Switch Theme:

Does anyone find kit restrictions fun?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I have strong suspicions that FLG/ITC had something to do with the board size change. The idea may not have started with them, but I doubt they gave unbiased feedback, so to say.
I very much doubt it, not without reasoning I might add.

I dead certain it was entirely a practicality thing based upon the standard size of the boxes they ship vs the board size they could fit inside there.

You have to remember that GW tried out a few different things before landing on their "recommended" board:

1. They did the expensive fully plastic Realm of Battle boards.
2. They did their own neoprene mats that were 4x4 and obscenely expensive. Not a big shock that they didn't last.
3. Moonbase Klaisus/Blasted Hallowheart sets. These boxes contained paltry amounts of terrain (but did give us the Ryza Ruins for a brief moment), but also contained full sets of foldable double-sided boards. They're not the exact same size as the current boards, and nor are they 6x4, but can certainly be seen as a major prototype to the boards we have today.

The standard GW boxes also can't hold the needed width/height to do a 6x4 table, and it appears that specialist got a special dispensation to make their 1x1 Zone Mortalis tiles (again, the previous card tiles for Newcromunda were not 1x1, as they would not have fit in GW boxes).

So I don't blame them for making what they can with the limitations of resources. What I resent is the fumbling immediate adoption by the tournament crowd, like it was a 'better' way to play the game, and the insistence by many (including some here) that the size of the boards has anything to do with game-play, or balance or *groan* fething "average kitchen table size" or whatever other nonsense was cooked up when this first came about when really it's a simple timeline:

Box is Size X ---> Boards of Size Y fit into Size X Box ---> make 'standard' table size for all our games the same as the tiles we sell.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/05/18 05:39:33


Industrial Insanity - My Terrain Blog
"GW really needs to understand 'Less is more' when it comes to AoS." - Wha-Mu-077

 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Unit1126PLL wrote:
The issue with taking a variety of weapons in 40k is there aren't really roles anymore.

Grenade launcher: kinda killy
Flamer: kinda killy
Meltagun: killy but for tanks
Plasma Gun: killy but for everything else, and sometimes tanks.

This goes pretty much for every army you'd see across the table from you, so it's no wonder the only real competition is between melta and plasma.

If the roles were more like:
Grenade Launcher: utility (smoke rounds to obscure friendly forces, flares to help friendly forces aim, etc)
Flamer: engineering (ignores all terrain when fired, including Obscuring. Firing a flamethrower at where you expect the enemy to be even if you can't see him is obvious)
Meltagun: anti-tank
Plasma Gun: anti-infantry

Then you would be on to something. But 40k doesn't have mechanics for that stuff mostly.

There's a couple of things you can do with the grenade launchers, like being absurdly cheap and giving it the ability to ignore LoS.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 alextroy wrote:
Insectum7 wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
The customer: "put enough of every weapon in the box to cover every option!"
GW: "the customer wants every option in the box! Quick, slash options and rewrite unit entries!"

Ouch. That one stings a bit
Be careful what you wish for. You must might get it.

The big problem is that as GW kits have evolved, the model have become more dynamic and detailed. This makes providing many options, either in the kit or via an option box, unworkable (assuming you expect the kit to go together as instructed without modification).

They can get away with this in Horus Heresy that are old-school Marine models with a drop in gun. However, I think they were luck to cram as many options into the Plague Marine box as they did once you include all the boltguns along with the special and melee weapons.

Is it a perfect solution? No.

Does it mean your kit is all you need to build you unit? Pretty often yes.

Does it support more real-world units where a variety of weapons is actually the norm? In theory if the points cost ever made taking a variety of weapons actually viable. But that is a whole different discussion.

Yeah no, the Plague Marine kit is one of the worst kits they've ever done, period.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/05/18 05:48:10


 
   
Made in nl
Regular Dakkanaut






I'm all for generalising weapons a little. There's no reason why the exact shape of a power weapon should have such a huge impact on its rules. Just make all power weapons one weapon, generalise all bolters into one profile, make a general category of wych weapons without bothering with rules for each individual one, and things like that. That alone speeds up the game quite a bit and it means that players won't be told that they went for the trap option because they gave their guys a sword instead of a mallet or whatever.

The only differentiation would be between different armies (obviously) and heavy and special weapons and the like, although some consolidation might also happen there. That way, you can make much simpler profiles, create far more opportunity for conversions, and still give meaningful choices while stripping out fake choice. 40K is a game that just doesn't have the kind of scale anymore where all those little details matter.

   
Made in us
Ultramarine Chaplain with Hate to Spare






 alextroy wrote:
Insectum7 wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
The customer: "put enough of every weapon in the box to cover every option!"
GW: "the customer wants every option in the box! Quick, slash options and rewrite unit entries!"

Ouch. That one stings a bit
Be careful what you wish for. You must might get it.

