Switch Theme:

10th Edition Gameplay and Rules news and discussion - Terrain pg 46  [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 us
Commanding Lordling





 Strg Alt wrote:
Having "Box set vs. Box set" battles is an asinine idea hatched from the ill brain of a marketing manger. This proves game designers are treated like crap in that company otherwise it wouldn´t come to such an embarrassing development.

Eh, seems like a decent way to give new players the ability to get into the game together while not being shoe horned by what is in the starter. It is gw though so...
   
Made in us
Ultramarine Terminator with Assault Cannon






Voss wrote:
 oni wrote:
 JNAProductions wrote:
 oni wrote:
Brickfix wrote:
In Dropzone different weapons had different accuracy on the same vehicle, I really don't mind either way though. If in prevents extra rules, I'm all for it


So instead of remembering one or two additional USR's that can be broadly applied across the entire game, you prefer to remember potentially hundreds of varying stat values?



I still have not read a convincing reason why having the BS and WS on the weapon profile is good.

@Voss; @Catbarf: Surely the both of you are not suggesting that a weapon should hit on a fixed value regardless of who / what is wielding it.

It's just moving where the hit value is.
What's the difference between remembering "Marines hit on a 3+, Powerfist has a -1 penalty" and "Marines hit on a 3+, but with a Powerfist a 4+"?

Back in 3rd-7th with comparative WS, we would've lost something there. But that was already lost in the translation from 7th to 8th.


Having the BS and WS in the weapon profile means:
1. There cannot be weapon options beyond what is specifically listed on a datasheet. There is no insignificant number of units where all weapon options do not / cannot fit.
2. A repository list of weapons cannot be done, compounding issue no.1.

Something is being sacrificed to make this new profile workable.


1- Examples, please. The single sample datacard presented is a huge swath of blank space. I suspect the list of units where this is impossible is very, very small indeed, even barring multiple card options. (I can see the space marine and imperial guard heavy weapons lists just being cards in their own right if they _really_ need space) Keep in mind this is post 8th/9th world, where options for a lot of units were already culled.

2- A repository list neither compounds issue no 1 nor is it impossible. I can think of a few ways to do it off the top of my head (including just a placeholder character (*) that indicates referencing the datacard, the formula (User or User+1) to having no stat changes for characters, so that getting a captain's pin no longer magically makes someone a sharpshooter)

Solutions to the problems you're imagining strike me as easy to find.


1. The quintessential example is the SM Tactical Squad (30+ weapons). Other units where I can see a possible issue are: CSM Legionaries (21+ weapons), DG Plague Marines (18+ weapons), GSC Neophyte Hybrids (17+ weapons).

2. It's absolutely impossible to have a repository list. Reference what? There is no unit BS or WS characteristic. So, reference another weapon profile? What if the datasheet has two or more different values? User or User+1... How? There is no unit Strength characteristic anymore.

   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka




NE Ohio, USA

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
 Gangland wrote:
Call me crazy but I find current Crusade easier to keep track of than current matched play.


You're crazy, Crusade basically ADDS on top of matched play lol


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Gangland wrote:
 oni wrote:
Any amount of in game bookkeeping is undesirable.

Most of the Crusade book keeping is outside of the game.


no it's not? Its pretty much only your requisition points and faction-specific points that are ONLY outside the game

Once you use them to buy more units, or upgrade some, it becomes in-game.


That's not book keeping. That's just reading your newly edited stat block. The same as you would in matched play if you had some upgrade/option. and somehow you manage that don't you?

I suppose you could claim the various agendas where you have to keep a tally during play for this & a tally for that, & a tally for some other thing in order to determine your end game bonus xp is book keeping though.
   
Made in de
Servoarm Flailing Magos




Germany

 oni wrote:


1. The quintessential example is the SM Tactical Squad (30+ weapons). Other units where I can see a possible issue are: CSM Legionaries (21+ weapons), DG Plague Marines (18+ weapons), GSC Neophyte Hybrids (17+ weapons).



If they want a dirty fix they'll just split such units up into multiple entries, Tactical Assault Squad, Tactial Support Squad, Tactical Superiority Squad, Fireteam etc. with a handful of options each, and call it a day. You may even have different squad abilities for these, that's your tactical depth right there! Am gud gehm dezigns.
   
Made in gb
Gore-Drenched Khorne Chaos Lord




ccs wrote:
 VladimirHerzog wrote:
 Gangland wrote:
Call me crazy but I find current Crusade easier to keep track of than current matched play.


You're crazy, Crusade basically ADDS on top of matched play lol


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Gangland wrote:
 oni wrote:
Any amount of in game bookkeeping is undesirable.

Most of the Crusade book keeping is outside of the game.


no it's not? Its pretty much only your requisition points and faction-specific points that are ONLY outside the game

Once you use them to buy more units, or upgrade some, it becomes in-game.


That's not book keeping. That's just reading your newly edited stat block. The same as you would in matched play if you had some upgrade/option. and somehow you manage that don't you?

I suppose you could claim the various agendas where you have to keep a tally during play for this & a tally for that, & a tally for some other thing in order to determine your end game bonus xp is book keeping though.


I think they're suggesting that as you add the stuff to the unit card outside of game, it still requires a discussion and changes to the unit in game. It's extra cognitive load for anyone but the owner potentially to remember all their extra things.
   
Made in ca
Arch Magos w/ 4 Meg of RAM






 oni wrote:


1. The quintessential example is the SM Tactical Squad (30+ weapons). Other units where I can see a possible issue are: CSM Legionaries (21+ weapons), DG Plague Marines (18+ weapons), GSC Neophyte Hybrids (17+ weapons).

2. It's absolutely impossible to have a repository list. Reference what? There is no unit BS or WS characteristic. So, reference another weapon profile? What if the datasheet has two or more different values? User or User+1... How? There is no unit Strength characteristic anymore.



let's just (unironically) fething wait and see.... for sure GW has found a solution to these bloated datasheet.

   
Made in gb
Gore-Drenched Khorne Chaos Lord




 oni wrote:


1. The quintessential example is the SM Tactical Squad (30+ weapons). Other units where I can see a possible issue are: CSM Legionaries (21+ weapons), DG Plague Marines (18+ weapons), GSC Neophyte Hybrids (17+ weapons).



All of those could stand to have some options consolidated/lost

For tac marines: ditch grav weapons and count them as their plasma equivalents (4), I could see an argument in the name of streamlining to make "combi-weapon" a different profiled gun without each variant (2), crunch astartes chainsword and all power weapons into "Astartes light melee weapon" (4 - put lightning claw in here for now), fists and hammers into "Astartes heavy melee weapon" (1). That's 11 shaved off out the gates, although I'm being harsh there.

For neophytes webbers could just be flamers, the melee weapons can be condensed to "melee weapon" and you could proably combine the shotguns and autoguns into "cultists weapons" if required with a single profile, but I understand reticence there.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Dudeface wrote:
 oni wrote:


1. The quintessential example is the SM Tactical Squad (30+ weapons). Other units where I can see a possible issue are: CSM Legionaries (21+ weapons), DG Plague Marines (18+ weapons), GSC Neophyte Hybrids (17+ weapons).



All of those could stand to have some options consolidated/lost

For tac marines: ditch grav weapons and count them as their plasma equivalents

Grav has no need to exist, agreed
   
Made in us
Commanding Lordling





ccs wrote:
 VladimirHerzog wrote:
 Gangland wrote:
Call me crazy but I find current Crusade easier to keep track of than current matched play.


You're crazy, Crusade basically ADDS on top of matched play lol


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Gangland wrote:
 oni wrote:
Any amount of in game bookkeeping is undesirable.

Most of the Crusade book keeping is outside of the game.


no it's not? Its pretty much only your requisition points and faction-specific points that are ONLY outside the game

Once you use them to buy more units, or upgrade some, it becomes in-game.


That's not book keeping. That's just reading your newly edited stat block. The same as you would in matched play if you had some upgrade/option. and somehow you manage that don't you?

I suppose you could claim the various agendas where you have to keep a tally during play for this & a tally for that, & a tally for some other thing in order to determine your end game bonus xp is book keeping though.

Which is essentially secondaries.
   
Made in ca
Longtime Dakkanaut





Again, the story-based gamer is going to get you every time:

You can't call a Grav weapon a plasma weapon- plasma has two settings and can blow up, which is a story event. When my Sisters superior have the plasma pistols blow up, do you know what that means?

It means the Emperor is expressing disapproval and someone needs to swear a Penitent oath to come back to the light.

How is a neophyte supposed to let his purestrain brothers convert a webbed guardsman into a new brood brother if some balance-at-all-costs game-must-be-simple type says, "Naw webbers are just flamers cuz simple."

As others have suggested, if you want to knock even more equipment options out of the game, do it to your competitive ruleset and leave our narrative sandbox alone thank you.

"Man, knights, bishops, rooks AND a queen? Rules bloat! This game should just be checkers!"
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




I hope they do something about the missions. I don't know what, but all the missions feel like they are similar, with having terrain in basically the same place, and objectives in the same place, etc...

I don't know exactly what, but secondaries are lame, the maelstrom type game mode is a bit more fun, but still lame.

Giving some missions something similar to 7th ed fantasy victory conditions would be great. You tally up how many points of the enemy's army you killed, and your opponent does the same, and you see who got more.

If I recall if you were within a certain amount of points it was a draw.

If people feel like adding certain things to spice it up then make objectives worth so many points at the end, or killing the warlord worth so many points, etc.

Just some thoughts.

 
   
Made in us
Terrifying Doombull




 oni wrote:
Voss wrote:
 oni wrote:
 JNAProductions wrote:
 oni wrote:
Brickfix wrote:
In Dropzone different weapons had different accuracy on the same vehicle, I really don't mind either way though. If in prevents extra rules, I'm all for it


So instead of remembering one or two additional USR's that can be broadly applied across the entire game, you prefer to remember potentially hundreds of varying stat values?



I still have not read a convincing reason why having the BS and WS on the weapon profile is good.

@Voss; @Catbarf: Surely the both of you are not suggesting that a weapon should hit on a fixed value regardless of who / what is wielding it.

It's just moving where the hit value is.
What's the difference between remembering "Marines hit on a 3+, Powerfist has a -1 penalty" and "Marines hit on a 3+, but with a Powerfist a 4+"?

Back in 3rd-7th with comparative WS, we would've lost something there. But that was already lost in the translation from 7th to 8th.


Having the BS and WS in the weapon profile means:
1. There cannot be weapon options beyond what is specifically listed on a datasheet. There is no insignificant number of units where all weapon options do not / cannot fit.
2. A repository list of weapons cannot be done, compounding issue no.1.

Something is being sacrificed to make this new profile workable.


1- Examples, please. The single sample datacard presented is a huge swath of blank space. I suspect the list of units where this is impossible is very, very small indeed, even barring multiple card options. (I can see the space marine and imperial guard heavy weapons lists just being cards in their own right if they _really_ need space) Keep in mind this is post 8th/9th world, where options for a lot of units were already culled.

2- A repository list neither compounds issue no 1 nor is it impossible. I can think of a few ways to do it off the top of my head (including just a placeholder character (*) that indicates referencing the datacard, the formula (User or User+1) to having no stat changes for characters, so that getting a captain's pin no longer magically makes someone a sharpshooter)

Solutions to the problems you're imagining strike me as easy to find.


1. The quintessential example is the SM Tactical Squad (30+ weapons). Other units where I can see a possible issue are: CSM Legionaries (21+ weapons), DG Plague Marines (18+ weapons), GSC Neophyte Hybrids (17+ weapons).

2. It's absolutely impossible to have a repository list. Reference what? There is no unit BS or WS characteristic. So, reference another weapon profile? What if the datasheet has two or more different values? User or User+1... How? There is no unit Strength characteristic anymore.

Ok... Referencing the BS or WS is easy. Its right there on the cards. Just because its not in the top stat block doesn't mean it doesn't exist. If you think that space marines units aren't still going to hit on 3+ with most of their weapons (ie, not power fist type weapons), I think you are expecting something completely different from what we're getting.

User/User+1 was still referencing WS/BS. Not strength (which... given the context I feel odd explaining). Because, again, aside from clumsy weapons (like power fists), its going to be standard to the point of being universal, at least for units in that army. And on the datasheets for units where it isn't (hence bringing up user in the first place). Strength is another 'already solved' problem (though I know a fair few people don't like the solution. A Chainsword is not an Astartes Chainsword. The latter will be S4, always. the <whatever they called it> chainsword in the Guard army will be S3.

Anyway, that was just one of several possible examples of how to handle a army-wide reference. The other was dropping a footnote reference to look at the relevant datacard. It isn't hard.

Another approach is the GW way, where characters' weapons have different names than unit weapons. 'Relic' and 'master crafted' and all that stuff. So a character's 'relic boltgun' will be have a BS of 2+ while a unit's 'boltgun' will have a BS of 3+. A character only 'relic powerfist' will hit on 3+, a unit's 'powerfist' will hit on 4+. No confusion, easy to do in an army-wide reference chart if you absolutely need to have one.

Efficiency is the highest virtue. 
   
Made in gb
Killer Klaivex




The dark behind the eyes.

 catbarf wrote:

My issue is that relics/WLTs in their current form encapsulate a number of the problems of 8th/9th, and cutting down on the list of relics available is in line with the streamlining that 10th is promising.

-Relics/WLTs don't have any corporeal existence on the tabletop. In a game otherwise largely driven by WYSIWYG, they're a 'trap card' upgrade that can have atypical/unpredictable effects. Granted, they're nowhere near as obfuscated as stratagems (ie, you can actually ask 'what does that guy do?' and get a straight answer), but more possibilities for a single model the greater the risk of gotchas. Ideally, as you say I'd love to just have a bunch of wargear options that all go on the model, but again as you say NMNR rears its ugly head. I don't know why saying that my guy has a bolt pistol when the model has a laspistol is verboten, while saying he has the Magic Necklace of Sundering despite the model having no such item is okay, but whatever.


I get what you mean about artefacts/WLTs being a strange deviation from the otherwise ridiculously strict NMNR policy.

However, since I despise NMNR with a passion, this isn't a negative for me. If anything, the negative is that GW aren't willing to stick NMNR in a woodchipper where it belongs.


 catbarf wrote:

-On top of that, each faction and each subfaction and each RoR getting their own relics and WLTs adds a considerable amount of design overhead for GW to manage. If the goal is to reduce how much stuff each faction has that requires balancing, then paring down stratagems without doing the same for relics/WLTs would be going halfway.


This is fair. And honestly I don't like some relics/WLTs being subfaction-exclusive. However, I'd rather most of those relics were just added to the standard pool, rather than being deleted to save a single page of space.


 catbarf wrote:

-And maybe most importantly, the fact that they're all treated as equivalent in value (no points cost) makes both of the above just a mess, because effectiveness varies so wildly. They're also prone to wombo-combos where stacking the right relics, WLTs, and stratagems punches way above their weight.


I agree 100%.

However, to my mind the solution is to have Relics/WLTs be bought with points (something I have repeatedly argued for), rather than just reducing the available pool.


 catbarf wrote:

Also, I think it's misleading to frame the issue as whether GW should keep all the WLTs/relics or just keep the good/competitive ones and throw out the rest. Until the edition releases and tournament results start coming in, GW won't know what the good ones are; if they had that level of ability to assess balance, there wouldn't be 'good' and 'bad' options to begin with. So given that we're looking at a totally new edition with new rules and undoubtedly new and untested balance, the question isn't 'should GW just discard all the bad options?', it's more 'should GW curate the options to a smaller set?'. Based on AOS, I'm inclined to think that GW is capable of giving you better balanced, more fluffy, more fun options at the cost of fewer of them.


Let's be honest here - GW is talking utter bollocks when they say that the edition is being built from the ground up.

Furthermore, GW might not know what will be strong in the next edition (though they could just ask a tournament player, as they can usually tell what's broken with a 10-second look at the relic page), but they already know which relics are taken in this edition.

Do you really think they wouldn't just run with that list and discard everything else? Especially since, despite their claims, I'm 99% certain the artefacts in this "completely new and 100% different to anything that came before it" edition will just be rehashed based on their current abilities.


 catbarf wrote:

That said, I 100% agree with the concern that as GW has stripped out lots of options for customization over the years, and relics/WLTs represent an opportunity to customize Your Dude to be something other than a generic profile. I also would like to see lots of options for character customization. However, I think there are better ways to go about it than the current system.


Absolutely agreed.


 catbarf wrote:

One of the things that bugs me about the current WLT system is that you don't really have that many options. You get a couple for your faction and then a flanderized one for your subfaction, so opportunity for personalization is limited to a handful of stereotypes. Then with the relics, you have a bunch of options, but many have generic effects with counterparts in other armies, or are simply better versions of normal weapons. I'd much rather have an extensive list of universal WLTs and relics available to any army- more options for your characters, but still less stuff for GW to balance against one another or avoid unwanted interactions- and then a couple of army-specific ones. That's the way they're going with stratagems, and the same approach could work for WLTs/relics. Throw in the option to master-craft a weapon (seriously, there's no reason that should be off the table if upgrading my power sword to the Claw of the Desert Tigers is fine) and you'd have more options with less design overhead.


I certainly wouldn't object to taking some of the oft-repeated WLTs/Relics and putting them together into a generic pool that all factions have access to, and then using the faction WLTs/Relics for more unusual/faction-specific ones.

It seems more efficient than having 36 slight variations on 'each time you spend a CP, generate a CP on a 5+'.


 catbarf wrote:

And maybe I am being unfair, but I think Jake's position here is somewhat contradictory. If he's already okay with creating his own campaign system with extensive rules for territory control, then making up relics for the armies to fight over should be trivial in comparison. It's literally just buffs, and by his own admission he's not concerned with balance. As far as custom content goes, that's pretty straightforward stuff, and he has the opportunity to tailor them to the conflict his narrative is telling.


I get where you're coming from. That being said, it could be a case of Jake making a campaign system because GW either doesn't have one or else it's wholly inadequate for his purposes. Thus, he might not want extra busywork of also having to invent new relics because GW threw a pile of them in the bin.


 catbarf wrote:

FWIW I would be completely fine with having something like a curated set of WLTs/relics for casual or competitive play, and then a more extensive list for narrative play without the pretense of being balanced or the expectation that they'll be valid for tournaments. But I don't see that happening right out the gate. Might be a good candidate for a community-created content pack.


The issue here is that so many tables use the 'competitive play' rules as the default. So a lot of the time, rules specifically limited to narrative games might as well not exist (especially if you're just turning up somewhere with a list in the hopes of finding an opponent). Each to their own but I'd prefer if we didn't confine the fun rules to narrative games only.


 catbarf wrote:

(Also GW could just assign points costs, and then there'd be an obvious balance lever that would make the current giant sprawling mess of relics and WLTs more manageable, but I'm assuming that isn't in the cards either)


As above, I would love for relics to go back to just costing points (same with WLTs) and basically just working the same as standard wargear but with a 1/army limit. Buying them with CP seems to create an awful lot of issues for no real gain.

Anyway, I really appreciate you taking the time to respond and elaborate a lot more on your original point.

 blood reaper wrote:
I will respect human rights and trans people but I will never under any circumstances use the phrase 'folks' or 'ya'll'. I would rather be killed by firing squad.



 the_scotsman wrote:
Yeah, when i read the small novel that is the Death Guard unit options and think about resolving the attacks from a melee-oriented min size death guard squad, the thing that springs to mind is "Accessible!"

 Argive wrote:
GW seems to have a crystal ball and just pulls hairbrained ideas out of their backside for the most part.


 Andilus Greatsword wrote:

"Prepare to open fire at that towering Wraithknight!"
"ARE YOU DAFT MAN!?! YOU MIGHT HIT THE MEN WHO COME UP TO ITS ANKLES!!!"


Akiasura wrote:
I hate to sound like a serial killer, but I'll be reaching for my friend occam's razor yet again.


 insaniak wrote:

You're not. If you're worried about your opponent using 'fake' rules, you're having fun the wrong way. This hobby isn't about rules. It's about buying Citadel miniatures.

Please report to your nearest GW store for attitude readjustment. Take your wallet.
 
   
Made in it
Growlin' Guntrukk Driver with Killacannon





Italy

Exalted, I think there's a number of good reasons for keeping up artifacts. I'm hopeful that if matched play devolves into 3 Relics options per faction then the remaining relics are relegated to the Crusade players.

I started doing Crusade last year and found it to be some of the most fun I've had in the game in a while.
   
Made in gb
Fixture of Dakka







Dudeface wrote:
 oni wrote:


1. The quintessential example is the SM Tactical Squad (30+ weapons). Other units where I can see a possible issue are: CSM Legionaries (21+ weapons), DG Plague Marines (18+ weapons), GSC Neophyte Hybrids (17+ weapons).



All of those could stand to have some options consolidated/lost

For tac marines: ditch grav weapons and count them as their plasma equivalents (4), I could see an argument in the name of streamlining to make "combi-weapon" a different profiled gun without each variant (2), crunch astartes chainsword and all power weapons into "Astartes light melee weapon" (4 - put lightning claw in here for now), fists and hammers into "Astartes heavy melee weapon" (1). That's 11 shaved off out the gates, although I'm being harsh there.

For neophytes webbers could just be flamers, the melee weapons can be condensed to "melee weapon" and you could proably combine the shotguns and autoguns into "cultists weapons" if required with a single profile, but I understand reticence there.

Yeah, that attitude (and approach to design) can get in the bin where it belongs. Bloody consolidationists, always wanting to strip fun and flavour out of the game.

Using the Termagant sheet with the three ranged weapons as a guide, I estimate the cut-off point for a single-sided unit datacard is 11-12 weapons, one of which being whatever the default HTH profile for the unit is - after all, without baseline stats, you don't have an inherent melee profile any more. Using that as a guide, I counted 9 units in the new Imperial Guard book that don't fit in that template alone, and that's without considering units (such as Gaunt's Ghosts) which won't fit in that template due to their volume of special rules, though I appreciate they may get reworked so some of those may not have quite as many special rules in the future.

Heck, every unit that has frag & krak grenades (or their faction equivalent) is already going to use two of those weapon slots up if a datacard is meant to show all their weapon information.

2021-4 Plog - Here we go again... - my fifth attempt at a Dakka PLOG

My Pile of Potential - updates ongoing...

Gamgee on Tau Players wrote:we all kill cats and sell our own families to the devil and eat live puppies.


 Kanluwen wrote:
This is, emphatically, why I will continue suggesting nuking Guard and starting over again. It's a legacy army that needs to be rebooted with a new focal point.

Confirmation of why no-one should listen to Kanluwen when it comes to the IG - he doesn't want the IG, he want's Kan's New Model Army...

tneva82 wrote:
You aren't even trying ty pretend for honest arqument. Open bad faith trolling.
- No reason to keep this here, unless people want to use it for something... 
   
Made in pl
Fixture of Dakka




Voss 809431 11510957 wrote:

Another approach is the GW way, where characters' weapons have different names than unit weapons. 'Relic' and 'master crafted' and all that stuff. So a character's 'relic boltgun' will be have a BS of 2+ while a unit's 'boltgun' will have a BS of 3+. A character only 'relic powerfist' will hit on 3+, a unit's 'powerfist' will hit on 4+. No confusion, easy to do in an army-wide reference chart if you absolutely need to have one.


And then you get a unit that can take regular and buffed and faction specific weapons. And suddenly the weapon options for lets say wolf guard are a page+ long. And that is assuming power armoured and terminator armoured elite units, like lets say wolf guard, are listed as a separate option. And then those WG are a leader option for squads, so every weapon option they can have should be on the squads data sheet too.

GW would have to do a purge of everything that makes units fun for the things to work. Most marines would have it good, because their books will come first, so they won't have to wait a long time for an update to the bland index rules. But lets say GK or 1ksons could be made to wait a year or two, and on top of weapons GW would have to fit not-psychic power rules on each squads data sheet.

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 de
Servoarm Flailing Magos




Germany

Karol wrote:
Voss 809431 11510957 wrote:

Another approach is the GW way, where characters' weapons have different names than unit weapons. 'Relic' and 'master crafted' and all that stuff. So a character's 'relic boltgun' will be have a BS of 2+ while a unit's 'boltgun' will have a BS of 3+. A character only 'relic powerfist' will hit on 3+, a unit's 'powerfist' will hit on 4+. No confusion, easy to do in an army-wide reference chart if you absolutely need to have one.


And then you get a unit that can take regular and buffed and faction specific weapons. And suddenly the weapon options for lets say wolf guard are a page+ long. And that is assuming power armoured and terminator armoured elite units, like lets say wolf guard, are listed as a separate option. And then those WG are a leader option for squads, so every weapon option they can have should be on the squads data sheet too.

GW would have to do a purge of everything that makes units fun for the things to work. Most marines would have it good, because their books will come first, so they won't have to wait a long time for an update to the bland index rules. But lets say GK or 1ksons could be made to wait a year or two, and on top of weapons GW would have to fit not-psychic power rules on each squads data sheet.


The solution for stuff like Wolf Guard or other units that operate on similar principles would probably be to threat them like 'mini characters', i.e. they have their own datasheet with options and get attached to squads somehow. It is entirely unnecessary to reprint their glut of options on every squad datasheet, if that glut will continue to exist at all.
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

Dudeface wrote:
For tac marines: ditch grav weapons and count them as their plasma equivalents (4), I could see an argument in the name of streamlining to make "combi-weapon" a different profiled gun without each variant (2), crunch astartes chainsword and all power weapons into "Astartes light melee weapon" (4 - put lightning claw in here for now), fists and hammers into "Astartes heavy melee weapon" (1). That's 11 shaved off out the gates, although I'm being harsh there.
Posts like this should be the real reason we use the ignore feature.

Removing flavour and options. Why would you want to do that? God... I disagree with not just every word, but every letter of your post. Even the punctuation is offensive.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/03/29 09:39:23


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

 
   
Made in ch
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





afaik he is also one of the few that likes the accursed weapons for chosen and Terminators.

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 us
Enigmatic Chaos Sorcerer




Tampa, FL

Not Online!!! wrote:
afaik he is also one of the few that likes the accursed weapons for chosen and Terminators.
hey now I like that myself. Mainly because they never give all the options so you are forced to source bits, 3d print, or have a hodgepodge squad with no synergy. I'd rather have the former than the latter any day.

It also help with balance. A HUGE part of the problem with 40k is the umpteen options for every unit. Compare to AOS where it's like a choice of one or two weapons and maybe 1 per 5/10 special weapons. Much easier to balance and rewards creativity. In AOS if the unit only has a sword it doesn't matter if I convert mine to have an axe; there's no confusion what it's equipped with.

So I'd argue while losing options would absolutely suck, it may very well be what's needed to kill the bloat. The massive options are why 40k is so bloated.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/03/29 10:25:21


- Wayne
Formerly WayneTheGame 
   
Made in de
Servoarm Flailing Magos




Germany

Wayniac wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:
afaik he is also one of the few that likes the accursed weapons for chosen and Terminators.
hey now I like that myself. Mainly because they never give all the options so you are forced to source bits, 3d print, or have a hodgepodge squad with no synergy. I'd rather have the former than the latter any day.

It also help with balance. A HUGE part of the problem with 40k is the umpteen options for every unit. Compare to AOS where it's like a choice of one or two weapons and maybe 1 per 5/10 special weapons. Much easier to balance and rewards creativity. In AOS if the unit only has a sword it doesn't matter if I convert mine to have an axe; there's no confusion what it's equipped with.

So I'd argue while losing options would absolutely suck, it may very well be what's needed to kill the bloat.


IMHO one of the main problems of 40k is that it's stuck in some conventions/unstated design principles that derive directly from their economic model and purpose (e.g. 'The fundamental unit of gameplay is the single model on an individual base, and every single model matters and is a meaningful unit). Meanwhile, the size of games goes ever up, both in number of models as well as the literal size of indivdual models and their impact on the game. We are either swiftly reaching, or are beyond, the point that the game can support both super-models like Knights, Primarch-level characters etc. and have meaningful representation of stuff like the minute differences between n types of hand weapons, four different pistols and so on. Extremely situational equipment like smoke launchers or melta bombs already falls into that void, with it being a stratagem right now just being the 'crutch' of the day to solve that problem.
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

Wayniac wrote:
The massive options are why 40k is so bloated.
Wayniac wrote:
So I'd argue while losing options would absolutely suck, it may very well be what's needed to kill the bloat. The massive options are why 40k is so bloated.
Options aren't what's causing the bloat. Every Primaris Marine unit having a slightly different bolter by default is bloat. 12 different types of Scything Talons is bloat. 40 strats in 7 broad categories per Codex is bloat. Space Marines having 10+ psychic disciplines is bloat.

An option between a Meltagun, Plasma Gun and Flamer is nothing compared to that.

And the answer, despite what some people may want to do, isn't to just cut everything. Then you've got the opposite problem, where everything is the same and it's boring. Bloat's bad, but I'll take bloat over boring.


This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2023/03/29 10:53:47


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

 
   
Made in us
Enigmatic Chaos Sorcerer




Tampa, FL

Tsagualsa wrote:
Wayniac wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:
afaik he is also one of the few that likes the accursed weapons for chosen and Terminators.
hey now I like that myself. Mainly because they never give all the options so you are forced to source bits, 3d print, or have a hodgepodge squad with no synergy. I'd rather have the former than the latter any day.

It also help with balance. A HUGE part of the problem with 40k is the umpteen options for every unit. Compare to AOS where it's like a choice of one or two weapons and maybe 1 per 5/10 special weapons. Much easier to balance and rewards creativity. In AOS if the unit only has a sword it doesn't matter if I convert mine to have an axe; there's no confusion what it's equipped with.

So I'd argue while losing options would absolutely suck, it may very well be what's needed to kill the bloat.


IMHO one of the main problems of 40k is that it's stuck in some conventions/unstated design principles that derive directly from their economic model and purpose (e.g. 'The fundamental unit of gameplay is the single model on an individual base, and every single model matters and is a meaningful unit). Meanwhile, the size of games goes ever up, both in number of models as well as the literal size of indivdual models and their impact on the game. We are either swiftly reaching, or are beyond, the point that the game can support both super-models like Knights, Primarch-level characters etc. and have meaningful representation of stuff like the minute differences between n types of hand weapons, four different pistols and so on. Extremely situational equipment like smoke launchers or melta bombs already falls into that void, with it being a stratagem right now just being the 'crutch' of the day to solve that problem.
That's been the issue with them making the size larger and larger. 40k was originally a platoon/company level game, so you cared about individual weaponry. Epic was an army-level game so you abstracted all that junk as you didn't need to care if a squad had a missile launcher or heavy bolter, it was irrelevant at that scale. But now we have some mishmash of scales and they are trying to have one set of rules for both.

- Wayne
Formerly WayneTheGame 
   
Made in de
Longtime Dakkanaut





 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Wayniac wrote:
The massive options are why 40k is so bloated.
Wayniac wrote:
So I'd argue while losing options would absolutely suck, it may very well be what's needed to kill the bloat. The massive options are why 40k is so bloated.
Options aren't what's causing the bloat. Every Primaris Marine unit having a slightly different bolter by default is bloat. 12 different types of Scything Talons is bloat. 40 strats in 7 broad categories per Codex is bloat. Space Marines having 10+ psychic disciplines is bloat.

An option between a Meltagun, Plasma Gun and Flamer is nothing compared to that.

And the answer, despite what some people may want to do, isn't to just cut everything. Then you've got the opposite problem, where everything is the same and it's boring. Bloat's bad, but I'll take bloat over boring.




Deleting unnecessary weapon profiles is only the first step. The next one would be to reduce factions from over twenty to about six. This would drastically reduce bloat and make the game far easier to balance for any dev. Many franchises have only about six different factions and they are fine but 40K needs to be the black sheep in that regard.

There is also the method of sharing equipment among factions which are more closely related like SM, Imps & Squats during 2nd 40K. So you had Rhinos, Land Raiders and other mundane gear like grenades available for all of them greatly reducing the magnitude of weapons which we have today.
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

Reducing factions? These suggestions are getting worse...

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

 
   
Made in de
Servoarm Flailing Magos




Germany

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Reducing factions? These suggestions are getting worse...


If that whole marketing spiel about 'only needing two pages to play any given army' is true, they seem to move in the opposite direction. If you only need two pages to have a specific army or detachment, it stands to reason that stuff like Death Company armies or whatever will be rolled out in seasonal or support products just because they can and it's easy.
   
Made in us
Enigmatic Chaos Sorcerer




Tampa, FL

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Reducing factions? These suggestions are getting worse...
And yet the game is worse for them existing. They have a point. The most I've seen in many games is like 12 or so. Warmachine had: Cygnar, Khador, Menoth, Cryx, Scyrah, Cyriss, Mercenaries (technically 3 mini factions?), Hordes had: Circle, Everblight, skorne, Trollblood, Minions, Grymkin (2 mini factions), then later they added Infernals, I think that might be all for now at least. So what, 12, maybe 16 if you count each of the Merc/Minion factions? And they balanced that well enough (with some exceptions) by having everything updated at once, and sourcebooks only adding a few minor things and it being for most/all the factions, not individual codexes that update say Cygnar, but Menoth has to wait a year to get anything new.

I don't know enough about Infinity to know how many they have, but I do know Bolt action and Legion have less but that's due to the source material (can't really make up countries fighting in WW2...) but That's how GW should have done stuff. Adding more and more factions isn't a good thing, it's a bad one.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tsagualsa wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Reducing factions? These suggestions are getting worse...


If that whole marketing spiel about 'only needing two pages to play any given army' is true, they seem to move in the opposite direction. If you only need two pages to have a specific army or detachment, it stands to reason that stuff like Death Company armies or whatever will be rolled out in seasonal or support products just because they can and it's easy.
Them adding all those weird fringe cases as armies of renown or whatever, and 100% optional, wouldn't be bad as supplemental. But not as a primary thing, since it'll just bloat the game even more.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2023/03/29 11:17:58


- Wayne
Formerly WayneTheGame 
   
Made in gb
Gore-Drenched Khorne Chaos Lord




Not Online!!! wrote:afaik he is also one of the few that likes the accursed weapons for chosen and Terminators.


Damn straight within reason, model how you like, have a generic improved/good profile and away you go. It was good enough for 3 editions of the game previously and power axe/sword/maul all just maths out to one being default better depending on wielder anyway.

H.B.M.C. wrote:
Wayniac wrote:
The massive options are why 40k is so bloated.
Wayniac wrote:
So I'd argue while losing options would absolutely suck, it may very well be what's needed to kill the bloat. The massive options are why 40k is so bloated.
Options aren't what's causing the bloat. Every Primaris Marine unit having a slightly different bolter by default is bloat. 12 different types of Scything Talons is bloat. 40 strats in 7 broad categories per Codex is bloat. Space Marines having 10+ psychic disciplines is bloat.

An option between a Meltagun, Plasma Gun and Flamer is nothing compared to that.

And the answer, despite what some people may want to do, isn't to just cut everything. Then you've got the opposite problem, where everything is the same and it's boring. Bloat's bad, but I'll take bloat over boring.


If you remove the words "scything talons" and just made them the naked melee profile for the unit on the card such as "Trygon teeth and caws" does that smooth it out? I'd also argue the umpteen bolter variants are about as well used and defined as the myriad power weapons at this point. They can be condensed because they're not actually different enough to be relevant any more. By all means keep claws, fists and hammer out, but there's no shame in returning to power weapons as a generic type at this point imo. Even with my suggestions above, which you adamantly hate, the tac squad would still have 2 pistol options, 2/3 melee options and 3 ranged options for the squad sergeant, 3 special weapons and 5 heavy weapons to pick from. Do you really need grav weapons which are basically just plasma with lower strength but more shots?
   
Made in ca
Longtime Dakkanaut





 Strg Alt wrote:

The next one would be to reduce factions from over twenty to about six. This would drastically reduce bloat and make the game far easier to balance for any dev. Many franchises have only about six different factions and they are fine but 40K needs to be the black sheep in that regard.


Wayniac wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Reducing factions? These suggestions are getting worse...
And yet the game is worse for them existing.


The game is certainly LESS BALANCED for having them, and for some players, that does mean WORSE.

But for many of us, balance is A consideration as opposed to THE consideration. Many of us are okay with BALANCED ENOUGH.

And does anyone else think that the number of subfactions in 40k might be the reason it dominates the market? You can talk about Warmahordes all you want, but they're a blip on the radar for this industry. Ditto on Infinity, or Command and Conquer, or Dust, or any of the other games people talk about here. And I'm not saying that those games aren't good- I bet they're all really fun, and of course they're more balanced. But they are all so limited in what they offer by way of comparison that if they were the only game you had, you'd be bored in a decade if not five years.

40k on the other hand has enough in it to keep people playing for life. And it does keep people playing for life. Not all, but some. And new people keep joining too.

Fortunately, GW knows this, so no one who advocates for a mere 6-10 factions will ever get their way. You might get a "40K Arena" variant that includes only 6-10 factions. But if you did, your store might still keep playing regular old 40k, in which case you spend an edition or two pissing and moaning about how broken that thing was rather than playing the varient they created to cater to you... until 5-10 years later the 6-10 faction tournament variant faded into obscurity or disappeared completely, like all games that are limited to 6-10 factions eventually do.

Meanwhile, 40k will outlive all of us. And all the other games that sacrifice scope for balance.

   
Made in us
Pious Palatine




Heafstaag wrote:
I hope they do something about the missions. I don't know what, but all the missions feel like they are similar, with having terrain in basically the same place, and objectives in the same place, etc...

I don't know exactly what, but secondaries are lame, the maelstrom type game mode is a bit more fun, but still lame.

Giving some missions something similar to 7th ed fantasy victory conditions would be great. You tally up how many points of the enemy's army you killed, and your opponent does the same, and you see who got more.

If I recall if you were within a certain amount of points it was a draw.

If people feel like adding certain things to spice it up then make objectives worth so many points at the end, or killing the warlord worth so many points, etc.

Just some thoughts.


So your idea to make missions more interesting is...kill points? Really? The least interesting mission mechanic ever is what's gonna fix missions.

Dude, if you're talking about adding 'slay the warlord' as 'spicing things up' ...you've just made some doggak boring missions.


 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: