Take for example upgrade pistols for SM characters. Would it not be better to have a choice of say 3 profiles covering the major uses, then attach whatever names to them? Would fit better with the 'free upgrade' approach. Or is the shaving of 1 point, or choice of which sword to use something that you play the game for?

i'd love if we could get less profiles tbh, just consolidate all that bloat that doesnt matter.
Accursed weapons was a good start for CSM

we don't need 40 different variations of bolters too

I think there were discussions about that same topic just recently.
Usual potential for streamlining:
- CC power weapons like in 3rd-5th edition (sword/axe/maul the same; then claws, fist, chainfist, Hammer. I think combining Fist/Chainfist wouldn't be a problem with 40K's current scale)
- the multitude of Primaris Bolt weapons should be severely reduced

Becides those it gets tricky I think. Of course you can make categories like antitank, antiswarm, antielite infantry but within these you have different ranges and sizes so in the end you'll have the same plasma/melta/flamer/lascannon we always had.
There's certainly potential to streamline post-8th edition useless addons like the bespoken power klaws on beast snaggas and Trike Boss; you can turn eliminator lasfusils or what they're called into lascannons, Bolt rifles are bolters, Hellblasters have plasma guns, Heavy Intercessors have heavy Bolters and so on. The more I think about it It's becoming obvious that this is mainly a Marines/ Primaris problem.

I see a lot of the WYSIWYG issues we have in this game and how there are dud weapons constantly brought up such as grenade launchers, but as above, there were categories instead of names, it might be less of an issue.

Imagine if guardsmen had one or two "special weapon" profiles and you modelled as you saw fit, for example.

I don't see the need for this level of simplification, but I do agree that the Primaris weapon line needs trimming down.

I'd rather simplify a little (in line with what Sgt. Cortez said) then shrink the game size back down to how big games were around 4th edition to make those distinctions meaningful again.

Probably not going to happen though.

The bigger the game gets, the more profiles need to be abstracted into combined classes.

There is a lot of bloat that needs to be cut. Marine bolters being the prime example. I was fine with power weapons being lumped together before, and would not mater if it happened again.

On the scale that 40k is at these days is it worth differentiating between a grav or plasma pistol? Or just lump them together as “heavy energy pistol” or something similar and stick a single stat line on it. I think we are at that point. Places like KT still exist for that level of granularity.

 Valkyrie wrote:
I don't see the need for this level of simplification, but I do agree that the Primaris weapon line needs trimming down.

Its interesting for me - because most other wargames don't have it to this level. It is really a 'feature' of 40k, but I wonder how essential a feature it is. It is rare outside of a few models that we actually care, with mass in general being better than marginal upgrades (with of course the odd exception). I know chatting to designers in the past it wasn't something that was going anywhere, with the complicated nature of list building (not complexity, but complication) being a feature to involve people who might actually play very few games in their time with the systems before abandoning for other things. On that basis there is little incentive to ever reduce the bloat of say Primaris bolters, because why bother? All those (often false) choices do seem to build a level of involvement in players that most wargames instead get from their gameplay. The whole build list and take advantage of it in game is quite different to most wargames that have far simpler list building constructs. But look at which is the most popular?

I think also a lot of players would object to weapons with different names on datasheets all getting the same stats. The whole idea of 'unique name, unique profile' is pretty closely held to.

I like diversity in weapons. Indeed each race being given more specific guns in 3rd is one of the few changes I did like.

Now does that mean we need the current level of diversity? Genuinely couldn’t say, as ever due to me not having been actively gaming for years now.

I think the way upgrades are presented can be a bit much (Heavy Intercessors with your 57 Varities of Heavy Bolter, all tied to which version of gun the squad carries, I’m looking at you, pal) but that’s about the extent of my singularly uninformed opinion will allow.

Yep, cut the bloat. 40k has way too many overlapping weapons with different rules and profiles that have very little impact from a strategic point of view. 40k gameplay should be about commanding your forces, not making spreadsheets of math optimization to figure out which weapon variant has 3% better performance.

Only a couple of things need sorting IMO:
- Strats that were special rules should be reintegrated.
- Certain units need to be merged, such as Intercessors and Assault Intercessors.
- Certain weapon profiles should be changed from full weapons to just different firing types. Bolt Rifles, for example, keep different firing options cos Assault Bolters are very funny with the double-shoot strategem.
- Genericise certain weapon profiles. Options such as Accursed Weapons are IMO, a good idea as long as it's implemented army-wide rather than on specific units.

I'm not sure how prevalent these issues are overall as I dropped out of 9th some time ago to play other games and haven't bought a Codex since GSC where I played one game and then stopped with 40k.

Consolidate weapons commonly used by troops.

Expand the wargear options available for leaders.

a_typical_hero wrote:
Consolidate weapons commonly used by troops.

Expand the wargear options available for leaders.

Why?

The leader options appear to me to be mostly redundant. You either save points or get the wargamer they will likely use. Lots of the options cost the same but have obvious winners. What do you get by having more options that are rarely taken?

a_typical_hero wrote:
Consolidate weapons commonly used by troops.

Expand the wargear options available for leaders.

In a way I agree.
I think the consolidation of Marine profiles is the best way to go (we really don't need Intercessors and Tacticals to be separate entries, just give Intercessors the Tactical Marine options). We also don't need as many power weapons (two profiles for something like bladed power weapons and heavy power weapons for axes/mauls would work fine). I also wouldn't necessarily care if Chainfist and Lightning Claw would go, as much as they are legacy weapons.

However, for leaders, there should be LESS equipment too. Outside how Relics work, there's no point for a Captain to choose a Power Weapon over a Relic Blade. Why shouldn't Relic Blade just encompass any Power Weapon a Captain would use in general?

Make Firstborn their own codex so I don't have to look at all the garbage Primaris bloat.

I wouldn't mind, but it would hamstring GW's attempts to portray Primaris equipment as superior.

Are relic blades described as being more deadly than power weapons in the fluff or does a model wielding a relic blade look deadlier than one with a power sword? Either of those would be a good reason to have a unique profile for the relic blade. How many people are regularly switching up weapons on their leader? Do you need to know the stats of every weapon in the game? Is that realistic without getting rid of 99% of weapon profiles in the game?

Calling a plasma pistol an energy pistol makes me cringe, it feels very generic and is my biggest gripe with 40k clones like Grimdark Future. I want the nostalgia of using terms that have been in use forever.

a_typical_hero wrote:
Consolidate weapons commonly used by troops.

Expand the wargear options available for leaders.

Agree with this.

Dont need a datasheet for every model either. Just have a Space Marine Captain (for example) sheet and a long list of options like they used to. Brings the yourdudes fun back into the game

If you want an option that needs to be converted and dont want to convert, proxy or tough I guess if your opponent is to highly strung for that.

 vict0988 wrote:
Are relic blades described as being more deadly than power weapons in the fluff or does a model wielding a relic blade look deadlier than one with a power sword? Either of those would be a good reason to have a unique profile for the relic blade. How many people are regularly switching up weapons on their leader? Do you need to know the stats of every weapon in the game? Is that realistic without getting rid of 99% of weapon profiles in the game?

Calling a plasma pistol an energy pistol makes me cringe, it feels very generic and is my biggest gripe with 40k clones like Grimdark Future. I want the nostalgia of using terms that have been in use forever.

I’m not a huge fan of genricsizing names, but it’s a way to deal with bloat. We need to cut down the endless options, most of which are trivial distinctions. But is it worth keeping stormbolters, combi-bolters, and twin-linked bolters on the charts if the are all using the same stats? (As an example)

I don’t think it’s worth tracking if the captain has a grav pistol vs. plasma pistol. More then a stock bolt pistol? Sure. Pay your 5 points for the upgraded sidearm. I’m going to model it as plasma, refer to it as plasma, but it might show up as “upgraded sidearm” on the list builder. And I’m OK with that if it lets us get the armory page back under control.

YMMV, and I get that this is a bigger issue for some.

Aecus Decimus wrote:
Yep, cut the bloat. 40k has way too many overlapping weapons with different rules and profiles that have very little impact from a strategic point of view. 40k gameplay should be about commanding your forces, not making spreadsheets of math optimization to figure out which weapon variant has 3% better performance.

Well 40k isn't real battle scale but larger skimish. But even for that too many bolter profiles

Here I made this handy chart!

These are all the Primaris-only weapons:


The crazy thing is that's not even all the weapons they use, because they can also get power weapons, power fists, combi-weapons and the like. I wouldn't be surprised if Primaris themselves use more weapon profiles than any other faction even before you have Firstborn stuff in there.

There's some goofy things going on with Firstborn/Real/TrueMarines too. Why is there a separate profile for a Twin-Bolter and a Combi-Bolter AND a Storm Bolter? Why did they suddenly differentiate between a Missile Launcher and a Centurion Missile Launcher? The Techmarine now has a Plasma-Cutter, when before it counted as a Plasma Pistol (the difference is that one is Pistol and one is Assault, now. Seems unnecessary) There's also some one-off items that could be consolidated, like the Wrist-mounted Grenade Launcher (which belongs to a limited edition Terminator Captain, I think), while there's also an Astartes Grenade Launcher. Seems like you could slam those two together.

Part of this is GW making a bid to make units "unique" and individual, but it overcomplicates the game.

Heck I've seen in AoS battletomes where the same simple ability - eg a +1 save - gets called multiple different terms within the same army, even sometimes between different versions of the same model.

The result is a LOT of overhead of terminology that makes it a lot harder to learn and remember the game.



Of course on the flipside AoS is also going into the other extreme, where different weapons are almost becoming the same. Where a sword or a spear are basically identical in stats (actually I think spears have still held out with +1 inch of range). The problem there is that they've bascially over-compensated the other way to where weapons are almost if not actually identical.

There is a happy middle ground where units have different weapon options for different situations and where different units can have different slots and unique features; whilst at the same time maintaining a simpler core of values and properties.






The core of the problem, as I see it, is that GW aren't building a single game system with a single focus. They've sort of got a team and community input and a feeling that different teams and rules developers pull in different ways because there's no overarching control; and because every X number of years the main rules change up entirely and the whole system starts over again.

It would not surprise me if this is also why codex and battletomes became steadily harder to read. Going from where all weapons stats were on a units profile page to where they are not scatter shot through the document; requiring many more page flips to find all the information; which in turn makes varied weapons feel harder ot keep up with and makes people want a much simpler system.

GW could keep a complex weapon setup and a varied approach if they made the rules documents easier and quicker to reference

 Nevelon wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
Are relic blades described as being more deadly than power weapons in the fluff or does a model wielding a relic blade look deadlier than one with a power sword? Either of those would be a good reason to have a unique profile for the relic blade. How many people are regularly switching up weapons on their leader? Do you need to know the stats of every weapon in the game? Is that realistic without getting rid of 99% of weapon profiles in the game?

Calling a plasma pistol an energy pistol makes me cringe, it feels very generic and is my biggest gripe with 40k clones like Grimdark Future. I want the nostalgia of using terms that have been in use forever.

I’m not a huge fan of genricsizing names, but it’s a way to deal with bloat. We need to cut down the endless options, most of which are trivial distinctions. But is it worth keeping stormbolters, combi-bolters, and twin-linked bolters on the charts if the are all using the same stats? (As an example)

I don’t think it’s worth tracking if the captain has a grav pistol vs. plasma pistol. More then a stock bolt pistol? Sure. Pay your 5 points for the upgraded sidearm. I’m going to model it as plasma, refer to it as plasma, but it might show up as “upgraded sidearm” on the list builder. And I’m OK with that if it lets us get the armory page back under control.

YMMV, and I get that this is a bigger issue for some.

If plasma and grav weapons are so similar to each other that there's no reason to have both, and just generalize them together, then the problem is that the game has become too "streamlined" to properly differentiate them from each other. They're different weapons, that function differently, and if the game had a stronger set of Core Rules, then those differences could be better represented.

 Nevelon wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
Are relic blades described as being more deadly than power weapons in the fluff or does a model wielding a relic blade look deadlier than one with a power sword? Either of those would be a good reason to have a unique profile for the relic blade. How many people are regularly switching up weapons on their leader? Do you need to know the stats of every weapon in the game? Is that realistic without getting rid of 99% of weapon profiles in the game?

Calling a plasma pistol an energy pistol makes me cringe, it feels very generic and is my biggest gripe with 40k clones like Grimdark Future. I want the nostalgia of using terms that have been in use forever.

I’m not a huge fan of genricsizing names, but it’s a way to deal with bloat. We need to cut down the endless options, most of which are trivial distinctions. But is it worth keeping stormbolters, combi-bolters, and twin-linked bolters on the charts if the are all using the same stats? (As an example)

I don’t think it’s worth tracking if the captain has a grav pistol vs. plasma pistol. More then a stock bolt pistol? Sure. Pay your 5 points for the upgraded sidearm. I’m going to model it as plasma, refer to it as plasma, but it might show up as “upgraded sidearm” on the list builder. And I’m OK with that if it lets us get the armory page back under control.

YMMV, and I get that this is a bigger issue for some.

Does grav pistols existing hurts you or your opponents if you never use them? Let's say they're more points efficient, you can still continue to use your plasma even if a better alternative exists. The upside is that the gameplay will be better able to portray the fluff when it is necessary if you don't make cutting down on options a goal in its sake. If there is no model or fluff reason for rules to be different, let them be the same, but that is not the case when you're talking about a plasma pistol vs a grav pistol, the fluff for them is different enough to warrant different profiles. Whether you have 3 units of Intercessors, each with a different weapon option or 3 units of Tacticals each with a different heavy weapon or a unit each of Tyranid Warriors, Termagants and Hormagaunts is the same difference.

They only way it really hurts me is when I need to flip through the pages of charts to find the right rules, as illustrated by Insectum7’s post above.

When 40k was a smaller scale game, the exact make of the sarge’s sidearm had an impact on the game. But when we have knights and primarchs stomping around, do we need that level of detail?

To be fair, pistols would not be the first thing I would consolidate. There are worse offenders that would be on the block first. It is a minor gripe of mine back from when they reintroduced grav guns that they fill a very similar role mechanically as plasma.

I think Grav Pistols/Guns have a reason to exist outside of Plasma Pistols/Guns. They just sorta suck right now.

I'm also not a fan of genericizing terms. Punchy names make things spicy and more memorable.

Generic names less so, but crappy names make things even harder to remember. I'm looking at you Intercessors, Inceptors, Invictors, Suppressors, etc. . .


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Because it's fun I'll repost the weapons reference from the 4th ed Marine codex. #ILoveYou4thEd



To be totally fair, not every weapon is on that list. The Cyclone Missile Launcher and the Hurricane Bolter are missing. That might be it, though. . .

There should only be 6 bolt weapons. PERIOD!

There have been many patterns of bolt weapons through the ages, but all with the same profile and that's what all the Primaris should have been and need to become.

Boltgun (Rapid Fire)
Strom Bolter (Rapid Fire)
Bolt Pistol (Pictol)
Heavy Bolter (Heavy Weapon)
Boltrifle (HunTR - That's right, make this a standard weapon type.)
Bolt Carbine (Assault)

Done!

Off-shoots that are really just multiples of one type of bolt weapon don't really count towards this. Examples: A Hurricane Bolter is just 6 boltguns. A Combi-bolter is just a boltgun + something. Etc.

Please for the love of all things holy simplify the weapons. I kinda miss the day when even xenos had the same weapons as imperials. So if you wanted to explain the wargear you just said, yeah he's got a meltagun and the opponant knew exactly what he was dealing with. No surprises.

Then you had modifiers. Like Master crafted. Again, standardised but added a bit of variation or flair to what the weapon does. I know some peeps dislike USR but it does make things easier once you know them, like modifiers in a video game.

So you have a boltgun, an ork has an assault version, a dark eldar has a poison version, a tau has a, i dunno, far shot version. Boom 4 variations of the same gun, one profile but all feel a bit unique in the same way. 20 modifiers, 50 weapons and you have a large number of unique weapons to spread around without needing 75 boltgun profiles alone.

 oni wrote:
There should only be 6 bolt weapons. PERIOD!

There have been many patterns of bolt weapons through the ages, but all with the same profile and that's what all the Primaris should have been and need to become.

Boltgun (Rapid Fire)
Strom Bolter (Rapid Fire)
Bolt Pistol (Pictol)
Heavy Bolter (Heavy Weapon)
Boltrifle (HunTR - That's right, make this a standard weapon type.)
Bolt Carbine (Assault)

Let's cut this down even more. Bolt rifles are just bolters. Bolt carbines are storm bolters (which can go back to being assault weapons). You have the basic rifle, the "squad light machine gun" storm bolter, the pistol, and the heavy machine gun. Done. None of the other stuff has any reason to exist.

(And dear god let's not make HunTR™™™™™ a standard weapon type, it at least needs to be something suitably generic like all the existing types.)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Nevelon wrote:
But when we have knights and primarchs stomping around, do we need that level of detail?

Exactly. On the scale between grots and knights/primarchs/etc a grav gun and a plasma gun are the same weapon, they don't need separate rules. Same thing with all the different power weapons. A game at the scale of 40k doesn't need to worry about optimizing your exact +/- 5% advantage against specific targets, it's a superior melee weapon and they can all go in a generic power weapon category with a single stat line.

 Nevelon wrote:
On the scale that 40k is at these days is it worth differentiating between a grav or plasma pistol? Or just lump them together as “heavy energy pistol” or something similar and stick a single stat line on it. I think we are at that point. Places like KT still exist for that level of granularity.

Yes, it is very well worth it. Because when your squads have access to multiple weapon options, there is a chance that maybe one will be actualy worth taking . If GW split marine weapons in to small weapon, anti infantry, anti heavy infantry and anti tank weapons, and somehow the anti tank weapons end up bad in an edition when having anti tank is important, you get potentialy years of no updated. For melee weapons it becomes even worse, especialy for factions where the melee weapons are important. If the hammer, sword, twin swords, staff and halabard are all the same, then they would need some very powerful rule set to balance a faction. Same with marine faction. If your top unit for melee, has swords and GW gives swords bad rules, then as marine you are screwed, because you are the first codex and waiting for update can be a 1-2 year.

It also limits the options for different factions. Lets say an edition is all about fist weapons. Power weapons are bad for all marines, but not for BA who have +1 to wound and for them stuff like power axes being different is important.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Aecus Decimus 808907 11493007 wrote:

Let's cut this down even more. Bolt rifles are just bolters. Bolt carbines are storm bolters (which can go back to being assault weapons). You have the basic rifle, the "squad light machine gun" storm bolter, the pistol, and the heavy machine gun. Done. None of the other stuff has any reason to exist.

(And dear god let's not make HunTR™™™™™ a standard weapon type, it at least needs to be something suitably generic like all the existing types.)

So something like a reaver will have the same fire power as a terminator who costs double the points? And the gap between something like GK strikes/interceptors and terminators would become even bigger.

Dai wrote:

a_typical_hero wrote:
Consolidate weapons commonly used by troops.

Expand the wargear options available for leaders.

Agree with this.

Dont need a datasheet for every model either. Just have a Space Marine Captain (for example) sheet and a long list of options like they used to. Brings the yourdudes fun back into the game

If you want an option that needs to be converted and dont want to convert, proxy or tough I guess if your opponent is to highly strung for that.

I'm mostly on board with this as well. Like, with the the captain you could make one, at max three datasheets. Captain, Terminator Captain, Bike Captain.

Captain gets access to the slate of options: Boltgun, Heavy boltgun, bolt-carbine, storm bolter, Combi-weapons, bolt-pistol, plas-pistol, grav-pistol, Power Weapons, Power-fist, Lighting Claw, Storm Shield, Relic Blade, Chainsword, Thunder Hammer, Jump Pack, artificer armor. In addition, you can give them a Primaris Upgrade, which locks them out of the Jump Pack and artificer armor, but allows them to get into the Gravis/Phobos Armors, which gives/grants access to the extra gear associated with those armors. Rinse-Repeat with Terminator and Biker and their wargear.

For characters, make Primaris an upgrade option and erase the excess datasheets, and would allow a simple, elegant solution to bring back Legends sheets like Biker characters and terminator characters.

I'm open to a healthy, modest amount of consolidation, but there's no need to go crazy with it.

As has been pointed out above, this is *mostly* a marine problem. Imperials/humans as a whole have the issue to a lesser extent. There are some xenos weapons that overlap/struggle to find a niche, but not to the extent that it's a problem in need of fixing.

So yeah, you can reasonably lump storm/combi/twin-linked bolters together into a single datasheet. You can probably make tkhe plasma cutter a plasma pistol again for simplicity's sake. You can probably do a once-over of some of the "like that other gun, but better!" profiles and remove the ones that don't meaningfully impact the game.

But that said, we don't need to go overboard with it. My invictus warsuits have a choice between sword and mace profiles, and each one makes the model function in a meaningfully different way. Dire Avenger shuriken catapults being different from normal shuriken catapults helps give the avengers a reason to exist. Splinter carbines have a lot of overlap with splinter rifles, but you do feel the difference when using scourges/sslyth.

Also, I know that the various intercessor guns are kind of the obvious example of unnecessary weapon distinctions, but I'm kind of torn on those. The differences between the weapons are distinctive enough to change up how the unit carrying them plays. Are you rushing forward to get in range with Assault 3, holding still to avoid the penalties of Heavy 1 D2, or are you using the rapid fire profile that lets you trade-off movement for shots at range while still giving you the ability to fire two shots after moving? Maybe distinctions like this would be better represented as part of an army's chapter tactics or commander orders? Let Raven Guard/Raptors hold still to shoot their bolters like sniper rifles while a more aggressive chapter might have the option of unleashing a full auto Assault 3 volley.

iirc, relic blades used to have the trade-off of being two-handed. So you were opting to give up a storm shield or the bonus attack from wieldign a second melee weapon in exchange for a better-than-power-sword profile. The relic blade also had more of a niche when AV was a thing as the strength boost meant you were significantly more of a threat to vehicles than a power sword wielder while also not go so far as to have the drawbacks of a power fist.

Similarly, grav just kind of struggles to have an identity in the current AP system. Their whole gimmick when they were introduced was tied to the AP system, making them more reliable the heavier the target's armor was. Plus they could reliably slow down vehicles. Now they're in a sort of awkward position where they're basically an anti-heavy-infantry weapon, which means they're more directly comparable to plasma than they used to be. So grav is less an exampmle of "too many bolter types" and more an example of a gimmick ceasing to make sense following a core rules change.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Because it's fun I'll repost the weapons reference from the 4th ed Marine codex. #ILoveYou4thEd



To be totally fair, not every weapon is on that list. The Cyclone Missile Launcher and the Hurricane Bolter are missing. That might be it, though. . .

Yes, the 40k weapons need to be consolidated as one of several steps to reduce the bloat. I share the love of 4th edition, and there was even a time, at the beginning of 3rd edition, when pretty much all the weapons in the game (across all factions) could fit on one page; and the game worked!. There is no need for 40+ variations of a bolter.

How about considering that marines have such a big fan base and are so important to do, the experimentation does not start with them. Let the marine factions get their usual faction books, and then limit everyone else in their gear. And if it works well, it then can be implemented for marines in 12-18 months.

As a counterpoint to the 3rd consolidation, there was a bit of an outcry over the list of things that just counted as an additional hand weapon.

2nd was a complicated system, with everything having special rules and features. Which was fine when your army was like 2 squads and a tank. In an effort to simplify 3rd cut a LOT of flavor. Probably too much

It’s a fine line to walk.

 Insectum7 wrote:
I think Grav Pistols/Guns have a reason to exist outside of Plasma Pistols/Guns. They just sorta suck right now.

Heavy disagree. Grav Weapons are silly and really don't need to exist as a separate thing. What's wrong with just using them as different looking Plasma Guns and Cannons?

Maybe its just me, but I just see the gun as a second-stat line. So the fact a given Primaris unit has "Bolter version XXIV" doesn't really bother me. You just learn it as part of the unit.

I mean would it make things dramatically better if say Infiltrator Marksman Bolt Carbines were swapped for basic bolters, and Infiltrators just got "when this unit shoots, 6s to hit auto-wound" as a special rule? Ditto for say Incusors and their special guns ignoring cover? It would represent a very modest boost to say shooting a pistol or throwing a grenade - but such is surely marginal at best.

So to my mind the real argument would be a full on cull. Clearly some people like older editions. Where a lot of units are essentially equipped with glorified bolters or lasguns - and have few or no special rules to distinguish them.

But I think some of the flavour would be sucked out. Even if I think the "rules stack" of
Unit special rules
Weapon special rules
Faction special rules
Sub Faction special rules
Faction Purity Bonus special rules
Character buffs/Psychic Powers/WLT/Relics/Strategems

is far too high.

(Melee on none Elite (Troops) should be Close Combat Weapon. S:U AP0, D1.

All Troop weapons should be Ranged Weapon
S4 AP1 D1

Elites should get access to the special stuff. Done. Just eliminated 90% of the stupidity in Space Marine: The bloat wars.

 vict0988 wrote:
Are relic blades described as being more deadly than power weapons in the fluff

I don't know if this was a serious question or not since Relic Blades have been around since 5th

Tyel wrote:
I mean would it make things dramatically better if say Infiltrator Marksman Bolt Carbines were swapped for basic bolters, and Infiltrators just got "when this unit shoots, 6s to hit auto-wound" as a special rule?

But why do they need a special rule to represent their gun? Why can't they just be tactical marines with the Infiltrate USR? Or why do they even need to exist when we already had scouts? Why can't they just be an alternative aesthetic choice for a tactical squad?

Clearly some people like older editions. Where a lot of units are essentially equipped with glorified bolters or lasguns - and have few or no special rules to distinguish them.

Exactly. Units should have special rules, preferably USRs wherever possible, when the rule is necessary for them to accomplish their intended role. They should not have special rules just to make them 3% more efficient against a particular target and justify the datasheet bloat. The game should be about on-table decisions, not making a giant spreadsheet to determine if 6s to hit auto-wounding is better or worse than AP -1 and 6" more range.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
I think Grav Pistols/Guns have a reason to exist outside of Plasma Pistols/Guns. They just sorta suck right now.

Heavy disagree. Grav Weapons are silly and really don't need to exist as a separate thing. What's wrong with just using them as different looking Plasma Guns and Cannons?

The ability to have different rules, and in case of lets say plasma being bad, potentialy grav being good or vice versa.

But why do they need a special rule to represent their gun? Why can't they just be tactical marines with the Infiltrate USR? Or why do they even need to exist when we already had scouts? Why can't they just be an alternative aesthetic choice for a tactical squad?

Because in a world where basic bolters are bad weapons, when they cost 20+pts per model, they have to either have special rules. And scouts being in elite makes them a dead unit. how often did you see scouts being played in 9th? not much. In 8th they were run, because marine stuff was generaly not worth taking, aside for characters, so scouts, who at the time were troops, became the cheapest tax unit a space marine player could take to optimise their list.

And the last question is just odd, what about people who don't paint their models or armies that don't have tacticals like Space Wolves, but would run incursors, because of their special rules, and to a much lesser degree special weapons.

Karol wrote:
The ability to have different rules, and in case of lets say plasma being bad, potentialy grav being good or vice versa.

Or because GW is trying to make two different weapons fill a single role they make both of them bad and you would have been better off with a single well-designed option.

Because in a world where basic bolters are bad weapons, when they cost 20+pts per model, they have to either have special rules. And scouts being in elite makes them a dead unit. how often did you see scouts being played in 9th? not much. In 8th they were run, because marine stuff was generaly not worth taking, aside for characters, so scouts, who at the time were troops, became the cheapest tax unit a space marine player could take to optimise their list.

I get that you play some warped version of 40k in the post-apocalyptic wasteland of fantasy Poland but can we acknowledge the possibility that if GW makes changes to simplify the game they will also be capable of taking care of minor details like assigning an appropriate point cost? Nobody is arguing that they could stay at 20+ ppm just because that's what they currently are.

And the last question is just odd, what about people who don't paint their models

They don't get to play. Painting is not optional.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
(Melee on none Elite (Troops) should be Close Combat Weapon. S:U AP0, D1.

All Troop weapons should be Ranged Weapon
S4 AP1 D1

Elites should get access to the special stuff. Done. Just eliminated 90% of the stupidity in Space Marine: The bloat wars.

More like killed all character from different chapters. And how would different stuff be run under such a system. Marine terminators are elite, so I assume their weapons would be "better", but GK terminators are troops, so they would be runnig with 35+pts bolters? Meanwhile other factions would be running with the same kind of weapons, but at a fraction of the cost. 5 GK termintors shoting 5 bolter shots for 175, would be facing something like grots or IG firing at them with indentical weapons, only 7-8 of them would cost as much as a single termintor. What incentive would there be to ever run non elite marine units anyway? the point cost between elite and non elite options is not that big. why ever run regular intercessors, if veteran intercessors practicaly are the same only with better guns and weapon options at fraction of the points.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Or because GW is trying to make two different weapons fill a single role they make both of them bad and you would have been better off with a single well-designed option.

Only the whole idea hinges on one thing. That the design of the simplified rules is going to be good. You know when GW simplified rules for marines? In 9th. Gutted the PA stuff, streamlined everything to a point where there was very few things worth taking, aside for the non regular marine stuff eg. Sang Guards, DCs, DW termis, RW bikes etc. The state was a thing up until the doctrines being reverted to kind of how they worked in the past. And they still don't work that well for the weaker chapters. It is just buffed armies that were already okey or good, even more. So no replacing multiple options with one option is not good. If MM, lascanons and RL get replaced with one statline for anti tank. And the anti tank weapon is bad, then suddenly marines have no long range anti tank.

I get that you play some warped version of 40k in the post-apocalyptic wasteland of fantasy Poland but can we acknowledge the possibility that if GW makes changes to simplify the game they will also be capable of taking care of minor details like assigning an appropriate point cost? Nobody is arguing that they could stay at 20+ ppm just because that's what they currently are.

After two editions and them being unable to balance terminators vs strikes and strikes vs interceptors? No, I don't think they can. I also don't think they care much about it either. Go tell IF players who had to play in 9th ed that GW couldn't properly fix their point costs and faction rules for 3 years.

They don't get to play. Painting is not optional.

It very much is, also telling someone with an unfinished army that they can't play till they are finished with their 2000pts is , how did you call it so nice, a post apocalyptic kind of an action.

And again. If the idea is sound, and is suppose to work then it would be better to test it on something smaller then the biggest group of faction in the game. So we don't end up , the 3ed time. With GW starting with easy streamlined book for marines, only to follow them up with stuff that is very much not streamlined.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
I think Grav Pistols/Guns have a reason to exist outside of Plasma Pistols/Guns. They just sorta suck right now.

Heavy disagree. Grav Weapons are silly and really don't need to exist as a separate thing. What's wrong with just using them as different looking Plasma Guns and Cannons?

They just need an appropriate niche to work, but having a 4th "special" category doesn't break the bank in itself. They really had more of their own niche back in 6-7th, when they rolled the opponent's armor to-wound. If Plasma didn't have the Overcharge option that was introduced in 8th, Grav at 2D would be a more compelling place.

Wow, is it really this bad now?

The word "spam" certainly gets a workout, but this is about the closest thing to the infamous Monty Python skit I've ever seen.

"We've got bolt guns, bolter guns, bolter carbines, bolter muzzle-loaders, cap 'n bolters, bolt-action bolters, lever-action bolters, storm bolters, lightning bolters, hurricane bolters, typhoon bolters, blizzard bolters, fog with a chance of rain bolters, heavy bolters, light bolters, Bren bolters, Ginsu bolters..."

Where does the madness end?

Aecus Decimus wrote:
They don't get to play. Painting is not optional.

Painting is optional.

If you like painting, then paint.
If you don’t, then don’t.
And if you refuse to play unpainted models, either from your end or if your opponent has them… that’s fine. But don’t force others to waste time doing something they don’t enjoy.

 JNAProductions wrote:

Aecus Decimus wrote:
They don't get to play. Painting is not optional.

Painting is optional.

If you like painting, then paint.
If you don’t, then don’t.
And if you refuse to play unpainted models, either from your end or if your opponent has them… that’s fine. But don’t force others to waste time doing something they don’t enjoy.

Pretty sure from their hobby horses that this is old poster peregrine and just so you know they'll argue this subject for pages and pages and pages.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Painting is optional.

Nope.

