma pistol, bolt pistol)
- a rifle (boltgun only)
- a stabby bit (power sword, chain sword, power fist)
- a free relic (maybe possibly)

It's not even a contest. The Baneblade is literally more customizeable than an IG company commander! What the feth is this gak? There are probably 100,000,000 company commanders (or more!) for every Baneblade, from what, a million different homeworlds? While Baneblades are standard STC-constructed tanks?

If you go through my post history in prior editions, I lamented the removal of options. I fought tooth and nail against people that said "we should remove this, because that will improve balance." I never ever wanted options to be sacrificed on the altar of balance...

... but sadly, it seems they have.

On the other hand, who cares about customising IG commanders in that much detail? I have 3 in my list, and they exist to give orders to people, hold relics, and not get killed if at all possible. If they even shoot their pistol something's gone badly wrong, never mind needing tons of options for other equipment which in an ideal scenario they'd never have to use.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
So here's an example of what I am talking about (and I think others mean too):

The Baneblade used to be a 500 point model that came with stock wargear (back when it was FW only).

Now, it's anywhere from 459 points to 605 points. It has:
- choice between heavy bolters or heavy flamers in sponsons
- choice of 0, 2, or 4 sponsons with any mix of aforementioned heavy flamers or heavy bolters
- a heavy stubber
- a hunter killer missile

Back in 3rd this would have felt like a gakky amount of choice, but compared to the company commander (who can cost anywhere from 30-45 points):

- a pistol (one of 3 choices: laspistol, plasma pistol, bolt pistol)
- a rifle (boltgun only)
- a stabby bit (power sword, chain sword, power fist)
- a free relic (maybe possibly)

It's not even a contest. The Baneblade is literally more customizeable than an IG company commander! What the feth is this gak? There are probably 100,000,000 company commanders (or more!) for every Baneblade, from what, a million different homeworlds? While Baneblades are standard STC-constructed tanks?

If you go through my post history in prior editions, I lamented the removal of options. I fought tooth and nail against people that said "we should remove this, because that will improve balance." I never ever wanted options to be sacrificed on the altar of balance...

... but sadly, it seems they have.

I would agree with you if the points structure was granular enough to support those options, but it isn't. The more expensive the model the easier it is to balance the options.

And yet, GW continues to lower prices for everything, to the point that granular balances are more difficult to pull off.
lA Guardsman used to cost 10 points in Second Edition. Crazy, I know.

I just find list building to generally be boring. If you want to be good, you have to spam efective units and min/max detachments to get CP, when IMHO you should be focusing on varied, balanced lists that aren't just trying to take advantage of undercosted/cheap spammable units.

 Corrode wrote:
On the other hand, who cares about customising IG commanders in that much detail? I have 3 in my list, and they exist to give orders to people, hold relics, and not get killed if at all possible. If they even shoot their pistol something's gone badly wrong, never mind needing tons of options for other equipment which in an ideal scenario they'd never have to use.

This is part of the discussion, to be sure, but:

The old options may not be "mathematically optimized" but they were cool, thematic, and fluffy. My buddy used to run an assault IG army back in 3.5. His commander had a power sword, meltabombs, holstered pistol (so it changed), bionics, carapace armour, refractor field, etc.

The sword he never traded out because it was an heirloom weapon, he had a whole story written about how he got his bionics (blown up by one of my LRBT battlecannons), he carried meltabombs because he so often encountered enemy armour (me), and his regiment was a heavy infantry regiment (so everyone who could had carapace armor, which at the time was everyone).

That sort of fluff is gone now - all because meltabombs and bionics weren't "mathematically optimal" and carapace armour also needed to go for some reason. Balance or somesuch I suspect.

 Corrode wrote:
On the other hand, who cares about customising IG commanders in that much detail? I have 3 in my list, and they exist to give orders to people, hold relics, and not get killed if at all possible. If they even shoot their pistol something's gone badly wrong, never mind needing tons of options for other equipment which in an ideal scenario they'd never have to use.

I don't get why this is an argument.

If you want a stock company commander then you always have that option anyway. So what harm does it do to give options for people who want to customise their commanders?

 MagicJuggler wrote:
And yet, GW continues to lower prices for everything, to the point that granular balances are more difficult to pull off.
lA Guardsman used to cost 10 points in Second Edition. Crazy, I know.

The issue is that if you really want customization and balance they should cost something like 100 points, and games should be 20,000, But yes the more GW reduces costs the larger the issue becomes.

 vipoid wrote:

I don't get why this is an argument.

If you want a stock company commander then you always have that option anyway. So what harm does it do to give options for people who want to customise their commanders?

Well they are fantastically cheap, immune to being targeted unless sniper/closest unit, have very useful utility abilities, a respectable number of wounds, and you can take up to 15 of them in matched play at 2k.

If each one had, for example, just a plasma gun available to them, they would in fact be one of the lamented "spam the most efficient" units instead of the useful include 2-3 units they are now. For comparison, imagine if you could only kill one hellblaster a turn in a unit of 10, since they'd have better cost/damage ratios, and significantly higher survivability thanks to closest unit only.

Ditto on melta guns, arguably still valid for grenade launchers. The only question mark would be sniper rifles (ala General Castor) but even then, a company commander + sniping ability, however minor, is still quite potent for a 'tax' unit that is also dirt cheap.

That said, there's no reason you can't play fancy commanders in narrative; that's basically what it's for after all.

Breng77 wrote:

 MagicJuggler wrote:
And yet, GW continues to lower prices for everything, to the point that granular balances are more difficult to pull off.
lA Guardsman used to cost 10 points in Second Edition. Crazy, I know.

The issue is that if you really want customization and balance they should cost something like 100 points, and games should be 20,000, But yes the more GW reduces costs the larger the issue becomes.

I don't think you need to go that far. Just doubling the points of a lot of units (and then adjusting up or down a little) would make a big difference, I think.

For example, let's take the Conscript issue (prior to the Commissar nerf). One of the main problems is that IG infantry are all pretty close together - with basic Infantry being 4pts and Conscripts being 3pts.

However, if you doubled the prices to 8pts and 6pts for guardsmen and conscripts, respectively, then you'd have more wriggle room. You could, for example, add 1pt to Conscripts without making them the same price as Infantry. It would also allow you to more easily tweak the cost of Infantry, without necessarily having to also increase the cost of Veterans and such to maintain the difference between them.


EDIT:

 malamis wrote:

Well they are fantastically cheap, immune to being targeted unless sniper/closest unit, have very useful utility abilities, a respectable number of wounds, and you can take up to 15 of them in matched play at 2k.

If each one had, for example, just a plasma gun available to them, they would in fact be one of the lamented "spam the most efficient" units instead of the useful include 2-3 units they are now. For comparison, imagine if you could only kill one hellblaster a turn in a unit of 10, since they'd have better cost/damage ratios, and significantly higher survivability thanks to closest unit only.

I don't understand how this relates to anything that's been said in this thread.

Who in this thread has been asking for the option of Plasmaguns on their IG commanders?

Right: Balance.

Options are being sacrificed on the altar of balance. Just like I said they would be if people got their way.

The game is leaning more toward the Fantasy Battle scheme of things: your "model" is the unit.
They are looking to have us play larger games and push for the "Power" points to be used if needing a points value.

