There's been a lot of talk about 10th missing a "certain something" from the previous editions.
So, if it was up to you, what CORE, Codex, or special rule would you bring back?
And as much as I'd like to bring back Phase Out for all the fun I had playing, "is that 75%?" I'm looking for honest replies of what would bring back a little of the joy that's been stripped away.
Hellebore wrote: Probably some form of psychic system between 4th and 9th ed.
reducing psychic to a keyword that only has a downside (anti psychic) and no upside is really boring.
Absolutely!
People have proved to me that you don't necessarily need a psychic phase... But you do need actual psychic powers, and you should be able to choose them. The fact that every psychic model of the same type has the same assigned psychic power is almost as bad as reducing powers to weapon profiles.
Is this model customization, or the Tau battlesuit issue where you can only use certain weapon configurations now?
Both.
I actually don’t mind the Battlesuit changes specifically-it would be nice to slap a fusion blaster into an otherwise anti-infantry squad, but I’m personally okay with having different suits with different roles.
But there should be actual options within units, not just “Pick every one of the best options.”
And a lot of units that are one-note should be opened up, to let them cover different roles.
For my own army, what if Plaguebearers could take a shield for an extra wound or improved invulnerable?
Or two-handed weapons, for more damage?
Both of which are better than one plaguesword, so that option should be cheaper than the other two. But that doesn’t merit its own datasheet.
Missions and scenarios. Let's say the ones from late 8th edition, as I remember those being my favorite, but I also enjoyed 4th Edition. Really, anything other than the "Primary/Secondary/Objective markers laid out on a grid" that has been the norm for the past two editions.
I'd take Character rules from literally any other edition.
Anything's better than this "Your character needs to join a squad. NO, NOT THAT SQUAD! They smell, or something. And once you've joined, you're not allowed to leave or join another squad. Ever. Even if your original squad has been completely destroyed. Also, your abilities that work on yourself stop working if your squad is killed."
Also, not a rule per se, but agreed with the above posters in terms of bringing back customisation.
Units could be affected by fire without being wiped out entirely, a fleeing unit was temporarily incapacitated (but could come back later) forcing tough decisions about where to prioritize fire, and melee was decisive. It added a 'soft damage' aspect that kept overall lethality much lower and gave elite units an advantage that wasn't just firepower or armor.
Beyond that, there were some other mechanics I liked from older editions, but mostly I wish GW would take some more cues from non-GW games.
I really don’t mind, and in fact quite like, vehicles have T and W like everyone else. But I still miss blowing bits off them.
And I think we can have both. As well as degradation, as each threshold is breached, have a wee table to roll on. Results could include immobilised, sponsondestroyed, turret destroyed, flashback to hull (does more wounds).
There's not a lot I'd want back. 10th is the first edition I really like. Even things like Psychic feel okay when against things like 1kSons, but Librarians having more active powers would be a nice change. Weirdboyz having Da'Jump is a great example of it done right. Granting a unit a FNP is pretty lame by comparison.
Reckon top of my list is Customisation. In that, I mean points for power.
Used to be I could pick a unit and leave them barebones to save points. Now, every squad is rocking the expensive stuff. Back in 4thish, IIRC if you gave tour marines special weapons it could drop the squad coutn by 1 or 2 compared with barebones. Also used to be I could have a unit of 12 trukkboys, but that's now 10 as the points arbitrarily increase at 11. Also meant I could shave 12 points off by dropping to 10 boys in the trukk.
Time was it was a decision whether to add heavy weaponry to a unit. Will they survive long enough to use it? Would it be better to put the points into something else? for the price of 4 rokkits I can buy a trukk to carry some boys. Now it's everything has everything, and there's less tactical decision making in the list building stage.
From an older one - vehicle armour facings & weapon facings. Not too worried about the old armour rules, but the armour facings made vehicle warfare more interesting. You didn't wade a leman russ in, you tried to keep the front armour facign forwards. Now, I wouldn't have the front-side-rear, but I would consider having rear armour as a straight line across the back of a vehicle - if you're behind that, you get less armour to deal with. Whether that's +1AP or if it's lower toughness, just having the choice would be good.
embarking inside buildings/bunkers that are terrain pieces. No, I don't mean hiding behind a wall. It used to be treated EXACTLY like getting into a transport.
I would get rid of being able to automatically pass anything, even if its just once per turn or once per game or whatever. Leadership and morale should mean something and it shouldn't just be something that is ignored most of the time because of succeeding or passing all the time.
Especially the weapons arcs.
Its reasonable to grant that infantry, many monster/walker types, turret/pintle mounted weapons, & even some non-turret/pintle weapons (seeker missiles & such) would be able to fire 360.
It stretches things a bit to grant 360 to things like bikes & aircraft in this scale of the game.
But it's completely ridiculous for 99% of non-turret/pintle mounted vehicle weapons to be firing 360.
I'm sorry, but the left side sponson of a Leman Russ does not fire out of the right hand side. Likewise that forward pointing, hull mounted cannon on the Vindicator? It does not fire out it's rear....
Especially the weapons arcs.
Its reasonable to grant that infantry, many monster/walker types, turret/pintle mounted weapons, & even some non-turret/pintle weapons (seeker missiles & such) would be able to fire 360.
It stretches things a bit to grant 360 to things like bikes & aircraft in this scale of the game.
But it's completely ridiculous for 99% of non-turret/pintle mounted vehicle weapons to be firing 360.
I'm sorry, but the left side sponson of a Leman Russ does not fire out of the right hand side. Likewise that forward pointing, hull mounted cannon on the Vindicator? It does not fire out it's rear....
I totally forgot that this used to be a thing.
I agree that Walkers (like Knights and Dreadnoughts) should have 360⁰ arcs, but I was looking at some of the Baneblade variants earlier, thinking, this thing has to have an awesome traverse in order to swing around and have every weapon be able to target me.
I'm of two minds about tanks having firearcs (and big monsters). On the one hand I get it; on the other 40K now has Baneblades and Knights; it has pretty large armies too.
I get the feeling that the 40K scale and models wouldn't work with it so well now. You've got models that are so big you'd never want to move them forward into the battle area because they'd be flanked in seconds; meanwhile you'd also have armies like Tyranids running so many big things that it becomes quite a complex affair to manage them all when they've all got different weapon arcs and so forth.
I think it had a sweet spot in 2nd, 3rd and those earlier versions where armies were a LOT smaller in general and you had room to move around and time to focus on the tanks.
Today I feel like it would be a neat feature in Epic scale games (if only for skirmish epic); but for 40K I think the size of models and game would make it an un-fun experience.
There's a good few things that 10th took away that I'd like back so its hard to say just one, but I think points.
The game and models were built around points for 40years. Points allowed you to equip units differently; to go all out heavy or low. It gave different weapons another layer of granularity outside of their pure performance.
As noted earlier by another, today in 10th you've no reason to not take every upgrade and weapon option the squad has. It costs the same to put in the army so why not take your elite army at its best.
It removes a layer of granularity for weapons too and means that any sub-par weapon can't even be justified in a "cheaper unit" its just ignored. Why take a penalty taking it .
The other thing - the Psychic powers and attacks. Again another user noted that in todays' 10th its a negative to have a psy attack. It does nothing more for you save reduce potential targets because anti-psy shields are a thing.
Because it does nothing it doesn't even feel flavourful on a model either. It might as well just be an attack name like any other.
The game also feels like its missing something losing the phase - or losing the concept of it.
Overread wrote: I'm of two minds about tanks having firearcs (and big monsters). On the one hand I get it; on the other 40K now has Baneblades and Knights; it has pretty large armies too.
I get the feeling that the 40K scale and models wouldn't work with it so well now. You've got models that are so big you'd never want to move them forward into the battle area because they'd be flanked in seconds; meanwhile you'd also have armies like Tyranids running so many big things that it becomes quite a complex affair to manage them all when they've all got different weapon arcs and so forth.
I think it had a sweet spot in 2nd, 3rd and those earlier versions where armies were a LOT smaller in general and you had room to move around and time to focus on the tanks.
Today I feel like it would be a neat feature in Epic scale games (if only for skirmish epic); but for 40K I think the size of models and game would make it an un-fun experience.
You do realize that:
We've had Baneblades etc since the days of 2e, right? 1st came the officially licensed Armorcast/Epicasts, then GWs ForgeWorld, then the GW plastics in 6th(?).
That since 3e+ we Guard players have been able to run entire Armored Companies.
That Russ's, Landraiders, Predators, Hammerheads, Falcons, any big Tyranid, etc haven't gotten bigger.
That working fire arcs existed 7e & prior and still do in current HH. Not to mention virtually every other minis game.
Overread wrote: I'm of two minds about tanks having firearcs (and big monsters). On the one hand I get it; on the other 40K now has Baneblades and Knights; it has pretty large armies too.
I get the feeling that the 40K scale and models wouldn't work with it so well now. You've got models that are so big you'd never want to move them forward into the battle area because they'd be flanked in seconds; meanwhile you'd also have armies like Tyranids running so many big things that it becomes quite a complex affair to manage them all when they've all got different weapon arcs and so forth.
I think it had a sweet spot in 2nd, 3rd and those earlier versions where armies were a LOT smaller in general and you had room to move around and time to focus on the tanks.
