I'm sure most of us here know why the policy was implemented, but where GW draws the line is at best, biased, random & inconsistent at its best, and complete horse poo at its worst.
Lets take for example the good old bikes. SM comes with "legal" codex entry for a "Captain on Bike", when bike options for librarian, chaplain, and techmarines were withdrawn at the launch of codex.
Surely, one can assume that the line GW has drawn for these conversion exclusive models is based on the difficulty level for the said conversion/modeling & converting capabilities of hobbists. Which is to say, if it involves chopping and sculpting, it is not a codex legal conversion. Fair enough - to those who aren't as invested in the modelling aspect of the hobby and resort to proxying for these models to play with them. Codex legal conversions MUST be able to be easily kitbashed with simple swapping of parts.
So then exactly what kit/combination of kits make a captain on a bike? Is it as simple as using the aquila backpack amd glue on a iron halo? If so, a librarian can be represented by a psychoc hood bit from gk strike squad and some sort of power weapon, chaplain by a crozium and tech marine by a backpack swap.
Why is captain a valid codex entry while others are not??
I'm not sure I'd go with "biased", but their policy is seemingly much more arbitrary and capricious than even your OP suggests.
It is perfectly possible to make a Herald of Slaanesh on a Seeker Chariot, or an Exalted Chariot, using all the same design cues from the official mini and the Masque all from one box (the Seeker Chariot box and the SC! Slaanesh Daemons box respectively), yet both were dropped from the Codex.
I think "no model, no rules" annoys me less than "rules, but no stand-alone package for the model". I'd like to buy a Primaris Captain in Gravis Armor, but I can only get him from the Dark Imperium box and nobody I know wants the Plague Marines.
The Newman wrote: I think "no model, no rules" annoys me less than "rules, but no stand-alone package for the model". I'd like to buy a Primaris Captain in Gravis Armor, but I can only get him from the Dark Imperium box and nobody I know wants the Plague Marines.
I'd recommend using the Plague Marines for bitz or parts of terrain like discarded weapons or dead bodies.
My annoyance is when it's applied inconsistently. Aspiring Sorcerers in Rubric Marine squads can take a force sword or force staff, despite there being no force sword (or any sword) on the sprues. Aspiring Sorcerers in Sekhmet squads, however, can only have a Force Staff. They can swap their gun for a Power Sword, but only the gun. What's the difference between a Force Sword and a Power Sword? Why is the Sekhmet squad so rigid, while the Rubric squad isn't?
Renegade grenadiers, looted tanks, renegade veterans, big mutants.
Granted most of it is from R&H but still, it hurts when your former centerpiece gets invalidated.
No models no rules attitude simply doesn't make any sense.
Take drukhari: archons can't have blasters anymore via codex but they still can be equipped with agonisers and blast pistols while the official model is a monopose dude with huskblade and splinter pistol, no other bitz to chose from. Why is blaster out of the the codex and other optional weapons don't?
The succubus is also a monopose model with fixed loadout, glaive and agoniser, but with the codex not only she kept the pistols as a possible upgrade but she even GAINED new options that she never had before, all the wych melee weapons. Logic beyond that is impossible to understand.
The haemonculus can also have different options that are available only by kitbashing/conversion.
Meanwhile orks characters lost pretty much all their options, perfectly respecting the "no model no rule" concept.
The Newman wrote: I think "no model, no rules" annoys me less than "rules, but no stand-alone package for the model". I'd like to buy a Primaris Captain in Gravis Armor, but I can only get him from the Dark Imperium box and nobody I know wants the Plague Marines.
Primaris Space Marine Captain - I'm pretty sure if you just type that into EBay you'll find what you're looking for.
The Newman wrote: I think "no model, no rules" annoys me less than "rules, but no stand-alone package for the model". I'd like to buy a Primaris Captain in Gravis Armor, but I can only get him from the Dark Imperium box and nobody I know wants the Plague Marines.
Yeah but at least we get a new Lieutenant each month.
Despite the kit having options, the Eldar Autarch has none.
The winged Autarch does though, and is the same kit.
They used the doomed pirate as the template for the base Autarch, it appears, not the actual Autarch kit.
It's especially bizzare that Grey Knights codex explicitly comes with a model that has to be kitbashed and was advertised as such. A Grandmaster in a Dreadknight model doesn't exist - It was suggested to bash one together from the Triumvurate Grandmaster.
no model no rules and the trend towards uncustomizable model kits is probably the biggest failure of 8th edition 40k.
The entire appeal of 40k over other much, MUCH, MUUUUUUUUCH cheaper hobbies that have similar gameplay aspects is the massive customizability/personalization aspect.
There are so many units, and the units have so many options, and the factions have so many subfactions, and the kits have so many ways to be built and posed, that nobody's army should really look alike. You're completely free to come up with your own stuff, and that's what keeps bringing me and almost every other player I know back to 40k.
These new monopose kits can be as good looking as they want to be, I'll never be compelled to buy more than one of them. Every player's "Shokkjump Dragsta with Kustom Zappa And Rokkit And Shokkjump Boosta" will look completely identical to every other player's. Every player's Primaris Intercessor will look identical to every other player's Primaris Intercessor, barring a couple upgrades available on a couple sprues.
Compare that to my Deathwatch Terminators, who are identically armed to my buddy's Deathwatch Terminators, yet are completely and utterly different, because we used the vast modeling options available to Terminators to create utterly unique squads and individuals.
That's what 40k should be. If I'm going to spend the time and effort to build and paint my own plastic toys, I want them to be MY plastic toys. Not some mass produced cookie cutter crap.
the_scotsman wrote: no model no rules and the trend towards uncustomizable model kits is probably the biggest failure of 8th edition 40k.
The entire appeal of 40k over other much, MUCH, MUUUUUUUUCH cheaper hobbies that have similar gameplay aspects is the massive customizability/personalization aspect.
There are so many units, and the units have so many options, and the factions have so many subfactions, and the kits have so many ways to be built and posed, that nobody's army should really look alike. You're completely free to come up with your own stuff, and that's what keeps bringing me and almost every other player I know back to 40k.
These new monopose kits can be as good looking as they want to be, I'll never be compelled to buy more than one of them. Every player's "Shokkjump Dragsta with Kustom Zappa And Rokkit And Shokkjump Boosta" will look completely identical to every other player's. Every player's Primaris Intercessor will look identical to every other player's Primaris Intercessor, barring a couple upgrades available on a couple sprues.
Compare that to my Deathwatch Terminators, who are identically armed to my buddy's Deathwatch Terminators, yet are completely and utterly different, because we used the vast modeling options available to Terminators to create utterly unique squads and individuals.
That's what 40k should be. If I'm going to spend the time and effort to build and paint my own plastic toys, I want them to be MY plastic toys. Not some mass produced cookie cutter crap.
The model that comes to mind is the Tempestor Prime. The way that the kit is made, the gun arm is also the one that holds the almost-mandatory command rod (+1 order). This means that you can't have the rod and a gun, which is reflected in the unit entry. The rules are at the mercy of the model design, which I feel often doesn't fully consider the rules implications of design decisions.
Indeed, it's a sad, sad time to be in the grimdark world of 40k.
One of the things that stood out to me the most when I started this hobby during the transition to 3rd ed was that boltgun handles HAD to be cut off in order to put them on the hands.
What set aside GW products from rest of ANY plas-model kits was that it wasn't a simple snap fit, glue here solution, but rather it made you step up your game in the assembly and painting of figures. Despite even a very minor 'conversion' you had to do, each and every figure required your attention, and I'm sure many of us here can attest to the fact that modelling and painting is and will be one of the more enjoyable part of the hobby rather than playing cash throwing that is the current WAAC meta.
It's always a matter of scale. Kit bashing a weird combo of kits together to make a model for an HQ is pretty cool and the game should probably support it more. The problem is and always has been when this same style of modeling gets applied to stuff that you're looking to take 10-30 of in an army.
Trickstick wrote: The model that comes to mind is the Tempestor Prime. The way that the kit is made, the gun arm is also the one that holds the almost-mandatory command rod (+1 order). This means that you can't have the rod and a gun, which is reflected in the unit entry. The rules are at the mercy of the model design, which I feel often doesn't fully consider the rules implications of design decisions.
The Tempestor Prime is just poorly designed, period. A single Order for an HQ choice is a joke.
I understand not giving rules to stuff that absolutely not exist, but this thing has gone way too far. Kitbashing and customising your stuff has always been a big part of the appeal of this hobby. Things that can easily be kitbashed from the kits of the same faction should be allowed.
Perhaps it's the slippery slope to Power Levels. Kits come with fewer and fewer options, until most units have so few, that PL suddenly is a reasonable way to make your army as any customization changes it so little.
Tinfoil hat conspiracy aside, I'm personally not pleased about discovering this change upon my return to 8th Ed. (I'd been away a long time, 2e-3e, and missed much) I rather enjoyed modelling unusual wargear choices and similar for my soldiers.
I am not liking the mono-pose models that seem to be the new way of things. Sure, they look pretty good if you only want one squad. But as soon as you go beyond that you get duplicates. You used to get duplicate parts but you could change the arms etc. to compensate for that.
I'm glad I have plenty of spare Cadians. I could see an updated model line being highly affected by this problem.
I just need them to make Primaris Charecters in other armors. Captains, Librarians, Chaplains and LT's in Inceptor armor would be a nice start. Then in Gravis Armor.
Here's a few things that I think ticks GW:
1. 2nd hand sales of unused bits - this is noticeable on their approach to intercessor/hellblaster kits. They purposely made it so that no main component goes unused, thereby forcing sales on their kits. Similarly, the plasma weaponry in hellblaster kit is designed so that you don't have 5x of each weapon you can equip them.
2. 3rd party conversion bits - because GW is too lazy to sculpt cool new things for old models. Better to push a whole new line and eventually phase out older models.
The RIGHT way to go about this is to return to their bit sales. This way, they can sell the main product and also sell upgrade sprues, or "booster sprues" to boost their sales.
skchsan wrote: Here's a few things that I think ticks GW:
1. 2nd hand sales of unused bits - this is noticeable on their approach to intercessor/hellblaster kits. They purposely made it so that no main component goes unused, thereby forcing sales on their kits. Similarly, the plasma weaponry in hellblaster kit is designed so that you don't have 5x of each weapon you can equip them.
2. 3rd party conversion bits - because GW is too lazy to sculpt cool new things for old models. Better to push a whole new line and eventually phase out older models.
The RIGHT way to go about this is to return to their bit sales. This way, they can sell the main product and also sell upgrade sprues, or "booster sprues" to boost their sales.
But wait, schkan, if GW sold an "imperial weapons upgrade pack", an "eldar weapons upgrade pack", a "drukhari weapons upgrade pack" and a few "marine shoulderpad upgrade packs" then we could have fewer sprues in the basic kits, pay approximately the same prices overall but with more customizability, and Games Workshop would make more money overall from more people buying duplicate sprues!
Kcalehc wrote: Perhaps it's the slippery slope to Power Levels. Kits come with fewer and fewer options, until most units have so few, that PL suddenly is a reasonable way to make your army as any customization changes it so little.
I actually have suspected for a while that this indeed might be what's going on.
Well you can buy packs of 5x melta or plasma guns, which is pretty much the same thing. Or there is FW, which has a decent selection of upgrades. Mostly Imperial though.
In total agreement with the OP here. GW's games customisation was one of their biggest selling points. It's like everything has become homogenised- You must assemble your models this way. You must paint your models this way (the Cult of Duncan can feth off), it's like nobody wants to experiment any more. The worst offenders of this are the Death Guard. Their HQs have no options. Chaos Lords and Sorcerers lack T5 and DR, simply because GW does not sell a Nurgle lord kit. PMs have curious weapon options due to how the models must go together.
The utter worst of the worst in all of this are the Blightlord Termies- There are only 5 bodies, which are all very distinct. Including the ETB kit there are only 8 Blightlord models. It is impossible to build a unit of 10 without repeating oneself.
But to bring this back to no options- There are no power fists or chainfists? Why? A staple of Termies for years is now unusable by Nurgle Termies (unless you're a Chaos Lord curiously...) are absent simply because the kit lacks them. Palanquins- The iconic daemonic mount of Nurgle champions is gone. Despite there being a Palanquin model and it is as easy as putting a new character on it. This is fine for SM biker Captains, but not for DG.
No longer is it "your dudes"- every HQ looks the same, and this is just awful. I love to convert stuff, and I still do. Don't get me wrong stuff is still convertible but there is only so much you can do with the sheer lack of options. It doesn't matter that the guy below has a massive bell, he's still the same Lord of Contagion with Plaguereaper- just like more or less every other LoC out there.
Spoiler:
I get that there are options that fall by the wayside over the years, this is far from my first rodeo but the extent that 8th has gutted some core options is just baffling, well, it's not. I know exactly why but it doesn't stop it from being truly asinine.
skchsan wrote: Here's a few things that I think ticks GW:
1. 2nd hand sales of unused bits - this is noticeable on their approach to intercessor/hellblaster kits. They purposely made it so that no main component goes unused, thereby forcing sales on their kits. Similarly, the plasma weaponry in hellblaster kit is designed so that you don't have 5x of each weapon you can equip them.
2. 3rd party conversion bits - because GW is too lazy to sculpt cool new things for old models. Better to push a whole new line and eventually phase out older models.
The RIGHT way to go about this is to return to their bit sales. This way, they can sell the main product and also sell upgrade sprues, or "booster sprues" to boost their sales.
But wait, schkan, if GW sold an "imperial weapons upgrade pack", an "eldar weapons upgrade pack", a "drukhari weapons upgrade pack" and a few "marine shoulderpad upgrade packs" then we could have fewer sprues in the basic kits, pay approximately the same prices overall but with more customizability, and Games Workshop would make more money overall from more people buying duplicate sprues!
That would be....bad...?
No no no no... You sell the basic kit, with plethora of bits EXCEPT the ones you need. This way, everyone is forced to buy the regular box AND THEN the upgrade booster sprues to spiff up their unit. All the should pads in the main box should come blank, and you can free hand your own chapter symbol OR buy upgrade shoulder pad for each chapters (WHICH THEY DID! LIKE SERIOUSLY GEEDUBS! WASSAMATTAYOO)
Bharring wrote: Also, DEHQs have weapons options that are only in the relevant troops' boxes, not the HQ kits themselves.
I think GW was experimenting there.
It's also really funny when you start looking at archons.
Because you have to pick the source of your wargear (index or codex) you cannot take one wargear item that is index only and pair it with an option that is codex only.
For example, an Archon with a Blaster & a Venom Blade is actually illegal, because the Venom Blade is not a choice offered in the index. While this only saves you 2 points from Huskblade -> Venom Blade, it is 2 points, and any DE player at 2000 points with a blaster + venom blade is cheating.
Marmatag wrote: Wolf Priests do not have a kit and have rules.
It isn't hard to convert one, but it doesn't change the simple fact that I cannot go online and buy a Wolf Priest kit.
Wolf Guard Battle Leaders are the same way. Essentially just a captain with different rules, but still does not have a kit.
To be honest all the standard SWHQs don't have an official model, there's just the Iron Priest and the Rune Priest. Wolf Lords, battle leaders and wolf priest don't have an official model because GW pushed the standard SM commander as the regular SWHQ that can be customized in order to assemble the desired HQ. You can also use Ulrik as a standard wolf priest. But you're right, it's super easy to convert one, just kitbash the crozium arcanum using the power axe and the eagle icon. Actually with the new rules he can just have a power fist, so a perfectly legal WYSIWYG wolf priest is no more than a standard grey hunter with power fist.
Bharring wrote: Also, DEHQs have weapons options that are only in the relevant troops' boxes, not the HQ kits themselves.
I think GW was experimenting there.
It's also really funny when you start looking at archons.
Because you have to pick the source of your wargear (index or codex) you cannot take one wargear item that is index only and pair it with an option that is codex only.
For example, an Archon with a Blaster & a Venom Blade is actually illegal, because the Venom Blade is not a choice offered in the index. While this only saves you 2 points from Huskblade -> Venom Blade, it is 2 points, and any DE player at 2000 points with a blaster + venom blade is cheating.
I don't think that's what the rules quite say. You may choose to use the index version for its wargear options, if the warhead has rules in the codex these replace the index options. Looks to me like VB + Blaster is fine.
Trickstick wrote: The model that comes to mind is the Tempestor Prime. The way that the kit is made, the gun arm is also the one that holds the almost-mandatory command rod (+1 order). This means that you can't have the rod and a gun, which is reflected in the unit entry. The rules are at the mercy of the model design, which I feel often doesn't fully consider the rules implications of design decisions.
The thing is, though, the Tempestor Prime model can't have any melee weapons other then a basic knife (his coat prevents you from attaching a Power Fist or Sword arm). So if they're going by the model then he should also have no melee options.
Trickstick wrote: The model that comes to mind is the Tempestor Prime. The way that the kit is made, the gun arm is also the one that holds the almost-mandatory command rod (+1 order). This means that you can't have the rod and a gun, which is reflected in the unit entry. The rules are at the mercy of the model design, which I feel often doesn't fully consider the rules implications of design decisions.
The thing is, though, the Tempestor Prime model can't have any melee weapons other then a basic knife (his coat prevents you from attaching a Power Fist or Sword arm). So if they're going by the model then he should also have no melee options.
It just makes no sense.
It's almost as though GW is incredibly inconsistent.
Trickstick wrote: The model that comes to mind is the Tempestor Prime. The way that the kit is made, the gun arm is also the one that holds the almost-mandatory command rod (+1 order). This means that you can't have the rod and a gun, which is reflected in the unit entry. The rules are at the mercy of the model design, which I feel often doesn't fully consider the rules implications of design decisions.
The thing is, though, the Tempestor Prime model can't have any melee weapons other then a basic knife (his coat prevents you from attaching a Power Fist or Sword arm). So if they're going by the model then he should also have no melee options.
It just makes no sense.
Nothing requires your Tempestor Prime to wear the coat... also swapping out his knife hand for a Power/Chain sword isn't terribly hard - and those pieces are in the kit. But yes, desiring the powerfist, and the coat, is a significant modelling challenge.
Bharring wrote: Also, DEHQs have weapons options that are only in the relevant troops' boxes, not the HQ kits themselves.
I think GW was experimenting there.
It's also really funny when you start looking at archons.
Because you have to pick the source of your wargear (index or codex) you cannot take one wargear item that is index only and pair it with an option that is codex only.
For example, an Archon with a Blaster & a Venom Blade is actually illegal, because the Venom Blade is not a choice offered in the index. While this only saves you 2 points from Huskblade -> Venom Blade, it is 2 points, and any DE player at 2000 points with a blaster + venom blade is cheating.
I don't think that's what the rules quite say. You may choose to use the index version for its wargear options, if the warhead has rules in the codex these replace the index options. Looks to me like VB + Blaster is fine.
Follow the flow chart. You pick index OR codex for wargear. It is indeed illegal.
Bharring wrote: Also, DEHQs have weapons options that are only in the relevant troops' boxes, not the HQ kits themselves.
I think GW was experimenting there.
It's also really funny when you start looking at archons.
Because you have to pick the source of your wargear (index or codex) you cannot take one wargear item that is index only and pair it with an option that is codex only.
For example, an Archon with a Blaster & a Venom Blade is actually illegal, because the Venom Blade is not a choice offered in the index. While this only saves you 2 points from Huskblade -> Venom Blade, it is 2 points, and any DE player at 2000 points with a blaster + venom blade is cheating.
I don't think that's what the rules quite say. You may choose to use the index version for its wargear options, if the warhead has rules in the codex these replace the index options. Looks to me like VB + Blaster is fine.
Follow the flow chart. You pick index OR codex for wargear. It is indeed illegal.
Although this is quitee off topic from the OP, as far as wargear goes, its [index] AND [codex].
I'd probably just ignore the index as much as possible now. You know they are probably going to drop support at some point. No point converting a load of rough riders or power axe sergeants now.
Trickstick wrote: I'd probably just ignore the index as much as possible now. You know they are probably going to drop support at some point. No point converting a load of rough riders or power axe sergeants now.
I think it's going to be a huge wrench in the face of hobbyists if they outright remove index options. The LEAST GW can do is offer official sanctioned legacy/conversion models as optional book that TOs can use.
The answer is simple. GW is incompetent. They fck up litterly everything no matter how small. No exaggeration. Everything they do, from making models, the rules, the fluff and beyond, there is always something in there thats going to make people facepalm. No matter how great it is, theres always atleast one tiny thing that just makes me see GW as it is- A bunch of talented has-been's who also all happen to be idiots.
123ply wrote: The answer is simple. GW is incompetent. They fck up litterly everything no matter how small. No exaggeration. Everything they do, from making models, the rules, the fluff and beyond, there is always something in there thats going to make people facepalm. No matter how great it is, theres always atleast one tiny thing that just makes me see GW as it is- A bunch of talented has-been's who also all happen to be idiots.
Rather than being so directly offensive, I think its rather the growth of the company.
I feel that GW was founded by bunch of gamers who got together and "hey, we should totally make a sci-fi tabletop wargame!". At its inception and before the Mattwardian Favorithic Age, the game and the company was run by people who were passionate about what they do (Hell, even Matt Ward was exteremly passionate about what he does - make Kaldor Draigo & GK uber-duber-super-OP). It's unfortunate to see the obvious trend of 'please the investors' approach (which, don't get me wrong, there nothing wrong with that) without a single regard for what this whole company was built upon - fellow hobbyists. It seems like the company and majority of the employees are a typical day-in-day out type (again, nothing wrong with that) who are only there to collect paychecks and no passion for the game at all.
Bharring wrote: Also, DEHQs have weapons options that are only in the relevant troops' boxes, not the HQ kits themselves.
I think GW was experimenting there.
It's also really funny when you start looking at archons.
Because you have to pick the source of your wargear (index or codex) you cannot take one wargear item that is index only and pair it with an option that is codex only.
For example, an Archon with a Blaster & a Venom Blade is actually illegal, because the Venom Blade is not a choice offered in the index. While this only saves you 2 points from Huskblade -> Venom Blade, it is 2 points, and any DE player at 2000 points with a blaster + venom blade is cheating.
I don't think that's what the rules quite say. You may choose to use the index version for its wargear options, if the warhead has rules in the codex these replace the index options. Looks to me like VB + Blaster is fine.
Follow the flow chart. You pick index OR codex for wargear. It is indeed illegal.
I quoted the flowchart. I disagree with your interpretation.
123ply wrote: The answer is simple. GW is incompetent. They fck up litterly everything no matter how small. No exaggeration. Everything they do, from making models, the rules, the fluff and beyond, there is always something in there thats going to make people facepalm. No matter how great it is, theres always atleast one tiny thing that just makes me see GW as it is- A bunch of talented has-been's who also all happen to be idiots.
I love hyperbole as much as the next fifteen billion angry men, but this is taking it just a teensy bit far. Sure, GW (like every other company on the face of the planet) makes mistakes... but a lot of the time, the difference between viewing something as 'mistake' and 'success' is 'Do I personally like it?'
And if what you're constantly seeing as proof of failure is 'one tiny thing', it's maybe worth reviewing whether the issue is GW's level of ability or just your expectations.
Bharring wrote: Also, DEHQs have weapons options that are only in the relevant troops' boxes, not the HQ kits themselves.
I think GW was experimenting there.
It's also really funny when you start looking at archons.
Because you have to pick the source of your wargear (index or codex) you cannot take one wargear item that is index only and pair it with an option that is codex only.
For example, an Archon with a Blaster & a Venom Blade is actually illegal, because the Venom Blade is not a choice offered in the index. While this only saves you 2 points from Huskblade -> Venom Blade, it is 2 points, and any DE player at 2000 points with a blaster + venom blade is cheating.
I don't think that's what the rules quite say. You may choose to use the index version for its wargear options, if the warhead has rules in the codex these replace the index options. Looks to me like VB + Blaster is fine.
Follow the flow chart. You pick index OR codex for wargear. It is indeed illegal.
I quoted the flowchart. I disagree with your interpretation.
This is a months-old debate on the RAW of that last bubble - you can choose to use the wargear as it appears on the index or as it appears in the codex, but you have to follow rules for codex if there is same entry within the wargear. So, you can choose to use a plasmagun as it appears on the index, hut you would use the codex point value.
123ply wrote: The answer is simple. GW is incompetent. They fck up litterly everything no matter how small. No exaggeration. Everything they do, from making models, the rules, the fluff and beyond, there is always something in there thats going to make people facepalm. No matter how great it is, theres always atleast one tiny thing that just makes me see GW as it is- A bunch of talented has-been's who also all happen to be idiots.
Rather than being so directly offensive, I think its rather the growth of the company.
I feel that GW was founded by bunch of gamers who got together and "hey, we should totally make a sci-fi tabletop wargame!". At its inception and before the Mattwardian Favorithic Age, the game and the company was run by people who were passionate about what they do (Hell, even Matt Ward was exteremly passionate about what he does - make Kaldor Draigo & GK uber-duber-super-OP). It's unfortunate to see the obvious trend of 'please the investors' approach (which, don't get me wrong, there nothing wrong with that) without a single regard for what this whole company was built upon - fellow hobbyists. It seems like the company and majority of the employees are a typical day-in-day out type (again, nothing wrong with that) who are only there to collect paychecks and no passion for the game at all.
So why can't all armies be super? They clearly can do armies with very powerful options and builds. Why not give to all factions? Sales would go up, balance would be closer, because when everything is OP, nothing really is. Players happy, bank account happy. Changes would be easier to implement, because with everything "OP" people would be more willing to experiment. Soup wouldn't be needed, because varity and sales could be achived by having multiple options from a single book. The problems we have now of the how to nerf the ravellan with IG, without killing IG or Knights mono lists, would be gone.
You know that it is not what people want. There are two type of good units in w40k right now, stuff that is ultra cheap and stuff that piles on good rules. Most armies mix both of those.
How about all factions get to do that. Tac marines don't have to be 5pts to be good. They need good rules to make people want to use them. Through stratagems, through chapter specific rules, through special or normal characters interactions, it doesn't matter which of those or through mix of those. As long as it is done. Right now a space marine army just takes the cheapest stuff, and undercosted stuff like Gulliman.
What if assault space marines had a rule set, that made people actually want them in assault, or use at all. How about tacs not being overcosted scouts.
How about a NDK in GK army actually has a role other then being an obligatory support choice. GW can clearly do stuff like that, they made a ton of units with fun rule sets. It is just that some armies have 10+ of such units and other have maybe 1-2. You can't have a good enviroment to play, when armies like that have to play against each other.
Karol wrote: So why can't all armies be super? They clearly can do armies with very powerful options and builds. Why not give to all factions? Sales would go up, balance would be closer, because when everything is OP, nothing really is. Players happy, bank account happy. Changes would be easier to implement, because with everything "OP" people would be more willing to experiment. Soup wouldn't be needed, because varity and sales could be achived by having multiple options from a single book. The problems we have now of the how to nerf the ravellan with IG, without killing IG or Knights mono lists, would be gone.
Ok, if we were to discuss how to balance the game better in a way that will affect sales positively, rather than making all ARMIES balanced, GW needs to better internally balance each codex so that there are more than 1 viable (and by viable, I mean at least semi-competitive) lists & army composition per faction.
To better explain this - think of WoW/MMO's and the different specs per class - each spec has its moments, ups and downs, come the patches and expansions. Some are more viable than the other, but sooner or later the different build becomes more viable than the former.
What does this achieve? Typically, when we set out in this hobby journey we call 40k, we typically pick a faction we like. Then, we pick out the most powerful units in the said faction and build a legal army around it. Now, what would happen if there are more than just handful of powerful units and these powerful units require different kinds of supporting elements to really make them shine?
We are more or less highly invested into a single faction (up until it reaches a critical point) - why not make the codex in a way that you can actually buy ALL the available models for that faction AND get to play with them competitively at one time or another? Say for example, what if power armor horde + pred squad + vindicator combo was actually a hard counter to the Loyal 32 & Castellan? What if the codex is so internally balanced that you actually can tweak your primary army to the meta instead of dishing out another 2 grand for a whole new army because it's the meta winning army?
"What if assault space marines had a rule set, that made people actually want them in assault, or use at all. "
Assault Marines with Jetpacks have traditionally had a great foil in Striking Scorpions. Roughly the same PPM. Roughly the same punch. ASM flew around the map while Scorpions infiltrated.
Scorpoin's Infiltrate is now garbage, and a direct downgrade from ASM + Jetpacks. However, aside from that, they're still roughly comparable.
Scorps are 11ppm. ASM + JPs are 15ppm.
The problem with ASM is that GW is apparently not even trying to fix them. There are various answers as to why (I'm of the opinion it's because Primaris is squatting non-Primaris marines).
skchsan wrote: Ok, if we were to discuss how to balance the game better in a way that will affect sales positively, rather than making all ARMIES balanced, GW needs to better internally balance each codex so that there are more than 1 viable (and by viable, I mean at least semi-competitive) lists & army composition per faction.
To better explain this - think of WoW/MMO's and the different specs per class - each spec has its moments, ups and downs, come the patches and expansions. Some are more viable than the other, but sooner or later the different build becomes more viable than the former.
What does this achieve? Typically, when we set out in this hobby journey we call 40k, we typically pick a faction we like. Then, we pick out the most powerful units in the said faction and build a legal army around it. Now, what would happen if there are more than just handful of powerful units and these powerful units require different kinds of supporting elements to really make them shine?
We are more or less highly invested into a single faction (up until it reaches a critical point) - why not make the codex in a way that you can actually buy ALL the available models for that faction AND get to play with them competitively at one time or another? Say for example, what if power armor horde + pred squad + vindicator combo was actually a hard counter to the Loyal 32 & Castellan? What if the codex is so internally balanced that you actually can tweak your primary army to the meta instead of dishing out another 2 grand for a whole new army because it's the meta winning army?
but MMO fixs are not the as w40k fixs. If a patch for WoW comes out, I don't have to pay to download it. The fixs are there and all I have to do now is relearn how to play. With w40k the fixs seem to go down more like mobile games. spend money on patch, spend money on new good stuff, old stuff doesn't work.
IMOGW does not know how to make a balanced game, maybe it is not even possible. And if that is the case, then how about instead of making stuff like OP eldar and nerfed GK in the same edition, just make armies which are fun to play. Lot of things can be said about eldar players, but it doesn't look as if they are not having fun playing their faction. On the other side I am told, that my faction has to stay bad, because it was good for a few months, when I wasn't playing the game and because GW doesn't have new model lines for my faction, so they have to get crap rules. I should have to care what army my opponent plays, no one should. They should get a fun army to play. Now this doesn't mean all armies should have to be on the same tier. From what I hear SW seem to be a fun army to play. they aren't tournament world breakers, but they seem to be fun. I would like something like that for all factions. And not an unrealistic idea of my opponent buying a separate army just to play against me.
Plus it is insulting that your opponent has to let you play, because if he tries to play for real he just rolls over your army. Most people over 6 years notice that when their parents let them win, it stops being fun.
skchsan wrote: Ok, if we were to discuss how to balance the game better in a way that will affect sales positively, rather than making all ARMIES balanced, GW needs to better internally balance each codex so that there are more than 1 viable (and by viable, I mean at least semi-competitive) lists & army composition per faction.
To better explain this - think of WoW/MMO's and the different specs per class - each spec has its moments, ups and downs, come the patches and expansions. Some are more viable than the other, but sooner or later the different build becomes more viable than the former.
What does this achieve? Typically, when we set out in this hobby journey we call 40k, we typically pick a faction we like. Then, we pick out the most powerful units in the said faction and build a legal army around it. Now, what would happen if there are more than just handful of powerful units and these powerful units require different kinds of supporting elements to really make them shine?
We are more or less highly invested into a single faction (up until it reaches a critical point) - why not make the codex in a way that you can actually buy ALL the available models for that faction AND get to play with them competitively at one time or another? Say for example, what if power armor horde + pred squad + vindicator combo was actually a hard counter to the Loyal 32 & Castellan? What if the codex is so internally balanced that you actually can tweak your primary army to the meta instead of dishing out another 2 grand for a whole new army because it's the meta winning army?
but MMO fixs are not the as w40k fixs. If a patch for WoW comes out, I don't have to pay to download it. The fixs are there and all I have to do now is relearn how to play. With w40k the fixs seem to go down more like mobile games. spend money on patch, spend money on new good stuff, old stuff doesn't work.
IMOGW does not know how to make a balanced game, maybe it is not even possible. And if that is the case, then how about instead of making stuff like OP eldar and nerfed GK in the same edition, just make armies which are fun to play. Lot of things can be said about eldar players, but it doesn't look as if they are not having fun playing their faction. On the other side I am told, that my faction has to stay bad, because it was good for a few months, when I wasn't playing the game and because GW doesn't have new model lines for my faction, so they have to get crap rules. I should have to care what army my opponent plays, no one should. They should get a fun army to play. Now this doesn't mean all armies should have to be on the same tier. From what I hear SW seem to be a fun army to play. they aren't tournament world breakers, but they seem to be fun. I would like something like that for all factions. And not an unrealistic idea of my opponent buying a separate army just to play against me.
Plus it is insulting that your opponent has to let you play, because if he tries to play for real he just rolls over your army. Most people over 6 years notice that when their parents let them win, it stops being fun.
I've noticed you've been getting rather emotional in your recent posts across Gen. Discussion. The 8th ed is essentially what would equate to a expansion and not simply a patch fix. You DO need to pay to play the new expansion.
I won't rebut further as I'm afraid you're spiraling this post into an extension of your banter from other posts.
Kcalehc wrote: Nothing requires your Tempestor Prime to wear the coat
GW disagrees with you:
"You have the option to build a Tempestor Prime who has a great coat with a servo skull on the shoulder and a knife clutched in his right hand."
It's perfectly clear that the Tempestor Prime is supposed to be wearing the greatcoat. Otherwise he's just a regular Tempestor Sergeant.
(To be clear, I wouldn't personally enforce this because I've never given a damn about WISIWIG. But if you are playing strict WISIWIG, then you either give the model its great coat, or else don't use a Tempestor Prime at all.)
Kcalehc wrote: Nothing requires your Tempestor Prime to wear the coat
GW disagrees with you:
"You have the option to build a Tempestor Prime who has a great coat with a servo skull on the shoulder and a knife clutched in his right hand."
It's perfectly clear that the Tempestor Prime is supposed to be wearing the greatcoat. Otherwise he's just a regular Tempestor Sergeant.
(To be clear, I wouldn't personally enforce this because I've never given a damn about WISIWIG. But if you are playing strict WISIWIG, then you either give the model its great coat, or else don't use a Tempestor Prime at all.)
Kcalehc wrote: Nothing requires your Tempestor Prime to wear the coat
GW disagrees with you:
"You have the option to build a Tempestor Prime who has a great coat with a servo skull on the shoulder and a knife clutched in his right hand."
It's perfectly clear that the Tempestor Prime is supposed to be wearing the greatcoat. Otherwise he's just a regular Tempestor Sergeant.
(To be clear, I wouldn't personally enforce this because I've never given a damn about WISIWIG. But if you are playing strict WISIWIG, then you either give the model its great coat, or else don't use a Tempestor Prime at all.)
If you're playing any form of WYSIWYG you're already in House Rule territory so anything goes.
Kcalehc wrote: Nothing requires your Tempestor Prime to wear the coat
GW disagrees with you:
"You have the option to build a Tempestor Prime who has a great coat with a servo skull on the shoulder and a knife clutched in his right hand."
It's perfectly clear that the Tempestor Prime is supposed to be wearing the greatcoat. Otherwise he's just a regular Tempestor Sergeant.
(To be clear, I wouldn't personally enforce this because I've never given a damn about WISIWIG. But if you are playing strict WISIWIG, then you either give the model its great coat, or else don't use a Tempestor Prime at all.)
If you're playing any form of WYSIWYG you're already in House Rule territory so anything goes.
Product description is a recommended usage of the provided sprues. It is no way in any form WYSIWYG description of the unit. By the extension of your argument, then conscipts dont exist in the game as there are no product description on how to represent them.
BaconCatBug wrote: If you're playing any form of WYSIWYG you're already in House Rule territory so anything goes.
I think this was mentioned in another thread. It seems there's no longer a requirement in the rulebook to abide by WYSIWYG . . . which makes it even more bizarre that GW is enforcing a 'no model, no rules' policy.
I think this was mentioned in another thread. It seems there's no longer a requirement in the rulebook to abide by WYSIWYG . . . which makes it even more bizarre that GW is enforcing a 'no model, no rules' policy.