Putting weapon, unit and gear points in the back is diabolical since you cannot get straight in your head capability to points value until you figure them out in an army list builder.
I just write them down on the unit card.

For list building "fun" it was because it was highly critical everything you picked to be competitive in the game.
There is less emphasis now since it actually has much more balance in the game than it used to.

I agree that sure, you can give a huge selection of stuff to kit out your army but it bogs down the game with all that customization.
I look at the need for greater customization in skirmish games where the size of one squad (about 10 models) is your entire army.

It would be nice to see if some measure of focus on tactics and strategy can occur in place of army list building.

 vipoid wrote:


I don't understand how this relates to anything that's been said in this thread.

Who in this thread has been asking for the option of Plasmaguns on their IG commanders?

Commander customisation; if we go down that rabbit hole why stop at powermaul/axe/lance? Hell why not have IG commanders hefting heavy bolters like Harker?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Right: Balance.

Options are being sacrificed on the altar of balance. Just like I said they would be if people got their way.

There is a difference between options and meaningful options.

The differentiation mechanically between a power sword, maul, or axe didn't do much to dramatically alter the game. It was unnecessary, made balance harder, offered very little meaningful impact on the table from your choice, and posed WYSIWYG issues. As a player, a power weapon being simply a power weapon was better because it allowed freedom to model what I wanted and just call it a power weapon. It simplified the game, and offered a meaningful choice between no power weapon and a fist.

As much as I like Russes, there are way too many variants, and every edition since I've started has seen more than half be mostly useless. Russes could be broken down into simply two or three variants and it would functionally be the same thing; then players could model the weapon they wanted for the variant.

Less, but more meaningful choices is better for the game than dozens of meaningless and terribly balanced options.

 malamis wrote:
Commander customisation; if we go down that rabbit hole why stop at powermaul/axe/lance? Hell why not have IG commanders hefting heavy bolters like Harker?

So no unit should have any customisation at all, lest it lead to imbalance in the future?

 MagicJuggler wrote:

Hoodwink wrote:

 MagicJuggler wrote:

Hoodwink wrote:
I personally enjoy not having a ton of options per unit but having some.

The problem with having a ton of options is that everyone will just migrate to whatever the "best" option is and all the others become obsolete anyways. What's the point of having 18 different weapon options if people are going to use 2 or 3 regardless? Having a couple options still gives you a loadout specific for a job, but not extra stuff people will just whine and complain about not being good enough.

By this logic, what's the point of GW releasing new model lines if only one unit is any good? Final destination.

Because the entire reason to not have 1000 options per unit is so units have a specific gap in the army to fill and don't do everything. Otherwise, you get units that do everything and push out other units, making less diverse armies. By reducing the amount of variables, you make the game easier to balance and force people to diversify their list in order to cover all bases. When you can take one unit and give them anti-tank, anti-infantry, long range, number of shots, or any other type of variance, you create a situation where that unit is better than other units that don't have all those options which is what brings the unit spam. Inevitably there are units that will be considered "better" than other units but reducing the ability to make them better by gear is one step in diversifying the playfield.

So wait, you're saying reducing options makes for more diversity?

If you can make a unit that is great at everything at an affordable cost, this is because the points are off, not because diversity is the problem. Honestly, I can't believe I've ever read such a set of statements here on Dakka.

Yes, reducing the ability for a unit to do anything increases diversity by forcing people to take other units to accomplish the goals they need. So you're saying if my one unit can take a ton of equipment options to accomplish anything I want it to, I guess that makes for a diverse army list. Gotcha. Reduced options also make it so people whine and moan less about options being useless or way better than others. Cause ultimately people will whine and complain about everything they can on the internet. By giving options but not a huge plethora of them, it forces people to diversify their armies and helps with internal balance. Every single previous edition that had a plethora of other options ended up making half or so nigh unusable. Then all people did was gripe and moan about the useless gear. It's much easier to balance the game and diversify the lists when you have units that can each take an option of a handful of upgrades as opposed to 10+ each.

If it's a points balance issue and another unit can do what one unit with an upgrade can do better, then it just means the gear upgrade is useless.

You know why people are praising 8th on it's release as one of the most balanced editions yet? Because there weren't a multitude of options on every unit that needed to be balanced that would inevitably break the game or cause 90% of the options to be useless.

 Blacksails wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Right: Balance.

Options are being sacrificed on the altar of balance. Just like I said they would be if people got their way.

There is a difference between options and meaningful options.

The differentiation mechanically between a power sword, maul, or axe didn't do much to dramatically alter the game. It was unnecessary, made balance harder, offered very little meaningful impact on the table from your choice, and posed WYSIWYG issues. As a player, a power weapon being simply a power weapon was better because it allowed freedom to model what I wanted and just call it a power weapon. It simplified the game, and offered a meaningful choice between no power weapon and a fist.

As much as I like Russes, there are way too many variants, and every edition since I've started has seen more than half be mostly useless. Russes could be broken down into simply two or three variants and it would functionally be the same thing; then players could model the weapon they wanted for the variant.

Less, but more meaningful choices is better for the game than dozens of meaningless and terribly balanced options.

That's not true at all.

The axe example I agree with, to be fair - the difference between a sword and an axe in company scale engagements is pretty irrelevant. But meltabombs? Those could make (or their failure to exist could break!) an engagement! Bionics? Sure on a 6+ it was unreliable, but when it did work it could totally shift the game. I think those were awesome options.

As for having 15 unusable options and only 3 good ones out of 18 options - that's better than having 3 good options and nothing else. I get that Bionics and Meltabombs and Carapace Armour were probably not great on IG officers, and in fact the whole Heroic Senior Officer concept was a bit naff (4 wounds, initiative 4, other useless crap that didn't help him be an orderbot).

But it was fluffy. Perhaps competitive players don't use those 15 options, and focus on the last 3, but a fluffy player? Certainly! Heavy infantry regiments are totally deleted from the game now (bye carapce armour) unless you play a Storm Trooper regiment (which is totally different than a heavy infantry regiment fluffwise, btw). Assault guard commanders are completely deleted unless you want to run a special character (I suppose my lithe duelist from a gas-giant mining colony who looks more like an elf than a dwarf and who is holding a fencing rapier and needle pistol could totally pass for Straken ). And I suppose the "augmetic armour" that the Vostroyan commander gets as his relic is a neat version of bionics... if my regiment weren't an assault heavy infantry regiment that didn't benefit at all from +6" range to its guns (bye generic Bionics, you have been missed!) and I suppose if my commander fights armour often because he has slowly specialized his company into an elite tank-hunter assault/ambush force means he can have a ... plasma pistol (bye Meltabombs!).

((DISCLAIMER: I don't play this regiment. I'm just basing this off of how my friend's assault IG army would run this edition: essentially it wouldn't.))

 malamis wrote:

 vipoid wrote:


I don't understand how this relates to anything that's been said in this thread.

Who in this thread has been asking for the option of Plasmaguns on their IG commanders?

Commander customisation; if we go down that rabbit hole why stop at powermaul/axe/lance? Hell why not have IG commanders hefting heavy bolters like Harker?

Harker's a Sergeant. He's also an Elites choice rather than an HQ and can't issue Orders.

Anyways, I'll go out on a limb and say this:
All I want are Sergeants and Tempestors to have access to the basic weapons that their squad has. That's all. I don't want guys running around with Plasma Guns or whatnot.