The big problem is that as GW kits have evolved, the model have become more dynamic and detailed. This makes providing many options, either in the kit or via an option box, unworkable (assuming you expect the kit to go together as instructed without modification).

They can get away with this in Horus Heresy that are old-school Marine models with a drop in gun. However, I think they were luck to cram as many options into the Plague Marine box as they did once you include all the boltguns along with the special and melee weapons.

Is it a perfect solution? No.

Does it mean your kit is all you need to build you unit? Pretty often yes.

Does it support more real-world units where a variety of weapons is actually the norm? In theory if the points cost ever made taking a variety of weapons actually viable. But that is a whole different discussion.
Have you ever built either of the Genestealer Cult Neophytes or Acolytes boxes? TONS of options in those kits. "Unworkable" my a$$.

They can totally provide the options, they just don't.

And They Shall Not Fit Through Doors!!!

Tyranid Army Progress -- With Classic Warriors!:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/743240.page#9671598 
   
Made in it
Waaagh! Ork Warboss




Italy

 Dolnikan wrote:
I'm all for generalising weapons a little. There's no reason why the exact shape of a power weapon should have such a huge impact on its rules. Just make all power weapons one weapon, generalise all bolters into one profile, make a general category of wych weapons without bothering with rules for each individual one, and things like that. That alone speeds up the game quite a bit and it means that players won't be told that they went for the trap option because they gave their guys a sword instead of a mallet or whatever.

The only differentiation would be between different armies (obviously) and heavy and special weapons and the like, although some consolidation might also happen there. That way, you can make much simpler profiles, create far more opportunity for conversions, and still give meaningful choices while stripping out fake choice. 40K is a game that just doesn't have the kind of scale anymore where all those little details matter.


The idea of having tons of different but not so different weapons for the same squad is something that really bothers me. For example in melee each unit should just have up to 3 close combat weapons: basic anti infantry weapon (like chainswords), one anti elite weapon (like power weapons) and one anti tank option (like a power fist/hammer, merged into a single profile). Stop.

Wyches and Plague Marines are perfect examples of this madness having tons of different but samey profiles, but also take the Sacrestans kit: there's no reason to have two different profiles for maces/halbreds as they're both anti elite weapons and really samey. Just merge the profiles.

 
   
Made in gb
Barpharanges







Nomeny wrote:
I kinda like how it kicks min-maxers in the teeth, but part of the game is hanging around in dark parking lots late at night to score some prime, rare bits. I'm torn.


What is it with casuals and having such a strong "cutting off my nose to spite my own face" mindset? Did min-maxers murder their families?

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/05/18 08:03:48


The biggest indicator someone is a loser is them complaining about 3d printers or piracy.  
   
Made in ch
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





 blood reaper wrote:
Nomeny wrote:
I kinda like how it kicks min-maxers in the teeth, but part of the game is hanging around in dark parking lots late at night to score some prime, rare bits. I'm torn.


What is it with casuals and having such a strong "cutting off my nose to spite my own face" mindset?


What has that to do with casuals or competitive?

FFS i want to play a wargame, I want to field a squad that uses plague throwers to provide close support, flamers and melee weapons for my assault group and plasmaguns for defensive line duty.

And not squad stupiditis, which can't decide if it wants to stab stuff , shoot stuff and be completely irrelevant due to slots.

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page
A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units."
Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?"
Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?"
GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!"
Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.  
   
Made in gb
Barpharanges







Not Online!!! wrote:
 blood reaper wrote:
Nomeny wrote:
I kinda like how it kicks min-maxers in the teeth, but part of the game is hanging around in dark parking lots late at night to score some prime, rare bits. I'm torn.


What is it with casuals and having such a strong "cutting off my nose to spite my own face" mindset?


What has that to do with casuals or competitive?

FFS i want to play a wargame, I want to field a squad that uses plague throwers to provide close support, flamers and melee weapons for my assault group and plasmaguns for defensive line duty.

And not squad stupiditis, which can't decide if it wants to stab stuff , shoot stuff and be completely irrelevant due to slots.


I do not encounter competitive players seething about multiple plasma guns in a squad. I do find casuals doing it, or rather, casual-at-all-costs (the worst kind of gamer) complaining. This is why I described the action of complaining about 'min-maxing' as 'cutting off your own nose' - because it will hurt everyone.

Of course, ghoulish CAAC people have an axe to grind with the competitive scene - which poisoned their pets and never came back from the store after going out to get cigarettes. The wargaming community is infested with a 'feth you, got mine!' mentality. There's a specific poster in News and Rumours (I think) who every time GW cuts options, will gleefully declare how happy he is to see it, because it happened to his army.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/05/18 08:13:28


The biggest indicator someone is a loser is them complaining about 3d printers or piracy.  
   
Made in ch
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





 blood reaper wrote:


I do not encounter competitive players seething about multiple plasma guns in a squad. I do find casuals doing it, or rather, casual-at-all-costs (the worst kind of gamer) complaining. This is why I described the action of complaining about 'min-maxing' as 'cutting off your own nose' - because it will hurt everyone.