But to avoid going in circles over this I'll just leave at this: I don't give one single about people who play with unpainted models, and I certainly don't care about some weird Karol-logic argument that simplifying special rules is somehow unfair to them. I'm not going to bother trying to address his complaint because even if his convoluted chain of reasoning is correct and the proposed rule change permanently destroys the entire hobby for people who use unpainted models I won't shed a single tear over it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Karol wrote:
And again. If the idea is sound, and is suppose to work then it would be better to test it on something smaller then the biggest group of faction in the game. So we don't end up , the 3ed time. With GW starting with easy streamlined book for marines, only to follow them up with stuff that is very much not streamlined.

"Let's try simplifying the game but we can't do anything to the faction that makes up 75% of the game" is not a viable plan. To make a change like this you have to change the entire game at once, "testing" it on a minor secondary faction and leaving the rest of the game in its original state accomplishes nothing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Insectum7 wrote:
They just need an appropriate niche to work, but having a 4th "special" category doesn't break the bank in itself. They really had more of their own niche back in 6-7th, when they rolled the opponent's armor to-wound. If Plasma didn't have the Overcharge option that was introduced in 8th, Grav at 2D would be a more compelling place.

I don't think that's really a niche. "Wounding on the target's armor save" effectively translates to an anti-elite weapon which is the same role plasma is supposed to have. And yeah, if you take away overload and make grav D2 vs. plasma at D1 you'd make grav have a role but almost entirely at the expense of making plasma useless because it can't handle its primary target anymore. This then has the consequence of giving non-marine armies a major nerf since their plasma now sucks but they don't have access to grav weapons. It would be far simpler and less likely to cause balance issues if GW just made grav an aesthetic alternative for plasma, alongside volkite weapons for people who like the 30k look.

 Wyldhunt wrote:
As has been pointed out above, this is *mostly* a marine problem. Imperials/humans as a whole have the issue to a lesser extent. There are some xenos weapons that overlap/struggle to find a niche, but not to the extent that it's a problem in need of fixing.

Eh, from a Tyranid perspective there is an absolute gakload of weapons now, and I find it pretty hard to keep straight. More importantly, pretty much every critter has different melee weapons, so I need to look at the datasheet to see what each unit is armed with. There's a lot of role overlap with just different variations on the numbers; Bio-Plasma on Carnifexes and Bio-Plasmic Scream on Screamer-Killers do the same thing, one's just better at it. Scything Talons and Hormagaunt Scything Talons are exactly the same, except the former gets a bonus attack.

Astra Militarum are going down this route now too, with the new artillery and tanks adding more bespoke weapon profiles. It feels like someone at GW decided that different units must have different weapons, rather than using a more limited pool of weapons and differentiating the units that carry them.

 Insectum7 wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
I think Grav Pistols/Guns have a reason to exist outside of Plasma Pistols/Guns. They just sorta suck right now.

Heavy disagree. Grav Weapons are silly and really don't need to exist as a separate thing. What's wrong with just using them as different looking Plasma Guns and Cannons?

They just need an appropriate niche to work, but having a 4th "special" category doesn't break the bank in itself. They really had more of their own niche back in 6-7th, when they rolled the opponent's armor to-wound. If Plasma didn't have the Overcharge option that was introduced in 8th, Grav at 2D would be a more compelling place.

The niche completely removed Plasma as a consideration for Loyalist Scum though. We can make the excuse of "but what about low armor units" if it weren't for the fact the Guns weren't getting 3 shots for the regular gun and 5 for the cannon. You simply ignored Salvo rules LOL

If you want a niche for the gun it would HAVE to be an Assault 2 weapon. That gives it a reason to be taken over Plasma in cases you like to advance and shoot. Cannon.....I have nothing.

catbarf wrote:

 Wyldhunt wrote:
As has been pointed out above, this is *mostly* a marine problem. Imperials/humans as a whole have the issue to a lesser extent. There are some xenos weapons that overlap/struggle to find a niche, but not to the extent that it's a problem in need of fixing.

Eh, from a Tyranid perspective there is an absolute gakload of weapons now, and I find it pretty hard to keep straight. More importantly, pretty much every critter has different melee weapons, so I need to look at the datasheet to see what each unit is armed with. There's a lot of role overlap with just different variations on the numbers; Bio-Plasma on Carnifexes and Bio-Plasmic Scream on Screamer-Killers do the same thing, one's just better at it. Scything Talons and Hormagaunt Scything Talons are exactly the same, except the former gets a bonus attack.

Astra Militarum are going down this route now too, with the new artillery and tanks adding more bespoke weapon profiles. It feels like someone at GW decided that different units must have different weapons, rather than using a more limited pool of weapons and differentiating the units that carry them.

Yeah, tyranids are definitely the xenos faction that came to mind as having the most overlap, but I'm not knowledgable about the current state of 'nids to comment much. Still, I feel like my point mostly holds true. There isn't a *ton* of overlap in aeldari weapons, and where overlap does exist, it often feels like an intentional choice. Like aspect warrior vs non-aspect warrior versions of weapons. I guess there are some kind of pointless/redundant drukhari weapons, but I'd rather make each of those options interesting/bring back some of the cool 5th edition gear rather than nix them completely; plus some of the redundant gear is sort of kind of partially tied to specific subfactions. Off the top of my head, the tau weapons *mostly* have their own niches with a few exceptions. (Pulse carbines and rifles have been stepping on each others' toes since 5th, and I'm sure you could roll a couple of kroot melee weapons together if you really wanted to.) I can't think of a ton of overlapping 'cron weapons. I feel like orks probably have a few guns that are basically three other guns in a trenchcoat, but ork players don't seem to be bothered about it.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
I think Grav Pistols/Guns have a reason to exist outside of Plasma Pistols/Guns. They just sorta suck right now.

Heavy disagree. Grav Weapons are silly and really don't need to exist as a separate thing. What's wrong with just using them as different looking Plasma Guns and Cannons?

They just need an appropriate niche to work, but having a 4th "special" category doesn't break the bank in itself. They really had more of their own niche back in 6-7th, when they rolled the opponent's armor to-wound. If Plasma didn't have the Overcharge option that was introduced in 8th, Grav at 2D would be a more compelling place.

The niche completely removed Plasma as a consideration for Loyalist Scum though. We can make the excuse of "but what about low armor units" if it weren't for the fact the Guns weren't getting 3 shots for the regular gun and 5 for the cannon. You simply ignored Salvo rules LOL

If you want a niche for the gun it would HAVE to be an Assault 2 weapon. That gives it a reason to be taken over Plasma in cases you like to advance and shoot. Cannon.....I have nothing.

I mean, this is getting into Proposed Rules territory, but I feel like the way to make grav relevant again would probably be to do something "gravitic" with it. Maybe make it a a debuff gun that lowers the enemy's Movement and/or strength or something. Maybe give a rule that lets it scale up its offense based on the "size" of the target (going off of keywords probably), although that would risk stepping on melta's toes.

Aecus Decimus wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
They just need an appropriate niche to work, but having a 4th "special" category doesn't break the bank in itself. They really had more of their own niche back in 6-7th, when they rolled the opponent's armor to-wound. If Plasma didn't have the Overcharge option that was introduced in 8th, Grav at 2D would be a more compelling place.

I don't think that's really a niche. "Wounding on the target's armor save" effectively translates to an anti-elite weapon which is the same role plasma is supposed to have. And yeah, if you take away overload and make grav D2 vs. plasma at D1 you'd make grav have a role but almost entirely at the expense of making plasma useless because it can't handle its primary target anymore. This then has the consequence of giving non-marine armies a major nerf since their plasma now sucks but they don't have access to grav weapons. It would be far simpler and less likely to cause balance issues if GW just made grav an aesthetic alternative for plasma, alongside volkite weapons for people who like the 30k look.

I'd say it depends on what you do with other variables like range and the like. Plasma has the distinction of being both high strength and high range, so you could leverage that to make it stand out. If Grav lost effectiveness against lighter troops per the armor rule, and had shorter range than Plas, I think there's something there. You make a good point about a reduction in Plas Damage hurting non-Marine Plasma users though, so fair enough.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
I think Grav Pistols/Guns have a reason to exist outside of Plasma Pistols/Guns. They just sorta suck right now.

Heavy disagree. Grav Weapons are silly and really don't need to exist as a separate thing. What's wrong with just using them as different looking Plasma Guns and Cannons?

They just need an appropriate niche to work, but having a 4th "special" category doesn't break the bank in itself. They really had more of their own niche back in 6-7th, when they rolled the opponent's armor to-wound. If Plasma didn't have the Overcharge option that was introduced in 8th, Grav at 2D would be a more compelling place.

The niche completely removed Plasma as a consideration for Loyalist Scum though. We can make the excuse of "but what about low armor units" if it weren't for the fact the Guns weren't getting 3 shots for the regular gun and 5 for the cannon. You simply ignored Salvo rules LOL

If you want a niche for the gun it would HAVE to be an Assault 2 weapon. That gives it a reason to be taken over Plasma in cases you like to advance and shoot. Cannon.....I have nothing.

Yeah it was Salvo, but unlike Plasma, because of the wounding mechanics it meant it was a worse weapon than Plasma against lighter troops, which was at least an interesting distinction vs. Plasma, which retained it's lethality across the spectrum. Making it Assault with a reduced range would be fine. The Grav Cannon is very distinctive already, the only issue with it is that it might be to good. It's major weakness is that it is only D1 against units with less than a 3+ save, which actually makes it less ideal against certain units, like Tyranid Warriors, Spawn, Daemons, DE flyers and stuff like that. Which, tbf, can be a pretty hefty downside depending on your opponents.

Anyways, I think there's an opportunity there for the "lesser" Grav weapons, though it's not a hill I'd choose to die on.

Aecus Decimus wrote:


They don't get to play. Painting is not optional.

Unsurprisingly you are flat out wrong. Painting is up to player

tneva82 wrote:

Aecus Decimus wrote:


They don't get to play. Painting is not optional.

Unsurprisingly you are flat out wrong. Painting is up to player

Wait, really? Your local GW doesn't pay killsquads to wire brushes into your hands and force you to paint your minis at gunpoint? The redshirts here keep telling us that's global policy...

tneva82 wrote:
Unsurprisingly you are flat out wrong. Painting is up to player

Not in any well-run community or event. If you don't have a fully painted army you aren't allowed to play.

But, like I said, this doesn't really have anything to do with the topic here. Only by Karol-logic is simplifying rules somehow a nerf to people who play with unpainted models.

Karol wrote:
How about considering that marines have such a big fan base and are so important to do, the experimentation does not start with them. Let the marine factions get their usual faction books, and then limit everyone else in their gear. And if it works well, it then can be implemented for marines in 12-18 months.

Marines are the faction that most desperately needs this. And, as much as I hate to say this, most things start with marines and spread outwards.

As a semi-related example: Back when AoS launched, the Sigmarines in the launch box had the option to take two different types of melee weapons. IIRC they were Hammers and Axes. Hammers had +1 to wound, Axes had +1 to hit - or maybe they were -1 armor? Whatever. The point is that the weapons were "different" but, when mathed out, they were functionally the same. Regarldess of target type you would get results within a couple of percentage points of the other one, yielding no appreciable difference.

Marines - specifically primaris - have all that and a bag of nasty chips. There is no need for a majority of the Primaris roster to have an entirely unique gun to their data sheet, and then have three entirely unique variations on that gun. Especially when the difference is almost always a mere +1 to something and -1 to something else, with a final option that's +1 +1 at the cost of being heavy (so again, functionally a +1 -1 but you can scrap the -1 if you stand still).

In addition to weapons bloat, there is a dire need to consolidate data sheets. While marines are the most blatant offender - having something like 5+ "captain" data sheets and nearly a dozen "Lieutenant" ones - this problem has infected most other codex' as well.

HH 2.0 has shown us that The Build-your-own-HQ option is perfectly fine still. And it's also a hell of a lot easier to actually use. So please, let's bloody use it.

Why stop at weapons? Why not with datasheets? Everyone gets 5 Datasheets.

Commander
Heavy Troop
Troop
Fast Troop
Tank.

Such streamlining, much wow.

I feel so much of the problem comes from overlapping similar weapons and rules interactions.

There is a knowledge load that GW expects players to have that’s extreme, for a game that they keep trying to simplify.

They are also inconsistent even within a faction. Causing confusion, it all ads up in little ways.

Not to mention mission design and other game design that often can be complex and take a lot of concentration for a game that really doesn’t get that much from its complexity it often is just too tiring for the gameplay it supports.

I think they need to clean up the rules as a whole, it’s really is at times they expect a sideboard to be common without any rules or suggestions for it.
Just pull stuff out of a Shelf as you build to the encounter you have seen.
Which further makes neche weapons a issue of where they can even be used.

 vict0988 wrote:
Calling a plasma pistol an energy pistol makes me cringe, it feels very generic and is my biggest gripe with 40k clones like Grimdark Future. I want the nostalgia of using terms that have been in use forever.

I would expect you get to keep all your names. Pistols - Plasma, Grav, Artificer lasers. Call it what you will, same profile (choice of say 3). The idea is to have clear choices between what pistol you give your sergeant. Bolters - again, what do all the options really give, especially when you have clear winners. And so on. Keep the fluff, simplify the stats.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Nevelon wrote:
As a counterpoint to the 3rd consolidation, there was a bit of an outcry over the list of things that just counted as an additional hand weapon.

2nd was a complicated system, with everything having special rules and features.

But, only a handful of stat lines to remember weapon wise.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Apple fox wrote:
Not to mention mission design and other game design that often can be complex and take a lot of concentration for a game that really doesn’t get that much from its complexity it often is just too tiring for the gameplay it

I would call it complicated, not complex. The actual tactical choices compared to many games aren't that great. But to get to them it is a complicated thicket of books, cards and rules. (Complicated being the opposite of simple, Complex being the opposite of easy. Chess is the classic example of simple rules, difficult gameplay.) But I guess it is a deliberate choice - not being complex helps with getting players of all ages, being complicated increases their buy in and investment in the game if they can get over the initial hump.

I'll go against the grain a bit. The number of weapon profiles doesn't bother me.

In a game, I only care about the datasheets I have printed out for my army. The fact there's 12 Bolter profiles doesn't matter since my unit only has one, and right there for reference.

 Asmodai wrote:
I'll go against the grain a bit. The number of weapon profiles doesn't bother me.

In a game, I only care about the datasheets I have printed out for my army. The fact there's 12 Bolter profiles doesn't matter since my unit only has one, and right there for reference.

See if GW made and kept in print and supply - data cards that had all the info for a unit on them that you'd need. Or at LEAST had a single page in the codex for each model.

Then it wouldn't matter how many profiles they had, each unit could be different. The referencing and finding of the info would be quick.



This is a big part of the issue with modern GW publications. It's not the volume of information its the way its laid out and accessed.
It's the same as how building armies has become more and more complicated even though in reality we aren't actually doing anything really new with them. Units have had optional upgrades and squad size and psy powers for utterly ages.


Again there's two sides to this - the first is how much information there is total and the other is how you access it. Poor access to information results in a bigger push to simplify and standardise all the information so that you can just memorise it; whilst easier access to information makes referencing during the game quicker, easier and makes the variety of options less of a problem.

Fine for you, but how much time should you spend telling your oponent about all your weapon choices prior to a game. Go through each datasheet in turn?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Asmodai wrote:
I'll go against the grain a bit. The number of weapon profiles doesn't bother me.

In a game, I only care about the datasheets I have printed out for my army. The fact there's 12 Bolter profiles doesn't matter since my unit only has one, and right there for reference.

The_Real_Chris wrote:
Fine for you, but how much time should you spend telling your oponent about all your weapon choices prior to a game. Go through each datasheet in turn?

The most common way I see 40K played nowadays is that each player knows only their own codex/list and just rolls with it as statlines/stratagems/abilities are 'revealed', which strikes me as frankly kind of absurd.

Going through each datasheet like you say is completely reasonable in a game where you only have a 5-10 units and there isn't a ton of content to know beyond those datasheets, but it's definitely not a viable approach for what 40K is right now.

Also, if there are 12 different bolter profiles but only two are worth taking, then the rest is just bloat. It'd be easier to track and you'd have more actual choices if they were consolidated into fewer, but more differentiated, and better balanced options. Overlapping profiles are always difficult to cost appropriately.

I disagree with the notion that all troops should have identical guns. There's nothing wrong with Lasguns/autoguns being weaker than a bolter, or a Tau's Pulse Rifle being stronger and longer ranged than my Ork Boy's shoota. Rather I believe there needs to be more meaningful differences in how they are used/employed. There is no need to have a dozen different variations on a Space Marine's bolter but an Guardman's Lasgun should not be identical to my Ork's shoota, or my buddy's Necron Warrior's Gauss Flayer.