It seems rather incongruous, to say the least.
There never was a requirement in the rulebook to abide by WYSIWYG.
In some past editions, some codexes had a rule stating that upgrades chosen from the armoury for characters needed to be represented on the model, but that's as close as 40K has ever come to having WYSIWYG as an actual, printed rule. WYSIWYG has always been a gaming convention intended to make the game easier to follow, rather than an actual rule.
You don't have to pay for Battlescribe, which includes all the CA changes.
So, tell me - how is advocating for people to use Battlescribe rather than buying the book different from advocating for piracy, something which I'm fairly sure Dakka's rules (or moderation practises, at least) prohibit?
(Apologies, t'Internet had a hiccup, hence the double post).
You don't have to pay for Battlescribe, which includes all the CA changes.
So, tell me - how is advocating for people to use Battlescribe rather than buying the book different from advocating for piracy, something which I'm fairly sure Dakka's rules (or moderation practises, at least) prohibit?
(Apologies, t'Internet had a hiccup, hence the double post).
I dont think Battlescribe counts as piracy. It's just a summary of some books contents, not the full books.
You don't have to pay for Battlescribe, which includes all the CA changes.
So, tell me - how is advocating for people to use Battlescribe rather than buying the book different from advocating for piracy, something which I'm fairly sure Dakka's rules (or moderation practises, at least) prohibit?
(Apologies, t'Internet had a hiccup, hence the double post).
I dont think Battlescribe counts as piracy. It's just a summary of some books contents, not the full books.
It's one of those grey areas I guess. The sort where you could internet argue about it forever without getting any closer to the truth. If GW ever wants to release their own Battlescribe style product, I guess we'll see some cease and desists come out. Until then I doubt they really care.
insaniak wrote: In some past editions, some codexes had a rule stating that upgrades chosen from the armoury for characters needed to be represented on the model, but that's as close as 40K has ever come to having WYSIWYG as an actual, printed rule. WYSIWYG has always been a gaming convention intended to make the game easier to follow, rather than an actual rule.
Nah. 4th edition SM codex outright told you on a trait granting preferred enemy SR: "go buy box of these and sprinkle bits on your SM as trophies, embellishments etc to make it clear against whom the SR works". That wasn't even wargear, just SR. If they did the same thing today, usual types would shout something about marketing ploys, cashgrabs, squatting, etc etc
Chrysis wrote: My annoyance is when it's applied inconsistently. Aspiring Sorcerers in Rubric Marine squads can take a force sword or force staff, despite there being no force sword (or any sword) on the sprues.
See here:
GW decided to not invalidate the previous AS model, from before current plastics. I'd say this is a good thing.
Marmatag wrote: Wolf Priests do not have a kit and have rules.
Here, not just one, but two plastic choices each, just wolfwolfify with spare bits and you're done.
A lot of complains in this thread are valid, but I like how people then go and ignore multiple plastic, easily converted choices (three times that if we include resin) that are virtually the same thing they want, just because one word on the box is different
insaniak wrote: In some past editions, some codexes had a rule stating that upgrades chosen from the armoury for characters needed to be represented on the model, but that's as close as 40K has ever come to having WYSIWYG as an actual, printed rule. WYSIWYG has always been a gaming convention intended to make the game easier to follow, rather than an actual rule.
Nah. 4th edition SM codex outright told you on a trait granting preferred enemy SR: "go buy box of these and sprinkle bits on your SM as trophies, embellishments etc to make it clear against whom the SR works". That wasn't even wargear, just SR. If they did the same thing today, usual types would shout something about marketing ploys, cashgrabs, squatting, etc etc
One example of a special rule from a single codex 4 editions ago calling for a rule to be represented on the model doesn't actually disprove my point that WYSIWYG was never a game-wide rule.
A lot of complains in this thread are valid, but I like how people then go and ignore multiple plastic, easily converted choices (three times that if we include resin) that are virtually the same thing they want, just because one word on the box is different
You've also missed the point that was being made here - the complaint isn't that the models aren't obtainable, it's that GW are oddly inconsistent with what they have kept and what they have discarded.
Chrysis wrote: My annoyance is when it's applied inconsistently. Aspiring Sorcerers in Rubric Marine squads can take a force sword or force staff, despite there being no force sword (or any sword) on the sprues.
See here:
GW decided to not invalidate the previous AS model, from before current plastics. I'd say this is a good thing.
Supporting the models that aren't currently for sale is supposed to be the job of the Index books. The codex gives options the current models don't support for Rubrics, but don't do the same for Sehkmet terminators. Similarly with Familiars, only available to Terminator Sorcerers. They're inconsistent in their "No model, no rules" application, and that's annoying.
You don't have to pay for Battlescribe, which includes all the CA changes.
So, tell me - how is advocating for people to use Battlescribe rather than buying the book different from advocating for piracy, something which I'm fairly sure Dakka's rules (or moderation practises, at least) prohibit?
(Apologies, t'Internet had a hiccup, hence the double post).
The answer is that you're wrong. It isn't against the rules on Dakka to advocate piracy, it's against the rules to ENABLE piracy, by linking to piracy sites, giving contact info or tutorials on how to reach pirates, etc.
I can sit here all day long and talk about how great recasts are and how much better they are then official GW sculpts. No one cares, this site is not a Games Workshop shill.
BlaxicanX wrote: The answer is that you're wrong. It isn't against the rules on Dakka to advocate piracy, it's against the rules to ENABLE piracy, by linking to piracy sites, giving contact info or tutorials on how to reach pirates, etc.
Meh, we're not really keen on advocating it, either. No, we're not here to shill for GW, but we're also here to encourage and enable the hobby, and piracy, whatever people may think of it personally, is not something that is ultimately good for the community, so 'normalising' it by allowing people to endorse it isn't really a great idea.
We're not going to bother stomping on every piracy-related aside, but we'll redirect or shut down discussion that starts to focus too heavily on it.
Chrysis wrote: Supporting the models that aren't currently for sale is supposed to be the job of the Index books. The codex gives options the current models don't support for Rubrics, but don't do the same for Sehkmet terminators. Similarly with Familiars, only available to Terminator Sorcerers. They're inconsistent in their "No model, no rules" application, and that's annoying.
A ) this future-proofs the book in case they want to make another Made to Order run. Who would buy models with no rules? Also, this is a big help to players with existing armies, not invalidating their old stuff at a stroke. How is that a bad thing, again? They don't do the same to Sehkmet because that unit didn't exist before, if you ask why they can take power sword it's probably because old mini came with both staff and sword. Ditto for, familiar it's only available in TSHQ because that's where you can find its mini.
B) they are in fact, perfectly consistent. It's 'what we make, or what we can potentially make (models one gen older). Say, a lot of oddities in DW squads loadout can be easily explained when you look at the bits coming in 4 tactical marine squads currently in the production. Sure, limits are dumb and irritating (particularly on Primaris...) but I never found them inconsistent, in fact most of the time they are too consistent with boxes and could use some loosening up...
A lot of complains in this thread are valid, but I like how people then go and ignore multiple plastic, easily converted choices (three times that if we include resin) that are virtually the same thing they want, just because one word on the box is different
You've also missed the point that was being made here - the complaint isn't that the models aren't obtainable, it's that GW are oddly inconsistent with what they have kept and what they have discarded.
How did I miss the point? I just find the complains 'GW stifles my creativity' kind of sad/silly when they are instantly followed with 'GW doesn't make my special snowflake army black armored SM *insert super specific name* officer box, why they kept its rules when they only sell only 99% identical black armored SM *insert slightly different name* officer box? They should have squatted it instead!'
All they kept so far I find perfectly consistent, even if it's annoying, if anything, the rule writers try to actually help players by keeping anything they can if there is even remotely similar plastic mini in range. I really don't why people argue keeping SW wolf priest and BA sanguinary priest is somehow ""inconsistent"" when both are just slightly renamed chaplain and apothecary on the tabletop, and both armies actually have tons of bits to make them out of generic SM models in 10 second conversion. What do people want, GW making every single HQ of every single SM army filling its stores with nothing but nearly identical SM plastics to somehow be 'consistent'? Especially now, when we have all these forced, unfunny lieutenant memes?
How did I miss the point? I just find the complains 'GW stifles my creativity' kind of sad/silly when they are instantly followed with 'GW doesn't make my special snowflake army black armored SM *insert super specific name* officer box, why they kept its rules when they only sell only 99% identical black armored SM *insert slightly different name* officer box? They should have squatted it instead!'
Yes, that's how you missed the point. The above wasn't what people were saying.
I really don't why people argue keeping SW wolf priest and BA sanguinary priest is somehow ""inconsistent"" when both are just slightly renamed chaplain and apothecary on the tabletop, and both armies actually have tons of bits to make them out of generic SM models in 10 second conversion.
The inconsistency is that other units that are similarly easy to convert (biker Librarians, for example) were dropped.
What do people want, GW making every single HQ of every single SM army filling its stores with nothing but nearly identical SM plastics to somehow be 'consistent'?
Well, yes, GW having a model for every unit entry would be the ideal. Conversions should be something that people do because they want something different, not because there is no other option.
And that's precisely what they've supposedly been working towards. Hence the units being dropped due to having no model, and the ensuing discussion about their inconsistent approach where some no-model options have been dropped and others kept, with no discernible pattern to these choices.
And with no specific rules against non-WYSIWYG policy from GW end, it doesn't make sense for them to enforce such policy when you can 'legally' proxy them in.
Something I find more obnoxious than "No model, no rule" is the practice of releasing new kits with no weapon options. I'm not sure if this is the result of trying to get too fancy with their poses or not leaving space on their sprues or what, but there's no reason why new Ork tanks should all be completely monopose and inflexible. I can kind of understand it with the various new "Buggies" because each kit is effectively just a variant weapon loadout of the others, (which I'm still annoyed about,) but for something like the Wartrike to be locked into one weapon and one set of extremely specific guns is just... Not orky.
Single-option models are, I suspect, the future. With the 'default' for GW switching from points to power levels, expect future releases to be similarly optionless, as this is easier to balance. They'll likely move to more of a Warmachine-style setup, where you have a lot of different units with no- or minimal options instead of fewer units with lots of options - as we saw with the buggy releases for Orks, and the first Primaris unit releases.
insaniak wrote: Single-option models are, I suspect, the future. With the 'default' for GW switching from points to power levels, expect future releases to be similarly optionless, as this is easier to balance. They'll likely move to more of a Warmachine-style setup, where you have a lot of different units with no- or minimal options instead of fewer units with lots of options - as we saw with the buggy releases for Orks, and the first Primaris unit releases.
Wouldn't be surprised. Being easier to balance isn't the only advantage, but my guess is that it reduces production time as well as they don't have to worry about compatibility with different weapon loadaouts for every model.
Waaaghpower wrote: but for something like the Wartrike to be locked into one weapon and one set of extremely specific guns is just... Not orky.
Why not? Why do you need the rules bloat of having tons of options, most of them worse than the 1-2 viable options that anyone ever takes? IMO it's a pretty good thing as long as those single-option units are balanced well, and it even opens up more freedom for conversions because you don't have to worry about WYSIWYG as much.
Waaaghpower wrote: but for something like the Wartrike to be locked into one weapon and one set of extremely specific guns is just... Not orky.
Why not? Why do you need the rules bloat of having tons of options, most of them worse than the 1-2 viable options that anyone ever takes? IMO it's a pretty good thing as long as those single-option units are balanced well, and it even opens up more freedom for conversions because you don't have to worry about WYSIWYG as much.
There's this three letter word that you might not be familiar with, Peregrine - FUN
Waaaghpower wrote: but for something like the Wartrike to be locked into one weapon and one set of extremely specific guns is just... Not orky.
Why not? Why do you need the rules bloat of having tons of options, most of them worse than the 1-2 viable options that anyone ever takes? IMO it's a pretty good thing as long as those single-option units are balanced well, and it even opens up more freedom for conversions because you don't have to worry about WYSIWYG as much.
There's this three letter word that you might not be familiar with, Peregrine - FUN
Why does fun require having more rules? Is 7 more fun than 9? Do you need to have the ability to choose between 4 and 6 to have the most possible fun? If you're forced to have 5 does it drain all of the fun out of the game?
Waaaghpower wrote: but for something like the Wartrike to be locked into one weapon and one set of extremely specific guns is just... Not orky.
Why not? Why do you need the rules bloat of having tons of options, most of them worse than the 1-2 viable options that anyone ever takes? IMO it's a pretty good thing as long as those single-option units are balanced well, and it even opens up more freedom for conversions because you don't have to worry about WYSIWYG as much.
There's this three letter word that you might not be familiar with, Peregrine - FUN
Why does fun require having more rules? Is 7 more fun than 9? Do you need to have the ability to choose between 4 and 6 to have the most possible fun? If you're forced to have 5 does it drain all of the fun out of the game?
Hate to be really gatekeepey here (no, actually I don't because you'll just pontificate over this...) but I can tell you've never played as Orks. Customising Ork stuff and having unique vehicles is part of the charm of the army, even moreso than any other 40k faction. 40k thrives on customisation and Orks should be the pinnacle of that with no two vehicles looking the same.
Grimtuff wrote: Hate to be really gatekeepey here (no, actually I don't because you'll just pontificate over this...) but I can tell you've never played as Orks. Customising Ork stuff and having unique vehicles is part of the charm of the army, even moreso than any other 40k faction. 40k thrives on customisation and Orks should be the pinnacle of that with no two vehicles looking the same.
You can still customize your models. In fact, you have more room for customization because you don't have to worry as much about breaking WYSIWYG if a unit only has one configuration rules-wise. For example, if a vehicle is armed with "anti-tank gun" instead of a choice of 5 different weapons (only one of which is a viable option if you care about winning) that all do pretty much the same thing you don't have to worry about which of the five guns you glue onto your model. You can just pick the one that looks coolest, or even build something out of parts from another faction.
pm713 wrote: Having all the same weapons everything sounds so boring though.
Then clearly you haven't played a more elegantly designed game. You don't need to have 5-10 different versions of the same gun, each with slightly different stats and most of them just worse than the 1-2 viable options, to have a fun and interesting game. 40k's extra options are mostly just rules bloat.
You don't need to have 5-10 different options, true. I agree that there is rule bloat in 40k, and scaling it back a bit might be a good idea. However, it is still nice to have some options, like three guns to choose from or something like that. Furthermore, the different weapons actually exist in the game, you just don't have access to them, so that limits modelling options if you want to stay WYSIWYG. For example, I'd be perfectly fine if power mauls, swords, axes and spears were again combined in one 'power weapon' profile, and you could model it how you like. But this is not the case, so I am not going to model mauls on my Primaris marines to represent swords, as these currently are two different things in the game.
pm713 wrote: Having all the same weapons everything sounds so boring though.
Then clearly you haven't played a more elegantly designed game. You don't need to have 5-10 different versions of the same gun, each with slightly different stats and most of them just worse than the 1-2 viable options, to have a fun and interesting game. 40k's extra options are mostly just rules bloat.
I'm not saying have 5 options for everything, I'm saying having one or two options is boring. If you want to ditch variety for balance then you may as well play chess. Boring (visually) but balanced.
Waaaghpower wrote: but for something like the Wartrike to be locked into one weapon and one set of extremely specific guns is just... Not orky.
Why not? Why do you need the rules bloat of having tons of options, most of them worse than the 1-2 viable options that anyone ever takes? IMO it's a pretty good thing as long as those single-option units are balanced well, and it even opens up more freedom for conversions because you don't have to worry about WYSIWYG as much.
There's this three letter word that you might not be familiar with, Peregrine - FUN
Why does fun require having more rules? Is 7 more fun than 9? Do you need to have the ability to choose between 4 and 6 to have the most possible fun? If you're forced to have 5 does it drain all of the fun out of the game?
This is a good point. Having so many options only works if the unit really makes use of those options. Due to specialization being better than a TAC build for a unit, it always ends up being the same few options.
More options can be nice for modeling, sure, but that's about it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Crimson wrote: You don't need to have 5-10 different options, true. I agree that there is rule bloat in 40k, and scaling it back a bit might be a good idea. However, it is still nice to have some options, like three guns to choose from or something like that. Furthermore, the different weapons actually exist in the game, you just don't have access to them, so that limits modelling options if you want to stay WYSIWYG. For example, I'd be perfectly fine if power mauls, swords, axes and spears were again combined in one 'power weapon' profile, and you could model it how you like. But this is not the case, so I am not going to model mauls on my Primaris marines to represent swords, as these currently are two different things in the game.
Which is an interesting case of you not worrying about breaking WYSIWYG. The unit only takes Power Swords? Just go nuts with your weapons as it doesn't matter.
One of those few cases where less options ends up being the modeling benefit.
Crimson wrote: You don't need to have 5-10 different options, true. I agree that there is rule bloat in 40k, and scaling it back a bit might be a good idea. However, it is still nice to have some options, like three guns to choose from or something like that. Furthermore, the different weapons actually exist in the game, you just don't have access to them, so that limits modelling options if you want to stay WYSIWYG. For example, I'd be perfectly fine if power mauls, swords, axes and spears were again combined in one 'power weapon' profile, and you could model it how you like. But this is not the case, so I am not going to model mauls on my Primaris marines to represent swords, as these currently are two different things in the game.
Which is an interesting case of you not worrying about breaking WYSIWYG. The unit only takes Power Swords? Just go nuts with your weapons as it doesn't matter.
It matters to me, so I'm not gonna do it.
And the same army could have other types of power weapons, if it had minimarines in it. It becomes confusing to the opponent, not everyone has memorised all the datasheets in the game and would know that they can't have a mace so it must be a sword.
Some WYSIWYG is just horrible though. For example, the whole "chainsword" thing. I'm not pulling apart a dozen ccw sergeants and officers to satisfy the change to 8th edition, or spoiling bolter sergeants by sticking a giant chainsword on their back. I think that simply saying "all of the sergeants have free chainswords" should be sufficient.
Trickstick wrote: Some WYSIWYG is just horrible though. For example, the whole "chainsword" thing. I'm not pulling apart a dozen ccw sergeants and officers to satisfy the change to 8th edition, or spoiling bolter sergeants by sticking a giant chainsword on their back. I think that simply saying "all of the sergeants have free chainswords" should be sufficient.
Well, chainsword is just a CCW, the rules for all those various extra close combat weapons across different armies are the same. This is why I gave my Reivers chainswords, as the rules are identical to what their knives have.
Crimson wrote: Well, chainsword is just a CCW, the rules for all those various extra close combat weapons across different armies are the same. This is why I gave my Reivers chainswords, as the rules are identical to what their knives have.
Not for Guard. Chainswords are a different weapon that gives +1 attack. They are free, but not a mandatory piece of equipment. For example, an infantry sergeant "may take a chainsword or power sword".
Trickstick wrote: Some WYSIWYG is just horrible though. For example, the whole "chainsword" thing. I'm not pulling apart a dozen ccw sergeants and officers to satisfy the change to 8th edition, or spoiling bolter sergeants by sticking a giant chainsword on their back. I think that simply saying "all of the sergeants have free chainswords" should be sufficient.
Crimson wrote: You don't need to have 5-10 different options, true. I agree that there is rule bloat in 40k, and scaling it back a bit might be a good idea. However, it is still nice to have some options, like three guns to choose from or something like that. Furthermore, the different weapons actually exist in the game, you just don't have access to them, so that limits modelling options if you want to stay WYSIWYG. For example, I'd be perfectly fine if power mauls, swords, axes and spears were again combined in one 'power weapon' profile, and you could model it how you like. But this is not the case, so I am not going to model mauls on my Primaris marines to represent swords, as these currently are two different things in the game.
Although it might be interesting for SM to be the only customization heavy army in the game - tac marines may actually become tactical (as long as all the weapon options are internally balanced as to take away the no brainer weapon choice) if tac marines by default can mix and match weapons in the manner of kill teams.
Waaaghpower wrote: but for something like the Wartrike to be locked into one weapon and one set of extremely specific guns is just... Not orky.
Why not? Why do you need the rules bloat of having tons of options, most of them worse than the 1-2 viable options that anyone ever takes? IMO it's a pretty good thing as long as those single-option units are balanced well, and it even opens up more freedom for conversions because you don't have to worry about WYSIWYG as much.
There's this three letter word that you might not be familiar with, Peregrine - FUN
Why does fun require having more rules? Is 7 more fun than 9? Do you need to have the ability to choose between 4 and 6 to have the most possible fun? If you're forced to have 5 does it drain all of the fun out of the game?
I appreciate this might be tricky for you to understand, Peregrine, but not everyone is trying to "solve" 40k into its most optimised state.
A significant portion of the playerbase like having options, both as pieces to be modelled, and as rules to use. Different configurations are favoured by different people, even if in your view they were "sub-optimal" - for example, back in 3rd or 4th edition, I'd run a Mortar HWS. At the time, you could safely argue they were not a good unit - guess range weapon (though playing Dwarfs in WHFB helped here), small blast template, doing bolter hits (from memory), and pinning something once in a blue moon - but they were fun for me to use. If you reduced my options to the "1 or 2 everyone takes" during that edition, you take that option away, as I doubt the vast majority of IG players were bothering with Mortars before 8th...
For a more modern example, compare and contrast the Index and Codex versions of the Eldar Autarch, especially compared to the 7th ed version. There may be an "optimal" set of gear for the Autarch, but you can guaran-damn-tee it that a variety of builds were in use, as different people liked different options (and/or found uses for different options, at least). Boil that down to a few options (especially when based on what the model comes with, like in the Codex), and people are less happy - why do you think they had to backtrack with the Index options flowchart thing? If GW were trying for a "balanced" game, from how you've described it, they would've stood their ground and those options would no longer be options - but they didn't.
I think this was mentioned in another thread. It seems there's no longer a requirement in the rulebook to abide by WYSIWYG . . . which makes it even more bizarre that GW is enforcing a 'no model, no rules' policy.
It seems rather incongruous, to say the least.
There never was a requirement in the rulebook to abide by WYSIWYG.
In some past editions, some codexes had a rule stating that upgrades chosen from the armoury for characters needed to be represented on the model, but that's as close as 40K has ever come to having WYSIWYG as an actual, printed rule. WYSIWYG has always been a gaming convention intended to make the game easier to follow, rather than an actual rule.
Maybe I'm mistaken, but as far as I remember the core rules in 3rd and 4th required that every model actually carry the weapons you picked for the list in question. It was annoying because in some cases the kits didn't have all the grenades/pistols/etc that were in the model's base unit entry, that's why it stuck in my memory.
Again, if I recall correctly there wasn't an actual rule called WYSIWYG even though it was in modelling rules, it's just the the abbreviation the community settled on to quickly put across "yes I have exactly modelled every piece of wargear that every model in my army is carrying in this list, you can trust that the guy with the Plasma Cannon is actually carrying a Plasma Cannon."
Crimson wrote: Well, chainsword is just a CCW, the rules for all those various extra close combat weapons across different armies are the same. This is why I gave my Reivers chainswords, as the rules are identical to what their knives have.
Not for Guard. Chainswords are a different weapon that gives +1 attack. They are free, but not a mandatory piece of equipment. For example, an infantry sergeant "may take a chainsword or power sword".
Chainswords and Combat Knives both grant +1 attacks on Marines too. They're functionally identical weapons. I have a handful of Combat Knives standing in for Chainswords on models that can't technically carry them because I have a lot more Knives lying around.
The Newman wrote: Maybe I'm mistaken, but as far as I remember the core rules in 3rd and 4th required that every model actually carry the weapons you picked for the list in question. It was annoying because in some cases the kits didn't have all the grenades/pistols/etc that were in the model's base unit entry, that's why it stuck in my memory.
Again, if I recall correctly there wasn't an actual rule called WYSIWYG even though it was in modelling rules, it's just the the abbreviation the community settled on to quickly put across "yes I have exactly modelled every piece of wargear that every model in my army is carrying in this list, you can trust that the guy with the Plasma Cannon is actually carrying a Plasma Cannon."
I distinctively remember this as well as my friends and I had a huge fight when we were young over this calling each others cheaters for not having the specific weapon they were using while citing that section. But I cant seem to find it in my 3rd ed rulebook. Maybe someone else had better look/luck?
skchsan wrote: I distinctively remember this as well as my friends and I had a huge fight when we were young over this calling each others cheaters for not having the specific weapon they were using while citing that section. But I cant seem to find it in my 3rd ed rulebook. Maybe someone else had better look/luck?
I'd like to but I fear I once lent my 3rd edition rulebook to someone and never got it back.
I didn't press the issue, since the game had moved to 4th edition at the time, but I came to regret it and I really do miss that book.
I loved the lore and illustrations, as well as seeing what the old armies and models used to look like.
skchsan wrote: But I cant seem to find it in my 3rd ed rulebook. Maybe someone else had better look/luck?
Page 167, top right:
However, and this is very important, any weapon options or model upgrades you take must be represented on or by the models in the unit. You cannot field models that are equipped with weapons and wargear that is not shown on the model, and you may not add model upgrades to a unit unless you have the appropriate model in your collection. The intent of this rule is that when an opponent looks at your army, 'what he sees is what he gets'.
Crazyterran wrote: I remember when Marines cost 16pts a model and didn't come with any grenades, and you had to pay for the purity seals modeled on their legs.
No, you have that backwards. If you chose to take purity seals then they needed to be represented.
The no model, no rule policy was relevant when they had taken legal actuon against chapter house for providing models for models GW released rules for but not the models. Specifically, mycetic spores, doom of malantai, to mention a few. I believe plastic drop pods were also initially a response against third party models, back when GW only had the poor excuse of a drop pod that was a crater, where the model was so bad that it didnt even had symmetry and looked like a deformed starfish.
I personally find excessive options on a base unit to be counter-productive as most end up being useless and end up just piling on top of each other as wasteful plastic. I used to like it, but looking at the mountain of plastic bits I have I am finally seeing how wasteful this is.
However, I think the way they are going to approach option is that instead of one unit having ton of options they will have more units with less options so it ends up being roughly the same except that you buy the kit you need without storing half of it in a container for the next 10 years. This is in my opinion very apparent in the recent Ork release as we got a lot of new buggies but each had different loadouts. The only real difference is that people might have little less of a clown car syndrome where one squad has dozens of different options equipped.
Also, in regards to having fun modelling, I would have thought making a model cooler with different poses would be the big thing, not only modeling different weapon options. I mean, you can do some cool Archon poses mixing the Scourges and Kabalite kits or Succubus with Wyches(not to mention if you get some Dark Elf kits). There are ton of cool modelling kitbash options available even though we remove excessive options per unit.
My issue is that the default loadouts on newer HQ kits for Craftworld and Drukhari tend to be very underperforming. I mean, I see no reason to have my Archon fielding a blast pistol while engaging in close combat with most units in the game yet he comes equipped with a pistol and a sword. Same goes for the Winged Autarch who is just altogether weird(beautiful model though) with his Fusion Pistol and Power Sword. In short, I find the default loadouts synergize horribly with the army in question most of the time.
Also, in before someone adds something about me not seeing the big picture:
I made my own Vect, Baron, Duke, and so on for Drukhari in previous editions. I also have the original Dais of Destruction, made my own Thunder Hammer Belial, and have several Big Meks with Kustom Forcefields. I still enjoy the models and painting them even though they are not represented rulewise in the game. Even then I can use them to represent existing units so it comes down to the same point. My Dais of Destruction is am epic Dark Lance ravager, my Baron is just a cool looking Hellion for my squad, and so on and so on. These models are still useful even though they don't have explicit rules to depict how super powerful they used to be. They are still cool units in my army despite all the changes in previous editions and no one can take that away from me except by squatting the entire army which at that point I might get super pissed.
skchsan wrote: , back when GW only had the poor excuse of a drop pod that was a crater, where the model was so bad that it didnt even had symmetry and looked like a deformed starfish.
Not sure what you're thinking of, but this was never a thing.
skchsan wrote: , back when GW only had the poor excuse of a drop pod that was a crater, where the model was so bad that it didnt even had symmetry and looked like a deformed starfish.
Not sure what you're thinking of, but this was never a thing.
Technically one of GW's licensed partners way back in the old days, but it was a thing.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dysartes wrote: I appreciate this might be tricky for you to understand, Peregrine, but not everyone is trying to "solve" 40k into its most optimised state.
Great, then reduce the options. The only people who benefit from having lots of similar options are the ones who enjoy doing the math optimization to figure out which one is 5% better than the others, people who just want to play the game benefit from having a simpler game.
A significant portion of the playerbase like having options, both as pieces to be modelled, and as rules to use. Different configurations are favoured by different people, even if in your view they were "sub-optimal" - for example, back in 3rd or 4th edition, I'd run a Mortar HWS. At the time, you could safely argue they were not a good unit - guess range weapon (though playing Dwarfs in WHFB helped here), small blast template, doing bolter hits (from memory), and pinning something once in a blue moon - but they were fun for me to use. If you reduced my options to the "1 or 2 everyone takes" during that edition, you take that option away, as I doubt the vast majority of IG players were bothering with Mortars before 8th...
But mortars are exactly the kind of thing I'd keep! They genuinely fill a different role, not just +/- 5% more damage against certain targets if you do enough math optimization. The issue with redundancy is more like LCHWS vs. MLHWS: both of them are anti-tank weapons, just with a slight tradeoff of better stats vs. secondary (and rarely used and ineffective) frag mode. Most of the time one of them, depending on point costs, is going to be the obvious correct choice and the other is just a slightly weaker version of it. In 5th it was the dirt cheap ML, in 8th it's the superior firepower of the LC. From a gameplay point of view they both have the same role and the same experience outside of math optimization. So a simplified HWS might have three options: anti-tank (LC stat line), anti-infantry (HB stat line), and mortar (mortar stat line). All of the roles are maintained, just with less rules bloat.
Peregrine wrote: The only people who benefit from having lots of similar options are the ones who enjoy doing the math optimization to figure out which one is 5% better than the others, people who just want to play the game benefit from having a simpler game.
Not true.
Some people like the aesthetic of a certain item of equipment, and when that item can't be taken, it becomes a very irritating issue.
Take someone with a Primaris Captain, carrying a plasma pistol and a power sword. Now, that's not legal, because despite both weapons being open to a Captain, they can't be taken together. So, what IS this Captain? Hard to tell at a glance, because which is the weapon of focus - the pistol or the sword? How about one with a weapon they never can have - like a storm shield? Even if we think that the idea of reducing the game to a few choices is good and do that, how can we tell what the Captain is because someone valued aesthetic over gameplay?
Some people don't want a simpler game, because being simple means it could lose out on some of the customisation it affords them. Making vehicles ignore armour facings was good for simplicity, but for some people, the simpler it got, the worse it was. Being simple isn't always good, because people have their preferences.
If people don't care for doing the math optimization and just taking what they like, they have options open to them. I don't think that forcing EVERYONE to have to go simple because it would be easier on balance is the right way to go. Keeping 40k as open to as many audiences as possible is a massive strength for Games Workshop, and if they can push the freedom to model and have a varied loadout on hero models especially would be a massive leap in progress.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Some people like the aesthetic of a certain item of equipment, and when that item can't be taken, it becomes a very irritating issue.
Go back and read what I'm talking about. Taking stuff for aesthetics works fine, rules-wise you have an "anti-tank weapon" or "power weapon" and it doesn't matter if you model it as a lascannon or missile launcher, or power sword or power axe. Aesthetic customization works even better under this design principle, since you no longer have to worry about a conflict between what you think looks cool and what rules are best.
Take someone with a Primaris Captain, carrying a plasma pistol and a power sword. Now, that's not legal, because despite both weapons being open to a Captain, they can't be taken together. So, what IS this Captain? Hard to tell at a glance, because which is the weapon of focus - the pistol or the sword?
What about a primaris captain modeled with a volcano cannon? Obviously if you build your models with options that aren't legal together that's a problem, but it's not the one I'm talking about. Power swords and plasma pistols are completely different types of upgrades, they wouldn't be consolidated together.
How about one with a weapon they never can have - like a storm shield?
Even easier. The storm shield has no rules meaning, it's purely aesthetic just like what color you choose to paint your models. You might as well be asking for rules for having yellow helmets.
Some people don't want a simpler game, because being simple means it could lose out on some of the customisation it affords them. Making vehicles ignore armour facings was good for simplicity, but for some people, the simpler it got, the worse it was. Being simple isn't always good, because people have their preferences.
This is true, but I'm talking about rules bloat, not legitimate depth. Armor facings involved a lot of arguments, but they did add gameplay depth. A 5% difference in stat line does not, so those options should be consolidated.
A significant portion of the playerbase like having options, both as pieces to be modelled, and as rules to use. Different configurations are favoured by different people, even if in your view they were "sub-optimal" - for example, back in 3rd or 4th edition, I'd run a Mortar HWS. At the time, you could safely argue they were not a good unit - guess range weapon (though playing Dwarfs in WHFB helped here), small blast template, doing bolter hits (from memory), and pinning something once in a blue moon - but they were fun for me to use. If you reduced my options to the "1 or 2 everyone takes" during that edition, you take that option away, as I doubt the vast majority of IG players were bothering with Mortars before 8th...
But mortars are exactly the kind of thing I'd keep! They genuinely fill a different role, not just +/- 5% more damage against certain targets if you do enough math optimization. The issue with redundancy is more like LCHWS vs. MLHWS: both of them are anti-tank weapons, just with a slight tradeoff of better stats vs. secondary (and rarely used and ineffective) frag mode. Most of the time one of them, depending on point costs, is going to be the obvious correct choice and the other is just a slightly weaker version of it. In 5th it was the dirt cheap ML, in 8th it's the superior firepower of the LC. From a gameplay point of view they both have the same role and the same experience outside of math optimization. So a simplified HWS might have three options: anti-tank (LC stat line), anti-infantry (HB stat line), and mortar (mortar stat line). All of the roles are maintained, just with less rules bloat.
But with your way, I can't have a combination-fire weapon (missile launcher, even IF the frag is underpowered, I've chosen it when it is flavourful or just flat out more useful for me). What about the Space Marine arsenal of heavy weapons?
Lascannon, long range single target
Multimelta, short range single target
Missile launcher, versatile multiple profiles
Heavy bolter, anti-infantry
Grav-cannon, anti-heavy infantry
Plasma cannon, versatile general profile
They all have niches and purposes, how do you trim that down?
In regards to Ork Wartrikes and some options being "Useless": Let me use the Warboss as comparison.
A warboss doesn't have a ton of options, but it's got enough to make it interesting. Depending on what I want to do with him, I can go for a Big Choppa and a regular Shoota to get the most stripped down version and just go for buffs with a decent melee option, (Swinging at S8 with a big choppa is not bad, or I can upgrade it to the Eadwompa's Killchoppa and go for hella Mortal Wounds.)
Or I can take a Power Klaw if I want a more killy Warboss that I expect to be getting into combat. A Power Klaw synergizes well with Da Lukky Stick or a Waaagh! Banner, and so becomes a much better choice if you plan on taking either of those - Or if you plan on taking da Killa Klaw for a truly krumpy warboss.
For ranged weapons, I can take a Kombi Skorcha, a Kombi Rokkit, a Shoota, or a Kustom Shoota. I'll admit that a couple of these are bad - I rarely take Kustom Shootas or Kombi Rokkits - but a Kombi Skorcha is a decent choice since you can advance and fire the Skorcha half without penalty, but if I need to save points for other options I can take a shoota.
Now, let's look at the Wartrike.
I can't change any of the weapons. It's stuck with a mediocre melee weapon and a good set of short ranged weapons. If I want a krumpy bike that I can throw into the enemy to deal some damage... No luck. If I want a more stripped down option just for his buff aura... No luck. If I want to invest more in shooting... Well, I'm in luck, because that's what the bike does, but it's the only option. The only relic options are to buff durability.
I can build a Warboss to be krumpy, to provide cheap-as-chips buffs, and/or to provide a bit of dakka support. I have played all of these at different times.
I can run a Wartrike in one way - As a mandatory choice to make vehicle-heavy Speed Freaks viable.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: But with your way, I can't have a combination-fire weapon (missile launcher, even IF the frag is underpowered, I've chosen it when it is flavourful or just flat out more useful for me).
So what? I thought we were talking about aesthetics, not being able to optimize the math and bring 5% more anti-infantry firepower in exchange for 5% more anti-tank?
They all have niches and purposes, how do you trim that down?
Easy: LC, MM, ML become anti-tank squad. HB, PC, grav become anti-infantry squad. Model them as you see fit.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Some people like the aesthetic of a certain item of equipment, and when that item can't be taken, it becomes a very irritating issue.