It's silly that out of all the armies out there, we're basically the only one where the mandatory leader in a squad has to come equipped differently to the squad. AdMech and Marines don't have to come with melee+pistol weapons, they get to choose to do so.

There is a happy middle ground between only 3 options and 18 options of which only a handful are useful.

I'm not talking about removing certain gear altogether, but rather removing redundant gear. Power weapons were redundant. The three grenade variants are fine (frag, krak, melta).

 vipoid wrote:

 malamis wrote:
Commander customisation; if we go down that rabbit hole why stop at powermaul/axe/lance? Hell why not have IG commanders hefting heavy bolters like Harker?

So no unit should have any customisation at all, lest it lead to imbalance in the future?

The existence of 7th edition Scatterbikes does somewhat support that argument.

Matched play, by the stated design goal in the rulebook (page 212), is to balance armies against each other; we assume through the mechanism of points and detachments. The failures so far in respect to specific unit choices notwithstanding :|

I would suggest the company commander specifically would be considerably overpowered if it had any more options than it does now, thanks to how the game has been shaken up as I've highlighted previously. Even the overcharged PPistol is a quite dangerous right now thanks to reroll 1s built into the delivery platform.

In contrast, the Tank Commander/Pask has a wide variety of options, but doesn't have the same issue as the CC being a. drastically more expensive and b. not immune to focus fire, mitigating the otherwise high efficiency of its options.

The role, function, effectiveness and *unit composition* of the Company Commander has drastically changed; paring down its options was a sensible approach - for matched play. If fancy commanders really matter then just run them in narrative, I doubt anyone would complain unless they were rocking a Lascannon or something.

 malamis wrote:
The existence of 7th edition Scatterbikes does somewhat support that argument.

Except that that wasn't due to extra options. It's not like they would have been less powerful if they could only take Scatter Lasers.

It was due to Scatter Lasers being exceptionally cheap, excellent against all but the heaviest targets, and then mountable on an exceptionally cheap and fast frame.

Also, I believe you could take more of them (1 per bike, rather than 1 per 3). So a better comparison would be allowing IG Infantry squads to take as many Heavy Weapons or Special weapons as they had models. It's not an increase in the number of options, but rather an increase in how many of each option a squad can take. Though, if you really want the comparison to work, you'd also have to double the movement of the IG squad, give them a 4++ against ranged attacks and let them move 2d6" after shooting.

 malamis wrote:

Matched play, by the stated design goal in the rulebook (page 212), is to balance armies against each other; we assume through the mechanism of points and detachments. The failures so far in respect to specific unit choices notwithstanding :|

And that is the reason why different options cost different points. If that is ignored then what is the point?

 malamis wrote:

I would suggest the company commander specifically would be considerably overpowered if it had any more options than it does now

I would suggest that this is absurd. 40k has never once been dominated by IG Company Commanders with Lasguns or Power Mauls and there is nothing whatsoever to indicate that 8th edition could change this.

 malamis wrote:
Even the overcharged PPistol is a quite dangerous right now thanks to reroll 1s built into the delivery platform.

It also has a mere 12" range, on one of the most fragile HQs in the game. And whilst rerolling 1s is indeed a thing, I'd furthermore argue that it's still quite a risk when that 1/36 chance will insta-kill your own character.

 malamis wrote:

In contrast, the Tank Commander/Pask has a wide variety of options, but doesn't have the same issue as the CC being a. drastically more expensive and b. not immune to focus fire, mitigating the otherwise high efficiency of its options.

And yet in prior editions it was Pask, not the Company Commanders, who was the dominant threat.

Even now, Company Commanders are taken only for their orders. Even plasma pistols are only added for reasons of fluff. And I think most would agree that spending points on melee weapons for a commander are not a good use of points in a competitive sense.

 malamis wrote:

The role, function, effectiveness and *unit composition* of the Company Commander has drastically changed; paring down its options was a sensible approach - for matched play.

You've still provided nothing to support this, save for your own assertions. Which don't appear to be based on anything.

Please show me all the tournaments that are being dominated by Company Commanders with Plasma Pistols.

Please show me all the tournaments where Company Commanders with Power Mauls were cleaving through opponents left, right and centre.

I'll wait.

 Blacksails wrote:
There is a happy middle ground between only 3 options and 18 options of which only a handful are useful.

I'm not talking about removing certain gear altogether, but rather removing redundant gear. Power weapons were redundant. The three grenade variants are fine (frag, krak, melta).

I agree. Everyone is taking extremes and if you aren't on their extreme, you are wrong. As I said earlier, having options but not a ton is good. A ton just yields useless options no one picks, even the fluffy players.

Hoodwink wrote:

 MagicJuggler wrote:

Hoodwink wrote:

 MagicJuggler wrote:

Hoodwink wrote:
I personally enjoy not having a ton of options per unit but having some.

The problem with having a ton of options is that everyone will just migrate to whatever the "best" option is and all the others become obsolete anyways. What's the point of having 18 different weapon options if people are going to use 2 or 3 regardless? Having a couple options still gives you a loadout specific for a job, but not extra stuff people will just whine and complain about not being good enough.

By this logic, what's the point of GW releasing new model lines if only one unit is any good? Final destination.

Because the entire reason to not have 1000 options per unit is so units have a specific gap in the army to fill and don't do everything. Otherwise, you get units that do everything and push out other units, making less diverse armies. By reducing the amount of variables, you make the game easier to balance and force people to diversify their list in order to cover all bases. When you can take one unit and give them anti-tank, anti-infantry, long range, number of shots, or any other type of variance, you create a situation where that unit is better than other units that don't have all those options which is what brings the unit spam. Inevitably there are units that will be considered "better" than other units but reducing the ability to make them better by gear is one step in diversifying the playfield.

So wait, you're saying reducing options makes for more diversity?

If you can make a unit that is great at everything at an affordable cost, this is because the points are off, not because diversity is the problem. Honestly, I can't believe I've ever read such a set of statements here on Dakka.

Yes, reducing the ability for a unit to do anything increases diversity by forcing people to take other units to accomplish the goals they need. So you're saying if my one unit can take a ton of equipment options to accomplish anything I want it to, I guess that makes for a diverse army list. Gotcha. Reduced options also make it so people whine and moan less about options being useless or way better than others. Cause ultimately people will whine and complain about everything they can on the internet. By giving options but not a huge plethora of them, it forces people to diversify their armies and helps with internal balance. Every single previous edition that had a plethora of other options ended up making half or so nigh unusable. Then all people did was gripe and moan about the useless gear. It's much easier to balance the game and diversify the lists when you have units that can each take an option of a handful of upgrades as opposed to 10+ each.

If it's a points balance issue and another unit can do what one unit with an upgrade can do better, then it just means the gear upgrade is useless.

You know why people are praising 8th on it's release as one of the most balanced editions yet? Because there weren't a multitude of options on every unit that needed to be balanced that would inevitably break the game or cause 90% of the options to be useless.