I view the huge variation in weaponry as a feature not a bug of Warhammer. Should we have some standardization? Absolutely, there's no need to have Snagga Klaws be separate from Power Klaws, or have 3 variations of Bolt Carbine, save that level of granularity for Dark Heresy, but making a distinction between a Bolter and a Pulse Rifle is in line with the scale that most games of 40k operate at, where yes that Fire Warrior has some serious range and punch, but is not as numerous as the guard, as tough as Marine or as punchy as an Ork.

The_Real_Chris wrote:
Fine for you, but how much time should you spend telling your oponent about all your weapon choices prior to a game. Go through each datasheet in turn?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Asmodai wrote:
I'll go against the grain a bit. The number of weapon profiles doesn't bother me.

In a game, I only care about the datasheets I have printed out for my army. The fact there's 12 Bolter profiles doesn't matter since my unit only has one, and right there for reference.

Yep. Only takes a few seconds - e.g. "The Intercesssors have the Assault version of their Bolters and a grenade launcher, the Heavy Intercessors have the heavy version and the Captain has a Powerfist and Plasma Pistol".

After a few games, I know the loadouts of most of the units my opponents' play in our Crusade league anyway.

There may be a vast number of rules and profiles, but only a small subset of them are engaged in any game.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Because it's fun I'll repost the weapons reference from the 4th ed Marine codex. #ILoveYou4thEd



To be totally fair, not every weapon is on that list. The Cyclone Missile Launcher and the Hurricane Bolter are missing. That might be it, though. . .

Nice strawman. What is (conveniently) not pictured is grabbing huge, heavy rulebook and flipping for 15 minutes trying to find what all the obscure nonsense in profile means. Especially in cases where uNiVeRsAL SR was only found on one gun in the whole army (and there were close to 100+ of them making search extra tedious when only like 5-6 had any right being there) and both players struggled to remember what it did (made extra hard because the uNiVeRsAL SRs changed every edition often making balanced units OP or garbage, see Rage changing from unit being easy to kite unruly mob to suddenly becoming relentless murdermachines robotically repeating every order). Yeeeah, having 15 impossible to remember uNiVeRsAL SRs in charging section alone giving various buffs/debuffs to stats (that could be replaced with just +1/+2 to attacks/charge range/strength/hit/wound rolls right there in unit profile saving sanity and time of everyone involved) was sooo much better than spending 0.1 seconds glancing at gun profile

And it gets even dumber than that, see when two of USRs clashed thanks to one-size-fits-none mentality. Quick, anyone remembers how gets hot interacts with blast rule, one forcing you to hit to roll, other banning you from rolling to hit at all? GW needed three FAQs to fix the uNiVeRsAL gak into not crashing the game right there - and that's with just two words, now add rending, pistol, or sniper to the mix and the game breaks right then and there (and no, this is not a joke/imaginary example, you could add rending/sniper/blast to unit weapon in various ways, with some weapons like plasma cannon being broken right from the start).

I really like how HH 2.0 starkly reminded people how idiotic, time consuming, slow and stupid the uNiVeRsAL SRs system was (and that's with just two books and only SM really in the game) with people often spending close to hour hunting that one obscure uNiVeRsAL SR (again, not imaginary example, HQ section alone has two praetors who have uNiVeRsAL rule only found on one unit in the game that should have been just written in unit profile like in modern, sane systems but is instead found explained in really obscure, unintuitive place) - yet people still put rose glasses on and cling to this gak abandoned (for a reason) by virtually every good current game, be it wargame, tabletop game, or card game.

And that's with just one rule in profile, some HH weapons have 6-8 USRs in profile, good luck remembering what they all do, how do they interact, in what order you should apply them, before you realize half of them can be replaced by a number in statline (I especially like the ink wasting ""rule"" that modifies damage from 1 to 2-6 instead of just being right there in frakking profile!) and stop pointlessly wasting everyone's time with crap rule design from the 80s that wasn't really good even then. Gee, when I look at it, it's almost as if having 100+ uNiVeRsAL SRs that constantly waste time, make rules extremely hard to learn/follow, and crash the game is the real bloat, not having 3 interesting guns that make unit roles varied and fitting far more army concepts, go figure...

 catbarf wrote:

The_Real_Chris wrote:
Fine for you, but how much time should you spend telling your oponent about all your weapon choices prior to a game. Go through each datasheet in turn?

The most common way I see 40K played nowadays is that each player knows only their own codex/list and just rolls with it as statlines/stratagems/abilities are 'revealed', which strikes me as frankly kind of absurd.

Going through each datasheet like you say is completely reasonable in a game where you only have a 5-10 units and there isn't a ton of content to know beyond those datasheets, but it's definitely not a viable approach for what 40K is right now.

Also, if there are 12 different bolter profiles but only two are worth taking, then the rest is just bloat. It'd be easier to track and you'd have more actual choices if they were consolidated into fewer, but more differentiated, and better balanced options. Overlapping profiles are always difficult to cost appropriately.

every single game where my opponent starts to list what each of his squads has, my eyes glaze over and i mentally check out.

when i tell them what my units are, i go with the broad strokes : "these are anti tank shooting" "these are anti chaff shooting" "these are chaff"

keep it simple, no pointi ntelling your opponent that the "master crafted oculus marksmen bolt las fusil" has an extra point of strength over the "bolt carbine anihilation cannon" or whatever


Automatically Appended Next Post:

panzerfront14 wrote:
I disagree with the notion that all troops should have identical guns. There's nothing wrong with Lasguns/autoguns being weaker than a bolter, or a Tau's Pulse Rifle being stronger and longer ranged than my Ork Boy's shoota. Rather I believe there needs to be more meaningful differences in how they are used/employed. There is no need to have a dozen different variations on a Space Marine's bolter but an Guardman's Lasgun should not be identical to my Ork's shoota, or my buddy's Necron Warrior's Gauss Flayer.

I view the huge variation in weaponry as a feature not a bug of Warhammer. Should we have some standardization? Absolutely, there's no need to have Snagga Klaws be separate from Power Klaws, or have 3 variations of Bolt Carbine, save that level of granularity for Dark Heresy, but making a distinction between a Bolter and a Pulse Rifle is in line with the scale that most games of 40k operate at, where yes that Fire Warrior has some serious range and punch, but is not as numerous as the guard, as tough as Marine or as punchy as an Ork.

pretty sure the idea is to have standardisation within armies themselves, not necessarily cross-army (whydo lasguns and autoguns exist if theyre basically the same stat, why do storm bolters and combi bolters exist if theyre litterally the same stat, why do coruscating flames have 3 different strength, etc.)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Irbis wrote:

Nice strawman. What is (conveniently) not pictured is grabbing huge, heavy rulebook and flipping for 15 minutes trying to find what all the obscure nonsense in profile means. Especially in cases where uNiVeRsAL SR was only found on one gun in the whole army (and there were close to 100+ of them making search extra tedious when only like 5-6 had any right being there)

stopped reading your rant here, why is the poor execution of USR in that edition a hit against having smaller weapon lists?

 Insectum7 wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
I think Grav Pistols/Guns have a reason to exist outside of Plasma Pistols/Guns. They just sorta suck right now.

Heavy disagree. Grav Weapons are silly and really don't need to exist as a separate thing. What's wrong with just using them as different looking Plasma Guns and Cannons?

They just need an appropriate niche to work, but having a 4th "special" category doesn't break the bank in itself. They really had more of their own niche back in 6-7th, when they rolled the opponent's armor to-wound. If Plasma didn't have the Overcharge option that was introduced in 8th, Grav at 2D would be a more compelling place.

The niche completely removed Plasma as a consideration for Loyalist Scum though. We can make the excuse of "but what about low armor units" if it weren't for the fact the Guns weren't getting 3 shots for the regular gun and 5 for the cannon. You simply ignored Salvo rules LOL

If you want a niche for the gun it would HAVE to be an Assault 2 weapon. That gives it a reason to be taken over Plasma in cases you like to advance and shoot. Cannon.....I have nothing.

Yeah it was Salvo, but unlike Plasma, because of the wounding mechanics it meant it was a worse weapon than Plasma against lighter troops, which was at least an interesting distinction vs. Plasma, which retained it's lethality across the spectrum. Making it Assault with a reduced range would be fine. The Grav Cannon is very distinctive already, the only issue with it is that it might be to good. It's major weakness is that it is only D1 against units with less than a 3+ save, which actually makes it less ideal against certain units, like Tyranid Warriors, Spawn, Daemons, DE flyers and stuff like that. Which, tbf, can be a pretty hefty downside depending on your opponents.

Anyways, I think there's an opportunity there for the "lesser" Grav weapons, though it's not a hill I'd choose to die on.

The wounding mechanic does not matter when you're spitting out three shots. 1-2 shots of Plasma wounding infantry on a 2+ isn't exactly a trade off when you get 3 shots wounding on a 5+.

Plus the one time you want Bolters is on those Bikes and Centurions. If it somehow went to wounding on a 6+, it didn't really matter if you're spitting out 6 TL shots guaranteeing you don't miss. Couple in Gets Hot and there was no reason to consider Plasma for any Loyalist Marine army.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Irbis wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Because it's fun I'll repost the weapons reference from the 4th ed Marine codex. #ILoveYou4thEd



To be totally fair, not every weapon is on that list. The Cyclone Missile Launcher and the Hurricane Bolter are missing. That might be it, though. . .

Nice strawman. What is (conveniently) not pictured is grabbing huge, heavy rulebook and flipping for 15 minutes trying to find what all the obscure nonsense in profile means.

There's literally two for Pinning and Gets Hot LMAO


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh sorry I forgot Sniper and Rending. Sooooooo many rules!

Tyel wrote:
Maybe its just me, but I just see the gun as a second-stat line. So the fact a given Primaris unit has "Bolter version XXIV" doesn't really bother me. You just learn it as part of the unit.

I mean would it make things dramatically better if say Infiltrator Marksman Bolt Carbines were swapped for basic bolters, and Infiltrators just got "when this unit shoots, 6s to hit auto-wound" as a special rule? Ditto for say Incusors and their special guns ignoring cover?

This. I suppose you could make all the light primaris guns just bolt carbines and move the accompanying special rule to the unit stat block, but the ability to see what weapon does at a glance is wonderful and if anything, units wasting paper for stuff that can be just included in gun profile would be real bloat.

Karol wrote:
So something like a reaver will have the same fire power as a terminator who costs double the points? And the gap between something like GK strikes/interceptors and terminators would become even bigger.

Congratulations, you just discovered why they gun system in old editions was crap. And it was even worse than that, GK paladins costing 4x the cost of tactical marine (or 3x the GK striker) had effectively the same firepower making them garbage and impossible to balance

The_Real_Chris wrote:
Fine for you, but how much time should you spend telling your oponent about all your weapon choices prior to a game. Go through each datasheet in turn?

The thing is, as things stand right now, you don't need to. The opponent can just glance at your gun list and go 'oh, these phobos marines ignore cover saves, got it'. Simple, quick and easy. That's why the whole clown show about tOo MaNy gUnZ is so comically stupid, GW went with modern design that gives units various, interesting roles instead of old bolter, bolter, or bolter gak that didn't fit 90% of the chapters in game and it's somehow a bad thing

But I agree, there are too many guns in the game. You could replace all the bolters, bolt guns, storm bolters, combi bolters, twin bolters, dual bolters, hurricane bolters and the rest of pointless and useless squatmarine gak with just bolter(1), bolter(2), and bolter(6). There, 20 guns gone with the rules being losslessly exactly the same as before. Funny how dudes whining about actually interesting, varied primaris guns never mention that one. Maybe because it shows creative sterility, lack of choice, and intellectual bankruptcy of old rules system plain as day?

Aecus Decimus wrote:
But why do they need a special rule to represent their gun? Why can't they just be tactical marines with the Infiltrate USR? Or why do they even need to exist when we already had scouts? Why can't they just be an alternative aesthetic choice for a tactical squad?

Seeing you have very short memory and don't remember why this was the case in 3-7 editions and how despised it was - because bolter, bolter, or bolter no-choice in tactical squad meant it didn't fit 90% of the armies in game and completely and utterly ruined any pretense to having your dude army. You run BT/SW and want melee army? Congrats, tacticals are utterly useless and the army is trash (then GW "fixed" it giving both bespoke troop units actually fitting the chapters (while leaving the players of all the other 300+ melee favoring chapters in the dust) in what is totally less rules bloat that Intercessors having close/mid/long range loadout choice - that was sarcasm in case anyone was too stupid to get it).

You run Raven Guard and want long range sniping/infiltrating army? Congrats, tacticals are crap in this role and don't fit what you intended at all. You want Star Phantoms or Iron Hands with their massive firepower doctrine? Congrats, tacticals are shyte in that concept too. You want (insert 5876734 fluffy examples) - congrats, you can't do that, enjoy your bolter, bolter, or bolter boring bland gak that ruined your vision. Such variety, much wov. Meanwhile, primaris players laugh at you because they actually do have units fitting these concepts and don't need to imagine boring, bland flavorless garbage exactly the same as the player opposite you who is supposedly running completely different chapter using vastly different tactics is somehow "fluffy/interesting/flavorful/etc".

You want to run scout company because you play Raptors and love the special, elite forces? In old system, you could play 4+ skill, 4+ save scout mooks that were in every way worse than veteran guardsmen, making them trash fit for your vision. Except you couldn't because there were no scout HQs, sike. You had all of 1 unit choice. In new, primaris have whole phobos array of choices for players who want 10th company, sneaky chapters, reasonable marines, special forces, and all the other themes people love - and that's why "they can't just be an alternative aesthetic for a tactical squad". Because we had this once and it sucked. People were buying extremely expensive Badab War books for just a tiny change to the way SM forces were built, that offered 1/1000 of the choices primaris provide for free.

And that's why the whole premise of the tOo MaNy gUnZ thing is utterly idiotic and I wish people whining about it got their wish - in the games they play. They would soon learn (or not, seeing all the past editions clearly telling them how wrong they are go unheeded) how dumb said wish was. Without ruining the game for the people who actually like fluff, themes, and having interesting rules allowing real choices.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Irbis wrote:

Nice strawman. What is (conveniently) not pictured is grabbing huge, heavy rulebook and flipping for 15 minutes trying to find what all the obscure nonsense in profile means. Especially in cases where uNiVeRsAL SR was only found on one gun in the whole army (and there were close to 100+ of them making search extra tedious when only like 5-6 had any right being there)

stopped reading your rant here, why is the poor execution of USR in that edition a hit against having smaller weapon lists?

4th edition (which is the edition from which the chart referenced by Insectum7 originates from) had a total of 10 weapon USRs, specifically: Blast, Gets Hot, Twin-Linked, Melta, Template, Barrage, Pinning, Sniper, Lance, and Rending. A further 22 "unit" USRs are compiled elsewhere in the BRB (Infiltrate, Fearless, etc), for a total of 32. Irbis seems to be confusing 4th edition with 7th edition.

What was one of the ones in 7th that literally never came up? Was it Missile Lock or some gak like that?

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Irbis wrote:

Nice strawman. What is (conveniently) not pictured is grabbing huge, heavy rulebook and flipping for 15 minutes trying to find what all the obscure nonsense in profile means. Especially in cases where uNiVeRsAL SR was only found on one gun in the whole army (and there were close to 100+ of them making search extra tedious when only like 5-6 had any right being there)

stopped reading your rant here, why is the poor execution of USR in that edition a hit against having smaller weapon lists?

4th edition (which is the edition from which the chart referenced by Insectum7 originates from) had a total of 10 weapon USRs, specifically: Blast, Gets Hot, Twin-Linked, Melta, Template, Barrage, Pinning, Sniper, Lance, and Rending. A further 22 "unit" USRs are compiled elsewhere in the BRB (Infiltrate, Fearless, etc), for a total of 32. Irbis seems to be confusing 4th edition with 7th edition.

I had a written up a post that said exactly what you did here, and now I don't have to post it


Automatically Appended Next Post:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
What was one of the ones in 7th that literally never came up? Was it Missile Lock or some gak like that?

My favorites were the USRs that were just combinations of other USRs.

Glad to help you out, Insectum7.

 Irbis wrote:
That's why the whole clown show about tOo MaNy gUnZ is so comically stupid . . .
. . .
But I agree, there are too many guns in the game. . .