Go back and read what I'm talking about. Taking stuff for aesthetics works fine, rules-wise you have an "anti-tank weapon" or "power weapon" and it doesn't matter if you model it as a lascannon or missile launcher, or power sword or power axe. Aesthetic customization works even better under this design principle, since you no longer have to worry about a conflict between what you think looks cool and what rules are best.
So a plasma pistol and bolt pistol should just be treated as "pistol"? I don't like that, sorry. I like the flavour of a weapon, that factors into my fun of using it. I don't think I'd like using plasma pistols if they acted just like bolt pistols, or having missile teams if they just acted like lascannons. That's stripping out flavour for balance I don't care all that much about.
Take someone with a Primaris Captain, carrying a plasma pistol and a power sword. Now, that's not legal, because despite both weapons being open to a Captain, they can't be taken together. So, what IS this Captain? Hard to tell at a glance, because which is the weapon of focus - the pistol or the sword?
What about a primaris captain modeled with a volcano cannon? Obviously if you build your models with options that aren't legal together that's a problem, but it's not the one I'm talking about. Power swords and plasma pistols are completely different types of upgrades, they wouldn't be consolidated together.
But a volcano cannon is clearly different to a Primaris Captain being banned from taking two weapons they can normally, take, just because they're together. It's a complete rational looking model, but not allowed because reasons?
How about one with a weapon they never can have - like a storm shield?
Even easier. The storm shield has no rules meaning, it's purely aesthetic just like what color you choose to paint your models. You might as well be asking for rules for having yellow helmets.
But why have a shield when a big part of WHY you want it is for how it affects the model. It's why I use 30k Breachers AS breachers, not as Tactical Marines, despite Tacticals being "superior" mathematically. The Breachers get some kind of flavour that makes them different in game, and I like that, even if it's not massive.
Some people don't want a simpler game, because being simple means it could lose out on some of the customisation it affords them. Making vehicles ignore armour facings was good for simplicity, but for some people, the simpler it got, the worse it was. Being simple isn't always good, because people have their preferences.
This is true, but I'm talking about rules bloat, not legitimate depth. Armor facings involved a lot of arguments, but they did add gameplay depth. A 5% difference in stat line does not, so those options should be consolidated.
But it does add flavour. And sometimes flavour matters more to some people than a tighter rules set.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: But with your way, I can't have a combination-fire weapon (missile launcher, even IF the frag is underpowered, I've chosen it when it is flavourful or just flat out more useful for me).
So what? I thought we were talking about aesthetics, not being able to optimize the math and bring 5% more anti-infantry firepower in exchange for 5% more anti-tank?
It's not about being GOOD at anti-infantry. It's about having a noticeable difference in how the weapon feels switching targets. Firing a krak missile wouldn't feel like an anti-infantry missile.
To take the "it's about gameplay, you can do what you like with aesthetics" approach further, why don't we just have all models have the same stats, and the same guns, and if you want to mix things up, then do it aesthetically, because balance?
Because the flavour of a weapon should be kept, IMO.
They all have niches and purposes, how do you trim that down?
Easy: LC, MM, ML become anti-tank squad. HB, PC, grav become anti-infantry squad. Model them as you see fit.
But missiles can be anti-infantry too. Multimeltas have a drastic range difference. Plasma can act as anti-tank, and grav and heavy bolters are tailored to different kinds of infantry, unless you want to see Space Marines become the same stats as Guardsmen because "infantry".
Sgt_Smudge wrote: So a plasma pistol and bolt pistol should just be treated as "pistol"? I don't like that, sorry. I like the flavour of a weapon, that factors into my fun of using it. I don't think I'd like using plasma pistols if they acted just like bolt pistols, or having missile teams if they just acted like lascannons. That's stripping out flavour for balance I don't care all that much about.
But I thought you don't care about math? Why does it matter so much if your "upgraded awesome relic pistol" has STR 4 or STR 7 or STR 6? Shouldn't the only thing that matters rules-wise be that it supports your fluff and is better than a normal marine's gear?
But a volcano cannon is clearly different to a Primaris Captain being banned from taking two weapons they can normally, take, just because they're together. It's a complete rational looking model, but not allowed because reasons?
So then you should advocate for my solution: fixed stat line, variable modeling. The captain has a particular stat line whether you model it with a plasma pistol and power sword, or fancy bolt pistol and power axe, or whatever. Make it look cool however you like, don't worry about the rules.
But it does add flavour. And sometimes flavour matters more to some people than a tighter rules set.
But most of the time it doesn't add flavor. Does a missile launcher vs. a lascannon change how you attack a tank? No, you just roll different dice and in list construction you calculate whether the extra damage of the lascannon is better than the cheaper point cost of the missile launcher. From a player experience point of view, ignoring point efficiency, they work exactly the same way. So consolidate them into a single profile so you can model your anti-tank squad however you like without worrying about whether or not they have the best choice rules-wise.
(And no, I don't care about frag missiles. They're so weak they might as well not exist. Just fire your regular bolters and pretend they're frag missiles, it will have about the same result.)
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sgt_Smudge wrote: To take the "it's about gameplay, you can do what you like with aesthetics" approach further, why don't we just have all models have the same stats, and the same guns, and if you want to mix things up, then do it aesthetically, because balance?
Because some units/upgrades have legitimately different gameplay roles. A lascannon and a flamer do not play the same way, at all. A lascannon and a missile launcher play the same way 99% of the time, unless you're going "LOL FRAG MISSILES ARE SO KEWL I WANT TO FORGE A NARRATIVE" and wasting your unit that turn even though it means roleplaying your commander being an idiot. I want to remove redundancy in false options, not options that add significant depth.
There is a themeing element to it. Orks are an army who are described as valuing resourcefulness and Individuality, compared to the Imperium's regimented and stagnant views on technoology. So it would be a tonal misfire to have the former have the same, or even less (which is the case currently. There are 6 of the special ork buggies, with zero new options, vs the Imperial Guard's seven different leman russes in the codex alone, while still having options for front gun/sponsons)
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Some people like the aesthetic of a certain item of equipment, and when that item can't be taken, it becomes a very irritating issue.
Go back and read what I'm talking about. Taking stuff for aesthetics works fine, rules-wise you have an "anti-tank weapon" or "power weapon" and it doesn't matter if you model it as a lascannon or missile launcher, or power sword or power axe. Aesthetic customization works even better under this design principle, since you no longer have to worry about a conflict between what you think looks cool and what rules are best.
Take someone with a Primaris Captain, carrying a plasma pistol and a power sword. Now, that's not legal, because despite both weapons being open to a Captain, they can't be taken together. So, what IS this Captain? Hard to tell at a glance, because which is the weapon of focus - the pistol or the sword?
What about a primaris captain modeled with a volcano cannon? Obviously if you build your models with options that aren't legal together that's a problem, but it's not the one I'm talking about. Power swords and plasma pistols are completely different types of upgrades, they wouldn't be consolidated together.
How about one with a weapon they never can have - like a storm shield?
Even easier. The storm shield has no rules meaning, it's purely aesthetic just like what color you choose to paint your models. You might as well be asking for rules for having yellow helmets.
Some people don't want a simpler game, because being simple means it could lose out on some of the customisation it affords them. Making vehicles ignore armour facings was good for simplicity, but for some people, the simpler it got, the worse it was. Being simple isn't always good, because people have their preferences.
This is true, but I'm talking about rules bloat, not legitimate depth. Armor facings involved a lot of arguments, but they did add gameplay depth. A 5% difference in stat line does not, so those options should be consolidated.
This is a good point about the Storm Shield. If it has no meaning, you can use it wherever.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: But with your way, I can't have a combination-fire weapon (missile launcher, even IF the frag is underpowered, I've chosen it when it is flavourful or just flat out more useful for me).
So what? I thought we were talking about aesthetics, not being able to optimize the math and bring 5% more anti-infantry firepower in exchange for 5% more anti-tank?
They all have niches and purposes, how do you trim that down?
Easy: LC, MM, ML become anti-tank squad. HB, PC, grav become anti-infantry squad. Model them as you see fit.
Grav and Plasma might as well be consolidated now. You can argue the Heavy Bolter staying separate. The ML and Lascannon I agree with, as the only real thing going for the ML is a strat that only works on Fly targets. That's not worth it.
Luke_Prowler wrote: There is a themeing element to it. Orks are an army who are described as valuing resourcefulness and Individuality, compared to the Imperium's regimented and stagnant views on technoology. So it would be a tonal misfire to have the former have the same, or even less (which is the case currently. There are 6 of the special ork buggies, with zero new options, vs the Imperial Guard's seven different leman russes in the codex alone, while still having options for front gun/sponsons)
But you could have all the themes you want. Better, you could have more because you would never have to worry about the models looks blocking off some specific rules.
For example you could have a pistol and ccw sgt to look cool in an IG unit, but he would still be shoting like all the other lasgun dudes in the squad. Every unit would have a fixed shoting and melee value. Suddenly having an orc warlord on a cyboar with a huge two handed choppa would not mean that the unit is unplayable.
Done that. Centimetres are inches, vehicles have hit points per number of models on the card, infantry have normal save vs infantry weapons, but Epic save profile vs weapons with a save modifier. Works a treat.
Agree with ‘best tabletop rules’, certainly before the ‘great bloat’.
Automatically Appended Next Post: On topic, my RT Ork Boyz have no standard weapon or armour, but work just fine in competition. Long weapons, short weapons, hth weapons, no armour, plates, flak whatever. I make sure the boss and any heavy weapons are clearly distinguished, and go to it.
As for the new buggies, at first I was ‘meh’, but then took the view they were my new ‘gun trukks’. So, busy adding Squig Catapult to truck converted to flat bed ‘portee’, and planning a DeLorien style Dragsta with spine mounted gun. The official models are not my thing, but the rules are going to be looted to death. Or mebbe deff.
With Orks, allow me to make another comparison:
I like what they did with Battlewagons. (Mostly.)
They split three types of wagon styles into three dataslates, but that still leaves the three styles intact. If you want a tough, melee wagon, you can do that. If you want a tough, shooty wagon, you can do that. If you want a lighter, transport-oriented wagon, you can do that.
On top of this, the original wagon didn't lose out much, though we still have to go to the Index if we want rokkits on our Battlewagon. We can throw in extra light weapons (Big shootas, mostly), we can add in extra melee options if we really want them, we can choose to take an 'ard case on the transporty wagon if we're more worried about getting there alive than shooting on our way.
Now, the execution is kind of bad because the 'melee' wagon isn't significantly better in melee and therefore isn't worth the cost bump, so we've got two wagon options in practice, and all of the melee weapons besides the Deff Rolla are terrible, but in theory I'm a fan.
(I'm also fine with the new Buggy options for the same reason, though I wish a few sponsons were swappable so you could shore up weaker parts of your army like getting more anti infantry or anti armor where you need it.)
And then we're back to the Wartrike, who is still as static as ever. He's our only codex choice for a Speed Freaks HQ. If we want something more krumpy, we either have to go Forge World (Which is... Problematic) or we have to go Index and lose access to Dakka Dakka Dakka and Breakin' Heads.
Can't you just make a model how you like and the rulewise change It from engagement to engagement, from edition to edition, without going overboard, of course??
Can't you just make a model how you like and the rulewise change It from engagement to engagement, from edition to edition, without going overboard, of course??
On a WYSIWYG standpoint, the rule of cool would triumph for unirs that don't have any other options but the stock ones since it wouldnt make any difference rules wise.
Luke_Prowler wrote: There is a themeing element to it. Orks are an army who are described as valuing resourcefulness and Individuality, compared to the Imperium's regimented and stagnant views on technoology. So it would be a tonal misfire to have the former have the same, or even less (which is the case currently. There are 6 of the special ork buggies, with zero new options, vs the Imperial Guard's seven different leman russes in the codex alone, while still having options for front gun/sponsons)
But you could have all the themes you want. Better, you could have more because you would never have to worry about the models looks blocking off some specific rules.
For example you could have a pistol and ccw sgt to look cool in an IG unit, but he would still be shoting like all the other lasgun dudes in the squad. Every unit would have a fixed shoting and melee value. Suddenly having an orc warlord on a cyboar with a huge two handed choppa would not mean that the unit is unplayable.
I'm not talking about model themeing, I'm talking about gameplay themeing
Okay, so you know how in fighters each character (usually) has a different moveset? Lets say we just remove all of that and just have them each have the same moveset. Keep the animations, keep the background, so they're still all "different" from each other lore wise but they all fight the same so that "you can't pick the wrong fighter". They're all different, until you actually start playing. The differences are superfical, and mean nothing.
Peregrine wrote:But I thought you don't care about math? Why does it matter so much if your "upgraded awesome relic pistol" has STR 4 or STR 7 or STR 6? Shouldn't the only thing that matters rules-wise be that it supports your fluff and is better than a normal marine's gear?
I think you're mixing up my personal lack of care for efficiency and the "right" weapon for just complete lack of care about the effect. I care about the effect, but not necessarily the magnitude of it.
For example, I know that the plasma pistol is a better armour killer, but is riskier to fire. While that make it better mathematically in places, I only care that it has an effect on both the armour penetration and suicidal nature of the weapon. I don't need it to be X% better, just that it has some kind of mechanism that makes it say "this is what I'm here for!" My best example, the frag missile. We all know it's not very good, but it's cool to make that switch to using frag missiles against an Ork horde because kraks don't feel right firing at Boyz. It doesn't need to be a worthwhile impact, but a change to show the purpose of the weapon is good. I wouldn't mind if the statlines got streamlined in the form of "plasma pistols get +1 AP, simple as", so long as they are different from the bolt pistol.
But a volcano cannon is clearly different to a Primaris Captain being banned from taking two weapons they can normally, take, just because they're together. It's a complete rational looking model, but not allowed because reasons?
So then you should advocate for my solution: fixed stat line, variable modeling. The captain has a particular stat line whether you model it with a plasma pistol and power sword, or fancy bolt pistol and power axe, or whatever. Make it look cool however you like, don't worry about the rules.
But I like differences, however subtle they may be, in my statline. Otherwise, why bother even having different codices, different unit entries? The differences don't have to be massive, but I like some differences in my choice of weapon options.
But it does add flavour. And sometimes flavour matters more to some people than a tighter rules set.
But most of the time it doesn't add flavor. Does a missile launcher vs. a lascannon change how you attack a tank? No, you just roll different dice and in list construction you calculate whether the extra damage of the lascannon is better than the cheaper point cost of the missile launcher. From a player experience point of view, ignoring point efficiency, they work exactly the same way. So consolidate them into a single profile so you can model your anti-tank squad however you like without worrying about whether or not they have the best choice rules-wise.
Great, but you're ignoring the actual element of flavour in the form of the versatility of the missile launcher.
Ideally, the bolt pistol would have some kind of advantage over the plasma pistol - maybe if you took away the "safe" plasma mode again, or made bolt pistols faster firing/more accurate in melee, but I think that they should have a niche really. Of course, I am only talking between these two for this circumstance.
(And no, I don't care about frag missiles. They're so weak they might as well not exist. Just fire your regular bolters and pretend they're frag missiles, it will have about the same result.)
I don't really care about the weakness. They sound and look cool in my mind's eye.
To take the "it's about gameplay, you can do what you like with aesthetics" approach further, why don't we just have all models have the same stats, and the same guns, and if you want to mix things up, then do it aesthetically, because balance?
Because some units/upgrades have legitimately different gameplay roles. A lascannon and a flamer do not play the same way, at all. A lascannon and a missile launcher play the same way 99% of the time, unless you're going "LOL FRAG MISSILES ARE SO KEWL I WANT TO FORGE A NARRATIVE" and wasting your unit that turn even though it means roleplaying your commander being an idiot. I want to remove redundancy in false options, not options that add significant depth.
But a lascannon and a multi-melta don't. A multi-melta encourages a different style of play to the longer ranged lascannon, which creates different gameplay experiences, and therefore depth. I know you don't care about non-optimal firing choices, but some of us do, so that's still a valid reason why not to change this. I don't think that any of the options are false ones - aesthetic or minor stat changes are still options for people to consider, and the difference between a bolt pistol and plasma pistol can be a very real one to some people.
I think Luke_Prowler is spot on about "theming". I don't want the game to become reskins of the same archetype weapon vs the same archype unit.
Can't you just make a model how you like and the rulewise change It from engagement to engagement, from edition to edition, without going overboard, of course??
If you and your opponent are happy to play that way, then of course you can. But it's awfully hard to keep track of what everything is supposed to be when models aren't armed with the right weapons.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: I know you don't care about non-optimal firing choices, but some of us do, so that's still a valid reason why not to change this.
And this is the heart of the problem. Your concerns aren't valid, because they're bad game design for everyone else and accommodating your bizarre edge-case demands means making the game considerably worse for the rest of us. Rules bloat is bad design, as is putting in false options that require you to ignore the stat line and go LOLOLOL FRAG MISSILES ARE SO KEWL as you throw ineffective dice at something. I mean, what's next? By your principle it would be great design to have a third mode for missile launchers, call it "cultist-slayer frag", which is just the frag stat line but with STR 3 and some fluff about how it's great at killing cultists. You would be the only player who would ever use it, but you could roleplay about how frag missiles are too expensive for using on cultists so your space marines are shooting a cheaper version. And then of course we need to add STR 2 frag missiles, and STR 1 frag missiles, and even a STR 0 profile that automatically misses so you can roleplay your space marines getting shipped defective ammunition. Why stop at the current level of rules bloat when you can pile on tons of additional redundant rules?
The simple fact here is that GW is turning 40k into 28mm Epic with continued increases in model count and model size. In a game where a titan can wipe out your entire squad in one shot it doesn't matter if it has a power sword or power axe, those minor differences just add rules bloat. The best design for 99.999999% of the players is to simplify the game to something more like the Epic rules, a level of detail that is appropriate for Epic. And if making the game better for the vast majority of us means that you ragequit over not having explicit rules for every ineffective action you want to do, well, losing one player is a sacrifice I'll gladly make.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Luke_Prowler wrote: I'm not talking about model themeing, I'm talking about gameplay themeing
Okay, so you know how in fighters each character (usually) has a different moveset? Lets say we just remove all of that and just have them each have the same moveset. Keep the animations, keep the background, so they're still all "different" from each other lore wise but they all fight the same so that "you can't pick the wrong fighter". They're all different, until you actually start playing. The differences are superfical, and mean nothing.
That's a poor analogy. What we're criticizing is more like a fighting game that, instead of having 10 genuinely different characters that each have different sets of moves and different playing styles, promises LOOK WE HAVE 500 CHARACTERS ISN'T IT SO FORGING A NARRATIVE but delivers 10 different characters and 490 characters that are just minor variations on the first 10. Yeah, maybe you can point to some tiny difference like character A's punch attack being one frame faster while character B's punch attack has one pixel longer reach, but in the end those differences only matter to a tiny minority of hardcore optimizers and are just rules bloat. The game would be better off having those 10 distinct characters and a skin editor so you can choose a different hair color or whatever without having to have an entirely new character.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: I know you don't care about non-optimal firing choices, but some of us do, so that's still a valid reason why not to change this.
And this is the heart of the problem. Your concerns aren't valid, because they're bad game design for everyone else and accommodating your bizarre edge-case demands means making the game considerably worse for the rest of us.
You mean, for you. You're absolutely right in that there is a heart of the problem - the heart of it is that people want different things from the game. You want X, I want Y, and ignoring the sentimental aspects, it would be poor form on GW's part of alienate any part of their fanbase.
You can't say things like "your concerns aren't valid", because that's an opinion, and I could turn around and say exactly the same to you.
Rules bloat is bad design, as is putting in false options that require you to ignore the stat line and go LOLOLOL FRAG MISSILES ARE SO KEWL as you throw ineffective dice at something. I mean, what's next? By your principle it would be great design to have a third mode for missile launchers, call it "cultist-slayer frag", which is just the frag stat line but with STR 3 and some fluff about how it's great at killing cultists. You would be the only player who would ever use it, but you could roleplay about how frag missiles are too expensive for using on cultists so your space marines are shooting a cheaper version. And then of course we need to add STR 2 frag missiles, and STR 1 frag missiles, and even a STR 0 profile that automatically misses so you can roleplay your space marines getting shipped defective ammunition. Why stop at the current level of rules bloat when you can pile on tons of additional redundant rules?
But I'm not advocating for adding rules. You're making a strawman and you know it.
You're taking an approach that favours balance above all else, and I appreciate that, and how much that obviously means to you. However, not everyone cares about balance, and some people just want to go "LOLOLOL FRAG MISSILES ARE SO KEWL".
Also, I ask you politely, could you stop being so condescending, especially with said example. I'm sure it wouldn't be too much to ask for.
The simple fact here is that GW is turning 40k into 28mm Epic with continued increases in model count and model size. In a game where a titan can wipe out your entire squad in one shot it doesn't matter if it has a power sword or power axe, those minor differences just add rules bloat.
If you don't think that a power axe or sword matter then, might I suggest you play Power Level, because clearly upgrades to units aren't THAT important. Or, maybe, seeing as said minor differences don't matter, a slight difference in points wouldn't be a massive issue, given the scale of the game?
Ignoring that delicious irony, as much as you say GW are turning 40k into 28mm Epic (which they are), they're also very fond of the detail of the squad level combat too. You can't pick and choose what GW "represent", because they represent a lot of different aspects. 40k is a very muddled game system, with micro-squad detailing and upgrades, but also engagements where those squads can be wiped out in one phase.
The best design for 99.999999% of the players is to simplify the game to something more like the Epic rules, a level of detail that is appropriate for Epic. And if making the game better for the vast majority of us means that you ragequit over not having explicit rules for every ineffective action you want to do, well, losing one player is a sacrifice I'll gladly make.
This isn't just you pulling statistics out of thin air, is it?
And again, telling people to leave isn't exactly very Rule 1, Peregrine.
Luke_Prowler wrote: I'm not talking about model themeing, I'm talking about gameplay themeing Okay, so you know how in fighters each character (usually) has a different moveset? Lets say we just remove all of that and just have them each have the same moveset. Keep the animations, keep the background, so they're still all "different" from each other lore wise but they all fight the same so that "you can't pick the wrong fighter". They're all different, until you actually start playing. The differences are superfical, and mean nothing.
That's a poor analogy. What we're criticizing is more like a fighting game that, instead of having 10 genuinely different characters that each have different sets of moves and different playing styles, promises LOOK WE HAVE 500 CHARACTERS ISN'T IT SO FORGING A NARRATIVE but delivers 10 different characters and 490 characters that are just minor variations on the first 10. Yeah, maybe you can point to some tiny difference like character A's punch attack being one frame faster while character B's punch attack has one pixel longer reach, but in the end those differences only matter to a tiny minority of hardcore optimizers and are just rules bloat. The game would be better off having those 10 distinct characters and a skin editor so you can choose a different hair color or whatever without having to have an entirely new character.
Conversly, look at Super Smash Bros. That's got distinct characters, who aren't reskins, and that's incredibly popular.
Looks like that 99% stat isn't quite so concrete, eh.
Luke_Prowler wrote: There is a themeing element to it. Orks are an army who are described as valuing resourcefulness and Individuality, compared to the Imperium's regimented and stagnant views on technoology. So it would be a tonal misfire to have the former have the same, or even less (which is the case currently. There are 6 of the special ork buggies, with zero new options, vs the Imperial Guard's seven different leman russes in the codex alone, while still having options for front gun/sponsons)
But you could have all the themes you want. Better, you could have more because you would never have to worry about the models looks blocking off some specific rules.
For example you could have a pistol and ccw sgt to look cool in an IG unit, but he would still be shoting like all the other lasgun dudes in the squad. Every unit would have a fixed shoting and melee value. Suddenly having an orc warlord on a cyboar with a huge two handed choppa would not mean that the unit is unplayable.
I'm not talking about model themeing, I'm talking about gameplay themeing
Okay, so you know how in fighters each character (usually) has a different moveset? Lets say we just remove all of that and just have them each have the same moveset. Keep the animations, keep the background, so they're still all "different" from each other lore wise but they all fight the same so that "you can't pick the wrong fighter". They're all different, until you actually start playing. The differences are superfical, and mean nothing.
Look at the most recent Super Smash Brothers as an example of bloat though. A LOT of the Characters can be condensed to simply alternate costumes. After all, there's no reason that Dr. Mario can't be an extra skin for Mario outside Nintendo just wanting to say "Look how many characters there are!!!"
It ends up being poorly balanced like all the other SSB games. When Mortal Kombat does it, they still might have balance issues but those are far more condensed and therefore theoretically easier to fix with updates. Nintendo would have to look at issues with more than 60 characters.
skchsan wrote: , back when GW only had the poor excuse of a drop pod that was a crater, where the model was so bad that it didnt even had symmetry and looked like a deformed starfish.
Not sure what you're thinking of, but this was never a thing.
Technically one of GW's licensed partners way back in the old days, but it was a thing.
Not a GW model, and from a time before drop pods were even a part of the actual game. So an odd thing to criticise GW for...
Sgt_Smudge wrote: You can't say things like "your concerns aren't valid", because that's an opinion, and I could turn around and say exactly the same to you.
You could say that, but you'd be wrong. My concerns are based on good game design and benefit the vast majority of the customer base. Your concerns are based on catering to your extreme niche-market demands, quite possibly single-digit numbers of customers, and are terrible game design for anyone else.
But I'm not advocating for adding rules. You're making a strawman and you know it.
No, I'm taking your principles to the inevitable conclusion. The same argument that defends the current rules bloat would also defend and encourage adding more rules bloat. You can't argue against the STR 3 frag missiles without also arguing against the current STR 4 version. And you certainly can't argue that the current level of rules bloat is some platonic ideal when GW continues to add and remove options.
You're taking an approach that favours balance above all else, and I appreciate that, and how much that obviously means to you.
No, I'm taking an approach in this case that favors elegance in design over roleplaying "my commander is an idiot and uses ineffective weapons". Making the game easier to balance is just a nice side effect of streamlining the rules to something more appropriate to the 28mm Epic that GW has turned 40k into, I actually don't have much faith that GW would take advantage of that opportunity and make a balanced game. But at least it would have less rules bloat.
However, not everyone cares about balance, and some people just want to go "LOLOLOL FRAG MISSILES ARE SO KEWL".
Then do it. Why do you need explicit rules for your missile being STR 4 instead of STR 8? Just say "FRAG MISSILES OMG WHAT A KEWL NARRATIVE LETS HAVE ANOTHER BEER AND REFILL THE PRETZEL BOWL" and make some fun "boom" noises when your missiles explode. I seriously do not understand your claim to be only playing to have fun while you simultaneously argue for a rules-heavy approach where the only things you can have in your imagination are the ones explicitly stated in the rules. If I didn't know you better from other threads I'd have to assume that you're really a tournament-focused math optimizer trying to put up a pretense of "just having fun" to deflect accusations of being a WAAC player.
If you don't think that a power axe or sword matter then, might I suggest you play Power Level, because clearly upgrades to units aren't THAT important.
PL doesn't fix anything because the rules are still different. Nor does it fix your entitled approach towards the game, where you openly admit that you like PL because you don't want to have to sacrifice anything to bring better rules for your units.
Ignoring that delicious irony, as much as you say GW are turning 40k into 28mm Epic (which they are), they're also very fond of the detail of the squad level combat too. You can't pick and choose what GW "represent", because they represent a lot of different aspects. 40k is a very muddled game system, with micro-squad detailing and upgrades, but also engagements where those squads can be wiped out in one phase.
Yes, and that muddling is exactly the problem. 40k has a lot of "legacy code" rules from when it was a skirmish-scale game, but the clear emphasis now is on being 28mm Epic. That's the direction GW is constantly pushing now, and the old days of a game between a couple of squads are gone forever. I'd also be happy if GW scaled things back to be something smaller and more appropriate for a higher level of detail, but the chances of that are much smaller than the chances of GW making rules more in line with the 28mm Epic version of the game.
And again, telling people to leave isn't exactly very Rule 1, Peregrine.
I'm not telling you to leave, you're free to stay. I'm just stating that if you do choose to leave because GW fixes the game then I'm perfectly happy with the loss of a single customer being the price we pay for having a better game for the rest of us.
Conversly, look at Super Smash Bros. That's got distinct characters, who aren't reskins, and that's incredibly popular.
And? I'm not arguing against distinct characters, I'm arguing against characters/rules/etc that aren't distinct. Nothing about that game is a counter to anything I have said.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
insaniak wrote: Not a GW model, and from a time before drop pods were even a part of the actual game. So an odd thing to criticise GW for...
Not technically a GW model, but it was a licensed kit sold under the 40k brand name. Someone at GW approved of it, and from the point of view of the customer it might as well have been a GW kit.
The simple fact here is that GW is turning 40k into 28mm Epic with continued increases in model count and model size. In a game where a titan can wipe out your entire squad in one shot it doesn't matter if it has a power sword or power axe, those minor differences just add rules bloat. The best design for 99.999999% of the players is to simplify the game to something more like the Epic rules, a level of detail that is appropriate for Epic.
Yeah... I remember when Space Marine became Epic 40000... And almost died on the release table, because the fact that GW had stripped all of the weapon detail out of it was almost universally hated. They wound up gradually adding a while bunch of weapon options back in as a result.
So it's probably safe to say you're not speaking for everyone here. Please feel free to stop acting like you are.
The simple fact here is that GW is turning 40k into 28mm Epic with continued increases in model count and model size. In a game where a titan can wipe out your entire squad in one shot it doesn't matter if it has a power sword or power axe, those minor differences just add rules bloat. The best design for 99.999999% of the players is to simplify the game to something more like the Epic rules, a level of detail that is appropriate for Epic.
Yeah... I remember when Space Marine became Epic 40000... And almost died on the release table, because the fact that GW had stripped all of the weapon detail out of it was almost universally hated. They wound up gradually adding a while bunch of weapon options back in as a result.
So it's probably safe to say you're not speaking for everyone here. Please feel free to stop acting like you are.
Likewise, you don't speak for everyone here. Please feel free to stop acting like you are. Unless you want to break out the red modtext and throw your weight around.
The simple fact here is that GW is turning 40k into 28mm Epic with continued increases in model count and model size. In a game where a titan can wipe out your entire squad in one shot it doesn't matter if it has a power sword or power axe, those minor differences just add rules bloat. The best design for 99.999999% of the players is to simplify the game to something more like the Epic rules, a level of detail that is appropriate for Epic.
Yeah... I remember when Space Marine became Epic 40000... And almost died on the release table, because the fact that GW had stripped all of the weapon detail out of it was almost universally hated. They wound up gradually adding a while bunch of weapon options back in as a result.
So it's probably safe to say you're not speaking for everyone here. Please feel free to stop acting like you are.
Likewise, you don't speak for everyone here. Please feel free to stop acting like you are. Unless you want to break out the red modtext and throw your weight around.
Can we just all agree that all our opinions are our own, and don't speak for anyone else?
I don't think insaniak was breaching any kind of "speaking for everyone else" rule by reminding Peregrine that they don't speak for everyone, and that that kind of attitude leads to toxic discussion.
Frag missiles seem like a weird thing to argue against, they actually have a role. A choice between a dedicated single purpose weapon and a weapon which is a bit weaker but is multipurpose seem perfectly fine design to me.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: You can't say things like "your concerns aren't valid", because that's an opinion, and I could turn around and say exactly the same to you.
You could say that, but you'd be wrong. My concerns are based on good game design and benefit the vast majority of the customer base. Your concerns are based on catering to your extreme niche-market demands, quite possibly single-digit numbers of customers, and are terrible game design for anyone else.
Again, when you can show that you represent the "vast majority", I'll continue to treat this as just your opinion, and treat your attempts to devalue my enjoyment of the game with the contempt it deserves.
But I'm not advocating for adding rules. You're making a strawman and you know it.
No, I'm taking your principles to the inevitable conclusion. The same argument that defends the current rules bloat would also defend and encourage adding more rules bloat. You can't argue against the STR 3 frag missiles without also arguing against the current STR 4 version. And you certainly can't argue that the current level of rules bloat is some platonic ideal when GW continues to add and remove options.
You're fully aware that taking things to their "inevitable conclusion" is an incredibly flawed way of making an argument?
Like, I could with your approach - to the conclusion of it, it creates something that's basically Chess, or even more simple than that, Draughts, where everything is fundamentally the same, and any difference is aesthetic.
I'm just saying, you pretending frags don't exist, because you don't use them, doesn't mean they actually ARE worthless to everyone.
You're taking an approach that favours balance above all else, and I appreciate that, and how much that obviously means to you.
No, I'm taking an approach in this case that favors elegance in design over roleplaying "my commander is an idiot and uses ineffective weapons". Making the game easier to balance is just a nice side effect of streamlining the rules to something more appropriate to the 28mm Epic that GW has turned 40k into, I actually don't have much faith that GW would take advantage of that opportunity and make a balanced game. But at least it would have less rules bloat.
Firstly, I think you're missing an important part of the imaginative side of 40k.
When my models fire a frag missile, despite it not being the most tactically prudent thing to do, they do it because that makes sense in the narrative I'm trying to tell, a narrative that is disconnected from the direct minutia of the game system.
Sure, the game system is built/balanced/formed in such a way that frags are useless, but if you seperate the maths from the action you imagine happening, it can't be that hard to understand why someone would choose the "fluffy" solution to the problem over the mathematical solution.
However, not everyone cares about balance, and some people just want to go "LOLOLOL FRAG MISSILES ARE SO KEWL".
Then do it. Why do you need explicit rules for your missile being STR 4 instead of STR 8? Just say "FRAG MISSILES OMG WHAT A KEWL NARRATIVE LETS HAVE ANOTHER BEER AND REFILL THE PRETZEL BOWL" and make some fun "boom" noises when your missiles explode. I seriously do not understand your claim to be only playing to have fun while you simultaneously argue for a rules-heavy approach where the only things you can have in your imagination are the ones explicitly stated in the rules. If I didn't know you better from other threads I'd have to assume that you're really a tournament-focused math optimizer trying to put up a pretense of "just having fun" to deflect accusations of being a WAAC player.
I see you didn't take on board my polite request to stop mocking me.
If you don't think that a power axe or sword matter then, might I suggest you play Power Level, because clearly upgrades to units aren't THAT important.
PL doesn't fix anything because the rules are still different. Nor does it fix your entitled approach towards the game, where you openly admit that you like PL because you don't want to have to sacrifice anything to bring better rules for your units.
My entitled approach? I'm not saying that anyone's playing it wrong, that anyone should have to leave (and that that would be a GOOD thing), and I'm fully happy with other people having their opinions.
You? Not so much.
Instead of attacking me, could you focus a small fraction of your time on my argument?
Ignoring that delicious irony, as much as you say GW are turning 40k into 28mm Epic (which they are), they're also very fond of the detail of the squad level combat too. You can't pick and choose what GW "represent", because they represent a lot of different aspects. 40k is a very muddled game system, with micro-squad detailing and upgrades, but also engagements where those squads can be wiped out in one phase.
Yes, and that muddling is exactly the problem. 40k has a lot of "legacy code" rules from when it was a skirmish-scale game, but the clear emphasis now is on being 28mm Epic. That's the direction GW is constantly pushing now, and the old days of a game between a couple of squads are gone forever. I'd also be happy if GW scaled things back to be something smaller and more appropriate for a higher level of detail, but the chances of that are much smaller than the chances of GW making rules more in line with the 28mm Epic version of the game.
You have no actual insight on the opinion and goals of GW. You don't work for them, nor do you seem to also see the incredibly relaxed and non-comp attitudes they have.
If I were to pursue that point with the same fervour you pursue yours, then I'd come to the conclusion that GW care very little for balance, and even a coherent focused game design, but seem to be happy with that. Of course, that's just what I interpret GW's motives to be, but like you, I don't know fully, so I won't try and base an argument around that premise.
And again, telling people to leave isn't exactly very Rule 1, Peregrine.
I'm not telling you to leave, you're free to stay. I'm just stating that if you do choose to leave because GW fixes the game then I'm perfectly happy with the loss of a single customer being the price we pay for having a better game for the rest of us.
Rest of us, again, speaking for others? Implying it's Peregrine + everyone else, minus myself.
Yeah, right.
Conversly, look at Super Smash Bros. That's got distinct characters, who aren't reskins, and that's incredibly popular.
And? I'm not arguing against distinct characters, I'm arguing against characters/rules/etc that aren't distinct. Nothing about that game is a counter to anything I have said.