Is this the same "most balanced edition" where Tau Battlesuits do not exist unless they're commanders, people argue for nerfs to Imperial Soup, and a Nova Invitational was ragequit turn 0 at the top tables due to being called out on roundabout keyword cheating, and there is even less faction variety at top tables compared to 7th, and victory via tabling takes more precedence over victory by objective? Or is this balance being in the eye of the beholder, and you're selectively ignoring 8e spam of no-option units that do better than other no-option units? "Gee, do I take a Sorcerer for Smite, a Herald for Smire, or a Malefic Lord for Smite? They all Smite, any other power I can only cast once...the Malefic Lord is cheapest, hurr."

And of course, when you make units only do one thing, you create a divide between those units that do useful roles versus those that don't. Look at Eldar in 5th edition as an example, back when Hull Points didn't exist yet the vehicle damage chart was just tough enough to make Razorspam a thing. Sure, you could get pedantic about Banshees versus Scorpions, two units that only existed to kill infantry in melee. Or you take the only reliable anti-tank unit from that slot (and arguably the entire Eldar Codex) or else you were screwed. Eldar were a no-option army turned monobuild: http://wasted-knights.blogspot.com/2010/06/joys-of-melta.html?m=1

Give multiple units the *option* to have "similarish" roles without making them too explicitly superior over the other. One could argue for Hellhounds versus Eradicators in 5th, even though both functionally shared the same role of "long range S6 AP4 coverbuster", the question being if getting close and move-interdiction (or fast tankshocks) mattered more than heavy armor and the ability to provide a wall for other units (ex. a Command Chimera with Creed). There should be more to winning the game than simple "make dem points back", or straight firepower.

Of course, there should be meaningful differences between units anyway. Bikes versus Scout Bikers is a screwed up case: Bikers get better armor and weapon options. Scouts get...a Stratagem that requires them to survive a round in melee and withdraw in order to inflict D3 mortal wounds on a 2+. You'd think they could, I dunno, actually lay cluster mines ("buy supporting Citadel minefields!") or use Astartes Launchers for firing "utility" explosions (flares, anti-plant grenades, stun rounds, etc) or anything that allows for "subversive" rather than "smashy."

Hoodwink wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
There is a happy middle ground between only 3 options and 18 options of which only a handful are useful.

I'm not talking about removing certain gear altogether, but rather removing redundant gear. Power weapons were redundant. The three grenade variants are fine (frag, krak, melta).

I agree. Everyone is taking extremes and if you aren't on their extreme, you are wrong. As I said earlier, having options but not a ton is good. A ton just yields useless options no one picks, even the fluffy players.

Who are you to tell me what options I would and would not pick?

I'm a fluffy player, and if I wanted an option that cost 5 points and made my character weapon skill and ballistic skill 6+ because he is old and elderly, I'd take it. Sadly, that commander in my fluff is long dead (thanks to being old and elderly) but at the time I would have absolutely taken it. His daughter runs my superheavy tank regiment now.

Because having been involved since 2e, I've listened to players constantly whine about how their options they want are useless, even self-proclaimed fluffy players. Finally GW curbs the number of options and what do people do? They continue to whine. Because there is no pleasing the base so GW might as well take the approach that's easiest to balance.

Hoodwink wrote:
Because having been involved since 2e, I've listened to players constantly whine about how their options they want are useless, even self-proclaimed fluffy players. Finally GW curbs the number of options and what do people do? They continue to whine. Because there is no pleasing the base so GW might as well take the approach that's easiest to balance.

Whining that an option is useless means that it should be buffed, not removed.

I also have played since early 3rd, and have only ever whined when options were removed. Because that is stupid. Let people whine about useless options if they must - but removing options outright invalidates whole armies. (Oh, you played carapace guard with Warrior Weapons and converted your whole army to have laspistols, knives, and carapace armour? Sorry mate, get fethed.)

Yeah, this "because I've watched all you other players whinewhinewhine" is really reeking of a Stop Having Fun Guy attitude.

I enjoy playing to win, but it doesn't mean I am going to have a stick up my posterior region if my foe wants to do some specific loadout option that ultimately matters little in the grand scheme of things. So what if my opponent has a Genestealer Cult Magus with an oversized sacrificial dagger instead of a Force Sword, or has lovingly converted a Chimera to be a Medicae vehicle? Sure, why not? Does it make sense, and is it fairly costed? Is it something like 15 Character Officers with Plasma? Ehh, that's whack, but I would personally look at the Character Targeting rules first before stripping said options (as these targeting rules also get exploited to spam Tau Commanders, Malefic Lords, and Assassins). Maybe the character can only pass off hits to friendly units within 3", rather than it being the character being allowed to stand in the open?

 MagicJuggler wrote:
Yeah, this "because I've watched all you other players whinewhinewhine" is really reeking of a Stop Having Fun Guy attitude.

I enjoy playing to win, but it doesn't mean I am going to have a stick up my posterior region if my foe wants to do some specific loadout option that ultimately matters little in the grand scheme of things. So what if my opponent has a Genestealer Cult Magus with an oversized sacrificial dagger instead of a Force Sword, or has lovingly converted a Chimera to be a Medicae vehicle? Sure, why not? Does it make sense, and is it fairly costed? Is it something like 15 Character Officers with Plasma? Ehh, that's whack, but I would personally look at the Character Targeting rules first before stripping said options (as these targeting rules also get exploited to spam Tau Commanders, Malefic Lords, and Assassins). Maybe the character can only pass off hits to friendly units within 3", rather than it being the character being allowed to stand in the open?

Yeah, this.

Another example I saw is someone made a guard regiment from a water world with floating island-cities that specialized in amphibious assaults and was mounted in Chimeras. People thought it was weird and were like "Why are you in Chimeras" and he could point them to the Amphibious rule which was right on its data-sheet. We even had a local campaign where his world was assaulted, and only him and armies with enough flyers to transport every other model in the army could invade other cities without taking a city's docks first ('cause they could fly, or in his case, drive through the water).

Now? Bupkis. Because... reasons, I suppose. Not sure how many points the Chimera was paying for Amphibious, but even if it was 5 or 10, I'd still pay it because I thought it was awesome.

 vipoid wrote:


Except that that wasn't due to extra options. It's not like they would have been less powerful if they could only take Scatter Lasers.

It was due to Scatter Lasers being exceptionally cheap, excellent against all but the heaviest targets, and then mountable on an exceptionally cheap and fast frame.

And also that they were a troops choice in some configurations; allowing a taxation slot to be taken by a high efficiency choice that was then improved by customisation. Drop 'fast' and the argument is identical for plasma gun armed Company commanders :|

 vipoid wrote:


And that is the reason why different options cost different points. If that is ignored then what is the point?

It's also why certain options are limited to slot choices; for (exaggerated) example, being able to take a Manticore as a HQ option :
1. removes the limiting effect of the detachment system
2. effectively makes the manticore cheaper by the cost of the company commander,
3. grants a command point for taking 4 manticores

Rewrite that to "grants a command point for taking 4 plasma guns; who will never be shot" if the CC and PC were allowed to take them and the game suddenly has a problem.

 vipoid wrote:

I would suggest that this is absurd. 40k has never once been dominated by IG Company Commanders with Lasguns or Power Mauls

'Dominated' no; but power *axe* commanders were a very efficient choice for tournament based FW artillery crew lists when the extra orders mattered and a dead terminator (who cost more than the CS and Power Axe) would be welcome.

 vipoid wrote:

there is nothing whatsoever to indicate that 8th edition could change this.