Today I feel like it would be a neat feature in Epic scale games (if only for skirmish epic); but for 40K I think the size of models and game would make it an un-fun experience.
You do realize that:
We've had Baneblades etc since the days of 2e, right? 1st came the officially licensed Armorcast/Epicasts, then GWs ForgeWorld, then the GW plastics in 6th(?).
That since 3e+ we Guard players have been able to run entire Armored Companies.
That Russ's, Landraiders, Predators, Hammerheads, Falcons, any big Tyranid, etc haven't gotten bigger.
That working fire arcs existed 7e & prior and still do in current HH. Not to mention virtually every other minis game.
Baneblades in 2nd and 3rd were, as I recall, pretty much your "FW super expensive model no one actually had" for many people. Plus those were the "with opponents permission" era of FW models. They were about but superrare and not as common place as they are now with the plastic kit and vastly reduced price.
It's not that its impossible to run, just that I question if the larger armies that the game has grown into makes it as fun an element to include as perhaps not having it.
And Tyranids have CERTAINLY got bigger over the years. Screamer killers of 2nded are tiny compared to the plastic 3rd edition Carnifex and those are tiny compared to Toxicrines, Exocrines and such that have followed.
Not to mention we've gone through some pretty big jumps in troop size. We've actually come down a bit, at one time Gaunt units could be 40 bodies strong.
Is this model customization, or the Tau battlesuit issue where you can only use certain weapon configurations now?
Both.
I actually don’t mind the Battlesuit changes specifically-it would be nice to slap a fusion blaster into an otherwise anti-infantry squad, but I’m personally okay with having different suits with different roles.
But there should be actual options within units, not just “Pick every one of the best options.”
And a lot of units that are one-note should be opened up, to let them cover different roles.
For my own army, what if Plaguebearers could take a shield for an extra wound or improved invulnerable?
Or two-handed weapons, for more damage?
Both of which are better than one plaguesword, so that option should be cheaper than the other two. But that doesn’t merit its own datasheet.
So what you're asking for is a range expansion to chaos daemons? Or death guard, based on current rumours?
I don't see why it can't be shields with better defensive profile and a small weak melee attack, a plaguesword with anti-infantry and more attacks, then a bigger 2h weapon with more damage but no anti-infantry and fewer attacks. All in one unit, at one points cost.
I'll throw mine out there - old restrictions for moving & firing with rapid fire/heavy, 4th ed style.
Specifically pinning, but if possible moral in general including pinning.
40k has never done moral justice, and always could've been massively improved by leaning into the moral system. However what we used to have, or specifically what HH currently has, is MUCH better than modern 40k.
morganfreeman wrote: Specifically pinning, but if possible moral in general including pinning.
40k has never done moral justice, and always could've been massively improved by leaning into the moral system. However what we used to have, or specifically what HH currently has, is MUCH better than modern 40k.
Eh... It's never felt right for Marines, Custodes, Mechanicum, Orks, Necrons, Tyranids, Daemons...
Really most factions. It never felt right for them to out and out run away. Pinning could be nice, but more than that feels out of character for most units.
morganfreeman wrote: Specifically pinning, but if possible moral in general including pinning.
40k has never done moral justice, and always could've been massively improved by leaning into the moral system. However what we used to have, or specifically what HH currently has, is MUCH better than modern 40k.
Eh... It's never felt right for Marines, Custodes, Mechanicum, Orks, Necrons, Tyranids, Daemons...
Really most factions. It never felt right for them to out and out run away. Pinning could be nice, but more than that feels out of character for most units.
Running away makes sense for pretty much every faction, especially considering 'running away' isn't just 'fleeing in blind terror'. Tactical withdrawls / repositions are what they represent for marines and such. Especially given retreats tend to cover like, 6-10 seconds of actual 'real time' in the game.
That said I agree, obviously, that it's never been great though. Both games could've benefited massively from suppression mechanics and other ways to disrupt action beyond / instead of just "you can't do anything". Incremental negatives and such.
Really most factions. It never felt right for them to out and out run away. Pinning could be nice, but more than that feels out of character for most units.
Running away makes sense for pretty much every faction, especially considering 'running away' isn't just 'fleeing in blind terror'. Tactical withdrawls / repositions are what they represent for marines and such. Especially given retreats tend to cover like, 6-10 seconds of actual 'real time' in the game.
Except it wasn't a "tactical withdrawal" it was a blind, disordered panic.
Hence why units that ran while in combat could be utterly annihilated, even by units that could barely scratch them otherwise.
Hell, these "tactically withdrawing" units had to make morale tests to regroup, otherwise they'd "tactically retreat" right off the table and were counted as destroyed.
I guess they just decided to reposition on a different world.
Really most factions. It never felt right for them to out and out run away. Pinning could be nice, but more than that feels out of character for most units.
Running away makes sense for pretty much every faction, especially considering 'running away' isn't just 'fleeing in blind terror'. Tactical withdrawls / repositions are what they represent for marines and such. Especially given retreats tend to cover like, 6-10 seconds of actual 'real time' in the game.
Except it wasn't a "tactical withdrawal" it was a blind, disordered panic.
Hence why units that ran while in combat could be utterly annihilated, even by units that could barely scratch them otherwise.
Hell, these "tactically withdrawing" units had to make morale tests to regroup, otherwise they'd "tactically retreat" right off the table and were counted as destroyed.
I guess they just decided to reposition on a different world.
Not for marines though because ‘they shall know no downside’. They immediately regrouped when they finished moving or instead of being destroyed if caught by pursuers.
Not for marines though because ‘they shall know no downside’. They immediately regrouped when they finished moving or instead of being destroyed if caught by pursuers.
Granted. I was thinking of all the other factions that actually have to play by the rules.
Incidentally, I remember being rather frustrated back in 3rd/4th when the Necron codex stated something to the effect of "Necrons do not suffer fear but may retreat if it is logical to do so."
And then how that actually played out was that a 20-man Necron unit would take maybe 2 wounds in combat and decide it was ""logical"" to try and retreat, even though their crap initiative meant they were all but guaranteed to be annihilated beyond even the ability of We'll Be Back to recover.
And plenty of people do. I miss some of the army-building limits, though I think the Force Org chart was pretty flawed as a universal list making tool.
It was a unique part of their army. The Necrons should be very scary, very super powered with models that won't die and a relentless assault with weapons that can kill everything from infantry to armoured vehicles.
But they had a weakness. If you could just knock them down for one turn... maybe, just maybe you could win.
I loved the old necrons! A win was always fun then.
Lathe Biosas wrote: It was a unique part of their army. The Necrons should be very scary, very super powered with models that won't die and a relentless assault with weapons that can kill everything from infantry to armoured vehicles.
But they had a weakness. If you could just knock them down for one turn... maybe, just maybe you could win.
I loved the old necrons! A win was always fun then.
Eh... I think it'd be good as a narrative scenario or similar set of rules.
I don't think it'd be good for general use.
Though GW should do more to encourage more than tournament missions.
Sure, I can play just fine with Phase Out.
I'm afraid though that a lot of new Necron players (those who've only ever played 8e+) heads would explode if they had to contend with having an auto-lose condition built into their army....
Nope. I spent the better part of 20 years dealing with that limitation. I greatly prefer the current setup. Though I can also quite happily deal with paying CP in 9th to access different detachment formations.
And if I want to? Nothing in the current rules prevents me from building a force along the old FOC pattern.
Heck, some of newer my forces wouldn't even be legal under the old FOC.
I really like 10th edition overall, it might be the best edition of the game otherwise, but this thing really annoys me. It is just sad that so many options are outright not worth taking and you're just punishing yourselves if you do so.
Like I want to give units variety of weapons. Some of my marine sergeants have power swords or even chainswords, but under the current rules I should just give them all power fists. That is just boring.
And even if it might first seem that fixed costs make list building easier, in practice it doesn't. With old style if you were five points over you could just swap one weapon to a cheaper one, but with the fixed cost you need to juggle whole units and alter the composition of the whole army.
I really like 10th edition overall, it might be the best edition of the game otherwise, but this thing really annoys me. It is just sad that so many options are outright not worth taking and you're just punishing yourselves if you do so.
Like I want to give units variety of weapons. Some of my marine sergeants have power swords or even chainswords, but under the current rules I should just give them all power fists. That is just boring.
And even if it might first seem that fixed costs make list building easier, in practice it doesn't. With old style if you were five points over you could just swap one weapon to a cheaper one, but with the fixed cost you need to juggle whole units and alter the composition of the whole army.
maybe just balance the weapon options better within a unit.
I really like 10th edition overall, it might be the best edition of the game otherwise, but this thing really annoys me. It is just sad that so many options are outright not worth taking and you're just punishing yourselves if you do so.
Like I want to give units variety of weapons. Some of my marine sergeants have power swords or even chainswords, but under the current rules I should just give them all power fists. That is just boring.
And even if it might first seem that fixed costs make list building easier, in practice it doesn't. With old style if you were five points over you could just swap one weapon to a cheaper one, but with the fixed cost you need to juggle whole units and alter the composition of the whole army.
maybe just balance the weapon options better within a unit.