And frag missiles ARE distinct. Just because you don't like them because they're not effective in the current rules doesn't mean they don't exist.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Crimson wrote: Frag missiles seem like a weird thing to argue against, they actually have a role. A choice between a dedicated single purpose weapon and a weapon which is a bit weaker but is multipurpose seem perfectly fine design to me.
I'd have thought that too, but it seems that because they're weak at that role, they shouldn't even be considered to be existing.
Guess we should say goodbye to Guard Veterans, Reivers, and whatever else people in the competitive scene take, because clearly it's only the meta options that are worth thinking about.
Seeing as Reivers don't have a distinct role they're good at compared to other options in the codex, yeah they can be deleted.
Vets lost their role the moment they were moved to Elites. Scions do better and we can basically lose the Vet entry because GW messed up really bad
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Crimson wrote: Frag missiles seem like a weird thing to argue against, they actually have a role. A choice between a dedicated single purpose weapon and a weapon which is a bit weaker but is multipurpose seem perfectly fine design to me.
Except the ML has always been a bad weapon essentially. Frag is bad and has always been bad (small blasts were always bad and honestly you can't argue otherwise) the Krak is only okay now, and in desperation were only ever taken for the Flakk option (which after more and more codices got AA options the Flakk ceased to be useful).
I'd almost encourage people to use their ML models as dudes toting Counts-As Lascannons at that point to be honest.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Seeing as Reivers don't have a distinct role they're good at compared to other options in the codex, yeah they can be deleted.
Another thread was done about this. Suffice to say, that's your opinion and not a fact.
Vets lost their role the moment they were moved to Elites. Scions do better and we can basically lose the Vet entry because GW messed up really bad
Now I will admit that Vets did lose out on their doctrines. Not bothered about the move to Elites, I wasn't keen on when the focus was taken away from Infantry Squads by them being Troops. They still have a purpose for me, as Infantry Squads+1, but they could be made into an upgrade or CP buff (say, spend 1CP at the start of the game, an Infantry Squad may be made into a Veteran Infantry Squad, gaining +1 BS and may take up to three special weapons - hell, you could even go all out, and then give them stratagem access to Demolitions, Forward Sentries and Grenadiers again for more CP, a la Veteran Intercessors).
Crimson wrote: Frag missiles seem like a weird thing to argue against, they actually have a role. A choice between a dedicated single purpose weapon and a weapon which is a bit weaker but is multipurpose seem perfectly fine design to me.
Except the ML has always been a bad weapon essentially. Frag is bad and has always been bad (small blasts were always bad and honestly you can't argue otherwise) the Krak is only okay now, and in desperation were only ever taken for the Flakk option (which after more and more codices got AA options the Flakk ceased to be useful).
I'd almost encourage people to use their ML models as dudes toting Counts-As Lascannons at that point to be honest.
If it's bad, then buff the weapon. Make it cheaper, that's WHY points exist.
BaconCatBug wrote: Likewise, you don't speak for everyone here. Please feel free to stop acting like you are. Unless you want to break out the red modtext and throw your weight around.
If you're going to pull the thread down to the 'I know you are, but what am I?' level of conversation, it's not going to be around for long.
Except the ML has always been a bad weapon essentially. Frag is bad and has always been bad (small blasts were always bad and honestly you can't argue otherwise) the Krak is only okay now, and in desperation were only ever taken for the Flakk option (which after more and more codices got AA options the Flakk ceased to be useful).
I can't speak to the current rules, but missile launchers were the best option for Devastators in 5th and 6th editions. My ML Long Fangs more than made their points back in most of my games.
Yeah, a lot of the arguments in here against variety seem to be along the lines of "Because it's poorly balanced, therefore it cannot ever be good and should be stripped out".
I agree that, with the current iteration of the rules, several weapon choices are bad bordering on useless. However, if we go down the list of, for example, Space Marine Heavy Weapons, every single one of them theoretically has a role that should be a useful niche, the only problem is in execution.
Lascannons - Reliable long range anti tank
Multi-Meltas - Stronger anti-tank, but with shorter range and requires mobility or a delivery system
Missile Launcher - Flexible anti-tank or anti-infantry, trading maximum power for versatility
Heavy Bolter - Dedicated anti-infantry
Plasma Cannon - Flexible anti-elite infantry, able to deal light anti-tank fire and increase damage by harming itself
Grav Cannon - Eh... Flexible anti-elite infantry, able to deal light anti-tank fire. Okay, I'll admit that the Grav Cannon could be stripped out, but TBH I'd rather they just bring back 7th edition rules for Grav because it'd start to have an actual niche again. (And it would no longer be broken, because tanks and similar units now have a wounds characteristic and can't be killed by a single Grav volley.)
skchsan wrote: , back when GW only had the poor excuse of a drop pod that was a crater, where the model was so bad that it didnt even had symmetry and looked like a deformed starfish.
Not sure what you're thinking of, but this was never a thing.
Technically one of GW's licensed partners way back in the old days, but it was a thing.
Not a GW model, and from a time before drop pods were even a part of the actual game. So an odd thing to criticise GW for...
True, I didn't realize it was from officially sponsored third party. However, drop pods were part of the game for a long time if you count Epic Armageddon.
BaconCatBug wrote: Likewise, you don't speak for everyone here. Please feel free to stop acting like you are. Unless you want to break out the red modtext and throw your weight around.
If you're going to pull the thread down to the 'I know you are, but what am I?' level of conversation, it's not going to be around for long.
Except the ML has always been a bad weapon essentially. Frag is bad and has always been bad (small blasts were always bad and honestly you can't argue otherwise) the Krak is only okay now, and in desperation were only ever taken for the Flakk option (which after more and more codices got AA options the Flakk ceased to be useful).
I can't speak to the current rules, but missile launchers were the best option for Devastators in 5th and 6th editions. My ML Long Fangs more than made their points back in most of my games.
They were a cheap choice but not a good one. As I recall with the 5th Edition Space Wolves, Long Fangs got them really super cheap, so it didn't matter how much worse than Lascannons they were. For regular Devastators though? Your memory is most faulty.
The ML either needs a serious rework or it should just be a Counts-As Lascannon at this point.
BaconCatBug wrote: Likewise, you don't speak for everyone here. Please feel free to stop acting like you are. Unless you want to break out the red modtext and throw your weight around.
If you're going to pull the thread down to the 'I know you are, but what am I?' level of conversation, it's not going to be around for long.
Except the ML has always been a bad weapon essentially. Frag is bad and has always been bad (small blasts were always bad and honestly you can't argue otherwise) the Krak is only okay now, and in desperation were only ever taken for the Flakk option (which after more and more codices got AA options the Flakk ceased to be useful).
I can't speak to the current rules, but missile launchers were the best option for Devastators in 5th and 6th editions. My ML Long Fangs more than made their points back in most of my games.
They were a cheap choice but not a good one. As I recall with the 5th Edition Space Wolves, Long Fangs got them really super cheap, so it didn't matter how much worse than Lascannons they were. For regular Devastators though? Your memory is most faulty.
The ML either needs a serious rework or it should just be a Counts-As Lascannon at this point.
IIRC, long fangs were the best dev squad not because it was cheaper but because it had split fire option unlike any other heavy weapon squads in the game.
I'm quite torn, to be honest. On the one hand, I agree with you that having, say, 10 melee weapons with only 2 of them actually being good is pointless rules bloat. For example, the current Haemonculus weapon options are:
Agoniser (Poison 4+, AP-2, D1)
Electrocorrosive Whip (Poison 4+, AP-2, D2)
Flesh Gauntlet (S3, AP-, D1, Causes a Mortal Wound on a 6+ to wound against non-vehicles)
Mindphase Gauntlet (S3, AP-, D2)
Scissorhand (Poison 4+, AP-1, D1, +1 attack)
Venom Blade (Poison 2+, AP-, D2)
In case it's not clear, the Electrocorrosive Whip is basically outright better than the others, and the cost difference is negligible.
I find this sort of thing a real shame - especially since many of the other weapons have great models. So in that regard, I can definitely see why you'd want to basically say 'use whatever model you want and have them all be Electrocorrosive Whips'. In fact, I think this is particularly fitting because you've got 6 melee weapons that all basically do the same thing, with varying degrees of competence. None of them are remotely anti-vehicle weapons, none have great AP, none do anything useful or interesting.
On the other hand, I find myself wondering whether this is something that could be fixed simply by better design. Do these weapons really need to be so similar in the first place? Couldn't the Mindphase Gauntlet have an actual effect (like it used to), rather than just doing 2 damage with no strength or AP - so that the Electrocorrosive Whip isn't objectively better?
What's more, while I can definitely see the appeal in using whatever you want to represent a melee weapon, I can also see the appeal in wanting different weapon models to actually have some meaning when it comes to in-game rules. It's one of the things that I find most infuriating about Dark Eldar - they have so many possibilities for conversions, but so little wargear that they can't do anything meaningful with them.
To be honest, I think I'm still leaning towards your idea. However, my suggestion would be that removing weapon rules entirely shouldn't be the first resort. I think the first thing should be to look at weapons that are currently too similar and see if it's possible to change them (without completely breaking flavour, obviously) to make them fulfil different roles or such. But if you run out of design space and still have multiple weapons fulfilling the same role, I could probably get behind merging them.
My issue is that the default loadouts on newer HQ kits for Craftworld and Drukhari tend to be very underperforming. I mean, I see no reason to have my Archon fielding a blast pistol while engaging in close combat with most units in the game yet he comes equipped with a pistol and a sword. Same goes for the Winged Autarch who is just altogether weird(beautiful model though) with his Fusion Pistol and Power Sword. In short, I find the default loadouts synergize horribly with the army in question most of the time.
I don't disagree. But then, just about every aspect of the DE Archon synergises horribly with his own army:
- He's a melee unit in a subfaction designed for ranged combat.
- In spite of being ostensibly a melee unit (at least, I'm assuming he's supposed to be a melee unit, given that the Blaster was relegated to the Index and his only remaining weapons are pistols), every single one of his melee weapons is absolute garbage.
- In spite of being the overall army leader, he's not allowed to support anything outside of Kabal - not even the 'mercenary' units.
- No allowance is made for his aura working in, into, or out of open-topped vehicles. So he's unable to actually support Kabal troops even if he's riding in the same transport as them.
- His aura doesn't do anything for his own Court, as their own ability overrides it.
- He has no option for Wings so is forced to use a transport if he wants to get anywhere.
- Because of our arse transport capacity, the Archon isn't allowed to share a Venom with any unit except the Court, and if he goes in a Raider then you're limited to a 9-man squad.
- Because our squad's special weapons are 1-per-5, having the Archon in a Raider prevents a Kabalite squad from taking a second special weapon - meaning that you're basically paying ~90pts to upgrade a BS3+ Blaster to a BS2+ Blaster.
- Oh and his Shadowfield can go suck on a plasmagun.
The Archon is basically a worse Canoness who inexplicably costs 25pts *more*.
Luke_Prowler wrote: I'm not talking about model themeing, I'm talking about gameplay themeing
Okay, so you know how in fighters each character (usually) has a different moveset? Lets say we just remove all of that and just have them each have the same moveset. Keep the animations, keep the background, so they're still all "different" from each other lore wise but they all fight the same so that "you can't pick the wrong fighter". They're all different, until you actually start playing. The differences are superfical, and mean nothing.
That's a poor analogy. What we're criticizing is more like a fighting game that, instead of having 10 genuinely different characters that each have different sets of moves and different playing styles, promises LOOK WE HAVE 500 CHARACTERS ISN'T IT SO FORGING A NARRATIVE but delivers 10 different characters and 490 characters that are just minor variations on the first 10. Yeah, maybe you can point to some tiny difference like character A's punch attack being one frame faster while character B's punch attack has one pixel longer reach, but in the end those differences only matter to a tiny minority of hardcore optimizers and are just rules bloat. The game would be better off having those 10 distinct characters and a skin editor so you can choose a different hair color or whatever without having to have an entirely new character.
Not sure if it only really matters to a tiny minority. In street fighter, Ken and Ryu are very similar characters in move set with some noticeable difference for people who've played the game for a while. The differences mean nothing to someone who's just starting the game, but a part of playing any game is learning those differences and the tools are different for dealing with one v the other. While by your own logic Ken should just be a palette swap, I think most people would agree that would not make SF a better game.
If you want a different example, how about the different weapon tiers in Fire Emblem? They could have just made them be a linear upgrade from iron to steel to silver, but by making so that iron have an easier chance to hit vs Steel and silver having a lower durability than the other two gives the player a reason to continue using iron and steel even as the next tier of weapons become more available.
Luke_Prowler wrote: I'm not talking about model themeing, I'm talking about gameplay themeing
Okay, so you know how in fighters each character (usually) has a different moveset? Lets say we just remove all of that and just have them each have the same moveset. Keep the animations, keep the background, so they're still all "different" from each other lore wise but they all fight the same so that "you can't pick the wrong fighter". They're all different, until you actually start playing. The differences are superfical, and mean nothing.
That's a poor analogy. What we're criticizing is more like a fighting game that, instead of having 10 genuinely different characters that each have different sets of moves and different playing styles, promises LOOK WE HAVE 500 CHARACTERS ISN'T IT SO FORGING A NARRATIVE but delivers 10 different characters and 490 characters that are just minor variations on the first 10. Yeah, maybe you can point to some tiny difference like character A's punch attack being one frame faster while character B's punch attack has one pixel longer reach, but in the end those differences only matter to a tiny minority of hardcore optimizers and are just rules bloat. The game would be better off having those 10 distinct characters and a skin editor so you can choose a different hair color or whatever without having to have an entirely new character.
Not sure if it only really matters to a tiny minority. In street fighter, Ken and Ryu are very similar characters in move set with some noticeable difference for people who've played the game for a while. The differences mean nothing to someone who's just starting the game, but a part of playing any game is learning those differences and the tools are different for dealing with one v the other. While by your own logic Ken should just be a palette swap, I think most people would agree that would not make SF a better game.
If you want a different example, how about the different weapon tiers in Fire Emblem? They could have just made them be a linear upgrade from iron to steel to silver, but by making so that iron have an easier chance to hit vs Steel and silver having a lower durability than the other two gives the player a reason to continue using iron and steel even as the next tier of weapons become more available.
Except once you're at a certain Skill, those hit rates really don't matter. Then you'll likely have enough Gold that you can still spend on Silver weapons, to the point MAYBE you keep a single Steel weapon just in case you keep forgetting to update Inventory. I know I did that due to speeding through.
Also with how Awakening and Fates did the stupid pairing system, you can still get your hit rate easily raised. My complaints on those two games are a whole different topic.
Indeed - like combi bolters and storm bolters would be redundant bloat for the sake of fluff.
How are either redundant bloat? Both are straight upgrades to a bolt gun and are iconic and incredibly common options across the entire marine line.
24" Range Rapid Fire 2 S4 AP0 D1 weapon.
Which gun am I describing?
Both a storm bolter and combi bolter that isn't paired with a special weapon. Now that twin linked isn't a thing anymore I agree a straight combi bolter and storm bolter should be the same. I took the last post to be about deleting the combi special bolters.
That said, I liked that chaos and loyal marines had a slightly different weapon to represent that both are using similar but different equipment due to time and logistics.
Luke_Prowler wrote: Not sure if it only really matters to a tiny minority. In street fighter, Ken and Ryu are very similar characters in move set with some noticeable difference for people who've played the game for a while. The differences mean nothing to someone who's just starting the game, but a part of playing any game is learning those differences and the tools are different for dealing with one v the other. While by your own logic Ken should just be a palette swap, I think most people would agree that would not make SF a better game.
But that's not the same thing.
Ken and Ryu (apparently, I don't play the game) have similar moves but have depth that comes out with experience. That's good design, and the only question mark would be why new players take so long to see the differences and whether that information could/should be presented in a more accessible way. And obviously removing that depth would be a bad thing.
With the 40k options it's the exact opposite. The newbie might think there are options, but the veteran player quickly learns that only 1-2 of them are viable and the rest might as well not exist (outside of a tiny minority deliberately making bad decisions to prove how "casual" they are). That's bad design, it's a case of false options that only add rules bloat. Dumping those options entirely leaves the same gameplay depth but reduces complexity, something that is especially important with the sheer size of 40k in its current state.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
vipoid wrote: On the other hand, I find myself wondering whether this is something that could be fixed simply by better design. Do these weapons really need to be so similar in the first place? Couldn't the Mindphase Gauntlet have an actual effect (like it used to), rather than just doing 2 damage with no strength or AP - so that the Electrocorrosive Whip isn't objectively better?
But what would be the point? In a game as shallow as 40k the main weapon stat that has any meaning is kills per turn. Even if you can find a stat line or special rule that makes it more than just a strictly worse version of a different weapon is this special rule really going to change how you play the unit? It's still a melee threat that you're still going to deliver the same way, you're just changing the exact details of how you roll dice once you get into combat. It's making the mistake of starting from the assumption that you need at least X different weapons instead of assuming zero options and only adding options when there is a compelling reason that a particular option is interesting enough to include. That's a textbook example of rules bloat.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Waaaghpower wrote: Yeah, a lot of the arguments in here against variety seem to be along the lines of "Because it's poorly balanced, therefore it cannot ever be good and should be stripped out".
It's not just about balance, it's about redundancy. Set aside the stat lines for a moment and ask yourself what is the purpose of a devastator squad. It's a cheap heavy weapon platform that sacrifices everything else (mobility, toughness, etc) for getting four heavy weapons on the table as cheaply as possible. It's job is to sit back in your deployment zone, pick a target, and deliver shots to it as efficiently as possible. Taking a "decent at multiple things" weapon defeats this purpose because no matter what you're shooting at you're doing it inefficiently, and you're better off taking a specialist weapon and using it against the primary target. Anything that requires moving to get up close is bad because the unit has poor mobility, no ability to ignore the -1 BS penalty for moving, and poor durability if you're forced to get into range of counter attacks. So that leaves two possible roles depending your expected target type. Want to kill horde infantry? Take heavy bolters. Want to kill anything else? Take lascannons. Any other weapon is redundant, so you might as well just replace all those options with "anti-infantry devastator squad" and "anti-tank devastator squad".
Even if you improve balance you're just going to replace one of the existing options, not generate a new one. Say missile launchers become cheap enough again that their lower power relative to lascannons is acceptable. Now you've just removed lascannons from the game and still only have two roles and two viable weapons.
@peregrine so which one of the power weapon options stand out to you as the no-brainer? Axe/Sword/Maul? Why does the game have options for power lances when there hasn't been a model for it in ages?
skchsan wrote: @peregrine so which one of the power weapon options stand out to you as the no-brainer? Axe/Sword/Maul?
Don't know, don't care. All of them fill the same role of "kill more stuff if the unit gets into melee", none of them change how you play the unit. Which one is 5% more effective doesn't matter, we should go back to the 5th edition approach where they're all generic power weapons.
Why does the game have options for power lances when there hasn't been a model for it in ages?
No idea. It should just be a generic power weapon like the others.
(And do lances still exist? I know IG can't take them, and even the maul and axe are index-only.)
skchsan wrote: @peregrine so which one of the power weapon options stand out to you as the no-brainer? Axe/Sword/Maul? Why does the game have options for power lances when there hasn't been a model for it in ages?
Last edition, the Power Sword might as well have not existed and you basically just chose between the Maul and Axe. This edition it is between the Sword and Axe instead with the Maul being useless.
About Peregrin's abstraction for the sake of simpler rules,
some of us enjoy the detail and realism of a more immersive game.
We like to build and paint realistic terrain to use with wysiwyg models because of the realistic presentation.
Bloat in rules exists due poor implementation, for instance when as prior post pointed out some wargear options are not even options because they are outshined by obvious choices otherwise. But if these were well conceived options then there would be no bloat... Only options.
Imho the fix to bad game design is not removing game design from the equation. It is better game design.
skchsan wrote: @peregrine so which one of the power weapon options stand out to you as the no-brainer? Axe/Sword/Maul? Why does the game have options for power lances when there hasn't been a model for it in ages?
Last edition, the Power Sword might as well have not existed and you basically just chose between the Maul and Axe. This edition it is between the Sword and Axe instead with the Maul being useless.
Axe is no-brainer anytime when you are able to pick it over the sword.
skchsan wrote: @peregrine so which one of the power weapon options stand out to you as the no-brainer? Axe/Sword/Maul? Why does the game have options for power lances when there hasn't been a model for it in ages?
Last edition, the Power Sword might as well have not existed and you basically just chose between the Maul and Axe. This edition it is between the Sword and Axe instead with the Maul being useless.
Axe is no-brainer anytime when you are able to pick it over the sword.
You can make a case for the sword, but Axe is a better TAC pick.
jeff white wrote: some of us enjoy the detail and realism of a more immersive game.
First of all, the idea that 40k is immersive and realistic is kind of funny. As long as IGOUGO exists, weapon ranges are laughably short, etc, 40k is not realistic. GW might as well embrace the abstraction and make a more playable game.
Second, having a playable game has to take priority over realism. Would 40k be much more realistic if weapon ranges were scaled correctly for 28mm? Yes. Would anyone be able to play a game that requires an entire football field for a playing space to accommodate 120" range bolters? No. Same thing with rules bloat options. Precise details like the difference in fighting styles between an axe and a sword might be appropriate for a game like Kill Team, where you have 5-10 models on the table at most, but it's out of place in a game where a titan can kill the entire squad in one shot from across the table. It just slows down the game without adding any meaningful strategy. Even if you make things perfectly balanced you're still balancing something that doesn't belong in 28mm Epic.
Peregrine wrote: Would anyone be able to play a game that requires an entire football field for a playing space to accommodate 120" range bolters?
Having longer weapon ranges doesn't actually require you to have a bigger table. You would just balance out the fact that most weapons are always in range in other ways - better implementation of cover rules being the most obvious.
insaniak wrote: Having longer weapon ranges doesn't actually require you to have a bigger table. You would just balance out the fact that most weapons are always in range in other ways - better implementation of cover rules being the most obvious.
So you're arguing for just removing range as an attribute and having LOS blocking be the only defense against getting shot? I suppose that fixes it from a mechanics point of view, but realism requires that you be able to have a battle on fairly open terrain and not just dense cities/jungles/etc.
If you're such a big fan of the abstraction provided by Epic, Peregrine, why not save everyone a bunch of grief and go play either Epic 40,000 or Epic : Armageddon instead of 40k?
Dysartes wrote: If you're such a big fan of the abstraction provided by Epic, Peregrine, why not save everyone a bunch of grief and go play either Epic 40,000 or Epic : Armageddon instead of 40k?
Because 28mm models are better. The real question here is why people are trying to treat 40k as a skirmish game when GW has already turned it into 28mm Epic.
Dysartes wrote: If you're such a big fan of the abstraction provided by Epic, Peregrine, why not save everyone a bunch of grief and go play either Epic 40,000 or Epic : Armageddon instead of 40k?
Because 28mm models are better. The real question here is why people are trying to treat 40k as a skirmish game when GW has already turned it into 28mm Epic.
That would be a question you'd need to direct to the design team, given they've written the system that way.
Dysartes wrote: That would be a question you'd need to direct to the design team, given they've written the system that way.
Apparently it's a question for this forum, because there's a thread discussing it. Or perhaps the real question is why you feel compelled to make zero-content posts complaining about how someone is participating in a discussion when you don't think they should, instead of having anything useful to say on the topic.
So you're arguing for just removing range as an attribute and having LOS blocking be the only defense against getting shot?
I'm not arguing for it, no. It was your example. I was just pointing out that your claim that it would require a larger table wasn't actually accurate.
... but realism requires that you be able to have a battle on fairly open terrain and not just dense cities/jungles/etc.
Well, yes... but realism would also require that you not be fighting against demons and semi-intelligent fungus, but hey, whatever floats your boat.
insaniak wrote: I'm not arguing for it, no. It was your example. I was just pointing out that your claim that it would require a larger table wasn't actually accurate.
It is because the only alternative is to eliminate range entirely and require an unrealistic level of terrain and scenario restrictions for every single game. A 40k battle should not be fought on a 6x4 table, period, if realism is a goal. It isn't a reasonable scale for a 28mm game involving that many models (and tanks, aircraft, etc).
Now, of course you're free to discard realism as a goal and accept abstraction, but the claim was that we need realism in 40k even when it comes at the expense of improving how the rules function.
Well, yes... but realism would also require that you not be fighting against demons and semi-intelligent fungus, but hey, whatever floats your boat.
Lolwut? That's an awful argument and you know it. "Realism" in this context means accurately representing what exists in the "real" 40k universe. Demons and semi-intelligent fungus exist in 40k, so it's realistic to have them in a 40k game. Space marines firing bolt pistols that can barely reach from one end of a tank to the other is not what exists in the 40k fluff, it's a result of playing with 28mm models on a battlefield that is not 28mm scale.
I have always said that gw should make a rule set similar to epic 40000 with no war gear options justbdamage out put etc for units that competitive players could use. It would separate the traditional 40k players from this toxic desire for the ever elsusepive balance.
Andykp wrote: It would separate the traditional 40k players from this toxic desire for the ever elsusepive balance.
Yeah, because making better rules is so incredibly toxic, how can anyone possibly have fun without the game being an unbalanced mess?
PS: balance benefits "casual" players more than competitive players. Casual players want everything to be viable so they don't have to worry about being limited in their list building choices if they want to have a fair chance of winning. Competitive players care much less if something is overpowered, they just take the overpowered thing and win with it.
The Archon is basically a worse Canoness who inexplicably costs 25pts *more*.
Which is why the Archon ends up becoming a Ravager babysitter. An epic job for an epic unit. /s
Someone mentioned why not make all these extra weapon options more differentiated and there is a little problem with that. You could make them very different in power but that would include other issues. Such as making some weapons too powerful and expensive that you'd most likely never take them on a regular unit due to expense or that unit would be so ridiculously powerful that everyone complains, and on a HQ unit it would basically create a stronger sense of HeroHammer where that one super unit is punching everything with their beefed up lascannon that does a flat 6 on reroll wounds and downgrades saves on all units wounded(extreme examples, but extra rules for weapons usually end up with some force multiplier effects. Remember Laserlock on Scatter laser?).
Maybe I am just burned out, but I am so tired of having all these options that just mean nothing in the grand scheme of things. I mean, the god damn Ossefactor. Cool looking piece of wargear, but I don't see many people running to the shop to make Wracks with them when they don't use many Hexrifles or Liquifiers even. It is for this reason I kinda like Peregrine's idea of a more static model entry that in turn that(for the wracks) would indicate one model in the unit has a static weapon profile of X and you could give that unit whatever cool weapon you wanted. Rule of cool that would give you absolute freedom to put some cool mods on your miniature. Cool miniature and it is useful? Sign me up now!
Someone mentioned why not make all these extra weapon options more differentiated and there is a little problem with that. You could make them very different in power but that would include other issues. Such as making some weapons too powerful and expensive that you'd most likely never take them on a regular unit due to expense or that unit would be so ridiculously powerful that everyone complains, and on a HQ unit it would basically create a stronger sense of HeroHammer where that one super unit is punching everything with their beefed up lascannon that does a flat 6 on reroll wounds and downgrades saves on all units wounded(extreme examples, but extra rules for weapons usually end up with some force multiplier effects. Remember Laserlock on Scatter laser?).
If you're referring to me, I didn't actually suggest making them very different in terms of power. What I suggested was making them different in terms of function or target.
To go back to the Haemonculus example, 4 of his weapons are just variations on '4+ Poison weapon with weak AP and low damage'. How many of those do we really need?
I mean, if we're going to have 5 different poison weapons, could we not at least make them a bit more interesting? Tyranids manage all manner of different poison effects, yet the best we can do is 'wound infantry on 4s and vehicles on 6s'.
And even if we're stuck with that godawful effect, could we not do a little more to differentiate them? Maybe give Scissorhands AP-4 Maybe give the Electrocorrosive Whip the Haywire ability against vehicles. Maybe make the Agoniser less godawful somehow.
Then you've got stuff like Mindphase Gauntlets. Instead of having them be entirely worthless, how about making them do something interesting? They could get S9 but wound against the target's Ld. They could roll 3d6 and if the total exceeds the target's Ld, they take d3 Mortal Wounds. They could force the target to make a Ld test - if it fails then it cannot fight at all this turn. They could start at S3 AP- D1 but then gain Strength, AP and damage based on how low the target's Ld is.
Basically, give the different weapons actual purpose - Scissorhands for AP, Electrocorrosive Whip for vehicles, Mindphase Gauntlet for Ld-shenanigans etc.
Maybe I am just burned out, but I am so tired of having all these options that just mean nothing in the grand scheme of things. I mean, the god damn Ossefactor. Cool looking piece of wargear, but I don't see many people running to the shop to make Wracks with them when they don't use many Hexrifles or Liquifiers even. It is for this reason I kinda like Peregrine's idea of a more static model entry that in turn that(for the wracks) would indicate one model in the unit has a static weapon profile of X and you could give that unit whatever cool weapon you wanted. Rule of cool that would give you absolute freedom to put some cool mods on your miniature. Cool miniature and it is useful? Sign me up now!
I can definitely see the appeal in some regards. At the same time, I can't help but wonder if it would make things pretty dull.
You say that it would let you model squads however you want, but when there's only one weapon option, what's even the point?
vipoid wrote: You say that it would let you model squads however you want, but when there's only one weapon option, what's even the point?
Making your stuff look cool (you know, the reason you're playing this game at all) without having to worry about picking something that has poor rules.
Fluff. Fluff >> the rest.
If you want to create the chapter that uses spears as weapons, the emoperor's Spears? Whatever they are called, you can do It now, but what rules do they actually have in battle?
Chainswords? Power Swords? Axes? Mauls? Fists?
If you have fewer categories you have more freedom modelling whatever. It will always be useful as a model instead of being useless as the rule change because now the sword Is more efficient than the axe and you modeled those 2 things differently and have to rebuild half your army if you haven't magnetized.
That's why the bloat stays. More Sales.
Edit: Sorry for typos, my autocorrect is in italian XD
The Archon is basically a worse Canoness who inexplicably costs 25pts *more*.
Which is why the Archon ends up becoming a Ravager babysitter. An epic job for an epic unit. /s
Someone mentioned why not make all these extra weapon options more differentiated and there is a little problem with that. You could make them very different in power but that would include other issues. Such as making some weapons too powerful and expensive that you'd most likely never take them on a regular unit due to expense or that unit would be so ridiculously powerful that everyone complains, and on a HQ unit it would basically create a stronger sense of HeroHammer where that one super unit is punching everything with their beefed up lascannon that does a flat 6 on reroll wounds and downgrades saves on all units wounded(extreme examples, but extra rules for weapons usually end up with some force multiplier effects. Remember Laserlock on Scatter laser?).
Maybe I am just burned out, but I am so tired of having all these options that just mean nothing in the grand scheme of things. I mean, the god damn Ossefactor. Cool looking piece of wargear, but I don't see many people running to the shop to make Wracks with them when they don't use many Hexrifles or Liquifiers even. It is for this reason I kinda like Peregrine's idea of a more static model entry that in turn that(for the wracks) would indicate one model in the unit has a static weapon profile of X and you could give that unit whatever cool weapon you wanted. Rule of cool that would give you absolute freedom to put some cool mods on your miniature. Cool miniature and it is useful? Sign me up now!
Yep, Archons are not the beast they used to be... i miss odd Archons so much. And the Baron... and WWP's, oh man i miss 5th DE........
Dark Eldar - the army that drew the ire of No Model No Rules before it was cool.
Also, somehow, the army with some of the most flagrant affronts to that policy, but in such a bland manner as to question how something can be both flagrant and mundane at the same time.
Peregrine wrote:
Yeah, because making better rules is so incredibly toxic, how can anyone possibly have fun without the game being an unbalanced mess?
Some of us manage just fine. I understand that you can't find fun in unbalanced games, which is absolutely fair and understandable, but just because you can't doesn't mean anyone else does.
PS: balance benefits "casual" players more than competitive players. Casual players want everything to be viable so they don't have to worry about being limited in their list building choices if they want to have a fair chance of winning. Competitive players care much less if something is overpowered, they just take the overpowered thing and win with it.
But do all casual players want a "fair chance of winning", or are they okay with a margin of imbalance for the sake of aesthetic, for the sake of personal enjoyment?
I don't know if you play 30k Peregrine, but Legion Breachers aren't considered great. They lack the offensive output of even Tactical Marines, pay far more for it, and their reward is rerolled saves against templates and blasts (most of which ignore Marine armour anyways), and a 6+ at range, 5++ in melee. They ain't competitive by any stretch, unless you happen to be one of the few Legions that have things that benefit Breachers (Thousand Sons Corvidae(?) with +1 invuln, Imperial Fists Stone Gauntlet). I play neither of those legions - I play Ultramarines, whose only benefit to Breachers is optional power swords.
I still have Breachers as the mainstay of my list. Why? Because I absolutely love how they look, and I'm willing to be slightly underpowered if I can take the units I want, and have them FEEL like the unit I want. It's why I wouldn't do what Slayerfan advocates with cool-looking-but-trash units and proxy them. I want my Breachers to feel like Breachers, even if that feel is underwhelming in gameplay.
Sure, everyone wants everything to be viable, but that's why points exist - to balance the game out. Getting rid of stuff makes it viable in the only sense that it's not outclassed - it's just simply not there at all!
Making your stuff look cool (you know, the reason you're playing this game at all) without having to worry about picking something that has poor rules.
But it also means that every model of that type will play exactly the same.
Do you really think that cool conversions and such will help when the rules make it feel like every HQ has just emerged from a factory assembly line?
I think that there is a valid point under Peregrine's extremism; every weapon should actually have a role. But I really don't think things like multimeltas or missile launchers are redundant. They actually have different role than lascannons and heavy bolters. That some of these weapons are kinda bad, is not because they lack a clear role. Power weapon thing is much better example, they used to be one profile and could be again. As the variance between these weapons is so small, it is really difficult to make them distinct from each other without just making one of them the best.
Dark Eldar melee weapons have similar issues, but at least there I think adding some weird special rules as suggested could do the trick and strengthen the flavour of the faction. Such approach is best reserved to weapons which are only carried by characters or are otherwise rare, so you don't need to fiddle with some variant mechanics with basic units.
Peregrine wrote:
Yeah, because making better rules is so incredibly toxic, how can anyone possibly have fun without the game being an unbalanced mess?
Some of us manage just fine. I understand that you can't find fun in unbalanced games, which is absolutely fair and understandable, but just because you can't doesn't mean anyone else does.
PS: balance benefits "casual" players more than competitive players. Casual players want everything to be viable so they don't have to worry about being limited in their list building choices if they want to have a fair chance of winning. Competitive players care much less if something is overpowered, they just take the overpowered thing and win with it.
But do all casual players want a "fair chance of winning", or are they okay with a margin of imbalance for the sake of aesthetic, for the sake of personal enjoyment?
I don't know if you play 30k Peregrine, but Legion Breachers aren't considered great. They lack the offensive output of even Tactical Marines, pay far more for it, and their reward is rerolled saves against templates and blasts (most of which ignore Marine armour anyways), and a 6+ at range, 5++ in melee. They ain't competitive by any stretch, unless you happen to be one of the few Legions that have things that benefit Breachers (Thousand Sons Corvidae(?) with +1 invuln, Imperial Fists Stone Gauntlet). I play neither of those legions - I play Ultramarines, whose only benefit to Breachers is optional power swords.
I still have Breachers as the mainstay of my list. Why? Because I absolutely love how they look, and I'm willing to be slightly underpowered if I can take the units I want, and have them FEEL like the unit I want. It's why I wouldn't do what Slayerfan advocates with cool-looking-but-trash units and proxy them. I want my Breachers to feel like Breachers, even if that feel is underwhelming in gameplay.
Sure, everyone wants everything to be viable, but that's why points exist - to balance the game out. Getting rid of stuff makes it viable in the only sense that it's not outclassed - it's just simply not there at all!
Andykp wrote: It would separate the traditional 40k players from this toxic desire for the ever elsusepive balance.
Yeah, because making better rules is so incredibly toxic, how can anyone possibly have fun without the game being an unbalanced mess?
PS: balance benefits "casual" players more than competitive players. Casual players want everything to be viable so they don't have to worry about being limited in their list building choices if they want to have a fair chance of winning. Competitive players care much less if something is overpowered, they just take the overpowered thing and win with it.