Then you haven't been playing against folks who abuse the Character keyword enough. They were weak in previous editions because they would *always* be targettable compared to other characters who could just drop their previous escort and plug into another one if necessary. Now everyone can just hide behind anything, an immune to fire shooting attack of any significance , in an army of already significant shooting, would be a problem.

 malamis wrote:

It also has a mere 12" range, on one of the most fragile HQs in the game. And whilst rerolling 1s is indeed a thing, I'd furthermore argue that it's still quite a risk when that 1/36 chance will insta-kill your own character.

And yet he's likely to survive *more* than a more expensive hellblaster thanks to having double the wounds. He, or more accurately *they* also have access to as much 3 point ablative shielding you care to employ.

 vipoid wrote:

And yet in prior editions it was Pask, not the Company Commanders, who was the dominant threat.

How is that relevant?

 vipoid wrote:

Even now, Company Commanders are taken only for their orders. Even plasma pistols are only added for reasons of fluff. And I think most would agree that spending points on melee weapons for a commander are not a good use of points in a competitive sense.

Investing in high damage low shot for melee is in general, a weaker option than shooting. For high accuracy shooting if, as i've been saying, the CC had access to better shooting options it would be a very competitive option.

 vipoid wrote:

You've still provided nothing to support this, save for your own assertions. Which don't appear to be based on anything.

I had assumed, since you were so vehement with your assertions, you knew guard and 8th well enough that I didn't need to

1. Since at least 3rd, you could never take a company commander without a bodyguard unit
2. At no point was the unit in any way immune to being targeted directly
3. again since at least 3rd The company commander has never had the 'independent character' attribute, which meant that even Look Out Sir! rolls were less effective for them

Therefore, investing in the Commander was generally only for style points, as they stayed inside a chimera in the backfield and shouted at people, or tooled forward in it with their meltagun/plasma CS who did the actual work.

In 8th, then
1. you can take up to 15 in your army. Potentially in just one transport if you so desire. A more sensible approach would be 10 in 2 supcom detachments and a brigade off to the side.
2. Only the use of sniper weapons, and total destruction of ablative shielding, allows for characters to be targetted
3. Thanks to how shooting & characters works, X company commanders ( or platoon commanders for that matter) need *X units of shooting minimum* to move them off an objective as a unit cannot split fire, or target the next one before the nearest CC has been killed.

Therefore, even with the Plasma pistol the CC is a non-trivial threat in a lot of situations, as anything invested in him is likely to pay off. If he could be equipped with better shooting, such as the isotropic plasma gun, he would in fact be arguably broken.

Perhaps the problem is the character keyword and not the weapon options?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Perhaps the problem is the character keyword and not the weapon options?

Exactly. Tooled Commanders would rival smite bombs for effectiveness, and would have fewer counters.

However, making him a non-character returns to the problem of "check me i'm a bullet magnet" as does forcing the CS on him again.

Of the paths that could be chosen, this , I think, was the best for the game, if not the feel.

 malamis wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Perhaps the problem is the character keyword and not the weapon options?

Exactly. Tooled Commanders would rival smite bombs for effectiveness, and would have fewer counters.

However, making him a non-character returns to the problem of "check me i'm a bullet magnet" as does forcing the CS on him again.

Of the paths that could be chosen, this , I think, was the best for the game, if not the feel.

How about you only allow him to pass wounds on to units within 3"? Or even units with the Bodyguard keyword (and then make that a thing).

There's a bunch of options between "he can now be shot by literally everyone" and "guess he's immune to shooting now".

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


How about you only allow him to pass wounds on to units within 3"? Or even units with the Bodyguard keyword (and then make that a thing).

There's a bunch of options between "he can now be shot by literally everyone" and "guess he's immune to shooting now".

Viable, but more trouble than its worth surely? It'd have to be applied to the whole codex, and then put IG at a disadvantage just to address a problem that only exists because one unit was given more options than it should have for the role it plays.

Personally I just mounted all my formerly fancy commanders in tanks, because the tanks they are in will VASTLY outperform anything they could have been equipped with as foot soldiers, and they still kept their style

That the plasma pistol commander in an executioner seems to get more shots with the main gun at short range is a nice bit of applied mojo.

 malamis wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


How about you only allow him to pass wounds on to units within 3"? Or even units with the Bodyguard keyword (and then make that a thing).

There's a bunch of options between "he can now be shot by literally everyone" and "guess he's immune to shooting now".

Viable, but more trouble than its worth surely? It'd have to be applied to the whole codex, and then put IG at a disadvantage just to address a problem that only exists because one unit was given more options than it should have for the role it plays.

Personally I just mounted all my formerly fancy commanders in tanks, because the tanks they are in will VASTLY outperform anything they could have been equipped with as foot soldiers, and they still kept their style

That the plasma pistol commander in an executioner seems to get more shots with the main gun at short range is a nice bit of applied mojo.

You misunderstand me - I'm not talking about guard codex rules. I think the Character targeting rules are bupkis in general and lead to things like the Assassin army that's been bandied about a bit lately, or hilarious things like Librarian spam.

Fixating on "having options is bad because a core rule is broken" is a perfect example of treating the symptom rather than curing the disease. The problem is a core rule issue, not the fact that Guard Commanders might have had access to Carapace Armour, Bionics, and Meltabombs.

Also, my friend's assault army would be outright insulted that you suggested he put his glorious, power-sword wielding Heroic Senior Officer, famous for leading his men into the teeth of enemy fire walking right alongside them, go in to a shooting platform totally unsuited to leading his men (no orders for infantry), assaulting (LRBTs are not very good in combat), and fluff writing ("My infantry regiment fields a tank commander because when I say infantry regiment I really mean tank regiment... kinda.")

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


You misunderstand me - I'm not talking about guard codex rules. I think the Character targeting rules are bupkis in general and lead to things like the Assassin army that's been bandied about a bit lately, or hilarious things like Librarian spam.

Pardon

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Fixating on "having options is bad because a core rule is broken" is a perfect example of treating the symptom rather than curing the disease. The problem is a core rule issue, not the fact that Guard Commanders might have had access to Carapace Armour, Bionics, and Meltabombs.

I don't think there's a way to solve it at all besides toning down the abilities available to 'can't shot me nya nya' models. If support characters are bullet magnets, no-one takes them or, as IG commanders were once, they were superficial models taken as tax and little else. If they're not, they're abused. I really don't see how any middle ground could be reached in a d6 system. A d20 system maybe?

As for meltabombs, bionics and Carapace armour; i'd point out that none of these options are sold as GW kits (to my knowledge) and anything that wasn't a power sword was kit bashed with the exception of the power axe commissar; kitbashing being something GW only vaguely acknowledges now; UBER EXPENSIVE GUARDSMEN conversions notwithstanding.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Also, my friend's assault army would be outright insulted that you suggested he put his glorious, power-sword wielding Heroic Senior Officer, famous for leading his men into the teeth of enemy fire walking right alongside them, go in to a shooting platform totally unsuited to leading his men (no orders for infantry), assaulting (LRBTs are not very good in combat), and fluff writing ("My infantry regiment fields a tank commander because when I say infantry regiment I really mean tank regiment... kinda.")

Put him on a Stormlord, hanging off the prow like a figurehead so as to Stabbity Death with S9

 malamis wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Perhaps the problem is the character keyword and not the weapon options?