What's the balance point between a Devastator Squad with four Heavy Bolters and one with two?
The two heavies option is good if you want to stick them in a Rhino, for mobile fire support via Firing Deck, except you're always paying for the full four.
I really like 10th edition overall, it might be the best edition of the game otherwise, but this thing really annoys me. It is just sad that so many options are outright not worth taking and you're just punishing yourselves if you do so.
Like I want to give units variety of weapons. Some of my marine sergeants have power swords or even chainswords, but under the current rules I should just give them all power fists. That is just boring.
And even if it might first seem that fixed costs make list building easier, in practice it doesn't. With old style if you were five points over you could just swap one weapon to a cheaper one, but with the fixed cost you need to juggle whole units and alter the composition of the whole army.
maybe just balance the weapon options better within a unit.
What's the balance point between a Devastator Squad with four Heavy Bolters and one with two?
The two heavies option is good if you want to stick them in a Rhino, for mobile fire support via Firing Deck, except you're always paying for the full four.
In roughly 20 years in the hobby I’ve never seen or heard of anyone not taking all 4 heavy weapon options s available, so not really an issue, but you feel free to elucidate me as to what reason anyone would want to do that.
I theory, but I don't think that is possible in practice, especially as one option is to just not take the stuff at all.
Realistically no one is simply not taking any of the options.
I can’t recall any time any one took 0 upgrades on a unit when there were individual points costs for upgrades.
So trying to balance upgrades with no upgrades is kind of a non-issue.
It is completely possible for all of the weapon options in a unit to be relatively closely balanced between each other.
I really like 10th edition overall, it might be the best edition of the game otherwise, but this thing really annoys me. It is just sad that so many options are outright not worth taking and you're just punishing yourselves if you do so.
Like I want to give units variety of weapons. Some of my marine sergeants have power swords or even chainswords, but under the current rules I should just give them all power fists. That is just boring.
And even if it might first seem that fixed costs make list building easier, in practice it doesn't. With old style if you were five points over you could just swap one weapon to a cheaper one, but with the fixed cost you need to juggle whole units and alter the composition of the whole army.
maybe just balance the weapon options better within a unit.
What's the balance point between a Devastator Squad with four Heavy Bolters and one with two?
The two heavies option is good if you want to stick them in a Rhino, for mobile fire support via Firing Deck, except you're always paying for the full four.
In roughly 20 years in the hobby I’ve never seen or heard of anyone not taking all 4 heavy weapon options s available, so not really an issue, but you feel free to elucidate me as to what reason anyone would want to do that.
Rhinos have Firing Deck 2. (And in past editions, they've had similar rules.)
If two heavy weapons were cheaper than four, you could reasonably use it as a pseudo-Razorback with only two heavies in the Dev squad.
But since Devastators are always priced as if they're taking all four heavy weapons, you're significantly overpaying.
I really like 10th edition overall, it might be the best edition of the game otherwise, but this thing really annoys me. It is just sad that so many options are outright not worth taking and you're just punishing yourselves if you do so.
Like I want to give units variety of weapons. Some of my marine sergeants have power swords or even chainswords, but under the current rules I should just give them all power fists. That is just boring.
And even if it might first seem that fixed costs make list building easier, in practice it doesn't. With old style if you were five points over you could just swap one weapon to a cheaper one, but with the fixed cost you need to juggle whole units and alter the composition of the whole army.
maybe just balance the weapon options better within a unit.
What's the balance point between a Devastator Squad with four Heavy Bolters and one with two?
The two heavies option is good if you want to stick them in a Rhino, for mobile fire support via Firing Deck, except you're always paying for the full four.
In roughly 20 years in the hobby I’ve never seen or heard of anyone not taking all 4 heavy weapon options s available, so not really an issue, but you feel free to elucidate me as to what reason anyone would want to do that.
Rhinos have Firing Deck 2. (And in past editions, they've had similar rules.)
If two heavy weapons were cheaper than four, you could reasonably use it as a pseudo-Razorback with only two heavies in the Dev squad.
But since Devastators are always priced as if they're taking all four heavy weapons, you're significantly overpaying.
I mean that’s certainly an option…but why would you still hamstring yourself with only 2 heavy weapons once the rhino is destroyed?
With 4 heavies you can still do that, without sacrificing dismounted firepower. Not to mention if you do 2 lascannons and 2 HBs you can choose which two weapons to use based on the situation and what targets are available to you.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also initiative and make it actually mean something to fail a leadership test again.
I really like 10th edition overall, it might be the best edition of the game otherwise, but this thing really annoys me. It is just sad that so many options are outright not worth taking and you're just punishing yourselves if you do so.
Like I want to give units variety of weapons. Some of my marine sergeants have power swords or even chainswords, but under the current rules I should just give them all power fists. That is just boring.
And even if it might first seem that fixed costs make list building easier, in practice it doesn't. With old style if you were five points over you could just swap one weapon to a cheaper one, but with the fixed cost you need to juggle whole units and alter the composition of the whole army.
maybe just balance the weapon options better within a unit.
What's the balance point between a Devastator Squad with four Heavy Bolters and one with two?
The two heavies option is good if you want to stick them in a Rhino, for mobile fire support via Firing Deck, except you're always paying for the full four.
In roughly 20 years in the hobby I’ve never seen or heard of anyone not taking all 4 heavy weapon options s available, so not really an issue, but you feel free to elucidate me as to what reason anyone would want to do that.
Rhinos have Firing Deck 2. (And in past editions, they've had similar rules.)
If two heavy weapons were cheaper than four, you could reasonably use it as a pseudo-Razorback with only two heavies in the Dev squad.
But since Devastators are always priced as if they're taking all four heavy weapons, you're significantly overpaying.
I mean that’s certainly an option…but why would you still hamstring yourself with only 2 heavy weapons once the rhino is destroyed?
With 4 heavies you can still do that, without sacrificing dismounted firepower. Not to mention if you do 2 lascannons and 2 HBs you can choose which two weapons to use based on the situation and what targets are available to you.
To save points. Something that doesn't work in this edition.
I really like 10th edition overall, it might be the best edition of the game otherwise, but this thing really annoys me. It is just sad that so many options are outright not worth taking and you're just punishing yourselves if you do so.
Like I want to give units variety of weapons. Some of my marine sergeants have power swords or even chainswords, but under the current rules I should just give them all power fists. That is just boring.
And even if it might first seem that fixed costs make list building easier, in practice it doesn't. With old style if you were five points over you could just swap one weapon to a cheaper one, but with the fixed cost you need to juggle whole units and alter the composition of the whole army.
maybe just balance the weapon options better within a unit.
What's the balance point between a Devastator Squad with four Heavy Bolters and one with two?
The two heavies option is good if you want to stick them in a Rhino, for mobile fire support via Firing Deck, except you're always paying for the full four.
In roughly 20 years in the hobby I’ve never seen or heard of anyone not taking all 4 heavy weapon options s available, so not really an issue, but you feel free to elucidate me as to what reason anyone would want to do that.
Rhinos have Firing Deck 2. (And in past editions, they've had similar rules.)
If two heavy weapons were cheaper than four, you could reasonably use it as a pseudo-Razorback with only two heavies in the Dev squad.
But since Devastators are always priced as if they're taking all four heavy weapons, you're significantly overpaying.
I mean that’s certainly an option…but why would you still hamstring yourself with only 2 heavy weapons once the rhino is destroyed?
With 4 heavies you can still do that, without sacrificing dismounted firepower. Not to mention if you do 2 lascannons and 2 HBs you can choose which two weapons to use based on the situation and what targets are available to you.
To save points. Something that doesn't work in this edition.
Lmao years people have been talking about saving points like they’ll get something significant in return for making a unit basically useless.
Want to save points? Don’t take a unit only to hamstring it. You’ll save a lot more points that way. This argument is so stupid and silly.
190pts for a rhino and 5 devs w/ 2 HBs 6 HB shots 3 boltgun shots
Or
200pts for a razorbacks with 5 tactical marines 6HB shots rerolling misses, 5 boltgun shots
(9th points per the codex)
One is significantly better but only 10 more points…
Like I don’t get why you’re trying to build a worse version with less fire power to save…10 points…
I really like 10th edition overall, it might be the best edition of the game otherwise, but this thing really annoys me. It is just sad that so many options are outright not worth taking and you're just punishing yourselves if you do so.
Like I want to give units variety of weapons. Some of my marine sergeants have power swords or even chainswords, but under the current rules I should just give them all power fists. That is just boring.
And even if it might first seem that fixed costs make list building easier, in practice it doesn't. With old style if you were five points over you could just swap one weapon to a cheaper one, but with the fixed cost you need to juggle whole units and alter the composition of the whole army.
maybe just balance the weapon options better within a unit.
What's the balance point between a Devastator Squad with four Heavy Bolters and one with two?
The two heavies option is good if you want to stick them in a Rhino, for mobile fire support via Firing Deck, except you're always paying for the full four.
In roughly 20 years in the hobby I’ve never seen or heard of anyone not taking all 4 heavy weapon options s available, so not really an issue, but you feel free to elucidate me as to what reason anyone would want to do that.
Well then let me be the 1st.