The rules being better your way is only your opinion again. I think the best rules 40k had were 2nd edition and they were nowhere near balanced. Your attitude alone is the demonstration of the toxicity of this search for balance that tries to stifle the fun in the game. What you suggest is bland and boring.
And “balanace” is a myth. I have never even heard a proper definition of what you and people like you mean when you say you want a balanced game. U talk about all units being viable, in my group all units are because non of us are out they trying win above all else so all units get used and are fun and viable.
What I suggest is as I say boring and dull and your inability to accept that other people may disagree with or that you might even be wrong isnthe toxicity I talk about. I’m glad he haven’t surrendered to the minority that you represent. I cannot understand why I play play 40k or have any interest in it. U hate the rules so much and don’t care about the background or story and design armies purely to win, to win a game you can’t stand playing because it’s such a mess. Either get a grip or move on.
Peregrine wrote:
Yeah, because making better rules is so incredibly toxic, how can anyone possibly have fun without the game being an unbalanced mess?
Some of us manage just fine. I understand that you can't find fun in unbalanced games, which is absolutely fair and understandable, but just because you can't doesn't mean anyone else does.
PS: balance benefits "casual" players more than competitive players. Casual players want everything to be viable so they don't have to worry about being limited in their list building choices if they want to have a fair chance of winning. Competitive players care much less if something is overpowered, they just take the overpowered thing and win with it.
But do all casual players want a "fair chance of winning", or are they okay with a margin of imbalance for the sake of aesthetic, for the sake of personal enjoyment?
I don't know if you play 30k Peregrine, but Legion Breachers aren't considered great. They lack the offensive output of even Tactical Marines, pay far more for it, and their reward is rerolled saves against templates and blasts (most of which ignore Marine armour anyways), and a 6+ at range, 5++ in melee. They ain't competitive by any stretch, unless you happen to be one of the few Legions that have things that benefit Breachers (Thousand Sons Corvidae(?) with +1 invuln, Imperial Fists Stone Gauntlet). I play neither of those legions - I play Ultramarines, whose only benefit to Breachers is optional power swords.
I still have Breachers as the mainstay of my list. Why? Because I absolutely love how they look, and I'm willing to be slightly underpowered if I can take the units I want, and have them FEEL like the unit I want. It's why I wouldn't do what Slayerfan advocates with cool-looking-but-trash units and proxy them. I want my Breachers to feel like Breachers, even if that feel is underwhelming in gameplay.
Sure, everyone wants everything to be viable, but that's why points exist - to balance the game out. Getting rid of stuff makes it viable in the only sense that it's not outclassed - it's just simply not there at all!
So why should the goal be non-balance?
It shouldn’t be the goal but balance shouldn’t be the driver of the game design. The story should be the driver of the design then the models. A game that tells the story and captures the atmosphere of the setting. That’s the goal.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:So why should the goal be non-balance?
Goals are relative and individual. Plus, I think you misrepresent my point, as you often seem to.
It's not that I'm opposed to balance in general. I'm opposed to balance at the cost of my personal fun (fun which doesn't rely on imbalances or miscosting, I might add). Which is why my personal goals might not align with yours.
Andykp wrote:It shouldn’t be the goal but balance shouldn’t be the driver of the game design. The story should be the driver of the design then the models. A game that tells the story and captures the atmosphere of the setting. That’s the goal.
To be fair, balance should be the driver of game design if that's what you value in a game. For players like Peregrine and Slayer, who do value that, then I fully think that balance should be the driver of their game design, as bland as that might be to someone else. Alternatively, the story being the driver of game design, which I vastly prefer, is still just based on our values of the game, and is seen as childish by others.
The only two ways 40k can remedy this are to balance the game in such a way that it doesn't take away from the flavour and story already in it (which homogenising all weapons into categories of anti-tank/anti-infantry would fail to do), or just to accept that 40k means many different things to many different people, and it's up to the player to choose and embrace the aspects of the hobby they prefer.
vipoid wrote: You say that it would let you model squads however you want, but when there's only one weapon option, what's even the point?
Making your stuff look cool (you know, the reason you're playing this game at all) without having to worry about picking something that has poor rules.
Yup, we've got to distill this game all the way down to the pre-school level.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:So why should the goal be non-balance?
Goals are relative and individual. Plus, I think you misrepresent my point, as you often seem to.
It's not that I'm opposed to balance in general. I'm opposed to balance at the cost of my personal fun (fun which doesn't rely on imbalances or miscosting, I might add). Which is why my personal goals might not align with yours.
Andykp wrote:It shouldn’t be the goal but balance shouldn’t be the driver of the game design. The story should be the driver of the design then the models. A game that tells the story and captures the atmosphere of the setting. That’s the goal.
To be fair, balance should be the driver of game design if that's what you value in a game. For players like Peregrine and Slayer, who do value that, then I fully think that balance should be the driver of their game design, as bland as that might be to someone else. Alternatively, the story being the driver of game design, which I vastly prefer, is still just based on our values of the game, and is seen as childish by others.
The only two ways 40k can remedy this are to balance the game in such a way that it doesn't take away from the flavour and story already in it (which homogenising all weapons into categories of anti-tank/anti-infantry would fail to do), or just to accept that 40k means many different things to many different people, and it's up to the player to choose and embrace the aspects of the hobby they prefer.
I’m happy to accept people play differently and always have been but the desire of peregrine et al to change the whole game that way is what grinds my gears. I really think all sides of the community would be happy with a 40k tournament edition in the style of epic 40000 and a classic style for the rest of us. I’ve suggested this many times and it would be very simple to do. U could still keep the three ways to play in the classic game but tournaments would use the slimmed down speedier version of the rules. Everybody ones. Rolling out an epic 40000 style game would be a disaster for 40k if it was the only way. I remember that game coming out and I had some great games of it and it worked for the scale of it but the lack of depth and detail killed it in the end. It just wasn’t emersive. It was a game of maths more than narrative.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:So why should the goal be non-balance?
Goals are relative and individual. Plus, I think you misrepresent my point, as you often seem to.
It's not that I'm opposed to balance in general. I'm opposed to balance at the cost of my personal fun (fun which doesn't rely on imbalances or miscosting, I might add). Which is why my personal goals might not align with yours.
Andykp wrote:It shouldn’t be the goal but balance shouldn’t be the driver of the game design. The story should be the driver of the design then the models. A game that tells the story and captures the atmosphere of the setting. That’s the goal.
To be fair, balance should be the driver of game design if that's what you value in a game. For players like Peregrine and Slayer, who do value that, then I fully think that balance should be the driver of their game design, as bland as that might be to someone else. Alternatively, the story being the driver of game design, which I vastly prefer, is still just based on our values of the game, and is seen as childish by others.
The only two ways 40k can remedy this are to balance the game in such a way that it doesn't take away from the flavour and story already in it (which homogenising all weapons into categories of anti-tank/anti-infantry would fail to do), or just to accept that 40k means many different things to many different people, and it's up to the player to choose and embrace the aspects of the hobby they prefer.
Of course story should be the driver, but the end goal NEEDS to be balance, as otherwise the supposed immersive experience doesn't matter. If Marine units all the sudden cost 20 points AT MINIMUM and still had the same stats, can we make that excuse of it fits the story of them being smaller in number? Sure, but it wouldn't actually be immersive because they would die too quickly and not inflict enough damage for the cost, compared to the fluff.
While that point cost is mildly hyperbolic (though it was the original cost of Intercessors), it proves that point. I'm also for not removing a lot of options, but it's hard to deny there's a good amount of bloat for weapons. I mean, with the new wounding chart, Power Mauls basically might as well not exist. Compared to the previous edition, with the all-or-nothing AP system and wounding chart, Power Swords/Lances were ignored.
The end goal needs to be enjoyment. Better balance would be better than worse balance, but if the end goal *is* balance, play flip-a-coin. There's a balanced game.
Bharring wrote: The end goal needs to be enjoyment. Better balance would be better than worse balance, but if the end goal *is* balance, play flip-a-coin. There's a balanced game.
Even Chess isn't balanced.
It's exactly this lax attitude that leads to "why bother trying".
It's a poor attitude to have and one that wouldn't work in any other workplace. GW shouldn't be an exception to that.
When you read "Better balance would be better than worse balance" as "Better balance isn't worth trying for", we have a failure to communicate.
Please reread my post, in hopes that we don't just joust at straw knights.
The idea that a nontrivial body can do a nontrivial amount of work without mistakes or shortcomings has been shown over and over for ages to be hogwash.
you can abstract away a lot of the detail, for the sake of simplicity, GW tried that with the 3rd (IIRC) iteration of the 6mm scale game, which essentially killed it.
turns out a lot of players like there being a trivial and seldom used difference between a Bolt Gun Mk1 and a Bolt Gun Mk1a.
take the details away and you may have a technically better game, but you also have a game thats a lot harder to engage with.
I the idea of deleting options or older units to me just makes the game less appealing. I love when people bring older minis, rare or limited edition models or some odd FW stuff to a game cause that's cool to play against something that I've never seen before or rarely seen on the table top. Deleting options that are not optimal doesn't make the game more appealing because it just prunes options and makes peoples army more samey.
40k is not nor has it ever been a game that is balanced for competitive play between strangers. It's a game that is meant to be played between a group of like minded individuals who have the same expectations about what kind of game you all want to play.
Bharring wrote: When you read "Better balance would be better than worse balance" as "Better balance isn't worth trying for", we have a failure to communicate.
Please reread my post, in hopes that we don't just joust at straw knights.
The idea that a nontrivial body can do a nontrivial amount of work without mistakes or shortcomings has been shown over and over for ages to be hogwash.
You clearly missed the mark of which sentences I'm referring to. That would, of course, be referring to just flipping a coin and saying even Chess isn't balanced.
But it also means that every model of that type will play exactly the same.
Do you really think that cool conversions and such will help when the rules make it feel like every HQ has just emerged from a factory assembly line?
Actually, having the HQ be more standardized would probably be more fluffy then creating some abominations that have a weird equipment setup(although granted, GW hasn't had a good track record currently with it). As an answer to your question: Yes, cool conversions rule even if the rules are the exact same thing as another standard model. My old Hammer and Shield Belial will still see table use because I just want my own magnificent bastard leading my termies even though he is just a basic terminator now. There is just something sublime about fielding your own creation and just feeling it is special in you heart even though it doesn't have any special rule.
People say "well, with better rules there is a reason for those options" I have this to say: How many times have we seen the pendulum swing from weapon to weapon? How many editions have we gone through where a few weapon options are so subpar that you never pick them in favour of something that actually does something on the table, only to replace that next edition as the pendulum swings back?
Most people are not picking the other weapon options as most of them are too similar and/or too gakky to actually use. The options are an illusion and have never been anything else. I don't want to pick a subpar item that means my kitbash will only see 1-2 games at best before I stop desiring Losing At All Cost.
Also, I can't create new rules(unless I am in a super casual group), but I can decide to make my models cool(rule of cool) which I do enjoy. Currently have a few Grotesques I put together that are kitbashes and I feel like I have a lot of freedom with them due to the fact that Grotesques are very explicit about their combat ability. In short, they give me more freedom of modelling which I can then actually enjoy playing than any of the multi-option Space Marines that I have who have to be shuffled around every edition because Weapon option X is now subpar to option Y and picking X means you auto-lose.
Now, here is the good thing about options and why we need gazillion of them: They sell kits and keep GW in business. You ran your Dire Avengers with a spear and a forcefield and now that is useless compared to the Twin-Catapult? Better buy more kits. Scatter Lasers not the default loadout on Serpents anymore? Better buy 4 more Serpents to re-kit them with Shuriken Cannons. I know I am being a bit facetious as I have most of my serpents magnetized(not the Dire Avengers though) as I have been down this line through 7 editions now. So fair enough, here is a reason to keep all those options: More money for GW.
Perhaps I am spoiled. I have gone through many editions of multi-options that have meant countless purchases to replace old stuff until the point magnetizing your models became second nature(and my home is drowning in plastic), and I play Age of Sigmar that is more streamlined than 40.000 will ever be. I have seen a lot of variations and at this point I just want a good smooth game that runs like a kitten and allows me to be properly creative.
Slayer,
If the end goal were truly balance, and not anything else, than what balance-based reason is there to play something other than flip-a-coin? It's easily demonstrable that there is no more-balanced game. As such, how could you reason that there'd be a better option? Other equally-ideal (balanced) options, sure, but nothing is better balanced.
That is why I'm saying balance does *not* need to be the end goal. The end goal can include balance, but must be only part of the goal.
This is why I say the end goal should be enjoyment. A mechanical end goal usually lends to trivial yet useless solutions like "play flip-a-coin!".
I did miss that you were referring to only the second half of the second sentence and ignoring the first half. Your reference to balance I inferred as referring to the "balance" half. Some parts of posts - such as the 'go play flip-a-coin' - have no value divorced from the argument being formed. I hope noone seriously believed I was actually suggesting we play 'flip-a-coin'.
So, to tie it all together, I'm saying they *should* be trying to balance. But the goal should be enjoyment. With balance sought to improve enjoyment and not for balance's sake itself.
Automatically Appended Next Post: @Eldarsif,
I'd love it if they added a 50ppm upgrade for Archons that gave them a Jetbike. At 50ppm, it's almost certainly overpriced, so won't impact balance. But it'd add options. So most wouldn't use it, but it would be fun.
Bharring wrote: Slayer,
If the end goal were truly balance, and not anything else, than what balance-based reason is there to play something other than flip-a-coin? It's easily demonstrable that there is no more-balanced game. As such, how could you reason that there'd be a better option? Other equally-ideal (balanced) options, sure, but nothing is better balanced.
That is why I'm saying balance does *not* need to be the end goal. The end goal can include balance, but must be only part of the goal.
This is why I say the end goal should be enjoyment. A mechanical end goal usually lends to trivial yet useless solutions like "play flip-a-coin!".
I did miss that you were referring to only the second half of the second sentence and ignoring the first half. Your reference to balance I inferred as referring to the "balance" half. Some parts of posts - such as the 'go play flip-a-coin' - have no value divorced from the argument being formed. I hope noone seriously believed I was actually suggesting we play 'flip-a-coin'.
So, to tie it all together, I'm saying they *should* be trying to balance. But the goal should be enjoyment. With balance sought to improve enjoyment and not for balance's sake itself.
Another note: 40k will never be a truly "Competitive" game for as long as it relies on randomness as a key factor of determining who wins. If people want to play a game that is both fair and balanced, they should start learning chess. (Which does give a slight edge to White, but that's why competitive play revolves around multiple games where each player gets to go first.) I don't play 40k because it's a balanced game, I play it because it is fun and the randomness creates interesting risk-reward decisions that you don't get from more "Fair" games.
Sure, a huge part of 40k is coming up with ways to mitigate risk by adding in sources of rerolls or redundancy, but once your army hits the table most games are going to come down to how you respond to luck. If I'm losing badly, but I have four Lascannons in a Devestator squad, I'm going to split those lascannons onto two different targets and hope for hot dice because that's my only chance of making a comeback. If I'm winning, I'll fire the same four lascannons into one target so I'm less likely to lose my edge.
I've won games because a character or unit passed a ridiculous number of saves and was able to hold a position that he realistically shouldn't have. I've lost games because a critical roll completely flubbed. In one recent Planetstrike game, I whiffed with five Lascannons firing with the Chooser of the Slain strategem with hit and wound rerolls on 1. Then, Njal Stormcaller passed three 5+ invulns against meltaguns and survived to the end of the game, letting me grab a key objective and win. It was stupid and hilarious and completely unpredictable and a lot of fun, and it only happened because I had an "unoptimal" choice in my list. (By all accounts, Njal Stormcaller in Power Armor is overcosted compared to Njal in Terminator Armor, but I took him anyways, got him stuck in close combat, and then ended up with him exposed and tanking fire that otherwise would have gone into my tanks.)
HoundsofDemos wrote: I the idea of deleting options or older units to me just makes the game less appealing. I love when people bring older minis, rare or limited edition models or some odd FW stuff to a game cause that's cool to play against something that I've never seen before or rarely seen on the table top. Deleting options that are not optimal doesn't make the game more appealing because it just prunes options and makes peoples army more samey.
But what does any of that have to do with the rules? Why does an OOP or limited-edition model have to have its own special snowflake rules? Why can't it just be a cool model, like how my FWLRBTs have the exact same rules as the standard plastic kit?
HoundsofDemos wrote: I the idea of deleting options or older units to me just makes the game less appealing. I love when people bring older minis, rare or limited edition models or some odd FW stuff to a game cause that's cool to play against something that I've never seen before or rarely seen on the table top. Deleting options that are not optimal doesn't make the game more appealing because it just prunes options and makes peoples army more samey.
But what does any of that have to do with the rules? Why does an OOP or limited-edition model have to have its own special snowflake rules? Why can't it just be a cool model, like how my FWLRBTs have the exact same rules as the standard plastic kit?
Do those tanks have unique guns or options? If they do or did in the past they should continue to have rules between editions. I am vehemently opposed to removing profiles and options from the game because I don't want to force people to have to use unique models as count as for generic options. It robs one of the main appeals of 40k to me, having far more models, options and choices than pretty much any other table top system.
leopard wrote: turns out a lot of players like there being a trivial and seldom used difference between a Bolt Gun Mk1 and a Bolt Gun Mk1a.
It's worth thinking about just who those players are though. I've heard the plausible theory that GW (and companies making games with GW's mindset) are targeting the developing brains of teenagers. They don't have great strategic ability or long-term planning, but they have an immense capacity to memorize facts. The more rules the better, as it gives the reward of feeling like they've mastered something without requiring skills they aren't good at. So what would this hypothetical game look like, if this was GW's goal?
1) Lots of special rules. Every possible modeling option has a rule attached, lots of options to choose between minor stat line variations, etc. Bonus points if this is backed up by lots of fluff detail on these things, to give the reward of connecting the rules trivia to the fluff trivia. It doesn't matter if these are good rules, quantity is more important than quality. The players should never be running out of rules to learn and memorize or they might get bored.
2) Shallow on-table rules with an emphasis on list construction. Remember, strategic skill and thinking ahead several turns are not strong points for these players. Randomness is also good, as it gives even weak players an opportunity to feel like they're succeeding. Keep on-table choices straightforward (such as identifying the opponent's strongest unit and attacking it), provide clear guidance about what the player should be doing (maelstrom objectives explicitly telling you each turn's goals), and reward the player for identifying their best options out of the long list of special rules and figuring out how to optimize them.
Sure sounds like a good description of 40k, doesn't it? I find it amusing that people, many of them apparently adults, are so invested in defending and embracing a game design approach aimed at children.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:So why should the goal be non-balance?
Goals are relative and individual. Plus, I think you misrepresent my point, as you often seem to.
It's not that I'm opposed to balance in general. I'm opposed to balance at the cost of my personal fun (fun which doesn't rely on imbalances or miscosting, I might add). Which is why my personal goals might not align with yours.
Andykp wrote:It shouldn’t be the goal but balance shouldn’t be the driver of the game design. The story should be the driver of the design then the models. A game that tells the story and captures the atmosphere of the setting. That’s the goal.
To be fair, balance should be the driver of game design if that's what you value in a game. For players like Peregrine and Slayer, who do value that, then I fully think that balance should be the driver of their game design, as bland as that might be to someone else. Alternatively, the story being the driver of game design, which I vastly prefer, is still just based on our values of the game, and is seen as childish by others.
The only two ways 40k can remedy this are to balance the game in such a way that it doesn't take away from the flavour and story already in it (which homogenising all weapons into categories of anti-tank/anti-infantry would fail to do), or just to accept that 40k means many different things to many different people, and it's up to the player to choose and embrace the aspects of the hobby they prefer.
Of course story should be the driver, but the end goal NEEDS to be balance, as otherwise the supposed immersive experience doesn't matter. If Marine units all the sudden cost 20 points AT MINIMUM and still had the same stats, can we make that excuse of it fits the story of them being smaller in number? Sure, but it wouldn't actually be immersive because they would die too quickly and not inflict enough damage for the cost, compared to the fluff.
The fluff is already completely out of sync with the game. The most you can do is ignore the ludonarrative dissonance, and instead just try and simply imagine the battlefield playing out.
For me, I don't like to think about how in the format of the game, X is mathematically better then Y. I like to think how Commander A gets their troops to drop weapon B, and do C, because that's what they'd do in the narrative. It's why I'll charge my heroes in even if I could mob the enemy with chaff and beat them down slowly, because that's how I play.
Another perfect example of this: I recently played Death Guard vs my Ultramarines. Death Guard list gets destroyed, with just Typhus surviving. He's surrounded by most of my remaining army, plasma guns, hammernators, meltas, and more bolters than you can shake a stick at. I choose to charge Marneus Calgar in one-on-one. Sure, I actually end up losing Calgar in a mutual kill situation (Typhus kills Calgar, Calgar takes Typhus' last wound with the attack-one-last-time stratagem), but it was far more fun than slaughtering Typhus with no risk to my own forces.
TL;DR, balance doesn't need to be the end goal for everyone.
While that point cost is mildly hyperbolic (though it was the original cost of Intercessors), it proves that point. I'm also for not removing a lot of options, but it's hard to deny there's a good amount of bloat for weapons. I mean, with the new wounding chart, Power Mauls basically might as well not exist. Compared to the previous edition, with the all-or-nothing AP system and wounding chart, Power Swords/Lances were ignored.
So why not change the new wounding chart?
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Bharring wrote: The end goal needs to be enjoyment. Better balance would be better than worse balance, but if the end goal *is* balance, play flip-a-coin. There's a balanced game.
Even Chess isn't balanced.
It's exactly this lax attitude that leads to "why bother trying".
It's a poor attitude to have and one that wouldn't work in any other workplace. GW shouldn't be an exception to that.
Poor in what opinion? Yours? Great, mine begs to differ. Please, stop acting like your opinion is an authority of what is and is not, what should and should not. That's not for you to make judgement on beyond yourself.
Peregrine wrote:
leopard wrote: turns out a lot of players like there being a trivial and seldom used difference between a Bolt Gun Mk1 and a Bolt Gun Mk1a.
It's worth thinking about just who those players are though. I've heard the plausible theory that GW (and companies making games with GW's mindset) are targeting the developing brains of teenagers. They don't have great strategic ability or long-term planning, but they have an immense capacity to memorize facts. The more rules the better, as it gives the reward of feeling like they've mastered something without requiring skills they aren't good at. So what would this hypothetical game look like, if this was GW's goal?
1) Lots of special rules. Every possible modeling option has a rule attached, lots of options to choose between minor stat line variations, etc. Bonus points if this is backed up by lots of fluff detail on these things, to give the reward of connecting the rules trivia to the fluff trivia. It doesn't matter if these are good rules, quantity is more important than quality. The players should never be running out of rules to learn and memorize or they might get bored.
2) Shallow on-table rules with an emphasis on list construction. Remember, strategic skill and thinking ahead several turns are not strong points for these players. Randomness is also good, as it gives even weak players an opportunity to feel like they're succeeding. Keep on-table choices straightforward (such as identifying the opponent's strongest unit and attacking it), provide clear guidance about what the player should be doing (maelstrom objectives explicitly telling you each turn's goals), and reward the player for identifying their best options out of the long list of special rules and figuring out how to optimize them.
Sure sounds like a good description of 40k, doesn't it? I find it amusing that people, many of them apparently adults, are so invested in defending and embracing a game design approach aimed at children.
Who cares who it's aimed at, if you enjoy it?
Surely you must enjoy something about 40k, Peregrine. Otherwise, you wouldn't be here. Something about what it IS, not what it could be in your ideal world, which would put you in the "playing a children's game" camp, like all of us who play.
Or maybe not, and you hate everything about 40k. If so, and this is indeed a game "for children", why don't you let it be that? Ifyou dislike it so much, why do you play 40k?
Sgt_Smudge wrote: The fluff is already completely out of sync with the game.
Then, if fluff is so important to you, why are you playing this game?
So why not change the new wounding chart?
Because that has complicated effects across the entire game. For example, it means abandoning the "everything can wound everything" principle which, whether you agree with it or not, is something GW has invested in. Consolidating redundant options has a much smaller effect.
Who cares who it's aimed at, if you enjoy it?
It's just an amusing thing to think about, how supposed adults are taking pride in an aspect of the game that exists to exploit the immaturity of younger players.
Surely you must enjoy something about 40k, Peregrine. Otherwise, you wouldn't be here. Something about what it IS, not what it could be in your ideal world, which would put you in the "playing a children's game" camp, like all of us who play.
Or maybe not, and you hate everything about 40k. If so, and this is indeed a game "for children", why don't you let it be that? Ifyou dislike it so much, why do you play 40k?
You misunderstand the point. It's not that 40k is nothing but a game for children, it's that the current level of rules bloat seems to be aimed that way. If you enjoy other parts of the game/hobby and hate the rules bloat that's not the same thing as praising the rules bloat and how many "options" it gives you.
So... this argument about flatlining all statlines for weapon choices related to the no model, no rule policy because?
Do you truly believe minimizing the model ranges as well as the weapon ranges, the game will become better? I just don't buy this argument.
What's the difference between your proposal and the recent 'throwing cash at each other rather than wasting time buying and modelling the new meta units' article? The models?
The competitive scene will always follow the meta, whether it's the obsec scatbike spam, JSJ warp spider spam, reaper spam, D scythe spam, neg. hit mod stack, super friends, farsight bomb, etc. You say that the models are to blame for GW's inability to balance things via rules, but rather it's the GW's inability to balance the rules that create these models & their necessities. Dumbing down the model range isn't going to make the rulewriters suddenly write better rules because - let's face it, we all know there's always that THE weapon and which units are THE units. They're not working with any more units or weapons than they would be under your proposal/direction.
skchsan wrote: So... this argument about flatlining all statlines for weapon choices related to the no model, no rule policy because?
Because it's a question of how closely the rules need to follow all possible models. The original example was the no-options ork kits, which are a good thing because they free the model customization from the rules options. The unit always has the same rules, so you don't need to worry about WYSIWYG or rules optimization in choosing how to build your looted vehicle.
Do you truly believe minimizing the model ranges as well as the weapon ranges, the game will become better? I just don't buy this argument.
I'm not arguing for minimizing model ranges. Cutting out rules bloat, however, does improve the game.
What's the difference between your proposal and the recent 'throwing cash at each other rather than wasting time buying and modelling the new meta units' article? The models?
The fact that my goal is to improve the game as a game and has nothing to do with "the new expensive thing always wins".
I'd love it if they added a 50ppm upgrade for Archons that gave them a Jetbike. At 50ppm, it's almost certainly overpriced, so won't impact balance. But it'd add options. So most wouldn't use it, but it would be fun.
Instead of making an upgrade option for the Archon I would rather it be its own units. It would improve the paltry selection of the current HQ selection and it would be easier to manipulate a separate codex entry than just having it as an upgrade. The Craftworld Codex already does that for example by explicitly differentiating the different Autarch units as their own separate things instead of a static single entry.
Which is btw what I've been trying to reflect upon in my posts on what GW is trying to do. They are removing options on single entries, but adding more unique entries(and way too many Primaris Lieutenants). There is also a production benefit to this. Instead of being stuck with a single kit that can never be exchanged(without redoing it/replacing it completely), they can now always add new Autarch/Archon units as they desire. They are kinda doing it with AoS already as Khorne has separate Slaughterpriest entries and so on.
Also, the end benefit - on a global scale - with having units a bit focused in production and sale is that there is less excess plastic going to waste. I mean, my coffers are overflowing with unused plastic from the many armies I collect which means there is a lot of excess plastic in circulation. I know this argument is a bit besides the point, but something I have been thinking to myself as of late.
I know I went a bit besides the point, but I also kinda want to believe we'll eventually see an Archon on Jetbike or something similar. One of their main players - Vraesque Malidrach - is a former Reaver biker so if they were to flesh out more of the Drukhari it would be something to aim for. With their current approach I think we will start seeing more unique units with varying abilities coming out to flesh out the campaign books they will be releasing like Vigilus. I still want to believe Vect will return to us in all his sadistic glory.
Instead of making an upgrade option for the Archon I would rather it be its own units. It would improve the paltry selection of the current HQ selection and it would be easier to manipulate a separate codex entry than just having it as an upgrade. The Craftworld Codex already does that for example by explicitly differentiating the different Autarch units as their own separate things instead of a static single entry.
Whilst I would love the option of Wings and/or a Bike for the Archon, I don't think they need to be separate entries. Or, at the very least, I wouldn't want to count them as being separate HQ choices.
If we really want to improve the HQ selection, then we should be looking for stuff like:
- Scourge HQ (cheap, ranged HQ choice that can buff Scourges)
- Mandrake HQ (cheapish HQ that can teleport and buff Mandrakes)
- (unnamed) Incubi HQ (Drazhar: good version )
- Mini-Haemonculus HQ (Cheaper Haemonculus with worse stats and a weaker buff - maybe reroll 1s to-wound in melee or something)
- Maybe a Dracon (providing that the Archon is actually made into a worthwhile HQ choice first)
Basically, if we really want more diversity, let's aim for HQs that aren't just 'Archon riding a bike'.
Bharring wrote: Slayer,
If the end goal were truly balance, and not anything else, than what balance-based reason is there to play something other than flip-a-coin? It's easily demonstrable that there is no more-balanced game. As such, how could you reason that there'd be a better option? Other equally-ideal (balanced) options, sure, but nothing is better balanced.
That is why I'm saying balance does *not* need to be the end goal. The end goal can include balance, but must be only part of the goal.
This is why I say the end goal should be enjoyment. A mechanical end goal usually lends to trivial yet useless solutions like "play flip-a-coin!".
I did miss that you were referring to only the second half of the second sentence and ignoring the first half. Your reference to balance I inferred as referring to the "balance" half. Some parts of posts - such as the 'go play flip-a-coin' - have no value divorced from the argument being formed. I hope noone seriously believed I was actually suggesting we play 'flip-a-coin'.
So, to tie it all together, I'm saying they *should* be trying to balance. But the goal should be enjoyment. With balance sought to improve enjoyment and not for balance's sake itself.
Another note: 40k will never be a truly "Competitive" game for as long as it relies on randomness as a key factor of determining who wins.
Under this sorta logic, are you saying MtG isn't a competitive game?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bharring wrote: Slayer,
If the end goal were truly balance, and not anything else, than what balance-based reason is there to play something other than flip-a-coin? It's easily demonstrable that there is no more-balanced game. As such, how could you reason that there'd be a better option? Other equally-ideal (balanced) options, sure, but nothing is better balanced.
That is why I'm saying balance does *not* need to be the end goal. The end goal can include balance, but must be only part of the goal.
This is why I say the end goal should be enjoyment. A mechanical end goal usually lends to trivial yet useless solutions like "play flip-a-coin!".
I did miss that you were referring to only the second half of the second sentence and ignoring the first half. Your reference to balance I inferred as referring to the "balance" half. Some parts of posts - such as the 'go play flip-a-coin' - have no value divorced from the argument being formed. I hope noone seriously believed I was actually suggesting we play 'flip-a-coin'.
So, to tie it all together, I'm saying they *should* be trying to balance. But the goal should be enjoyment. With balance sought to improve enjoyment and not for balance's sake itself.
Automatically Appended Next Post: @Eldarsif,
I'd love it if they added a 50ppm upgrade for Archons that gave them a Jetbike. At 50ppm, it's almost certainly overpriced, so won't impact balance. But it'd add options. So most wouldn't use it, but it would be fun.
As I said, story should be the driver, but the end goal should be balance. That's why I used the example of the most unappealing 20 point Space Marine. It would certainly fit fluff more; after all, 5 Infantry for every Marine would be more intense. For both players, in fact!
However, is it more "fun" if we kept those basic Marine stats for that 20 point Marine? Hell, even Intercessors weren't correct at 20 points and they have more the wantings of "novel" Marines compared to the basic Space Marine and Chaos Marine.
If balance isn't the goal for the story to work, CAN the story actually work? Can the ML actually be fulfilling its role of being TAC when the Frag shot is absolutely terrible, to the point you wouldn't get your points back on horde units?
Bharring wrote: Slayer,
If the end goal were truly balance, and not anything else, than what balance-based reason is there to play something other than flip-a-coin? It's easily demonstrable that there is no more-balanced game. As such, how could you reason that there'd be a better option? Other equally-ideal (balanced) options, sure, but nothing is better balanced.
That is why I'm saying balance does *not* need to be the end goal. The end goal can include balance, but must be only part of the goal.
This is why I say the end goal should be enjoyment. A mechanical end goal usually lends to trivial yet useless solutions like "play flip-a-coin!".
I did miss that you were referring to only the second half of the second sentence and ignoring the first half. Your reference to balance I inferred as referring to the "balance" half. Some parts of posts - such as the 'go play flip-a-coin' - have no value divorced from the argument being formed. I hope noone seriously believed I was actually suggesting we play 'flip-a-coin'.
So, to tie it all together, I'm saying they *should* be trying to balance. But the goal should be enjoyment. With balance sought to improve enjoyment and not for balance's sake itself.
Another note: 40k will never be a truly "Competitive" game for as long as it relies on randomness as a key factor of determining who wins.
Under this sorta logic, are you saying MtG isn't a competitive game?
Uh, yes. Yes I am.
Not in the same sense that something like Starcraft or most major sports are, anyways. My use of the word "Competitive" might be a bit off here, though, so I guess I should clarify the definition I'm using:
In a competitive setting, the goal is to demonstrate superior skill or ability to one's opponent. (Be that mastery of a system, better planning, physical superiority, memorization, the ability to outthink, predict, or trick and opponent, etc.)
Magic is much more "Competitive" than 40k by this definition, because (To my memory, I haven't played it in years,) there's much more emphasis on deck management and ways to mitigate randomness than in 40k. You have to get the cards you need, but there's rarely going to be a situation where a card has a random or unpredictable effect, and even that only happens because you chose to put a card with a random effect into your deck. Randomness comes from three sources; What you draw, and what your opponent has in his deck, and what your opponent draws.
It's still not pure competition, though - The same decks, with the same players, will not always have the same outcomes due to nothing except luck.
Meanwhile, 40k randomness comes from so many things. What the terrain looks like, which you sometimes can control but in a tournament can't. What the deployment zones look like, which can have massive effects on the game. What is the mission, and is it something that works with your playstyle? (This is better, but by no means perfect, in ITC missions.)
Then, every time you act with a unit outside of moving it, you have to deal with randomness. (And you deal with randomness when you move, too, if you want to advance.) It's quite common to make attacks that are very capable of one-shotting important enemies, and also very capable of doing nothing at all. In some cases this gets taken to absurd extremes. Firing a meltagun in close quarters usually has about a 1/3rd chance of doing damage, and then will do a semireliable amount of wounds from there. Firing a "Blast" weapon with a random amount of shots, though? You could do anything from gently fondling the space around the enemy to utterly obliterating whatever you want to shoot at.
Charge rolls can regularly make or break a game. It's about a 55% chance whether a player can make an 8" charge, and that's the difference between a unit doing all of its damage and doing no damage at all, the difference between an enemy unit being able to shoot next turn or being dead or tied up in combat, the difference between moving a unit 8+" across the board or leaving it where it stands. (Not to mention using charge ranges to grab objectives.) A single roll can have incredibly massive knockon effects that change the outcome of the game.
This isn't even including the bits of random foul luck and edge cases that can totally ruin even the best laid plans. Getting double 1s after spending a command point and failing to regenerate Celestine or get some other critical 2+ roll is unavoidable and can easily lose a game. Getting ridiculously lucky and rolling double 6s to keep the last man on an objective alive is just as capable for winning games that would otherwise be lost.
Even the end conditions are random - Is the game going to last 5, 6, or 7 turns? If it's a close game where one player isn't tabled early, it generally comes down to how many turns the game lasts, which is completely out of the players' control and also hugely important.
This isn't a criticism of luck based games, by the way. 40k is more interesting and more fun for having randomness and luck play a major part of it. I wouldn't enjoy it if everything were deterministic - I'm saying it's not a game built for pure competition, because it isn't. (At least not using the definition I'm using, as provided above.)
I hardly understand how those 40k games could be "narrative".
I mean, come on, the tank shoots al it's weapons from the single antenna that is popping out from the huge loss block. The single feather on single guardsman'd helmet cause the entire squad to die despite they are covered behing huge wall. Pointing your plasma weapon at eldar vehicles makes it blow in your hands. You can burn super-sonic jet with flamer on the ground.
Or how about those background behind the units? The ethereal demons are almost immune to mortal weapons to the point, that we need special blessed ammunition to cast them back to the warp? 5++, just throw some guardsmen at them, duh.