Exactly. Tooled Commanders would rival smite bombs for effectiveness, and would have fewer counters.

However, making him a non-character returns to the problem of "check me i'm a bullet magnet" as does forcing the CS on him again.

Of the paths that could be chosen, this , I think, was the best for the game, if not the feel.

Wait...are we calling 35 points for a BS3+ (or 2+, I forget) single plasma shot abusively overpowered?

Is that what we're doing in this thread?

the_scotsman wrote:

 malamis wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Perhaps the problem is the character keyword and not the weapon options?

Exactly. Tooled Commanders would rival smite bombs for effectiveness, and would have fewer counters.

However, making him a non-character returns to the problem of "check me i'm a bullet magnet" as does forcing the CS on him again.

Of the paths that could be chosen, this , I think, was the best for the game, if not the feel.

Wait...are we calling 35 points for a BS3+ (or 2+, I forget) single plasma shot abusively overpowered?

Is that what we're doing in this thread?

43 points for a theoretical Commander/Plasma gun with 'can't shoooot meeeee' s8 ap3 d2 at 12/24 or 15/30" for Vostroyans rerolling 1s at bs3.

Primaris psykers cost 3 points less but:
don't grant orders, nor can benefit from orders
dont benefit from regimental traits
Are subject to having their effectiveness cancelled out by other psykers on the board
When comparing smite, have a shorter maximum range

Plasma pistols are just 'Decent'

Many people lament that if you have many options game balance have to suffer, as if game balance was some almighty static deity. Its not, and with human intelligence we can make amazing things. That is if we don't falter. Its easy to fall back on the old more options equals worse balance statement, but remember, that statement is only true if we choose to not tackle the problem at hand.

In a perfect 40k there could be dozens of options for every character and all could be made useful and balanced. But its nothing that will just be spawned by the universe, the game makers have to create it.

GW is like an old royal family, who want to keep the family intact with no outsider genes, no matter how inbred it gets.

FudgeDumper wrote:
Many people lament that if you have many options game balance have to suffer, as if game balance was some almighty static deity. Its not, and with human intelligence we can make amazing things. That is if we don't falter. Its easy to fall back on the old more options equals worse balance statement, but remember, that statement is only true if we choose to not tackle the problem at hand.

In a perfect 40k there could be dozens of options for every character and all could be made useful and balanced. But its nothing that will just be spawned by the universe, the game makers have to create it.

GW is like an old royal family, who want to keep the family intact with no outsider genes, no matter how inbred it gets.

More options doesn't = less balance.

More options = more difficult balance

Every option and combination of options requires balancing. Thus the more options you have the more likely it is things will be unbalanced because something slips through the cracks.

For instance Rowboat is balanced or even potentially over costed if you limited his aura to say primaris marines. However when you have it extend to all marine options you need to playtest every single one of those options to look for places where it might be to powerful, or not powerful enough. The same holds true at a squad level. A squad of Guard infantry might be terrible with no options, and too good spamming a specific option, or have an obvious loadout for effectiveness (lack of meaningful options).

The easiest game to balance would be one where units have very little buff or debuff effects, and have no options at all. Now that is not necessarily going to be the most interesting game, so you look for some middle ground where options are somewhat limited, but what options exist are meaningful.

The thing to remember is that time is a limited resource and as such it simply is not realistic that every option in a game with a ton of options will be tested.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 malamis wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

 malamis wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Perhaps the problem is the character keyword and not the weapon options?

Exactly. Tooled Commanders would rival smite bombs for effectiveness, and would have fewer counters.

However, making him a non-character returns to the problem of "check me i'm a bullet magnet" as does forcing the CS on him again.

Of the paths that could be chosen, this , I think, was the best for the game, if not the feel.

Wait...are we calling 35 points for a BS3+ (or 2+, I forget) single plasma shot abusively overpowered?

Is that what we're doing in this thread?

43 points for a theoretical Commander/Plasma gun with 'can't shoooot meeeee' s8 ap3 d2 at 12/24 or 15/30" for Vostroyans rerolling 1s at bs3.

Primaris psykers cost 3 points less but:
don't grant orders, nor can benefit from orders
dont benefit from regimental traits
Are subject to having their effectiveness cancelled out by other psykers on the board
When comparing smite, have a shorter maximum range

Plasma pistols are just 'Decent'

The big difference is that at best that commander never does 6 unsaved wounds in a single turn. At optimal range the commander will put out 6 wounds (assuming no saves) in a 6 turn game. A primaris psyker (assuming not being shut down, spam prevents most from being shut down) will deal 11.5.

Azuza001 wrote:
I don't know, with the current release of tyrnaid coming out there looks to be some amazing different and diverse options that hive fleets and their hive tyrant hq's will be able to get. Maybe it's just a case of individuals are out, army modification is in with a sprinkle of custom hq?

That's going to be a mess again, with people complaining about models being built 'wrong' (for what their rules are), and opponents only being able to identify a handful of weapons and complete confusion about all the other crap. Especially with the addition of super-special-<hive fleet>-only versions of weapons.

It's skirmish level detail in a spam level mass battle game, and very much at odds with the new edition.

 Blacksails wrote:

There is a difference between options and meaningful options.

The differentiation mechanically between a power sword, maul, or axe didn't do much to dramatically alter the game. It was unnecessary, made balance harder, offered very little meaningful impact on the table from your choice, and posed WYSIWYG issues. As a player, a power weapon being simply a power weapon was better because it allowed freedom to model what I wanted and just call it a power weapon. It simplified the game, and offered a meaningful choice between no power weapon and a fist.

Sure, I agree. But now there are different sorts of power weapons, and giving a model access to only one type limits the modelling options, and possibly renders some old models unusable. This is annoying.

I just want to be able to personalise my guys a bit, I don't want all my sergeant to be identical, or all my characters have same gear as the opponent's similar characters. I really don't think it would break the game if for example Primaris sergeants could have power axes or IG Company Commanders could have carapace armours.

 Crimson wrote:

Sure, I agree. But now there are different sorts of power weapons, and giving a model access to only one type limits the modelling options, and possibly renders some old models unusable. This is annoying.

Right, which is why going back to generic 'power weapon' would be perfect. No matter what you modeled, you just call it a power weapon and boom, good to go. Especially given that the minute differences is well, minute. Its unnecessary detail and minutiae when you run the numbers on how effective they all are.

I just want to be able to personalise my guys a bit, I don't want all my sergeant to be identical, or all my characters have same gear as the opponent's similar characters. I really don't think it would break the game if for example Primaris sergeants could have power axes or IG Company Commanders could have carapace armours.

I think power weapons should be merged again, as the split doesn't add anything meaningful to the game. Giving armour options counts as good options as far as I'm concerned. I miss carapace for officers and veterans.

Another 2c:

Not everything fluffy needs to have rules associated with it. With the bionics example, there's a bionic arm piece in the Command Squad box, your guy has his fluff story about how his arm was shot off by a battle cannon for having that arm. It not giving a 6+ doesn't prevent you from having it, in fact, otherwise useless aesthetic upgrades not having rules is good, I think, since it means you can take them on your guys without sacrificing efficiency.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
Another 2c:

Not everything fluffy needs to have rules associated with it. With the bionics example, there's a bionic arm piece in the Command Squad box, your guy has his fluff story about how his arm was shot off by a battle cannon for having that arm. It not giving a 6+ doesn't prevent you from having it, in fact, otherwise useless aesthetic upgrades not having rules is good, I think, since it means you can take them on your guys without sacrificing efficiency.

My thoughts exactly. Not every single part of character's backstory needs to be represented as a rule and visual piece of wargear.

I agree in principle, but it's not like Bionics was overpowered enough to drop.

In fact, there's even rules for it as a 6+ invuln now, which is both more streamlined and equally "useless".

IDK, just feels like another option sliced for no reason; heck, as you point out, it even has a model.

And as a countercounter-example, Bionics is a very broad term; which means anything from a leg replacement to an iron lung, all abstracted as a 6+ save, despite conversion options either being whacky or nonexistent ("It's subdermal.").

Like, if GW made a plastic Cybork kit that let you do Orks on Treads, Orks with spider legs or with antigrav torsos ("Floatorks"), I'm sure Ork players could go wild with that. Hell, a customizable "Plastic Squigs" unit which was easy to convert with Gobbo riders, splody dynamite, big toofy gobs, etc would be an option for GW to print money for two separare lines.

Blacksails wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
Another 2c:

Not everything fluffy needs to have rules associated with it. With the bionics example, there's a bionic arm piece in the Command Squad box, your guy has his fluff story about how his arm was shot off by a battle cannon for having that arm. It not giving a 6+ doesn't prevent you from having it, in fact, otherwise useless aesthetic upgrades not having rules is good, I think, since it means you can take them on your guys without sacrificing efficiency.

My thoughts exactly. Not every single part of character's backstory needs to be represented as a rule and visual piece of wargear.

Flavor items should be rules-less and cost-less, but there are some notably lacking mechanical options that actually change the way the unit operates and give it tactically valuable new abilities on the tabletop. I can offer Canoness Jump Packs and IG Carapace Armor, and I'm sure you can think of examples for other armies.

There's also some units that have arbitrarily restricted mechanical options, like the Seraphim Superior, whom I desperately want to give a Power Axe too but can only give a Power Sword.

Unit1126PLL wrote:I agree in principle, but it's not like Bionics was overpowered enough to drop.

In fact, there's even rules for it as a 6+ invuln now, which is both more streamlined and equally "useless".

IDK, just feels like another option sliced for no reason; heck, as you point out, it even has a model.

I don't feel it's loss. It's a flavor option, and when it comes to it, I think flavor options should be strictly non-mechanical. As I said, cutting it off as a mechanical upgrade frees it up to be a part of your character's backstory whether or not you want to pay points for it by just modelling it there, and you shouldn't really be paying points for your backstory anyway. When your backstory is mechanical, it becomes limited by what you can pay for.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:


Flavor items should be rules-less and cost-less, but there are some notably lacking mechanical options that actually change the way the unit operates and give it tactically valuable new abilities on the tabletop. I can offer Canoness Jump Packs and IG Carapace Armor, and I'm sure you can think of examples for other armies.

There's also some units that have arbitrarily restricted mechanical options, like the Seraphim Superior, whom I desperately want to give a Power Axe too but can only give a Power Sword.

I agree completely. Well except for the power weapon part, which I'd love to go back to the old power weapon options then split into a bunch of minorly different, unimportant options.

I want to take veterans, but without carapace I can't really take them as the Grenadiers I want to run them as.

Yeah, power Weapons should go back to just being Power Weapons. Like, 5 of my 7 tactical dark angel sargeants have power maces, not power swords. And in my group nobody has a problem with that, but I'm pretty sure that in some tournament I'll have people pointing out the lack of WYSIWYG

Thing is, there are only ever one or two optimal builds for any given unit anyway. I kind of had fun converting custom characters to be special and expensive snowflakes in the past, but once you get over the allure of playing dress-up with your dollmans and think abut building a more optimal list, spending a bunch of points on one character just to give them a lot of "cool" stuff isn't very efficient. I can remember having to mix metal and plastic parts to make a custom SM Chapter Master with a jump pack and lightning claws. It ended up being a cool model, but it was a pain compared to going with an out-of-the-box option, and in terms of in-game performance it wasn't ideal.

There are still units that have a huge array of options - going with the Death Guard example, you have tons of freedom to equip Plague Marines for many different tasks. What you don't have is the option to customize elite and HQ characters, but they are each equipped so as to serve a specialized purpose. The challenge in list building is still there, however, because you have to choose how to equip the troops or core of your army and which other units to support them with. You just don't go as much into the nitty gritty of how you're going to create your characters out of dozens of possible wargear options, which I frankly don't miss all that much, personally.

At the same time, "optimal" can also be more subjective in the grand scheme of things. For example, back in 3rd-7th, one of the most common adages was "don't mix Heavy Weapons in a unit." While this means not running a Devestator Squad with "one of each weapon," I did find at the tail-end of 7th that it was occasionally worth running Chaos Havocs as "2 Autocannons, 2 Missile Launchers." Both were range 48 weapons with 1 point of strength difference between them, but having a pair of AP shots to scare Jetbikes into Jinking (or a pair of frag rounds to discourage Napoleonic blocks) had its use, while keeping the unit focused.

There are/were other examples where there was a pragmatic use for non-optimal loadouts. I did something similar with Orks in 5th, running Kan units as "2 Rokkits, one Grotzooka," my rationale being one of the three would usually be shake-locked anyway, I could allocate hits, 2 Rokkits gave me "enough" chance to suppress a Razorback, and the Grotzooka allowed for close-quarters crowd control.

One of the more contentious ones was giving a Fire Dragon Exarch a Flamer, because the unit is "supposed" to be hunting tanks. Ok, fine, but you come across a Chimera that unloaded its infantry and you want to clip some errant Guardsmen while you blow up their ride. Or your opponent brought Shrouded chaff, or tries charging you with a throwaway MSU unit...

Heck, you could make a reasonable case for "TL Missile Pod and Flamer" Crisis Suits in 5th despite the "Fireknife Only" blowhards.

All this "only one or two optimal loadouts" is the result of Stop Having Fun Guys scrubbing up the game and going "NO OPTIONS! MONOPOSE ONLY! Final Destination." I honestly don't understand you. Who died and made you the Warhammer Police?

I'll love for a more variety on aesthetic options even if the ingame options aren't as varied.

If my HQ box gives me cyborg options, many heads, varios types of swords, axes, hammers, halberds, etc... I don't care that theres no rules for a "Cyborg" upgrade, or that all the weapons are "Power Weapons". Actually is better for me, because I can customize my HQ as I want without being punished by the options I want him to have being bad or expensive point-wise.

Obviously theres a minimun of options to be had. If theres no Meele options then, the box will not have meele options, even aesthetic ones, etc...

But ideally we should have a good array of options, with both rules and aesthetic-only options, bud try to made them all viable. Theres a point of having "Anti-Tank Meele Weapon", Anti-Horde Meele Weapon, Generic Meele Weapon. At the end of the day, having even more ends becoming redundant. And those three groups could be the rules for all:
-Thunder Hammers, Heavy Thunder Hammers, Power Fists, ChainFists.
-Power Claws, Power Falchions.
-Power Axes, Power Swords, Power Halberd, Power Maces.


And all the others I can't remember right now.

And yes. I'm with MaggicJuggler. Theres a point with having some "strange" options, that maybe aren't meta, but they could offer strategic variety.

 Luciferian wrote:
I kind of had fun converting custom characters to be special and expensive snowflakes in the past, but once you get over the allure of playing dress-up with your dollmans

I'll never get tired of that!

It is actually super annoying that when we finally have an edition with reasonably priced pistols and melee weapons, so that it would not be insanity to give them to your squad leaders and minor characters, the actual rule options to give them those items are severely limited.

 MagicJuggler wrote:
At the same time, "optimal" can also be more subjective in the grand scheme of things. For example, back in 3rd-7th, one of the most common adages was "don't mix Heavy Weapons in a unit." While this means not running a Devestator Squad with "one of each weapon," I did find at the tail-end of 7th that it was occasionally worth running Chaos Havocs as "2 Autocannons, 2 Missile Launchers." Both were range 48 weapons with 1 point of strength difference between them, but having a pair of AP shots to scare Jetbikes into Jinking (or a pair of frag rounds to discourage Napoleonic blocks) had its use, while keeping the unit focused.

There are/were other examples where there was a pragmatic use for non-optimal loadouts. I did something similar with Orks in 5th, running Kan units as "2 Rokkits, one Grotzooka," my rationale being one of the three would usually be shake-locked anyway, I could allocate hits, 2 Rokkits gave me "enough" chance to suppress a Razorback, and the Grotzooka allowed for close-quarters crowd control.

One of the more contentious ones was giving a Fire Dragon Exarch a Flamer, because the unit is "supposed" to be hunting tanks. Ok, fine, but you come across a Chimera that unloaded its infantry and you want to clip some errant Guardsmen while you blow up their ride. Or your opponent brought Shrouded chaff, or tries charging you with a throwaway MSU unit...

Heck, you could make a reasonable case for "TL Missile Pod and Flamer" Crisis Suits in 5th despite the "Fireknife Only" blowhards.

All this "only one or two optimal loadouts" is the result of Stop Having Fun Guys scrubbing up the game and going "NO OPTIONS! MONOPOSE ONLY! Final Destination." I honestly don't understand you. Who died and made you the Warhammer Police?

That's not flavor upgrades. Those are mechanical upgrades that specialize units. Diversity in mechanical upgrades allows units to have customized tactical roles.

 Galas wrote:
And yes. I'm with MaggicJuggler. Theres a point with having some "strange" options, that maybe aren't meta, but they could offer strategic variety.

Strange options are fun. One of my favorite examples in 7th was reading about Jon Camacho's Necron army from last year's LVO, where he got in the top 8 with a Living Tomb list with Monolith and Deathmarks. The list looked screwy ("Who takes a Monolith?" "Who takes a Judicator Battalion?" "No Destroyer Cult/Canoptek Harvest? URDOINIT Wrong!" etc), yet outplayed many supposedly better lists.

Personally, I do wish that 40k had less "bespoke" interactions, and that they all were semi-consolidated into a more robust framework of moving parts. There was a comedic appeal in finding the screwy combos, from hijacking an opponent's Void Shield Generator with Writhing Worldscape, or otherwise playing 40k in a "subversive" manner, but making rules that are more "emergent" (or at least their results are implied from their combinations). Having more noncombat applications for powers would be nice too: Webbers making it easier to scale terrain (disregarding how 8e simplifes terrain), Fusion Guns letting you weld bulkheads together, etc. Heck, I'd love if Ork Grabbin Klaws could drag vehicles or battle debris, or Guard Fire Barrels could either be "rolled" (to set up as a trap), "rolled and detonated", or used as a temporary ersatz Fuel Relay by nearby Guard Infantry.

Mind you, this could be the Starfleet Battles nerd in me talking, the one that enjoys dynamic Shuttle loadouts, Plasma Torpedoes having four separate fire modes ("standard, decoy rounds, shotgun mode, beam mode"), and trolling your foe with tractor beams.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
That's not flavor upgrades. Those are mechanical upgrades that specialize units. Diversity in mechanical upgrades allows units to have customized tactical roles.

That all go against the general belief that there is only "one right loadout." Said tactical roles sacrificing a tiny bit of primary efficiency for a secondary role; duality of purpose and all.

Id rather be able to build my model the way I want to than to have to worry about whether or not I have the 100% correct loadout suggested. Editions change, and not all models change well with it, but they will last far longer. I have the Commissar with book and powerfist, and he is my favorite one, do I run him with said powerfist? Hell no, theres no point to it, but it still looks way cooler in the end, and my opponents have never complained because its an ancient, distinct model that is well painted. Characters should be what you make of them, not what the rules make of them, just fit them in as best you can, that little guy is going to be with you far longer than the rules will.

 MagicJuggler wrote:


All this "only one or two optimal loadouts" is the result of Stop Having Fun Guys scrubbing up the game and going "NO OPTIONS! MONOPOSE ONLY! Final Destination." I honestly don't understand you. Who died and made you the Warhammer Police?

No need to get your huggies in a bunch. I wasn't trying to tell anyone who felt differently that they were wrong to hold their own opinion. It's just simple fact that certain ways of equipping squads and characters are the most points-efficient.

Besides, like I mentioned earlier, it's not like there are no options at all anymore. Plague Marines have 15 wargear options, not counting the combinations that can be derived thereof. It's only the newer HQ and elite characters that can't really be customized.

"Newer HQ and Elite characters" like IG Company Commanders who have been around as long as the IG. and IG Techpriests who have been around as long as the IG?

Voss wrote:

Azuza001 wrote:
I don't know, with the current release of tyrnaid coming out there looks to be some amazing different and diverse options that hive fleets and their hive tyrant hq's will be able to get. Maybe it's just a case of individuals are out, army modification is in with a sprinkle of custom hq?

That's going to be a mess again, with people complaining about models being built 'wrong' (for what their rules are), and opponents only being able to identify a handful of weapons and complete confusion about all the other crap. Especially with the addition of super-special-<hive fleet>-only versions of weapons.

It's skirmish level detail in a spam level mass battle game, and very much at odds with the new edition.

I don't know about all that. If my opponent told me "my hive tyrant has the toxin sacs and adrenal glands upgrades" I would not care if it's on the model, but I know what those are and thats all I care about. Same with a chaos lord or a company commander, having those options is fine to me. If you want your guy to have Bionics or an iron halo, whatever I don't mind if it is not totally modeled 100% (Maybe his halo is currently in his back pocket or behind his cape, you say he has it then he has it, let's move on) but if the issue I guess is when it is modeled and you can't take it anymore, that's annoying. You have a charecter that has a jump pack and is a tech marine? But it can't actually take that pack anymore? That can cause issues.

If people complain because something that you gave to a charecter is not modeled properly then really what's the real issue here? They don't think they can win if they don't complain and pressure you about your choice? Seems like a grot move to me.

I am not the biggest fan of the lack of options either.
Fir example why can a sorceror no longer get a invunrable save unless hes in terminator armour or on a disc?
Why has my chaos lord of Nurgle on bike lost the ootion for blight grenades or a free roll on the chaos boon table pre gane.
Why is there for the most part no diffrentiation between the marks? I get its hard to balance the marks but would it if hurt to have the marks give a buff and a negative .
Ultimately there is no difference between a lord of Nurgle on bike or a Tzeench lord on bike which if im honest sucks.