I have a Dev squad in one of my forces that's a Sgt, a bolter marine, & 3 heavy weapons. It's set up this way because originally in editions past I'd made it a 6 man squad + Razorback.
Somewhere along the line, back around 6e, I lost one of heavy weapon marines. :(
And I've just never gotten around to painting up a replacement HW carrier for the squad. It'll happen someday. Eventually. But I've been saying that for a good many years now....
Generally though it's not an issue because this is 3rd Devastator squad & I've got plenty of other units in the case all vying for points/usage.
But every now & then 3rd Dev takes to the field - & invariably someone who doesn't know the story of the missing HW asks "Why do you only have 3 weapons in that squad?"
I really like 10th edition overall, it might be the best edition of the game otherwise, but this thing really annoys me. It is just sad that so many options are outright not worth taking and you're just punishing yourselves if you do so.
Like I want to give units variety of weapons. Some of my marine sergeants have power swords or even chainswords, but under the current rules I should just give them all power fists. That is just boring.
And even if it might first seem that fixed costs make list building easier, in practice it doesn't. With old style if you were five points over you could just swap one weapon to a cheaper one, but with the fixed cost you need to juggle whole units and alter the composition of the whole army.
maybe just balance the weapon options better within a unit.
What's the balance point between a Devastator Squad with four Heavy Bolters and one with two?
The two heavies option is good if you want to stick them in a Rhino, for mobile fire support via Firing Deck, except you're always paying for the full four.
In roughly 20 years in the hobby I’ve never seen or heard of anyone not taking all 4 heavy weapon options s available, so not really an issue, but you feel free to elucidate me as to what reason anyone would want to do that.
Well then let me be the 1st.
I have a Dev squad in one of my forces that's a Sgt, a bolter marine, & 3 heavy weapons. It's set up this way because originally in editions past I'd made it a 6 man squad + Razorback.
Somewhere along the line, back around 6e, I lost one of heavy weapon marines. :(
And I've just never gotten around to painting up a replacement HW carrier for the squad. It'll happen someday. Eventually. But I've been saying that for a good many years now....
Generally though it's not an issue because this is 3rd Devastator squad & I've got plenty of other units in the case all vying for points/usage.
But every now & then 3rd Dev takes to the field - & invariably someone who doesn't know the story of the missing HW asks "Why do you only have 3 weapons in that squad?"
or you could just count as the bolter guy as a heavy weapon until you add a new heavy weapon dude…it’s literally not any sort of real issue.
I really like 10th edition overall, it might be the best edition of the game otherwise, but this thing really annoys me. It is just sad that so many options are outright not worth taking and you're just punishing yourselves if you do so.
Like I want to give units variety of weapons. Some of my marine sergeants have power swords or even chainswords, but under the current rules I should just give them all power fists. That is just boring.
And even if it might first seem that fixed costs make list building easier, in practice it doesn't. With old style if you were five points over you could just swap one weapon to a cheaper one, but with the fixed cost you need to juggle whole units and alter the composition of the whole army.
maybe just balance the weapon options better within a unit.
What's the balance point between a Devastator Squad with four Heavy Bolters and one with two?
The two heavies option is good if you want to stick them in a Rhino, for mobile fire support via Firing Deck, except you're always paying for the full four.
In roughly 20 years in the hobby I’ve never seen or heard of anyone not taking all 4 heavy weapon options s available, so not really an issue, but you feel free to elucidate me as to what reason anyone would want to do that.
Well then let me be the 1st.
I have a Dev squad in one of my forces that's a Sgt, a bolter marine, & 3 heavy weapons. It's set up this way because originally in editions past I'd made it a 6 man squad + Razorback.
Somewhere along the line, back around 6e, I lost one of heavy weapon marines. :(
And I've just never gotten around to painting up a replacement HW carrier for the squad. It'll happen someday. Eventually. But I've been saying that for a good many years now....
Generally though it's not an issue because this is 3rd Devastator squad & I've got plenty of other units in the case all vying for points/usage.
But every now & then 3rd Dev takes to the field - & invariably someone who doesn't know the story of the missing HW asks "Why do you only have 3 weapons in that squad?"
or you could just count as the bolter guy as a heavy weapon until you add a new heavy weapon dude…it’s literally not any sort of real issue.
It might not be any sort of real issue to you.
But I have higher standards.
So that bolter guy will always be a bolter guy & if it takes me a day or 4 more editions to replace the AWOL heavy trooper? Then so be it.
JNAProductions wrote: What's the balance point between a Devastator Squad with four Heavy Bolters and one with two?
The two heavies option is good if you want to stick them in a Rhino, for mobile fire support via Firing Deck, except you're always paying for the full four.
How many people were really bringing a devastator squad with 2 HB and 2 regular bolters?
In 3rd/4th ed. I used to run a Blood Angels Devastator Squad with NO heavy weapons and just a Veteran Sergeant upgrade. A cheap Heavy Support choice which could deploy aggressively and force enemy deployment back was handy.
Lord Damocles wrote: In 3rd/4th ed. I used to run a Blood Angels Devastator Squad with NO heavy weapons and just a Veteran Sergeant upgrade. A cheap Heavy Support choice which could deploy aggressively and force enemy deployment back was handy.
Sorry, you were clearly having fun wrong.
Please hand over your army to the nearest GW Officer for disposal.
So I don't even necessarily mean stuff like devastator without max heavy weapons. I can accept that the heavy weapon squad is supposed to carry heavy weapons. Fair enough.
But I had a primaris captain and lieutenant, both armed with a power weapon and bolt pistol. And GW still sells a lieutenants with that loadout. But that is rubbish now. I had to make a new lieutenant with a fist, heavy bolt pistol and bolter. Several of my sergeants have suboptimal weapons such as power swords and chainswords, instead of much more effective power fists or thunder hammers. Several of my tanks don't have hunter killer missiles.
There is a ton of stuff like that, where several modelling options exists, but game wise some of them are just simply bad choices. I am not a power gamer, but it still bugs me a bit that I ma directly punished for my aesthetic choices.
And even if I would not care about aesthetics and were fine with equipping everything with the best choice, it is still annoying as a lot of us obviously have models that were built during the previous editions. And it creates a trap for newbies as well. They might look at the instructions, see that there are several built options, and not instantly realise that some of those are just outright bad and you should not actually built your models that way.
Another unit where not taking max gear made sense were scouts. You could have a sniper squad with camo cloaks and a ML for backfield camping, or a bare-bones squad for screening or grabbing midfield objectives. Different gear for different roles.
The fundamental point is that different performing loadouts for units cost different amounts in points.
It didn't really matter if you always took max upgrades on a unit or not; that's more a debate on the specific values for a specific model. The fact is under points you COULD do that.
With the current power-level system (which is power level its just called points) you've no reason at all to take minimum equipment loadouts. If a model has an upgrade you take it because it performs better and costs the same to deploy on the table.
At which point the entire concept of optional upgrades is meaningless.
This is similar to how GW likes to give "every model an ability" even if that ability is something like "gets +1 to save rolls" when there's no ability in the game to remove that upgrade. So functionally the +5 save model is always a 4+ save model and could just be written as a 4+ save model.
Basically GW is creating false choices in the system for no real gain right now. It's a very odd way to create rules for a game and kind of harkens to the whole "a couple of friends playing on the kitchen table" kind of gaming where the rules expect you to have 20years of gaming with a few people so that you know exactly what kind of game you both want when setting up. Max upgrades or not etc...
If you look at the Kasrkin, please explain to me why you would take the chainsword over the power sword...
In this new "take everything" system works on some things, like storm bolters on rhinos, it loses a lot of the fine tuning of armies that a lot of hobbyists enjoy.
In this new "take everything" system works on some things, like storm bolters on rhinos, it loses a lot of the fine tuning of armies that a lot of hobbyists enjoy.
I could be wrong as I only have the Index, but I don't think you can even put the bonus Storm Bolter on a Rhino anymire, just the HK Missile.
In this new "take everything" system works on some things, like storm bolters on rhinos, it loses a lot of the fine tuning of armies that a lot of hobbyists enjoy.
I could be wrong as I only have the Index, but I don't think you can even put the bonus Storm Bolter on a Rhino anymire, just the HK Missile.
I really like 10th edition overall, it might be the best edition of the game otherwise, but this thing really annoys me. It is just sad that so many options are outright not worth taking and you're just punishing yourselves if you do so.
Like I want to give units variety of weapons. Some of my marine sergeants have power swords or even chainswords, but under the current rules I should just give them all power fists. That is just boring.
And even if it might first seem that fixed costs make list building easier, in practice it doesn't. With old style if you were five points over you could just swap one weapon to a cheaper one, but with the fixed cost you need to juggle whole units and alter the composition of the whole army.
maybe just balance the weapon options better within a unit.
What's the balance point between a Devastator Squad with four Heavy Bolters and one with two?
The two heavies option is good if you want to stick them in a Rhino, for mobile fire support via Firing Deck, except you're always paying for the full four.
In roughly 20 years in the hobby I’ve never seen or heard of anyone not taking all 4 heavy weapon options s available, so not really an issue, but you feel free to elucidate me as to what reason anyone would want to do that.
Rhinos have Firing Deck 2. (And in past editions, they've had similar rules.)