Of course, ghoulish CAAC people have an axe to grind with the competitive scene - which poisoned their pets and never came back from the store after going out to get cigarettes. The wargaming community is infested with a 'feth you, got mine!' mentality. There's a specific poster in News and Rumours (I think) who every time GW cuts options, will gleefully declare how happy he is to see it, because it happened to his army.


Fair enough, granted i think there are things that both these pole populations did get wrong, alas most players don't fall into either category.

Hence why this is just a farce, the lack of content in boxes should annoy anyone, as should the proveribial lawtext unit entries because these ultimativly lower the game experience aswell as hobby experience.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/05/18 08:22:57


https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page
A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units."
Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?"
Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?"
GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!"
Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.  
   
Made in gb
Gore-Drenched Khorne Chaos Lord




 Insectum7 wrote:
 alextroy wrote:
Insectum7 wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
The customer: "put enough of every weapon in the box to cover every option!"
GW: "the customer wants every option in the box! Quick, slash options and rewrite unit entries!"

Ouch. That one stings a bit
Be careful what you wish for. You must might get it.

The big problem is that as GW kits have evolved, the model have become more dynamic and detailed. This makes providing many options, either in the kit or via an option box, unworkable (assuming you expect the kit to go together as instructed without modification).

They can get away with this in Horus Heresy that are old-school Marine models with a drop in gun. However, I think they were luck to cram as many options into the Plague Marine box as they did once you include all the boltguns along with the special and melee weapons.

Is it a perfect solution? No.

Does it mean your kit is all you need to build you unit? Pretty often yes.

Does it support more real-world units where a variety of weapons is actually the norm? In theory if the points cost ever made taking a variety of weapons actually viable. But that is a whole different discussion.
Have you ever built either of the Genestealer Cult Neophytes or Acolytes boxes? TONS of options in those kits. "Unworkable" my a$$.

They can totally provide the options, they just don't.


Neither of those units provides all the options permitted for their "optimal build" in the box, you can field 2 acolyte heavy melee weapons in a squad of 5, no limit on duplicates, but with 1 of each in the box. Now your options are:
- not give a gak and have 2 mismatched weapons
- bits scalper
- buy 2 kits and potentially make more models than you want/need for the right bits
- GW limits the unit options to match the box contents

Same applies to the neophytes where it's 2 heavy ranged and 2 special ranges weapons per 10 - box of 10 contains one of each, so not the best example.
   
Made in gb
Barpharanges







"Bits scalper"

Are people on eBay really selling pieces at such disproportionate prices? I 100% feel people exaggerate this.

The biggest indicator someone is a loser is them complaining about 3d printers or piracy.  
   
Made in gb
Gore-Drenched Khorne Chaos Lord




 blood reaper wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:
 blood reaper wrote:
Nomeny wrote:
I kinda like how it kicks min-maxers in the teeth, but part of the game is hanging around in dark parking lots late at night to score some prime, rare bits. I'm torn.


What is it with casuals and having such a strong "cutting off my nose to spite my own face" mindset?


What has that to do with casuals or competitive?

FFS i want to play a wargame, I want to field a squad that uses plague throwers to provide close support, flamers and melee weapons for my assault group and plasmaguns for defensive line duty.

And not squad stupiditis, which can't decide if it wants to stab stuff , shoot stuff and be completely irrelevant due to slots.


I do not encounter competitive players seething about multiple plasma guns in a squad. I do find casuals doing it, or rather, casual-at-all-costs (the worst kind of gamer) complaining. This is why I described the action of complaining about 'min-maxing' as 'cutting off your own nose' - because it will hurt everyone.

Of course, ghoulish CAAC people have an axe to grind with the competitive scene - which poisoned their pets and never came back from the store after going out to get cigarettes. The wargaming community is infested with a 'feth you, got mine!' mentality. There's a specific poster in News and Rumours (I think) who every time GW cuts options, will gleefully declare how happy he is to see it, because it happened to his army.


Casual/competitive doesn't come into this topic directly, if casual players are getting whipped by competitive players because they spend more to get optimal loadouts I can see why they'd be pissed. I don't see how having a squad with 5 plasma guns is "helping" (to extrapolate the opposite of hurting) the community or game in any way more or less than limiting the number of specials in a unit?

Surely a competitive player winning with the "box contents" army is a more gratuitous win than "lolz I bought 5 of these kits for that 1 gun so now your units gone because you didn't" which seems to be tone I'm getting.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 blood reaper wrote:
"Bits scalper"

Are people on eBay really selling pieces at such disproportionate prices? I 100% feel people exaggerate this.


Yes, because the competitive market drives up the cost of certain options. When a GW chaincannon was £11 a go, that's bits scalping, what else are you going to call them?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/05/18 10:58:02


 
   
Made in gb
Barpharanges







Dudeface wrote:
 blood reaper wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:
 blood reaper wrote:
Nomeny wrote:
I kinda like how it kicks min-maxers in the teeth, but part of the game is hanging around in dark parking lots late at night to score some prime, rare bits. I'm torn.


What is it with casuals and having such a strong "cutting off my nose to spite my own face" mindset?


What has that to do with casuals or competitive?

FFS i want to play a wargame, I want to field a squad that uses plague throwers to provide close support, flamers and melee weapons for my assault group and plasmaguns for defensive line duty.

And not squad stupiditis, which can't decide if it wants to stab stuff , shoot stuff and be completely irrelevant due to slots.


I do not encounter competitive players seething about multiple plasma guns in a squad. I do find casuals doing it, or rather, casual-at-all-costs (the worst kind of gamer) complaining. This is why I described the action of complaining about 'min-maxing' as 'cutting off your own nose' - because it will hurt everyone.

Of course, ghoulish CAAC people have an axe to grind with the competitive scene - which poisoned their pets and never came back from the store after going out to get cigarettes. The wargaming community is infested with a 'feth you, got mine!' mentality. There's a specific poster in News and Rumours (I think) who every time GW cuts options, will gleefully declare how happy he is to see it, because it happened to his army.


Casual/competitive doesn't come into this topic directly, if casual players are getting whipped by competitive players because they spend more to get optimal loadouts I can see why they'd be pissed. I don't see how having a squad with 5 plasma guns is "helping" (to extrapolate the opposite of hurting) the community or game in any way more or less than limiting the number of specials in a unit?

Surely a competitive player winning with the "box contents" army is a more gratuitous win than "lolz I bought 5 of these kits for that 1 gun so now your units gone because you didn't" which seems to be tone I'm getting.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 blood reaper wrote:
"Bits scalper"

Are people on eBay really selling pieces at such disproportionate prices? I 100% feel people exaggerate this.


Yes, because the competitive market drives up the cost of certain options. When a GW chaincannon was £11 a go, that's bits scalping, what else are you going to call them?


Anyone who buys 5 boxes for one bit is probably a bit of a moron or has too much money - but if they have that much money what is to stop them from buying 5 boxes of any powerful unit?

I don't see how that is any more 'gratuitous' to win with what you get in a box. What you get in the boxes tends to be pish. But when people win with what they get in the 'boxes', they still get labelled WAAC or spammers. So this line of arguing clearly isn't going to save the casual.

One of my favourite elements of the casual mindset is trying to force people to jump through these sorts of ridiculous ad-hoc hoops to achieve some kind of mythical 'legitimate win', which is not influenced by taking effective units, but some measure of 'skilful play' where actual army building isn't involved. The term 'scrub mentality' comes to mind.

It seems almost like the best approach would be maybe to ... actually balance unit options rather than simply remove them? For GW, this might be too much of a demand.

I put down the cost of the Chaincannon to the fact only one Chaincannon was actually available in the box.

This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2022/05/18 11:29:20


The biggest indicator someone is a loser is them complaining about 3d printers or piracy.  
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Dudeface wrote:
Casual/competitive doesn't come into this topic directly, if casual players are getting whipped by competitive players because they spend more to get optimal loadouts I can see why they'd be pissed. I don't see how having a squad with 5 plasma guns is "helping" (to extrapolate the opposite of hurting) the community or game in any way more or less than limiting the number of specials in a unit?


Compared to, say, 1 plasma 1 flamer 1 melta and whatever, 5 plasma guns is much less cumbersome on the table. And it can make Troops squads actually worthwhile when they can lean into a particular role.
   
Made in gb
Gore-Drenched Khorne Chaos Lord




 blood reaper wrote:
Dudeface wrote:
 blood reaper wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:
 blood reaper wrote:
Nomeny wrote:
I kinda like how it kicks min-maxers in the teeth, but part of the game is hanging around in dark parking lots late at night to score some prime, rare bits. I'm torn.


What is it with casuals and having such a strong "cutting off my nose to spite my own face" mindset?


What has that to do with casuals or competitive?

FFS i want to play a wargame, I want to field a squad that uses plague throwers to provide close support, flamers and melee weapons for my assault group and plasmaguns for defensive line duty.

And not squad stupiditis, which can't decide if it wants to stab stuff , shoot stuff and be completely irrelevant due to slots.


I do not encounter competitive players seething about multiple plasma guns in a squad. I do find casuals doing it, or rather, casual-at-all-costs (the worst kind of gamer) complaining. This is why I described the action of complaining about 'min-maxing' as 'cutting off your own nose' - because it will hurt everyone.

Of course, ghoulish CAAC people have an axe to grind with the competitive scene - which poisoned their pets and never came back from the store after going out to get cigarettes. The wargaming community is infested with a 'feth you, got mine!' mentality. There's a specific poster in News and Rumours (I think) who every time GW cuts options, will gleefully declare how happy he is to see it, because it happened to his army.


Casual/competitive doesn't come into this topic directly, if casual players are getting whipped by competitive players because they spend more to get optimal loadouts I can see why they'd be pissed. I don't see how having a squad with 5 plasma guns is "helping" (to extrapolate the opposite of hurting) the community or game in any way more or less than limiting the number of specials in a unit?

Surely a competitive player winning with the "box contents" army is a more gratuitous win than "lolz I bought 5 of these kits for that 1 gun so now your units gone because you didn't" which seems to be tone I'm getting.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 blood reaper wrote:
"Bits scalper"

Are people on eBay really selling pieces at such disproportionate prices? I 100% feel people exaggerate this.


Yes, because the competitive market drives up the cost of certain options. When a GW chaincannon was £11 a go, that's bits scalping, what else are you going to call them?


Anyone who buys 5 boxes for one bit is probably a bit of a moron or has too much money - but if they have that much money what is to stop them from buying 5 boxes of any powerful unit?

I don't see how that is any more 'gratuitous' to win with what you get in a box. What you get in the boxes tends to be pish. But when people win with what they get in the 'boxes', they still get labelled WAAC or spammers. So this line of arguing clearly isn't going to save the casual.

One of my favourite elements of the casual mindset is trying to force people to jump through these sorts of ridiculous ad-hoc hoops to achieve some kind of mythical 'legitimate win', which is not influenced by taking effective units, but some measure of 'skilful play' where actual army building isn't involved. The term 'scrub mentality' comes to mind.

It seems almost like the best approach would be maybe to ... actually balance unit options rather than simply remove them? For GW, this might be too much of a demand.

I put down the cost of the Chaincannon to the fact only one Chaincannon was actually available in the box.


Limiting the amount of something that can be taken is one method of balancing it however (note I doubt that's their reasoning), but people want different stuff out of the game, there's no need to be a dick about it. Warhammer isn't some hormonally charged high school campus where everyone has to belong to some totally unironic social clique. I'm confident if the chaincannon was 12" heavy2 s3 ap- d1 they'd still be selling for £11 as well. The point is they take a box, they sell off the bits they want for as much as they can get to make a profit, the same shops often buy limited boxes and split them up, they're scalpers, or capitalists in action if you prefer.
   
Made in nl
Regular Dakkanaut






Hecaton wrote:
Dudeface wrote:
Casual/competitive doesn't come into this topic directly, if casual players are getting whipped by competitive players because they spend more to get optimal loadouts I can see why they'd be pissed. I don't see how having a squad with 5 plasma guns is "helping" (to extrapolate the opposite of hurting) the community or game in any way more or less than limiting the number of specials in a unit?


Compared to, say, 1 plasma 1 flamer 1 melta and whatever, 5 plasma guns is much less cumbersome on the table. And it can make Troops squads actually worthwhile when they can lean into a particular role.


The problem with that is that in 40k, generalists generally don't do that well because they're worse at their assigned task than specialists are. That of course is only logical because of different ranges and ideal targets for different weapons. For a long while, it's already been an issue that the standard weapons carried around by base troops are struggling, but with the scope of the game constantly increasing, they fall behind more and more which reduces the ordinary soldiers to being nothing but ablative wounds for the actual weapons. It also means that 'normal' anti-infantry weapons just aren't seen as relevant because ordinary infantry isn't what does the actual fighting and killing.

   
Made in gb
Barpharanges







It is a way to balance it, I won't deny that - but it seems like a very bad way to balance it - since it invalidates peoples units and also cuts down converting opportunities. There are clearly 'good and bad' ways to balance something - for example - it would be 'a balancing choice' to remove armies like say, Tyranids, from the game at the moment. Of course this wouldn't be a good way to go about it, but it would remove the balance issue.

This would've also worked with Knights, Fliers, etc. Obviously this is not a great approach because it would then stop people using those models in a capacity outside of legends, and despite what people would like to claim, those rules are janky as feth and aren't well supported; so we should instead aim to balance things in another way before we begin clipping options. (I fething hate fliers btw, like, I totally hate them - but I wouldn't remove the option).

I mean I don't think there's anything wrong with wanting something different.

Indeed, I have a major issue with the 'competitive players are x' mentality because like, yeah if you play with a stranger and have no idea how they play they may just go all out and curb stomp you. Perhaps all of us need schooling in social skills so we can like, discuss how we'll play before we play.

I mean if that's the case with the chain cannon, then I think you'd have to accept it's not really a fault of competitive players or whatever.

The biggest indicator someone is a loser is them complaining about 3d printers or piracy.  
   
Made in pl
Fixture of Dakka




Running 1 plasma, 1 flamer and 1 melta is not being a generalist though. It is just being a bad unit with a bad load out. Specially when most units in w40k require running of multiples, so that at least 1-2 get in to range to use their weapon.

If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain. 
   
Made in gb
Barpharanges







 Dolnikan wrote:
Hecaton wrote:
Dudeface wrote:
Casual/competitive doesn't come into this topic directly, if casual players are getting whipped by competitive players because they spend more to get optimal loadouts I can see why they'd be pissed. I don't see how having a squad with 5 plasma guns is "helping" (to extrapolate the opposite of hurting) the community or game in any way more or less than limiting the number of specials in a unit?


Compared to, say, 1 plasma 1 flamer 1 melta and whatever, 5 plasma guns is much less cumbersome on the table. And it can make Troops squads actually worthwhile when they can lean into a particular role.


The problem with that is that in 40k, generalists generally don't do that well because they're worse at their assigned task than specialists are. That of course is only logical because of different ranges and ideal targets for different weapons. For a long while, it's already been an issue that the standard weapons carried around by base troops are struggling, but with the scope of the game constantly increasing, they fall behind more and more which reduces the ordinary soldiers to being nothing but ablative wounds for the actual weapons. It also means that 'normal' anti-infantry weapons just aren't seen as relevant because ordinary infantry isn't what does the actual fighting and killing.


I think this is a very good point.

The problem with 40k is we are now in a stage where the game is focussed on huge battles. Armies are a lot bigger than they used to be and games are clearly geared towards having a lot of models. So having generalist units just, doesn't work.

IMO it would probably be better to split 40k into three levels. Kill team, something similar to Bolt Action with very few vehicles or large figures, and then something on the current scale of 40k.

The biggest indicator someone is a loser is them complaining about 3d printers or piracy.  
   
Made in it
Waaagh! Ork Warboss




Italy

 blood reaper wrote:
It is a way to balance it, I won't deny that - but it seems like a very bad way to balance it - since it invalidates peoples units and also cuts down converting opportunities. There are clearly 'good and bad' ways to balance something - for example - it would be 'a balancing choice' to remove armies like say, Tyranids, from the game at the moment. Of course this wouldn't be a good way to go about it, but it would remove the balance issue.



Removing a whole faction in the sake of balance is much different removing all the options that were never possible out of the boxes though. Don't get me wrong, one of the main reasons why I started 40k during 3rd, specifically orks, was the opportunity to kitbash and convert models. I've always had fun trying to figure out how to get the desired loadout of a unit in the easiest, coolest and cheapest way when it wasn't possible to have it straight out of the box.

But I can understand the arguments behind this "no model no rule" concept. I think it's bad implemented though because it just makes things easier for those who want to assemble the models, which is a good thing, but it doens't for those who are playing since rolling different profiles separately is tedious and time consuming, not to mention that some players might have problems to field the models as they assembled long ago. That's why I think the "no rule no model" concept might even be a good thing IF samey weapons' profiles are merged.

Make all close combat special weapons for wyches the same thing, so it doesn't matter if a new player builds his 10 man squad with one of each weapon and a seasoned one has a squad with 3x of the same weapon. Same for plague marines, etc...

 
   
Made in fi
Longtime Dakkanaut






 blood reaper wrote:


IMO it would probably be better to split 40k into three levels. Kill team, something similar to Bolt Action with very few vehicles or large figures, and then something on the current scale of 40k.


Traditionally this would be Kill Team, 40k and Apocalypse (or straight-up Epic). None of that is splitting anything, though, just using the games at the levels of troops and abstraction that they operate best at.

#ConvertEverything blog with loyalist Death Guard in true and Epic scales. Also Titans and killer robots! C&C welcome.
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/717557.page

Do you like narrative gaming? Ongoing Imp vs. PDF rebellion campaign reports here:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/786958.page

 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





The old system definitely kept me out of 40k personally. You'd see armies of the same weapon copy pasta'd 15+ times and learn that you only got 1 copy of it for every 5 models you bought. I still don't really attempt to play 40k competitively for this reason, but the gap between what's optimal and what I'm actually willing to put into building an army is a lot closer than its ever been.
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

Dudeface wrote:
Yes, because the competitive market drives up the cost of certain options. When a GW chaincannon was £11 a go, that's bits scalping, what else are you going to call them?
That's not scalping. That's supply & demand.

If there's one item in a box that everyone wants, a bits seller has to be able to sell things at a reasonable rate to make purchasing the entire box worthwhile. There can be parts of boxes that sell out instantly the moment they come into stock, and then other parts of a box that sit in stock for ever until maybe they run a 50% off clearance sale to get rid of all the gak people never buy.

So if a box comes with 10 things, 5 of which are unlikely to garner much attention, 2 of which might sell a bit, 2 that will sell quite often, and one that will sell out instantly, you have to price them so that you're not buying expensive boxes and losing out because only a couple of parts sell. Otherwise you're doing everything at a loss.

For it to be scalping the store would have to be buying up the entire supply and then setting unreasonable prices on every part.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/05/18 14:00:16


Industrial Insanity - My Terrain Blog
"GW really needs to understand 'Less is more' when it comes to AoS." - Wha-Mu-077

 
   
Made in gb
Barpharanges







 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Dudeface wrote:
Yes, because the competitive market drives up the cost of certain options. When a GW chaincannon was £11 a go, that's bits scalping, what else are you going to call them?
That's not scalping. That's supply & demand.

If there's one item in a box that everyone wants, a bits seller has to be able to sell things at a reasonable rate to make purchasing the entire box worthwhile. There can be parts of boxes that sell out instantly the moment they come into stock, and then other parts of a box that sit in stock for ever until maybe they run a 50% off clearance sale to get rid of all the gak people never buy.

So if a box comes with 10 things, 5 of which are unlikely to garner much attention, 2 of which might sell a bit, 2 that will sell quite often, and one that will sell out instantly, you have to price them so that you're not buying expensive boxes and losing out because only a couple of parts sell. Otherwise you're doing everything at a loss.

For it to be scalping the store would have to be buying up the entire supply and then setting unreasonable prices on every part.



It is clear GW have recognised an issue with this as well - because they've put the Chain Cannon into the new CSM upgrade sprue - but none of the other weapons.

The biggest indicator someone is a loser is them complaining about 3d printers or piracy.  
   
Made in us
Ultramarine Chaplain with Hate to Spare






Dudeface wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:
Spoiler:
 alextroy wrote:
Insectum7 wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
The customer: "put enough of every weapon in the box to cover every option!"
GW: "the customer wants every option in the box! Quick, slash options and rewrite unit entries!"

Ouch. That one stings a bit
Be careful what you wish for. You must might get it.

The big problem is that as GW kits have evolved, the model have become more dynamic and detailed. This makes providing many options, either in the kit or via an option box, unworkable (assuming you expect the kit to go together as instructed without modification).

They can get away with this in Horus Heresy that are old-school Marine models with a drop in gun. However, I think they were luck to cram as many options into the Plague Marine box as they did once you include all the boltguns along with the special and melee weapons.

Is it a perfect solution? No.

Does it mean your kit is all you need to build you unit? Pretty often yes.

Does it support more real-world units where a variety of weapons is actually the norm? In theory if the points cost ever made taking a variety of weapons actually viable. But that is a whole different discussion.


Have you ever built either of the Genestealer Cult Neophytes or Acolytes boxes? TONS of options in those kits. "Unworkable" my a$$.

They can totally provide the options, they just don't.


Neither of those units provides all the options permitted for their "optimal build" in the box, you can field 2 acolyte heavy melee weapons in a squad of 5, no limit on duplicates, but with 1 of each in the box. Now your options are:
- not give a gak and have 2 mismatched weapons
- bits scalper
- buy 2 kits and potentially make more models than you want/need for the right bits
- GW limits the unit options to match the box contents

Same applies to the neophytes where it's 2 heavy ranged and 2 special ranges weapons per 10 - box of 10 contains one of each, so not the best example.
I don't care what the options are. The point is that there are tons of them, putting to rest the insipid idea that somehow it's an "unworkable" physical impossibility to provide numerous options on a modern GW sculpt.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 blood reaper wrote:
 Dolnikan wrote:

The problem with that is that in 40k, generalists generally don't do that well because they're worse at their assigned task than specialists are. That of course is only logical because of different ranges and ideal targets for different weapons. For a long while, it's already been an issue that the standard weapons carried around by base troops are struggling, but with the scope of the game constantly increasing, they fall behind more and more which reduces the ordinary soldiers to being nothing but ablative wounds for the actual weapons. It also means that 'normal' anti-infantry weapons just aren't seen as relevant because ordinary infantry isn't what does the actual fighting and killing.


I think this is a very good point.

The problem with 40k is we are now in a stage where the game is focussed on huge battles. Armies are a lot bigger than they used to be and games are clearly geared towards having a lot of models. So having generalist units just, doesn't work.

IMO it would probably be better to split 40k into three levels. Kill team, something similar to Bolt Action with very few vehicles or large figures, and then something on the current scale of 40k.

Generalists can still function perfectly well in current 40k. In fact they can function better than ever in post 8th where they can split fire at different targets, as well as charge units other than the one/s they shot at.

The issue is squads being artificially stuck for options because of the kit. No more, no less.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/05/18 14:29:16


And They Shall Not Fit Through Doors!!!

Tyranid Army Progress -- With Classic Warriors!:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/743240.page#9671598 
   
Made in us
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle






 H.B.M.C. wrote:
 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I have strong suspicions that FLG/ITC had something to do with the board size change. The idea may not have started with them, but I doubt they gave unbiased feedback, so to say.
I very much doubt it, not without reasoning I might add.

I dead certain it was entirely a practicality thing based upon the standard size of the boxes they ship vs the board size they could fit inside there.