Never change Irbis. Never change.

 Irbis wrote:
Seeing you have very short memory and don't remember why this was the case in 3-7 editions and how despised it was

I remember how despised it was by entitled marine players who were outraged that GW wouldn't pander to their every whim and give a set of rules for every possible army list they could ever want to use, including anti-fluffy and one-dimensional spam lists that turned "favors melee" into "exclusively uses melee units" and "emphasizes heavy weapons" into "I demand the ability to take nothing but devastator squads". I remember lots of complaints over the outrage that someone's pet 234092345349056th founding chapter's second company didn't get their own special snowflake rules and were just generic space marines.

But mostly I remember it working just fine for all of the non-marine players who understood that it's ok if they don't have a separate codex for each minor sub-faction.

And that's why the whole premise of the tOo MaNy gUnZ thing is utterly idiotic and I wish people whining about it got their wish - in the games they play.

Guess what: every non-marine player already has that wish. I'm sorry that you think marines are the only faction that matters and don't even know how the rules for NPC factions work.

It's impressive how seamlessly Irbis can go from complaining that USRs are out-of-date and poor design as evidenced by their unpopularity among modern rulesets, to praising the current ridiculously excessive bloat of weapon statlines as also practiced by... pretty much no modern ruleset.

I also like the complaint that Tactical Marines were boring because you couldn't flanderize them (as if every single model in a stealth army needs to have a 'stealth rifle' for them to be thematic) and they all had the same weapons, but Primaris is great because they have maybe two options and the entire squad needs to be equipped identically. We're just ignoring options like special/heavy weapons, chapter tactics, literally everything besides what the statline on a basic rifle is and saying they're identical because Iron Hands don't get a Gunline Bolter.

It's funny, because I don't see this complaint at all in Heresy. Tacticals have even fewer options than they do in 40K, but what makes different legions' Tacticals play differently isn't that they get slightly different guns, it's that they get different legion bonuses, and more importantly are part of armies that are likely composed completely differently and play completely differently. It's okay if Night Lords Tacticals and Imperial Fists Tacticals aren't that different in raw stats; how each army uses Tacticals makes the armies different at the macro level, and then the legion bonuses add a little bit of chrome at the micro level.

Or, put more bluntly, go play some historicals. The good ones all use generic weapon profiles and still make different nations play differently. If a game only distinguishes between WW2 Germans and Americans by having minutely different stats on their weapons, that's a red flag, not a model to emulate.

Whatever. Another Irbis post, another collection of bad takes presented with apoplectic rage- over toy soldier games. Go to therapy.

 Irbis wrote:

Tyel wrote:
Maybe its just me, but I just see the gun as a second-stat line. So the fact a given Primaris unit has "Bolter version XXIV" doesn't really bother me. You just learn it as part of the unit.

I mean would it make things dramatically better if say Infiltrator Marksman Bolt Carbines were swapped for basic bolters, and Infiltrators just got "when this unit shoots, 6s to hit auto-wound" as a special rule? Ditto for say Incusors and their special guns ignoring cover?

This. I suppose you could make all the light primaris guns just bolt carbines and move the accompanying special rule to the unit stat block, but the ability to see what weapon does at a glance is wonderful and if anything, units wasting paper for stuff that can be just included in gun profile would be real bloat.

There is some merit to this, but GW has botched it badly. I say that because GW created the Bolt Carbine, but has added variants that barely resemble the base weapon:

Bolt Carbine: Assault 2, 24", S4, AP 0, D 1

Instigator bolt carbine: Assault 1, 24", S4, AP -1, D 2, Ignore LOS

Marksman Bolt Carbine: Rapid Fire 1, 24", S4 AP 0, D1, MW on unmodified Hit Roll of 6

Master-crafted instigator bolt carbine: Assault 1, 24", S4, AP -2, D 3, Ignore LOS

Master-crafted occulus bolt carbine: Rapid Fire 1, 24", S4, AP 0, D 2, Ignore Cover

Occulus bolt carbine: Rapid Fire 1, 24", S4, AP 0, D 1, Ignore Cover

What madness is this? Only 2 weapons on the list of Bolt Carbines have only 2 differences between them and the base Carbine. Those are a special ability... and a change from Assault 2 to Rapid Fire 1

Wait! Rapid Fire 1, 24", S4, AP 0, D 1 is a Bolter

Yeah the Tacticool Marines were handled terribly. There's no reason for Incursors and Infiltrators to be separate things.

 alextroy wrote:

 Irbis wrote:

Tyel wrote:
Maybe its just me, but I just see the gun as a second-stat line. So the fact a given Primaris unit has "Bolter version XXIV" doesn't really bother me. You just learn it as part of the unit.

I mean would it make things dramatically better if say Infiltrator Marksman Bolt Carbines were swapped for basic bolters, and Infiltrators just got "when this unit shoots, 6s to hit auto-wound" as a special rule? Ditto for say Incusors and their special guns ignoring cover?

This. I suppose you could make all the light primaris guns just bolt carbines and move the accompanying special rule to the unit stat block, but the ability to see what weapon does at a glance is wonderful and if anything, units wasting paper for stuff that can be just included in gun profile would be real bloat.

There is some merit to this, but GW has botched it badly. I say that because GW created the Bolt Carbine, but has added variants that barely resemble the base weapon:

Bolt Carbine: Assault 2, 24", S4, AP 0, D 1

Instigator bolt carbine: Assault 1, 24", S4, AP -1, D 2, Ignore LOS

Marksman Bolt Carbine: Rapid Fire 1, 24", S4 AP 0, D1, MW on unmodified Hit Roll of 6

Master-crafted instigator bolt carbine: Assault 1, 24", S4, AP -2, D 3, Ignore LOS

Master-crafted occulus bolt carbine: Rapid Fire 1, 24", S4, AP 0, D 2, Ignore Cover

Occulus bolt carbine: Rapid Fire 1, 24", S4, AP 0, D 1, Ignore Cover

What madness is this? Only 2 weapons on the list of Bolt Carbines have only 2 differences between them and the base Carbine. Those are a special ability... and a change from Assault 2 to Rapid Fire 1

Wait! Rapid Fire 1, 24", S4, AP 0, D 1 is a Bolter

If you think this is crazy.....
Do NOT look at the weapons/shields/standards in Age of Sigmar.
EVERY one of them is a named version & EVERY version does something slightly different. Even within the same army.
It's like the copywriters went mad.

The_Real_Chris wrote:
Take for example upgrade pistols for SM characters. Would it not be better to have a choice of say 3 profiles covering the major uses, then attach whatever names to them? Would fit better with the 'free upgrade' approach. Or is the shaving of 1 point, or choice of which sword to use something that you play the game for?

Well with the "free upgrade" approach we don't have to worry about shaving the 1 point - I like the different stat profiles though. I'm not sure the current stat profiles are GOOD, but I like the idea that you can lean into this threat band on your shooting, and that threat band on your melee, plus have a couple-few squads that reverse it or do something different. Of course I also like Kitchen Sink Lists that contain one of everything.

As far as Primaris Troops we can ask how many of their weapons should be turned basic. Do you think that:
*Intercessor bolt rifles should be turned into bolters? Yes.
*Intercessor stalker bolt rifles should be turned into bolters? No.
*Intercessor stalker bolt rifles should be turned into bolt rifles? No.
*Intercessor auto bolt rifle should be turned into bolters? No.
*Intercessor auto bolt rifle should be turned into bolt rifles? No.
*Incursor occulus bolt carbine should be turned into bolters? Yes.
*Incursor occulus bolt carbine should be turned into bolt rifles? No.
*Infiltrator marksman bolt carbine should be turned into bolters? Yes.
*Infiltrator marksman bolt carbine should be turned into bolt rifles? No.

Basically I'd keep auto bolt rifles and stalker bolt rifles because the models look different and there is a fluff reason for it. I think damage 2 on stalker bolt rifles might be a bit much, they could just be a long-barreled bolter (+6" range), then lower auto bolt rifles back down to Assault 2. The occulus bolt carbine ability can just become an additional incursor ability, who cares if their grenades and pistols ignore cover too?

 catbarf wrote:
Also, if there are 12 different bolter profiles but only two are worth taking, then the rest is just bloat. It'd be easier to track and you'd have more actual choices if they were consolidated into fewer, but more differentiated, and better balanced options. Overlapping profiles are always difficult to cost appropriately.

So differentiated weapons are easier to cost? Would you say it'd be easier to align the costs of +1S AP-3 D1 against +2S AP-4 D2 or against +0S AP-3 D1 +1 Atk? Trick question they all cost the same because GW are lazy hacks which makes your otherwise good point invalid. A huge scythe should not have the same profile as a one-handed axe. If I am going with the axe it is because I don't plan for my Lord/Overlord to kick butt in melee for the list, I just want a points cut to reward me for not being greedy and taking the scythe anyways just because it is strictly better at no cost.

 vict0988 wrote:

Basically I'd keep auto bolt rifles and stalker bolt rifles because the models look different and there is a fluff reason for it. I think damage 2 on stalker bolt rifles might be a bit much, they could just be a long-barreled bolter (+6" range), then lower auto bolt rifles back down to Assault 2.

Your suggestion is how nobody goes back to using the other Bolt Rifle variants.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

Basically I'd keep auto bolt rifles and stalker bolt rifles because the models look different and there is a fluff reason for it. I think damage 2 on stalker bolt rifles might be a bit much, they could just be a long-barreled bolter (+6" range), then lower auto bolt rifles back down to Assault 2.

Your suggestion is how nobody goes back to using the other Bolt Rifle variants.

Please explain.

 vict0988 wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

Basically I'd keep auto bolt rifles and stalker bolt rifles because the models look different and there is a fluff reason for it. I think damage 2 on stalker bolt rifles might be a bit much, they could just be a long-barreled bolter (+6" range), then lower auto bolt rifles back down to Assault 2.

Your suggestion is how nobody goes back to using the other Bolt Rifle variants.

Please explain.

Because nobody is going to use Assault 2 24" S4 -0 D1 or 36" Heavy 1 S4 -2 D2 vs Rapid Fire 1 (with Bolter Discipline) 30" S4 -1 D1 The math doesn't work out. Even the Fragstorm vs Stormbolter is pretty iffy.

Radical thought- maybe boltguns should be changed to bolt carbines and the latter unified to a single profile? Godwyn-pattern boltguns and bolt carbines have a very similar design anyway.

Then boltgun can be a catch-all term to describe bolt rifles and bolt carbines, but not the name of a specific profile.

 Insectum7 wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
What was one of the ones in 7th that literally never came up? Was it Missile Lock or some gak like that?

My favorites were the USRs that were just combinations of other USRs.

Technically we still have that. Marines have "angels of death" if you recall, which is a rule that says you get the "And they shall know no fear", "Bolter Discipline, "Shock Assault" and "Combat Doctrines" rules.

 vict0988 wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

Basically I'd keep auto bolt rifles and stalker bolt rifles because the models look different and there is a fluff reason for it. I think damage 2 on stalker bolt rifles might be a bit much, they could just be a long-barreled bolter (+6" range), then lower auto bolt rifles back down to Assault 2.

Your suggestion is how nobody goes back to using the other Bolt Rifle variants.

Please explain.

Did you already forget SM 8.1? Intercessors were always taken with the stock Bolt Rifle.

While the Bolt Rifle NOW has less damage output in specific matches, it also is the variant that loses less amount of damage output when going against a non-preferred target. It's one of the few occasions GW "rules writers" did something right.

In fact the only issue I have is the range of the weapons. If I were to combine Intercessors and Tacticals, I'd take 6" off each gun.

My post very specifically said that I would get rid of the regular bolt rifle. I don't see any fluff that suggests that bolt rifles should be superior to bolters, the bolt rifle model doesn't scream higher range or armour penetration and finally there is no gameplay reason to give them a better profile. Maybe you could argue it is needed to make up for the lack of a special/heavy weapon, I kind of just want Intercessors to have Primaris heavy weapons be able to join them like Deathwatch to make Space Marines feel like Space Marines again.

At best you could compare Assault 2 to R24" AP-1 bolters since I think I might have supported that in a previous thread, but then that'd be a R24" AP-1 bolter without bolter discipline as I have said previously that is something I would get rid of.

Let's compare the current options, S is the same, so the question is AP, Range and shots fired. I think bolter discipline and range cancels out with the ability to advance and shoot, it might not for everyone but considering the types of tables you're supposed to play on in 9th edition I think that's a fair trade. Then the question is how often is 1AP superior to 50% more shots? Against a 2+ Sv. That's it, don't even get me started on 200% more shots. So we're talking maybe 5% of the units in the game being more susceptible to bolt rifles, 1% during the Tactical Doctrine.

If you're taking bolt rifles currently you are making a mistake right? Auto bolt rifles being a niche option for chapters that need to advance more often would be fair, auto bolt rifles simply dealing more damage at shorter range isn't good design in my opinion, it also happens to not cost any points right now which seems clearly unbalanced. I might be biased because I am hoping GW stops stat creep and this has been a part of it.

I also happened to take the auto bolt rifles in 8th, but that was before Arks Detachments or Assault Intercessors.

 catbarf wrote:
It's impressive how seamlessly Irbis can go from complaining that USRs are out-of-date and poor design as evidenced by their unpopularity among modern rulesets, to praising the current ridiculously excessive bloat of weapon statlines as also practiced by... pretty much no modern ruleset.

Or, put more bluntly, go play some historicals. The good ones all use generic weapon profiles and still make different nations play differently. If a game only distinguishes between WW2 Germans and Americans by having minutely different stats on their weapons, that's a red flag, not a model to emulate.

100% this.

In GW's currently best game MESBG everything from hobbits to Uruk-Hai use the same weapons and armour. Even the mighty superhumans of Numenor that existed 3000 years before Saruman and Isengard turned to evil use the same rules for swords, shields, bows, horses and armour as the latter Uruk-Hai.

Besides the like 1 special weapon per faction, Narsil for Elendil, Anduril for Aragorn, Orcrist for Thorin/Legolas all models use the same simple list of weapons and equipment:
Handweapons (like Axes, Swords, Picks, Clubs etc that have a special rule that adds about a 15% bonus in the right situation over another version so you can if you want play all the weapons as not having special rules and it will have minimal impact on a game)
Two handed versions of the above weapons that just add a +1 to wound modifier but also adds a -1 to duel modifier and prevents using shield.
Hand-and-a-half versions of weapons can switch between one hand or 2h at will.
Spears that have no special rules and just lets the back rank models support with 1 attack.
Pike's are like spears but you can support in 2 ranks but cant use shields or ranged weapons without a penalty and you risk getting trapped from being in a too tight formation.
Lances give +1 to wound on mount when charging.
Warspear is a Lance while mounted and Spear when on foot
Monsters/creatures without above weapons just uses claws which have no special rules at all.

Like 95% of all models or more use those above weapon profiles for melee. Elves get an extra modifier on theirs that help them win fights. Some special weapons (Elendil's or Durin's weapons for example) can ignore the 2h penalty. Harad/Serpent Horde have poisoned weapons so can reroll 1s to wound.

Shooting weapons have a similar list as above. Shooting range for all the different bows and crossbows is 18"-24" and Strength value only varies from S2 to S4. Throwing weapons is S3 and 6" or 8" in range and those 2 categories combined is 99% of all shooting in the game. Bows can move up to 1/2 movement and shoot but suffers a hit penalty if not standing still. Crossbows can't move and shoot at all. Throwing weapons can be used after moving full or when charging. That was ranged summed up.

Armour gives +1 defense. Shield gives +1 defense and a shielding action. Heavy Armour gives +2 defense and besides dwarves that have slightly different equipment those 3 defensive options are used by 99% of models (including some dwarves). Glorfindel have a heavy armour with a worthless bonus against monsters and Frodo/Bilbo have the mithril coat that gives them +3 defense. Corsair crossbows have a special shield as well but that is pretty much it.