Demigod space marines? 1 attack 4str, the puny doggo from rogue trader has two in it's profile. Long fangs are hardened veterans, each survived many hundreds of battle. I suppose this battles was like entire strike force against single blob of cultists, othervise those 1w veterans will die in droves.
I will not even speak about those lighting fast eldars, who has such awesome speed, that regular monkey saw them blurred. According to our narrative wargame the single command from officer is enough to make this lazy guardens be faster than all your harlequins and aspect warriors.
There is no narrative in tabletop game, this is a wargame strategy with abstract mechanic. For the narrative and story telling one should try a tabletop rpg.
The majority of this thread boils down to arguments that have been had for the last 10 years. People want to play 40k competitively. People want every faction to be viable in competitive play and to play in a way that is close to the fluff when doing so. GW isn't good enough at writing rules for this to be possible.
GW's rules writers want to write rules that are fluffy and good enough to get people to use the models. They are not good enough at rules writing or at playing the game to consistantly succeed at it.
If the rules team was good at the game, they wouldn't have written a Tyranid codex (5th ed) where the strongest unit in the faction didn't have a model.
Players want a game that is as tightly written as war machine or MtG. Doing that for 40k is a massive task, one with a major risk of diminishing returns, that would take more money than GW is willing to spend on it.
Whilst I would love the option of Wings and/or a Bike for the Archon, I don't think they need to be separate entries. Or, at the very least, I wouldn't want to count them as being separate HQ choices.
If we really want to improve the HQ selection, then we should be looking for stuff like:
- Scourge HQ (cheap, ranged HQ choice that can buff Scourges)
- Mandrake HQ (cheapish HQ that can teleport and buff Mandrakes)
- (unnamed) Incubi HQ (Drazhar: good version )
- Mini-Haemonculus HQ (Cheaper Haemonculus with worse stats and a weaker buff - maybe reroll 1s to-wound in melee or something)
- Maybe a Dracon (providing that the Archon is actually made into a worthwhile HQ choice first)
Basically, if we really want more diversity, let's aim for HQs that aren't just 'Archon riding a bike'.
I agree that we should get more diversity. No argument from me there. I was more addressing the fact that some people desire their old Archon Windrunner back and how it will be and should be addressed.
However, if they were to add a Jetbike Archon that unit would best served as a separate unit so it can be made special in its own way. Perhaps it gives rerolls to Reavers or something similar. In short, I just don't want "An Archon, but with better movement and save".I want a unit that serves an explicit purpose. Whether that counts as a separate Rule of 3 item I am not beholden to one way or another.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Magic is much more "Competitive" than 40k by this definition, because (To my memory, I haven't played it in years,) there's much more emphasis on deck management and ways to mitigate randomness than in 40k.
To be fair mitigation is a thing in 40k and with ITC rules that randomness is mitigated even further. It is true that terrain is still a random factor, but I wouldn't be surprised we see explicit tournament table setups at some point and ITC already addresses some of the these issues by making the first floor LOS-blocking.
Both 40k and MtG use mitigation in regards to randomness and if you look at Star Wars: Destiny you see a game that is all about mitigation in regards to dice rolls. Command Rerolls, HQ Rerolls, Stratagems, Psychic Powers, these are all things working towards reducing randomness in 40k, but like SWD there is always a chance that all that mitigation fails you because the gods are fickle. Only difference is that MtG is peak mitigation whereas 40k has that small chance all things fail.
Personally I would say 40k is as competitive as Star Wars Destiny. Both have their winning units and badly balanced units/cards, and both rely on mitigating dice rolls to win with the difference that in SWD you can screw with your opponent's rolls much more than you can in 40k.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: The fluff is already completely out of sync with the game.
Then, if fluff is so important to you, why are you playing this game?
Because the game is a vehicle by I can enjoy it. I can suspend my disbelief that "um akshually, Astartes power armour is so thick that those lasgun bolts wouldn't have done anything" and see it as a chance to get Your Dudes on the table and just enjoy Forging Narratives.
It's similar to how in Halo, Spartans in lore are incredibly INCREDIBLY powerful - and yet can still be killed by Grunts in the video game. Because the game and the lore are linked pretty much through the same skin, and for some people, that's enough for them.
So why not change the new wounding chart?
Because that has complicated effects across the entire game. For example, it means abandoning the "everything can wound everything" principle which, whether you agree with it or not, is something GW has invested in. Consolidating redundant options has a much smaller effect.
Except it strips flavour out of the game, which I don't think is a worthwhile sacrifice.
Who cares who it's aimed at, if you enjoy it?
It's just an amusing thing to think about, how supposed adults are taking pride in an aspect of the game that exists to exploit the immaturity of younger players.
Why is that amusing? Why is it amusing what people choose to enjoy?
Surely you must enjoy something about 40k, Peregrine. Otherwise, you wouldn't be here. Something about what it IS, not what it could be in your ideal world, which would put you in the "playing a children's game" camp, like all of us who play.
Or maybe not, and you hate everything about 40k. If so, and this is indeed a game "for children", why don't you let it be that? Ifyou dislike it so much, why do you play 40k?
You misunderstand the point. It's not that 40k is nothing but a game for children, it's that the current level of rules bloat seems to be aimed that way. If you enjoy other parts of the game/hobby and hate the rules bloat that's not the same thing as praising the rules bloat and how many "options" it gives you.
But you seem to hate more than just the rules bloat.
Plus, why options in inverted commas? Like it or not, they ARE options. Choosing between versatile but not stellar, or super-specialised (missile vs lascannon) is a choice.
Peregrine wrote:
skchsan wrote: So... this argument about flatlining all statlines for weapon choices related to the no model, no rule policy because?
Because it's a question of how closely the rules need to follow all possible models. The original example was the no-options ork kits, which are a good thing because they free the model customization from the rules options. The unit always has the same rules, so you don't need to worry about WYSIWYG or rules optimization in choosing how to build your looted vehicle.
And a counterpoint to that is wanting to see some variety between that kind of unit - people don't want all their Captains to play the same way.
Do you truly believe minimizing the model ranges as well as the weapon ranges, the game will become better? I just don't buy this argument.
I'm not arguing for minimizing model ranges. Cutting out rules bloat, however, does improve the game.
In your opinion.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:If balance isn't the goal for the story to work, CAN the story actually work?
Yes.
Can the ML actually be fulfilling its role of being TAC when the Frag shot is absolutely terrible, to the point you wouldn't get your points back on horde units?
If you want to guarantee that the story plays out correctly, removing the chance elements from it, then why don't we just buff the frag missiles instead of just cutting them out entirely? Approaches of "if it's bad, it has no purpose" can be rectified by simply making it not bad.
Silver144 wrote:I hardly understand how those 40k games could be "narrative".
I mean, come on, the tank shoots al it's weapons from the single antenna that is popping out from the huge loss block. The single feather on single guardsman'd helmet cause the entire squad to die despite they are covered behing huge wall. Pointing your plasma weapon at eldar vehicles makes it blow in your hands. You can burn super-sonic jet with flamer on the ground.
The tank is moving around the battlefield. It rotates, turns, fires on the move, etc etc.
The guardsmen are moving, sometimes exposing themselves to fire.
Plasma is volatile. In trying to focus on hitting the Eldar, the gunner forgets how much his gun is overheating.
The promethium rises, and creates a projection in the air? Or, the jet is flying lower than what we are used to in the modern day?
Or how about those background behind the units? The ethereal demons are almost immune to mortal weapons to the point, that we need special blessed ammunition to cast them back to the warp? 5++, just throw some guardsmen at them, duh.
With faith being tangible and belief literally being capable of making things work when they shouldn't, anything warp related could be beaten.
Alternatively, perhaps the daemonic connection is weak, and they're more susceptible to mortal weapons?
Demigod space marines? 1 attack 4str, the puny doggo from rogue trader has two in it's profile. Long fangs are hardened veterans, each survived many hundreds of battle. I suppose this battles was like entire strike force against single blob of cultists, othervise those 1w veterans will die in droves.
Being wounded in game doesn't mean death. Wounded can mean incapacitation, which is invaluable for something like a Space Marine which can recover from that very quickly.
I will not even speak about those lighting fast eldars, who has such awesome speed, that regular monkey saw them blurred. According to our narrative wargame the single command from officer is enough to make this lazy guardens be faster than all your harlequins and aspect warriors.
Not all guardsmen are lazy and untrained. Some are comprised of the pinnacle of human warriors, and are drilled daily for combat. Perhaps the Eldar (characteristically) underestimate the zeal and strength of the humans, and are caught backfooted?
There is no narrative in tabletop game, this is a wargame strategy with abstract mechanic. For the narrative and story telling one should try a tabletop rpg.
Can a tabletop RPG cover army-size battles from a commander's perspective as well as a TTG can?
I agree that we should get more diversity. No argument from me there. I was more addressing the fact that some people desire their old Archon Windrunner back and how it will be and should be addressed.
However, if they were to add a Jetbike Archon that unit would best served as a separate unit so it can be made special in its own way. Perhaps it gives rerolls to Reavers or something similar. In short, I just don't want "An Archon, but with better movement and save".I want a unit that serves an explicit purpose. Whether that counts as a separate Rule of 3 item I am not beholden to one way or another.
I'm not sure that Archons on Jetbikes or with Wings or whatever need to have a fundamentally different function from the base Archon. If anything, I think the issue is that the base Archon currently serves no purpose.
In the past, I've suggested replacing his aura with:
"At the beginning of each of your shooting phases, you may select an enemy unit within 18" of the Archon (or within 18" of a transport he's currently embarked on). Until the beginning of your next turn, all Drukhari units reroll 1s to hit against the chosen unit."
(Writ of the Living Muse would be tweaked so that units reroll 1s to hit and to wound against the chosen unit.)
This has several advantages over the current rules:
- It can be used from aboard a transport.
- It can affect other units embarked on transports.
- It encourages the Archon to get close, rather than sitting 36" away with a trio of Ravagers.
- It makes the Court of the Archon's reroll ability a lot more meaningful.
- It means that additional Archons in a list serve an actual purpose (as they can each designate different units to get rerolls against), rather than being pure taxes.
- It makes the Archon the army leader, not just the Kabal leader. At the absolute minimum, he should be able to buff all Mercenary units as well as Kabal units.
(I'd also like to see his weapons tweaked but I'll leave that for another thread.)
Peregrine- if the concept you want is so good how come epic 40000 nearly killed off epic. Even Andy chambers who designed it said it was so stripped down that it lost too much character.
And as for your point of the game design being aimed at children, one the rules are all on the datasheets now, no more pages of universal special rules to learn.
Two: you find it odd that you think the game of toy soldiers isn’t mature enough. It’s a game of toy soldiers. You can try to make it sound like you’re deep thinker and master strategist but really you are playing toy soldiers.
Andykp wrote: Peregrine- if the concept you want is so good how come epic 40000 nearly killed off epic. Even Andy chambers who designed it said it was so stripped down that it lost too much character.
This, a game thats designed to be a pure 'game' needs to be either like DBA in its simplicity of rules but variation in factions, or needs to be a seriously good game, because you have essentially just detached it from the background totally. Its the background thats basically stopped the rival games getting much of a foot hold, 40k has decades of background to draw on, yes much of it is cheese, and a fair bit is naff, but its there, that tends to be what draws people in - other than those who buy an army, spray it the minimum three colours, use it for an event then sell it for the next one, they may as well be playing a card counters wargame to be honest.
Andykp wrote: And as for your point of the game design being aimed at children, one the rules are all on the datasheets now, no more pages of universal special rules to learn.
Two: you find it odd that you think the game of toy soldiers isn’t mature enough. It’s a game of toy soldiers. You can try to make it sound like you’re deep thinker and master strategist but really you are playing toy soldiers.
I just wish they put more weapon options on the data sheets... e.g. Ork Warboss with no power klaw on the sheet because the current model doesn't have one, despite the one a lot of people have only having one.
if you want a 'pure' wargame with very few options the more historical games are the way to go, pick say the 3456th or foot and you get what they had for the period selected, with very little ability to min/max anything, but you will likely find models for exactly that.
now those games don't dominate the gaming world partly because of the number of models, but the skirmish ones don't dominate either, despite being very good games, specifically because of the lack of abilities to customise your army
leopard wrote: ...Ork Warboss with no power klaw on the sheet because the current model doesn't have one...
Wait, what? Boss with klaw is part of what Orks are. I can't think of many more iconic weapons in the game. It would be like removing a Commissars's bolt pistol.
Edit: I may have misunderstood you. Warbosses have power klaws. All is well.
Bharring wrote: Slayer,
If the end goal were truly balance, and not anything else, than what balance-based reason is there to play something other than flip-a-coin? It's easily demonstrable that there is no more-balanced game. As such, how could you reason that there'd be a better option? Other equally-ideal (balanced) options, sure, but nothing is better balanced.
That is why I'm saying balance does *not* need to be the end goal. The end goal can include balance, but must be only part of the goal.
This is why I say the end goal should be enjoyment. A mechanical end goal usually lends to trivial yet useless solutions like "play flip-a-coin!".
I did miss that you were referring to only the second half of the second sentence and ignoring the first half. Your reference to balance I inferred as referring to the "balance" half. Some parts of posts - such as the 'go play flip-a-coin' - have no value divorced from the argument being formed. I hope noone seriously believed I was actually suggesting we play 'flip-a-coin'.
So, to tie it all together, I'm saying they *should* be trying to balance. But the goal should be enjoyment. With balance sought to improve enjoyment and not for balance's sake itself.
Another note: 40k will never be a truly "Competitive" game for as long as it relies on randomness as a key factor of determining who wins.
Under this sorta logic, are you saying MtG isn't a competitive game?
Uh, yes. Yes I am.
Not in the same sense that something like Starcraft or most major sports are, anyways. My use of the word "Competitive" might be a bit off here, though, so I guess I should clarify the definition I'm using:
In a competitive setting, the goal is to demonstrate superior skill or ability to one's opponent. (Be that mastery of a system, better planning, physical superiority, memorization, the ability to outthink, predict, or trick and opponent, etc.)
Magic is much more "Competitive" than 40k by this definition, because (To my memory, I haven't played it in years,) there's much more emphasis on deck management and ways to mitigate randomness than in 40k. You have to get the cards you need, but there's rarely going to be a situation where a card has a random or unpredictable effect, and even that only happens because you chose to put a card with a random effect into your deck. Randomness comes from three sources; What you draw, and what your opponent has in his deck, and what your opponent draws.
It's still not pure competition, though - The same decks, with the same players, will not always have the same outcomes due to nothing except luck.
Meanwhile, 40k randomness comes from so many things. What the terrain looks like, which you sometimes can control but in a tournament can't. What the deployment zones look like, which can have massive effects on the game. What is the mission, and is it something that works with your playstyle? (This is better, but by no means perfect, in ITC missions.)
Then, every time you act with a unit outside of moving it, you have to deal with randomness. (And you deal with randomness when you move, too, if you want to advance.) It's quite common to make attacks that are very capable of one-shotting important enemies, and also very capable of doing nothing at all. In some cases this gets taken to absurd extremes. Firing a meltagun in close quarters usually has about a 1/3rd chance of doing damage, and then will do a semireliable amount of wounds from there. Firing a "Blast" weapon with a random amount of shots, though? You could do anything from gently fondling the space around the enemy to utterly obliterating whatever you want to shoot at.
Charge rolls can regularly make or break a game. It's about a 55% chance whether a player can make an 8" charge, and that's the difference between a unit doing all of its damage and doing no damage at all, the difference between an enemy unit being able to shoot next turn or being dead or tied up in combat, the difference between moving a unit 8+" across the board or leaving it where it stands. (Not to mention using charge ranges to grab objectives.) A single roll can have incredibly massive knockon effects that change the outcome of the game.
This isn't even including the bits of random foul luck and edge cases that can totally ruin even the best laid plans. Getting double 1s after spending a command point and failing to regenerate Celestine or get some other critical 2+ roll is unavoidable and can easily lose a game. Getting ridiculously lucky and rolling double 6s to keep the last man on an objective alive is just as capable for winning games that would otherwise be lost.
Even the end conditions are random - Is the game going to last 5, 6, or 7 turns? If it's a close game where one player isn't tabled early, it generally comes down to how many turns the game lasts, which is completely out of the players' control and also hugely important.
This isn't a criticism of luck based games, by the way. 40k is more interesting and more fun for having randomness and luck play a major part of it. I wouldn't enjoy it if everything were deterministic - I'm saying it's not a game built for pure competition, because it isn't. (At least not using the definition I'm using, as provided above.)
Except in 40k you can minimize randomness too via know which units are less likely to be swingy and more likely to be consistently good in their performance. That's the same as deck management. Anything less you say you can't mitigate is the same as not being prepared for an opponent's side deck or not being able to control your matchup.
Sorry, but by your definition, there can be no such thing as a competitive TCG. No tabletop wargame can be competitive either, and people do think highly of those Privateer Press ones (though apparently the balance has gone down the last few years, but otherwise they've done a not-so-terrible job).
To me, that's just a bad excuse on your end to defend bad balance.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: The fluff is already completely out of sync with the game.
Then, if fluff is so important to you, why are you playing this game?
Because the game is a vehicle by I can enjoy it. I can suspend my disbelief that "um akshually, Astartes power armour is so thick that those lasgun bolts wouldn't have done anything" and see it as a chance to get Your Dudes on the table and just enjoy Forging Narratives.
It's similar to how in Halo, Spartans in lore are incredibly INCREDIBLY powerful - and yet can still be killed by Grunts in the video game. Because the game and the lore are linked pretty much through the same skin, and for some people, that's enough for them.
So why not change the new wounding chart?
Because that has complicated effects across the entire game. For example, it means abandoning the "everything can wound everything" principle which, whether you agree with it or not, is something GW has invested in. Consolidating redundant options has a much smaller effect.
Except it strips flavour out of the game, which I don't think is a worthwhile sacrifice.
Who cares who it's aimed at, if you enjoy it?
It's just an amusing thing to think about, how supposed adults are taking pride in an aspect of the game that exists to exploit the immaturity of younger players.
Why is that amusing? Why is it amusing what people choose to enjoy?
Surely you must enjoy something about 40k, Peregrine. Otherwise, you wouldn't be here. Something about what it IS, not what it could be in your ideal world, which would put you in the "playing a children's game" camp, like all of us who play.
Or maybe not, and you hate everything about 40k. If so, and this is indeed a game "for children", why don't you let it be that? Ifyou dislike it so much, why do you play 40k?
You misunderstand the point. It's not that 40k is nothing but a game for children, it's that the current level of rules bloat seems to be aimed that way. If you enjoy other parts of the game/hobby and hate the rules bloat that's not the same thing as praising the rules bloat and how many "options" it gives you.
But you seem to hate more than just the rules bloat.
Plus, why options in inverted commas? Like it or not, they ARE options. Choosing between versatile but not stellar, or super-specialised (missile vs lascannon) is a choice.
Peregrine wrote:
skchsan wrote: So... this argument about flatlining all statlines for weapon choices related to the no model, no rule policy because?
Because it's a question of how closely the rules need to follow all possible models. The original example was the no-options ork kits, which are a good thing because they free the model customization from the rules options. The unit always has the same rules, so you don't need to worry about WYSIWYG or rules optimization in choosing how to build your looted vehicle.
And a counterpoint to that is wanting to see some variety between that kind of unit - people don't want all their Captains to play the same way.
Do you truly believe minimizing the model ranges as well as the weapon ranges, the game will become better? I just don't buy this argument.
I'm not arguing for minimizing model ranges. Cutting out rules bloat, however, does improve the game.
In your opinion.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:If balance isn't the goal for the story to work, CAN the story actually work?
Yes.
Can the ML actually be fulfilling its role of being TAC when the Frag shot is absolutely terrible, to the point you wouldn't get your points back on horde units?
If you want to guarantee that the story plays out correctly, removing the chance elements from it, then why don't we just buff the frag missiles instead of just cutting them out entirely? Approaches of "if it's bad, it has no purpose" can be rectified by simply making it not bad.
Silver144 wrote:I hardly understand how those 40k games could be "narrative".
I mean, come on, the tank shoots al it's weapons from the single antenna that is popping out from the huge loss block. The single feather on single guardsman'd helmet cause the entire squad to die despite they are covered behing huge wall. Pointing your plasma weapon at eldar vehicles makes it blow in your hands. You can burn super-sonic jet with flamer on the ground.
The tank is moving around the battlefield. It rotates, turns, fires on the move, etc etc.
The guardsmen are moving, sometimes exposing themselves to fire.
Plasma is volatile. In trying to focus on hitting the Eldar, the gunner forgets how much his gun is overheating.
The promethium rises, and creates a projection in the air? Or, the jet is flying lower than what we are used to in the modern day?
Or how about those background behind the units? The ethereal demons are almost immune to mortal weapons to the point, that we need special blessed ammunition to cast them back to the warp? 5++, just throw some guardsmen at them, duh.
With faith being tangible and belief literally being capable of making things work when they shouldn't, anything warp related could be beaten.
Alternatively, perhaps the daemonic connection is weak, and they're more susceptible to mortal weapons?
Demigod space marines? 1 attack 4str, the puny doggo from rogue trader has two in it's profile. Long fangs are hardened veterans, each survived many hundreds of battle. I suppose this battles was like entire strike force against single blob of cultists, othervise those 1w veterans will die in droves.
Being wounded in game doesn't mean death. Wounded can mean incapacitation, which is invaluable for something like a Space Marine which can recover from that very quickly.
I will not even speak about those lighting fast eldars, who has such awesome speed, that regular monkey saw them blurred. According to our narrative wargame the single command from officer is enough to make this lazy guardens be faster than all your harlequins and aspect warriors.
Not all guardsmen are lazy and untrained. Some are comprised of the pinnacle of human warriors, and are drilled daily for combat. Perhaps the Eldar (characteristically) underestimate the zeal and strength of the humans, and are caught backfooted?
There is no narrative in tabletop game, this is a wargame strategy with abstract mechanic. For the narrative and story telling one should try a tabletop rpg.
Can a tabletop RPG cover army-size battles from a commander's perspective as well as a TTG can?
The pure denial is incredible here.
1. How many Grunts does it actually take to kill you in Halo though? Even on Legendary you need more than 6 of them, whereas two to three of anything else are more than a match for a Marine.
2. "Flavor" is merely an opinion for that. Flavor comes from the fluff text of the weapon. If you only cared about fluff, having some options consolidated really shouldn't bother you.
Then again you ask for free points per other threads so I'm not shocked by anything.
3. You can argue with Peregrine on that one. I missed their point on that overall.
4. Fake options aren't options, full stop. Even with the Skyhammer formation (the one that gave Drop Pod Devastators the Relentless rule when they disembarked), Multi-Melta wasn't a good option on Devastators.
So what would removing Multi-Meltas from Devastator squads do, just as an example? Absolutely nothing, because they were absolutely never the proper platform for that kind of weapon.
5. The variety comes from the models themselves. Ork players certainly don't have as many weapon options and yet their dedicated fanbase makes their hodgepodge of weapons work for display. This isn't an excuse.
6. I've never seen someone defend rules bloat before, so this is almost fascinating. Even people that liked the core of 7th felt there was a incredible amount of rules bloat. The more bloat there is, the more trouble GW has keeping up with balance.
You don't care about balance though, obviously. Anyone asking for extra points to run more weapons never did. Hard to take their opinion seriously on this matter, huh?
7. No, the story cannot work. My 20 point Space Marine example literally proves it.
8. Except Frag has ALWAYS been bad. Small blasts were bad, and random shots on a 20 point weapon are bad. Did you know you only kill like 2.5 more Gaunts using Frag instead of Krak with four ML? That's a really poor performing option that shouldn't exist. Consolidating the ML to Lascannon stats would give new life to models with the ML.
9. The fact you can defend Flamers hitting flyers and Plasma exploding more against someone sneaky speaks levels of denial of bad core mechanics. How far away do you think Flamers reach?
10. You miss the point of how inconsistent the stats are. For someone that supposedly cares deeply about the fluff, you should've caught that.
11. In fluff Eldar literally dodge bullets fired at them by simple humans. Once again, you'd think someone that cared so deeply about the fluff would understand the point rather than creating a poor justification to defend how busted the Orders mechanic becomes.
12. Why couldn't it? 40k certainly doesn't do what you want until you start throwing half-assed justifications in the wind.
That multimeltas and missile launchers are bad, is not an argument for their removal, they both have a distinct role which could work if the rules were improved a little bit. Both grav and plasma existing being redundant is much stronger case, as they really have very similar roles. It is interesting as grav is a late addition when they just desperately wanted to give people a reason to buy tactical and devastator kits again. Grav might logically apply some movement debuff (there are psychic powers that do that), then it would be distinct. Though it is questionable whether it is wise to give such fiddly rules for a relatively common weapon.
I'm not arguing for minimizing model ranges. Cutting out rules bloat, however, does improve the game.
Take the Intercessor kit as an example - I think those drum mags look great but that modelling choice has a rules implication so I don't have any. Did we really need three different profiles for one gun with slightly different accessories? Removing two of those profiles and making the parts cosmetic would be an improvement, in my opinion.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:The pure denial is incredible here.
1. How many Grunts does it actually take to kill you in Halo though? Even on Legendary you need more than 6 of them, whereas two to three of anything else are more than a match for a Marine.
That depends if you're fighting back, or just standing there. Even if you're just standing there, it really shouldn't be possible for grunts to take down a Spartan, even if they're standing still. The very fact that Grunts can kill a Spartan with plasma pistols is lore-breaking.
2. "Flavor" is merely an opinion for that. Flavor comes from the fluff text of the weapon. If you only cared about fluff, having some options consolidated really shouldn't bother you.
Then again you ask for free points per other threads so I'm not shocked by anything.
Why do you presume to tell me what I *should* be bothered about in regards to the fluff? Are you some kind of fluff authority?
I am told that X weapon does X. If I play the game and it doesn't do at least an approximation of X, then it's not the same thing.*
*I say approximation - things like bolters are described as being incredibly powerful, but aren't on tabletop, however, they are more powerful than lasguns, so the approximate level of a bolter's strength is met.
4. Fake options aren't options, full stop. Even with the Skyhammer formation (the one that gave Drop Pod Devastators the Relentless rule when they disembarked), Multi-Melta wasn't a good option on Devastators.
So what would removing Multi-Meltas from Devastator squads do, just as an example? Absolutely nothing, because they were absolutely never the proper platform for that kind of weapon.
Just because it's not a strong option doesn't mean it shouldn't exist. If it's not a good option, then by all means, if you care about removing redundancies, make it good.
A weapon performing poorly is no reason for it not to exist. Make it cheaper, make it stronger, I don't care, as long as it exists on it's own merit.
5. The variety comes from the models themselves. Ork players certainly don't have as many weapon options and yet their dedicated fanbase makes their hodgepodge of weapons work for display. This isn't an excuse.
Because it's established in Ork lore that their weapons aren't uniform, unlike Imperial ones.
Lascannons and missile launchers have very different looks, and that also reflects in how they play.
6. I've never seen someone defend rules bloat before, so this is almost fascinating. Even people that liked the core of 7th felt there was a incredible amount of rules bloat. The more bloat there is, the more trouble GW has keeping up with balance.
You don't care about balance though, obviously. Anyone asking for extra points to run more weapons never did. Hard to take their opinion seriously on this matter, huh?
7th had rules bloat in how you had to reference through multiple books and entries. With 8th, all relevant data I need is on the unit's datasheet.
Can you also address the argument presented, instead of trying to attack something that isn't relevant to this one? We get it, you hate Power Level. Good for you. Moving on.
7. No, the story cannot work. My 20 point Space Marine example literally proves it.
Again, are you some kind of thought police? Can I not think the way I think now? Is your imagination and the limits of your suspension of disbelief the only one that matters now?
8. Except Frag has ALWAYS been bad. Small blasts were bad, and random shots on a 20 point weapon are bad. Did you know you only kill like 2.5 more Gaunts using Frag instead of Krak with four ML? That's a really poor performing option that shouldn't exist. Consolidating the ML to Lascannon stats would give new life to models with the ML.
Or, crazy thought, for all your talk of balancing - why don't you fix frag by buffing it or making missiles cheaper?
9. The fact you can defend Flamers hitting flyers and Plasma exploding more against someone sneaky speaks levels of denial of bad core mechanics. How far away do you think Flamers reach?
How low do you think 40k flyers fly? I don't know. You don't know. But on the instances where a flamer hits them, I assume that the flyer is very low to the ground.
10. You miss the point of how inconsistent the stats are. For someone that supposedly cares deeply about the fluff, you should've caught that.
No, I'm aware of that. However, while they're inconsistent in magnitude, you can't deny that a Space Marine is Tougher than a guardsman. It might not be orders of magnitude tougher, but they ARE fundamentally more durable.
11. In fluff Eldar literally dodge bullets fired at them by simple humans. Once again, you'd think someone that cared so deeply about the fluff would understand the point rather than creating a poor justification to defend how busted the Orders mechanic becomes.
In the fluff, people can do things based purely on faith.
In 40k, prayer is power, and therefore can be used to justify almost ANY inconsistencies with what "should" be possible.
12. Why couldn't it? 40k certainly doesn't do what you want until you start throwing half-assed justifications in the wind.
40k does what I want from it right now. I haven't got an issue. I don't need to justify why I enjoy it, beyond that I do, and I think the changes presented here would compromise that.
I'm not arguing for minimizing model ranges. Cutting out rules bloat, however, does improve the game.
Take the Intercessor kit as an example - I think those drum mags look great but that modelling choice has a rules implication so I don't have any. Did we really need three different profiles for one gun with slightly different accessories? Removing two of those profiles and making the parts cosmetic would be an improvement, in my opinion.
Honestly I don't think people will notice, especially when you won't be mixing the different variants anyway. They're only ever run as standard Bolt Rifles, so I say go nuts with the models.
I'm not arguing for minimizing model ranges. Cutting out rules bloat, however, does improve the game.
Take the Intercessor kit as an example - I think those drum mags look great but that modelling choice has a rules implication so I don't have any. Did we really need three different profiles for one gun with slightly different accessories? Removing two of those profiles and making the parts cosmetic would be an improvement, in my opinion.
I don't think the drum mag would be an issue, so long as you took the appropriate scope for the gun you wanted. Drum mag and stalker sight? I'll assume it's a stalker, and if you tell me otherwise, I'll be cool with it.
Hell, I don't think I'd mind you proxying. I just don't want the option taken away from me to play my plasma cannons AS plasma cannons, and not be forced to play them as lascannons because lascannons are attractive now.
Crimson wrote: That multimeltas and missile launchers are bad, is not an argument for their removal, they both have a distinct role which could work if the rules were improved a little bit. Both grav and plasma existing being redundant is much stronger case, as they really have very similar roles. It is interesting as grav is a late addition when they just desperately wanted to give people a reason to buy tactical and devastator kits again. Grav might logically apply some movement debuff (there are psychic powers that do that), then it would be distinct. Though it is questionable whether it is wise to give such fiddly rules for a relatively common weapon.
There's not a point to buff a TAC weapon though where it's not going to outshine other choices in some regard. It simply doesn't work and consolidation for the ML is necessary for the models to be useful.
I also wasn't talking about removing the Multi-Melta weapon but making an example of how it is not a choice for a particular unit (Devastators) in the most favorable conditions (Skyhammer Formation), even though it's an option. If it was removed from Devastators, nobody bats an eye because it wasn't taken regardless.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: I don't think the drum mag would be an issue, so long as you took the appropriate scope for the gun you wanted. Drum mag and stalker sight? I'll assume it's a stalker, and if you tell me otherwise, I'll be cool with it.
Hell, I don't think I'd mind you proxying. I just don't want the option taken away from me to play my plasma cannons AS plasma cannons, and not be forced to play them as lascannons because lascannons are attractive now.
I think it's exactly the same thing - why not just combine the imperial heavy AT weapons into a single profile? Then you can have plasma cannons or lascannons entirely based on which you think looks best.
What does the game actually lose at that point and is the difference between them worth representing with different profiles?
This is like the WW2 games that insist on having different profiles for different versions of the Enfield/SMLE when in reality all of the bolt action infantry rifles in use were pretty much interchangeable.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:The pure denial is incredible here.
1. How many Grunts does it actually take to kill you in Halo though? Even on Legendary you need more than 6 of them, whereas two to three of anything else are more than a match for a Marine.
That depends if you're fighting back, or just standing there. Even if you're just standing there, it really shouldn't be possible for grunts to take down a Spartan, even if they're standing still. The very fact that Grunts can kill a Spartan with plasma pistols is lore-breaking.
2. "Flavor" is merely an opinion for that. Flavor comes from the fluff text of the weapon. If you only cared about fluff, having some options consolidated really shouldn't bother you.
Then again you ask for free points per other threads so I'm not shocked by anything.
Why do you presume to tell me what I *should* be bothered about in regards to the fluff? Are you some kind of fluff authority?
I am told that X weapon does X. If I play the game and it doesn't do at least an approximation of X, then it's not the same thing.*
*I say approximation - things like bolters are described as being incredibly powerful, but aren't on tabletop, however, they are more powerful than lasguns, so the approximate level of a bolter's strength is met.
4. Fake options aren't options, full stop. Even with the Skyhammer formation (the one that gave Drop Pod Devastators the Relentless rule when they disembarked), Multi-Melta wasn't a good option on Devastators.
So what would removing Multi-Meltas from Devastator squads do, just as an example? Absolutely nothing, because they were absolutely never the proper platform for that kind of weapon.
Just because it's not a strong option doesn't mean it shouldn't exist. If it's not a good option, then by all means, if you care about removing redundancies, make it good.
A weapon performing poorly is no reason for it not to exist. Make it cheaper, make it stronger, I don't care, as long as it exists on it's own merit.
5. The variety comes from the models themselves. Ork players certainly don't have as many weapon options and yet their dedicated fanbase makes their hodgepodge of weapons work for display. This isn't an excuse.
Because it's established in Ork lore that their weapons aren't uniform, unlike Imperial ones.
Lascannons and missile launchers have very different looks, and that also reflects in how they play.
6. I've never seen someone defend rules bloat before, so this is almost fascinating. Even people that liked the core of 7th felt there was a incredible amount of rules bloat. The more bloat there is, the more trouble GW has keeping up with balance.
You don't care about balance though, obviously. Anyone asking for extra points to run more weapons never did. Hard to take their opinion seriously on this matter, huh?
7th had rules bloat in how you had to reference through multiple books and entries. With 8th, all relevant data I need is on the unit's datasheet.
Can you also address the argument presented, instead of trying to attack something that isn't relevant to this one? We get it, you hate Power Level. Good for you. Moving on.
7. No, the story cannot work. My 20 point Space Marine example literally proves it.
Again, are you some kind of thought police? Can I not think the way I think now? Is your imagination and the limits of your suspension of disbelief the only one that matters now?
8. Except Frag has ALWAYS been bad. Small blasts were bad, and random shots on a 20 point weapon are bad. Did you know you only kill like 2.5 more Gaunts using Frag instead of Krak with four ML? That's a really poor performing option that shouldn't exist. Consolidating the ML to Lascannon stats would give new life to models with the ML.
Or, crazy thought, for all your talk of balancing - why don't you fix frag by buffing it or making missiles cheaper?
9. The fact you can defend Flamers hitting flyers and Plasma exploding more against someone sneaky speaks levels of denial of bad core mechanics. How far away do you think Flamers reach?
How low do you think 40k flyers fly? I don't know. You don't know. But on the instances where a flamer hits them, I assume that the flyer is very low to the ground.
10. You miss the point of how inconsistent the stats are. For someone that supposedly cares deeply about the fluff, you should've caught that.
No, I'm aware of that. However, while they're inconsistent in magnitude, you can't deny that a Space Marine is Tougher than a guardsman. It might not be orders of magnitude tougher, but they ARE fundamentally more durable.
11. In fluff Eldar literally dodge bullets fired at them by simple humans. Once again, you'd think someone that cared so deeply about the fluff would understand the point rather than creating a poor justification to defend how busted the Orders mechanic becomes.
In the fluff, people can do things based purely on faith.
In 40k, prayer is power, and therefore can be used to justify almost ANY inconsistencies with what "should" be possible.
12. Why couldn't it? 40k certainly doesn't do what you want until you start throwing half-assed justifications in the wind.
40k does what I want from it right now. I haven't got an issue. I don't need to justify why I enjoy it, beyond that I do, and I think the changes presented here would compromise that.