If two heavy weapons were cheaper than four, you could reasonably use it as a pseudo-Razorback with only two heavies in the Dev squad.
But since Devastators are always priced as if they're taking all four heavy weapons, you're significantly overpaying.
I mean that’s certainly an option…but why would you still hamstring yourself with only 2 heavy weapons once the rhino is destroyed?
With 4 heavies you can still do that, without sacrificing dismounted firepower. Not to mention if you do 2 lascannons and 2 HBs you can choose which two weapons to use based on the situation and what targets are available to you.
To save points. Something that doesn't work in this edition.
Lmao years people have been talking about saving points like they’ll get something significant in return for making a unit basically useless.
Want to save points? Don’t take a unit only to hamstring it. You’ll save a lot more points that way. This argument is so stupid and silly.
190pts for a rhino and 5 devs w/ 2 HBs 6 HB shots 3 boltgun shots
Or
200pts for a razorbacks with 5 tactical marines 6HB shots rerolling misses, 5 boltgun shots
(9th points per the codex)
One is significantly better but only 10 more points…
Like I don’t get why you’re trying to build a worse version with less fire power to save…10 points…
Depends on the unit and your intended uses, as always. During 8th I often ran a unit of Sternguard but took no upgrades, even though they could have taken a ton of options. It kept the unit lean at 180 points, and did what I needed it to do, which is focus on an anti-infantry role.
In this new "take everything" system works on some things, like storm bolters on rhinos, it loses a lot of the fine tuning of armies that a lot of hobbyists enjoy.
I could be wrong as I only have the Index, but I don't think you can even put the bonus Storm Bolter on a Rhino anymire, just the HK Missile.
You are correct. Which is odd.
Odd that the option is gone or odd that I'm correct? :p
It's another one of those bewildering losses of options that left me to not invest in 10th/GW. I've got 10 Rhinos with the option for double Storm Bolter from prior editions. Just gonna stick with 'em.
It’s been forever since I built a rhino. How many SBs are in the kit? Just the one on the vehicle accessory sprue? Which would explain why you can’t have 2, as that would require something not included in the boc and NMNR. But preds and other rhino chassis still can.
When PL first became a thing I made a hatch gunner with a ML on his shoulder and a pintle SB to add on tanks that now needed all the free options. Because why not? Precursor for 10th.
Lathe Biosas wrote: If you look at the Kasrkin, please explain to me why you would take the chainsword over the power sword...
In this new "take everything" system works on some things, like storm bolters on rhinos, it loses a lot of the fine tuning of armies that a lot of hobbyists enjoy.
Lathe Biosas wrote: If you look at the Kasrkin, please explain to me why you would take the chainsword over the power sword...
In this new "take everything" system works on some things, like storm bolters on rhinos, it loses a lot of the fine tuning of armies that a lot of hobbyists enjoy.
More attacks?
(Hypothetical example, as I’m not familiar with the stats on Kasrkin)
There are a number of options in the game that have a niche, but it’s so tiny to be negligible. Like a chainsword might be the better choice against T3 targets with no armor save, but the power sword is better against literally everything else. In those cases, it’s a trap choice unless you are tailoring against a very specific threat.
It would be one thing if it was a broad niche. Like being good at killing MEQ, but other options were better against other targets.
But for a lot of things the +1 A is not worth the loss in to hit, S AP or whatever the other options grant.
It’s been forever since I built a rhino. How many SBs are in the kit? Just the one on the vehicle accessory sprue? Which would explain why you can’t have 2, as that would require something not included in the boc and NMNR. But preds and other rhino chassis still can.
When PL first became a thing I made a hatch gunner with a ML on his shoulder and a pintle SB to add on tanks that now needed all the free options. Because why not? Precursor for 10th.
Yeah there's only one in the kit. That didn't stop me from sticking an extra one on my Rhinos for the last five editions though. It's been an option since at least 2nd ed.
Lathe Biosas wrote: If you look at the Kasrkin, please explain to me why you would take the chainsword over the power sword...
In this new "take everything" system works on some things, like storm bolters on rhinos, it loses a lot of the fine tuning of armies that a lot of hobbyists enjoy.
I agree with the overall sentiment of these last few posts- I liked costed equipment, and I do think GW should bring that back in some form.
However, I am also a role-player/ Crusader; I've always been a rule of cool guy, and if choice A looks cooler than choice B, I'll choose choice A. Also, sometimes relics (Crusade or otherwise) require a certain piece of equipment to replace- my best example here is the Drukhari poison upgrades; my Kabal's story leans heavily into poisons- Lhameaens, poison distillery territories and those upgrades are important to the fluff and theme of the army I'm developing.
Lot's of folks are surprised that I don't max out lance and blast weapons.
Lathe Biosas wrote: If you look at the Kasrkin, please explain to me why you would take the chainsword over the power sword...
In this new "take everything" system works on some things, like storm bolters on rhinos, it loses a lot of the fine tuning of armies that a lot of hobbyists enjoy.
I agree with the overall sentiment of these last few posts- I liked costed equipment, and I do think GW should bring that back in some form.
However, I am also a role-player/ Crusader; I've always been a rule of cool guy, and if choice A looks cooler than choice B, I'll choose choice A. Also, sometimes relics (Crusade or otherwise) require a certain piece of equipment to replace- my best example here is the Drukhari poison upgrades; my Kabal's story leans heavily into poisons- Lhameaens, poison distillery territories and those upgrades are important to the fluff and theme of the army I'm developing.
Lot's of folks are surprised that I don't max out lance and blast weapons.
Agreed. I'll put a lesser option on a model for rp reasons, for aesthetic reasons, for variety and ultimately when it comes to options like this they really aren't going to matter anyway, I get that some people like min maxing but plenty of people also don't really care about that.
I get the argument, I'd prefer points on individual wargear too but let's not pretend an example like this is really a huge deal.
I would like WL traits and Relics instead of just enhancements. I think enhancements fit 10th, it's what's needed to fill out points and if you made them power combos like 8th ed WL trait and Relic combos then they wouldn't fill the role they need to fill as 10th doesn't let you buy upgrades or single extra models to fill points. It's also simpler which also fits 10th design paradigm.
Being able to take 4+ items on one character and a dozen across your army like in WHFB is unnecessary, just 2-4 across your army and at the very most 3 on a single character would be great for allowing you to make the army your own. As powerful as the combos were they were still limited, it was something like double damage output on a character at most, that's a couple of hundred points which was pretty broken but not actually super broken.
I am not sure whether to have detachment WL traits and faction relics or universal WL traits and detachment relics. If I were to implement it I'd do the latter because it'd be less work I think. I would love to hear whether you'd be more interested in detachment relics or detachment WL traits? Do you find one type of fluff more appealing currently even though they have the same crunch?
I don't care too much for relics (they feel about the same as enhancements, IMO), but a specific Warlord trait to make the actual Warlord stand out would be very nice.
I wouldn't mind either a selection of, say, six basic Warlord traits which all Warlords choose from, or instead, two or three options per detachment/Codex.
Unique characters either have their own unique Warlord trait on their datasheet which only triggers if they're he Warlord, or it's locked to one of the faction/generic ones (if Warlord traits are assigned that way).
Sgt_Smudge wrote: I don't care too much for relics (they feel about the same as enhancements, IMO),
To my mind, the differences are:
- Relics were more numerous. Even the less-generous codices generally gave you twice as many as you get Enhancements.
- Relics were largely universal (in that most of your stock was available regardless of what subfaction you were using), whereas there are no universal Enhancements. You only ever get the 4 that your detachment gives you.
- Relics had a lot more options. They could, for example, give a model a unique gun, a unique sword, a pseudo-jetpack, or other such (which was useful for characters that otherwise have very limited wargear options). Enhancements, by contrast, seem far more limited in their effects.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: I don't care too much for relics (they feel about the same as enhancements, IMO),
To my mind, the differences are:
- Relics were more numerous. Even the less-generous codices generally gave you twice as many as you get Enhancements.
- Relics were largely universal (in that most of your stock was available regardless of what subfaction you were using), whereas there are no universal Enhancements. You only ever get the 4 that your detachment gives you.
- Relics had a lot more options. They could, for example, give a model a unique gun, a unique sword, a pseudo-jetpack, or other such (which was useful for characters that otherwise have very limited wargear options). Enhancements, by contrast, seem far more limited in their effects.
That just loops back to 10th not having much customization in general.
I'd rather have a robust set of wargear options for Characters and others than one-per-army-and-character Relics.
While I miss the flavor, I don’t miss some of the interactions you could get with WL traits, relics, and faction bonuses/strats.
10th cut that stuff so we don’t have broken layers of unstopable death combos.
Would be nice if there was a middle ground, but I understand why we have a fixed number of enhancements tied to restricted detachments. Less potental for abuse.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: I don't care too much for relics (they feel about the same as enhancements, IMO),
To my mind, the differences are:
- Relics were more numerous. Even the less-generous codices generally gave you twice as many as you get Enhancements.
- Relics were largely universal (in that most of your stock was available regardless of what subfaction you were using), whereas there are no universal Enhancements. You only ever get the 4 that your detachment gives you.