The 3 most expensive and most powerful models in the game is Smaug (700pts), Sauron (400pts) and the Balrog (350pts) and the common game size is 450-800 or so points. So these guys are way more powerful compared to the average than even a Primarch in 40k.
The main evil Sauron himself have some really impressive equipment. His armour is just a Heavy Armour and his melee weapon is just a normal mace. "Heavy armour, mace and The One Ring. " That is his literal wargear list copier from the rule book.
The Balrog, Durin's Bane, also have a pretty amazing equipment list: "Giant flaming sword and a fiery lash." Sounds impressive right? That "Giant Flaming Sword" is so impressive and special that it has 0 special rules and is played just as a normal sword. The fiery lash is special though and can drag enemies.
But what about the most expensive model in the game that is too expensive to even play at the most prestigious mesbg event of the year (ArdaCon is 650pts), he must have some amazing equipment right? "Razor-sharp teeth and massive talons" is all that Smaug has for weapons and they have 0 special rules and just there to inform he isn't unarmed (-1 to duel and -1 to wound).

There isn't a good reason when it comes to game mechanics to have so bloated weapon profiles as 40k. Last time I played 40k about a month ago I went 2-1-2 and I didn't even bother having my opponents tell me their weapon stats since it had been 1,5 years since I last played 40k and there was no way I would know how to counter any of it with no prep time. I just had to trust they weren't playing anything wrong or trying to deceive me because in 2,5h there is no reasonable way I would have time to double check it all and play the game without running out of time. Me playing Blood Angels/Marines with a 2y old codex at least the opponents knew what my models did. I could go back and play 4th or 5th ed 40k or 6-7th WFB after not having played those games for close to 15 years and still be confident an opponent wouldn't be able to trick me intentionally or not with wrong weapon rules since there were just so few of them. Would barely need to have a run down before the game what they have in their army to understand it.

 vict0988 wrote:
My post very specifically said that I would get rid of the regular bolt rifle. I don't see any fluff that suggests that bolt rifles should be superior to bolters,

It's there, I'm simply talking from a mindset of consolidating the Intercessor and Tactical profiles

Necrons don't use spears or axes. LotR is a low-fantasy medieval setting, a game based on the setting has different needs than one based on 40k because 40k is a science-fantasy setting.

Necrons do use cannons and rifles, but you're focussing too much on the game and not enough on the fluff if you think they can use the same rules as the rifles for other factions. 40k factions have sprawling miniature ranges from a long history with already existing names that you'd have to ignore or change. We can't just pretend how great it'd be if Space Marines had two kinds of weapons, maybe grav and bolt, AM could have las and beam and then those two could apply to 10 different profiles to create a decent variety of guns that'd be easy for your opponent to learn and give a good amount of design space for the faction, that's just not where the game is at in my opinion. I'd love to see it done well for a 40k faction.

rifle, carbine, shotgun, machine gun, sniper, pistol, cannon, mortar, rocket launcher, blade, fist, shield. Add a heavy, long-barreled and armour-piercing for double strength, 6" of extra range and an extra AP respectively and you might be able to cover most things. It might work if you were designing a new game from the ground up. But at that point you should talk to the designers of Maelstrom's Edge.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
My post very specifically said that I would get rid of the regular bolt rifle. I don't see any fluff that suggests that bolt rifles should be superior to bolters,

It's there, I'm simply talking from a mindset of consolidating the Intercessor and Tactical profiles

What weapon profiles would you have them use?

 vict0988 wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
My post very specifically said that I would get rid of the regular bolt rifle. I don't see any fluff that suggests that bolt rifles should be superior to bolters,

It's there, I'm simply talking from a mindset of consolidating the Intercessor and Tactical profiles

What weapon profiles would you have them use?

I'd go with the following profiles:
24" AP-1 Rapid Fire 1 D1
18" AP-0 Assault 3 D1
30" AP-2 Heavy 1 D2

Basically I just want to cut off the ranges due to the creep on that end cutting into other armies as well. Then 1 Special or Heavy at 5, and +1 Special and +1 Heavy at 10 to encourage larger squads.

The Intecessor is basically the perfect step on what a Marine profile should feel like since forever, so it should be used as the basis of the "Tactical Marine" with some fixing.

Then again nobody cares about homebrew rules so I'll never complete my fandex LOL

Writing a fandex involves a lot of tedium for sure, a lot of it is just copy-pasting and formatting. If you just want to design you can do it a lot simpler by making a wish-list with design commentary.

 vict0988 wrote:
0k factions have sprawling miniature ranges from a long history with already existing names that you'd have to ignore or change.

You don't have to ignore them, you just have to get rid of GW's ridiculous design philosophy that every decorative bit needs to have special rules attached to it. A unit can have an "anti-tank gun" rules-wise and it can be represented by a lascannon or missile launcher or plasma cannon on the model along with whatever lore you want to have for that model.

Aecus Decimus wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
0k factions have sprawling miniature ranges from a long history with already existing names that you'd have to ignore or change.

You don't have to ignore them, you just have to get rid of GW's ridiculous design philosophy that every decorative bit needs to have special rules attached to it. A unit can have an "anti-tank gun" rules-wise and it can be represented by a lascannon or missile launcher or plasma cannon on the model along with whatever lore you want to have for that model.

Or, you can have a set of Core Rules that allows for the effective differentiation of things like lascannons, missile launchers, and plasma cannons. Or just continue the "streamlining" slide into a glorified board game......

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Or, you can have a set of Core Rules that allows for the effective differentiation of things like lascannons, missile launchers, and plasma cannons. Or just continue the "streamlining" slide into a glorified board game......

That's effectively impossible because there aren't enough battlefield roles to support every existing weapon type. And I find it hilarious that anyone could think that 40k is a streamlined game when it's really the exact opposite: a bloated pile of nonsense that tries to substitute sheer volume of rules text and convoluted mechanics for actual strategic depth, hoping you'll be too busy trying to figure out how everything works to notice that it's all just dozens of different ways of writing "your unit does 20% more damage".

Aecus Decimus wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Or, you can have a set of Core Rules that allows for the effective differentiation of things like lascannons, missile launchers, and plasma cannons. Or just continue the "streamlining" slide into a glorified board game......

That's effectively impossible because there aren't enough battlefield roles to support every existing weapon type. And I find it hilarious that anyone could think that 40k is a streamlined game when it's really the exact opposite: a bloated pile of nonsense that tries to substitute sheer volume of rules text and convoluted mechanics for actual strategic depth, hoping you'll be too busy trying to figure out how everything works to notice that it's all just dozens of different ways of writing "your unit does 20% more damage".

All of that "bloat" and "convoluted mechanics" is because of the "streamlining" of the Core Rules, as the design team tries to make up for the lack of depth in them by adding more "depth" (actually just "bloat", as you described) back in the codexes. A more comprehensive set of Core Rules would support those additional battlefield roles. We're not in disagreement about current 40k, Aecus. It just seems that I want to fix it, and you just want to roll with the punches.

 vict0988 wrote:
Writing a fandex involves a lot of tedium for sure, a lot of it is just copy-pasting and formatting. If you just want to design you can do it a lot simpler by making a wish-list with design commentary.

I'm fine with tedium because my whole life is tedium tasks. It's just that it's for nothing in the end LOL

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
All of that "bloat" and "convoluted mechanics" is because of the "streamlining" of the Core Rules, as the design team tries to make up for the lack of depth in them by adding more "depth" (actually just "bloat", as you described) back in the codexes. A more comprehensive set of Core Rules would support those additional battlefield roles. We're not in disagreement about current 40k, Aecus. It just seems that I want to fix it, and you just want to roll with the punches.

Then I'm confused about what you're asking for. If you improve the core rules to add depth and remove the "need" to obscure bad core rules with rules bloat in everything else then you also remove the need to over-differentiate between different weapon options. The game is now about, for example, how to best use your anti-tank guns instead of optimizing your choices between plasma/missiles/lascannons as anti-tank options. The list building choice is a simple one between anti-tank, anti-personnel, or indirect fire for a heavy weapon and each option can be represented by multiple aesthetic choices on the model. Same thing with melee weapons. The choice is "should my character pay for an upgraded melee weapon", not making a spreadsheet to calculate damage against a range of targets and decide if +2S and -1AP is better than +1S and -2AP. Just combine everything into a single "power weapon" profile that you can choose to model as a sword or axe or whatever depending on what you think looks cool.


And when I say there aren't enough roles for each weapon I'm talking about conceptual roles within battlefield strategy in general, not within the very limited scope of 9th edition's stripped down core rules.

Aecus Decimus wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
All of that "bloat" and "convoluted mechanics" is because of the "streamlining" of the Core Rules, as the design team tries to make up for the lack of depth in them by adding more "depth" (actually just "bloat", as you described) back in the codexes. A more comprehensive set of Core Rules would support those additional battlefield roles. We're not in disagreement about current 40k, Aecus. It just seems that I want to fix it, and you just want to roll with the punches.

Then I'm confused about what you're asking for. If you improve the core rules to add depth and remove the "need" to obscure bad core rules with rules bloat in everything else then you also remove the need to over-differentiate between different weapon options. The game is now about, for example, how to best use your anti-tank guns instead of optimizing your choices between plasma/missiles/lascannons as anti-tank options. The list building choice is a simple one between anti-tank, anti-personnel, or indirect fire for a heavy weapon and each option can be represented by multiple aesthetic choices on the model. Same thing with melee weapons. The choice is "should my character pay for an upgraded melee weapon", not making a spreadsheet to calculate damage against a range of targets and decide if +2S and -1AP is better than +1S and -2AP. Just combine everything into a single "power weapon" profile that you can choose to model as a sword or axe or whatever depending on what you think looks cool.


And when I say there aren't enough roles for each weapon I'm talking about conceptual roles within battlefield strategy in general, not within the very limited scope of 9th edition's stripped down core rules.

Better Core Rules would allow each weapon to have a better defined "niche". In HH, lascannons rule over the other two examples in AT duties, but missile launchers provide both Pinning, and AA fire, both of which are not things that current 40k provides for, and makes them "jacks of all trades". If you go for pure lascannons, you're giving up flexibility for straight AT power.

Not really disagreed on power weapons. As long as things like thunder hammers, chainfists, and lightning claws remain distinct from "standard" power weapons.

And, again, I fully agree that there enough room for each weapon in 9th's "stripped down Core Rules". It's those stripped down Core Rules that I have a problem with.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Better Core Rules would allow each weapon to have a better defined "niche". In HH, lascannons rule over the other two examples in AT duties, but missile launchers provide both Pinning, and AA fire, both of which are not things that current 40k provides for, and makes them "jacks of all trades". If you go for pure lascannons, you're giving up flexibility for straight AT power.

But how does that translate to on-table play? Let's take missile launchers as the reference, since obviously there's a lot of value in a multi-role weapon. How does swapping my missiles for lascannons change how that unit plays on the table? Do missiles and lascannons engage vehicles differently, or is just that lascannons are X% better at the job and you have to weigh the value of X% vs. an alternative that is Y% better at some other task in the list building phase? From what I've seen even when frag/AA missiles aren't so weak that they aren't worth considering all that happens is you swing the choice from lascannons to missile spam and the unit plays the same way whichever one you take.

And ok, maybe this one example can work in a better game. But then there's stuff like guard Chimeras, where you have a choice between a heavy bolter or multilaser, two weapons with the same concept of "anti-infantry heavy weapon". Which one is favored because it has better dice math varies over the years but whichever one has better dice math usually makes the other obsolete. So combine the options and let Chimeras pick between "gun" or "flamer", the two weapons that actually play differently.

Not really disagreed on power weapons. As long as things like thunder hammers, chainfists, and lightning claws remain distinct from "standard" power weapons.

I agree that it might be reasonable to split them between "power weapon" and "heavy power weapon", especially if GW brought back something like the old initiative system where a power fist was more damage at the expense of possibly dying before you could swing instead of just straight +X% damage for +Y points.

Aecus Decimus wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Better Core Rules would allow each weapon to have a better defined "niche". In HH, lascannons rule over the other two examples in AT duties, but missile launchers provide both Pinning, and AA fire, both of which are not things that current 40k provides for, and makes them "jacks of all trades". If you go for pure lascannons, you're giving up flexibility for straight AT power.

But how does that translate to on-table play? Let's take missile launchers as the reference, since obviously there's a lot of value in a multi-role weapon. How does swapping my missiles for lascannons change how that unit plays on the table? Do missiles and lascannons engage vehicles differently, or is just that lascannons are X% better at the job and you have to weigh the value of X% vs. an alternative that is Y% better at some other task in the list building phase? From what I've seen even when frag/AA missiles aren't so weak that they aren't worth considering all that happens is you swing the choice from lascannons to missile spam and the unit plays the same way whichever one you take.

And ok, maybe this one example can work in a better game. But then there's stuff like guard Chimeras, where you have a choice between a heavy bolter or multilaser, two weapons with the same concept of "anti-infantry heavy weapon". Which one is favored because it has better dice math varies over the years but whichever one has better dice math usually makes the other obsolete. So combine the options and let Chimeras pick between "gun" or "flamer", the two weapons that actually play differently.

Not really disagreed on power weapons. As long as things like thunder hammers, chainfists, and lightning claws remain distinct from "standard" power weapons.

I agree that it might be reasonable to split them between "power weapon" and "heavy power weapon", especially if GW brought back something like the old initiative system where a power fist was more damage at the expense of possibly dying before you could swing instead of just straight +X% damage for +Y points.

I don't know enough about heavy bolters vs multi-lasers in the Guard Codex to make a comment about that.

What I do know, is that there's enough difference between lascannons and missile launchers in HH 2.0 to make them a meaningful choice, depending on army build and planned tactics.

And, again, agreed on power weapons. Bringing back Initiative is one of the things that I love about HH.

Aecus Decimus wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
0k factions have sprawling miniature ranges from a long history with already existing names that you'd have to ignore or change.

You don't have to ignore them, you just have to get rid of GW's ridiculous design philosophy that every decorative bit needs to have special rules attached to it. A unit can have an "anti-tank gun" rules-wise and it can be represented by a lascannon or missile launcher or plasma cannon on the model along with whatever lore you want to have for that model.

If the rules says it's equipped with a heavy bolter but the model and the fluff says the model is equipped with a multilaser then the game has failed. What weapons do Immortals replace their gauss and tesla with? RF 1 S5 AP-2 D1 and Ass 2 S5 AP- D1 6s to hit explode into 2 bonus hits, is that a heavy bolter and three boltguns? If I wanted to just play using the SM weapons from 5th edition I'd make a firstborn SM list.

first post was kinda hard to read and understand but i'd like power fist, power weapon, and force weapons back. power and force weapons 1 profile for each, but can be modeled as any melee weapon and you don't have to worry about it.

 vict0988 wrote:

Aecus Decimus wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
0k factions have sprawling miniature ranges from a long history with already existing names that you'd have to ignore or change.

You don't have to ignore them, you just have to get rid of GW's ridiculous design philosophy that every decorative bit needs to have special rules attached to it. A unit can have an "anti-tank gun" rules-wise and it can be represented by a lascannon or missile launcher or plasma cannon on the model along with whatever lore you want to have for that model.

If the rules says it's equipped with a heavy bolter but the model and the fluff says the model is equipped with a multilaser then the game has failed. What weapons do Immortals replace their gauss and tesla with? RF 1 S5 AP-2 D1 and Ass 2 S5 AP- D1 6s to hit explode into 2 bonus hits, is that a heavy bolter and three boltguns? If I wanted to just play using the SM weapons from 5th edition I'd make a firstborn SM list.

You could replace a lot of the bloat with USR and FactionSR, as long as profiles are easy to read I actually do not think weapons are where a big amount of the bloat comes from. With the bolt weapons being more unique issue.

I would be fine with tanks given rules to fire weapons multi times, or with heavy capacity. Out of 40k this is how a lot of systems handle them.
GW has rather chosen to make them platforms with weapons covering them, and still writing lots of profiles for imperium weapons.

 vict0988 wrote:

Aecus Decimus wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
0k factions have sprawling miniature ranges from a long history with already existing names that you'd have to ignore or change.

You don't have to ignore them, you just have to get rid of GW's ridiculous design philosophy that every decorative bit needs to have special rules attached to it. A unit can have an "anti-tank gun" rules-wise and it can be represented by a lascannon or missile launcher or plasma cannon on the model along with whatever lore you want to have for that model.

If the rules says it's equipped with a heavy bolter but the model and the fluff says the model is equipped with a multilaser then the game has failed. What weapons do Immortals replace their gauss and tesla with? RF 1 S5 AP-2 D1 and Ass 2 S5 AP- D1 6s to hit explode into 2 bonus hits, is that a heavy bolter and three boltguns? If I wanted to just play using the SM weapons from 5th edition I'd make a firstborn SM list.

They don't need 2 options out the other side, that's kind of the point.