1. And look how long it takes for Grunts to kill Master Chief just standing there even in Legendary.
Your argument would work more if the system wasn't IGOUGO. Even another system doesn't work for the pathetic offense of a lot of units, actually. The math proves it.
Unless you want to deny the actual numbers, that is. In which case, might as well throw away the dice and just make the pewpew noises.
2. Funny. I'm told the ML launches a projectile and it really hurts the target. I'm told the Lascannon shoots a giant laser that really hurts the target. Seeing as Frag might as well not exist, consolidation for the ML Krak and LC shot works fine for being anti-tank weapons.
Well that was easy.
Also Bolters and Pulse rifles and such lost any armor penetrating power, so no they don't fit the lore now. Approximate strength is only met if you ignore the lore, which I thought you didn't do with your former complaint about how consolidating the ML and LC stats would be bad.
3. If something cannot be a proper platform even in the most favorable circumstances (Multi-Melta for Skyhammer Formation Devastators), the option might as well not exist. Same thing for 4 of the current ML performing less than 2 Lascannons and 2 Heavy Bolters against almost all targets. The 5 point cut to the ML still didn't help it. I suppose that they could maybe subtract 1 or 2 more points, but math is hard and it would be hard for someone to figure out if they went over in points and had to ask for permission to run more stuff.
4. Look at the Loota and Flash Gitz kits again, and say with a straight face all those weapons could perform the same.
That's not even a matter of being uniform. One of the Flash Gitz on the website has a darn Plasma Cannon!
5. Rules bloat doesn't just refer to how many books you carry and you know that.
Also your feelings towards the rest of the game are relevant as it establishes how you construct your beliefs. It's relevant and should be pointed out.
6. Then I want you, once again with a straight face, say that the current Tactical Marine is fine as is and should be 20 points for everything to fit the fluff more, and that this would be more fun.
7. Core mechanics made the small blast bad on top of the prohibitive cost of the ML, and I already pointed out how you didn't like anything not being a multiple of 5 which you demonstrated in a different thread. 18 point ML's would be too hard to add! Might have to ask for extra points from your opponent!
OR we can just admit that the ML has always been bad outside super specific instances (Long Fangs), and consolidate them into the Lascannon profile, ergo giving those models new life on the tabletop. Nobody uses the Frag profile anyway and the Flakk Strategem doesn't make for a good weapon, so nothing is missed. That's several problems solved in one go.
8. Based on the fact they have rules where they can't stop and have a hard to hit rule due to their speed and being REALLY high up in the air, it is safe to assume a 8" Flamer shouldn't be hitting it mechanically.
I also came up with that pathetic excuse for sneaky dudes making Plasma explode more. It isn't a good excuse though and needed to be rewritten to make more sense.
9. The Space Marine and Fire Warrior aren't tougher than a Guardsman due to points, so you're also just wrong on this account.
10. And on the tabletop units can due stuff due to faith. So why is that something properly represented but not Eldar dodging Lasguns?
11. As long as you're in denial and make excuses for their rules development team, sure you can get all you want out of the game. You're stopping the game from actually growing though.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: I don't think the drum mag would be an issue, so long as you took the appropriate scope for the gun you wanted. Drum mag and stalker sight? I'll assume it's a stalker, and if you tell me otherwise, I'll be cool with it.
Hell, I don't think I'd mind you proxying. I just don't want the option taken away from me to play my plasma cannons AS plasma cannons, and not be forced to play them as lascannons because lascannons are attractive now.
I think it's exactly the same thing - why not just combine the imperial heavy AT weapons into a single profile? Then you can have plasma cannons or lascannons entirely based on which you think looks best.
What does the game actually lose at that point and is the difference between them worth representing with different profiles?
This is like the WW2 games that insist on having different profiles for different versions of the Enfield/SMLE when in reality all of the bolt action infantry rifles in use were pretty much interchangeable.
Because neither a Plasma Cannon nor a Missile Launcher is an AT Weapon?
A Plasma Cannon is a heavy infantry killer, a Missile launcher is a multi role weapon - Presently it doesn't do terribly well at it's secondary role, but it's not meant to. It's meant to be worse than a heavy bolter at infantry, and worse than a lascannon against tanks, which it's stats perfectly mimic. A missile launcher can kill six, yes _Six_ Genestealers in one shot. A Lascannon can kill one. Is it likely? No. But in a situation where I'd like to kill six genestealers in a turn, I know which weapon I'd rather have. Incidentally, it also gives you access to the Flakk missile, something else a Lascannon does not do.
And if you're using Plasma Cannons as your primary Anti-Tank, you're doing it wrong. Even if you're a Dark Angel. That isn't their intended role, and consolodating their profiles is madness.
Just how stripped down do you want this game? Should we merge all the Space Marine Units down, so the entire Codex consists of Generic Marines, Generic HQ Choice, Generic Walker, Generic Transport, and Generic Tank? Each armed with Generic Small Arms or Generic AT?
I've had my moments of frustration with what GW does with their rules set at times. [Flamers hitting flyers and exploding plasmaguns at night being key examples] but I can't imagine doing anything other than closing such a bland book in disgust.
40k lives and dies on it's _Character_ alone. Removing that from the game leaves and empty shell that can, and should be filled by anything _anything_ else. GW writers write awful, awful rules, and they're pretty bad at balence. But they can write character. Take that out the game, and this really is just a terrible sad mess propped up by some occasionally stunning models, and the will and the skill that some people chose to put into painting them.
There is a balance required though - at the moment lots of options for character are essentially eliminated via being drastically worse than other options. Consolidating the crunch opens up modelling options.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: I don't think the drum mag would be an issue, so long as you took the appropriate scope for the gun you wanted. Drum mag and stalker sight? I'll assume it's a stalker, and if you tell me otherwise, I'll be cool with it.
Hell, I don't think I'd mind you proxying. I just don't want the option taken away from me to play my plasma cannons AS plasma cannons, and not be forced to play them as lascannons because lascannons are attractive now.
I think it's exactly the same thing - why not just combine the imperial heavy AT weapons into a single profile? Then you can have plasma cannons or lascannons entirely based on which you think looks best.
What does the game actually lose at that point and is the difference between them worth representing with different profiles?
This is like the WW2 games that insist on having different profiles for different versions of the Enfield/SMLE when in reality all of the bolt action infantry rifles in use were pretty much interchangeable.
Because neither a Plasma Cannon nor a Missile Launcher is an AT Weapon?
A Plasma Cannon is a heavy infantry killer, a Missile launcher is a multi role weapon - Presently it doesn't do terribly well at it's secondary role, but it's not meant to. It's meant to be worse than a heavy bolter at infantry, and worse than a lascannon against tanks, which it's stats perfectly mimic. A missile launcher can kill six, yes _Six_ Genestealers in one shot. A Lascannon can kill one. Is it likely? No. But in a situation where I'd like to kill six genestealers in a turn, I know which weapon I'd rather have. Incidentally, it also gives you access to the Flakk missile, something else a Lascannon does not do.
And if you're using Plasma Cannons as your primary Anti-Tank, you're doing it wrong. Even if you're a Dark Angel. That isn't their intended role, and consolodating their profiles is madness.
Just how stripped down do you want this game? Should we merge all the Space Marine Units down, so the entire Codex consists of Generic Marines, Generic HQ Choice, Generic Walker, Generic Transport, and Generic Tank? Each armed with Generic Small Arms or Generic AT?
I've had my moments of frustration with what GW does with their rules set at times. [Flamers hitting flyers and exploding plasmaguns at night being key examples] but I can't imagine doing anything other than closing such a bland book in disgust.
40k lives and dies on it's _Character_ alone. Removing that from the game leaves and empty shell that can, and should be filled by anything _anything_ else. GW writers write awful, awful rules, and they're pretty bad at balence. But they can write character. Take that out the game, and this really is just a terrible sad mess propped up by some occasionally stunning models, and the will and the skill that some people chose to put into painting them.
Honestly I'll all for for consolidation of a lot of the Marine codices (the Angels, Renegades, Vanilla) into the same codex for easier balance. Heck, I'm looking for ways to do the same for Space Wolves too (a much more gargantuan task but likely more rewarding).
Take the Intercessor kit as an example - I think those drum mags look great but that modelling choice has a rules implication so I don't have any. Did we really need three different profiles for one gun with slightly different accessories? Removing two of those profiles and making the parts cosmetic would be an improvement, in my opinion.
Considering that unlike Tacticals, Intercessors are an unit that cannot be customised with heavy or special weapons, some choices for the base weapon is a good idea. However, you're right that currently it doesn't work, and it is difficult to make it work. The weapons look so similar, that it would be weird if they were drastically different. Stalkers getting sniper as standard would fix them and give them a clear role, but it is hard to differentiate the rapid fire and auto without one of them just becoming clearly better choice. Then again, that is necessarily not a problem. Perhaps auto bolt rifle should become a more expensive elite bolt rifle with more punch; Sternguard equivalent of the Primaris.
There's not a point to buff a TAC weapon though where it's not going to outshine other choices in some regard. It simply doesn't work and consolidation for the ML is necessary for the models to be useful.
Of course it can work. If you don't list tailor TAC weapon is very valuable. And points exist for a reason, you can always adjust them.
I also wasn't talking about removing the Multi-Melta weapon but making an example of how it is not a choice for a particular unit (Devastators) in the most favorable conditions (Skyhammer Formation), even though it's an option. If it was removed from Devastators, nobody bats an eye because it wasn't taken regardless.
But it could work, and I think it should work. Currently both drop pods and multimeltas are bad. However, conceptually drop podding melta devastators are a perfectly valid idea, and rules could be written so that it would be viable.
Considering that unlike Tacticals, Intercessors are an unit that cannot be customised with heavy or special weapons, some choices for the base weapon is a good idea.
Why? What does the game gain from having the three slightly different profiles for the base guns on this squad?
Considering that unlike Tacticals, Intercessors are an unit that cannot be customised with heavy or special weapons, some choices for the base weapon is a good idea.
Why? What does the game gain from having the three slightly different profiles for the base guns on this squad?
A unit that is optimised for three different types of target?
Take the Intercessor kit as an example - I think those drum mags look great but that modelling choice has a rules implication so I don't have any. Did we really need three different profiles for one gun with slightly different accessories? Removing two of those profiles and making the parts cosmetic would be an improvement, in my opinion.
Considering that unlike Tacticals, Intercessors are an unit that cannot be customised with heavy or special weapons, some choices for the base weapon is a good idea. However, you're right that currently it doesn't work, and it is difficult to make it work. The weapons look so similar, that it would be weird if they were drastically different. Stalkers getting sniper as standard would fix them and give them a clear role, but it is hard to differentiate the rapid fire and auto without one of them just becoming clearly better choice. Then again, that is necessarily not a problem. Perhaps auto bolt rifle should become a more expensive elite bolt rifle with more punch; Sternguard equivalent of the Primaris.
There's not a point to buff a TAC weapon though where it's not going to outshine other choices in some regard. It simply doesn't work and consolidation for the ML is necessary for the models to be useful.
Of course it can work. If you don't list tailor TAC weapon is very valuable. And points exist for a reason, you can always adjust them.
I also wasn't talking about removing the Multi-Melta weapon but making an example of how it is not a choice for a particular unit (Devastators) in the most favorable conditions (Skyhammer Formation), even though it's an option. If it was removed from Devastators, nobody bats an eye because it wasn't taken regardless.
But it could work, and I think it should work. Currently both drop pods and multimeltas are bad. However, conceptually drop podding melta devastators are a perfectly valid idea, and rules could be written so that it would be viable.
TAC weapons don't work for TAC armies. It never has, and it never will.
Also of course current Drop Pods and Multi-Melta Devastators are bad. However, my point is that their best performance (Skyhammer) was not good at all. So why does it matter they have the option when it isn't taken anyway?
Considering that unlike Tacticals, Intercessors are an unit that cannot be customised with heavy or special weapons, some choices for the base weapon is a good idea.
Why? What does the game gain from having the three slightly different profiles for the base guns on this squad?
A unit that is optimised for three different types of target?
Yep. It is a good thing if there is some customisability in your basic troops, as they're your most numerous units so them all being identical is tactically boring. The problem is that currently this is not what they do, the variant bolt rifles do not have different roles.
TAC weapons don't work for TAC armies. It never has, and it never will.
Right.That's why everyone is taking meltas and flamers over plasma. No, wait, they aren't.
Also of course current Drop Pods and Multi-Melta Devastators are bad. However, my point is that their best performance (Skyhammer) was not good at all. So why does it matter they have the option when it isn't taken anyway?
Presumably some people take them. And it could and should work.
Considering that unlike Tacticals, Intercessors are an unit that cannot be customised with heavy or special weapons, some choices for the base weapon is a good idea.
Why? What does the game gain from having the three slightly different profiles for the base guns on this squad?
A unit that is optimised for three different types of target?
Yep. It is a good thing if there is some customisability in your basic troops, as they're your most numerous units so them all being identical is tactically boring. The problem is that currently this is not what they do, the variant bolt rifles do not have different roles.
TAC weapons don't work for TAC armies. It never has, and it never will.
Right.That's why everyone is taking meltas and flamers over plasma. No, wait, they aren't.
Also of course current Drop Pods and Multi-Melta Devastators are bad. However, my point is that their best performance (Skyhammer) was not good at all. So why does it matter they have the option when it isn't taken anyway?
Presumably some people take them. And it could and should work.
People aren't taking Flamers because Flamers aren't good at anything for the price, and you're lying to yourself if you say otherwise. As well, should Plasma had stayed at 13 (like it should have before this Chapter Approved) and Melta get that nice new 14 point cost instead thanks to Chapter Approved, it would actually be more fair and maybe the choices matter. Plasma gets the niche of being kinda universal but focuses on hitting those 2 wound models and higher armor saves, and Melta is more powerful for units with a lot of wounds.
Of course making Plasma 11 killed that potential didn't it? It also didn't help GW throws around Invul saves like candy and can't price them correctly. Storm Shields being only 2 points proves that.
Also you can say "presumably", but the issue there is other Devastator loadouts were taken. Even with the Lascannon being as blech as it was in 7th, they got taken in Gladius because you could load them in a free Rhino as a bunker to fire from. The ML was done as the same for people that couldn't do math on that ghastly weapon. Plasma Cannons were cheap enough at 15 points that they were a mediocre choice. Grav was of course king.
The Multi-Melta served no purpose in a Devastator squad ever. If you removed the option, nobody would care besides the people saying "I wanted to do it at some point!!!".
People aren't taking Flamers because Flamers aren't good at anything for the price, and you're lying to yourself if you say otherwise. As well, should Plasma had stayed at 13 (like it should have before this Chapter Approved) and Melta get that nice new 14 point cost instead thanks to Chapter Approved, it would actually be more fair and maybe the choices matter. Plasma gets the niche of being kinda universal but focuses on hitting those 2 wound models and higher armor saves, and Melta is more powerful for units with a lot of wounds.
Of course making Plasma 11 killed that potential didn't it? It also didn't help GW throws around Invul saves like candy and can't price them correctly. Storm Shields being only 2 points proves that.
Also you can say "presumably", but the issue there is other Devastator loadouts were taken. Even with the Lascannon being as blech as it was in 7th, they got taken in Gladius because you could load them in a free Rhino as a bunker to fire from. The ML was done as the same for people that couldn't do math on that ghastly weapon. Plasma Cannons were cheap enough at 15 points that they were a mediocre choice. Grav was of course king.
The Multi-Melta served no purpose in a Devastator squad ever. If you removed the option, nobody would care besides the people saying "I wanted to do it at some point!!!".
You're just telling me how thing are. I know this. It doesn't mean one couldn't improve them. There is no fundamental reason why missile launchers or multimeltas couldn't work, they both have their distinct roles. You would be a terrible game designer if your solution for things not working would be to just delete them instead of trying to come up a way to make them work. Should flamers be deleted too?
Considering that unlike Tacticals, Intercessors are an unit that cannot be customised with heavy or special weapons, some choices for the base weapon is a good idea.
Why? What does the game gain from having the three slightly different profiles for the base guns on this squad?
A unit that is optimised for three different types of target?
That would require three significantly different profiles.
Except in 40k you can minimize randomness too via know which units are less likely to be swingy and more likely to be consistently good in their performance. That's the same as deck management. Anything less you say you can't mitigate is the same as not being prepared for an opponent's side deck or not being able to control your matchup.
Sorry, but by your definition, there can be no such thing as a competitive TCG. No tabletop wargame can be competitive either, and people do think highly of those Privateer Press ones (though apparently the balance has gone down the last few years, but otherwise they've done a not-so-terrible job).
To me, that's just a bad excuse on your end to defend bad balance.
Yes, you are correct. By my definition, there can be no such thing as a pure competitive TCG, unless maybe if the players were allowed to arrange their decks beforehand.
Note that I'm not saying that "Competitive" and "Balanced" or "Fair" are the same thing. 8th edition 40k, for example, is vastly more balanced and fair than 7th edition 40k. A unit can still be overpowered or underpowered, because the randomness doesn't mean that a unit's average damage of a bad unit might sometimes become good.
I prefer Warhammer 40k because the randomness makes the game more reactive in a close game. The ideal is that when two players have lists of similar strength, the victor will usually be determined by who can react to good or bad luck more effectively, who knows when to take risks and when to play it safe. That's where balance comes in - You have to have two lists of similar strength. (For example: Pre-codex, shooty orks were both very random and overcosted. Post-codex, shooty orks are still very random, but they're no longer overcosted. Meanwhile, an army like Grey Knights is pretty reliable, but with the exception of a couple units it's reliably going to underperform.)
There are degrees of competitiveness. Something like Magic: The Gathering is much more competitive than Warhammer 40k, but I prefer Warhammer 40k.
Crimson wrote: I really do not think that a definition of 'a competitive game' which requires total absence of randomness is a reasonable one.
I mean, that's fair if you disagree with my definition, I included the definition I'm operating under so we would all know what I meant.
To briefly defend my definition, Google presents this definition for "Competing":
"Strive to gain or win something by defeating or establishing superiority over others who are trying to do the same."
In my opinion, establishing superiority doesn't include establishing superior luck. A purely competitive game, then, would be one completely absent of randomness. (While a game with a small amount of randomness would still be mostly competitive, and a game with a large amount of randomness would still be a little bit competitive.)
That would require three significantly different profiles.
Yes. And perhaps a better solution would be to try to alter the rules so that each variant has a purpose, rather than remove the options altogether.
Which still creates a situation where crunch decisions drive cosmetic decisions and that's assuming that all three are actually balanced and we don't end up with the same situation that we always have where one is obviously and substantially better than the others.
Which still creates a situation where crunch decisions drive cosmetic decisions and that's assuming that all three are actually balanced and we don't end up with the same situation that we always have where one is obviously and substantially better than the others.
But if we are afraid of options existing creating a situation where one is superior, then ultimately we need to remove all options. If every time something doesn't instantly work, we get rid of it, there's will be nothing left.
Also, sometimes it is OK for some weapons to be 'better' than others, as long as they're properly costed.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: I don't think the drum mag would be an issue, so long as you took the appropriate scope for the gun you wanted. Drum mag and stalker sight? I'll assume it's a stalker, and if you tell me otherwise, I'll be cool with it.
Hell, I don't think I'd mind you proxying. I just don't want the option taken away from me to play my plasma cannons AS plasma cannons, and not be forced to play them as lascannons because lascannons are attractive now.
I think it's exactly the same thing - why not just combine the imperial heavy AT weapons into a single profile? Then you can have plasma cannons or lascannons entirely based on which you think looks best.
What does the game actually lose at that point and is the difference between them worth representing with different profiles?
This is like the WW2 games that insist on having different profiles for different versions of the Enfield/SMLE when in reality all of the bolt action infantry rifles in use were pretty much interchangeable.
Because neither a Plasma Cannon nor a Missile Launcher is an AT Weapon?
A Plasma Cannon is a heavy infantry killer, a Missile launcher is a multi role weapon - Presently it doesn't do terribly well at it's secondary role, but it's not meant to. It's meant to be worse than a heavy bolter at infantry, and worse than a lascannon against tanks, which it's stats perfectly mimic. A missile launcher can kill six, yes _Six_ Genestealers in one shot. A Lascannon can kill one. Is it likely? No. But in a situation where I'd like to kill six genestealers in a turn, I know which weapon I'd rather have. Incidentally, it also gives you access to the Flakk missile, something else a Lascannon does not do.
And if you're using Plasma Cannons as your primary Anti-Tank, you're doing it wrong. Even if you're a Dark Angel. That isn't their intended role, and consolodating their profiles is madness.
Just how stripped down do you want this game? Should we merge all the Space Marine Units down, so the entire Codex consists of Generic Marines, Generic HQ Choice, Generic Walker, Generic Transport, and Generic Tank? Each armed with Generic Small Arms or Generic AT?
I've had my moments of frustration with what GW does with their rules set at times. [Flamers hitting flyers and exploding plasmaguns at night being key examples] but I can't imagine doing anything other than closing such a bland book in disgust.
40k lives and dies on it's _Character_ alone. Removing that from the game leaves and empty shell that can, and should be filled by anything _anything_ else. GW writers write awful, awful rules, and they're pretty bad at balence. But they can write character. Take that out the game, and this really is just a terrible sad mess propped up by some occasionally stunning models, and the will and the skill that some people chose to put into painting them.
Honestly I'll all for for consolidation of a lot of the Marine codices (the Angels, Renegades, Vanilla) into the same codex for easier balance. Heck, I'm looking for ways to do the same for Space Wolves too (a much more gargantuan task but likely more rewarding).
I've no issue with that what so ever. I've often complained about an excess of _Factions_ within Warhammer. What I'm against is the remaining factions becoming bland and generic. I want a diverse Codex Spacemarines. Not 12 almost identical but equally bland space marine codexes. In an ideal world I'd advocate for one codex that could represent all the chapters. But then GW would sell less books.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:1. And look how long it takes for Grunts to kill Master Chief just standing there even in Legendary.
Your argument would work more if the system wasn't IGOUGO. Even another system doesn't work for the pathetic offense of a lot of units, actually. The math proves it.
Funnily enough, IGOUGO is a system by which the game is played. What, do you also think that because 40k uses dice, it's not true to the lore, because there shouldn't be chance? You'd rather the game turn into some kind of "this unit guarentees to do 15 points of damage on that unit" game? No luck, no chance?
...throw the dice and just make the pewpew noises.
That's exactly what I do. It's fun. And I'll continue doing it, if you please.
2. Funny. I'm told the ML launches a projectile and it really hurts the target. I'm told the Lascannon shoots a giant laser that really hurts the target. Seeing as Frag might as well not exist, consolidation for the ML Krak and LC shot works fine for being anti-tank weapons.
Well that was easy.
You know as well as I do that the missile fires a *variety* of projectiles, that hurt specific targets.
The only reason frag "might as well not exist" is because it's not powerful enough, or priced right, to be considered mathematically acceptable. Unfortunately, if we had someone as lazy as you rebalancing 40k, we'd miss out on frag ever becoming better, because as we should apparently all know, if it's broken, throw it away and don't try to fix it.
Also Bolters and Pulse rifles and such lost any armor penetrating power, so no they don't fit the lore now. Approximate strength is only met if you ignore the lore, which I thought you didn't do with your former complaint about how consolidating the ML and LC stats would be bad.
And I think bolters and pulse rifles should have extra AP. But I'm not advocating scrapping them because they don't. I would rather fix them.
However, you do miss the even more basic point - bolters are stronger than lasguns. Which they tangibly are.
3. If something cannot be a proper platform even in the most favorable circumstances (Multi-Melta for Skyhammer Formation Devastators), the option might as well not exist. Same thing for 4 of the current ML performing less than 2 Lascannons and 2 Heavy Bolters against almost all targets. The 5 point cut to the ML still didn't help it. I suppose that they could maybe subtract 1 or 2 more points, but math is hard and it would be hard for someone to figure out if they went over in points and had to ask for permission to run more stuff.
Dude, if you need to rely on arguments not even presented in this thread, I think that speaks a lot for how strongly you have faith in your own points.
But yes, I'm glad you finally realise that your precious points would actually have a purpose here! After all, it's not like that's what you've been defending in these other threads you bring up.
4. Look at the Loota and Flash Gitz kits again, and say with a straight face all those weapons could perform the same.
That's not even a matter of being uniform. One of the Flash Gitz on the website has a darn Plasma Cannon!
They're Orks. I can't say anything about them with a straight face because of all the teef.
But jokes aside, they're Orks. They will be whatever they can be. Sure, it LOOKS like a plasma cannon, but it's been tinkered with so much it's actually not.
5. Rules bloat doesn't just refer to how many books you carry and you know that.
It's the bit that matters to me. I don't think 8th is particularly bloaty right now anyways.
Also your feelings towards the rest of the game are relevant as it establishes how you construct your beliefs. It's relevant and should be pointed out.
But why should my argument at face value not be argument in it's own right? If you need to go elsewhere to try and make your claims, instead of being able to rely on what you're being shown here, that's not really very strong conviction.
6. Then I want you, once again with a straight face, say that the current Tactical Marine is fine as is and should be 20 points for everything to fit the fluff more, and that this would be more fun.
I'm saying with a straight face that I think Tactical Marines are fine, and seeing as I don't use points, I don't know how that would affect me. I use Power Level, but I think 5 right now, 6 if you want to make it more expensive, is fine.
7. Core mechanics made the small blast bad on top of the prohibitive cost of the ML, and I already pointed out how you didn't like anything not being a multiple of 5 which you demonstrated in a different thread. 18 point ML's would be too hard to add! Might have to ask for extra points from your opponent!
If you make this kind of jab again, I'm using the yellow triangle. It's not funny, and frankly just makes me lose any kind of faith in debating with you.
You could fix the core mechanics, if that's what's the issue is.
OR we can just admit that the ML has always been bad outside super specific instances (Long Fangs), and consolidate them into the Lascannon profile, ergo giving those models new life on the tabletop. Nobody uses the Frag profile anyway and the Flakk Strategem doesn't make for a good weapon, so nothing is missed. That's several problems solved in one go.
If frag was buffed or the missile made cheaper, then it's also fixed. Taking the lazy solution isn't good here, in my opinion.
8. Based on the fact they have rules where they can't stop and have a hard to hit rule due to their speed and being REALLY high up in the air, it is safe to assume a 8" Flamer shouldn't be hitting it mechanically.
They can still fly low to the ground and move fast??
I also came up with that pathetic excuse for sneaky dudes making Plasma explode more. It isn't a good excuse though and needed to be rewritten to make more sense.
Why do you want to rewrite this, but can't be bothered to rewrite the rules for underperforming weapons?
9. The Space Marine and Fire Warrior aren't tougher than a Guardsman due to points, so you're also just wrong on this account.
Sorry? A single Space Marine is toughness 4. A guardsman is toughness 3.
If points are an issue, change the points - and while you're at it, change them for the frag missile too.
10. And on the tabletop units can due stuff due to faith. So why is that something properly represented but not Eldar dodging Lasguns?
In the same way everyone doesn't dodge lasguns - because armour save, or invulnerable if you're quick enough to get one. Eldar apparently aren't, but Harlequins are.
11. As long as you're in denial and make excuses for their rules development team, sure you can get all you want out of the game. You're stopping the game from actually growing though.
At least I'm not trying to shrink it.
Plus, that "growing"? That's growing in YOUR preferred way. If I wanted it to grow more in MY way, you'd complain too.
Scott-S6 wrote:There is a balance required though - at the moment lots of options for character are essentially eliminated via being drastically worse than other options. Consolidating the crunch opens up modelling options.
As well as reducing variety in the game. I think I'd actually agree that redundancy is bad. The issue is how to fix it.
My way of fixing things is to make sure, either through costing, or through changing stats by a minimal amount, that everything is WORTH taking. If we're assuming that aesthetic values aren't to be considered here (purely for this one argument), I still maintain that having more variety is better. Yes, I've had people take that argument to the extreme of having a seperate stat for every sub-type of boltgun (Godwyn, De'az, etc etc), but I've only seen the extreme of the other argument mentioned once - that being we just make every unit a generic one - so every faction has "generic infantry" "generic heavy infantry" "generic transport" "generic walker" etc etc for "balance".
Suffice to say, taking things to the extremes are ridiculous.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:People aren't taking Flamers because Flamers aren't good at anything for the price, and you're lying to yourself if you say otherwise. As well, should Plasma had stayed at 13 (like it should have before this Chapter Approved) and Melta get that nice new 14 point cost instead thanks to Chapter Approved, it would actually be more fair and maybe the choices matter. Plasma gets the niche of being kinda universal but focuses on hitting those 2 wound models and higher armor saves, and Melta is more powerful for units with a lot of wounds.
Of course making Plasma 11 killed that potential didn't it? It also didn't help GW throws around Invul saves like candy and can't price them correctly. Storm Shields being only 2 points proves that.
Underlined every single time you supported my exact argument.
It's not about the weapons being redundant. It's about them being costed badly. If they were costed better, then they would no longer be redundant.
Taking the easy way out means cutting out a lot of fun options that people like. If the hypothetical person taking notes here were listening, I would tell them to not take the easy way, and balance the points. That's what they're there for, isn't it?
Also you can say "presumably", but the issue there is other Devastator loadouts were taken. Even with the Lascannon being as blech as it was in 7th, they got taken in Gladius because you could load them in a free Rhino as a bunker to fire from. The ML was done as the same for people that couldn't do math on that ghastly weapon. Plasma Cannons were cheap enough at 15 points that they were a mediocre choice. Grav was of course king.
The Multi-Melta served no purpose in a Devastator squad ever. If you removed the option, nobody would care besides the people saying "I wanted to do it at some point!!!".
Worked well for close range DEDICATED anti-vehicle destruction. I preferred and still prefer using multis over lascannons.
Crimson wrote:But if we are afraid of options existing creating a situation where one is superior, then ultimately we need to remove all options. If every time something doesn't instantly work, we get rid of it, there's will be nothing left.
Also, sometimes it is OK for some weapons to be 'better' than others, as long as they're properly costed.
Exactly. That's why they have a cost. If not, then - well, we'd be playing Power Level. And some of us aren't keen on that.
vipoid wrote: I think the issue is that the base Archon currently serves no purpose.
Well, his purpose is to babysit the Ravagers. It's a boring purpose but the most explicit purpose in the codex currently considering how he was designed.
Although, he is a fun beatstick in 500 point games. Far from the best one, but he can be fun.
People aren't taking Flamers because Flamers aren't good at anything for the price, and you're lying to yourself if you say otherwise. As well, should Plasma had stayed at 13 (like it should have before this Chapter Approved) and Melta get that nice new 14 point cost instead thanks to Chapter Approved, it would actually be more fair and maybe the choices matter. Plasma gets the niche of being kinda universal but focuses on hitting those 2 wound models and higher armor saves, and Melta is more powerful for units with a lot of wounds.
Of course making Plasma 11 killed that potential didn't it? It also didn't help GW throws around Invul saves like candy and can't price them correctly. Storm Shields being only 2 points proves that.
Also you can say "presumably", but the issue there is other Devastator loadouts were taken. Even with the Lascannon being as blech as it was in 7th, they got taken in Gladius because you could load them in a free Rhino as a bunker to fire from. The ML was done as the same for people that couldn't do math on that ghastly weapon. Plasma Cannons were cheap enough at 15 points that they were a mediocre choice. Grav was of course king.
The Multi-Melta served no purpose in a Devastator squad ever. If you removed the option, nobody would care besides the people saying "I wanted to do it at some point!!!".
You're just telling me how thing are. I know this. It doesn't mean one couldn't improve them. There is no fundamental reason why missile launchers or multimeltas couldn't work, they both have their distinct roles. You would be a terrible game designer if your solution for things not working would be to just delete them instead of trying to come up a way to make them work. Should flamers be deleted too?
It's like you can't coherently understand my posts. Here's a breakdown of what was discussed so far.
Multi-Meltas serve no purpose in a Devastator squad. Deleting that entry from them won't harm anyone and nobody will notice.
Flamers have a theoretical purpose. They suck at it though. Sure you would fix that.
The ML, however, serves no purpose and hasn't had purpose for many editions, due to being terrible at TAC and expensive and the Flakk Strategem not giving enough distinction. It can be consolidated into having the same profile as the Lascannon in order to alleviate the issues of not getting use of ML models.
Except in 40k you can minimize randomness too via know which units are less likely to be swingy and more likely to be consistently good in their performance. That's the same as deck management. Anything less you say you can't mitigate is the same as not being prepared for an opponent's side deck or not being able to control your matchup.
Sorry, but by your definition, there can be no such thing as a competitive TCG. No tabletop wargame can be competitive either, and people do think highly of those Privateer Press ones (though apparently the balance has gone down the last few years, but otherwise they've done a not-so-terrible job).
To me, that's just a bad excuse on your end to defend bad balance.
Yes, you are correct. By my definition, there can be no such thing as a pure competitive TCG, unless maybe if the players were allowed to arrange their decks beforehand.
So are you going to tell the MtG players that it isn't a competitive game because of randomness? Just because it's MORE competitive than 40k doesn mean it's competitive at all.
Let me know how it goes. I know you won't do it though because it's a bad excuse. It's also an excuse that has lead to crap balance of several units and years of 40k.
Which still creates a situation where crunch decisions drive cosmetic decisions and that's assuming that all three are actually balanced and we don't end up with the same situation that we always have where one is obviously and substantially better than the others.
But if we are afraid of options existing creating a situation where one is superior, then ultimately we need to remove all options. If every time something doesn't instantly work, we get rid of it, there's will be nothing left.
Also, sometimes it is OK for some weapons to be 'better' than others, as long as they're properly costed.
That's exactly the point that's being made - the completely excessive number of options leads to situations where many of those options are pointless. Substantially reducing the number of options increases the possibility of having more of those options actually be viable.
And obviously things can be better or worse if they're costed correctly - that's so obvious I have no idea why you felt the need to point it out. At the moment we have options that are so lacking in utility that they wouldn't be taken at any points cost. I might take flamers if they were zero points but even then it's a special weapon slot wasted, it would literally only be taken on minimum cost filler squads.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: It's like you can't coherently understand my posts. Here's a breakdown of what was discussed so far.
Multi-Meltas serve no purpose in a Devastator squad. Deleting that entry from them won't harm anyone and nobody will notice.
Flamers have a theoretical purpose. They suck at it though. Sure you would fix that.
The ML, however, serves no purpose and hasn't had purpose for many editions, due to being terrible at TAC and expensive and the Flakk Strategem not giving enough distinction. It can be consolidated into having the same profile as the Lascannon in order to alleviate the issues of not getting use of ML models.
Does this flow correctly to you?
I can understand perfectly fine that you're repeating how things are and are unable to consider solutions.
Well, his purpose is to babysit the Ravagers. It's a boring purpose but the most explicit purpose in the codex currently considering how he was designed.
Except that that clearly isn't his intended purpose. It just happens to be the only thing he's remotely good at (or, more accurately, the thing he's the least bad at) because his design is so appallingly bad.
That's exactly the point that's being made - the completely excessive number of options leads to situations where many of those options are pointless. Substantially reducing the number of options increases the possibility of having more of those options actually be viable.
You were talking about removing options from a unit that had three. There has been a lot of complaints about Primaris Marines, but before this thread I hadn't heard one about them having too many gear options!
And obviously things can be better or worse if they're costed correctly - that's so obvious I have no idea why you felt the need to point it out.
Apparently it was not obvious to you. Otherwise you wouldn't be clamouring for removing the 'worse' options but would suggest reducing their price instead.
It's like you can't coherently understand my posts. Here's a breakdown of what was discussed so far.
Multi-Meltas serve no purpose in a Devastator squad. Deleting that entry from them won't harm anyone and nobody will notice.
Flamers have a theoretical purpose. They suck at it though. Sure you would fix that.
The ML, however, serves no purpose and hasn't had purpose for many editions, due to being terrible at TAC and expensive and the Flakk Strategem not giving enough distinction. It can be consolidated into having the same profile as the Lascannon in order to alleviate the issues of not getting use of ML models.
Does this flow correctly to you?
You - These weapons have no purpose, and should be deleted.
Him - Instead of deleting them, they could be fixed so that they do have a purpose
You - No, you're not understanding me! They don't have a purpose, so they should be removed!
He understands you just fine. He's simply proposing a different solution to deleting those options from the game.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:1. And look how long it takes for Grunts to kill Master Chief just standing there even in Legendary. Your argument would work more if the system wasn't IGOUGO. Even another system doesn't work for the pathetic offense of a lot of units, actually. The math proves it.
Funnily enough, IGOUGO is a system by which the game is played. What, do you also think that because 40k uses dice, it's not true to the lore, because there shouldn't be chance? You'd rather the game turn into some kind of "this unit guarentees to do 15 points of damage on that unit" game? No luck, no chance?
...throw the dice and just make the pewpew noises.
That's exactly what I do. It's fun. And I'll continue doing it, if you please.
2. Funny. I'm told the ML launches a projectile and it really hurts the target. I'm told the Lascannon shoots a giant laser that really hurts the target. Seeing as Frag might as well not exist, consolidation for the ML Krak and LC shot works fine for being anti-tank weapons. Well that was easy.
You know as well as I do that the missile fires a *variety* of projectiles, that hurt specific targets.
The only reason frag "might as well not exist" is because it's not powerful enough, or priced right, to be considered mathematically acceptable. Unfortunately, if we had someone as lazy as you rebalancing 40k, we'd miss out on frag ever becoming better, because as we should apparently all know, if it's broken, throw it away and don't try to fix it.
Also Bolters and Pulse rifles and such lost any armor penetrating power, so no they don't fit the lore now. Approximate strength is only met if you ignore the lore, which I thought you didn't do with your former complaint about how consolidating the ML and LC stats would be bad.
And I think bolters and pulse rifles should have extra AP. But I'm not advocating scrapping them because they don't. I would rather fix them. However, you do miss the even more basic point - bolters are stronger than lasguns. Which they tangibly are.
3. If something cannot be a proper platform even in the most favorable circumstances (Multi-Melta for Skyhammer Formation Devastators), the option might as well not exist. Same thing for 4 of the current ML performing less than 2 Lascannons and 2 Heavy Bolters against almost all targets. The 5 point cut to the ML still didn't help it. I suppose that they could maybe subtract 1 or 2 more points, but math is hard and it would be hard for someone to figure out if they went over in points and had to ask for permission to run more stuff.
Dude, if you need to rely on arguments not even presented in this thread, I think that speaks a lot for how strongly you have faith in your own points.
But yes, I'm glad you finally realise that your precious points would actually have a purpose here! After all, it's not like that's what you've been defending in these other threads you bring up.
4. Look at the Loota and Flash Gitz kits again, and say with a straight face all those weapons could perform the same. That's not even a matter of being uniform. One of the Flash Gitz on the website has a darn Plasma Cannon!
They're Orks. I can't say anything about them with a straight face because of all the teef. But jokes aside, they're Orks. They will be whatever they can be. Sure, it LOOKS like a plasma cannon, but it's been tinkered with so much it's actually not.
5. Rules bloat doesn't just refer to how many books you carry and you know that.
It's the bit that matters to me. I don't think 8th is particularly bloaty right now anyways.
Also your feelings towards the rest of the game are relevant as it establishes how you construct your beliefs. It's relevant and should be pointed out.
But why should my argument at face value not be argument in it's own right? If you need to go elsewhere to try and make your claims, instead of being able to rely on what you're being shown here, that's not really very strong conviction.
6. Then I want you, once again with a straight face, say that the current Tactical Marine is fine as is and should be 20 points for everything to fit the fluff more, and that this would be more fun.
I'm saying with a straight face that I think Tactical Marines are fine, and seeing as I don't use points, I don't know how that would affect me. I use Power Level, but I think 5 right now, 6 if you want to make it more expensive, is fine.
7. Core mechanics made the small blast bad on top of the prohibitive cost of the ML, and I already pointed out how you didn't like anything not being a multiple of 5 which you demonstrated in a different thread. 18 point ML's would be too hard to add! Might have to ask for extra points from your opponent!
If you make this kind of jab again, I'm using the yellow triangle. It's not funny, and frankly just makes me lose any kind of faith in debating with you. You could fix the core mechanics, if that's what's the issue is.
OR we can just admit that the ML has always been bad outside super specific instances (Long Fangs), and consolidate them into the Lascannon profile, ergo giving those models new life on the tabletop. Nobody uses the Frag profile anyway and the Flakk Strategem doesn't make for a good weapon, so nothing is missed. That's several problems solved in one go.
If frag was buffed or the missile made cheaper, then it's also fixed. Taking the lazy solution isn't good here, in my opinion.
8. Based on the fact they have rules where they can't stop and have a hard to hit rule due to their speed and being REALLY high up in the air, it is safe to assume a 8" Flamer shouldn't be hitting it mechanically.
They can still fly low to the ground and move fast??
I also came up with that pathetic excuse for sneaky dudes making Plasma explode more. It isn't a good excuse though and needed to be rewritten to make more sense.
Why do you want to rewrite this, but can't be bothered to rewrite the rules for underperforming weapons?
9. The Space Marine and Fire Warrior aren't tougher than a Guardsman due to points, so you're also just wrong on this account.
Sorry? A single Space Marine is toughness 4. A guardsman is toughness 3. If points are an issue, change the points - and while you're at it, change them for the frag missile too.
10. And on the tabletop units can due stuff due to faith. So why is that something properly represented but not Eldar dodging Lasguns?
In the same way everyone doesn't dodge lasguns - because armour save, or invulnerable if you're quick enough to get one. Eldar apparently aren't, but Harlequins are.
11. As long as you're in denial and make excuses for their rules development team, sure you can get all you want out of the game. You're stopping the game from actually growing though.
At least I'm not trying to shrink it.
Plus, that "growing"? That's growing in YOUR preferred way. If I wanted it to grow more in MY way, you'd complain too.
Scott-S6 wrote:There is a balance required though - at the moment lots of options for character are essentially eliminated via being drastically worse than other options. Consolidating the crunch opens up modelling options.
As well as reducing variety in the game. I think I'd actually agree that redundancy is bad. The issue is how to fix it. My way of fixing things is to make sure, either through costing, or through changing stats by a minimal amount, that everything is WORTH taking. If we're assuming that aesthetic values aren't to be considered here (purely for this one argument), I still maintain that having more variety is better. Yes, I've had people take that argument to the extreme of having a seperate stat for every sub-type of boltgun (Godwyn, De'az, etc etc), but I've only seen the extreme of the other argument mentioned once - that being we just make every unit a generic one - so every faction has "generic infantry" "generic heavy infantry" "generic transport" "generic walker" etc etc for "balance".
Suffice to say, taking things to the extremes are ridiculous.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:People aren't taking Flamers because Flamers aren't good at anything for the price, and you're lying to yourself if you say otherwise. As well, should Plasma had stayed at 13 (like it should have before this Chapter Approved) and Melta get that nice new 14 point cost instead thanks to Chapter Approved, it would actually be more fair and maybe the choices matter. Plasma gets the niche of being kinda universal but focuses on hitting those 2 wound models and higher armor saves, and Melta is more powerful for units with a lot of wounds. Of course making Plasma 11 killed that potential didn't it? It also didn't help GW throws around Invul saves like candy and can't price them correctly. Storm Shields being only 2 points proves that.
Underlined every single time you supported my exact argument. It's not about the weapons being redundant. It's about them being costed badly. If they were costed better, then they would no longer be redundant. Taking the easy way out means cutting out a lot of fun options that people like. If the hypothetical person taking notes here were listening, I would tell them to not take the easy way, and balance the points. That's what they're there for, isn't it?
Also you can say "presumably", but the issue there is other Devastator loadouts were taken. Even with the Lascannon being as blech as it was in 7th, they got taken in Gladius because you could load them in a free Rhino as a bunker to fire from. The ML was done as the same for people that couldn't do math on that ghastly weapon. Plasma Cannons were cheap enough at 15 points that they were a mediocre choice. Grav was of course king. The Multi-Melta served no purpose in a Devastator squad ever. If you removed the option, nobody would care besides the people saying "I wanted to do it at some point!!!".
Worked well for close range DEDICATED anti-vehicle destruction. I preferred and still prefer using multis over lascannons.
Crimson wrote:But if we are afraid of options existing creating a situation where one is superior, then ultimately we need to remove all options. If every time something doesn't instantly work, we get rid of it, there's will be nothing left.
Also, sometimes it is OK for some weapons to be 'better' than others, as long as they're properly costed.
Exactly. That's why they have a cost. If not, then - well, we'd be playing Power Level. And some of us aren't keen on that.
1. And IGOUGO is a terrible system overall. Also leaving so many things to random dice rolls IS bad for the game, and several profiles prove that. Plasma Guns prove to be consistent than Melta Guns. Disintigrators are mathematically better than Dark Lances. Reaper Launchers have a flat damage so you can optimize targets. 2. Go play with rocks then if you have no interest in the health of a game. People with your attitude is what leads to the laziness of GW as you defend their crap. I'm the last person to accuse people of being white knights for defending GW, but you fit the definition to a tee. 3. Frags haven't been good the entirety of several editions. Even in a house rule system for better placement of small blasts, the frag missile was bad. It's still bad now because everyone gets a save against it, and has random shots. So it isn't a matter of laziness, which is a funny accusation from someone that says balance isn't fun and is bad. It's a matter of the ML never fulfilling a purpose. Consolidation of stats is better for ML models so they have continued use. 4. Bolters aren't stronger than Lasguns for the points paid, so you're wrong. You're only ever looking at individual models and thinking "this is fine". You don't bother going beyond that because you go pewpew. You might think I would be a terrible designer, but you're proving by fact you would be far worse than many of the people in this forum. 5. I refer to your trouble with adding numbers to make a list because it shows an inability to go into depth on the very clear issues in the game. Anyone that defends Power Level isn't exactly the brightest mind to discuss these things with, after all. 6. And how do you know that Plasma Gun has been tinkered with that much? I thought you wanted to play WYSIWYG. It's almost as though the consolidated profile for the Flash Gitz guns makes for better models and more creative freedom! 7. It's because it shows immaturity in those arguments, which honestly have little merit due to the little dedication you have to understanding the game. Someone can agree with me Trump is a bad president, but if their reason is that he's ugly rather than the silly things he's done in office I would dismiss that person as someone not smart. 8. Except Power Level is a bad system (to the point I laughed and thought GW was making a joke), and anyone defending it should feel bad and reevaluate themselves. Adding ONE Company Vet to the original two dudes increases the cost by how much again? Granularity is a good thing for a reason. 9. It isn't a jab at you. You said adding things not in multiples of five was hard in another thread and makes creating armies super difficult. Threatening me with the "yellow triangle" simply shows you're unable to handle people who disagree with you and point out things you said in other threads. I like making things consistent. Creating core mechanics to better support small blasts still didn't help the Frag round. It might as well not have existed. So who cares you don't use that round? It's useless and has always been useless. Just delete the entry and there isn't an issue. 10. Once again, due to you not looking into the game further than what's immediately in front of you, of course you just see "Marine is T4 3+ Infantry is T3 5+ so Marine is tougher". You don't care about the real balancing of options though because narrative, remember? Why don't we make the Tactical Marine squad a PL of 15? They're supposed to be super rare, right? That's supposed to be fun, right? 11. No, regular Eldar are supposed to be able to dodge Lasguns too, not just Harlequins. So that's fluff not properly represented. Eldar should have a natural -1 to hit and Altaioc makes that a total of -2. Fluff is more important than crunch because that's more fun. 12. Once again, the Flash Gitz and Lootas models prove your point about less variety incorrect. OR is it you want their individual weapons to have separate stats? 13. That doesn't prove any of your points as the ML doesn't have a point to it existing like it does compared to the Melta/Flamer/Plasma trio. I was also referring to how removing the Multi-Melta as an option for Devastators wouldn't matter because it wasn't a good option even a formation that would be perfect for it. 14. Except Multi-Melta Devastators didn't work for that. Saying you prefer it like that means jack due to mathematical performance. I don't care if you prefer a bad option. You defending said bad option is a different story though.
It's like you can't coherently understand my posts. Here's a breakdown of what was discussed so far.
Multi-Meltas serve no purpose in a Devastator squad. Deleting that entry from them won't harm anyone and nobody will notice.
Flamers have a theoretical purpose. They suck at it though. Sure you would fix that.
The ML, however, serves no purpose and hasn't had purpose for many editions, due to being terrible at TAC and expensive and the Flakk Strategem not giving enough distinction. It can be consolidated into having the same profile as the Lascannon in order to alleviate the issues of not getting use of ML models.
Does this flow correctly to you?
You - These weapons have no purpose, and should be deleted. Him - Instead of deleting them, they could be fixed so that they do have a purpose You - No, you're not understanding me! They don't have a purpose, so they should be removed!
He understands you just fine. He's simply proposing a different solution to deleting those options from the game.
There isn't a solution outside consolidation though that makes sense. The ML is basically never good, simple as that. Consolidation into the Lascannon stat line would fix those models as long as the Lascannon isn't terrible.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: It's like you can't coherently understand my posts. Here's a breakdown of what was discussed so far.
Multi-Meltas serve no purpose in a Devastator squad. Deleting that entry from them won't harm anyone and nobody will notice.
Flamers have a theoretical purpose. They suck at it though. Sure you would fix that.
The ML, however, serves no purpose and hasn't had purpose for many editions, due to being terrible at TAC and expensive and the Flakk Strategem not giving enough distinction. It can be consolidated into having the same profile as the Lascannon in order to alleviate the issues of not getting use of ML models.
Does this flow correctly to you?
I can understand perfectly fine that you're repeating how things are and are unable to consider solutions.
I did consider solutions. Consolidation is simply the best one for continued balance and consistency.
That's exactly the point that's being made - the completely excessive number of options leads to situations where many of those options are pointless. Substantially reducing the number of options increases the possibility of having more of those options actually be viable.
You were talking about removing options from a unit that had three. There has been a lot of complaints about Primaris Marines, but before this thread I hadn't heard one about them having too many gear options!
And obviously things can be better or worse if they're costed correctly - that's so obvious I have no idea why you felt the need to point it out.
Apparently it was not obvious to you. Otherwise you wouldn't be clamouring for removing the 'worse' options but would suggest reducing their price instead.
Intercessors actually have the correct number of options, assuming all the guns cost 0 points.
3. Frags haven't been good the entirety of several editions. Even in a house rule system for better placement of small blasts, the frag missile was bad. It's still bad now because everyone gets a save against it, and has random shots.
You keep saying this, but it certainly hasn't been my experience.
I do wonder how much of it comes down to the tournament vs casual divide. Small blasts were rubbish against opponents who always maximise their squad coherency - but from my experience, the vast majority of players never actually did that. Missile launchers as a result filled in a handy multi-purpose role, being slightly worse than a heavy bolter for taking out troops, and slightly worse than a lascannon for taking out armour, but making up for those deficiencies by being cheap and by being able to do both of those things.
As such, claiming that removing it is the only way to fix it is a little absurd. If the current rules leave it not being useful, then the issue is with how it is costed against the other weapon options, which isn't an insurmountable problem that can only be fixed by removing it from the game.
3. Frags haven't been good the entirety of several editions. Even in a house rule system for better placement of small blasts, the frag missile was bad. It's still bad now because everyone gets a save against it, and has random shots.
You keep saying this, but it certainly hasn't been my experience.
I do wonder how much of it comes down to the tournament vs casual divide. Small blasts were rubbish against opponents who always maximise their squad coherency - but from my experience, the vast majority of players never actually did that. Missile launchers as a result filled in a handy multi-purpose role, being slightly worse than a heavy bolter for taking out troops, and slightly worse than a lascannon for taking out armour, but making up for those deficiencies by being cheap and by being able to do both of those things.
As such, claiming that removing it is the only way to fix it is a little absurd. If the current rules leave it not being useful, then the issue is with how it is costed against the other weapon options, which isn't an insurmountable problem that can only be fixed by removing it from the game.
Saying a weapon was fine if your opponent played bad doesn't mean the weapon was fine. It's saying your opponent was playing badly.
Even ignoring Frags for a moment and consider Thunderfire Cannons for moment, they barely worked and did WAY more shots at BS5 to boot. If you brought 6 of those and your opponent still decided not to use max coherency, that's just your opponent being bad. It doesn't mean the Thunderfire is a successful unit. The current iteration is a much better iteration.
Saying a weapon was fine if your opponent played bad doesn't mean the weapon was fine. It's saying your opponent was playing badly.
Sure. But if it's also the way the vast majority of people play, then it's not actually a particularly big issue. For most players, frag missiles with small blasts were fine the way they were, because math-hammer in that instance didn't match what actually tended to happen on the table.
Even ignoring Frags for a moment and consider Thunderfire Cannons for moment, they barely worked and did WAY more shots at BS5 to boot. If you brought 6 of those...
...and, really, who amongst us doesn't routinely field six thunderfire cannons...?
Saying a weapon was fine if your opponent played bad doesn't mean the weapon was fine. It's saying your opponent was playing badly.
Sure. But if it's also the way the vast majority of people play, then it's not actually a particularly big issue. For most players, frag missiles with small blasts were fine the way they were, because math-hammer in that instance didn't match what actually tended to happen on the table.
Even ignoring Frags for a moment and consider Thunderfire Cannons for moment, they barely worked and did WAY more shots at BS5 to boot. If you brought 6 of those...
...and, really, who amongst us doesn't routinely field six thunderfire cannons...?
Maybe 2 Thunderfires, but it was mostly to prove a point that, if your opponent is loading up on so many small blasts, you not mitigating that damage makes you a bad player. Pure and simple.
Regarding mathhammer for small blasts, it's typical to look at three scenarios assuming your opponent isn't braindead and maxed coherence accordingly:
1. Your blast scatters and you're lucky to hit 2 dudes.
2. Your shot is perfect, meaning just the one dude under the blast is hit
3. You scattered off, either hitting another unit of your opponent's or your own for some inexplicable reason.
Oh right. We're back at pre-eight-edition mathammer where everyone is spread to max coherency without fail and still somehow at the same time always in cover.
Crimson wrote: Oh right. We're back at pre-eight-edition mathammer where everyone is spread to max coherency without fail and still somehow at the same time always in cover.
I didn't say anything about cover. That said, you can't deny it was pretty easy to claim you had cover with 6th and 7th.
Besides that's what Flamer weapons were for anyway!
Crimson wrote: Oh right. We're back at pre-eight-edition mathammer where everyone is spread to max coherency without fail and still somehow at the same time always in cover.
I didn't say anything about cover. That said, you can't deny it was pretty easy to claim you had cover with 6th and 7th.
Besides that's what Flamer weapons were for anyway!
You didn't say anything about the cover, but its existence was the reason why most of the time units were not actually spread out to maximum coherency. But all this is totally besides the point. How the weapon worked in a previous edition is immaterial and I really don't know why you keep bringing it up.
Maybe 2 Thunderfires, but it was mostly to prove a point that, if your opponent is loading up on so many small blasts, you not mitigating that damage makes you a bad player. Pure and simple.
Yeah, it doesn't do a great job of proving a point to use an example that never actually happens. You're sounding like all those people decrying the apocryphal kneeling Wraithlord as proof that the Line of Sight rules were busted back in 3rd edition.
While I fully acknowledge that my experience may of course not be typical, I've never seen a marine army with two Thunderfires. I've only rarely seen them with one.
Regarding mathhammer for small blasts, it's typical to look at three scenarios assuming your opponent isn't braindead and maxed coherence accordingly:
Yes, that typical for math hammer, yes. Hence my point about it not matching what generally happens on the actual table.
Continuing to pretend that everyone plays with maxed coherency doesn't make it true.
Crimson wrote: Oh right. We're back at pre-eight-edition mathammer where everyone is spread to max coherency without fail and still somehow at the same time always in cover.
I didn't say anything about cover. That said, you can't deny it was pretty easy to claim you had cover with 6th and 7th.
Besides that's what Flamer weapons were for anyway!
You didn't say anything about the cover, but its existence was the reason why most of the time units were not actually spread out to maximum coherency. But all this is totally besides the point. How the weapon worked in a previous edition is immaterial and I really don't know why you keep bringing it up.
It's to prove that how hopeless a particular weapon was throughout several editions, compared to weapons that actually had functions and somewhat fulfilled them.
Maybe 2 Thunderfires, but it was mostly to prove a point that, if your opponent is loading up on so many small blasts, you not mitigating that damage makes you a bad player. Pure and simple.
Yeah, it doesn't do a great job of proving a point to use an example that never actually happens. You're sounding like all those people decrying the apocryphal kneeling Wraithlord as proof that the Line of Sight rules were busted back in 3rd edition.
While I fully acknowledge that my experience may of course not be typical, I've never seen a marine army with two Thunderfires. I've only rarely seen them with one.
Regarding mathhammer for small blasts, it's typical to look at three scenarios assuming your opponent isn't braindead and maxed coherence accordingly:
Yes, that typical for math hammer, yes. Hence my point about it not matching what generally happens on the actual table.
Continuing to pretend that everyone plays with maxed coherency doesn't make it true.
It's on an actual table where your opponents aren't actually terrible, so it's better to assume the mathhammer I proposed above. It really isn't hard to get that coherence to minimize the power of blasts and templates.
That's why I applaud how GW attempted to handle those weapons for 8th, even though the execution leaves A LOT to be desired.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: It's on an actual table where your opponents aren't actually terrible, so it's better to assume the mathhammer I proposed above. It really isn't hard to get that coherence to minimize the power of blasts and templates.
.
You're right, it's not hard. That doesn't change the fact that most players simply didn't bother.
If you play more competitively, that's fine. But is it really so hard to accept that most people just don't take the game that seriously?
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: It's on an actual table where your opponents aren't actually terrible, so it's better to assume the mathhammer I proposed above. It really isn't hard to get that coherence to minimize the power of blasts and templates.
.
You're right, it's not hard. That doesn't change the fact that most players simply didn't bother.
If you play more competitively, that's fine. But is it really so hard to accept that most people just don't take the game that seriously?
Of course I know there's quite a few people that don't take the game so seriously.
Don't use that kind of mindset to defend poorly designed weapons and units though. Nothing gets fixed when you don't investigate the matter.
You're right, it's not hard. That doesn't change the fact that most players simply didn't bother.
In my 20 years of playing most people did bother about spreading out. Sure, new players made the mistake of not spreading out and if people didn't point out to the new player that bunching up was bad then those people were one of the those who liked to curb stomp new players. Something many frowned upon.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: 4. Bolters aren't stronger than Lasguns for the points paid, so you're wrong. You're only ever looking at individual models and thinking "this is fine". You don't bother going beyond that because you go pewpew.
I can only think of one book, off-hand, in which both Lasguns and Boltguns appear, and that's the IG book. I don't have the book of CA18 to hand, but aren't they both 0 points in there now?
Assuming my memory isn't failing me - which it might be - that would make Boltguns stronger for the same price as Lasguns...
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: It's on an actual table where your opponents aren't actually terrible, so it's better to assume the mathhammer I proposed above. It really isn't hard to get that coherence to minimize the power of blasts and templates.
.
You're right, it's not hard. That doesn't change the fact that most players simply didn't bother.
If you play more competitively, that's fine. But is it really so hard to accept that most people just don't take the game that seriously?
The amount of people that I've met that space out their models like that I can count of one hand, and that includes tournaments and/or competitive players.
In a timed environment, there simply isn't enough time to spare. Doing something like that and meticulously measuring everything is one of the OG examples of slow play. I'd love to know where this idealised world is where you can space your models out to maximum coherency AND still have good LOS AND do it in a timely manner. I do wonder if these people actually play 40kIRL and not just in their heads and/or on Vassal.
Bearing in mind that 8th has no requirement to space for templates.
I ran competition Ork horde. Large blast template provided the ideal . . . template for spacing my figures, one centred and four at cardinal points. Moving was faster if the rearmost figures were moved to the front of the unit, as I did not take big shootas etc.
Choosing to play horde is not ‘slow play’, it’s playing a legal option. If moving a horde is slow, it’s a design problem, not a player problem.
Choosing to play horde is not ‘slow play’, it’s playing a legal option. If moving a horde is slow, it’s a design problem, not a player problem.
I never said that. I said spacing out one's models and meticulously checking all are at max coherency ALL. THE. TIME. is slow play. Being a horde army does not enter into it.
I've experienced this, from one of a few players that I've seen do it and it's fething annoying and is TFG behaviour. I've never, ever come across a board IRL where one can do this without dragging the game out for god knows how long and also being reasonable about it. It just does not happen.
Andykp wrote: So the argument is that 8th is too complicated because tournament players say so. That’s a joke.
Sounds about right.
One of my favourite things in gaming is to either use units or weapons etc. that the tournament crowd consider to be duds and make them work. It's even more especially enjoyable when one of their lauded "high profile" players does it. It like breaks their collective brains and narrow views of how the game should be played in their heads. Saw it far more prominently on the old WMH forums, it was fething glorious.
I don’t get it. Peregrine and slayer-fan et al hate the game rules so much and play in a way that has no relation to the setting and or fluff, what are they interested in 40k at all for!
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: 4. Bolters aren't stronger than Lasguns for the points paid, so you're wrong. You're only ever looking at individual models and thinking "this is fine". You don't bother going beyond that because you go pewpew.
I can only think of one book, off-hand, in which both Lasguns and Boltguns appear, and that's the IG book. I don't have the book of CA18 to hand, but aren't they both 0 points in there now?
Assuming my memory isn't failing me - which it might be - that would make Boltguns stronger for the same price as Lasguns...
Bolters are a 1pt upgrade. A decent choice for sergeants, although only because they can't take lasguns. If they could, it would be better to take an extra lasgun for frfsrf.
Andykp wrote: I don’t get it. Peregrine and slayer-fan et al hate the game rules so much and play in a way that has no relation to the setting and or fluff, what are they interested in 40k at all for!
My guess is because it is the most popular/populous tabletop game with a competitive scene and that now that they are invested into it (sunk-cost from having bought models, rules, etc) they feel trapped into playing it.
Both have made numerous references to other games that do X, Y, or Z better and yet for some reason haven't abandoned 40k in favor of any of those.
And basically (while I very much like 40k) if I remove any personal bias from the equation it strikes me that 40k's only advantages over other games are either fluff or it's insane popularity to the point where you can find a club for it in almost any major city.
And based on their responses I don't think either of them care too much about the fluff.
The only thing that has kept my interest for three decades is the story/fluff. I disliked 3rd to 5th edition and played little but still collected and built armies. Started paying more in 6th and 7th but have to admit 8th is the best version since 2nd edition and very playable. My group is very casual and we provide our own balance by not playing unfluffy power lists. Played this way 8e has very few glaring faults.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: It's on an actual table where your opponents aren't actually terrible, so it's better to assume the mathhammer I proposed above. It really isn't hard to get that coherence to minimize the power of blasts and templates.
.
You're right, it's not hard. That doesn't change the fact that most players simply didn't bother.
If you play more competitively, that's fine. But is it really so hard to accept that most people just don't take the game that seriously?
The amount of people that I've met that space out their models like that I can count of one hand, and that includes tournaments and/or competitive players.
In a timed environment, there simply isn't enough time to spare. Doing something like that and meticulously measuring everything is one of the OG examples of slow play. I'd love to know where this idealised world is where you can space your models out to maximum coherency AND still have good LOS AND do it in a timely manner. I do wonder if these people actually play 40kIRL and not just in their heads and/or on Vassal.
Of course it was still done in a timed environment. That's one of the reasons small blast weapons never made an appearance! Stop playing revisionary.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Andykp wrote: I don’t get it. Peregrine and slayer-fan et al hate the game rules so much and play in a way that has no relation to the setting and or fluff, what are they interested in 40k at all for!
This reminds me of how Metallica fanboys really to defend the band each time they decide to release an album that isn't worth anything musically. The moment you criticize, you're not a TRUE fan of the band and you should listen to something else, instead of just accepting they put out more garbage than gold.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Andykp wrote: So the argument is that 8th is too complicated because tournament players say so. That’s a joke.
Andykp wrote: So the argument is that 8th is too complicated because tournament players say so. That’s a joke.
Sounds about right.
One of my favourite things in gaming is to either use units or weapons etc. that the tournament crowd consider to be duds and make them work. It's even more especially enjoyable when one of their lauded "high profile" players does it. It like breaks their collective brains and narrow views of how the game should be played in their heads. Saw it far more prominently on the old WMH forums, it was fething glorious.
Well when you start topping consistently please let us know.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:1. And IGOUGO is a terrible system overall.
So change that then.
Also leaving so many things to random dice rolls IS bad for the game, and several profiles prove that. Plasma Guns prove to be consistent than Melta Guns. Disintigrators are mathematically better than Dark Lances. Reaper Launchers have a flat damage so you can optimize targets.
Ignoring the fact that random damage isn't inherently bad (that's a matter of opinion, not a fact - please, stop asserting your opinion as fact), that could be fixed. Get rid of random rolls - give missile launchers a flat damage stat, that gives them a niche of their own.
2. Go play with rocks then if you have no interest in the health of a game. People with your attitude is what leads to the laziness of GW as you defend their crap.
Alternatively, you could play with the rocks, and balance them how you want to, with the rocks having all the power you like. As I see it, the game IS healthy. The fact you don't see it that way isn't my problem.
I'm the last person to accuse people of being white knights for defending GW, but you fit the definition to a tee.
And what's wrong with being positive? I freely admit things I dislike, but just because I don't have such a dislike as you do, that makes me a "white knight"?
3. Frags haven't been good the entirety of several editions. Even in a house rule system for better placement of small blasts, the frag missile was bad. It's still bad now because everyone gets a save against it, and has random shots.
Then change that. For someone who wants to change things about 40k, you really seem to think your hands are tied on this one.
Why do you think that you can't change missiles, but you could do the far more drastic change of functionally scrapping entire arsenals of weapons? This just sounds to me like you want to narrow down the game to fit your personal wants from it.
So it isn't a matter of laziness, which is a funny accusation from someone that says balance isn't fun and is bad.
Falling on deaf ears, I see.
I never said balance was bad. I said balance at the cost of fun is bad. Balance doesn't have to come at the expense of fun, but with some proposals, like this one, it does.
It's not hard.
It's a matter of the ML never fulfilling a purpose. Consolidation of stats is better for ML models so they have continued use.
So make it fulfil it's purpose. It has a purpose. It's not mathematically good at it. Solution, fix the maths, not scrap the gun.
4. Bolters aren't stronger than Lasguns for the points paid, so you're wrong. You're only ever looking at individual models and thinking "this is fine". You don't bother going beyond that because you go pewpew.
Isn't there something like a 1 point difference between a lasgun and a bolter? In which case, you think that getting +1 strength is something a bolter should get for free? You don't get cheaper than 1 point.
Bolters (not the things attached to and around bolters) are stronger than lasguns (not the things attached to and around lasguns). I'm not comparing marines and guardsmen. I'm comparing their weapons, and simply pointing out that a bolter has a higher strength stat than a lasgun.
5. I refer to your trouble with adding numbers to make a list because it shows an inability to go into depth on the very clear issues in the game. Anyone that defends Power Level isn't exactly the brightest mind to discuss these things with, after all.
Yellow Triangle.
Not just that, but you STILL fall back on the frankly unfounded, and untrue, notion that I'm bad at maths. That's not the case. I can do maths just as well as you - I just don't want to, because it's dull.
For heaven's sake, can you stop this blatant lying? It's not funny, and it certainly doesn't make your argument look any better.
6. And how do you know that Plasma Gun has been tinkered with that much? I thought you wanted to play WYSIWYG. It's almost as though the consolidated profile for the Flash Gitz guns makes for better models and more creative freedom!
I am playing WYSIWYG. I don't see a plasma gun. I see a cobbled together weapon with parts from a plasma weapon, but clearly NOT a plasma weapon.
If I saw someone with a guardsman carrying a plasma gun made out of plasma pistol bits, would I expect it to be a plasma pistol?
7. It's because it shows immaturity in those arguments, which honestly have little merit due to the little dedication you have to understanding the game.
Someone can agree with me Trump is a bad president, but if their reason is that he's ugly rather than the silly things he's done in office I would dismiss that person as someone not smart.
I understand it just fine. I also understand that people get different things from it, and I understand that me berating someone for finding fun in a different place is incredibly rude, immature and arrogant.
8. Except Power Level is a bad system (to the point I laughed and thought GW was making a joke), and anyone defending it should feel bad and reevaluate themselves.
Alternatively, no. Shaming people for liking something else isn't smart, it's not respectful, and frankly, I'm surprised your sheer lack of care for anyone who isn't in your own circle is still continuing.
Granularity is a good thing for a reason.
Except when it's not, like with weapons having different ranges and being variably good or bad at different things?
9. It isn't a jab at you. You said adding things not in multiples of five was hard in another thread and makes creating armies super difficult.
Well, no, I didn't. YOU claim I say that.
What I actually said was "multiples of five are easier to calculate than multiples of other numbers" (not that anything other than five was hard - but that kind of subtlety is lost on you, it seems), and that "calculating up to a four digit number with single digit sums per model is slower than calculating up to a two or maybe three digit number with single digit numbers, per unit". Again, too complex for you, it seems, to understand.
Threatening me with the "yellow triangle" simply shows you're unable to handle people who disagree with you and point out things you said in other threads. I like making things consistent.
IOW "you can't handle when I make blatant lies, personal insults and misrepresentations at you, which have nothing to do with the argument, and expecting a level of decency and self respect make you intolerant of people lol".
Grow up. Seriously.
Creating core mechanics to better support small blasts still didn't help the Frag round. It might as well not have existed. So who cares you don't use that round? It's useless and has always been useless. Just delete the entry and there isn't an issue.
Alternatively, just fix the entry and there isn't an issue.
10. Once again, due to you not looking into the game further than what's immediately in front of you, of course you just see "Marine is T4 3+ Infantry is T3 5+ so Marine is tougher". You don't care about the real balancing of options though because narrative, remember?
I mean, that's literally my whole point. I'm only talking about toughness. I'm not talking about synergy, I'm not talking numbers, I'm talking base level facts, and a marine is right here, in black and white, tougher than a guardsman.
I rest my case.
Why don't we make the Tactical Marine squad a PL of 15? They're supposed to be super rare, right? That's supposed to be fun, right?
Astartes are rare on a galactic scale, not on a battlefield scale. Besides, if you think Power Level or points is supposed to represent "rareness", then I have no idea what the heck you're doing. As you've vomited down my throat, points are there for "balance". According to you, "balance" should be paramount.
11. No, regular Eldar are supposed to be able to dodge Lasguns too, not just Harlequins. So that's fluff not properly represented. Eldar should have a natural -1 to hit and Altaioc makes that a total of -2.
So can Space Marines. So can Chaos Marines. So can most armies, it seems. But then, I've also seen plenty of cases of Eldar being shredded by lasgun fire, and not being able to dodge that. I doubt it's a universal thing then.
Fluff is more important than crunch because that's more fun.
Agreed. So why do you want to get rid of frag missiles?
12. Once again, the Flash Gitz and Lootas models prove your point about less variety incorrect. OR is it you want their individual weapons to have separate stats?
I'd actually want more randomness from their weapons. Random strength, AP, the lot - of course, on the higher end.
See - I'm not ALL about keeping the status quo.
13. That doesn't prove any of your points as the ML doesn't have a point to it existing like it does compared to the Melta/Flamer/Plasma trio. I was also referring to how removing the Multi-Melta as an option for Devastators wouldn't matter because it wasn't a good option even a formation that would be perfect for it.
So buff the multimelta. Why is the past relevant for why you just can't buff it now?
"They were bad!" - "So buff them." - "But they were useless!" - "Which is why I'm telling you to buff them." - "BUT THEY WERE TERRIBLE" - "Exactly. So buff them."
14. Except Multi-Melta Devastators didn't work for that. Saying you prefer it like that means jack due to mathematical performance. I don't care if you prefer a bad option. You defending said bad option is a different story though.
Why shouldn't I defend something I prefer? Because it challenges your perception of one way to play?
There isn't a solution outside consolidation though that makes sense.
EXCEPT SIMPLE BUFFING
How do you not understand this??
The ML is basically never good, simple as that.
So buff it then!
Consolidation into the Lascannon stat line would fix those models as long as the Lascannon isn't terrible.
No, it just makes them lascannons. And what if lascannons become prohibitively expensive? Would you scrap lascannons too?
I did consider solutions. Consolidation is simply the best one for continued balance and consistency.
But I thought POINTS were supposed to be the arbiter of balance, the all important thing that makes 40k work? Do you think points are useless now?
After ten pages, I'm not sure there's really anything more productive happening here. It's clear that people have varying views on just how the game would work best, and that's fine. Continuing the yell those views at each other isn't going to achieve anything.
)