You have to remember that GW tried out a few different things before landing on their "recommended" board:

1. They did the expensive fully plastic Realm of Battle boards.
2. They did their own neoprene mats that were 4x4 and obscenely expensive. Not a big shock that they didn't last.
3. Moonbase Klaisus/Blasted Hallowheart sets. These boxes contained paltry amounts of terrain (but did give us the Ryza Ruins for a brief moment), but also contained full sets of foldable double-sided boards. They're not the exact same size as the current boards, and nor are they 6x4, but can certainly be seen as a major prototype to the boards we have today.

The standard GW boxes also can't hold the needed width/height to do a 6x4 table, and it appears that specialist got a special dispensation to make their 1x1 Zone Mortalis tiles (again, the previous card tiles for Newcromunda were not 1x1, as they would not have fit in GW boxes).

So I don't blame them for making what they can with the limitations of resources. What I resent is the fumbling immediate adoption by the tournament crowd, like it was a 'better' way to play the game, and the insistence by many (including some here) that the size of the boards has anything to do with game-play, or balance or *groan* fething "average kitchen table size" or whatever other nonsense was cooked up when this first came about when really it's a simple timeline:

Box is Size X ---> Boards of Size Y fit into Size X Box ---> make 'standard' table size for all our games the same as the tiles we sell.

Ah, that is very enlightening! Thank you.

Road to Renown! It's like classic Path to Glory, but repaired, remastered, expanded! https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/778170.page

I chose an avatar I feel best represents the quality of my post history.

I try to view Warhammer as more of a toolbox with examples than fully complete games. 
   
Made in us
Arch Magos w/ 4 Meg of RAM






 LunarSol wrote:
The old system definitely kept me out of 40k personally. You'd see armies of the same weapon copy pasta'd 15+ times and learn that you only got 1 copy of it for every 5 models you bought. I still don't really attempt to play 40k competitively for this reason, but the gap between what's optimal and what I'm actually willing to put into building an army is a lot closer than its ever been.


Personally i'd rather have units that have weapons options like Primaris or Tacticals do rather than how blightlords/plague marines are right now.

Nothing fun about disreguarding all the option or needing to inspect every single model in my blightlords squad to know which one has a combi melta/flamer/plasma, then measure from each of them to know which ones are in range, then need to effectively resolve 4 shooting phases for that single unit.
   
Made in eu
Frenzied Berserker Terminator




Southampton, UK

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I have strong suspicions that FLG/ITC had something to do with the board size change. The idea may not have started with them, but I doubt they gave unbiased feedback, so to say.
I very much doubt it, not without reasoning I might add.

I dead certain it was entirely a practicality thing based upon the standard size of the boxes they ship vs the board size they could fit inside there.

You have to remember that GW tried out a few different things before landing on their "recommended" board:

1. They did the expensive fully plastic Realm of Battle boards.
2. They did their own neoprene mats that were 4x4 and obscenely expensive. Not a big shock that they didn't last.
3. Moonbase Klaisus/Blasted Hallowheart sets. These boxes contained paltry amounts of terrain (but did give us the Ryza Ruins for a brief moment), but also contained full sets of foldable double-sided boards. They're not the exact same size as the current boards, and nor are they 6x4, but can certainly be seen as a major prototype to the boards we have today.

The standard GW boxes also can't hold the needed width/height to do a 6x4 table, and it appears that specialist got a special dispensation to make their 1x1 Zone Mortalis tiles (again, the previous card tiles for Newcromunda were not 1x1, as they would not have fit in GW boxes).

So I don't blame them for making what they can with the limitations of resources. What I resent is the fumbling immediate adoption by the tournament crowd, like it was a 'better' way to play the game, and the insistence by many (including some here) that the size of the boards has anything to do with game-play, or balance or *groan* fething "average kitchen table size" or whatever other nonsense was cooked up when this first came about when really it's a simple timeline:

Box is Size X ---> Boards of Size Y fit into Size X Box ---> make 'standard' table size for all our games the same as the tiles we sell.



It makes sense from a certain perspective, but it does feel like another example of GW choosing the worst way to fix a problem. They know boxes come in different sizes, right?

OK, I'm being slightly flippant. I'm sure there is a challenge there with their storage, their stock management, how boxes stack on pallets for shipping, and so on. I provide IT support for a distribution centre, I see all that sort of thing in my own job. It's really not beyond the wit of a global corporation to solve though, without them having to change their product to fit in a particular box.
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




UK

The thing is it basically costs GW nothing to just change the suggested gameplay board size. Not even a line of text and its done. No redesign work, no investment, no changes to packaging, nothing. Just a second or two changing the size.


Plus in the end players are still free to use whatever size of board they want.

A Blog in Miniature

3D Printing, hobbying and model fun! 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




The scalper thing is such a bad argument. 3rd party bitz exist and not everyone is gouging you for the chaincannon LOL
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: