Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

In regards to Ork Wartrikes and some options being "Useless": Let me use the Warboss as comparison.

A warboss doesn't have a ton of options, but it's got enough to make it interesting. Depending on what I want to do with him, I can go for a Big Choppa and a regular Shoota to get the most stripped down version and just go for buffs with a decent melee option, (Swinging at S8 with a big choppa is not bad, or I can upgrade it to the Eadwompa's Killchoppa and go for hella Mortal Wounds.)
Or I can take a Power Klaw if I want a more killy Warboss that I expect to be getting into combat. A Power Klaw synergizes well with Da Lukky Stick or a Waaagh! Banner, and so becomes a much better choice if you plan on taking either of those - Or if you plan on taking da Killa Klaw for a truly krumpy warboss.

For ranged weapons, I can take a Kombi Skorcha, a Kombi Rokkit, a Shoota, or a Kustom Shoota. I'll admit that a couple of these are bad - I rarely take Kustom Shootas or Kombi Rokkits - but a Kombi Skorcha is a decent choice since you can advance and fire the Skorcha half without penalty, but if I need to save points for other options I can take a shoota.


Now, let's look at the Wartrike.
I can't change any of the weapons. It's stuck with a mediocre melee weapon and a good set of short ranged weapons. If I want a krumpy bike that I can throw into the enemy to deal some damage... No luck. If I want a more stripped down option just for his buff aura... No luck. If I want to invest more in shooting... Well, I'm in luck, because that's what the bike does, but it's the only option. The only relic options are to buff durability.

I can build a Warboss to be krumpy, to provide cheap-as-chips buffs, and/or to provide a bit of dakka support. I have played all of these at different times.

I can run a Wartrike in one way - As a mandatory choice to make vehicle-heavy Speed Freaks viable.

Guess which I find more interesting to use?

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
But with your way, I can't have a combination-fire weapon (missile launcher, even IF the frag is underpowered, I've chosen it when it is flavourful or just flat out more useful for me).

So what? I thought we were talking about aesthetics, not being able to optimize the math and bring 5% more anti-infantry firepower in exchange for 5% more anti-tank?

They all have niches and purposes, how do you trim that down?

Easy: LC, MM, ML become anti-tank squad. HB, PC, grav become anti-infantry squad. Model them as you see fit.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Some people like the aesthetic of a certain item of equipment, and when that item can't be taken, it becomes a very irritating issue.

Go back and read what I'm talking about. Taking stuff for aesthetics works fine, rules-wise you have an "anti-tank weapon" or "power weapon" and it doesn't matter if you model it as a lascannon or missile launcher, or power sword or power axe. Aesthetic customization works even better under this design principle, since you no longer have to worry about a conflict between what you think looks cool and what rules are best.

So a plasma pistol and bolt pistol should just be treated as "pistol"? I don't like that, sorry. I like the flavour of a weapon, that factors into my fun of using it. I don't think I'd like using plasma pistols if they acted just like bolt pistols, or having missile teams if they just acted like lascannons. That's stripping out flavour for balance I don't care all that much about.

Take someone with a Primaris Captain, carrying a plasma pistol and a power sword. Now, that's not legal, because despite both weapons being open to a Captain, they can't be taken together. So, what IS this Captain? Hard to tell at a glance, because which is the weapon of focus - the pistol or the sword?

What about a primaris captain modeled with a volcano cannon? Obviously if you build your models with options that aren't legal together that's a problem, but it's not the one I'm talking about. Power swords and plasma pistols are completely different types of upgrades, they wouldn't be consolidated together.

But a volcano cannon is clearly different to a Primaris Captain being banned from taking two weapons they can normally, take, just because they're together. It's a complete rational looking model, but not allowed because reasons?

How about one with a weapon they never can have - like a storm shield?

Even easier. The storm shield has no rules meaning, it's purely aesthetic just like what color you choose to paint your models. You might as well be asking for rules for having yellow helmets.

But why have a shield when a big part of WHY you want it is for how it affects the model. It's why I use 30k Breachers AS breachers, not as Tactical Marines, despite Tacticals being "superior" mathematically. The Breachers get some kind of flavour that makes them different in game, and I like that, even if it's not massive.

Some people don't want a simpler game, because being simple means it could lose out on some of the customisation it affords them. Making vehicles ignore armour facings was good for simplicity, but for some people, the simpler it got, the worse it was. Being simple isn't always good, because people have their preferences.

This is true, but I'm talking about rules bloat, not legitimate depth. Armor facings involved a lot of arguments, but they did add gameplay depth. A 5% difference in stat line does not, so those options should be consolidated.

But it does add flavour. And sometimes flavour matters more to some people than a tighter rules set.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
But with your way, I can't have a combination-fire weapon (missile launcher, even IF the frag is underpowered, I've chosen it when it is flavourful or just flat out more useful for me).

So what? I thought we were talking about aesthetics, not being able to optimize the math and bring 5% more anti-infantry firepower in exchange for 5% more anti-tank?

It's not about being GOOD at anti-infantry. It's about having a noticeable difference in how the weapon feels switching targets. Firing a krak missile wouldn't feel like an anti-infantry missile.

To take the "it's about gameplay, you can do what you like with aesthetics" approach further, why don't we just have all models have the same stats, and the same guns, and if you want to mix things up, then do it aesthetically, because balance?

Because the flavour of a weapon should be kept, IMO.

They all have niches and purposes, how do you trim that down?

Easy: LC, MM, ML become anti-tank squad. HB, PC, grav become anti-infantry squad. Model them as you see fit.

But missiles can be anti-infantry too. Multimeltas have a drastic range difference. Plasma can act as anti-tank, and grav and heavy bolters are tailored to different kinds of infantry, unless you want to see Space Marines become the same stats as Guardsmen because "infantry".

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
So a plasma pistol and bolt pistol should just be treated as "pistol"? I don't like that, sorry. I like the flavour of a weapon, that factors into my fun of using it. I don't think I'd like using plasma pistols if they acted just like bolt pistols, or having missile teams if they just acted like lascannons. That's stripping out flavour for balance I don't care all that much about.

But I thought you don't care about math? Why does it matter so much if your "upgraded awesome relic pistol" has STR 4 or STR 7 or STR 6? Shouldn't the only thing that matters rules-wise be that it supports your fluff and is better than a normal marine's gear?

But a volcano cannon is clearly different to a Primaris Captain being banned from taking two weapons they can normally, take, just because they're together. It's a complete rational looking model, but not allowed because reasons?

So then you should advocate for my solution: fixed stat line, variable modeling. The captain has a particular stat line whether you model it with a plasma pistol and power sword, or fancy bolt pistol and power axe, or whatever. Make it look cool however you like, don't worry about the rules.

But it does add flavour. And sometimes flavour matters more to some people than a tighter rules set.

But most of the time it doesn't add flavor. Does a missile launcher vs. a lascannon change how you attack a tank? No, you just roll different dice and in list construction you calculate whether the extra damage of the lascannon is better than the cheaper point cost of the missile launcher. From a player experience point of view, ignoring point efficiency, they work exactly the same way. So consolidate them into a single profile so you can model your anti-tank squad however you like without worrying about whether or not they have the best choice rules-wise.

(And no, I don't care about frag missiles. They're so weak they might as well not exist. Just fire your regular bolters and pretend they're frag missiles, it will have about the same result.)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
To take the "it's about gameplay, you can do what you like with aesthetics" approach further, why don't we just have all models have the same stats, and the same guns, and if you want to mix things up, then do it aesthetically, because balance?

Because some units/upgrades have legitimately different gameplay roles. A lascannon and a flamer do not play the same way, at all. A lascannon and a missile launcher play the same way 99% of the time, unless you're going "LOL FRAG MISSILES ARE SO KEWL I WANT TO FORGE A NARRATIVE" and wasting your unit that turn even though it means roleplaying your commander being an idiot. I want to remove redundancy in false options, not options that add significant depth.

There is a themeing element to it. Orks are an army who are described as valuing resourcefulness and Individuality, compared to the Imperium's regimented and stagnant views on technoology. So it would be a tonal misfire to have the former have the same, or even less (which is the case currently. There are 6 of the special ork buggies, with zero new options, vs the Imperial Guard's seven different leman russes in the codex alone, while still having options for front gun/sponsons)

 Peregrine wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Some people like the aesthetic of a certain item of equipment, and when that item can't be taken, it becomes a very irritating issue.

Go back and read what I'm talking about. Taking stuff for aesthetics works fine, rules-wise you have an "anti-tank weapon" or "power weapon" and it doesn't matter if you model it as a lascannon or missile launcher, or power sword or power axe. Aesthetic customization works even better under this design principle, since you no longer have to worry about a conflict between what you think looks cool and what rules are best.

Take someone with a Primaris Captain, carrying a plasma pistol and a power sword. Now, that's not legal, because despite both weapons being open to a Captain, they can't be taken together. So, what IS this Captain? Hard to tell at a glance, because which is the weapon of focus - the pistol or the sword?

What about a primaris captain modeled with a volcano cannon? Obviously if you build your models with options that aren't legal together that's a problem, but it's not the one I'm talking about. Power swords and plasma pistols are completely different types of upgrades, they wouldn't be consolidated together.

How about one with a weapon they never can have - like a storm shield?

Even easier. The storm shield has no rules meaning, it's purely aesthetic just like what color you choose to paint your models. You might as well be asking for rules for having yellow helmets.

Some people don't want a simpler game, because being simple means it could lose out on some of the customisation it affords them. Making vehicles ignore armour facings was good for simplicity, but for some people, the simpler it got, the worse it was. Being simple isn't always good, because people have their preferences.

This is true, but I'm talking about rules bloat, not legitimate depth. Armor facings involved a lot of arguments, but they did add gameplay depth. A 5% difference in stat line does not, so those options should be consolidated.

This is a good point about the Storm Shield. If it has no meaning, you can use it wherever.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
But with your way, I can't have a combination-fire weapon (missile launcher, even IF the frag is underpowered, I've chosen it when it is flavourful or just flat out more useful for me).

So what? I thought we were talking about aesthetics, not being able to optimize the math and bring 5% more anti-infantry firepower in exchange for 5% more anti-tank?

They all have niches and purposes, how do you trim that down?

Easy: LC, MM, ML become anti-tank squad. HB, PC, grav become anti-infantry squad. Model them as you see fit.

Grav and Plasma might as well be consolidated now. You can argue the Heavy Bolter staying separate. The ML and Lascannon I agree with, as the only real thing going for the ML is a strat that only works on Fly targets. That's not worth it.

So, Epic with big models, then?

 Luke_Prowler wrote:
There is a themeing element to it. Orks are an army who are described as valuing resourcefulness and Individuality, compared to the Imperium's regimented and stagnant views on technoology. So it would be a tonal misfire to have the former have the same, or even less (which is the case currently. There are 6 of the special ork buggies, with zero new options, vs the Imperial Guard's seven different leman russes in the codex alone, while still having options for front gun/sponsons)

But you could have all the themes you want. Better, you could have more because you would never have to worry about the models looks blocking off some specific rules.
For example you could have a pistol and ccw sgt to look cool in an IG unit, but he would still be shoting like all the other lasgun dudes in the squad. Every unit would have a fixed shoting and melee value. Suddenly having an orc warlord on a cyboar with a huge two handed choppa would not mean that the unit is unplayable.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
So, Epic with big models, then?

Was the only good table top sytem GW ever made, as far as rules go at least.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
So, Epic with big models, then?

Pretty much. If GW is going to insist on making 40k into 28mm Epic then it should have the rules to match.

Done that. Centimetres are inches, vehicles have hit points per number of models on the card, infantry have normal save vs infantry weapons, but Epic save profile vs weapons with a save modifier. Works a treat.

Agree with ‘best tabletop rules’, certainly before the ‘great bloat’.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
On topic, my RT Ork Boyz have no standard weapon or armour, but work just fine in competition. Long weapons, short weapons, hth weapons, no armour, plates, flak whatever. I make sure the boss and any heavy weapons are clearly distinguished, and go to it.

As for the new buggies, at first I was ‘meh’, but then took the view they were my new ‘gun trukks’. So, busy adding Squig Catapult to truck converted to flat bed ‘portee’, and planning a DeLorien style Dragsta with spine mounted gun. The official models are not my thing, but the rules are going to be looted to death. Or mebbe deff.

With Orks, allow me to make another comparison:
I like what they did with Battlewagons. (Mostly.)
They split three types of wagon styles into three dataslates, but that still leaves the three styles intact. If you want a tough, melee wagon, you can do that. If you want a tough, shooty wagon, you can do that. If you want a lighter, transport-oriented wagon, you can do that.

On top of this, the original wagon didn't lose out much, though we still have to go to the Index if we want rokkits on our Battlewagon. We can throw in extra light weapons (Big shootas, mostly), we can add in extra melee options if we really want them, we can choose to take an 'ard case on the transporty wagon if we're more worried about getting there alive than shooting on our way.

Now, the execution is kind of bad because the 'melee' wagon isn't significantly better in melee and therefore isn't worth the cost bump, so we've got two wagon options in practice, and all of the melee weapons besides the Deff Rolla are terrible, but in theory I'm a fan.

(I'm also fine with the new Buggy options for the same reason, though I wish a few sponsons were swappable so you could shore up weaker parts of your army like getting more anti infantry or anti armor where you need it.)

And then we're back to the Wartrike, who is still as static as ever. He's our only codex choice for a Speed Freaks HQ. If we want something more krumpy, we either have to go Forge World (Which is... Problematic) or we have to go Index and lose access to Dakka Dakka Dakka and Breakin' Heads.

Is WYSIWYG that important?

Can't you just make a model how you like and the rulewise change It from engagement to engagement, from edition to edition, without going overboard, of course??

CapRichard wrote:
Is WYSIWYG that important?

Can't you just make a model how you like and the rulewise change It from engagement to engagement, from edition to edition, without going overboard, of course??

On a WYSIWYG standpoint, the rule of cool would triumph for unirs that don't have any other options but the stock ones since it wouldnt make any difference rules wise.

Karol wrote:

 Luke_Prowler wrote:
There is a themeing element to it. Orks are an army who are described as valuing resourcefulness and Individuality, compared to the Imperium's regimented and stagnant views on technoology. So it would be a tonal misfire to have the former have the same, or even less (which is the case currently. There are 6 of the special ork buggies, with zero new options, vs the Imperial Guard's seven different leman russes in the codex alone, while still having options for front gun/sponsons)

But you could have all the themes you want. Better, you could have more because you would never have to worry about the models looks blocking off some specific rules.
For example you could have a pistol and ccw sgt to look cool in an IG unit, but he would still be shoting like all the other lasgun dudes in the squad. Every unit would have a fixed shoting and melee value. Suddenly having an orc warlord on a cyboar with a huge two handed choppa would not mean that the unit is unplayable.

I'm not talking about model themeing, I'm talking about gameplay themeing
Okay, so you know how in fighters each character (usually) has a different moveset? Lets say we just remove all of that and just have them each have the same moveset. Keep the animations, keep the background, so they're still all "different" from each other lore wise but they all fight the same so that "you can't pick the wrong fighter". They're all different, until you actually start playing. The differences are superfical, and mean nothing.

Peregrine wrote:But I thought you don't care about math? Why does it matter so much if your "upgraded awesome relic pistol" has STR 4 or STR 7 or STR 6? Shouldn't the only thing that matters rules-wise be that it supports your fluff and is better than a normal marine's gear?

I think you're mixing up my personal lack of care for efficiency and the "right" weapon for just complete lack of care about the effect. I care about the effect, but not necessarily the magnitude of it.

For example, I know that the plasma pistol is a better armour killer, but is riskier to fire. While that make it better mathematically in places, I only care that it has an effect on both the armour penetration and suicidal nature of the weapon. I don't need it to be X% better, just that it has some kind of mechanism that makes it say "this is what I'm here for!" My best example, the frag missile. We all know it's not very good, but it's cool to make that switch to using frag missiles against an Ork horde because kraks don't feel right firing at Boyz. It doesn't need to be a worthwhile impact, but a change to show the purpose of the weapon is good. I wouldn't mind if the statlines got streamlined in the form of "plasma pistols get +1 AP, simple as", so long as they are different from the bolt pistol.

But a volcano cannon is clearly different to a Primaris Captain being banned from taking two weapons they can normally, take, just because they're together. It's a complete rational looking model, but not allowed because reasons?

So then you should advocate for my solution: fixed stat line, variable modeling. The captain has a particular stat line whether you model it with a plasma pistol and power sword, or fancy bolt pistol and power axe, or whatever. Make it look cool however you like, don't worry about the rules.

But I like differences, however subtle they may be, in my statline. Otherwise, why bother even having different codices, different unit entries? The differences don't have to be massive, but I like some differences in my choice of weapon options.

But it does add flavour. And sometimes flavour matters more to some people than a tighter rules set.

But most of the time it doesn't add flavor. Does a missile launcher vs. a lascannon change how you attack a tank? No, you just roll different dice and in list construction you calculate whether the extra damage of the lascannon is better than the cheaper point cost of the missile launcher. From a player experience point of view, ignoring point efficiency, they work exactly the same way. So consolidate them into a single profile so you can model your anti-tank squad however you like without worrying about whether or not they have the best choice rules-wise.

Great, but you're ignoring the actual element of flavour in the form of the versatility of the missile launcher.

Ideally, the bolt pistol would have some kind of advantage over the plasma pistol - maybe if you took away the "safe" plasma mode again, or made bolt pistols faster firing/more accurate in melee, but I think that they should have a niche really. Of course, I am only talking between these two for this circumstance.

(And no, I don't care about frag missiles. They're so weak they might as well not exist. Just fire your regular bolters and pretend they're frag missiles, it will have about the same result.)

I don't really care about the weakness. They sound and look cool in my mind's eye.

To take the "it's about gameplay, you can do what you like with aesthetics" approach further, why don't we just have all models have the same stats, and the same guns, and if you want to mix things up, then do it aesthetically, because balance?

Because some units/upgrades have legitimately different gameplay roles. A lascannon and a flamer do not play the same way, at all. A lascannon and a missile launcher play the same way 99% of the time, unless you're going "LOL FRAG MISSILES ARE SO KEWL I WANT TO FORGE A NARRATIVE" and wasting your unit that turn even though it means roleplaying your commander being an idiot. I want to remove redundancy in false options, not options that add significant depth.

But a lascannon and a multi-melta don't. A multi-melta encourages a different style of play to the longer ranged lascannon, which creates different gameplay experiences, and therefore depth.
I know you don't care about non-optimal firing choices, but some of us do, so that's still a valid reason why not to change this.
I don't think that any of the options are false ones - aesthetic or minor stat changes are still options for people to consider, and the difference between a bolt pistol and plasma pistol can be a very real one to some people.

I think Luke_Prowler is spot on about "theming". I don't want the game to become reskins of the same archetype weapon vs the same archype unit.

CapRichard wrote:
Is WYSIWYG that important?

Can't you just make a model how you like and the rulewise change It from engagement to engagement, from edition to edition, without going overboard, of course??

If you and your opponent are happy to play that way, then of course you can. But it's awfully hard to keep track of what everything is supposed to be when models aren't armed with the right weapons.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
I know you don't care about non-optimal firing choices, but some of us do, so that's still a valid reason why not to change this.

And this is the heart of the problem. Your concerns aren't valid, because they're bad game design for everyone else and accommodating your bizarre edge-case demands means making the game considerably worse for the rest of us. Rules bloat is bad design, as is putting in false options that require you to ignore the stat line and go LOLOLOL FRAG MISSILES ARE SO KEWL as you throw ineffective dice at something. I mean, what's next? By your principle it would be great design to have a third mode for missile launchers, call it "cultist-slayer frag", which is just the frag stat line but with STR 3 and some fluff about how it's great at killing cultists. You would be the only player who would ever use it, but you could roleplay about how frag missiles are too expensive for using on cultists so your space marines are shooting a cheaper version. And then of course we need to add STR 2 frag missiles, and STR 1 frag missiles, and even a STR 0 profile that automatically misses so you can roleplay your space marines getting shipped defective ammunition. Why stop at the current level of rules bloat when you can pile on tons of additional redundant rules?

The simple fact here is that GW is turning 40k into 28mm Epic with continued increases in model count and model size. In a game where a titan can wipe out your entire squad in one shot it doesn't matter if it has a power sword or power axe, those minor differences just add rules bloat. The best design for 99.999999% of the players is to simplify the game to something more like the Epic rules, a level of detail that is appropriate for Epic. And if making the game better for the vast majority of us means that you ragequit over not having explicit rules for every ineffective action you want to do, well, losing one player is a sacrifice I'll gladly make.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Luke_Prowler wrote:
I'm not talking about model themeing, I'm talking about gameplay themeing
Okay, so you know how in fighters each character (usually) has a different moveset? Lets say we just remove all of that and just have them each have the same moveset. Keep the animations, keep the background, so they're still all "different" from each other lore wise but they all fight the same so that "you can't pick the wrong fighter". They're all different, until you actually start playing. The differences are superfical, and mean nothing.

That's a poor analogy. What we're criticizing is more like a fighting game that, instead of having 10 genuinely different characters that each have different sets of moves and different playing styles, promises LOOK WE HAVE 500 CHARACTERS ISN'T IT SO FORGING A NARRATIVE but delivers 10 different characters and 490 characters that are just minor variations on the first 10. Yeah, maybe you can point to some tiny difference like character A's punch attack being one frame faster while character B's punch attack has one pixel longer reach, but in the end those differences only matter to a tiny minority of hardcore optimizers and are just rules bloat. The game would be better off having those 10 distinct characters and a skin editor so you can choose a different hair color or whatever without having to have an entirely new character.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
I know you don't care about non-optimal firing choices, but some of us do, so that's still a valid reason why not to change this.

And this is the heart of the problem. Your concerns aren't valid, because they're bad game design for everyone else and accommodating your bizarre edge-case demands means making the game considerably worse for the rest of us.

You mean, for you. You're absolutely right in that there is a heart of the problem - the heart of it is that people want different things from the game. You want X, I want Y, and ignoring the sentimental aspects, it would be poor form on GW's part of alienate any part of their fanbase.

You can't say things like "your concerns aren't valid", because that's an opinion, and I could turn around and say exactly the same to you.

Rules bloat is bad design, as is putting in false options that require you to ignore the stat line and go LOLOLOL FRAG MISSILES ARE SO KEWL as you throw ineffective dice at something. I mean, what's next? By your principle it would be great design to have a third mode for missile launchers, call it "cultist-slayer frag", which is just the frag stat line but with STR 3 and some fluff about how it's great at killing cultists. You would be the only player who would ever use it, but you could roleplay about how frag missiles are too expensive for using on cultists so your space marines are shooting a cheaper version. And then of course we need to add STR 2 frag missiles, and STR 1 frag missiles, and even a STR 0 profile that automatically misses so you can roleplay your space marines getting shipped defective ammunition. Why stop at the current level of rules bloat when you can pile on tons of additional redundant rules?

But I'm not advocating for adding rules. You're making a strawman and you know it.

You're taking an approach that favours balance above all else, and I appreciate that, and how much that obviously means to you. However, not everyone cares about balance, and some people just want to go "LOLOLOL FRAG MISSILES ARE SO KEWL".

Also, I ask you politely, could you stop being so condescending, especially with said example. I'm sure it wouldn't be too much to ask for.

The simple fact here is that GW is turning 40k into 28mm Epic with continued increases in model count and model size. In a game where a titan can wipe out your entire squad in one shot it doesn't matter if it has a power sword or power axe, those minor differences just add rules bloat.

If you don't think that a power axe or sword matter then, might I suggest you play Power Level, because clearly upgrades to units aren't THAT important. Or, maybe, seeing as said minor differences don't matter, a slight difference in points wouldn't be a massive issue, given the scale of the game?



Ignoring that delicious irony, as much as you say GW are turning 40k into 28mm Epic (which they are), they're also very fond of the detail of the squad level combat too. You can't pick and choose what GW "represent", because they represent a lot of different aspects. 40k is a very muddled game system, with micro-squad detailing and upgrades, but also engagements where those squads can be wiped out in one phase.

The best design for 99.999999% of the players is to simplify the game to something more like the Epic rules, a level of detail that is appropriate for Epic. And if making the game better for the vast majority of us means that you ragequit over not having explicit rules for every ineffective action you want to do, well, losing one player is a sacrifice I'll gladly make.

This isn't just you pulling statistics out of thin air, is it?

And again, telling people to leave isn't exactly very Rule 1, Peregrine.

 Luke_Prowler wrote:
I'm not talking about model themeing, I'm talking about gameplay themeing
Okay, so you know how in fighters each character (usually) has a different moveset? Lets say we just remove all of that and just have them each have the same moveset. Keep the animations, keep the background, so they're still all "different" from each other lore wise but they all fight the same so that "you can't pick the wrong fighter". They're all different, until you actually start playing. The differences are superfical, and mean nothing.

That's a poor analogy. What we're criticizing is more like a fighting game that, instead of having 10 genuinely different characters that each have different sets of moves and different playing styles, promises LOOK WE HAVE 500 CHARACTERS ISN'T IT SO FORGING A NARRATIVE but delivers 10 different characters and 490 characters that are just minor variations on the first 10. Yeah, maybe you can point to some tiny difference like character A's punch attack being one frame faster while character B's punch attack has one pixel longer reach, but in the end those differences only matter to a tiny minority of hardcore optimizers and are just rules bloat. The game would be better off having those 10 distinct characters and a skin editor so you can choose a different hair color or whatever without having to have an entirely new character.

Conversly, look at Super Smash Bros. That's got distinct characters, who aren't reskins, and that's incredibly popular.

Looks like that 99% stat isn't quite so concrete, eh.

 Luke_Prowler wrote:

Karol wrote:

 Luke_Prowler wrote:
There is a themeing element to it. Orks are an army who are described as valuing resourcefulness and Individuality, compared to the Imperium's regimented and stagnant views on technoology. So it would be a tonal misfire to have the former have the same, or even less (which is the case currently. There are 6 of the special ork buggies, with zero new options, vs the Imperial Guard's seven different leman russes in the codex alone, while still having options for front gun/sponsons)

But you could have all the themes you want. Better, you could have more because you would never have to worry about the models looks blocking off some specific rules.
For example you could have a pistol and ccw sgt to look cool in an IG unit, but he would still be shoting like all the other lasgun dudes in the squad. Every unit would have a fixed shoting and melee value. Suddenly having an orc warlord on a cyboar with a huge two handed choppa would not mean that the unit is unplayable.

I'm not talking about model themeing, I'm talking about gameplay themeing
Okay, so you know how in fighters each character (usually) has a different moveset? Lets say we just remove all of that and just have them each have the same moveset. Keep the animations, keep the background, so they're still all "different" from each other lore wise but they all fight the same so that "you can't pick the wrong fighter". They're all different, until you actually start playing. The differences are superfical, and mean nothing.

Look at the most recent Super Smash Brothers as an example of bloat though. A LOT of the Characters can be condensed to simply alternate costumes. After all, there's no reason that Dr. Mario can't be an extra skin for Mario outside Nintendo just wanting to say "Look how many characters there are!!!"

It ends up being poorly balanced like all the other SSB games. When Mortal Kombat does it, they still might have balance issues but those are far more condensed and therefore theoretically easier to fix with updates. Nintendo would have to look at issues with more than 60 characters.

 Peregrine wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 skchsan wrote:
, back when GW only had the poor excuse of a drop pod that was a crater, where the model was so bad that it didnt even had symmetry and looked like a deformed starfish.

Not sure what you're thinking of, but this was never a thing.

Technically one of GW's licensed partners way back in the old days, but it was a thing.

Not a GW model, and from a time before drop pods were even a part of the actual game. So an odd thing to criticise GW for...

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
You can't say things like "your concerns aren't valid", because that's an opinion, and I could turn around and say exactly the same to you.

You could say that, but you'd be wrong. My concerns are based on good game design and benefit the vast majority of the customer base. Your concerns are based on catering to your extreme niche-market demands, quite possibly single-digit numbers of customers, and are terrible game design for anyone else.

But I'm not advocating for adding rules. You're making a strawman and you know it.

No, I'm taking your principles to the inevitable conclusion. The same argument that defends the current rules bloat would also defend and encourage adding more rules bloat. You can't argue against the STR 3 frag missiles without also arguing against the current STR 4 version. And you certainly can't argue that the current level of rules bloat is some platonic ideal when GW continues to add and remove options.

You're taking an approach that favours balance above all else, and I appreciate that, and how much that obviously means to you.

No, I'm taking an approach in this case that favors elegance in design over roleplaying "my commander is an idiot and uses ineffective weapons". Making the game easier to balance is just a nice side effect of streamlining the rules to something more appropriate to the 28mm Epic that GW has turned 40k into, I actually don't have much faith that GW would take advantage of that opportunity and make a balanced game. But at least it would have less rules bloat.

However, not everyone cares about balance, and some people just want to go "LOLOLOL FRAG MISSILES ARE SO KEWL".

Then do it. Why do you need explicit rules for your missile being STR 4 instead of STR 8? Just say "FRAG MISSILES OMG WHAT A KEWL NARRATIVE LETS HAVE ANOTHER BEER AND REFILL THE PRETZEL BOWL" and make some fun "boom" noises when your missiles explode. I seriously do not understand your claim to be only playing to have fun while you simultaneously argue for a rules-heavy approach where the only things you can have in your imagination are the ones explicitly stated in the rules. If I didn't know you better from other threads I'd have to assume that you're really a tournament-focused math optimizer trying to put up a pretense of "just having fun" to deflect accusations of being a WAAC player.

If you don't think that a power axe or sword matter then, might I suggest you play Power Level, because clearly upgrades to units aren't THAT important.

PL doesn't fix anything because the rules are still different. Nor does it fix your entitled approach towards the game, where you openly admit that you like PL because you don't want to have to sacrifice anything to bring better rules for your units.

Ignoring that delicious irony, as much as you say GW are turning 40k into 28mm Epic (which they are), they're also very fond of the detail of the squad level combat too. You can't pick and choose what GW "represent", because they represent a lot of different aspects. 40k is a very muddled game system, with micro-squad detailing and upgrades, but also engagements where those squads can be wiped out in one phase.

Yes, and that muddling is exactly the problem. 40k has a lot of "legacy code" rules from when it was a skirmish-scale game, but the clear emphasis now is on being 28mm Epic. That's the direction GW is constantly pushing now, and the old days of a game between a couple of squads are gone forever. I'd also be happy if GW scaled things back to be something smaller and more appropriate for a higher level of detail, but the chances of that are much smaller than the chances of GW making rules more in line with the 28mm Epic version of the game.

And again, telling people to leave isn't exactly very Rule 1, Peregrine.

I'm not telling you to leave, you're free to stay. I'm just stating that if you do choose to leave because GW fixes the game then I'm perfectly happy with the loss of a single customer being the price we pay for having a better game for the rest of us.

Conversly, look at Super Smash Bros. That's got distinct characters, who aren't reskins, and that's incredibly popular.

And? I'm not arguing against distinct characters, I'm arguing against characters/rules/etc that aren't distinct. Nothing about that game is a counter to anything I have said.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:
Not a GW model, and from a time before drop pods were even a part of the actual game. So an odd thing to criticise GW for...

Not technically a GW model, but it was a licensed kit sold under the 40k brand name. Someone at GW approved of it, and from the point of view of the customer it might as well have been a GW kit.

 Peregrine wrote:

The simple fact here is that GW is turning 40k into 28mm Epic with continued increases in model count and model size. In a game where a titan can wipe out your entire squad in one shot it doesn't matter if it has a power sword or power axe, those minor differences just add rules bloat. The best design for 99.999999% of the players is to simplify the game to something more like the Epic rules, a level of detail that is appropriate for Epic.

Yeah... I remember when Space Marine became Epic 40000... And almost died on the release table, because the fact that GW had stripped all of the weapon detail out of it was almost universally hated. They wound up gradually adding a while bunch of weapon options back in as a result.

So it's probably safe to say you're not speaking for everyone here. Please feel free to stop acting like you are.

 insaniak wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

The simple fact here is that GW is turning 40k into 28mm Epic with continued increases in model count and model size. In a game where a titan can wipe out your entire squad in one shot it doesn't matter if it has a power sword or power axe, those minor differences just add rules bloat. The best design for 99.999999% of the players is to simplify the game to something more like the Epic rules, a level of detail that is appropriate for Epic.

Yeah... I remember when Space Marine became Epic 40000... And almost died on the release table, because the fact that GW had stripped all of the weapon detail out of it was almost universally hated. They wound up gradually adding a while bunch of weapon options back in as a result.

So it's probably safe to say you're not speaking for everyone here. Please feel free to stop acting like you are.

Likewise, you don't speak for everyone here. Please feel free to stop acting like you are. Unless you want to break out the red modtext and throw your weight around.

BaconCatBug wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

The simple fact here is that GW is turning 40k into 28mm Epic with continued increases in model count and model size. In a game where a titan can wipe out your entire squad in one shot it doesn't matter if it has a power sword or power axe, those minor differences just add rules bloat. The best design for 99.999999% of the players is to simplify the game to something more like the Epic rules, a level of detail that is appropriate for Epic.

Yeah... I remember when Space Marine became Epic 40000... And almost died on the release table, because the fact that GW had stripped all of the weapon detail out of it was almost universally hated. They wound up gradually adding a while bunch of weapon options back in as a result.

So it's probably safe to say you're not speaking for everyone here. Please feel free to stop acting like you are.

Likewise, you don't speak for everyone here. Please feel free to stop acting like you are. Unless you want to break out the red modtext and throw your weight around.

Can we just all agree that all our opinions are our own, and don't speak for anyone else?

I don't think insaniak was breaching any kind of "speaking for everyone else" rule by reminding Peregrine that they don't speak for everyone, and that that kind of attitude leads to toxic discussion.

Frag missiles seem like a weird thing to argue against, they actually have a role. A choice between a dedicated single purpose weapon and a weapon which is a bit weaker but is multipurpose seem perfectly fine design to me.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
You can't say things like "your concerns aren't valid", because that's an opinion, and I could turn around and say exactly the same to you.

You could say that, but you'd be wrong. My concerns are based on good game design and benefit the vast majority of the customer base. Your concerns are based on catering to your extreme niche-market demands, quite possibly single-digit numbers of customers, and are terrible game design for anyone else.

Again, when you can show that you represent the "vast majority", I'll continue to treat this as just your opinion, and treat your attempts to devalue my enjoyment of the game with the contempt it deserves.

But I'm not advocating for adding rules. You're making a strawman and you know it.

No, I'm taking your principles to the inevitable conclusion. The same argument that defends the current rules bloat would also defend and encourage adding more rules bloat. You can't argue against the STR 3 frag missiles without also arguing against the current STR 4 version. And you certainly can't argue that the current level of rules bloat is some platonic ideal when GW continues to add and remove options.

You're fully aware that taking things to their "inevitable conclusion" is an incredibly flawed way of making an argument?
Like, I could with your approach - to the conclusion of it, it creates something that's basically Chess, or even more simple than that, Draughts, where everything is fundamentally the same, and any difference is aesthetic.

I'm just saying, you pretending frags don't exist, because you don't use them, doesn't mean they actually ARE worthless to everyone.

You're taking an approach that favours balance above all else, and I appreciate that, and how much that obviously means to you.

No, I'm taking an approach in this case that favors elegance in design over roleplaying "my commander is an idiot and uses ineffective weapons". Making the game easier to balance is just a nice side effect of streamlining the rules to something more appropriate to the 28mm Epic that GW has turned 40k into, I actually don't have much faith that GW would take advantage of that opportunity and make a balanced game. But at least it would have less rules bloat.

Firstly, I think you're missing an important part of the imaginative side of 40k.
When my models fire a frag missile, despite it not being the most tactically prudent thing to do, they do it because that makes sense in the narrative I'm trying to tell, a narrative that is disconnected from the direct minutia of the game system.

Sure, the game system is built/balanced/formed in such a way that frags are useless, but if you seperate the maths from the action you imagine happening, it can't be that hard to understand why someone would choose the "fluffy" solution to the problem over the mathematical solution.

However, not everyone cares about balance, and some people just want to go "LOLOLOL FRAG MISSILES ARE SO KEWL".

Then do it. Why do you need explicit rules for your missile being STR 4 instead of STR 8? Just say "FRAG MISSILES OMG WHAT A KEWL NARRATIVE LETS HAVE ANOTHER BEER AND REFILL THE PRETZEL BOWL" and make some fun "boom" noises when your missiles explode. I seriously do not understand your claim to be only playing to have fun while you simultaneously argue for a rules-heavy approach where the only things you can have in your imagination are the ones explicitly stated in the rules. If I didn't know you better from other threads I'd have to assume that you're really a tournament-focused math optimizer trying to put up a pretense of "just having fun" to deflect accusations of being a WAAC player.

I see you didn't take on board my polite request to stop mocking me.

If you don't think that a power axe or sword matter then, might I suggest you play Power Level, because clearly upgrades to units aren't THAT important.

PL doesn't fix anything because the rules are still different. Nor does it fix your entitled approach towards the game, where you openly admit that you like PL because you don't want to have to sacrifice anything to bring better rules for your units.

My entitled approach? I'm not saying that anyone's playing it wrong, that anyone should have to leave (and that that would be a GOOD thing), and I'm fully happy with other people having their opinions.

You? Not so much.
Instead of attacking me, could you focus a small fraction of your time on my argument?

Ignoring that delicious irony, as much as you say GW are turning 40k into 28mm Epic (which they are), they're also very fond of the detail of the squad level combat too. You can't pick and choose what GW "represent", because they represent a lot of different aspects. 40k is a very muddled game system, with micro-squad detailing and upgrades, but also engagements where those squads can be wiped out in one phase.

Yes, and that muddling is exactly the problem. 40k has a lot of "legacy code" rules from when it was a skirmish-scale game, but the clear emphasis now is on being 28mm Epic. That's the direction GW is constantly pushing now, and the old days of a game between a couple of squads are gone forever. I'd also be happy if GW scaled things back to be something smaller and more appropriate for a higher level of detail, but the chances of that are much smaller than the chances of GW making rules more in line with the 28mm Epic version of the game.

You have no actual insight on the opinion and goals of GW. You don't work for them, nor do you seem to also see the incredibly relaxed and non-comp attitudes they have.

If I were to pursue that point with the same fervour you pursue yours, then I'd come to the conclusion that GW care very little for balance, and even a coherent focused game design, but seem to be happy with that. Of course, that's just what I interpret GW's motives to be, but like you, I don't know fully, so I won't try and base an argument around that premise.

And again, telling people to leave isn't exactly very Rule 1, Peregrine.

I'm not telling you to leave, you're free to stay. I'm just stating that if you do choose to leave because GW fixes the game then I'm perfectly happy with the loss of a single customer being the price we pay for having a better game for the rest of us.

Rest of us, again, speaking for others? Implying it's Peregrine + everyone else, minus myself.
Yeah, right.

Conversly, look at Super Smash Bros. That's got distinct characters, who aren't reskins, and that's incredibly popular.

And? I'm not arguing against distinct characters, I'm arguing against characters/rules/etc that aren't distinct. Nothing about that game is a counter to anything I have said.

And frag missiles ARE distinct. Just because you don't like them because they're not effective in the current rules doesn't mean they don't exist.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:
Frag missiles seem like a weird thing to argue against, they actually have a role. A choice between a dedicated single purpose weapon and a weapon which is a bit weaker but is multipurpose seem perfectly fine design to me.

I'd have thought that too, but it seems that because they're weak at that role, they shouldn't even be considered to be existing.

Guess we should say goodbye to Guard Veterans, Reivers, and whatever else people in the competitive scene take, because clearly it's only the meta options that are worth thinking about.

Seeing as Reivers don't have a distinct role they're good at compared to other options in the codex, yeah they can be deleted.
Vets lost their role the moment they were moved to Elites. Scions do better and we can basically lose the Vet entry because GW messed up really bad


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:
Frag missiles seem like a weird thing to argue against, they actually have a role. A choice between a dedicated single purpose weapon and a weapon which is a bit weaker but is multipurpose seem perfectly fine design to me.

Except the ML has always been a bad weapon essentially. Frag is bad and has always been bad (small blasts were always bad and honestly you can't argue otherwise) the Krak is only okay now, and in desperation were only ever taken for the Flakk option (which after more and more codices got AA options the Flakk ceased to be useful).

I'd almost encourage people to use their ML models as dudes toting Counts-As Lascannons at that point to be honest.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Seeing as Reivers don't have a distinct role they're good at compared to other options in the codex, yeah they can be deleted.

Another thread was done about this. Suffice to say, that's your opinion and not a fact.

Vets lost their role the moment they were moved to Elites. Scions do better and we can basically lose the Vet entry because GW messed up really bad

Now I will admit that Vets did lose out on their doctrines. Not bothered about the move to Elites, I wasn't keen on when the focus was taken away from Infantry Squads by them being Troops. They still have a purpose for me, as Infantry Squads+1, but they could be made into an upgrade or CP buff (say, spend 1CP at the start of the game, an Infantry Squad may be made into a Veteran Infantry Squad, gaining +1 BS and may take up to three special weapons - hell, you could even go all out, and then give them stratagem access to Demolitions, Forward Sentries and Grenadiers again for more CP, a la Veteran Intercessors).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
Frag missiles seem like a weird thing to argue against, they actually have a role. A choice between a dedicated single purpose weapon and a weapon which is a bit weaker but is multipurpose seem perfectly fine design to me.

Except the ML has always been a bad weapon essentially. Frag is bad and has always been bad (small blasts were always bad and honestly you can't argue otherwise) the Krak is only okay now, and in desperation were only ever taken for the Flakk option (which after more and more codices got AA options the Flakk ceased to be useful).

I'd almost encourage people to use their ML models as dudes toting Counts-As Lascannons at that point to be honest.

If it's bad, then buff the weapon. Make it cheaper, that's WHY points exist.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Likewise, you don't speak for everyone here. Please feel free to stop acting like you are. Unless you want to break out the red modtext and throw your weight around.

If you're going to pull the thread down to the 'I know you are, but what am I?' level of conversation, it's not going to be around for long.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Except the ML has always been a bad weapon essentially. Frag is bad and has always been bad (small blasts were always bad and honestly you can't argue otherwise) the Krak is only okay now, and in desperation were only ever taken for the Flakk option (which after more and more codices got AA options the Flakk ceased to be useful).

I can't speak to the current rules, but missile launchers were the best option for Devastators in 5th and 6th editions. My ML Long Fangs more than made their points back in most of my games.

Yeah, a lot of the arguments in here against variety seem to be along the lines of "Because it's poorly balanced, therefore it cannot ever be good and should be stripped out".

I agree that, with the current iteration of the rules, several weapon choices are bad bordering on useless. However, if we go down the list of, for example, Space Marine Heavy Weapons, every single one of them theoretically has a role that should be a useful niche, the only problem is in execution.

Lascannons - Reliable long range anti tank
Multi-Meltas - Stronger anti-tank, but with shorter range and requires mobility or a delivery system
Missile Launcher - Flexible anti-tank or anti-infantry, trading maximum power for versatility
Heavy Bolter - Dedicated anti-infantry
Plasma Cannon - Flexible anti-elite infantry, able to deal light anti-tank fire and increase damage by harming itself

Grav Cannon - Eh... Flexible anti-elite infantry, able to deal light anti-tank fire. Okay, I'll admit that the Grav Cannon could be stripped out, but TBH I'd rather they just bring back 7th edition rules for Grav because it'd start to have an actual niche again. (And it would no longer be broken, because tanks and similar units now have a wounds characteristic and can't be killed by a single Grav volley.)