- Relics had a lot more options. They could, for example, give a model a unique gun, a unique sword, a pseudo-jetpack, or other such (which was useful for characters that otherwise have very limited wargear options). Enhancements, by contrast, seem far more limited in their effects.
That just loops back to 10th not having much customization in general.
I'd rather have a robust set of wargear options for Characters and others than one-per-army-and-character Relics.
I don't disagree.
However, Relics were also one of the only areas of the game where NMNR didn't apply. So it seems a more plausible thing to hope for under GW's warped mindset.
Nevelon wrote: 10th cut that stuff so we don’t have broken layers of unstopable death combos.
It also removed all other customisation from my armies.
But I guess it's harder for people to cut themselves on flavourless slop.
Lathe Biosas wrote: If you look at the Kasrkin, please explain to me why you would take the chainsword over the power sword...
In this new "take everything" system works on some things, like storm bolters on rhinos, it loses a lot of the fine tuning of armies that a lot of hobbyists enjoy.
More attacks?
(Hypothetical example, as I’m not familiar with the stats on Kasrkin)
There are a number of options in the game that have a niche, but it’s so tiny to be negligible. Like a chainsword might be the better choice against T3 targets with no armor save, but the power sword is better against literally everything else. In those cases, it’s a trap choice unless you are tailoring against a very specific threat.
It would be one thing if it was a broad niche. Like being good at killing MEQ, but other options were better against other targets.
But for a lot of things the +1 A is not worth the loss in to hit, S AP or whatever the other options grant.
You can tweak it further, innate reroll 1s to wound, or sustained, or lethals, or whatever you need to balance it against its peers. Let's not pretend GW ever got the points balance right either. There's decades of trap choices, duds and obvious winners even with granular gear.
Lathe Biosas wrote: If you look at the Kasrkin, please explain to me why you would take the chainsword over the power sword...
In this new "take everything" system works on some things, like storm bolters on rhinos, it loses a lot of the fine tuning of armies that a lot of hobbyists enjoy.
More attacks?
(Hypothetical example, as I’m not familiar with the stats on Kasrkin)
There are a number of options in the game that have a niche, but it’s so tiny to be negligible. Like a chainsword might be the better choice against T3 targets with no armor save, but the power sword is better against literally everything else. In those cases, it’s a trap choice unless you are tailoring against a very specific threat.
It would be one thing if it was a broad niche. Like being good at killing MEQ, but other options were better against other targets.
But for a lot of things the +1 A is not worth the loss in to hit, S AP or whatever the other options grant.
You can tweak it further, innate reroll 1s to wound, or sustained, or lethals, or whatever you need to balance it against its peers. Let's not pretend GW ever got the points balance right either. There's decades of trap choices, duds and obvious winners even with granular gear.
right? Like in the chainsword/power sword example, the only time you’d really take a chainsword is if you literally couldn’t afford the powersword…but how often was that 5pts ever the killer anyway?
I think most Sergeant wargear wasn’t a big deal. It should cost more than nothing, but the difference between a laspistol and bolt pistol is about as close to nothing as you can get.
But taking a Heavy weapon in your Tactical or Infantry squads… THAT should cost points, and be a decision.
Eh I've built lists that were 5pts over 2K. So yes sometimes you really do have only a few points worth of difference.
Now granted in most/many cases being 5pts over makes basically no difference at 2K points in a game and in a non-tournament setting many opponents might even let it slide.
That said its still missing the fundamental point. It's not about if specific options were or were not worth their points. The fact was you had the choice as a player to make those choices.
With weapons and with upgrades the performance was reflected in the variation in points.
With the current system GW got rid of the points, but kept many of the upgrades. The result is that we have a daft situation where its not a case of "how often are 5pst the killer" but a case of "well might as well take the better/all options because why not, it costs the same to field".
I get that GW is trying to make the game more accessible and trying to keep the customising that players are used too (and lets face it its actually part of what makes 40K unique in the fantasy setting - most other model ranges are 1 maybe 2 weapon options on some units and that's it. You might get an army wide upgrade or a general upgrade; but by and large units have 1 fixed set of stats)
Sgt_Smudge wrote: I don't care too much for relics (they feel about the same as enhancements, IMO),
To my mind, the differences are:
- Relics were more numerous. Even the less-generous codices generally gave you twice as many as you get Enhancements.
- Relics were largely universal (in that most of your stock was available regardless of what subfaction you were using), whereas there are no universal Enhancements. You only ever get the 4 that your detachment gives you.
- Relics had a lot more options. They could, for example, give a model a unique gun, a unique sword, a pseudo-jetpack, or other such (which was useful for characters that otherwise have very limited wargear options). Enhancements, by contrast, seem far more limited in their effects.
So you would want faction relics and detachment WL traits (assuming relics and WL traits came back)? This would allow you to have a relic version of several types of weapons, like a pistol that is actually useful because a generic ranged weapon buff wouldn't be balanced for both pistols and combi-weapons.
JNAProductions wrote: I'd rather have a robust set of wargear options for Characters and others than one-per-army-and-character Relics.
Overread wrote: Eh I've built lists that were 5pts over 2K. So yes sometimes you really do have only a few points worth of difference.
Now granted in most/many cases being 5pts over makes basically no difference at 2K points in a game and in a non-tournament setting many opponents might even let it slide.
That said its still missing the fundamental point. It's not about if specific options were or were not worth their points. The fact was you had the choice as a player to make those choices.
With weapons and with upgrades the performance was reflected in the variation in points.
With the current system GW got rid of the points, but kept many of the upgrades. The result is that we have a daft situation where its not a case of "how often are 5pst the killer" but a case of "well might as well take the better/all options because why not, it costs the same to field".
I get that GW is trying to make the game more accessible and trying to keep the customising that players are used too (and lets face it its actually part of what makes 40K unique in the fantasy setting - most other model ranges are 1 maybe 2 weapon options on some units and that's it. You might get an army wide upgrade or a general upgrade; but by and large units have 1 fixed set of stats)
It's possible for items to have comparative effective value, they just haven't done it. Which if they did, renders this whole debate moot.
In a world where a plasma pistol on a devastator sergeant is 5 pts, which you can choose to not take to drop your list below the points cap. You're telling me you'd be happier doing that, not having a wysiwyg mini, accepting that although it isn't worth 5 pts in the first place wholesale and all because it lets you feel like you made the choice? Surely having the two pistols either be balanced via profile, or better yet just be a "sidearm" profile is better there?
JNAProductions wrote: I think most Sergeant wargear wasn’t a big deal. It should cost more than nothing, but the difference between a laspistol and bolt pistol is about as close to nothing as you can get.
But taking a Heavy weapon in your Tactical or Infantry squads… THAT should cost points, and be a decision.
I rather feel that power fist is significant enough upgrade over power or chainsword that it should cost points.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: I don't care too much for relics (they feel about the same as enhancements, IMO),
To my mind, the differences are:
- Relics were more numerous. Even the less-generous codices generally gave you twice as many as you get Enhancements.
- Relics were largely universal (in that most of your stock was available regardless of what subfaction you were using), whereas there are no universal Enhancements. You only ever get the 4 that your detachment gives you.
- Relics had a lot more options. They could, for example, give a model a unique gun, a unique sword, a pseudo-jetpack, or other such (which was useful for characters that otherwise have very limited wargear options). Enhancements, by contrast, seem far more limited in their effects.
So you would want faction relics and detachment WL traits (assuming relics and WL traits came back)? This would allow you to have a relic version of several types of weapons, like a pistol that is actually useful because a generic ranged weapon buff wouldn't be balanced for both pistols and combi-weapons.
Honestly, I would prefer both Warlord Traits *and* artefacts to be primarily faction-based. I'm not a fan of the entire selection of either revolving around your chosen detachment.
If you want each detachment to add 1-2 specific relics/warlord traits, that's fine. I just think the main pools should be faction based.
But then, as noted in the other thread, I'm not a fan of 10th's detachment system at the best of times.
Dysartes wrote: No, and a definite "hell no" to a sidearm profile.
OK, so accepting impossible to balance points with obviously better options and likely none wysiwyg models for the placebo effect of decision making is preferred?
JNAProductions wrote: I think most Sergeant wargear wasn’t a big deal. It should cost more than nothing, but the difference between a laspistol and bolt pistol is about as close to nothing as you can get.
But taking a Heavy weapon in your Tactical or Infantry squads… THAT should cost points, and be a decision.
I rather feel that power fist is significant enough upgrade over power or chainsword that it should cost points.
It's obvious that Power Fists have almost always been considered significantly better than the alternatives because even after several attempts at nerfing them, they were practically default equipment for most Marine squad sergeants for multiple editions.
JNAProductions wrote: I think most Sergeant wargear wasn’t a big deal. It should cost more than nothing, but the difference between a laspistol and bolt pistol is about as close to nothing as you can get.
But taking a Heavy weapon in your Tactical or Infantry squads… THAT should cost points, and be a decision.
I rather feel that power fist is significant enough upgrade over power or chainsword that it should cost points.
It's obvious that Power Fists have almost always been considered significantly better than the alternatives because even after several attempts at nerfing them, they were practically default equipment for most Marine squad sergeants for multiple editions.
So you could say that them having a points cost actually didn't impact the balance of the melee weapons, or even change the layout of the unit from today for most people.
JNAProductions wrote: I think most Sergeant wargear wasn’t a big deal. It should cost more than nothing, but the difference between a laspistol and bolt pistol is about as close to nothing as you can get.
But taking a Heavy weapon in your Tactical or Infantry squads… THAT should cost points, and be a decision.
I rather feel that power fist is significant enough upgrade over power or chainsword that it should cost points.
It's obvious that Power Fists have almost always been considered significantly better than the alternatives because even after several attempts at nerfing them, they were practically default equipment for most Marine squad sergeants for multiple editions.
So you could say that them having a points cost actually didn't impact the balance of the melee weapons, or even change the layout of the unit from today for most people.
Why yes, GW are incompetent. Congratulations on your revelation.
Dysartes wrote: No, and a definite "hell no" to a sidearm profile.
OK, so accepting impossible to balance points with obviously better options and likely none wysiwyg models for the placebo effect of decision making is preferred?
For a narrative player? Absolutely.
As far as I'm concerned, the insane mantra of balance above all else is more harmful to this game than anything except the three year edition cycle. And that's not saying that balance isn't important; it's just saying that for a narrative player, it's not THE most important thing, and sacrificing flavour to achieve it can be a fool's gambit because it takes away what makes the game special to impose a minimum standard of mediocrity.
In an uncosted equipment game:
- A competitive player will be inclined to equip the best weapon
In a costed equipment game:
- A competitive player will have many factors to consider- foregoing weapon upgrades on 3 units may allow that player to take an extra unit
In either a costed or an uncosted game, however, a narrative player will take the equipment that best suits the character's background within the context of both the army and the mission.
In either a costed or an uncosted game, however, a narrative player will take the equipment that best suits the character's background within the context of both the army and the mission.
Actually I disagree.
It depends entirely on the nature of the Narrative situation in question. There are many narrative driven games that require good understanding of the mechanics of the game to tell the narrative story within the battle. Eg an under-powered defending force against a larger attacking force requires some fundamental grasp of the rules of the game; the points disparity and the stats disparity to be able to tell the story of a valiant last defence that isn't.
a) A cake walk for the attacker that has them winning in 2 turns
b) A cake walk for the defender which has them just sitting there rolling shooting dice and not really doing anything else whilst the attacker is just being ground to a paste in the firezones.
The idea that Narrative and competitive (including, but not exclusively points) are fully separate is a false position to take.
They are both reliant on the fundamental fact that the wargames we play are basically maths driven. Every action you take in 40K is based on mathematics.
If you're using the 40K rules you're using maths so having GOOD balanced maths makes sense. It tells you tell the story you want to tell for the Narrative player; for the competitive it lets you equalise the mathematical performance of both armies as much as possible so that the win/loss is based upon player choice.
NOW yes GW get's the wrong - they get it wrong a LOT which is why there are SO many discussions about it. The 3 year cycle coupled to other elements, means that GW isn't even setup to try and succeed.
Now there ARE ways to run Narrative games with less maths; but you've got to dip into RPG territory. Where you might use maths to modify or define an event, but where your narration; or that of a 3rd party; becomes the action. Eg you might fail a defence roll. That "might" mean you take damage according to the rules or it might mean you could story your way out of it with acrobatics or something.
JNAProductions wrote: I think most Sergeant wargear wasn’t a big deal. It should cost more than nothing, but the difference between a laspistol and bolt pistol is about as close to nothing as you can get.
But taking a Heavy weapon in your Tactical or Infantry squads… THAT should cost points, and be a decision.
I rather feel that power fist is significant enough upgrade over power or chainsword that it should cost points.
It's obvious that Power Fists have almost always been considered significantly better than the alternatives because even after several attempts at nerfing them, they were practically default equipment for most Marine squad sergeants for multiple editions.
So you could say that them having a points cost actually didn't impact the balance of the melee weapons, or even change the layout of the unit from today for most people.
Why yes, GW are incompetent. Congratulations on your revelation.
OK, so we're back to acknowledgeding it doesn't matter what they do, neither will be good and it's all just what makes people feel better subjectively. Thank you.
The idea that Narrative and competitive (including, but not exclusively points) are fully separate is a false position to take.
Also true; my personal take is that competitive and narrative are the extreme ends of a spectrum... Meaning that they CAN be played in ways that feel completely separate, but most often are played somewhere between the extremes with varying elements of either style present in any given game.
Now there ARE ways to run Narrative games with less maths; but you've got to dip into RPG territory.
Yep- and that's pretty much where I live. The error in my original post was not acknowledging that mine is only one small slice of the spectrum. Adding in other factors- Map based play, escalation, progression... They warp the calculus in unpredictable ways. In a map based campaign, victory can be as much about knowing which battles to fight when is actually winning or losing missions, and sometimes Agendas will be more important than victory points... meaning that losing battles might enable you to win the war.
In most of the games I play, I'm far into RPG territory.
Narrative can be separate from competitive though.
It only takes one participant in a narrative campaign to go a bit WAAC, Math Hammering everything to start to derail it.
We see that in Necromunda, a game well suited to heavy narrative. And like Necromunda, such a player refusing to enter into the spirit of that campaign (not game! Campaign!) is a problem for the GM.
Overread wrote: Eh I've built lists that were 5pts over 2K. So yes sometimes you really do have only a few points worth of difference.
Now granted in most/many cases being 5pts over makes basically no difference at 2K points in a game and in a non-tournament setting many opponents might even let it slide.
That said its still missing the fundamental point. It's not about if specific options were or were not worth their points. The fact was you had the choice as a player to make those choices.
With weapons and with upgrades the performance was reflected in the variation in points.
With the current system GW got rid of the points, but kept many of the upgrades. The result is that we have a daft situation where its not a case of "how often are 5pst the killer" but a case of "well might as well take the better/all options because why not, it costs the same to field".
I get that GW is trying to make the game more accessible and trying to keep the customising that players are used too (and lets face it its actually part of what makes 40K unique in the fantasy setting - most other model ranges are 1 maybe 2 weapon options on some units and that's it. You might get an army wide upgrade or a general upgrade; but by and large units have 1 fixed set of stats)
If everything is well balanced internally, then it doesn’t matter if there are bespoke point costs for wargear or not.
Just have to make a chainsword actually useful, or do something to make las pistol slightly better.
JNAProductions wrote: I think most Sergeant wargear wasn’t a big deal. It should cost more than nothing, but the difference between a laspistol and bolt pistol is about as close to nothing as you can get.
But taking a Heavy weapon in your Tactical or Infantry squads… THAT should cost points, and be a decision.
I rather feel that power fist is significant enough upgrade over power or chainsword that it should cost points.
It's obvious that Power Fists have almost always been considered significantly better than the alternatives because even after several attempts at nerfing them, they were practically default equipment for most Marine squad sergeants for multiple editions.
So you could say that them having a points cost actually didn't impact the balance of the melee weapons, or even change the layout of the unit from today for most people.
Why yes, GW are incompetent. Congratulations on your revelation.
OK, so we're back to acknowledgeding it doesn't matter what they do, neither will be good and it's all just what makes people feel better subjectively. Thank you.
Ok, so we're back to hilarious mental gymnastics to justify whatever gw's direction in the current edition is, as is tradition. Thank you.
Regarding points, it's frustrating to hear people say that GW will never do it right because they actually did.
GW spent most of 8th edition tweaking point costs, and late into the edition they actually achieved a very good balance.
It might not have been absolutely perfect (I'm sure a few things were still off here and there), but it meant that, for example, just about every option on an IG squad was potentially worth taking.
The issue was that GW then proceeded to do what they always do - take everything they've learned and throw it into a furnace before starting the new edition. So, naturally, 9th's point costs bore no resemblance to the carefully-tuned points of late-8th and instead had to be multiples of 5pts.
And then even that low-effort system was itself thrown in the bin when 10th came around.
And that's the problem - ever since GW started doing faster codex, FAQ, Errata and other updates to balance it was a GOOD Step in the right direction.
But the 3 year cycle completely invalidates it. It throws the entire amount of work out the window.
What GW should be doing is a cycle where each new release of codex+rulebook is just an updated edition - all the adjusted points, stats and new models all added into one publication. People would still pay for it (and lets face it they give away the big rulebook in a box of models and its 100% the models that drive sales of edition starter sets). If they did that then all the rest that they've set in place would start to create a really well balanced game system.
However if GW continues with the 3 year cycle then they'll never win because they'll never get a settled system.
Nobody wants a settled system. People were bored with the state of 40k in the fall / post the June balance-slate, not because balance was bad or needed something else, but because it was "settled" and thus stale.
Grotmas & December-balance slate have revived it for the early spring, but it'll need a shake again in April or so, 100%. Settled = dead.
Sunny Side Up wrote: Nobody wants a settled system. People were bored with the state of 40k in the fall / post the June balance-slate, not because balance was bad or needed something else, but because it was "settled" and thus stale.
Grotmas & December-balance slate have revived it for the early spring, but it'll need a shake again in April or so, 100%. Settled = dead.
I don't think I really agree with that at all. If it were true games like Chess would have died out centuries ago.
Also you can "shake up the meta" within a balanced system because you'll never achieve "perfect" balance. However there's a vast difference from a system which aims toward good balance and makes minor adjustments which shake the meta along with new models, new armies and such additions; and a system that just throws itself out the window every 3 years. Heck for many people who play casually (the overwhelming majority) you are just about getting to grips with how the game plays before its all change.
It actually hinders the development of higher skill and deeper learning for many people who aren't able to game very regularly and invest a lot of time into the game.
Sunny Side Up wrote: People were bored with the state of 40k in the fall / post the June balance-slate, not because balance was bad or needed something else, but because it was "settled" and thus stale.
Grotmas & December-balance slate have revived it for the early spring, but it'll need a shake again in April or so, 100%. Settled = dead.
If people are bored, I suspect it has more to do with 10th edition having all but deleted the army-building element of the game, annihilated any semblance of flavour, and killed customisation stone-dead. And all of that was done so players could have a game with the tactical depth of a puddle.
It's like looking at a chess board with a massive dog-turd smeared over it, and assuming that the reason people aren't using it is that they must be bored of chess.
If you wanna play peak competitive chess or even innovate new strategies and tactics, you can easily spend 20+ years studying established moves, openings, strategies, counters, etc.. before you even begin to scratch the surface.
On a smaller scale, that is true for miniature wargames that are 1 or 2 or 3 years into an edition. The back-log of "knowledge" you have to climb coming in new is quite daunting. Not getting to Magnus Carlson-levels of chess daunting, but still daunting for a 14-year old buying a box of Marines.
Re-set the edition, you level the playing field again and bring back people that fell off for a couple of months as well as completely new customers again for a fresh start.
If you wanna play peak competitive chess or even innovate new strategies and tactics, you can easily spend 20+ years studying established moves, openings, strategies, counters, etc.. before you even begin to scratch the surface.
On a smaller scale, that is true for miniature wargames that are 1 or 2 or 3 years into an edition. The back-log of "knowledge" you have to climb coming in new is quite daunting. Not getting to Magnus Carlson-levels of chess daunting, but still daunting for a 14-year old buying a box of Marines.
Re-set the edition, you level the playing field again and bring back people that fell off for a couple of months as well as completely new customers again for a fresh start.
I don't agree and I also don't see evidence for this.
If it were true then who plays and who wins at the top end of competitive events would be constantly making huge changes and swings - which honestly it doesn't. People who do well at 7th edition can do well in 8th and 9th and 10th. They swap armies for the new meta (oft secondhand not firsthand profiting GW).
Meanwhile the casual player who was just getting to grips with 7th has to start over and has less to bring forward; plus their once high meta army is now low meta so suddenly they are losing way more with the same skillset.
It actually hinders the casual player getting any deeper into the game and every 3 years they get hit with a brick in the face of a new system that they HAVE to go learn to keep up with the local games. As opposed to having the choice of learning so far and then either going all out for competitive or keeping more casual.
Again you seem to be thinking that shaking everything up makes for a level playing field; when it doesn't. It just confuses the situation and messes things up rather than actually creating a real level playing field.
That 14 yearold can learn all the masters of Chess to play at the top end; or they can keep casual and play local and that's totally fine.
Heck take a look at Magic the Gathering - whilst they introduce new functions and have adjusted things over the years; by and large the rules remain the same. The don't suddenly decide that you'll auto gain mana now and won't tap lands; or remove lands one edition; then bring them back as mana boosters next edition etc.... Now I will agree we can't take that comparison too far because card games (esp in the age of the internet) have their own problems with balance and casual play - so its not "perfection"; however there are clear signs that a very simple, kept the same rules system makes for something you can easily get into and hop in and out of.
You try getting back into 10 th edition when the last one you played was 7th or 5th and so much has changed
While I don't ever want to sit down and read it cover-to-cover, I will give Magic credit for their Big Rulebook of Doom - that thing is so detailed, and I'd be shocked if there were interactions you couldn't resolve with it next to you.
Dysartes wrote: While I don't ever want to sit down and read it cover-to-cover, I will give Magic credit for their Big Rulebook of Doom - that thing is so detailed, and I'd be shocked if there were interactions you couldn't resolve with it next to you.
People THOUGHT Marvin, Murderous Mimic had an interaction with Sakashima The Imposter that wasn't resolvable. It was.
I don't understand why Games Workshop sticks to this "New edition every 3 years" nonsense. It can't be for sales, since they're releasing the core rules and indexes for free online now. Literally all it does is create more work for them and more work for their customers.
8th Edition or 10th Edition should be the last edition for 40k, and then overtime they add more models and make minor/moderate rule changes. That would create a more accessible and more balanced experience than anything else.
Games Workshop should also release codexes online for free as well. Miniatures are their profit-makers, not manuals on how to play the game! It would also make armies more accessible, allows better strategizing since you know what your opponent can play, and less power creep, but I digress.
Sunny Side Up wrote: ...Re-set the edition, you level the playing field again and bring back people that fell off for a couple of months as well as completely new customers again for a fresh start.
Every major shake-up like that is also an opportunity for players to get tired of the constant changes and get off the treadmill (either choosing a forever version to stick with, or jumping to a different game or hobby entirely). This is just as much of a threat for new players as greybeards. Take a hypothetical newbie who hears about the game in mid-edition and falls in love with an army that hasn't had their codex yet. They get told "wait until your codex hits to get into the game", and they do...only for their codex to be invalidated before they can even complete building their army as the next edition hits a few months later (potentially invalidating their army concept or playstyle when their next codex drops as well). Some players will be fine with that, but others will decide that it isn't worth paying GW prices to risk that happening again in another few years.
From a more meta perspective, these constant resets also make it look like GW just doesn't know what they're doing. I've seen this in dying video games before - the devs either don't have a solid idea of what they want the game to be, don't have a solid implementation plan, don't have the competence/resources to pull it off, or some combination thereof and the game devolves into changes for change's sake for a period before fizzling out entirely after a critical mass of players decide to go do something else while waiting for the update that'll "fix the game" (an update that will not, indeed cannot, come). If the game had updates that were consistent improvements rather than wheel-spinning or drastic reworks that didn't actually make things better, there would be some basis for confidence in the devs; lacking clear, consistent improvements, there just isn't much reason to stick around beyond stubbornness or sunk-cost fallacy.
Also, I haven't checked into this, but as I understand it BattleTech has been on the same base edition for quite some time now. It will be difficult to tell what effect that choice may have had on the playerbase (ie, whether they'd have more market share if they did regular edition resets), but given that it's still going we can, at least, say with reasonable certainty that the lack of regular shake-up hasn't killed BT.
Battle Tech is also a great example because right now its going through a boom and what drove the boom?
MODELS. New designs, updated designs and plastics. Ultimately new models and better model access (esp in the UK market) and marketing. All those things have driven its rise.
You can see the same thing with GW - a new edition gives them an excuse and marketing focus; but lets be real most of us are hyper excited for the big box of models. The new Marines and the new other army that get big updates. The free rulebooks flood the market so are almost a loss-leader product.
Sure we have to get a new codex - but most of us were going to spend that hobby money on models anyway so its either a new codex or new models. Either way GW is getting the money.
The "I've got every model I need and just buy books" group are, I suspect, smaller by far in the market and likely not as important for GW's sales targeting. They are customers who are treding water and more important for local promotion/gaming or they are heading out the door and no matter what GW does they are likely going to move on for a while.
For 40 years in the business GW's rules are still a huge problem. Yet every time we've seen them improve their attitude toward rules - such as the fast cycling now so that armies don't reach the end of an edition without a codex update; the faster FAQ and Errata (I recall Tyranids getting an FAQ/Errata for a current edition only a few weeks before the new edition launched...). Every time GW has done that its gone hand in hand with improved sales and popularity.
I think they've done their research and concluded that new edition hype is more profitable than a steady game. They've tried releasing box sets before mid edition haven't they? So it's not like they haven't tested the water to see if people are as likely to buy in that way. Now whether that is sustainable long term is another question and one that too many companies and governments do not really consider over short term success but that is getting off topic I suppose.
Dai2 wrote: I think they've done their research and concluded that new edition hype is more profitable than a steady game. They've tried releasing box sets before mid edition haven't they? So it's not like they haven't tested the water to see if people are as likely to buy in that way. Now whether that is sustainable long term is another question and one that too many companies and governments do not really consider over short term success but that is getting off topic I suppose.
Honestly I think its less that they've researched it and more that they found something that works and no one wants to upset the boat and change things. Which means the 3 year cycle is hear to stay until the sales drop significantly
Calbear wrote: I don't understand why Games Workshop sticks to this "New edition every 3 years" nonsense. It can't be for sales, since they're releasing the core rules and indexes for free online now. Literally all it does is create more work for them and more work for their customers.
8th Edition or 10th Edition should be the last edition for 40k, and then overtime they add more models and make minor/moderate rule changes. That would create a more accessible and more balanced experience than anything else.
Games Workshop should also release codexes online for free as well. Miniatures are their profit-makers, not manuals on how to play the game! It would also make armies more accessible, allows better strategizing since you know what your opponent can play, and less power creep, but I digress.
..they don’t do indexes every edition…11th will be all 10th codexes until they can replace them each in turn with its 11th edition counter part