As an example and to double down on the fact gauss is meant to be good at armour stripping, amend as needed to your own head wishes:

Warriors could go to rapid fire 1 18" s4 ap-2 d1
Immortals go to assault 2 24" s5 ap-2 d1 with an extra shot at 12".

Apple fox wrote:


You could replace a lot of the bloat

I think we should start by reducing the use of the word "bloat". Rules we do not like are not automatically "bloat" and using that word for the negative connotations will tend to put people on the defensive when it's used on rules they do like.

with USR and FactionSR, as long as profiles are easy to read I actually do not think weapons are where a big amount of the bloat comes from. With the bolt weapons being more unique issue.

I'd like to see more USR - with FactionSR modifying the USR. i.e. Deep Strike is the USR - while Teleport Strike is the FactionSR that modifies it i.e. Deep Strike not within 9, Teleport Strike is Deep Strike but Not Within 6" for example and/or available on Turn 1 for half the units etc.
Most/All factions have some access to each of the USR (barring one or here and there two totally out of flavor), but each faction has a FactionSR that leans into the USR(s) they're more familiar with. Some TauSuits/AeldariStuff with Fleet/Advance, White Scars and GSC with Scout Moves, or Reserves on alternative board edges I can't remember the name of the rule right now. Envelopment or some such. And on and one. The USR should be meh to good- Faction SR should be Good to Better-but-not-broken.

I would be fine with tanks given rules to fire weapons multi times, or with heavy capacity. Out of 40k this is how a lot of systems handle them.
GW has rather chosen to make them platforms with weapons covering them, and still writing lots of profiles for imperium weapons.

 Lord_Valorion wrote:
Why stop at weapons? Why not with datasheets? Everyone gets 5 Datasheets.

*Sigh* I only wish.

I know appealing to the fluff is largely pointless at this late date, but I have to wonder how one can justify the monolithic and ultra-conformist Imperium having such a vast range of specialized small arms?

Think of the ammo supply issues with all of those variants. Time was, the big difference between chapters was tweaks to organization and doctrine/philosophy. You had the vanilla Ultramarines and then various alternate takes based on history, the founder's weird and wacky gifts, homeworld, etc.

At the core, though, the chapters had a high incidence of interoperability. If Ultras were running low on ammo, the reinforcing Dark Angles could resupply them. With all these weird flavors of bolter, how is that possible? If they all share the same cartridge, you really won't get that much difference in performance because mostly it's a question of barrel length. You could change the cyclic rate (or go select fire), but that won't effect terminal performance.

In addition, spare parts for all those different weapons would be a nightmare.

I guess one could say the same with the sprawling vehicle line, which is a complete reversal of the early "Look, there are exactly four (4) classes of AFV in the Imperium: Russ, Rhino, Chimera and Land Raider. That's it. Pick a chassis and make a variant."

Now it's like oil sheik's arms show from the 1970s, except all those strange and weird vehicles are owned by the same army.

Okay, I'll go back to yelling at clouds.

 vict0988 wrote:
If the rules says it's equipped with a heavy bolter but the model and the fluff says the model is equipped with a multilaser then the game has failed.

Who cares what the fluff says? The fluff says my conscripts have different patterns of lasgun but they don't need different rules, they're just cannon fodder. Some people even print guardsmen with AR-15s and call them lasguns because it's just a gun. So call it "Chimera heavy weapon" if rivet counting matters.

What weapons do Immortals replace their gauss and tesla with?

Why do they need to replace? Just give them gauss with whatever profile is best, it's not like anyone ever takes the bad weapon when they have a choice.

What are Conscripts? Those aren't in the Space Marines codex, why would you use anything other than the Space Marines codex if you don't care about fluff? /sarcasm

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:
I know appealing to the fluff is largely pointless at this late date, but I have to wonder how one can justify the monolithic and ultra-conformist Imperium having such a vast range of specialized small arms?

Think of the ammo supply issues with all of those variants. Time was, the big difference between chapters was tweaks to organization and doctrine/philosophy. You had the vanilla Ultramarines and then various alternate takes based on history, the founder's weird and wacky gifts, homeworld, etc.

At the core, though, the chapters had a high incidence of interoperability. If Ultras were running low on ammo, the reinforcing Dark Angles could resupply them. With all these weird flavors of bolter, how is that possible? If they all share the same cartridge, you really won't get that much difference in performance because mostly it's a question of barrel length. You could change the cyclic rate (or go select fire), but that won't effect terminal performance.

In addition, spare parts for all those different weapons would be a nightmare.

I guess one could say the same with the sprawling vehicle line, which is a complete reversal of the early "Look, there are exactly four (4) classes of AFV in the Imperium: Russ, Rhino, Chimera and Land Raider. That's it. Pick a chassis and make a variant."

Now it's like oil sheik's arms show from the 1970s, except all those strange and weird vehicles are owned by the same army.

Okay, I'll go back to yelling at clouds.

It depends on the force in question. Most space marine gear *is* standardized, at least until the Primaris came around and any modifications are added later on. It helps most marine forces are self-sufficent as far as supply goes. Guard weapons aren’t as standardized but do all use the same power pack, solving that issue.


However, it isn’t entirely antithetical for a large empire like the imperium to have a lot variety in its equipment. The imperium, while large, is very fractal and relies on the Mechanicum for supplies and a layered response defense strategy. These combined means the imperium would rather have gear that could be produced locally, rather than a standardized pattern, especially since the Mechanicum forgeworlds don’t like sharing. It’s better for a planet to be able to supply itself and hold off an invader long enough for reinforcements to come by than for the whole to be perfectly standardized. Shorter, local supply lines are doubly important in a galaxy where shipping is reliant on going through the warp, and rarely are you able to predict the outcome of that.

 vict0988 wrote:
If the rules says it's equipped with a heavy bolter but the model and the fluff says the model is equipped with a multilaser then the game has failed.

In the fluff, Cadian lasguns are different from Death Korps lasguns are different from Vraksian autoguns, but they all get the same rules on the tabletop and nobody seems to think the game has failed because of this. A centuries-old ornate Marine bolt pistol the size of a small child and a mass-produced bolt pistol issued to every Commissar have the same exact stats. A heavy stubber's a heavy stubber whether it's a magazine-fed carriage-mounted Krieg gun or a man-portable machine gun for Cultists or a totally-not-space-M2.

I notice 40K players tend to get very attached to chrome; every distinction currently modeled is essential but all the ones that aren't modeled don't seem to be an issue.

 catbarf wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
If the rules says it's equipped with a heavy bolter but the model and the fluff says the model is equipped with a multilaser then the game has failed.

In the fluff, Cadian lasguns are different from Death Korps lasguns are different from Vraksian autoguns, but they all get the same rules on the tabletop and nobody seems to think the game has failed because of this. A centuries-old ornate Marine bolt pistol the size of a small child and a mass-produced bolt pistol issued to every Commissar have the same exact stats. A heavy stubber's a heavy stubber whether it's a magazine-fed carriage-mounted Krieg gun or a man-portable machine gun for Cultists or a totally-not-space-M2.

I notice 40K players tend to get very attached to chrome; every distinction currently modeled is essential but all the ones that aren't modeled don't seem to be an issue.

You can put failure on a scale, is it just meh (representing Conscripts with the AM Infantry Squad datasheet), is it bad (using the AM Veterans datasheet) or is it awful (using the SM Scouts datasheet? You could also say the lasgun variant is factored into the sub-faction Stratagems and bonus, I did think the game failed to represent the different lasgun variants, which is why my AM fandex included lasgun variants. But not representing lasgun differences is a small downside and it adds a relatively large amount of bloat to have those rules, justifying its exclusion is much easier than justifying the exclusion of tesla carbines from the Necrons codex as one poster suggested. It might even be that the differences between lasguns aren't actually great enough to warrant using different stats anyhow, a bit like how Ultramarines Devastators and Blood Angels Devastators are more alike than they are different in my book and having different Chapter Tactics and a different Super Doctrine incentivises people to build unfluffy Flanderized SM lists. I'll also add that bolt pistol relics exist.

 Conscript #760714 wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
If the rules says it's equipped with a heavy bolter but the model and the fluff says the model is equipped with a multilaser then the game has failed.

Who cares what the fluff says? The fluff says my conscripts have different patterns of lasgun but they don't need different rules, they're just cannon fodder. Some people even print guardsmen with AR-15s and call them lasguns because it's just a gun. So call it "Chimera heavy weapon" if rivet counting matters.

What weapons do Immortals replace their gauss and tesla with?

Why do they need to replace? Just give them gauss with whatever profile is best, it's not like anyone ever takes the bad weapon when they have a choice.

autoguns have always been an option(until now) for infantry squads and they had the same exact profiles as lasguns.

A heavy bolter and multilaser have two completely different stat lines.

That’s the difference.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 catbarf wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
If the rules says it's equipped with a heavy bolter but the model and the fluff says the model is equipped with a multilaser then the game has failed.

In the fluff, Cadian lasguns are different from Death Korps lasguns are different from Vraksian autoguns, but they all get the same rules on the tabletop and nobody seems to think the game has failed because of this. A centuries-old ornate Marine bolt pistol the size of a small child and a mass-produced bolt pistol issued to every Commissar have the same exact stats. A heavy stubber's a heavy stubber whether it's a magazine-fed carriage-mounted Krieg gun or a man-portable machine gun for Cultists or a totally-not-space-M2.

I notice 40K players tend to get very attached to chrome; every distinction currently modeled is essential but all the ones that aren't modeled don't seem to be an issue.

theyre physically different but they all are roughly the same in function and capability. Being a D6 based game you need pretty large variations between things to justify a differing stat…after all a marine is S4 while a guardsman is S3, despite the vast difference in strength.

A pistol grip vs straight stock, or an extra 2-6 inches of barrel length makes no practical difference in a lasgun.

 ProfSrlojohn wrote:
It depends on the force in question. Most space marine gear *is* standardized, at least until the Primaris came around and any modifications are added later on. It helps most marine forces are self-sufficent as far as supply goes. Guard weapons aren’t as standardized but do all use the same power pack, solving that issue.

No, that's an even bigger nightmare. A thousand chapters using a thousand slightly different variations of weaponry. It makes much more sense to say "okay, do the squads and paint jobs however turns you on, but all ammo is loaded to these exact specs."

Honestly, the obvious reason they'd all use the same ammo is the same reason they all use the same lasgun power packs: no one knows how to make anything else.

Where does all this innovation, weapons trials, etc. come from? The occupation of "weapons designer" does not and cannot exist because all weapons have already been invented. It's right there in the STC. The mechanicus wouldn't even know how to invent something.

However, it isn’t entirely antithetical for a large empire like the imperium to have a lot variety in its equipment. The imperium, while large, is very fractal and relies on the Mechanicum for supplies and a layered response defense strategy. These combined means the imperium would rather have gear that could be produced locally, rather than a standardized pattern, especially since the Mechanicum forgeworlds don’t like sharing. It’s better for a planet to be able to supply itself and hold off an invader long enough for reinforcements to come by than for the whole to be perfectly standardized. Shorter, local supply lines are doubly important in a galaxy where shipping is reliant on going through the warp, and rarely are you able to predict the outcome of that.

I get that the old fluff is being thrown away at an increasing rate, but the original concept of the Imperium was that it had zero innovation. None. Advances in technology were actually recovered fragments of STC constructs or incremental improvements in manufacturing.

The model of the Imperium is the Red Army - vast quantities of standardized weapons. In another thread we were looking up bolter fluff and according to the 2nd ed. Wargear book, bolt guns and bolt pistols use the exact same ammunition.

That's why the damage profile is the same. Boltguns get slightly longer range due to their longer barrels, but that's all that changes. Storm bolters have higher rates of fire, but same damage as pistols. This of course makes ammo supply a breeze.

I guess I have a question: What makes you all think the various different bolters have a different ammo? Maybe when the S changes its different but most of these variants probably use the same ammunition.

I mean you can, and some people specifically do get a Lever Action rifle in the same caliber as their revolver. You know like bolt pistols and bolters?

johnpjones1775 wrote:
autoguns have always been an option(until now) for infantry squads and they had the same exact profiles as lasguns

They haven't. IIRC, Infantry Squads didn't have an autogun option even in the Rogue Trader days when they could take conversion beamers and other crazy stuff. You are probably confusing them with the Renegades & Heretics version.

 AtoMaki wrote:

johnpjones1775 wrote:
autoguns have always been an option(until now) for infantry squads and they had the same exact profiles as lasguns

They haven't. IIRC, Infantry Squads didn't have an autogun option even in the Rogue Trader days when they could take conversion beamers and other crazy stuff. You are probably confusing them with the Renegades & Heretics version.

or 2nd Orks. Way back in second Grots had Autoguns.

Breton wrote:
I guess I have a question: What makes you all think the various different bolters have a different ammo? Maybe when the S changes its different but most of these variants probably use the same ammunition.

I mean you can, and some people specifically do get a Lever Action rifle in the same caliber as their revolver. You know like bolt pistols and bolters?

The different performance characteristics indicate different ammo types. Yes, barrel length will change performance, but the big jump is between pistol and rifle. Whether a weapon is lever action or select-fire doesn't change that.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

Breton wrote:
I guess I have a question: What makes you all think the various different bolters have a different ammo? Maybe when the S changes its different but most of these variants probably use the same ammunition.

I mean you can, and some people specifically do get a Lever Action rifle in the same caliber as their revolver. You know like bolt pistols and bolters?

The different performance characteristics indicate different ammo types. Yes, barrel length will change performance, but the big jump is between pistol and rifle. Whether a weapon is lever action or select-fire doesn't change that.

My point was that cartridges are shared across multiple platforms - a .44 magnum revolver and a .44 magnum lever action use the same rounds. Some firearms can use multiple cartridges - There's a revolver that can fire .45 Long Colt, .454 Casull, and .410 Shotshells. A rifle shooting .460 S&W will shoot flatter and further than the revolver, plus it will be more accurate (with iron sights) because the distance between the front and rear post is further apart without going too far. As far as I know, no fluff has told us that a Bolter Carbine, boltstorm gauntlet, etc doesn't use a bolter shell. We're making assumptions that could also be explained by barrel length or other features.

Breton wrote:
My point was that cartridges are shared across multiple platforms - a .44 magnum revolver and a .44 magnum lever action use the same rounds. Some firearms can use multiple cartridges - There's a revolver that can fire .45 Long Colt, .454 Casull, and .410 Shotshells. A rifle shooting .460 S&W will shoot flatter and further than the revolver, plus it will be more accurate (with iron sights) because the distance between the front and rear post is further apart without going too far. As far as I know, no fluff has told us that a Bolter Carbine, boltstorm gauntlet, etc doesn't use a bolter shell. We're making assumptions that could also be explained by barrel length or other features.

A small difference in barrel length between a rifle and a carbine does not justify a stat change in a game where a basic human's bare fists are S3 AP0 D1, a human with a sword or axe is S3 AP0 D1, and a genetically engineered super-soldier in powered armor that massively enhances his strength is only S4 AP0 D1.

johnpjones1775 wrote:
theyre physically different but they all are roughly the same in function and capability. Being a D6 based game you need pretty large variations between things to justify a differing stat…after all a marine is S4 while a guardsman is S3, despite the vast difference in strength.

A pistol grip vs straight stock, or an extra 2-6 inches of barrel length makes no practical difference in a lasgun.

A Kantrael-pattern lasgun is a full-auto laser machine gun with upwards of a hundred shots in a magazine that saturates targets like a recoilless take on a modern assault rifle. A Lucius-pattern lasgun is a slow-firing semi-only cannon with less than a dozen shots per magazine but blows holes in things. They get the same stats.

Meanwhile changing the barrel length on a bolter, deciding whether or not to add a scope, and/or fitting a drum magazine instead of a standard stick mag warrants 3,427 individual variant profiles.

I don't have a problem with saying a lasgun is a lasgun because infantry small arms are functionally equivalent when you're managing a company of troops. I have a problem with GW deciding some animals are more equal than others and writing literally pages of distinct statlines for functionally-equivalent weapons, to the detriment of the game. Save the Oculus Instigation Redeemer Boltgun Of Sundering (+4) crap for a skirmish game or RPG.

 Conscript #760714 wrote:

Breton wrote:
My point was that cartridges are shared across multiple platforms - a .44 magnum revolver and a .44 magnum lever action use the same rounds. Some firearms can use multiple cartridges - There's a revolver that can fire .45 Long Colt, .454 Casull, and .410 Shotshells. A rifle shooting .460 S&W will shoot flatter and further than the revolver, plus it will be more accurate (with iron sights) because the distance between the front and rear post is further apart without going too far. As far as I know, no fluff has told us that a Bolter Carbine, boltstorm gauntlet, etc doesn't use a bolter shell. We're making assumptions that could also be explained by barrel length or other features.

A small difference in barrel length between a rifle and a carbine does not justify a stat change in a game where a basic human's bare fists are S3 AP0 D1, a human with a sword or axe is S3 AP0 D1, and a genetically engineered super-soldier in powered armor that massively enhances his strength is only S4 AP0 D1.

Considering most often the difference is between Rapid Fire/Assault or 24" range vs 30" range I suppose I'd say the 460 Revolver/Rifle bear that out. I'd guess S and/or (part of) D are the size of the round, range is the barrel length, (part of) D and AP are probably the firing type (Heavy is more controlled than Rapid Fire is more controlled than Assault etc, and its all a bit abtract of course.

Not replying to any particular message but I have skimmed the entire thread, just thought I would give my 2 cents.

It would probably be better for the book keeping side of the game (as far as purely weapons profiles are concerned) if some weapons were condensed into a "basic" profile, and then certain units gain different rules for them thanks to bits of wargear.

So a bolt rifle could be a bolter, but intercessors have a special rule that gives their bolters +6" range and a point of AP. And so on and so forth. This obviously means that datasheets get busier with special rules, but tidies up the wargear section.

From an Ork perspective, here's a load of weapons that could be condensed into a basic profile rather than having a 2 or more almost identical weapons;

Twin Big Shootas - 2x Big Shootas
Kopta Rokkits - 2x Rokkit Launchas
Rokkit Kannon - 3x Rokkit Launchas
Power Snappa - Power Klaw
Snagga Klaw - Power Klaw
Burna Bottles - Stikkbombs
Wing Missiles - Rokkit Launcha
Kan Klaw - Dread Klaw
Kustom Mega Zappa - Kustom Mega Kannon

Then you chuck a line on each datasheet that needs it, like the Morkanaut gets d6+3 shots with its KMK rather than D6, Defftrike gets a slugga in addition to the Klaw, etc.

That's 9 entries removed from the Ork Weapons List, and all at the expense on a handful of lines of text on certain datasheets.

Not sure if that would work across the board for all armies, but you could certainly bin off a few denominations of bolter.

Breton wrote:
Considering most often the difference is between Rapid Fire/Assault or 24" range vs 30" range I suppose I'd say the 460 Revolver/Rifle bear that out. I'd guess S and/or (part of) D are the size of the round, range is the barrel length, (part of) D and AP are probably the firing type (Heavy is more controlled than Rapid Fire is more controlled than Assault etc, and its all a bit abtract of course.

The difference isn't between a rifle and a pistol, though - it's between different lengths of rifle where the ballistic performance changes would be marginal at best.

A better comparison is the M4, M16 and the SAW, all of which use the same cartridge and range and rate of fire are what sets them apart.

The various sub-variants are like the FAMAS, SA-80 and weapons chambered in 5.56 but with different ergonomics. In a game setting, they're pretty much the same - some even use the same magazines. Not enough to justify separate entries unless cost is part of the game (like in an RPG).

 Afrodactyl wrote:


Not sure if that would work across the board for all armies, but you could certainly bin off a few denominations of bolter.

It works for orks, because all their builds are based around spaming stuff. 9 buggies, 100 boys, full slots filled grot weapon platforms etc. The shota on a single ork doesn't matter, because he has low chance to hit with it. Now of course if a basic shota was turned in 2 shot str 5 2D weapon of doom it would have huge impact on orc list building, and we would see hordes of orks in ork lists. For marines that run a very tight game with what they can actualy fit in to an army, the quality of weapons matters a lot. And of course a marine player would rather have a bolt weapon, that fits his army and it something else then a bullet sponge. Most of the time bolte weapons are only important to top marine armies. Assault bolters in early 9th WS lists, a chapter specific stratagem which makes an option no one else uses good for that specific army.

But in the end the biggest hurdles to the simplification, is the fact that models for those weapons exist, in every marine box GW produced since 8th ed start. Plus if someone has problem with the fact that all marine weapons exist in an assault, rapid fire and heavy mode, consistent over multiple weapon times like bolt weapons, plasma weapons etc then I really worry how those people remember the rules for other factions. Playing against something like an Inari soup or Mechanicus, must be a horrible expiriance, even if one of those armies is really good and the other one is the opposit of that.

I am pretty sure GW have not treated the weapon stats as reflective of the weapon alone for some time, particularly for guns unique to a specific unit. They roll abilities of the user into the weapon.

I think the best example is the GSC Kellermorph, which uses a trio of beat-up stub pistols with a statline better than a revered Astartes bolt pistol lovingly maintained for centuries. Clearly the pistol statline is supposed to represent the abilities of the Kellermorph to place unerringly accurate shots into weak points- the weapon is damage 2 because it always hits the visor slit or something.

I don't like this, I think such abilities should be reflected in the statline and special rules of the unit and not leaked out into weapon profiles. However, that is how GW is frequently doing it. So rather than the sneaky Phobos Marine having a bolt carbine and also getting a special rule to ignore cover on shooting attacks, they get a special ignores cover bolt carbine.

 Afrodactyl wrote:
Not replying to any particular message but I have skimmed the entire thread, just thought I would give my 2 cents.

It would probably be better for the book keeping side of the game (as far as purely weapons profiles are concerned) if some weapons were condensed into a "basic" profile, and then certain units gain different rules for them thanks to bits of wargear.

So a bolt rifle could be a bolter, but intercessors have a special rule that gives their bolters +6" range and a point of AP. And so on and so forth. This obviously means that datasheets get busier with special rules, but tidies up the wargear section.

From an Ork perspective, here's a load of weapons that could be condensed into a basic profile rather than having a 2 or more almost identical weapons;

Twin Big Shootas - 2x Big Shootas
Kopta Rokkits - 2x Rokkit Launchas
Rokkit Kannon - 3x Rokkit Launchas
Power Snappa - Power Klaw
Snagga Klaw - Power Klaw
Burna Bottles - Stikkbombs
Wing Missiles - Rokkit Launcha
Kan Klaw - Dread Klaw
Kustom Mega Zappa - Kustom Mega Kannon

Then you chuck a line on each datasheet that needs it, like the Morkanaut gets d6+3 shots with its KMK rather than D6, Defftrike gets a slugga in addition to the Klaw, etc.

That's 9 entries removed from the Ork Weapons List, and all at the expense on a handful of lines of text on certain datasheets.

Not sure if that would work across the board for all armies, but you could certainly bin off a few denominations of bolter.

While I agree in principle that 40K needs less weapons, I don't agree with extensive weapon upgrades via special rules. The datasheets become a different sort of mess if you are constantly changing the rules for Bolter.

This is why GW has been slowly changing weapons in codexes from Bolter or Battlecannon to some bespoke version of said weapon. That way, they can change the bespoke weapon in codex A without changing it in Codex B.

That being said, I still want to see consistency. If a Bolt Carbine is 24" Assault 2 S4 AP 0 D 1, then every weapon calling itself a Bolt Carbine better be really close to that with minor changes.

Side Note: It is rather funny that the Bolt Carbine statline is the old Storm Bolter statline.

As almost everyone has already mentioned: GW really need to reduce the bloat (mostly in the marine codex). There's no need for 100 different bolters. Intercessors should just get one weapon option (a boltgun - yes, the same one tacticals have).

However, to the original topic of this thread: GW should absolutely not simplify the weapon categories. Instead, make the various weapon types meaningful again. Heavy: move OR shoot. Assault: move and shoot. Rapid fire: double shots at half range, but no assaulting after.
More limitations make for more choices during the game - and thus make the game more interesting.

 AtoMaki wrote:

johnpjones1775 wrote:
autoguns have always been an option(until now) for infantry squads and they had the same exact profiles as lasguns

They haven't. IIRC, Infantry Squads didn't have an autogun option even in the Rogue Trader days when they could take conversion beamers and other crazy stuff. You are probably confusing them with the Renegades & Heretics version.

I’ll double check, but i know for a fact last edition veterans could take autoguns.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 catbarf wrote:

johnpjones1775 wrote:
theyre physically different but they all are roughly the same in function and capability. Being a D6 based game you need pretty large variations between things to justify a differing stat…after all a marine is S4 while a guardsman is S3, despite the vast difference in strength.

A pistol grip vs straight stock, or an extra 2-6 inches of barrel length makes no practical difference in a lasgun.

A Kantrael-pattern lasgun is a full-auto laser machine gun with upwards of a hundred shots in a magazine that saturates targets like a recoilless take on a modern assault rifle. A Lucius-pattern lasgun is a slow-firing semi-only cannon with less than a dozen shots per magazine but blows holes in things. They get the same stats.

Meanwhile changing the barrel length on a bolter, deciding whether or not to add a scope, and/or fitting a drum magazine instead of a standard stick mag warrants 3,427 individual variant profiles.

I don't have a problem with saying a lasgun is a lasgun because infantry small arms are functionally equivalent when you're managing a company of troops. I have a problem with GW deciding some animals are more equal than others and writing literally pages of distinct statlines for functionally-equivalent weapons, to the detriment of the game. Save the Oculus Instigation Redeemer Boltgun Of Sundering (+4) crap for a skirmish game or RPG.

and your assuming I’m defending these endless bolt rifle stats? No. I’m literally pointing that minor differences shouldn’t justify stat differences.

As I posted previously I’d rather have force swords/axes/staves should all be the same stat profiles
Same with power swords/axes/staves/knives/etc

 alextroy wrote:
While I agree in principle that 40K needs less weapons, I don't agree with extensive weapon upgrades via special rules. The datasheets become a different sort of mess if you are constantly changing the rules for Bolter.

As I said, it tidies up the wargear section of the book but makes the datasheet messier.

Without being a bit bland and saying "everyone gets the same weapons and no rules to differentiate these different units otherwise" there's not a great deal of options for having a concise, tidy wargear section and a concise, tidy datasheet.

All them rules gotta go somewhere I guess.

johnpjones1775 wrote:

 AtoMaki wrote:

johnpjones1775 wrote:
autoguns have always been an option(until now) for infantry squads and they had the same exact profiles as lasguns

They haven't. IIRC, Infantry Squads didn't have an autogun option even in the Rogue Trader days when they could take conversion beamers and other crazy stuff. You are probably confusing them with the Renegades & Heretics version.

I’ll double check, but i know for a fact last edition veterans could take autoguns.

Veterans could take autoguns in 8th, it was by far the weirdest thing in that codex. I presume the intention was to use GSC neophytes as the base for the conversion. Very out of character for modern GW, shame they backtracked on it by removing veterans entirely. Veterans could not take autoguns for the preceding four editions or three codices. You have to go back to the first Imperial Guard codex of 3rd edition to find veterans who could take autoguns. It was dropped by the second codex of 3rd edition.

Infantry squads have never had the option.

 Haighus wrote:

johnpjones1775 wrote:

 AtoMaki wrote:

johnpjones1775 wrote:
autoguns have always been an option(until now) for infantry squads and they had the same exact profiles as lasguns

They haven't. IIRC, Infantry Squads didn't have an autogun option even in the Rogue Trader days when they could take conversion beamers and other crazy stuff. You are probably confusing them with the Renegades & Heretics version.

I’ll double check, but i know for a fact last edition veterans could take autoguns.

Veterans could take autoguns in 8th, it was by far the weirdest thing in that codex. I presume the intention was to use GSC neophytes as the base for the conversion. Very out of character for modern GW, shame they backtracked on it by removing veterans entirely. Veterans could not take autoguns for the preceding four editions or three codices. You have to go back to the first Imperial Guard codex of 3rd edition to find veterans who could take autoguns. It was dropped by the second codex of 3rd edition.

Infantry squads have never had the option.

that’s where most of my memories of the game are from so probably where I got it from.

When it comes to 40k the more simplification the better. It's just rule bloat upon rule bloat at this point.

Every codex could easily be reduced to 12 ish gun options, and 4 to 9 melee weapons, without losing anything of note.

The key factor here is complexity vs depth. 40k had complexity coming out of every pore in the form of hundreds of data sheets and weapons, all in the hopes that no one notices the lack of depth. When it comes to actual gameplay 40k is about as deep as a puddle; ye average board game has more nuanced and skill / decision based gameplay than 40k.

More mechanical variety in the game overall is good. The game mechanics cull that occured with creating 8th edition really messed up the purpose of a lot of weapon entries.

Fewer profiles would be beneficial, especially for the space marine line with it's bloated amount of bolter versions.

 morganfreeman wrote:
Every codex could easily be reduced to 12 ish gun options, and 4 to 9 melee weapons, without losing anything of note.

The key factor here is complexity vs depth. 40k had complexity coming out of every pore in the form of hundreds of data sheets and weapons, all in the hopes that no one notices the lack of depth. When it comes to actual gameplay 40k is about as deep as a puddle; ye average board game has more nuanced and skill / decision based gameplay than 40k.

Technically 40k is complicated but not complex...
Actually complex (or deep) games tend to limit complication, as it is very heard to do in a balanced way in a complex system. A lot of complex wargames will standardise weapons massively as it often isn't that important (which isn't what joe public think or indeed most 40k gamers).

The_Real_Chris wrote:
Technically 40k is complicated but not complex...
Actually complex (or deep) games tend to limit complication, as it is very heard to do in a balanced way in a complex system. A lot of complex wargames will standardise weapons massively as it often isn't that important (which isn't what joe public think or indeed most 40k gamers).

"Do you know what those are?"

"Those are rifles."

"How many types are there?"

"Just one, they're all bolt-action."

"That's not true. That's a Mauser. That one's an Enfield. That's a Mosin, over there is an Arisaka and that is a Carcano. This one here is an American rifle using a Mauser action. That's a Spanish Mauser using an older action and a diffferent caliber."

"But they all work basically the same, right? I mean at the platoon/company level, it's all about the same."

"If you ask a commander, yes. If you ask a collector, no."

"So who are we making these rules for, people who want to be collectors, or commanders?"

"Collectors. Each one has to be somehow different in the rules, but functionally be the same. Only way those nuts can be satisfied."

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

The_Real_Chris wrote:
Technically 40k is complicated but not complex...
Actually complex (or deep) games tend to limit complication, as it is very heard to do in a balanced way in a complex system. A lot of complex wargames will standardise weapons massively as it often isn't that important (which isn't what joe public think or indeed most 40k gamers).

"Do you know what those are?"

"Those are rifles."

"How many types are there?"

"Just one, they're all bolt-action."

"That's not true. That's a Mauser. That one's an Enfield. That's a Mosin, over there is an Arisaka and that is a Carcano. This one here is an American rifle using a Mauser action. That's a Spanish Mauser using an older action and a diffferent caliber."

"But they all work basically the same, right? I mean at the platoon/company level, it's all about the same."

"If you ask a commander, yes. If you ask a collector, no."

"So who are we making these rules for, people who want to be collectors, or commanders?"

"Collectors. Each one has to be somehow different in the rules, but functionally be the same. Only way those nuts can be satisfied."

Exalted.

"So what's the difference between the Russian infantry and the Germans?"

"Well, the Russians have Mosins, and the Germans have Mausers."

"What about their squad organization? Tactical-level leadership? Operational flexibility? Morale?"

"Nope, just Mosins versus Mausers. The Mosins have slightly higher velocity and the Mausers are quicker to cycle and reload."

"Okay, well let's simplify that to just 'bolt-action rifles', and then we can instead come up with rules for..."

"You're ruining the game! You're making those two completely different units identical! What's the point of making a WW2 game if you're not going to respect the lore?"

 catbarf wrote:
Exalted.

"So what's the difference between the Russian infantry and the Germans?"

"Well, the Russians have Mosins, and the Germans have Mausers."

"What about their squad organization? Tactical-level leadership? Operational flexibility? Morale?"

"Nope, just Mosins versus Mausers. The Mosins have slightly higher velocity and the Mausers are quicker to cycle and reload."

"Okay, well let's simplify that to just 'bolt-action rifles', and then we can instead come up with rules for..."

"You're ruining the game! You're making those two completely different units identical! What's the point of making a WW2 game if you're not going to respect the lore?"

It's mutual. LOL.